ATT 1 - Resolution for Initial Study/Negative Declaration — Mountain View City Council, December 6, 2022

Attachment 1
-1-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2022

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

ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
THE 1265 MONTECITO AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PURSUANT TO

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Mountain View prepared an Initial Study and approved for circulation a Negative Declaration for the 1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project (the “Initial Study/Negative Declaration”) in accor dance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively “CEQA”); and

WHEREAS, the 1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project (the “Project”) analyzed under the Initial Study/Negative Declaration for an Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map from Neighborhood Commercial to High -Density Residential , a Zoning Map Amendment from the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District to the R4 (High -Density Residential) Zoning District, to construct a five-story affordable housing development with 84 affordable rental units and one manager ’s unit with at -grade parking and a State Density Bonus with a Development Concession, and a Heritage Tree Remova l Permit. A more detailed description of the Project is set forth in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration was made available for public comment from July 22, 2022 through August 22, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View considered the comments received during the public review period and prepared a final Initial Study/Negative Declaration, which includes minor text changes from the draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration in respon se to a letter from the Department of Toxic Substance Control; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration concluded that implementation of the Project with City standard conditions of approval will not have a significant effect on the environment; and

WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making body for the proposed approval of the Project; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Negativ e Declaration, together with one comment received from the Department of Toxic Substance -2-
Control on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Negative Decla ration for the Project is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED: by the City Council of the City of Mountain View:

1. That the City Council finds the Initial Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA.

2. That the City Council finds on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study /Negative Declaration and one comment received, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

3. That the City Council finds the Initial Study/Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Mountain View.

4. That the City Council hereby designates the Community Development Director, at 500 Castro Street, First Floor, Mountain View, California, 94041, as the custodian of documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based.

5. That the City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration for the Project.

– – – – – – – – – – –

LL/6/RESO
979-10-11-22r-1

Exhibit: A. Final Initial Study/Negative Declaration

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project
Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, California 94039-7540
Contact: Edgar Maravilla, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
99 South Almaden Boulevard
San Jose, California 95113
September 2022
Exhibit A

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

Final
Initial Study
–

Negative
Declaration

prepared by

City of Mountain View

500 Castro Street
, PO Box 7540

Mountain View, California 94039
-
7540

Contact: Edgar Maravilla, Senior Planner

prepared with the assistance of

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

99 South Almaden B
oulevard

San Jose
, California
95113

September

2022

This report

was

prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post
-
consumer content
.

Table of Contents

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

Table of Contents

Initial Study

................................
................................
................................
................................
.............

1 1.

Project Title

................................
................................
................................
.........................

1 2.

Lead Agency Name and Address

................................
................................
.........................

1 3.

Contact Person and Phone Number

................................
................................
...................

1 4.

Project Location

................................
................................
................................
..................

1 5.

Project

Sponsor’s Name and Address

................................
................................
.................

1 6.

General Plan Designation

................................
................................
................................
....

1 7.

Zoning
................................
................................
................................
................................
..

4 8.

Surrounding Land Uses and Setting

................................
................................
....................

4 9.

Project Description

................................
................................
................................
..............

4 10.

Required Approvals

................................
................................
................................
.............

9 11.

Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required

................................
..........................

9 12.

Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resourc es Code Section
21080.3.1?

................................
................................
................................
..........................

9 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

................................
................................
.........................
11 Determination

................................
................................
................................
................................
......
11 Environmental
Checklist

................................
................................
................................
.......................
1 3

1 Aesthetics

................................
................................
................................
..........................
13 2

Agriculture and Forestry Resources

................................
................................
..................
17 3

Air Quality

................................
................................
................................
.........................
19 4

Biological Resources

................................
................................
................................
..........
29 5

Cultural Resources

................................
................................
................................
............
37 6

Energy

................................
................................
................................
...............................
41 7

Geology and Soils

................................
................................
................................
..............
47 8

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

................................
................................
...............................
55 9

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

................................
................................
....................
63 10

Hydrology and Water Quality

................................
................................
...........................
69 11

Land Use and Planning

................................
................................
................................
......
77 12

Mineral Resources

................................
................................
................................
............
81 13

Noise

................................
................................
................................
................................
.
83 14

Population and Housing

................................
................................
................................
....
91 15

Public Services

................................
................................
................................
...................
93 16

Recreat
ion

................................
................................
................................
.........................
97 17

Transportation

................................
................................
................................
..................
99 18

Tribal Cultural Resources

................................
................................
................................
103

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

19 Utilities and Service Systems

................................
................................
..........................
107

20 Wildfire
................................
................................
................................
............................
115

21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

................................
................................
................
117

References

................................
................................
................................
................................
..........
119

Bibliography

................................
................................
................................
................................
119

List of Preparers

................................
................................
................................
..........................
123

Tables

Table 1

Project Summary

................................
................................
................................
.................

6 Table

2 Health Effects Associated with Non
-
Attainment Criteria Pollutants

................................
20 Table 3

Air Quality Thresholds of Significance

................................
................................
..............
22 Table 4

Estimated Average Daily Construction Emissions

................................
.............................
24 Table 5

Estimated Average Daily Operational Emissions

................................
..............................
24 Table 6

Estimated Annual Operational Emissions

................................
................................
.........
25 Table 7

Location and Number of Trees to be Removed and Preserved

................................
........
33 Table 8

Electricity Consumption in the PG&E Service Area in 2020

................................
..............
41 Table 9

Natural Gas Consumptio
n in PG&E Service Area in 2020

................................
.................
42 Table 10

Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction

................................
...........................
43 Table 11

Estimated Project Annual Transportation Energy Consumption

................................
......
44 Table

12 Project Consistency with Climate Protection Roadmap Strategies

................................
..
45 Table

13 GGRP Energy Policy Consistency

................................
................................
.......................
46 Table

14 Strategy Consistency for GHG Emissions

................................
................................
..........
61 Table 15

General Plan Consistency

................................
................................
................................
..
79 Table 16

City of Mountain View Outdoor Noise Environment Guidelines

................................
......
86 Table 17

2045 Projec
ted Water Supply and Demand Comparison

................................
...............
108

Figure
s

Figure 1

Regional Location

................................
................................
................................
................

2 Figure 2

Project Site Location

................................
................................
................................
...........

3 Figure 3

Proposed Site Plan

................................
................................
................................
..............

7 Figure 4

Geologic Map of the Project Site

................................
................................
......................
54 Appendices

Appen
dix A

Preliminary Arborist Report

Appendix B

Air Quality and GHG Modelling Worksheets

Appendix C

Cultural Resources Assessment

Report

Appendix D

Design
-
Level Geotechnical Exploration

Appendix E

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

Appendix
F

Stormwater Ma
nagement Plan

Appendix
G

Noise Data

Table of Contents

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

iii

Appendix
H

Multi
-
Modal Transportation Analysis

Appendix
I

Utility Impact Study

A
ppendix

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

This page intentionally left blank.

Initial

Study

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

1 Initial
Study

1. Project Title

1265 Montecito Avenue

Residential Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address

City of
Mountain View

Planning Division

500 Castro Street, P
.O.

Box 7540

Mountain View,
California 94039
-
7540

3. Contact Person

and Phone Number

Edgar Maravilla, Senior Planner,
(650) 903
-
6306

4. Project Location

The project site encompasses approximately 1.
04 acres and
consists of one assessor’s parcel (APN
150
-
26 -
004)

at 1265 Montecito Avenue in
the City of Mountain View
. The site is located on the
south side of
Montecito Avenue

just

west of its intersection with North Shoreline Boulevard.

Regional access to the site is available from US Highway 101, approximately 0.7 mile north of the project site. Local access is available to the site from Montecito Avenue via North Shoreline Bouleva
rd.

Figure
1 shows the location of the project site in the regional context.

Figure
2 shows an
aerial view of the project site and immediate surroundings.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address

Dan Wu

Charities Housing

1400 Parkmoor Avenue

San Jose, California 95126

(408) 550
-
8311

6. General Plan Designation

The site currently

has a land use

designated
of

Neighborhood Commercial
.

Mountain View’s General
Plan states that allowable uses within the Neighborhood Commercial designation include commercial uses with retail and personal services, as well as parks, plazas, and open spac e.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

2 Figure
1 Regional Location

Initial

Study

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

3 Figure
2 Project Site Location

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

4 7.

Zoning

The site is
currently zoned as Commercial
-
Neighborhood (CN). Section 36.18 of the Mountain View
Municipal Code (MVMC) states that the CN zoning district is intended to provide shopping for surrounding residential neighborhoods, including retail and service uses.

8. Surro
unding Land Uses and Setting

The
relatively level, generally triangular
project site encompasses 1.04 acres on a single assessor’s parcel and is currently developed with a two
-
story, approximately 12,300 square
-
foot office building
with surface parking, la
ndscaping, and a concrete sidewalk along Montecito Avenue.

There are

98 trees on the project site

with 13
1 trees shown on the arborist report
;
landscape
trees occur
along
the perimeter of the site
,
and

seven

h
eritage trees are dispersed
throughout the project site.

Section 32.23 of the MVMC
defines
a Heritage Tree
as

any of the following:



tree

which has a trunk with a circumference of forty
-
eight (48) inches or more measured at
fifty
-
four (54) inches above natural grade
;



A multi
-
branche
d

tree

which has major branches below fifty
-
four (54) inches above the natural
grade with a circumference of forty
-
eight (48) inches measured just below the first major trunk fork
;



Any
quercus

(oak),
sequoia

(redwood), or
cedrus

(cedar)

tree

with a circumf
erence of twelve
(12) inches or more when measured at fifty
-
four (54) inches above natural grade
;



tree

or grove of

trees

designated by resolution of the city council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit.

The site is locat
ed in the
City’s
Monta Loma

Planning Area,
which
is composed of a mix of different
land uses including commercial, single
-
family and multi
-
family residential, industrial, office, public
facilities and parks
.

The site is adjacent to a
two
-
story apartment co
mplex to the west
,

a shopping
center across Montecito Avenue to the north, the intersection of

Montecito Avenue and Shoreline
Boulevard to the east, and a
three
-
story apartment complex to the south, which is separated from the

project site by
a

driveway an
d landscaping area about

80 -
f
eet
t
-
wide
that also serves

as a

San
Francisco Public Utility Commission

(SFPUC)

Easement. A ten
-
foot Public Utility and five
-
foot Wire
Clearance Easement run alongside the south
ern
/rear property line, and a five
-
foot Public Utility
Easement and five
-
foot Wire Clearance Easement run along the western property line.

9. Project

Descriptio
n

The proposed project would involve demolition of
the
existing
building

on the
project
site and
construction of
two new
multi
-
family residential building
s
.

The proposed buildings would have five
stories; the four topmost stories would consist of residenti al units, with the ground
-

floor serving as
covered parking, residential common areas and utility spaces. The proposed buildings would be connected by footbridges on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the structures. The proposed buildings would includ
e 84 affordable dwelling units and one manager’s unit. The proposed project would require a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to High Density Residential, and zoning from CN to High -
Density Multiple
-
Fami
ly (R4)
zoning district.

Initial Study

Final Initial Study – Negative Declaration 5
Access and Parking
Each residential unit would be accessed via elevator or stairway from the ground-level parking garage or building entrance. The proposed project would also provide new walkways, such as stairs and ramps, that connect the proposed residential buildings to the sidewalk along Montecito Avenue. The project would also include an internal circulation network of pedestrian walkways around the proposed buildings.

Montecito Avenue would provide vehicular access to the internal drive aisle, which would also allow access to the parking garage entry. The project would provide a total of 45 at-grade parking spaces, including two accessible spaces, six electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS), one van accessible EVCS, and one loading space. Ten parking spaces would be located outside the parking garage, along the proposed main drive aisle, and the other 35 spaces would be located in the ground-level parking garage. The project would also provide eight short-term bicycle racks for guests, and 85 long-term racks in secured bicycle storage rooms.

Open Space and Landscaping
The proposed project would include private open space for each residential unit, as well as shared open space areas. Private usable open space for this project would be equal to an average of 40 square feet per unit. Overall, 3,625 square feet of private open space would be provided for the project, which would exceed the private open space requirement. Common usable open space (9,700 square feet) would include a front courtyard, amenity deck, and rear courtyard. The project’s total common landscaped open area (20,180 square feet) would include these features as well as open landscaped areas surrounding the proposed buildings.

There were 131 trees evaluated as part of the preliminary arborist report for the proposed project, including 33 off-site trees (Appendix A). Within the project area, 89 trees would be preserved and 42 trees, including six Heritage trees, would be removed. The proposed project would involve planting 48 new trees of varying species, including green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) along Montecito Avenue and throughout the project site.

The proposed project would decrease the area of impervious surfaces on the project site from 33,160 square feet to 30,620 square feet. The proposed landscaping would meet the requirements of the City’s Water-Efficient Design and Maintenance Checklist, as well as the City’s Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations. Spray or drip irrigation methods would be used, and the proposed project would include low to moderate water use plants.

Density Bonus
The current General Plan Land Use Designation is Neighborhood Commercial and the project applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to High Density Residential which would allow a density of up to 80 dwelling units per acre or 83.18 base units, which rounds up to 84 units. The project meets all other requirements of the R4 zone including a minimum 1 acre site, 160 feet lot width, and 70 feet maximum building height limit.

The project applicant requests a 1.2 percent density bonus to allow one additional unit beyond the 84 dwelling units allowed under the proposed R4 Zone (85 units total.) The project is also within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop, eligible and requesting a 0.5 spaces per unit parking ratio per State Density Bonus Law. The density bonus request includes a development standard incentive to provide no personal storage, which is required at 80 sq feet or 164 cubic feet per unit in the R4Zone.

City of Mountain View
1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

6 Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the proposed project. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan.

Table 1 Project Summary
Project Site
Gross area (acres) 1.04 acres
Building Size
Level 1 Enclosed Area 20,880 sf
Level 2 Enclosed Area 19,220 sf
Level 3 Enclosed Area 19,220 sf
Level 4 Enclosed Area 19,220 sf
Level 5 Enclosed Area 17,410 sf
Total Enclosed Area 95,950 sf
Number of Stories 5
Height 60 feet
Residential Units
Studio 24 units
1 Bedroom 18 units
2 Bedroom 21 units
3 Bedroom 21 units
Manager’s Unit 1 unit
Total 85 units
Overall Density 81.73 du/ac
Unit Sizes
Studio 348 sf
1 Bedroom 517 sf
2 Bedroom 666 sf
3 Bedroom 984 sf
Parking
Garage 35 spaces
On-site 10 spaces
Total 45 spaces
Open Space
Private 3,625 sf
Shared 20,180 sf
Notes: sf = square feet, du/ac = dwelling units per acre Initial

Study

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

7 Figure
3 Proposed Site Plan

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

8 Building Architecture and Design

The proposed residential building would be five stories in heig ht
; each story would
have its own
floor plan, with the third and fourth stories sharing the same floor plan . The
proposed building
would consist of a
contemporary

architectural design, with details such as
stucco, vertical board and
batten siding, decorative metal screens and
guardrails, exposed board formed concrete, vertical
tongue and groove

cedar siding, and steel awning elements. The primary frontage along Montecito Avenue would consist of full
-
height transparent
building front
, French
doo
rs, and vertical tongue
and groove

cedar siding at the base of the building.

Corners and east
ern

facades would be
articulated with glazed bay window pop
-
outs and open stairs with decorative screening, and
balconies would be recessed with overhanging eaves.

The proposed project would also i
nclude
lighting on pedestrian
walkways from Montecito Avenue to the proposed residential building and throughout the site.

Utilities

Utility services to the project site, including water, sanitary sewer, storm drain, , would be provided by the City of Mou
ntain View.

Solid waste collection and recycling would be provided by Recology
(City of Mountain View 2022
a
).

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would provide gas and electric services to the project site.

To reduce stormwater flows from the project site, a
7 40
-
square
-
foot
interconnected system of three
bioretention basin
s

would be installed along the northern boundary
of
Montecito Avenue

to provide stormwater capture and treatment.

The
proposed
project would

also

include
3,190
square feet
of
solar photovoltaic (PV) panels on
portions of building roofed areas
.

Construction and Grading

The proposed project would require demolition of
the existing
1 3
,300
-
square
-
foot building

and
c
onstruction
of

the
95,950

-
s
quare
-
foot

residential building
s

and t
he
4,617
-
s
quare
-
foot

drive aisle
with
covered

parking. Construction would occur over approximately 18 to 20 months and is estimated to begin in October of 2024. It is anticipated that the proposed project would be operational in 2026.

Construction activit
ies would adhere to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) basic construction mitigation measures recommended for all construction projects, which include:

All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and u npaved
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 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.

Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics

control measure
Initial

Study

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

9 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 manufactur
er’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 Lead Agency regarding dust
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 (BAAQMD 2017).

10. Required Approvals

The following approvals and permits from the City of
Mountain View

would be required for the
proposed
project:



General Plan l
and
use designation

Map Amendment

from Neighborhood

Commercial to High

Density Residential



Zone
Map Amendment
from Commercial
-
Neigh
borhood

(CN)

to High
-
Density Multiple
-
Family

(R4)



Heritage Tree Removal Permit



California State Density Bonus



Development Review Permit



Demolition Permit



Grading Permit



Building Permit

11. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required

The City of
Mountain View

is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the proposed
project.

No other public agency’s approval is required.

12. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Request
ed Consultation Pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21080.3.1?

On May 28, 2021, the Tamien Nation requested formal notice and information on proposed projects for which the City of Mountain View serves as a lead agency.

One tribe

responded during the

30 -
day
period to request consultation
.

On May 31, 2022, the City received an email response from Kanyon Sayers
-
Roods on behalf of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan. Despite follow up emails, the City was unable to contact Ms. Sayers
-
Roods to set
up a consultation meeting. In a letter dated
July 13, 2022, and emailed to Ms. Sayers
-
Roods the same day, the City indicated that, based on
the
request, standard conditions of approval would be implemented for the project .

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

10 This page intentionally left bl
ank.

Environmental

Factors Potentially Affected

Fin
al Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

11 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated
” as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

□

Aesthetics

□

Agriculture and
Forest
ry

Resources

□

Air Quality

□

Biological Resources

□

Cultural Resources

□

Energy

□

Geology/Soils

□

Greenhouse Gas
Emissions

□

Hazards & Hazardous
Materials

□

Hydrology/Water Quality

□

Land Use/Planning

□

Mineral Resources

□

Noise

□

Population/Housing

□

Public Services

□

Recreation

□

Transportation

□

Tribal Cultural Resources

□

Utilities/Service Systems

□

Wildfire

□

Mandatory Findings

of Significance

Determination

Based on this initial evaluation:

■

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.

□

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the proj
ect proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.

□

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

□

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “pote
ntially significant impact” or “
less than
significant with mitigation incorporated
” impact on the environment, but at least one effect
(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addresse
d by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

12 □

I find that although the proposed project could
have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that ea
rlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature

Date

Printed Name

Title

Environmental

Checklist

Aesthetics

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

13 Environmental Checklist

1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less
than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

Have
a
substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?

□

■

S
ubstantial
ly

damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to
,

trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within
a state scenic highway?

□

■

In non
-
urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from
a
publicly accessible
vantage point). If the project is in an
urbaniz
ed area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?

□

■

□

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

□

■

□

Setting

The project site
is

developed with an office building
, surface parking

and perimeter landscaping.

Surrounding land uses include commercial
and

residential buildings of one to two stories.

The
surrounding landscape includes street trees,
landscaped areas surrounding commercial buildings,
and ruderal vegetation.

The nearest officially designated or eligible State Scenic Highway is Interstate 280 (I -
280), which is
officially designated as a State Scenic Highway in San Mateo County and eligi ble for designation in
Santa Clara County (Caltrans
2011
). I
-
280 transitions from officially designated to eligible for designation at the San Mateo
–

Santa Clara County border. The project site is approximately

6.1 miles west of I
-
280.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

14 a.

Would the
project

have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
?

A scenic vista is generally defined as an expansive view of valued landscape as observable from a publicly accessible vantage point.

The City

of Mountain View
’s
2030 General Plan

does not include

list areas of the City
which
are currently considered to be scenic vistas
. However,
the County of
Santa Clara General Plan identifies the Baylands and Santa Clara foothills and mountains as scenic
resources (County of Santa Clara 2008).

T
he proje
ct site i
s

generally

flat
,
in an urban area
surrounded by development
, and adjacent to multi
-
story buildings on the southern and
western

borders.

Due to the distance of the project site from the Baylands (2.3 miles) and Santa Clara foothills and mountains (3.7 mile
s) and given existing
development on the site as well as
intervening
adjacent
structures,
scenic views are not available through the site. T
hus, t
he project

would not

have a substantial adverse effect on a

scenic vista

and

there would be no impact.

NO IMPA
CT

Would the project

substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

The closest designated state scenic highway is a portion of Interstate 280 (
I
-
280
)
, approximately

6.1 miles west of the project site (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2011). Another portion of I
-
280, approximately 3.4 miles south of the project site, is listed as eligible for designation.

Given the distance betwe
en the project site and I
-
280,
as well as intervening trees and
buildings,
the project site
is
not visible from I
-
280. Thus, the project would not substantially damage
scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic b uildings within
a state scenic highway. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT

Would the project
,

in non
-
urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from
a
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

The project site is in an urbanized area

and is
currently developed with an office building and
landscaping
, including 9
7 trees
. Construction of the proposed project would alter the visual character of the project site by adding a new Z
-
shaped five
-
story residential building and removing
4 2

trees. Howev
er, the surrounding area is developed with multi
-
story residential buildings to the
west and south
, similar to the proposed
project
.

Additionally, the proposed project would include
landscaping, such as the planting of
4 8

new trees, to meet the City’s tree

quantity and canopy
coverage requirements.

The project site is located within the Monta Loma Planning Area, which features established single
-
family and multi
-
family residential neighborhoods
;
thus
,

the addition of
a new residential building
on an already
-
developed site
would not
substantially
degrade the existing
Planning Area

visual character.

Requested
entitlements include a land use designation change from Neighborhood

Commercial to
HighDensity Residential, and a
zone change from
Commercial
-
Neighborhood

(
CN)

to High
-
Density
Multiple
-
Family
(R4)
. Upon approval of the requested discretionary actions, development of the proposed project would comply with City zoning standards, including maximum height limits, yard and lot area, and set
back
s

in the R4 District
. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with Environmental

Checklist

Aesthetics

Final Initial Study
–

Negat
ive Declaration

15 applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project
create a new so
urce of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?

The project site is in an urbanized part of the
c
ity with moderate levels of existing light typical of a mostly
residential area. Surrounding commercial,

residential, and roadway uses generate light and
glare along all sides of the property. Primary sources of light adjacent to the project site include
exterior and interior lighting associated with existing residential or commercial buildings, vehicle head
lights, and streetlights. The primary source of glare
in the vicinity

is the sun’s reflection from
metallic, glass, or light
-
colored surfaces on buildings or vehicles in adjacent streets or parking areas.

The proposed project would introduce new sources o
f light and glare to the area by introducing new
building
s

on the site that would have windows, exterior lighting, parking lot lighting, and internal lighting. Building materials would
be required to
comply with the California Building Code to ensure
that
reflecting

light

glare would not adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.

The
proposed project would
also be required to
comply with
Section 8.242 of the MVMC,
which
addresses lighting and shielding in multiple
-
family dwellings
and parking lots
so that off
-
site light
and glare

are minimized
.

Furthermore, proposed landscaping along the perimeter of the project site would partially
screen
the proposed residential b
uilding
s

and lighting
. Thus, sources of light and
glare from the proposed project would be generally similar to existing sources of light and glare on and
surrounding the site and would be consistent with other uses in the area.

Therefore, the
proposed pro
ject would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

16 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental

Checklist

Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

17 2

Agriculture and Forest
ry

Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or
Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non
-
agricultural use?

□

■

Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract?

□

■

Conflict with existing zoning for
,

or cause
rezoning of
,

forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?

□

■

Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non
-
forest use?

□

■

Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non
-
agricultural u
se

or
conversion of forest land to non
-
forest use
?

□

■

Would the project convert

Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non -
agricultural use?

Would the project
conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?

Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

18 d.

Would the project r
esult
i
n the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -
forest use?

Would the project
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 conve
rsion
of forest land to non
-
forest use?

The project site is located in an urbanized area of Mountain View. The site is designated as Neighborhood

Commercial in the City’s General Plan and is zoned as Commercial -
Neighborhood
(CN)
.

The project site and adjace
nt properties do not contain Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) identified with the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
;

are not
enrolled in Williamson Act contracts
;

and

do not support forest
land or resour
ces (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2018). The project site is not located on or adjacent to agricultural or forest land, and the proposed
project would not convert
Farmland to non
-
agricultural uses or forest land to non
-
forest use. For the ab
ove reasons, the
proposed project would have no impact with respect to conversion of Farmland to non -
agricultural
use; conflict with existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts; and loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non
-
fores
t use.

NO IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Air Quality

Final Initial Study
–

Nega
tive Declaration

19 3

Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?

□

■

□

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?

□

■

□

Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?

□

■

□

Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

□

■

□

Overview of Air Pollution

The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambien t Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other
pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into t
he atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG),
1 nitrogen oxides (NO
X
), particulate matter with
diameters of ten microns or less (PM
10 ) and 2.5 microns or less (PM

2.5 ), sulfur dioxide, and lead.

Oth
er pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROG and NO
X
. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates
(smog).

Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories:



Point
sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exh aust vent or stack.

Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat.

1 CARB
defines VOC and
ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions.

For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROG is used in this IS
-
MND.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

20 

Area sources are

widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agr
icultural fields, landfills, and some
consumer products.

Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories:



On
-
road sources that may be legally
operate
d on roadways and highways.



Off
-
road sources include aircraft, ships, trains,

and self
-
propelled construction equipment.

Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles.

Air Quality Sta
ndards and Attainment

The project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, BAAQMD is required to monitor air po
llutant levels to ensure that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the San Francisco Bay Air Basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” In areas designated as non
-
attainment for one or more air pollutants, a
cumulative air quality impact exists for those air pollutants, and the human health impacts associated with these criteria pollutants, presented in Table

2 , are already occurring in that area as
part of the environmental baseline condition. Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quali
ty improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non -
compliance. The San
Francisco Bay Air Basin is designated a nonattainment area for ozone
and
PM
10 under both NAAQ
S
and CAAQS; additionally, the Basin has nonattainment status for CAAQS for PM

2. 5
.
(BAAQMD
2017
a
).

This nonattainment status is a result of several factors , such as

mobile sources and
evaporation of petroleum and solvents (for ozone) and wood burning, diesel or gasoline engines, and natural gas consumption (for particulate matter), in

the San Francisco Bay Air Basin (BAAQMD
2017b).

Table

2 Health Effects Associated with Non
-
Attainment Criteria Pollutants

Pollutant

Adverse Effects

Ozone

(1) Short
-
term exposures: (a) pulmonary function decrements and
localized lung edema in humans and
animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long
-
term exposures: risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered
pulmonary morphology in animals after long
-
term exposures and pulmonary
function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage.

Suspended
particulate
matter (PM
10 )

(1) Excess deaths from short
-
term and
long
-
term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respirator y
symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma). 1 Suspended
particulate
matter
(PM

2.5 )

(1) Excess deaths from short
-

and long
-
term
exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in pulmonary
function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptom
s in children, such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease, including asthma.

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency 2021a

Environmental

Checklist

Air Quality

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

21 Air Quality Management

the
San Francisco Bay Air Basin
currently exceeds

ambient air quality standards

for ozone, PM
10 ,
and PM

2.5 ,
the BAAQMD is

required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to achieve attainment of
the NAAQS and CAAQS
.

The BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clea
n Air Plan (2017 Plan) on
April 19, 2017, as an update to the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Plan focuses on protecting public health and the climate and defines an integrated, multi -
pollutant control strategy that incorporates
all feasible measures to redu
ce emissions of ozone precursors (including transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins)

and

fine particulate matter (PM)
.

To protect public health, the
control strategy will decrease population exposure to PM and TACs in communities mo st impacted
by air pollution with the goal of eliminating disparities in exposure to air pollution between communities. The control strategy will protect the climate by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and developing a long
-
range vision of how the Bay Are
a could look and function in a year 2050 post
-
carbon economy (BAAQMD 2017
b
).

Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds

This analysis evaluates air quality using BAAQMD’s May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
. The May
2017 Guidelines include revisions made to the 2
010 Guidelines, addressing the California Supreme
Court’s 2015 opinion in the
Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n vs. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. , 62 Cal. 4th
369 (BAAQMD 2017c).

The BAAQMD has developed screening criteria to provide lead agencies and project app licants with
a conservative indication of whether a project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If a project meets all of the screening criteria, then the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality as
sessment of their project’s air pollutant emissions. These screening levels are generally representative of new development on greenfield sites without any form of mitigation measures taken into consideration. For mid -
rise apartments, the BAAQMD’s
operatio
nal criteria pollutant screening size is 494 dwelling units, and the construction -
related
screening size is 240 units. The proposed project involves 85 units and is below the screening criteria.

However, as the proposed project would involve demolition of an existing building, the
project cannot be screened out and

this analysis quantifies emissions associated with the project and compares them to BAAQMD’s numeric significance thresholds.

The BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines

quantify project
-
level air qua
lity thresholds with defined
numeric values and evaluation criteria for pollutant emissions. These project -
level thresholds,
shown in
Table
3 , represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the Basin’s existing air q
uality conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if construction or operational emissions would exceed any of the thresholds in Table
3 .

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

22 Table
3 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance

Pollutant/Precursor

Construction
-
Related
Thresholds

Operational Related Thresholds

Average Daily Emissions
(lbs per day)

Maximum Annual
Emissions (tpy)

Average Daily Emissions
(lbs/day)

ROG

54 10

54 NO
X

54 10

54 PM
10 82 (exhaust)

15 82

2.5 54 (exhaust)

10 54

Notes: tpy = tons per year; lbs/day = pounds per day; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM

2.5 = fine particulate matter with an
aerodynamic
resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM
10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases.

Source: Table 2
-
1, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, C
EQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017

Methodology

Air pollutant emissions generated by project construction and operation were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod uses project -
specific
information
, including the project’s
location,
land use

types
,
and
square footages for different uses
(
e.g.,

recreational, commercial, industrial
),

to model a project’s
construction and operational
emissions. The analysis reflects the construction and operation of th e project as described under
Project Description
.

Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used on -
site and emissions generated by vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker ,
vendor
,
and haul truc
k

trips. CalEEMod estimates construction emissions by multiplying the amount of time equipment is in operation by emission factors. Construction of the proposed project was analyzed based on the
applicant
-
provided construction

schedule and
anticipated
construction equipment list.

Construction would occur over approximately

18 -
20 months
.

This analysis assumes that the project
would comply with all applicable regulatory standards.

Deviations from CalEEMod default values
occurred during inputs
for project characteristics, as the applicant
-
provided acreage and square
footage were more accurate; additionally, as the proposed project would not include fireplaces, fireplace emissions estimates were omitted from the analysis.

Furthermore, the modelli
ng included
the use of BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures recommended for all proposed projects, which involves watering exposed surfaces twice a day

as well as
limiting vehicle speeds on
unpaved roads to 15 miles per h
our (BAAQMD 2017).

Operat
ional emissions modeled include mobile source emissions (i.e., vehicle emissions), energy emissions, and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by vehicle trips to and from the project site.

The

Multi
-
Modal Transportation Analysis
con
ducted by TJKM in February 2022
for the proposed project (Appendix
H
)
determined that the proposed project’s trip generat
ion rate

would be 316
total
net
daily trips.

Emissions

attributed to energy use include
electricity

consumption by appliances as well a
s for space and water heating. Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products and architectural coatings.

Environmental

Checklist

Air Quality

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

23 Impact Analysis

Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality

plan?

To be consistent with an air quality management plan, a project must conform to the local General Plan and must not result in or contribute to an exceedance of the local jurisdiction’s forecasted population. A project may be inconsistent with the
air quality management plan if it would generate
population, housing, or employment growth exceeding the forecasts used to develop the air quality management plan. Population growth would lead to increased vehicle use, energy consumption, and associated ai
r pollutant emissions. The 2017 Plan is the most recent and applicable adopted air quality plan, and the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would conflict with or obstruct its implementation.

As discussed in
Population and
Housing
,

t
he

proposed project would add
85 housing units
. Assuming
an average of 2.35 persons per Mountain View household (California Department of Finance [DOF] 202
2 )
, the proposed project would add approximately 200 new residents to Mountain View .

The
DOF
estimates

that Mountain View currently has
38,916

housing units and a population of
83,864

(DOF 202
2 ).

The addition of
85 residential units and
200
new residents would bring the total
number of housing units to
39,001

and the total population to
84,064
. BA
AQMD uses the
Association of Bay Area
Governments’

(ABAG) growth forecast to make assumptions about area
growth in the Clean Air Plan.

The most recent ABAG projections available at the City
-
level include a
population forecast of 138,980 residents by 2040 a
nd a housing forecast of

58,300 housing units in
the city in 2040 (ABAG 201
8 ). The
population and housing

growth associated with the project is well
within ABAG projections and thus within the BAAQMD 2017 Plan projections.

Additionally, as
discussed in thr
esholds b. through d.,
the project would not result in the emission of criteria air pollutants that exceed
significance

thresholds and conflict with the BAAQMD
2017 Clean Air Plan.

Therefore, the
proposed
project would not conflict with or obstruct the imp
lementation of an
applicable air quality plan and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non
-
a
ttainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

The
San Francisco Bay Air Basin
is designated nonattainment for the NAAQS for
ozone and PM
10 ,
and the CAAQS for
ozone, PM

2.5 , and PM
10 . The following subsections discuss emiss
ions associated
with construction and operation of the proposed project.

Construction Emissions

Proposed p
roject construction would generate temporary air pollutant emissions associated with fugitive dust (PM
10 and PM

2.5 )

and exhaust emissions from heavy construction equipment and construction
vehicles in addition to ROG emissions that would be released during the drying phase of architectural coating.

Table

4 summarizes the estimated
average

daily emissions of pollutants
during

proposed

project construction. As shown therein, construction
-
related emissions would not
exceed
BAAQMD
thresholds. Therefore,
proposed
project con
struction would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net

increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant.

City of
Mountain View

1265 M
ontecito Avenue Residential Project

24 Table

4 Estimated
Average
Daily

Construction Emissions

Average Daily Emissions (lbs/day)

Construction Year

ROG

NO
x

PM
10 PM

2.5 SO
x

2024

0.3 2.3

2.4 0.3

0.2 <0.1

2025

1.6 5.0

6.4 0.5

0.3 <0.1

Maximum Emissions

1.6 5.0

6.4 0.5

0.3 <0.1

BAAQMD Thresholds

54 54

N/A

82 54

N/A

Threshold Exceeded?

N
/A

N/A

Lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases, NO X

= nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, PM
10 = particulate matter 10
microns in diameter or less, PM

2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter

Notes: All emissions modeling was completed made using CalEEMod. See Appendix B
for modeling results.

Some numbers may not add
up due to roundi
ng. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with existing regulations and project design features. Emissions presented are the
maximum of

modeled emissions.

N/A = not applicable; no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX

Operational Emissions

Operation of the
proposed
project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area sources
, energy sources
, and mobile sources.

Table
5 summarizes the
proposed
project’s
average

daily operational emissions by emission source
, and
Table
6 summarizes the proposed
project’s annual operational
emissions.

As shown therein, operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD

regional thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, project operation would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non
-
attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table
5 Estimated
Average
Daily Operational Emissions

Daily Emissions (
lbs/day)

Emissions Source

ROG

NO
x

PM
10 PM

2.5 SO
x

Area

0.7 <0.1

3.8 0.1

0.1 <0.1

Energy

<0.1

0.2 0.1

<0.1

Mobile

0.8 0.7

6.1 1.3

0.3 <0.1

Total

1.5 0.9

10.0 1.34

0.4 <0.1

BAAQMD Thresholds

54 54

N/A

82 10

N/A

Threshold
Exceeded?

N/A

Lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gases, NO X

= nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, PM
10 = particulate matter 10
microns in diameter or less, PM

2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter

Notes: All emissions modeling was completed made using CalEEMod. See Appendix
B
for modeling results.

Some numbers may not add
up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which

account for compliance with existing regulations and
project design features. Emissions presented are the
maximum of

modeled emissions.

N/A = not applicable; no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX

Environmental

Checklist

Air Quality

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

25 Table
6 Estimated Annual
Operational Emissions

Emissions (
tons/year)

Emissions Source

ROG

NO
x

PM
10 PM

2.5 SO
x

Area Sources

0.1 <0.1

0.7 <0.1

<0.1

Energy Sources

<0.1

Mobile Sources

0.1 0.1

1.1 0.2

0.1 <0.1

Total

0.3 0.2

1.8 0.2

0.1 <0.1

BAAQMD Thresholds

10 10

N/A

15 10

N/A

Threshold Exceeded?

N/A

Tons/year = tons per year
; ROG = reactive organic gases, NO
X

= nitrogen oxides, CO = carbon monoxide, PM
10 = particulate matter 10
microns in diameter or less, PM

2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter

Notes: All emissions modeling was completed made using CalEEMod. See Appendix
B

for modeling results.

Some numbers may not add
up due to roundi
ng. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with existing regulations and project design features.

Emissions presented are the maximum of modeled emissions.

N/A = not applicable; no BAAQMD threshold for CO or SOX

LES

S THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are particularly sensitive to air pollution. Therefore, the majority of sensitive receptor locations are schools, hospitals, and residences. Sensitive receptors in t he project vicinity include
residences to
the west and south, as well as a pre
-
school located approximately 350 feet to the southeast
.

Localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically result from CO hotspots and TACs, which are discussed in t
he following subsections.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots

A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard.

Localized CO hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at
intersections where traffic levels are
sufficiently high such that
the local CO
concentration exceeds the federal one
-
hour standard of 35.0 ppm or the federal and state eight -
hour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2016).

The entire
San Francisco Bay Air Basin
is in conformance with state and federal CO

standards, and
most air quality monitoring stations no longer report CO levels.

The BAAQMD 2017
CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines

establish screening criteria regarding CO impacts. According to the guidelines, the proposed project would result in a less than si
gnificant impact to localized CO concentrations if:



Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local cong
estion management agency plans
.



The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour



The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehi
cles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

26 As discussed further in Chapter 17,
Transportation
, the proposed project would not conflict with a
transportation plan or program designed to reduce congestion or improve connec
tivity. The Multi
-
Modal Transportation Analysis (Appendix

H
)

conducted for the proposed project analyzed traffic
volumes at two intersections: Shoreline Boulevard/Montecito Avenue -
Stierlin Road, and Montecito
Avenue/proposed project driveway.

The Multi
-
Mod
al Transportation Analysis determined that
existing average daily traffic flow through the Shoreline Boulevard/Montecito Avenue -
Stierlin Road
intersection was 6,367 vehicles (Appendix
H
). The proposed project would generate 462 daily trips, which constitut
es approximately 7 percent of the total existing average daily traffic flow

(Appendix
H
)
. Thus,
project traffic would
not
increase traffic volumes to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour at affected intersections, or to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour at affected intersections where
horizontal and/or vertical mixing is limited

(Appendix
H
)
. Thus, based on the BAAQMD screening
criteria, the proposed project may be screened out for CO impacts, and localized air quality impacts related to CO hot spots would b
e less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants

TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human
health. The following subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related to TAC emissions during construction and operation.

Construction

Construction
-
related activities would result in temporary project
-
generated emissions of diesel
particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off
-
road, heavy
-
duty diesel equipment for site
preparation, grading, building construction, and other
construction activities. DPM was identified as
a TAC by CARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the i nhalation of DPM (discussed in the
following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non
-
cancer health impacts (CARB

2021)

and is
therefore the focus of this analysis.

Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short p eriod.

Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 18 to
20 months. The dose to
which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substance s in the environment and the extent

of
exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estim
ated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the California Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments
—
which determine the exposure of sensitive rece
ptors
to toxic emissions
—
should be based on a 70
-
year exposure period; however, such assessments
should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (i.e.,
18 to
20 mont
hs) is approximately
6 percent of the total
exposure period used for 30
-
year health risk calculations. Current models and methodologies for conducting health
-
risk assessments are associated with longer
-
term exposure periods of 9, 30, and
70 years, which do

not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk ( BAAQMD

2017
c
).

The maximum PM
10 and PM

2.5 emissions would occur during demolition,
gradi
ng

and
building
construction

activities.

Exact construction phase timeframes are currently undetermined, so the following analysis uses
conservative
construction duration estimates from CalEEMod (See Appendix Environmental

Checklist

Air Quality

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

27 B
).

Demolition and grading would occur over app
roximately 24 days and building construction
would take approximately 200 days (Appendix
B
)
.

PM emissions would decrease for the remaining
construction period because construction activities such as paving

and architectural coating would
require less inten
sive construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with demolition,
grading, and building construction

activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst -
case condition fo
r the total construction
period. This would represent less than
two

percent of the total 30
-
year exposure period for health
risk calculation.

Additionally, project construction would implement best practices from the BAAQMD Planning Healthy Places guidance

document, which would reduce exhaust emissions and
associated health risks.

BAAQMD

LANNING
H
EALTHY
P
LACES
(BAAQMD

2016)

E
XHAUST
B
EST
P

RACTICES

The applicant/general contractor for the project shall demonstrate to the local jurisdiction that all off
-
road equipment greater than 25 hp that will be operating for more than 20 hours over the entire duration of the construction activities at the site,
including equipment from subcontractors meets
the following requirement:

Be Zero Emissions
,

H
ave engines that meet or exceed either US EPA or ARB Tier 2 off -
road emission standards;

H
ave engines are retrofitted with an ARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emis sions Control Strategy
(VDECS), if one is available for the equipment being used (equipment with engines meeting Tier 4 Interim or Tier 4 Final emission standards automatically meet this requirement, therefore a VDECS would not be required).

Idling time o
f diesel
-
powered construction equipment, trucks and generators shall be limited to no more than 2 minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in a ccordance with the
manufacturers’ specifications. Portable diesel generators shall be prohibited. Grid power electricity should be used to provide power at construction sites; or propane and natural gas generators may be used when grid power electricity is

not feasible.

I
mplementation of
BAAQMD Planning Healthy Places
best
exhaust
practices
during project
construction
would not create conditions where the probability is greater than one in one million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individu
al or to generate ground
-
level concentrations
of non
-
carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations,

and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation

The California

Supreme Court ruled that CEQA does not generally require consideration of the effects of existing environmental conditions on a proposed project’s future on
-
site
users or
residents, but
that CEQA does mandate analysis of how a project may exacerbate existing environmental hazards. (CBIA v. BAAQMD

2015
).

CARB’s
Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective

(2005) provides recommendations regarding the siting of new sens
itive land uses near potential sources of air toxic emissions (e.g., freeways, distribution

centers,
rail yards, ports,
refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners, and gasoline dispensing facilities).

BAAQMD

adopted similar recommendations in its
2017
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
. Together, CARB
and
BAAQMD
offer guidelines for the siting of
development of sensitive land uses in proximity to
City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Reside
ntial Project

28 TAC sources and for the addition of

new TAC sources in proximity to existing sensitive land uses.

Residential
land uses are not considered land
uses that generate substantial TAC emissions based on
review of the air toxic sources listed in
BAAQMD’s
and CARB’s guidelines. It is expected that
quantities of hazardous TACs generated on
-
site (e.g., cleaning solvents, p
aints, landscape pesticides,
etc.) for the types of proposed land uses would be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. Because the project would not include substantial TAC sources and is consistent with
CARB and
BAAQMD
guidelines, it would not result in the exposure of
off
-
site sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the
project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and during idling. However, these odors would be intermittent and temporary and would cease upon completion, and odors disperse with di stance. Overall,
proposed
project construction would not generate other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Construction
-
related impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3
-
3 in the BAAQMD 2017
CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines

provides screening distances for land
uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints. The uses in the table include wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, con fined
animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, and chemical plants (BAAQMD 2017 c
).

Multi
-
family residential units

are not included in this list, and operation of the
proposed
project would not
generate other emissions, such as those leading
to odors, that would affect a substantial number of
people.

Therefore, impacts involving odors would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Biological Resources

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

29 4

Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorp
orated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

□

■

□

Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

□

■

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?

□

■

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?

□

■

Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preser
vation policy or ordinance?

□

■

□

Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

□

■

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

30 Existing
Setting

The project site is a 1.04
-
acre lot within an urbanized area in the City of Mountain View.

The project
site is
currently
developed with an office building, parking lot, and landscaping around the perimeter of the project site. Topography on the pro
ject site is generally flat.

There are
9 7

trees
that
currently exist on the project site; the majority of existing trees occur along the site boundary, although six Heritage trees are dispersed throughout the project site.

Regulatory Setting

Federal and St
ate

Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal, state, and local agencies under a variety of laws, ordinances, regulations, and statutes. Primary authority for biological resources lies within the land use control and planning auth
ority of local jurisdictions (in this instance, the City of Mountain View
).

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a trustee agency for biological resources throughout the State under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and h as direct
jurisdiction under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), respectively, have direct regu latory authority over species formally listed
as threatened or endangered (and listed as rare for CDFW). Native and/or migratory bird species are protected under the CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3511.

Statutes within the Clean Water Act (CWA), CFGC, and

California Code of Regulations (CCR) protect
wetlands and riparian habitat. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has regulatory authority over wetlands and waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA. The State Water Resources Control Boa
rd and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) ensure water quality protection in California pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and Section 13263 of the Porter
-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The CDFW regulates waters of the State under the CFGC
Section 1600 et seq.

Special status species are those plants and animals: 1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the FESA; 2) liste
d or proposed for listing as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the CDFW under the CESA; 3) recognized as California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) by the CDFW; 4) afforded protection under MBTA or CFGC; and 5) occurring on Lists 1 and 2 of the CDFW Cal ifornia
Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) system.

City of
Mountain View

The City of
Mountain View

Municipal Code
(MV
MC) Chapter
32 ,
Section 32.25
,
Heritage
Tree
Preservation,
requires a permit for the removal, destruction, or relocation of any heritage tree growing o
n public or private property.

The MVMC defines “Heritage Tree” to mean any one of the following:



A tree which has a trunk with a circumference of forty
-
eight (48) inches or more measured at
fifty
-
four (54) inches above natural grade



A multi
-
branched tree w
hich has major branches below fifty
-
four (54) inches above the natural
grade with a circumference of forty
-
eight (48) inches measured just below the first major trunk fork

Environmental

Checklist

Biological Resources

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

31 

Any quercus (oak), sequoia (redwood), or cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of

twelve
(12) inches or more when measured at fifty
-
four (54) inches above natural grade



A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the city council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit.

C
onditions of approval
for a Heritage Tree Removal permit
under the
MVMC

may include, but are
not limited to:



Requiring the replacement or placement of an additional tree or trees on the subject property or off
-
site to offset the loss of a tree, limbs, or e
ncroachment into the drip line. The number,
species, size and location of said replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the director upon recommendation of the city arborist
.



Requiring construction fencing or barriers to protect adjacent heritage trees o r other
landscaping.



Requiring protective grading requirements to avoid damaging the root structure of the tree or adjacent trees.



Requiring posting of a security bond to ensure that replacement trees are planted and become established (one year after plan
ting) and to compensate for the lost trees due to illegal removal.



Requiring the relocating of a tree on
-
site or off
-
site, or the planting of a new tree on
-
site or off
-
site to offset the loss of a tree.



Requiring a maintenance and care program be initiated

to ensure the continuing health and
care of heritage trees on the property.



Requiring payment of a fee or donation of a boxed tree(s) to the city or other public agency to be used elsewhere in the community should a suitable replacement location of the tr ee not be
possible on
-
site. The fee for replacement of a tree or trees shall be, at a minimum, based on the cost of a 24" boxed tree of same species, delivered and installed.

Impact Analysis

Would the project have

a substantial adverse effect, either direc
tly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic
e
?

The project site is currently developed with a two
-
story
, approximately 12,300 square
-
foot office
building with surface parking

and

landscaping. The site is surrounded by developed land uses, such as a two
-
story apartment complex to the west, a shopping

center across Montecito Avenue to the
north, the intersection between Montecito Avenue and Shoreline Boulevard to the east, and a three
-
story apartment complex to the south
.

As the project site is fully developed and located
within an urbanized area, ther
e are no natural features that could
support

candidate, sensitive, or
special
-
status species. Construction of the project would require the removal of existing trees and landscaping, which migratory birds might use for nest sites. The damage or destruction

of active
nest sites of migratory birds would
constitute
a potentially significant impact; however,
implementation of
the following
standard
City

of Mountain View

conditions of approval would
reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residentia
l Project

32 Standard
City of Mountain
Condition of Approval

The following
standard
City
of Mountain View
condition of approval
(
PL
-
198)

would reduce impacts
to nesting birds
to a less than significant level
:



PL
-
198
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 wil
l 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 reten
tion of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey
of the project site and surrounding 500’ for acti
ve nests
—
with particular emphasis on nests of
migratory birds
—
if construction (including site preparation) will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31. If active nests are observed on either the project site or the surround
ing area, the applicant
, in coordination with the appropriate City staff, shall establish no
-
disturbance buffer zones

around the nests, with the size to be determined in
consultation with the California Department of Fish

and Wildlife (usually 100’ for per
ching birds
and 300’ for raptors). The no
-
disturbance buffer will remain

in place until the biologist
determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction

ceases for
two days or more and then resumes during the nesting season , an additional survey will be

necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present .

Implementation of
this standard
City
of Mountain View
condition of approval
(PL
-
198
)

would ensure
that the proposed project
would

not significantly impact
nesting birds through strategic timing of
vegetation removal and construction activities, pre
-
construction bird identification surveys, and
establishment of nest buffer zones.

With required
implementation of this
standard
City of

Mountain
View
condition of approval, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project have

a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional

plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ?

Would the project 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?

Based on a review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory, there are no riparian or wetland areas in or wi thin the vicinity of the project site (USFWS
2022).

The nearest riparian area to the project site is Stevens Creek, approximately 0.6 mile east of the project site. The project site is fully developed and located in an urbanized area of Mountain View and d
oes not contain sensitive natural communities identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
’s

(CDFW)

Biogeographic Information and Observation System

(BIOS)

(CDFW 2022).

Therefore
,

the proposed project would have no impact
on
riparian habita
t, other sensitive natural
communities, or state or federally protected wetlands.

NO IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Biological Resources

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

33 d.

Would the project

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 ?

The project
site

consists of de
veloped and disturbed areas with primarily ornamental vegetation and trees along the perimeter of the project site
. Land use in the vicinity is primarily
residential
with no
connectivity to natural habitats and

the site

is therefore not expected to support

wildlife
movement.

CDFW identifies the project site, along with most of the City of Mountain View, to have a connectivity ranking of 1, meaning that there are limited connectivity opportunities for terrestrial wildlife

(CDFW 2022).

T
he proposed project would not impact riparian or aquatic areas, and thus would not impede the movement of migratory fish. The proposed project would have no impact regarding
the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species .

NO IMPACT

Would the project

conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
?

MVMC

Chapter
32 ,
Section 32.25
,
Heritage

Tree Preservation, requires a permit for the removal,
destructi
on, or cutting of branches
of heritage trees. An arborist report was prepared in September 2021 for submission
to the City in support of an application for a heritage tree removal permit (Appendix
A
). Of the 13
1 trees assessed in the report (including off
-
site trees),
seven
trees qualified
as heritage trees
—
one Monterrey cypress,
one Carob tree, four coast redwoods, and one Italian
Cypress
. As shown in
Table
7 , the proposed project would involve the removal of six heritage trees, along with 3
6 non
-
heritage trees.

Table
7 Location and Number of Trees to be Removed and Preserved

On
-
site

Off
-
site Adjacent

(with Canopy
On
-
site)

Total

Existing Number of Trees

97 34

13 1

Existing Number of
Heritage

T
rees

20 0

20 Number of Trees Removed

3 6

0 36

Number of
Heritage

Trees Removed

6 0

6 Number of Trees Preserved

5 5

3 4

89 Number of
Heritage

Trees Preserved

1 13

14 The current
Tree Assessment

Plan
(HortScience, 2021)
in
cludes

the

proposed

planting of
48 new
trees
, including replacing heritage trees at a 2:1 ratio.

As the arborist report notes, the goal of tree
preservation is not merely tree survival during construct ion but maintenance of tree health over
many years. Trees retained on or adjacent to the project site that are injured during construction or are inadequately maintained may decline or die. Measures to protect trees during and after construction

are requir
ed to ensure long
-
term health and sustainability of preserved and
replacement trees.

Implementation of the following City conditions of approval would ensure that
the project would not
conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resour ces, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
, and

impacts would
be
less than significant.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

34 Standard City of Mountain Conditions of Approvals

The following

standard

City
of Mountain View
conditions of approval (
PL
-
133; PL
-
134; PL
-
135; PL
-
138;
PL
-
142
; and PL
-
145
)
would be required to
reduce impacts to trees from development and
maintain and improve their health and vitality
over time
.

With implementation of the
se standard
City of
Mountain View
conditions of approval
, the
proposed
project would n
ot conflict with a local
or regional ordinance

concerning tree preservation.



PL
-
133
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 s
hall 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 sha
ll be included in the building permit drawings.



PL
-
134
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 implement
ed for construction activity near and around the preserved trees, including the critical root zones. Should it be determined that the root systems are more extensive than previously identified and/or concerns are raised of nearby excavation or construction

activities for the project foundation or underground parking garage, the design of the building and/or parking garage may need to be altered to maintain the health of the trees prior to building permit issuance.



PL
-
135
Monthly Arborist Inspections:

Throu
ghout 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 cons
truction activity to maintain tree health, shall be provided to the Planning Division at
[email protected]
.



PL
-
138
Tree Removals
:

Permits to remove, relocate, or otherwise alter He
ritage trees cannot be
implemented until a project building permit for new construction is secured and the project is pursued.



PL
-
142
Tree Protection Measures
:

The tree protection measures listed in the arborist’s report prepared by HortScience and dated September 2021 shall be included as notes on the title sheet of all grading and landscape plans. These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, 6’ chai
n link fencing at the drip line, a continuous maintenance and care program, and protective grading techniques. Also, no materials may be stored within the drip line of any tree on the project site
.



PL
-
145
Irrevocable Damage to Heritage Trees:

In the event

one or more of the preserved
Heritage
tree
(s) are not maintained and irrevocable damage or death of the tree(s) has occurred due to construction activity, a stop work order will be issued on the subject property and no construction activity shall occur fo
r two (2) working days per damaged tree. The applicant will also be subject to a penalty fee at twice the tree valuation prior to damage; this fee applies to each Heritage tree damaged. No construction activity can resume until the penalty fee(s) have been

paid to the City.

Environmental

Checklist

Biological Resources

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

35 With required

implementation of th
ese

standard City of Mountain View
condition
s

of approval,
impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project

conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan
?

There are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other similar plans that govern activities on
the project site. Therefore, the

proposed

project would not be in
conflict with a habitat conservation plan
, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan
.

NO IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Pr
oject

36 This page
intentionally left blank.

Environmental

Checklist

Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

37 5

Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to

§15064.5?

□

■

□

Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to

§15064.5?

□

■

□

Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?

□

■

□

Regulat
ory Setting

California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21804.1 requires lead agencies determine if a project could have a significant impact on historical or unique archaeological resources. As defined in PRC Section 21084.1, a historical resource is a resource li sted in, or determined eligible for listing in, the
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), a resource included in a local register of historical resources or identified in a historical resources survey pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1(g), or any

object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant. PRC Section 21084.1 also states resources meeting the above criteria are presumed to be historically or cultural significan
t unless the preponderance of evidence
demonstrates otherwise. Resources listed in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR and are, therefore, historical resources under CEQA. Historical resources may include eligible built environment resources and
archaeological resources of the precontact or historic periods.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c) provides further guidance on the consideration of archaeological resources. If an archaeological resource does not qualify as a historical resource, it may
meet the definition of a “unique archaeological resource” as identified in PRC Section 21083.2.

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge,
there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1) it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that i
nformation, 2) has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type, or 3) is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

If an arch
aeological resource does not qualify as a historical or unique archaeological resource, the impacts of a project on those resources will be less than significant and need not be considered further (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]). CEQA Guidelines Se ction 15064.5 also provides
City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

38 guidance for addressing the potential presence of human remains, including those discovered during the implementation of a project.

According to CEQA, an impact that results in a substantial adverse change in the significance o f a
historical resource is considered a significant impact on the environment. A substantial adverse change could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significan
ce of the historical resource would be
materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical sig
nificance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR or a local register (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5[b][2][A]).

If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency
may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC §21083.2[a][b]).

Sectio
n 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates an
environmental document

shall describe
feasible measures to minimize significant adverse impacts. In addition to being fully enforceable, mitigation measures must be completed within a defined time period and b e roughly proportional
to the impacts of the project. Generally, a project which is found to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Recon
structing Historic Buildings (the Standards) is considered to be mitigated below a level of significance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 [b][1]). For historical resources of an archaeological nature, lead agencies should also seek to avoid damaging effect s
where feasible. Preservation in place is the preferred manner to mitigate impacts to archaeological sites; however, data recovery through excavation may be the only option in certain instances (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[b][3]).

Historical and Archa
eological Resources Investigation

Rincon prepared
a

cultural resources assessment
in support of the project in April 2022;
it is
included as
Appendix
C
.

This study
included the following: background research including searches of the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) and Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF), archaeological and built environment surveys of the project site, and evaluation of the

property comprising the project site to determine if it constitutes a historical resource per CEQA.

Impact Analysis

Would the project

cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5
?

The research and

built environment survey conducted by Rincon
(Appendix C)
identified one
historic
-
era property comprising the project site, 1265 Montecito Avenue, which includes a two -
story commercial building constructed circa 1976. In accordance with California Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP) guidance, the property was recorded and evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and for designation as City of Mountain View Landmark. Rinc
on’s assessment

determined that

1265
Montecito Avenue is ineligible for federal, state, and local designation and therefore is not considered a historical resource according to CEQA.

Because
the property does not constitute

a
Environmental

Checklist

Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

39 historical resource,
its

demol
ition

would not result in a significant impact to historical resources.

Impacts would be less than significant.

NO IMPACT

Would the project
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in
§15064.5
?

Rincon’s
assessment did not identify archaeological resources or archaeological deposits within the project site
.

The CHRIS search identified 26 cultural resources within a 0.5 mile of the project site,
n
one of
which
are archaeological in nature.

However, t
he SLF search was positive
.

positive
SLF
search alone does not indicate the presence of cultural resources within the project site or its immediate vicinity. The archaeological survey conducted for this assessment was negative for cultural mat
erial within the project site. The research conducted as part of this assessment, which included review of a geotechnical study prepared in support of the project, indicates that it is likely that fill is present underlying existing development within the APE (ENGEO 2020).

Based on the
absence of recorded cultural resources in the vicinity of the project site, the history of development in the project site, and the negative archaeological survey, the project site is not considered sensitive for archaeologic
al resources. However, unanticipated discovery during construction remains a possibility If
resources are identified during construction
. Implementation of City
condition of approval PL
-
194 would reduce impacts to

less than significant

level
.

Standard City of Mountain View
Conditions of Approval

The following
standard
City
of Mountain View
condition of approval
(PL
-
194
)
would be required to
reduce impacts to
archaeological resources
. With implementation of th
is

st
andard condition
, the
proposed project would not
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
.

PL
-
194 Discovery of Archaeological Resources

If prehistoric or historic
-
period cultural materials

are unearthed during g
round
-
disturbing activities,
it is recommended that all work within 100’ of the find

be halted until a qualified archaeologist and
Native American representative can assess the significance of

the find.

Prehistoric materials might
include obsidian and cher
t
-
flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points,

knives, scrapers) or tool
-
making
debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat -
affected rocks

and artifacts; stone
milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and b attered

stone tools,
such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic
-
period materials might include stone,

concrete,
or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic

refuse. If the find is determined to be

potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the

Native American

representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping,

or data recovery.

Implementation of
this standard City of Mountain View
conditi
on of approval (PL
-
194) would ensure
that the proposed project would not significantly impact archaeological resources. Following implementation of this condition of approval, impacts would be less than significant
.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

40 c
.

Would the project

disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities.

If human
remains are found, existing regulations outlined in the

State of California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 state no further disturbance
may
occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of hum
an remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD mus
t
complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of being granted access and provide recommendations as to the treatment of the remains to the landowner.

With adherence to existing
regulations, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Env
ironmental

Checklist

Energy

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

41 6

Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Result in

potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?

□

■

□

Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable
energy or energy
efficiency?

□

■

□

Electricity and Natural Gas

Electricity is primarily consumed by the built environment for lighting, appliances, heating and cooling systems, and other uses such as industrial processes in addition to being consumed by alternative fuel vehicles.

In
2020
, California used
279,510

gigaw
att
-
hours (GWh) of electricity,
59 percent
of which
were from renewable resources
,

such as wind, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, and
biomass
(
California Energy Commission [
CEC
]

20 2
1 ).

In 2018, Senate Bill 100 accelerated the state’s
Renewable Portfolio Sta
ndards Program, codified in the Public Utilities Act, by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy and zero -
carbon resources to 33
percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 20

45. Electricity service would be provided to the project by Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) via Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) infrastructure.

Table
8 shows the electricity consumption by
sector and total for PG&E

in 2020, and
Table
9 sho
ws natural gas consumption by sector

and total
for PG&E in 2020
. PG&E provided approximately

28.1 percent of the total electricity and

36.6 percent of the total natural gas usage in California

in 2020.

Table
8 Electricity Consumptio
n in the
PG&E

Service Area in
2020

Agriculture
and Water
Pump

Commercial
Building

Commercial
Other

Industry

Mining and
Construction

Residential

Streetlight

Total Usage

6637.6

26,246.8

3948.6

9814.3

1747.6

29,833.5

290.4

78,518.8

Notes: All usage
expressed in GWh

Source: CEC 20
22 a

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

42 Table
9 Natural Gas Consumption in
PG&E

Service Area in
2020

Agriculture
and Water
Pump

Commercial
Building

Commercial
Other

Industry

Mining and
Construction

Residential

Total Usage

44.0 796.4

50.1 1,585.3

140.0

1891.3

4508.5

Notes: All usage expressed in
Millions of Therms

(MMThm)

Source: CEC 20
22 b

Petroleum

California
is

the nation’s second largest petroleum consumer, accounting for approximately 9 percent of U.S. total consumption.

In 2020, California ranked first in jet fuel consumption and second in motor gasoline consumption, with the transportation sector using 85 pe rcent of
petroleum, or approximately 563 million barrels. Other petroleum uses in the State include industrial uses

(12 percent), commercial (2 percent), and residential (less than 1 percent) (U .

S
.

EIA
2022).

Impact Analysis

Would the project result in

potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

Construction Energy Demand

During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum
-
based fuels used
to power off
-
road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, and vehicles used to deliver materials to the site. The

proposed

project would requir
e

demolition,

site preparation and grading, building construction
, paving,
architectural coating
,

and landscaping
/
hardscaping.

The total consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel during project construction was estimated using the assumptions and factors fro
m CalEEMod (Appendix

B
).

Table
10 presents the estimated
construction phase energy consumption, indicating

construction equipment, vendor trips, and
worker trips would consume approximately
31,584

gallons of fuel over the proje
ct construction
period. Construction equipment would consume an estimated 23,527

gallons of fuel; vendor and
hauling trips would consume approximately
2,152
gallons of fuel; and worker trips would consume
approximately
5,905
gallons of fuel over the combin
ed phases of project construction.

Environmental

Checklist

Energy

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

43 Table
10 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction

Fuel Type

Gallons of Fuel

MMBtu
4 Diesel Fuel (Construction Equipment)
1 23,527

2,583

Diesel Fuel (Hauling & Vendor Trips)
2 2,152

236

Other Petroleum Fuel (Worker Trips)
3 5,905

648

Total

31,584

3,467

1 Fuel demand rate for construction equipment is derived from the total hours of operation, the equipment’s horsepower
, the
equipment’s load factor, and the equipment’s fuel usage per horsepower

per hour of operation, which are all taken from CalEEMod outpu
ts (see Appendix
B
), and from compression
-
ignition engine brake
-
specific fuel consumptions factors for engines between 0 to 100 horsepower and greater than 100 horsepower (U.S. EPA 2018). Fuel consumed for all construction equipment is assumed to be die sel

fuel.

2 Fuel demand rate for hauling and vendor trips (cut material imports) is derived from hauling and vendor trip number, hauling and
vendor trip length, and hauling and vendor vehicle class from “Trips and VMT” Table contained in Section 3.0, Construc
tion Detail
, of
the CalEEMod results (see Appendix
B
). The fuel economy for hauling and vendor trip vehicles is derived from the United States Department of Transportation (DOT 20
22 ). Fuel consumed for all hauling trucks is assumed to be diesel fuel.

3 The

fuel economy for worker trip vehicles is derived from
DOT

National Transportation Statistics (24 mpg) (DOT 20
22 ). Fuel consumed
for all worker trips is assumed to be gasoline fuel.

4 CaRFG

CA
-
GREET 2.0 fuel specification of 109,786 Btu/gallon used to identify conversion rate for fuel energy consumption for worker trips specified above (CARB 2015). Low
-
sulfur Diesel CA
-
GREET 2.0 fuel specification of 127,464 Btu/gallon used to identify conve rsion
rate for fuel energy consumption for construction equipment specified above (CARB 2015). Totals may not add up due to roundin g.

The construction energy estimates represent a conservative estimate as the construction equipment used in each phase of
construction was assumed to be operating every day of construction.

Construction equipment would be maintained to all applicable standards

as required
, and
construction activity and associated fuel consumption and energy use would be temporary and typical
for construction sites. It is also reasonable to assume contractors would avoid wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary fuel consumption during construction to reduce construction costs.

In
addition, per applicable regulatory requirements such as 2019 CALGr een, the project would be
required to comply with construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and demolition debris. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project.

T
herefore, the
proposed
project would not involve the
inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and the construction -
phase impact related to energy consumption would be less than significant.

Operational Energy Demand

The ope
ration of the

proposed

project would require energy use in the form of electricity

and

gasoline consumption.

Electricity

would be used for heating and cooling systems, lighting, appliances, water use, and the overall operation of the project. Gasoline cons umption would be
attributed to
vehicular travel from residents and guests traveling to and from the project site . The
proposed
project’s estimated number of average daily trips is used to determine the energy consumption associated with fuel use from proje
ct operation.,
T
he
proposed
project would result in
616,184

annual
vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
(Appendix

B
).

Table
11 shows the estimated total
annual fuel consumption of the project using the estimated VMT with the assumed vehicle fleet mix (Appendix
B
).

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

44 Table
11 Estimated Project Annual Transportation Energy Consumption

Vehicle Type
1 Percent of

Vehicle Trips
2 Annual Vehicle

Miles Traveled
3 Average Fuel
Economy
(miles/gallon)
4 Total Annual Fuel
Consumption
(gallons)

Total Fuel
Consumption
(MMBtu)
5 Passenger Cars

55.4%

341,367.0

2 5.3

13,492.8

1,481.3

Light/Medium Trucks

36.6%

225,523.3

1 8.2

12,391.4

1,360.4

Heavy Trucks/Other

4.5%

27,728.3

11.9 2,330.1

255.8

Motorcycles

2.6 %

16,020.8

4 4

364.1

40.0 Total

100
.0
%

616,184

–

28,578.4

3,137.5

1 Vehicle classes provided in CalEEMod do not correspond exactly to vehicle classes in DOT fuel consumption data, except for motorcycles. Therefore, it was assumed that passenger cars correspond to the light -
duty, short
-
base vehicle class, light/medium truc
ks
correspond to the light
-
duty long
-
base vehicle class, and heavy trucks/other correspond to the single unit, 2 -
axle 6
-
tire or more class.

2 Percent of vehicle trips from Table 4.4
,
Fleet Mix
,

from CalEEMod
(see Appendix
B
).

3 Mitigated annual VMT found in Table 4.2
,
Trip Summary
Information
, from CalEEMod (see Appendix
B
).

4 Source
:

DOT

2022
.

5 CaRFG fuel specification of 109,786 Btu/gallon used to identify conversion rate for fuel energy consumption for vehicle class es specif
ied
above (CARB 2015).

Notes: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

As shown in
Table
11 , the
proposed
project would consume approximately
28,578.4

gallons
, or
3,137.5

MMBtu
,
of fuel
each year for transportation uses from operation under the most conservative estimate.

Operation o
f the
proposed
project would consume approximately 0.
3 GWh of electricity per year
(Appendix
B
). The
proposed
project’s electricity demand would be served by PG&E, which provided
78,518.8

GWh of electricity in
2020
; therefore, PG&E would have
sufficient supplies for the

proposed

project.

Additionally, the proposed residential building would contain rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panels that would reduce
the project’s
overall energy consumption.

The

proposed

project would
be required to
comply with
all standards
as
set in

the

California
Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation
.

California’s Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen; California Code of R
egulations, Title 24, Part 11) requires implementation of energy efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects.

Furthermore, the
2019

Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CBC Title 24, Part 6) requires newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the CEC
.

T
hese standards are
specifically crafted for new buildings to result in energy efficient performance so that the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary con sumption of energy. The standards are
updated every three years
, with each iteration containing more stringent energy efficiency requirements than the last
. For example, a
ccording to the CEC, residences built
in compliance with
the 2019 standards will use
approximately 7
percent less energy
when compared to

residences
built
under the 2016 standards

(CEC 2018).

Senate Bill 100 requires
electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 pe
rcent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045
.

As PG&E continues to increase its proportion of renewable energy generation to comply with state requirements, the proposed project would reduce its use of nonrenewable energ y resources.

Environmental

Checklist

Energy

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

45 P
roject construction would be temporary and typical of similar projects, and would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Project operation would involve the consumption of fuel and electricity
.

The
pro
posed
project’s energy usage would be in conformance
with the latest version of California’s Green Building Standards Code and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. In addition, PG&E has sufficient supplies to serve the project

and the proposed
project

would include rooftop solar PV panels that would further offset energy consumption .

Therefore, the
proposed
project would have a less than significant impact.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local p lan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?

As mentioned above, S
enate Bill

100 mandates 100 percent clean electricity for California by 2045.

Given that
the proposed project would be powered by the existing electricity grid, the

proposed

project would
eventually be powered by renewable energy mandated by SB 100 and would not conflict with this statewide plan.

The Mountain View
Climate Protection Roadmap (CPR)
was adopted in September 2015 and
evaluates strategies and mechanisms through which the City m ay achieve its greenhouse gas
emissions reduction target in 2050, with several policies focusing on building and transportation energy. The proposed project would be consistent with strategies for reducing energy from

the
City’s CPR, as listed in
Table

12 below.

Table

12 Project Consistency with
Climate Protection Roadmap Strategies

Strategy

Consistency

Renewable Energy Generation
–

Solar
Photovoltaic

Consistent
. The proposed project would
include
install
ation of

PV panels on
the rooftop of the proposed residential building
s

for on
-
site electricity
generation.

Energy Efficiency
–

New Construction

Consistent
. The proposed project, as new residential bu
ilding
s
, would be
constructed in accordance with
a
pplicable

CalGREEN energy efficiency
requirements

and would

exceed these requirements by 15 percent
.

Fuel Switching
–

Electric Vehicles (EV)

Consistent
. The proposed project would provide EV charging stations within the parking area.

Source: City of Mountain View 2015

As demonstrated further in Section 8,
Greenhouse Gas Emiss
ions
, the proposed project
would be

consistent with measures and actions from the City’s
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP)
.

Table

13 discusses consistency with
applicable policies that
relate to e
nergy performance in new
residential construction and energy
-
efficient design in new development
.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

46 Table

13 GGRP Energy Policy Consistency

Policy

Consistency

Measure E
-

1.1 :

Residential Energy
Efficiency Retrofit

Consistent.

As a new residential building, the proposed project would be constructed in accordance with
applicable
CalGREEN energy efficiency
requirements, and would
include
install
ation of

PV panels on the rooftop of the
proposed
building.

Measure E
-

1.6 Exceed State Energy
Standards in New Residential
Development

Consistent.

The proposed project would comply with the Mountain View Green Building Code, which
includes

energy efficiency standards that exceed 2008
Title
-
24 Building Energy Effici
ency

Standards
. As a new residential project, the
proposed project must exceed Title 24 standards by 15 percent.

Measure E
-

1.8 : Building Shade
Trees in Residential

Development

Consistent.

The proposed project would
include
48 new trees
. The proposed
quantity of trees and tree canopy coverage is designed to meet the City of Mountain View’s requirements. Street trees would be introduced to Montecito Avenue in a planting strip along
the

sidewalk.

Measure E
-

2.3:

Residential Solar
Photovolt
aic Systems

Consistent
.

Photovoltaic panels would be installed on approximately 3,190 square feet of the proposed building’s rooftop.

Source:

City of Mountain View

2012
c

The proposed project would not interfere with the GGRP’s energy strategies and would not conflict with other local or state plans for energy efficiency or renewable energy; thus, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Geology and Soils

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

47 7

Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Directly or indirectly cause potential

substantial
adverse effects, including the
risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:

1. 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?

□

■

2. Strong seismic ground shaking?

□

■

□

3. Seismic
-
related ground failure,
including liquefaction?

□

■

□

4. Landslides?

□

■

Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?

□

■

□

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 offsite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?

□

■

□

Be
located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 1
-
B of the Uniform Building Code

(1994)
, creating substantial
direct or
indirect
risks to life or property?

□

■

□

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?

□

■

Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

□

■

□

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

48 Setting

A Design
-
Level Geotechnical
Exploration

was prepared by ENGEO Incorporated in February 2020
(Appendix
D
)
. The purpose of this report was to characterize and assess the geologic and geotechnical risk pertinent to the proposed project, as well as provide des ign
-
level geotechnical
recommendations

for the proposed project. This report includes a review of relevant background information, field exploration and soil borings, laboratory testing, and preparation of findings and recommendations for the proposed deve
lopment.

Seismic Setting

Similar to

much of California, the site is located in a seismically active region. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) defines active faults as those that have had surface displacement within the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). Surface displace ment can be recognized by the
existence of cliffs in alluvium, terraces, offset stream courses, fault troughs and saddles, the alignment of depressions, sag ponds, and the existence of steep mountain fronts. Potentially active faults are those that have ha
d surface displacement during the last 1.6 million years, and inactive faults have not had surface displacement within that period.

Several faults are within the region
surrounding the project site, including the Monte Vista -
Shannon, San Andreas, Hayward
-
R
odgers
Creek, Calaveras, and San Gregorio faults.

No active faults occur across the project site, and the Monte Vista
-
Shannon fault is the closest to the project site
, located approximately 4.5 miles
southwest

(Appendix
D
). A variety of seismic and geologi
c hazards
may occur in the City of
Mountain View due to its location and geologic setting, including fault rupture, strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides.

Given the distance of the project site to several fault lines, seismic activity is a po
tential hazard to the project.

Ground Shaking

Seismically induced ground shaking covers a wide area and is greatly influenced by the distance of the site to the seismic source, soil conditions, and depth to groundwater. The USGS and Associated Bay Area Go
vernments (ABAG) have worked together to map the likely intensity of ground -
shaking
throughout the Bay Area under various earthquake scenarios. The most intense ground -
shaking
scenario mapped in
Mountain View

assumes a

7.8 magnitude earthquake on the
San A
ndreas

Fault
system. The predicted ground
-
shaking from such an earthquake would be “
severe
” or “violent”
throughout the City of
Mountain View

(ABAG 20
21 ).

Thus, ground shaking is a potential hazard that
may occur at the project site.

Liquefaction and Seis
mically Induced Settlement

Liquefaction is defined as the sudden loss of soil strength due to a rapid increase in soil pore water pressure resulting from seismic ground shaking. Liquefaction potential is dependent on such factors as soil type, depth to gro
und water, degree of seismic shaking, and the relative density of the soil.

When liquefaction of the soil occurs, buildings and other objects on the ground surface may tilt or sink, and lightweight buried structures (such as pipelines) may float toward the

ground surface.

Liquefied soil may be unable to support its own weight or that of structures, which could result in loss of foundation bearing or differential settlement. Liquefaction may also result in cracks in the ground surface followed by the emergen
ce of a sand
-
water mixture.

As the project site is located in
a mapped liquefaction zone (Appendix D), liquefaction is a potential hazard to the project.

Environmental

Checkli
st

Geology and Soils

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

49 Landslides

Landslides result when the driving forces that act on a slope (i.e., the weight of the slo pe material,
and the weight of objects placed on it) are greater than the slope’s natural resisting forces (i.e., the shear strength of the slope material). Slope instability may result from natural processes, such as the erosion of the toe of a slope by a

stream, or by ground shaking caused by an earthquake. Slopes can also be modified artificially by grading, or by the addition of water or structures to a slope.

Development that occurs on a slope can substantially increase the frequency and extent of pote ntial
slope stability hazards.

Areas susceptible to landslides are typically characterized by steep, unstable slopes in weak soil/bedrock units which have a record of previous slope failure. There are numerous factors that affect the stability of the slop
e, including:
slope height and steepness, type of materials, material strength, structural geologic relationships, ground water level, and level of seismic shaking. The project
site is relatively flat, with localization areas of elevation change that range

from
approximately 51 to 54 feet (Appendix
D
).

Expansive Soils

Expansive soils can change dramatically in volume depending on moisture content. When wet, these soils can expand; conversely, when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moistures that

can
trigger this shrink
-
swell phenomenon include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soil can
develop wide cracks in the dry season, and changes
in soil volume have the potential to damage concre
te slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special
building/structure design or soil treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils. The Design
-
Level Geotechnical Exploration

identif
ies
the presence of expansive soils as a potential
hazard at the proje
ct site

(Appendix
D
).

Erosion

Erosion is the wearing away of the soil mantle by running water, wind,

or geologic forces. It is a
naturally occurring phenomenon and ordinarily is not hazardous. However, excessive erosion can contribute to landslides, silta
tion of streams, undermining of foundations, and ultimately the loss of structures. Removal of vegetation tends to heighten erosion hazards.

Impact Analysis

a
.

1. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of l
oss, 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
?

The project

site is

not located in an
Alquist
-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known
faults crossing or projecting toward the site (DOC 201
6 ).

The nearest known fault is the San Andreas
Fault, approximately 6.5 miles southwest of the project site. The pr oposed project would comply
with State of California standards for building design through the CBC

(California Code of
Regulations, Title 24). The
CBC

requires construction in California to account for hazards from seismic shaking, through various methods.

Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or
indirectly

cause
substantial
adverse impacts associated with surface fault rupture

and

there would
be

no impact
.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

50 a
.

2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause subs
tantial

potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?

a
.

3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause

potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, inju
ry, or death involving seismic
-
related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Would the project 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 offsite l andslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

The San Francisco Bay Area region is one of the most seismically active areas in the country. While seismologists cannot predict earthquake events, the USGS’s Working Group on California E
arthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) estimates the likelihood that California will experience a magnitude 8 or larger earthquake in the next 30 years is about 7.0 percent ( WGCEP 2015
). The
WGCEP also estimates that each region of California will experience a magnitude 6.7 or larger
earthquake in the next 30 years. Additionally, there is a 63 percent chance of at least one magnitude

6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the Bay Area region between 2007 and 2036.

The
project
site is located in an a
rea of relatively high seismic potential. The faults in the area are capable of generating earthquakes that could produce strong to violent ground shaking at the project site.

The effects of earthquake
-
related ground shaking could include damage to structu
res,
as well as damage to streets and utilities. However, compliance with the current CBC

requirements
would ensure that the proposed structures would be able to: (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structur al damage, but with some non
-
structural
damage; and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. By adhering to State and
City

building code requirements, the direct or
indirect impacts from devel
opment of the proposed project as they relate to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

The
project site is
located within a mapped liquefaction zone (Appendix
D
)
. The factors known to
influence liquefaction potential include grain s
ize, relative density, groundwater conditions,
effective confining pressures, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. Loose, saturated, near -
surface, cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dense, cohesionless soils and c
ohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential.

However, based on the thickness
of overlying non
-
liquefiable material, liquefaction
-
induced surface rupture is unlikely to occur
(Appendix
D
).

Lateral spreading and earthquake
-
induced
landslides

involve lateral ground movements caused by
seismic shaking. These lateral ground movements are often associated with a weakening or failure of an embankment or soil mass overlying a layer of liquefied san ds or weak soils. Due to the
relatively flat site topography
observed in the surrounding project area
,
the risk of lateral spreading
at the project site is very low

(
Appendix
D
).

Therefore, impacts related to strong seismic shaking and seismic related grou
nd failure would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Geology and Soils

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

51 a
.

4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause

potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?

The

project site and
surroundings are generally level
. There are
no steep slopes located near the site

or within the project site
.

The area is not identified by the DOC to be in a landslide zone; the nearest identified landslide zones are located within the Santa Clara foothil ls, approximately 4.5 miles
southwest (DOC 2016).

Therefore, there is no potential for landslides at the
project site and there
would be no impact.

NO IMPACT

Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Construction of

the
proposed
project would require earthwork activities to prepare the site for the construction of

the Z
-
shaped residential building
.

During grading activities, the project site’s soils
could

be exposed to wind and water

erosion that could transport sedi
ments into local stormwater
drains. The proposed project would be subject to the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)
–

NPDES Permit Order No. R2
-
2015
-
0049, and all provisions set
forth in Section C.3,
New Development a
nd Redevelopment
.

Under the conditions of the permitting program,
the applicant would be required to eliminate or
reduce non
-
stormwater discharges into storm drain systems and watercourses and adhere to BMPs for stormwater management during project constr
uction (RWQCB 2015). Following compliance of
MRP Order No. R2
-
2015
-
0049 requirements, construction of the proposed project would not substantially cause erosion or siltation. Furthermore, appropriate erosion control and permanent site surface drainage elem
ents per the California Building Code
and MVMC Section 35.33.11 (which
requires implementation of erosion and sedimentation control best management practices during construction) would
be implemented
.

With implementation of these
guidelines
, BMPs, and requ
ired
permits, substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil would not occur at the project site, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1 -
B of the
Uniform Building
Code

(1994)
, creating substantial
direct or indirect
risks to life or property?

T
he
near
-
surface

soil at the project site was found
to exhibit high shrink/swell potential and is

considered to be

highly expansive

(Appendix
D
)
.

These soils c
an cause heaving and cracking of slabs
-
on
-
grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations .

I
mplementation of City
C
ondition of Approval PL
-
48 would reduce impacts from expansive soils on the project site.

Standard City of Mountain View
Con
dition of Approval

The following
standard
City
of Mountain View
condition of approval
(PL
-
48 )
would reduce impacts
to expansive soils
to less than significant

levels
:



PL
-
48 Geotechnical Report
.

The applicant shall have a design
-
level geotechnical investigation
prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117, Guideli
nes for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report will be submitted to the City during building plan check, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report will be implemented as part of the
City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

52 project and included in building permit drawings and civil drawings as needed.

Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below -
grade walls to
resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures caused by seismic ac tivity, and traffic loads;
method for backdraining walls to prevent the build
-
up of hydrostatic pressure; considerations
for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design.

Implementation of th
is standard

City
of Mountain V
iew
condition of approval (PL
-
48) would
reduce
risks associated with the swell potential of the clay by incorporating geologic design recommendations from the Design
-
Level Geotechnical Exploration
included
in this Initial Study
as
Appendix
D
.

Following imp
lementation of this condition of approval, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastew
ater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

The

proposed

project would not require the use of septic tanks. The project would connect to the City of
Mountain View
municipal sewer system. There would be no impact.

IMPACT

Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once -
living organisms preserved in the rock
record. They
include

both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically,
fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low
-
grade metamorphic rocks u
nder certain conditions (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010).

Fossils occur in a non
-
continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors.

It
is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to

contain scientifically
important

paleontological resources, and therefore evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources and provide mitigation for paleontological resources if they are discovered

during
construction

of a development project
.

Rinco
n evaluated the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the project site using the results of the paleontological locality search and a review of existing information in the scientific literature concerning known fossils within thos e geologic units. Following the literature
review, a paleontological sensitivity classification was assigned to the geologic units within the project area. The
S
VP
(
2010) has developed a system for assessing paleontological sensitivity and describes sedime
ntary rock units as having high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have bee n determined by previous
studies to be present or likely to be present. The potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units.

Environmental

Checklist

Geology
and Soils

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

53 The
region was mapped at a scale of 1:100,000 by Brabb et al. (2000). The project site is underlain by a single geologic unit, Quaternary basin deposits (Qhb) ( Figure
4 ).

Qhb consists of very fine silty
clay or clay deposited within flat
-
floored basins at the distal edges of alluvial fans (Brabb et al. 2000). Qhb is Holocene in age meaning it is likely too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological

resources (SVP 2010) and is assigned a low paleontological sensitivity.

Most of the surrounding sediments are also Holocene in age (Quaternary floodplain deposits [Qhfp], Quaternary levee deposits [Qhl], Quaternary alluvial fan and fluvial deposits [Qhaf] ) (
Figure
4 ). At
some depth in the subsurface, these sediments will become old enough (i.e., greater than 5,000 years old) to preserve paleontological resources. Consi dering the nearest older geologic unit,
Quaternary [Pleistocene] alluvial fan and fluvial deposits [Qpaf]), is approximately 0.75 miles west of the project site at its closest, the proposed project may impact paleontological resources.

Implementation of th
e following City condition of approval
(
PL
-
196
)

would ensure that impacts are
less than significant.

Standard City of Mountain View
Conditions of Approval

The following
standard
City
of Mountain View
condition of approval (PL
-
196)
would reduce impacts
to
paleontological resources
to
a

less than significant

level
:



PL
-
196 Discovery of Paleontological Resources
.

In the event that a fossil is discovered during
construction of the project, excavations within 50
-
feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or
de
layed 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 thi s 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.

Implementation of th
is standard City of Mountain View
condition of approval (PL
-
196) would
reduce
risks associated with the
discovery of paleontological resources
.

This
condition of approval

would
apply to all phases of project construction and would reduce the potential for impacts to
unanticipated fossils present on site by providing for the recovery, identification, and curation of paleontological resources.

With
implementation of this condition of approval, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP
ACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

54 Figure
4 Geologic Map of the Project Site

Environmental

Checklist

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

55 8

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on the environment?

□

■

□

Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted
for the purpose of

reducing
the emissions of greenhouse
gases?

□

■

□

Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases

Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is th e result of numerous, cumulative
sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence which takes place in Earth’s atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation fro
m the sun hits Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface, in turn, radiates heat back towards the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re -
radiate it

in all
directions.

GHG emissions occur both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices.

GHGs produced by human activities

include carbon dioxide (CO
2 ), methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat i
n the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference
gas (CO
2 ) is used to relate the amount of heat
absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide e quivalent” (CO
2 e),
which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100 -
year GWP of
one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO
2 on a molecul
e per molecule basis (
In
tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]
2021
).
2 The United Nations IPCC expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO 2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is est imated that between the period of

2 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report

determined that methane has a GW
P of 30. However,
the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent

with the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007)
Fourth Assessment Report
. Therefore, this analysis u
tilizes a GWP of 25.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

56 1850 through 2019, that a total of 2,390
gigatons

of anthropogenic CO
2 was emitted. It is likely that
anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07

degrees Celsius between the

years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021).

Furthermore, since the late
1700s, estimated concentrations of CO
2 , methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have
increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human acti
vity (
United States Environmental Protection Agency 2021
b
). Emissions resulting from human
activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Potential climate change impacts in California may include loss of
snowpack
, sea l
evel rise, more extreme heat days
per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years ( State of California
2018
).

Regulatory Framework

In response to climate change, California implemented Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the “California Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 required the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 emissions levels (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) by 2020 and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum

technologically feasible and cost
-
effective GHG emissions reductions. On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed Senate Bill 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the ot
her provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target.

The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regul ations,
such as the Cap
-
and
-
Trade Program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 (aimed at reducing short -
lived climate
pollutants including methane, hydrofluorocarbon gases, and a nthropogenic black carbon) and SB
100 (discussed further below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update,

the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project
-
level thresholds
for land use development. Instead, it recommends local governments adopt policies and locally
appropriate

quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six metric ton s
(MT) of CO
2 e by 2030 and two MT of CO
2 e by 2050 (
CARB 2017
).

Other relevant state laws and regulations include:



SB 375
.

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach

AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop
regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. Metropolitan Planning Organizations are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS
), which allocat
es land uses in the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035.

The Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABA
G) was assigned targets of a 10 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles from 2005 levels by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles from 2005 levels by 2035. ABAG adopted the 2050 Me
tropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (ABAG MTP/SCS) in October 2021, which meets the requirements of SB 375.



SB 100
.

Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by acc
elerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. SB 100 Environmental

Checklist

Greenhouse
Gas Emissions

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

57 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.



Ca
lifornia Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24) .

The California
Building Standards Code
consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior a coustics, energy
efficiency, and handicap accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The current iteration is the 2019 Title 24 standards. Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which establishes energy
-
efficiency standa
rds for residential and non
-
residential
buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. Part 12 is the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground
-
up new
construction of residential and non
-
residential structures.

Methodology

GHG emissions associated with project construction and operation were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0, with the assumptions described under Section 3,

Air Quality
, in addition to the
following:



Operational
–

Solid W
aste.

According to a CalRecycle report to the Legislature, as of 2013 California had achieved a statewide 50 percent diversion of solid waste from land ﬁlls through
“reduce/recycle/compost”
programs (CalRecycle 2015). However, AB 341 sets a statewide goal that 7
5 percent of the solid waste generated be reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. The City of Mountain View has achieved a land
ﬁll

diversion
rate of 78 percent (
City of Mountain
View 2022
b
); therefore, to account for the continuing actions of recycling re quirements under
state law (i.e., AB 341), an additional 25 percent solid waste diversion rate was included in CalEEMod
.



Operational
–

En
ergy.

The proposed project would include photovoltaic panels to capture solar energy, which would reduce greenhouse gas

emissions.



Mitigation
–

Water Mitigati
on.

CalEEMod does not incorporate water

use reduc
ti
ons achieved
by CALGreen (Part 11 of Title 24). New development would be subject to CALGreen, which requires a 20 percent increase in indoor water use e
ﬃciency and u
se of indoor water
-
e
ﬃcient
irriga
ti
on systems. Thus, in order to account for compliance with CALGreen, a 20 percent reduc
ti
on in indoor water use and the use of water
-
e
ﬃcient irriga
ti
on systems were included in
the water consumption calculations for new de
velopment.

Significance Thresholds

Individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to influence climate change directly.

However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to significant cumulative effects, even if ind
ividual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means the incremental eff ects of
an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), projects

can tier from a qualified GHG reduction
plan, which allows for project
-
level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan.

This approach is consi
dered by the Association of Environmental Professionals (2016) in its white City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

58 paper,
Beyond Newhall and 2020
, to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions.

The
2022
BAAQMD

CEQA T
hresholds for Evaluating

the Significance of Climate Impacts

From Land
Use Projects

and Plans

guidance document
contain
s

two
approaches
for determining significance of
GHGs

(BAAQMD 2022)
. The two approaches are as follows:

Projects must include, at a
minimum, the following project design elements:



Buildings



The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in bot h
residential and nonresidential development).



The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unneces sary energy usage as

determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b)

of the State CEQA Guidelines.



Transportation



Achieve a reduction in project
-
generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average con
sistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan

(currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the

recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technica l

Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:



Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita



Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee



Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT



Achieve compliance
with off
-
street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopte
d
version of CALGreen Tier 2.

2. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State

CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

According to t
he BAAQMD
CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans
, a qualified GHG reduction strategy
must:



Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified period, resulting from activities in a defined geographic area



Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable



Identify and analyze the GHG emissions result
ing from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated in the geographic area



Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project
-
by
-
project basis, would coll
ectively achieve
the specified emissions level



Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels



Be adopted in a public process following environmental rev iew

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Initial Study – Negative Declaration 59
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
To determine if a project’s GHG emissions are significant under CEQA, BAAQMD recommends completing a “fair share” analysis to determine how a new land use development project should be “designed and built to ensure it will be consistent with the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045” (BAAQMD 2022). The BAAQMD has only recommended thresholds for evaluating a project’s operational emissions because “GHG emissions from construction represent a very small portion of a project’s lifetime GHG emissions” (BAAQMD 2022). In order for a project’s GHG emissions to be determined less than significant, a project must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) or incorporate the following project design elements (BAAQMD 2022):
 Not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing;  Not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under PRC Section 21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b);  Achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018); and  Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of California Green Building Standards Code Tier 2.

The proposed project would not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. As discussed in Section 6, Energy, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under PRC Section 21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b).

The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory provides guidance on how lead agencies may screen out VMT impacts for select project types using project size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing. The proposed project would consist of 100 percent affordable housing, and would thus be screened out regarding VMT impacts.

Following the screening guidance within the OPR Technical Advisory is appropriate and consistent with BAAQMD’s VMT threshold of significance. Therefore, the proposed project would meet BAAQMD’s VMT reduction threshold. The most recently adopted version of the California Green Building Code Standards specifies Tier 2 electric vehicle requirements to be twenty percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site. The proposed project would provide 45 total parking spaces, including 9 electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS), which is approximately 20 percent of the total number of parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of California Green Building Standards Code Tier 2. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

60 b.

Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Several plans and policies have been
adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the
Bay Area
region,
including the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan

and
ABAG’s 2050

RTP/SCS
.

The proposed project’s
consistency with these plans is discussed in the following subsections. As discussed therein, the proposed project would not conflict with plans and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions , and
impacts would be less than significant.

2017 Scoping Plan

The principal state plans and policies are AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 200
6, and the subsequent legislation, SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Pursuant to the SB 32 goal, the 2017 Scopin g Plan was created to outline
goals and measures for the state to achieve the reductions. The 2017 Scoping Plan’s strategies that are applicable to the proposed project include reducing fossil fuel use, energy demand, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT); maxi
mizing recycling and diversion from landfills; and increasing water conservation. The project would be consistent with these goals through project design, which includes complying with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards. The
proposed
project would be served by
PG&E,

which is required to increase its
renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets.

The project

site

is 0.5 mile from
the Caltrain Mountain View Station, 700 feet from
a
Santa Clara Val
ley Transportation Authority
Local Route 40 stop
, approximately

0.47 mile
from
a
Mountain View Transportation Management
Association
Shuttle Route B stop, and

0.36 mile
from a Mountain View Community Shuttle stop
(Appendix H). Thus, t
he
proposed
project wo
uld be located in an area well
-
served by transit and
within walking and biking distance of several commercial and recreational destinations, which would reduce future residents’ VMT and
associated fossil fuel usage. Therefore, the project would be consiste
nt with the 2017 Scoping Plan.

City of
Mountain View

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program

According to
CEQA Guidelines

Section 15183.5
, projects can tier
off of

a qualified GHG reduction
plan, which allows for project
-
level evaluation of GHG emissions through
the comparison of the
project’s consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan.

This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) in their white paper,
Beyond Newhall and 2020
, to be

the most defensible approach presently available under
CEQA to determine the significance of a project’s GHG emissions ( AEP
2016).

However, although t
he
City’s C
P
R and GGRP
provide emission reduction
measures and interim targets for the years through
2050, they do
not include
goals or
emission reduction
measures

to meet
the State’s
SB 32 target
by

2030.

The GGRP details plans to achieve a 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2030,
which is not consistent with SB 32’s 2030 reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Therefore,
the GGRP is not relied on to make significance determinations.

However, the project’s
general consistency with the GGRP will remain part of the analysis.

The City of
Mountain View’s 2012 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program

(GGRP)
includes
strategies

that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions regarding energy, waste, water, transportation, and carbon sequestration.

Table

14 summarizes the project’s consistency with applicable GGRP

measures. As
summarized therein, the project would be consistent with the applicable measures of the City’s GGRP
.

Environmental

Checklist

Greenho
use Gas Emissions

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

61 Table

14 Strategy

Consistency for GHG Emissions

Policy

Consistency

Measure E
-

1.8 : Building Shade
Trees in Residential

Development

Consistent.

The proposed project would
include the
plant
ing
of

4 8

new

trees.

The proposed quantity of trees and tree canopy coverage is designed to meet the City of Mountain View’s requirements. Street trees would be introduced to Montecito Avenue in a planting strip along
the

sidewalk.

Measure E
-

2.3:

Residential Solar
Pho
tovoltaic Systems

Consistent
.

Photovoltaic panels would be installed on approximately 3,190 square feet of the proposed building’s rooftop.

Measure T
-

1.1 : Transportation
Demand Management

Consistent.

The proposed project would involve
construction of high
-
density
residential housing within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop

(Caltrain Mountain
View Station)
, which would reduce overall trip generation from the proposed project.

Measure CS
-

1.1:

Enhance the Urban
Forest

Consistent.

The proposed project would
include the
planting of
4 8

new trees
.

sidewalk.

Source:

City of Mountain View

2012
c

Plan Bay Area 20
5 0

SB 375, signed in August 2008, requires the inclusion of Sustainable Communities’ Strategies in Regional Transportation Plans to reduce GHG emissions. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted a S ustainable
Communities’ Strategies that meets the GHG reduction targets set forth by CARB. Plan Bay Area 2050 is a state
-
mandated, integrated long
-
range transportation, land
-
use, and housing plan that
supports a growing economy, provides more housing and t ransportation
choices,

and reduces
transportation
-
related pollution in the nine
-
county San Francisco Bay Area (ABAG 2020). Plan Bay
Area 2050 builds on earlier efforts to develop an efficient transportation network and grow in a financially and environment
ally responsible way. Plan Bay Area 2050 will be updated every four years to reflect new priorities. The goals of Plan Bay Area 2050 related to GHG emissions include (ABAG 2020):

Climate Protection.

Reduce per capita CO
2 emissions.

Healthy and Safe
Communities.

Reduce adverse health impacts.

Open Space and Agricultural Preservation.

Direct development within urban footprint.

Transportation.

Increase non
-
auto mode share.

The proposed project would redevelop an existing commercial site within urbanize d Mountain View
with new residential use. The project site is located within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop

and would
include

bicycle storage. These features would facilitate the use of non -
auto transportation modes,
while reducing adverse health impacts

and CO
2 emissions associated with gasoline
-
powered
vehicles. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

62 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental

Checklist

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

63 9

Hazar
ds and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the
routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?

□

■

□

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?

□

■

□

Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of
an existing or proposed school?

□

■

□

Be located on a site that is included on a
list of
hazardous material 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?

□

■

□

For a project located in 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 result in a safety hazard
or
excessive noise
for people residing or
working in the p
roject area?

□

■

Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?

□

■

Expose people or structures
, either
directly or indirectly,

to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?

□

■

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

64 Setting

A
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

(ESA)
was prepared by
AEI Consultants

in
June 2021

(Appendix
E
). The purpose of this report
was to identify
hazardous substances or petroleum
products and their use, storage, and disposal at and in the vicinity of the subject property. This report includes a review of hazardous material databases, property and surrou nding site
reconnaissance, and a review of historical sources to ascertain previous land uses at the site and surrounding area.

Previous Land Use

Previous land uses for the project site include agriculture (1939 -
1956), vacant graded land (1963
-
1978), and office use (1978
-
present) (Appendix
E
). Given the project site was historically used for
agricultural purposes, there is a potential that agricultu ral chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides,
and fertilizers, were used on
-
site. However, the entire area of the project site is either paved over, or covered by improvements that make direct
contact

with potential remaining concentrations in
the soil un
likely. Additionally, as the project site is developed and used for commercial purposes, no further action related to former agricultural use is warranted at this time (Appendix E
).

The Phase I
ESA did not identify potential environmental concerns in assoc iation with the historical use of the
project site (Appendix
E
).

Hazardous Waste Contamination

The Phase I ESA did not identify evidence of recognized environmental conditions, controlled recognized environmental conditions, or historical recognized environmental conditions at the project site (Appendix
E
). Evidence indicated current or prior use or

storage of hazardous substances
was not on file for the project site, according to the Mountain View Building Department (Appendix E
). However, due to the age of the existing
structure
on
-
site, there is a potential that asbestos
-
containing materials (ACMs
) or lead
-
based paints (LBPs)
are present.

Impact Analysis

Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Would the project 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?

Construction Activities

The proposed project would involve the construction of
residence
s
, a paved circulation and parking
area, and landscaping. Construction activities may include the temporary transport, storage, use, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials including fuels, lubricating fluids, cleaners, solvents, or contaminated soi
ls. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to environmental and human health. However, the transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, use, stora ge, and disposal of
hazardous materials, which would assure that associated risks are minimized.

Environmental

Check
list

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

65 D
ue to the age of the existing
structure
on
-
site, the potential for ACMs and LBPs are present.

Implementation of the following condition of approval would red uce potential impacts associated
with encountering ACMs and LBPs during project construction.

Standard City of Mountain View
Conditions of Approval

The following
standard City of Mountain View
condition of approval
(
PL
-
39, PL
-
49, PL
-
50, and
PL
-
191
)
would
reduce impacts
associated with hazardous materials
.



PL
-
39 Remediation.

The applicant shall work with City staff, the necessary oversight agency (e.g., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Region
al Water Quality Control Board, County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, etc.), and responsible parties, if necessary, to address any site remediation or building design/construction requirements to ensure appropriate on -
site
improvements
in accordance with the oversight agency standard practice; local, State, and Federal regulations; and City Code requirements. Design of remediation equipment, equipment placement, or remediation activities will need to be reviewed and may require approval by all
parties. Prior to the issuance of any building or fire permits, the applicant shall either: (a) submit written proof of an approval from the oversight agency of remediation activity and/or building and site design as deemed consistent with the remed
iation activity; or (b) provide written proof
the work is not subject to approval from an oversight agency. A Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until final inspections have been completed by the City and the oversight agency, if required.



PL
-
49 Tox
ic Assessment.

A toxic assessment report shall be prepared and submitted as part of the building permit submittal. The applicant must demonstrate that hazardous materials do not exist on the site or that construction activities and the proposed use of this

site are 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 u ntil each agency and/or department
with jurisdiction has released the site as clean or a site toxics mitigation plan has been approved.



PL
-
50 Soil Management Plan.

Prepare a soil management plan for review and approval by the Santa Clara County Department
of Environmental Health (SCCDEH). Proof of approval or actions for site work required by the SCCDEH must be provided to the Building Inspection Division prior to issuance of any demolition or building permits.



PL
-
191 Hazardous Materials
Contamination
.

To reduce the potential for construction workers
and

adjacent uses to encounter hazardous materials contamination from asbestos -
containing
materials (ACM)

and lead
-
based paint, the following measures are to be included in the project:

In con
formance with local, State, and Federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead -
based

paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs

and/or lead
-
based paint on the structures proposed for demolition. The surveys
shall be completed

prior to demolition work beginning on the structures.

A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially

friable ACMs, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Haz
ardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) guidelines, prior to building demolition that may disturb the materials. All construction

activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the

California Code of Regulations (CCR),

Section 1529, to
City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

66 protect workers from exposure to asbestos.

Materials containing more than 1% asbestos
are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management

District (BAAQMD) regulations
.

During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead -
based paint shall be
removed in

accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee

training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead
-
based paint or

coatings shall be dispose
d of at landfills that meet
acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed
.

Implementation of th
is standard City of Mountain View

condition of approval (PL
-
19 1
) would ensure
that the proposed project would not
lead to a significant impact involving hazar
dous materials
.

With
implementation of this condition of approval, impacts would be less than significant .

Project
Operation

The proposed project would involve construction of
new residences
. Residential uses typically do
not use or store large
quantities of hazardous materials, other than those used for household cleaning, maintenance, and landscaping. Therefore, the potential for significant impacts to public or environmental health through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous m aterials, or
accidental release of hazardous materials, would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile o
f an existing or proposed school?

The project site is located approximately
1,213

feet (0.
23 miles)
eas
t of
Stevenson

Elementary
School
, and 350 feet (<0.1 mile) northwest of the Wonder Years Preschool . As described under
a
.
and
b
.

above
,
construction activities may involve the use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials
.

However, the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with construction are subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulation s to minimize the release of
hazardous materials

or hazardous emissions

into the environment.

Operation of the proposed
residential use would not involve the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes other than those typically used for househo
ld cleaning, maintenance, and landscaping. Therefore, through adherence to applicable regulations,
hazardous material impacts to schools

would be less than
significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project be located on a site

that is

includ
ed on a list of hazardous material 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?

California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires various state agencie s to compile lists of
hazardous waste disposal facilities, unauthorized release s

from underground storage tanks,
contaminated drinking water wells, and solid waste facilities from which there is known migration of hazardous waste, and submit such informati
on to the Secretary for Environmental Protection at
least annually.

There are no leaking underground storage tank
(LUST) sites within 0.25 mile of the project site
pursuant to

Section 65962.5(c)(1), no sites in Santa Clara County listed pursuant to

Section
65962.5(c)(2), and no active CDO or CAO sites within 0.25 mile of the project site pursuant to

Environmental

Checklist

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

67 Section 65962.5(c)(3) (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA] 2021a). Additionally, there are no sites listed per Section 65962.5(a) that ar e within 0.25 mile of the project site (CalEPA
2021b). Given that the project site is not listed on the hazardous material site databases compiled pursuant to Government

Code 65962.5
, there would be no impacts involving significant hazards to the environme
nt or public.

According to the Phase
I

ESA
,
there is no evidence of the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products, or a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products, in, on, or at the project site (Appendix
E
).

The Phase
I

ESA

re
commended no further investigation for the project

site
;
thus
,

impacts involving a significant hazard to the public or the environment would be less than
significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

For a project located within a
n 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 result in a safety hazard

or excessive noise

for people residing or working in the project area?

The nearest airport to the project si
te is the Moffett Federal Airfield, located approximately 1.6 miles northeast.

The project
site is
not
located within the Moffett Federal Airfield Influence Area, and

is outside of existing noise level contours
, the Runway Protection Zone, Inner Safety Zone,
Outer Safety Zone, Turning Safety Zone, and Sideline Safety Zone for the airport (Santa Clara County
Airport Land Use Commission 2012).

The maximum height of
the proposed building

(60

feet) is
below the mini
mum elevation established by Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, for required filing with the Federal Aviation Administration for airspace safety review, which is 200 feet above ground level. As discussed in Section 13,
Noise
, noise impacts from
the Mof
fett Federal Airfield
would not be significant. Therefore,
the

proposed project would not subject persons working at the site to safety hazards, and there would be no impact from potential air traffic safety risks.

NO IMPACT

f
.

Would the project impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) Office of Emergency Services (OES) is responsible for disaster

response or other large
-
scale emergencie
s in the City of Mountain View
.

Emergency
response is governed by the OES Emergency Plan; according to the Emergency Plan, the commuter train, U.S. 101, Central Expressway, State Highway 85, and State Highway 237 could be used as evacuation routes

(
City of

Mountain View 2012b

). The project site is not directly adjacent to any of
the above
-
mentioned evacuation routes, and the
proposed project does not include roadway
alterations or barriers to the above routes that might impede or inhibit emergency response

or
evacuation.

Therefore, there would be no impact to adopted emergency response or evacuation plans.

NO IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

68 g
.

Would the project

expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires
?

The project site is located in an urbanized area that is surrounded by residential and commercial uses.

There are no adja
cent wildlands or densely vegetated areas located in the project site vicinity that would represent a significant fire hazard.

The project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone for wildland fires (California Department of Forestry and Fire Pro tection [CalF
IRE
] 2007)
, and
the nearest Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located 4.7 miles south, in the Rancho San Antonio Open Space. Thus, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wi
ldland fires, and there would be no impact.

NO IMPACT

E
nvironmental

Checklist

Hydrology and Water Quality

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

69 10

Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Violate any water
quality standards or
waste discharge requirements

or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality
?

□

■

□

Substantially

decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin
?

□

■

□

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:

(i)

Result in substantial erosion or
siltation

on
-

or off
-
site;

□

■

□

(ii)

Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on
-

or
off
-
site;

□

■

□

(iii)

Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage syst
ems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or

□

■

□

(i
v
)

Impede or redirect flood flows?

□

■

□

In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?

□

■

□

Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?

□

■

□

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

70 Setting

The project site is approximately 1.
04 acres and generally flat
, and

is mostly covered with
impervious surfaces (paving and an existing structure)
.

The

site drains to

an existing storm drain
system on
Montecito
Avenue.

The project site is approximately

3.3 miles south of the San Francisco
Bay, 0.5 mile west of Stevens Cree
k, and 0.8 mile southeast of Permanente Creek.

Both creeks flow
to the north and terminate in the San Francisco Bay.

Regulatory Setting

Clean Water Act

Congress enacted the CWA, formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, with the intent of
restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the U.S. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and non
-
point source discha
rges to surface water. The
NPDES permit process regulates those discharges (CWA Section 402). NPDES permitting authority is administered by the SWRCB and its nine RWQCBs. The project site is in a watershed administered by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (San F
rancisco Bay RWQCB 2017).

California Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1967 requires the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs to adopt water quality criteria to protect State waters. These criteria include the id entification of
beneficial uses, narrative and numerical water quality standards, and implementation procedures.

The criteria for state waters in the region are contained in the Water Quality Objectives

Chapter of
the Basin Plan for the San Francisco Bay R
WQCB (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2017). The Water
Quality Control Plan, or Basin Plan, protects designated beneficial uses of State waters through the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements and through the development of total maximum daily loads. Anyone pr
oposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the State must make a report of the waste discharge to the RWQCB or SWRCB, as appropriate, in compliance with Porter
-
Cologne.

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Pro gram

The City of Mountain View is a contributing city to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), which was established in 1990 in response to federal stormwater NPDES regulations. Pursuant to the SCVURPPP Stormwater C.3

Handbook (SCVURPPP 2016),
projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface must comply with Provision C.3, which requires “appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and re
development projects to address stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows.” The proposed project would be subject to this provision and would be required to implement appropriate measures.

Municipal Regional Permit Provi
sion 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 count ies, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City,
and Vallejo. 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, Environmental

Checklist

Hydrology and Water Quality

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

71 source control, a
nd 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 infiltr ation 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 con
trols, 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 ca
use increased erosion, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to local rivers, streams, and creeks. Projects may be deemed exempt from these requirements if they do not meet the minimized size threshold, drain into tidally influenced areas or directly

into the Bay, or drain into
hardened channels, or if they are infill projects in subwatersheds or catchment areas that are greater than or equal to 65 percent impervious.

The project would be required to comply with all requirements in the Municipal Regi onal Permit.

This permit is currently being reissued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and has an anticipated effective date of July 2022.

City of Mountain View Municipal Code

Section 8.20.36

Stormwater Sediment and Erosion Control Plan.

Subsection 5.106.1 of the 2019
California Green Building Standards Code is amended to read as follows:

for
newly constructed projects of less than one (1) acre, develop and implement a
stormwater

sediment and erosion control plan that has been designed specific to its site. The stormwater

sediment and erosion control plan shall be
developed to provide equi
valent protection to projects regulated by the state
stormwater NPDES construction permit (greater than one (1) acre of disturbed land), and Sec. 35.32.10.1(T) in accordance with the Mountain View city code.

The

stormwater pollutant control measures that s
hall be included in the plan
are erosion control, run
-
on and runoff control, sediment control, advanced
treatment (as appropriate), good site management and non -
stormwater
management through all phases of construction until it is fully stabilized by landsc
aping or the installation of permanent erosion control measures.

Section 8.20.38

Postconstruction Stormwater Control Requirements.

Section 5.106.3 of the
2019 California Green Building Standards Code is added to read as follows:

Postconstruction

stormwater

controls are required for certain projects as
defined and described in Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional

Stormwater

NPDES Permit, and

Sec. 35.4

of the Mountain View city
code.

Section 35.32.3.1

Discharge to Curbside Gutter, Storm Sewer, Storm Drain,

or Natural Outlets.

It
shall be
unlawful

to discharge or cause a threatened discharge to any curbside gutter, storm

sewer, storm drain gutter, creek or natural outlet any domestic sewage, sanitary sewage, industrial wastes, polluted waters, construction w
aste, litter or refuse except where permission is granted by the fire chief.

Unlawful discharges to storm

drains shall include, but are not limited to,
discharges from: toilets, sinks, commercial or industrial processes, cooling systems, air compressors, b
oilers, fabric or carpet cleaning, equipment
City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residentia
l Project

72 cleaning, vehicle cleaning, swimming pools, spas, fountains, construction activities (e.g., painting, paving, concrete placement, saw cutting, grading), painting and paint stripping, unless specifically permitte d by a discharge permit
or unless exempted pursuant to regulations established by the fire chief.

Additionally, it shall be unlawful to discharge any pollutants or waters containing pollutants that would contribute to violations of the city’s stormwater di
scharge permit or applicable water quality standards.

Section 36.34.30

Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations.

The water

conservation in
landscaping regulations supplement the requirements of this article by providing detailed requirements for lands
caping and irrigation systems for
select new and rehabilitated landscape areas and are incorporated herein by reference. These regulations further the city’s current water conservation efforts, reduce future water

demands and comply with state water
conser
vation requirements. New and/or rehabilitated landscaping shall comply with the provisions of the water conservation in landscaping regulations.

Impact Analysis

Would the project

violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or
oth
erwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality ?

c.(i)

or
off
-
site?

Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

Construction Impacts

Project construction would involve demolition of the existing on -
site structure

and paving
, ground
-
disturbing activities,
tree removal
and use of heavy construction equipment.

During grading
activities, soils
on the project site
would
be exposed to wind and water erosion that could transport sediments into local stormwater
drains
. Additionally, accidental spills of fluids or fuels from construction vehicles and equipment, or miscellaneous construction materials and debris, could be mobi
lized and transported off
-
site in overland flow.

These contaminant sources could degrade the
water quality of receiving water bodies, such as nearby San Francisco Bay, potentially resulting in a violation of water quality standards.

As part of Section 402

of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established
regulations under the NPDES program to control both construction and operation stormwater discharges.

In the Bay Area, the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing permitting requirements.

The proposed project would be subject to the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP)

–

NPDES Permit Order No
. R2
-
2015
-
0049, and all
provisions set forth in Section C.3,
New Development and Redevelopment
.

Under the conditions of the permitting program, the applicant would be required to eliminate or reduce non
-
stormwater discharges into storm drain systems and w
atercourses

and

adhere to

BMPs
for stormwater management

during project construction

(RWQCB 2015)
.

The proposed project
Environmental

Checklist

Hydrology and Water Quality

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

73 would not disturb at least one acre of land,
so the project would not be required to obtain
a General
Permit for Discharges of Storm Wat
er Associated with Construction Activity (
2009
-
0009
-
DWQ
General Permit).

However, the proposed project would be required to develop a site -
specific
stormwater sediment and erosion control plan under MVMC Section 8.20.36, as it consists of a newly construct
ed project that is less than one acre.

Stormwater pollutant control measures
that
should be incorporated in this plan include erosion control, run -
on and runoff control, sediment
control, advanced treatment as appropriate, site management, and non -
stormwat
er management
through all construction phases.

Therefore, with compliance of
MRP Order No. R2
-
2015
-
0049

requirements

and MVMC Section

8.20.36 , construction of the proposed project would not violate water quality standards, substantially alter the drainage

pattern of the area such that substantial erosion or siltation would occur, or degrade water quality. Impacts
during project construction would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts

Large areas of impervious surfaces can result in a
greater potential for introduction

of pollutants to
receiving waters. Urban runoff can carry a variety of pollutants, including oil and grease, metals, sediment, and pesticide residues from roadways, parking lots, rooftops, and landscaped areas, eventually

depositing them into adjacent waterways via the storm drain system.

The proposed
project would
decrease

the area of impervious surfaces on the project site
from 33,160
square feet

to 30,620 square feet
.

MRP Order No. R2
-
2015
-
0049 permits stormwater disch
arges from municipal separate sewer
systems (MS4s), pursuant to NPDES regulations (RWQCB 2015).

Section C.3 of the MRP
, New
Development and Redevelopment
, addresses
post
-
construction stormwater requirements for new
development projects that add and/or repl
ace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious area. As the proposed project would replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious area within the project site, it must comply with the provisions by the RWQCB in Section C.3.

Thus, the proposed
project m
ust implement source control requirements to minimize stormwater pollutants in urban runoff, site design and stormwater treatment requirements that limit disturbance of natural water bodies and drainage systems and minimize impacts from stormwater and urba n runoff on the
biological integrity of water bodies, a
nd sizing criteria for stormwater treatment systems (RWQCB 2015).

Water quality in stormwater runoff is regulated locally by the

SCVURPPP
, which provides guidance
for development projects to meet C.3.

requirements set by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The

SCVURPPP
C.3. Stormwater Handbook issues recommendations for low -
impact development (LID)
techniques so developers may choose appropriate post
-
construction stormwater control measures
for projects (SCVU
RPPP 2021).

Additionally, the proposed project

would

include

a Stormwater Management Plan that
conforms
with MRP Order No. R2
-
2015
-
0049. The proposed
project’s Stormwater Management Plan
designed

mitigation to be achieved via flow
-
based methods, based on
the C.3. Stormwater Handbook
.

In
accordance with the C.3 requirements, the project
would be

designed to direct runoff from roofs
and sidewalks into vegetated areas and would include
740

square
-
feet of landscaped bioretention
areas to treat runoff before en
tering the stormwater system.

Furthermore, the Stormwater
Management Plan includes routine maintenance activities for the planned bioretention areas.

By adhering to the provisions of NPDES

Permit No. R2
-
2015
-
0049, Section C.3,
and the Stormwater

Management Plan, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on water quality or in City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

74 the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction or opera
tion.

The proposed
project would also not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. With implementation of measures contained in Permit No. R2
-
2015
-
0049 and the Stormwater Managemen
t Plan, excessive
stormwater runoff, substantial on
-
site or off
-
site erosion, and siltation would not occur; the
potential for the project to violate water quality standards or substantially degrade water quality would be reduced, and impacts would be less

than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project substantially
decrease

groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?

The proposed project would receive its water from the City of Mountain View. Mountain View receives

the majority of its drinking water from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System, operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) (City of Mountain View

2021
a
).

Additional water supplies are provided by Valley Water a nd local groundwater wells.

In 2020, the City of Mountain View’s water supply production was 84 percent SFPUC, 10 percent Valley Water, 2 percent groundwater, and 4 percent recycled water (City of Mountain View 2021 a
).

The City’s Urban Water Management Pl
an states that groundwater supplies are projected to be fully available during all year types through 2045 (City of Mountain View, 2021). As the City of Mountain View only relies on groundwater for a small percentage of its annual water supply, the propose d
project would not increase groundwater usage such that a net deficit in aquifer volume would occur.

Development under the proposed project does not include installation of new groundwater wells or use of groundwater from existing
wells. The proposed pro
ject would
decrease

the amount of
impervious area on the project site to a total of
30,620
squar
e feet,

and

the construction of
stormwater management bioretention areas would allow stormwater runoff from the project site to infiltrate into the ground
;
thus
, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge of water supply aquifers. The proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project impede
s sustainable groundwater management of the basin, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Hydrology and Water Quality

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

75 c.(ii)

Would the project

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

substantially increase the rate or amount of

surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -

or off
-
site
?

c.(iii)

Would the project 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 that would
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?

c.(iv)

The proje
ct site is not adjacent to streams or rivers.

Stevens Creek, located 0.6 mile east of the
project site, is the nearest watercourse to the site and does not flow through the site. Construction of the proposed project would not alter the course of this creek , or other streams or rivers, as no
other surface water features are identified in the project area.

Project runoff would be directed
towards bioretention areas and would not be directed to the banks of a stream or river; thus, the project would not substa
ntially increase the rate or amount of runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on
-

or off
-
site.

The proposed project would include three
interconnected bioretention basins on the northern side of the pro
ject site to treat roof, sidewalk, and
pati
o

runoff.

According to the Stormwater
Management Plan (Carroll Engineering, Inc. 2021; Appendix F
), the proposed project would involve
an impervious area of 30,620

square feet. In accordance with Santa Clara County C.3 requirements (see discussion above un
der questions
(a, c.[i],
and
e
), th
e proposed project would be required to
provide 1,095 square feet of
stormwater
treatment area. The proposed project
would provide 1,906
square feet of treatment area through

interconnected bioretention basins

and would b
e

consistent
with the County C.3 requirements.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase stormwater discharge, substantially alter drainage patterns on -
site or in the surrounding area, or
exceed the capacity of existing or planned st
ormwater drainage systems. Impacts would be less than
significant.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for the preparation of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that present flood hazard. Flood hazard is expressed as areas that ar e
subject to inundation in a storm with either a 1 percent Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP), also referred to as 100
-
year
-
flood, or a 0.2 percent AEP (500
-
year
-
flood). The project site is located
entirely within FEMA Flood Zone X, which is defined as an

area
outside the 0.2 percent AEP, and
protected by levees from the 1 percent AEP (FIRM Community Panel No.#06085C0039H, effective May 18, 2009
; FEMA 20
09 ). As the project site is not located within a FEMA
-
designated flood zone,
impacts concerning flood hazards would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue
Residential Project

76 d.

flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
would the project
risk release of poll
utants due to
project inundation?

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is located in Flood Zone X, which is considered an area of minimal flood hazard and is outside of FEMA designated flood zones (FEMA 2009).

As me
ntioned above, the project site is located in an area of reduced flood risk from 1 percent AEP flood events
and outside the 0.2 percent AEP flood events.

The nearest large body of water to the project site is the San Francisco Bay, which is approximately 3 .3 miles north of the project site.

The nearest enclosed body of water is the
Los Altos Hills
Reservoir, approximately 4.2 miles southwest of the project site.

As the project site is three miles
inland from the San Francisco Bay,
and not near an enclosed b
ody of water,
the project site would
not risk release of pollutants due to inundation by tsunami or seiche.

Thus, the project would not
risk release of pollutants due to inundation by flooding, tsunamis, or seiches, and impacts would be less than significa
nt.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Land Use and Planning

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

77 11

Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Physically divide an established
community?

□

■

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?

□

■

□

Setting

As stated in the
Project
Description
, the project site currently has a land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial in the City’s General Plan

and is

zoned Commercial
-
Neighborhood. The
proposed project would require a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation to

High
-
Density Residential, and
a rezone to change
the zoning to

High

Density

Multiple
-
Family

(R4)
.

Regulatory Setting

Mountain View 2030 General Plan

High
-
Density Residential Definition:

The High
-
Density Residential land use designation
allows for
multi
-
family residential uses, parks, and open space. Allowable density on the project site

under the
proposed new designation

would be
36 -
80 dwelling units per acre
.

Mountain View Municipal Cod
e

Pursuant to

MVMC Section 36.

12. 10
, the R4 District “is
intended for multiple
-
family housing,
including apartments, condominium development, rowhouse development, townhouse development, small
-
lot, single
-
family
development,

and similar and related compat
ible uses. The R4
zoning district is consistent with the high
-
density residential land use designation of the general plan.
” Development standards in the R4 District are summarized below.

Section 36.

12.10 High
-
Density Multiple
-
Family Zoning
District Standards

Lot Area

1 -
acre

minimum

Lot Width

160 feet minimum

FAR

1.40 maximum for projects that are equal to or under 40 units per acre;

1.95 maximum for projects between 41 and 50 units per acre; or

2.30 maximum for projects that are between 51 and
8 0 units per acre.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

78 Setbacks

Front:
15 feet minimum

Side:
10 feet minimum (1
-
2 stories); 15 feet minimum (for 3 stories or more)

Street Side: 15 feet minimum

Rear:
15 feet minimum

Height limit

Maximum bui
lding height (to ridge):
70 f
eet
; and

Maximum wall height:
60 f
eet

Open
Area
/Landscape

30 percent
of total
site
, minimum

Impact Analysis

Would the project physically divide an established community?

The proposed project would involve development of
residences
on approximately 1.04 acres of land
currently occupied by an office building. No operational or structural changes are proposed that would separate connected areas physically or socially, and no linear features, such as roads or other
barriers to movement, are proposed. The project would have no impact regarding physical division of an established community.

NO IMPACT

Would the project

cause a significant environmental impact due to a confli ct with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

The

proposed

project’s consistency with the City of
Mountain View’s

General Plan
land use
designation
and
key
Zoning Ordinance

provi
sions

is discussed below.

Mountain View 2030

General Plan

The project site currently has a land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial . As described in
the City’s General Plan, the Neighborhood Commercial designation promotes commercial activity for su
rrounding neighborhoods, and allows land uses such as retail and personal services, parks, plazas, and open space (City of Mountain View 2012
a
). The proposed project would require a land
use designation change from Neighborhood Commercial to High -
Density R
esidential. The
High
-
Density

Residential designation

is intended for multi
-
family housing, and allows land uses such as
multi
-
family residential, parks, and open space

(City of Mountain View 2012
a
)
.

The City’s General Plan identifies policies to guide lan d use patterns to strategically accommodate
future growth while preserving and enhancing the city as a whole. The proposed project’s consistency with
selected

City goals and policies is described in
Table
15 .

Environmental

Checklist

Land Use and Planning

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

79 Table
15 General Plan Consistency

General Plan Goal or Policy

Proposed Project Consistency

Policy
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.

Consistent.

The proposed project would involve
construction of high
-
density
residential housing within 0.5
mile of a major transit stop

and near
three existing bus
and shuttle stops along Shoreline Boulevard.

Policy
LUD 3.5: Diversity.

Encourage residential
developments serving a range of diverse households and
incomes.

Consistent.

The proposed project is a 100

percent

affordable multi
-
family development.

Policy
LUD 6.3: Street presence.

Encourage building
facades and frontages that create a presence at the street and along interior pedestrian paseos or
pathways.

Consistent.

The proposed project would provide
landscaping along Montecito Avenue, along with a
barbeque
patio located at the southwest corner of the
property that provides a visual terminus at the driveway.

Policy

LUD 10.6: On
-
site energy technologies.

Support on
-
site renewable energy technologies that help reduce
community energy demand.

Consistent
.

Photovoltaic panels would be installed
on
approximately 3,190 square feet of the proposed
buildings
’

rooftop
s
.

Policy

LUD 10.9: Sustainable roofs.

Encourage sustainable
roofs to reduce a building’s energy use, reduce the heat island effect of new and existing development and provide other ecological benefits.

Consistent
.

Photovoltaic panels would be installed on
ap
proximately 3,190 square feet of the proposed
buildings
’

rooftop
s
.

Policy
INC 5.5: Landscape efficiency.

Promote water
-
efficient landscaping including drought
-
tolerant and native
plants, along with efficient irrigation techniques
.

Consistent
.

Proposed landscaping would include low and
moderate water use plants. No high water use plants are included in the proposed landscaping plan.

Spray and drip
irrigation methods would be used for landscaping.

Policy
INC 8.5: Site
-
specific stormwater treatm
ent.

Require post
-
construction stormwater treatment controls
consistent with MRP requirements for both new
development and redevelopment projects.

Consistent
.

The proposed project would involve the
installation of three bioretention basins designed to trea t
stormwater runoff, consistent with MRP requirements.

Policy
INC 14.2: Solar energy.

Encourage active and
passive solar energy use

Consistent
.

Photovoltaic panels would be installed on
approximately 3,190 square feet of the proposed
building’s
rooftop.

Policy
POS 1.2: Recreation facilities in new residential
developments.

Require new development to provide park
and recreation facilities.

Consistent.

The proposed project would include garden
areas for family gathering and children’s play, a
barb
eque

patio, and a designated children’s play area.

Policy
POS 12.2: Urban tree canopy.

Increase tree canopy
coverage to expand shaded areas, enhance aesthetics and help reduce greenhouse gases.

Consistent.

The proposed project
would
include
plant
ing
of

4 8

new

trees. The proposed quantity of trees and tree
canopy coverage is designed to meet the City of Mountain View’s requirements. Street trees would be introduced to Montecito Avenue in a planting strip along a new
detached sidewalk.

Policy POS 12.4: Drought
-
tolerant landscaping.

Increase
water
-
efficient, drought
-
tolerant,

and native landscaping
where appropriate on public and private property

Consistent
.

Proposed landscaping would include low and
moderate water use plants. No high wat
er use plants are
included in the proposed landscaping plan. Spray and drip irrigation methods would be used for landscaping.

City of
Mountain View

Zoning Ordinance

The project site is
currently
zoned
as Commercial
-
Neighborhood

(CN)
. The CN district provides
convenient shopping for surrounding residential neighborhoods , and is not intended for uses that
may attract traffic from outside the local area (Mountain View Municipal Code [MVMC] Section 36 .18). The proposed project would
invo
lve

a zone change for the project site, from CN to High
-
Density Multiple
-
Family
(R4)
.

The R4 district is intended for multiple
-
family housing, including
City of Mountain View
1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

80 apartments, condominiums, and similar or related compatible uses (MVMC Section 36.10). The R4 district is consistent with the High-Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan.

The proposed R4 zoning would allow for the proposed project including potential for a density bonus. The R4 Zone allows up to 80 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), or 83.18 base units for this project, which rounds to 84 units. The project meets all other requirements of the R4 zone, including a minimum one-acre site, 160 feet lot width, and 70 feet maximum building height limit.

Additionally, the project applicant request a 1.2 percent density bonus to 81.73 du/ac to allow one additional unit beyond the 84 dwelling units allowed per the parcel size under the proposed R4 zoning (85 units total).

A ten-foot Public Utility and five-foot Wire Clearance Easement run alongside the south/rear property line, and a five-foot Public Utility Easement and five-foot Wire Clearance Easement run along the western property line. The proposed project would adhere to minimum space requirements for these easements.

Pending approval of the requested general plan land use designation change, zone change, and density bonus, the proposed project would not conflict with the City of Mountain View’s General Plan or zoning ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a significant environment impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental

Checklist

Mineral Resources

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

81 12

Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of
value to
the region and the residents of the state?

□

■

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?

□

■

Setting

According to mapping completed by the State of California for suitability of use as construction materials, it was determined that no minerals or aggregate resources of statewide importance are located within Mountain View (California Department of

Conservation 1996). In addition, there are
no natural gas, oil, or geothermal resources identified in or adjacent to Mountain View.

Regulatory Setting

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975

Pursuant to the mandate of the Surface Mining and Reclamati on Act of 1975, the State Mining and
Geology Board requires all cities to incorporate into their general plans mapped mineral resources designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board.

Impact Analysis

a
.

Would the project result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b
.

Would the project 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?

The Environmental Impact Report for the City’s 2030 General Plan states that no minerals or aggregate resources of statewide importance are located within Mountain View ( City of Mountain
View 2012b
).

Thus, the project

site contains no known mineral resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

The proposed project would not result in a loss of
available minerals. The project would have no impact regarding the loss of availability of a k nown or
locally important mineral resource.

NO IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

82 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental

Checklist

Noise

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

83 13

Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project 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?

□

■

□

Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?

□

■

□

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?

□

■

Fundamentals of Noise

The unit of measurement used to describe a noise level is the decibel (dB).

However, the human ear
is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. Therefore, a method called “A weighting” is used to filter noise frequencies that are not audible to the human ear. A weighting approximates the frequency respons
e of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the “A
-
weighted” levels of those sounds. Therefore, the A
-
weighted
noise scale is used for measurements and standards involving the human perception of noise. In this analysis, all noise levels are A weighted, and “dB(A)” is understood to identify the A weighted decibel.

Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that q
uantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to
the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitudes. A 10 dB increase represents a 10 -
fold increase in
sound intensity, a 20 dB change is a 100
-
fold difference, 30 dB is a 1,000
-
fold increase, etc. Thus, a
doub
ling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; a halving of the energy would result in a 3 dB decrease.

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with acoustical energy. The perc eption of
noise is not linear in terms of dB(A) or in terms of acoustical energy. Two equivalent noise sources combined do not sound twice as loud as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

84 ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dB(A), inc
rease or decrease; that a change of 5 dB(A) is readily
perceptible; and that an increase (decrease) of 10 dB(A) sounds twice (half) as loud (Caltrans 2013).

Descriptors

The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occ urs, and the
duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors has been developed.

The noise descriptors used for this analysi
s are the one
-
hour equivalent noise level (L
eq
) and the
community noise equivalent level (CNEL).



The L
eq

is the level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period

and at a stated location, has
the same A
-
weighted sound energy as the time
-
varying sound. For example, L
eq(1h)
is the
equivalent noise level over a 1
-
hour period and L
eq(8h)

is the equivalent noise level over an 8
-
hour period. L
eq(1h)

is a common metric f
or limiting nuisance noise whereas L
eq(8h)

is a common
metric for evaluating construction noise.



The CNEL is a 24
-
hour equivalent sound level. The CNEL calculation applies an additional 5 dB(A) penalty to noise occurring during evening hours, between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and an
additional 10 dB(A) penalty is added to noise occurring during the night, between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These increases for certain times are intended to account for the added sensitivity of humans to noise during the evening

and night.

Propagation

Sound from a small, localized source (approximating a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern, known as geometric spreading. The sound level decreases or drops off at a r
ate of 6 dB(A) for each doubling of the distance.

Traffic noise is not a single, stationary point source of sound. Over some time interval, the movement of vehicles makes the source of the sound appear to emanate from a line (line source) rather than a po
int. The drop
-
off rate for a line source is 3 dB(A) for each doubling of distance.

Vibration

Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to
adjacent structures. The

number of cycles per second of
oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of Hz. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt by th
e human body starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz and goes to a high of about 200 Hz (Crocker 2007).

While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low
-
frequency vibration. Vib
ration in buildings
, such as from nearby construction
activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low
-
frequency rumbling noise, referred to as
groun
dborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hz), or when foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the
vibration source (FTA 2018). Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from Envir
onmental

Checklist

Noise

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

85 vibration is that it can be intrusive and an
noying to building occupants and vibration
-
sensitive land
uses.

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or RMS vibration velocity.

The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second. PPV is defined as the
maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 20
20 ).

The City does not have quan
titative vibration limits. Therefore, vibration limits used in this analysis to determine construction impacts are based on information contained in Caltrans’ Transportation
and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual

and the Federal Transit Administration
(FTA)
Transit
Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual

(Caltrans 2020; FTA 2018).

Per these documents,
t
he vibration limits used for residential structure damage is 0.2 in/sec

PPV

and

for distinctly
perceptible human annoyance

0.24 in/sec PPV
.

Regu
latory Setting

The goals and policies contained in the
Mountain View 2030 General Plan

Noise Element focus on
minimizing human exposure to excessive noise by evaluating noise exposure risks and incorporating appropriate mitigation measures. In support of these goals, the General Plan contains a table of exterior noise compatibility standard
s for various land uses (shown in
Table
16 ) to determine
potential noise exposure impacts, noise compatibility thresholds and the need for mitigation.

According to t
he City’s noise standards showing in
Table
16 , the highest level of exterior noise
exposure regarded as “normally acceptable” for multi
-
family residences is 60 DNL. DN
L, or Day
Night Average, is an average 24
-
hour noise measurement that factors day and night noise levels.

Additionally, consistent with State noise insulation standards (California Building Code Title 24), the City’s General Plan policy NOI 1.2,
Noise
-
sen
sitive land uses
, states the maximum acceptable interior
noise level for all new residential units is 45 DNL. (City of Mountain View 2012 a
). This policy also
specifies the maximum acceptable exterior noise level for multi -
family private or community
outdoo
r recreation use areas is 65 DNL; this standard does not apply to private decks or balconies in multi
-
family residential developments.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

86 Table
16 City of
Mountain View

Outdoor Noise Environment Guidelines

Land Use Type

Highest
Level of Exterior Noise Exposure that is
Regarded as “Normally Acceptable”
1 (DNL or CNEL)

Residentia
l
—
S
ingle
-
Family, Duplex, Mobile Home
s

55 Residential
—
Multi
-
Family
, Transient Lodging
-
Motels, Hotels

6 0

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes

60 Auditoriums, Concert Hall, Amphitheaters
, Sports Arenas,
Outdoor Spectator Sports

Mitigation based on site
-
specific study

Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks

68 Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries

70 Office
Building
s,
Business, Commercial, and Professional

68 Industrial
,
Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture

7 0

1 “Normally Acceptable” means that the specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any building involved

is of
normal conventional construction, without any special noise mitigation

or insulation requirements.

Source: City o
f Mountai
n View 2012
a

Section 8.70 of the Mountain View Municipal Code (MVMC) limits construction activities to the hours below:



Monday through Friday between 7:00AM and 6:00PM.

T
his section of the MVMC
also
prohibits construction activities on Saturdays, Sundays , and holidays.

Section 21.26 of the MVMC prohibits the unpermitted operation of stationary equipment that would produce a noise level exceeding 55 dBA (50 dBA at night); the City’s General Plan aims to uphold this threshold through General Plan policy NOI

1.7,
Stationary sources
, which encourages
restriction of noise levels through enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance.

As the MVMC does not provide quantitative construction noise thresholds for daytime construction, FTA thresholds are used in this ana
lysis. T
he FTA provides reasonable criteria for assessing
construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction in their Transit
and Noise Vibration Impact Assessment Manual

(FTA 2018). For residential, commercial, and
industrial

uses, the daytime noise threshold is 80 dBA L
eq
, 85 dBA L
eq
, and 90 dBA L
eq

for an 8
-
hour
period, respectively.

Sensitive Receptors

Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those
uses. Noise
-
sensitive receptors generally include single
-

and multi
-
family residences,
hotels, motels, schools, libraries, places of worship, hospitals, and nursing homes.

Sensitive
receptors in the project vicinity include residences to the west and south , as well as a pre
-
school
located approximately 350 feet

to the southeast. The
proposed project also includes the siting of
new sensitive receptors

(future project residents)
.

Environmental

Checklist

Noise

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

87 Impact Analysis

Would the project result in generation of a substantial tempora ry 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?

The proposed project could generate temporary noise
increases during construction and long
-
term
increases associated with project operation
.

Construction Noise

Construction noise was estimated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). RCNM predicts construction

noise levels for a variety of
construction operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas.

Project construction would occur nearest to the
multi
-
family residences to the west and south that
are located adjacent
to

the project site. Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment would be located as close as
25 feet to the
adjacent
properties
,
but would typically be
located at an average distance farther away due to the nature of construction

and the lot size of the
project. For example, during a typical construction day, the equipment may operate across the horizontal distance of the site (
30 0

feet
)
or vertical distance (130 feet)
from a nearby noise receiver.

Therefore, it is assumed that over the course of a typical construction day the construction equipment would operate at an average distance of
10 0 feet from
adjacent multi
-
family residences.

FTA’s daytime construction
noise li
mit is 80 dBA for residential uses; therefore, project construction noise levels would not exceed construction noise thresholds. Therefore, impacts from construction noise would be less than significant.

Therefore, impacts from construction noise would be
less than
significant.

FTA’s daytime construction noise limit is 80 dBA for residential uses; therefore, project construction noise levels would not exceed construction noise thresholds. Therefore, impacts from construction noise would be less than signifi
cant.

Construction noise is typically loudest during
activities that involve excavation and move soil, such as site preparation and grading. A potential
high
-
intensity construction scenario includes a grader, loader, and dozer

working during grading to
exc
avate and move soil. At a distance of 100 feet, grader, loader, and dozer would generate a noise level of
77 dBA L
eq,

(RCNM calculations are included in Appendix
G
)
.

FTA’s daytime construction
noise limit is 80 dBA for residential uses; therefore, project construction noise levels would not
exceed construction noise thresholds.

MVMC Section 8.70 limits the hours of construction and maintenance activities to the less sensitive hours of the day (7:00 a.m.
–

6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) and prohibits const
ruction on
Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. The project would comply with these limitations.

As a
result,

construction would not occur during recognized sleep hours for residences. The project site is located in an urbanized area where some construction n
oise is expected, and the construction
methods and equipment would be typical for residential construction in urban and suburban areas; for example, no pile
-
driving or major excavation would be required.

P
roposed project construction
would be within the ra
nge of typical construction noise for an urbanized area.

I
mpacts from
construction noise would be less than significant.

On
-
Site Operational Noise

Operational noise associated with the proposed project would be typical of residential uses in an urbanized

neighborhood and would not have a significant impact on ambient noise levels. The City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

88 primary on
-
site noise sources associated with operation of the proposed project would include vehicle circulation noise (e.g., engine startups, alarms, parking) associated wi th the on
-
site roads;
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment in proposed residential units; outdoor recreational noise at common and private open space areas; and use of landscaping equipment.

The project site is located along Monteci
to Avenue and is surrounded by residential and commercial uses. Therefore, the project site vicinity is already exposed to typical vehicle circulation noise, HVAC noise, recreational noise, and landscape equipment noise associated with existing uses in the

project vicinity. Operation of the proposed residential building s

would not generate sources of noise
that are new to the existing surrounding area. Furthermore, these noise -
generating activities would
be similar to those of existing residences in the imm
ediate vicinity of the project site and would
result in a negligible change to existing noise levels.

O
peration of the proposed project would not
result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts would be less than sig
nificant.

Off
-
Site Traffic Noise

The proposed project would generate new vehicle trips and incrementally increase traffic on area roadways, which would increase roadway noise at nearby residences to the northwest along Montecito Avenue. As discussed in Se
ction 17,
Transportation
, the proposed project would generate
approximately 316 daily vehicle trips. All new trips would be added to Montecito Avenue, as it provides the only entrance to the project site.

Montecito Avenue provides access to
Shoreline
Boulevard, the closest arterial to the project site. Average daily traffic along Shoreline Boulevard, between Montecito Avenue and Central Expressway, is estimated to be approximately 26,800 vehicles (
City of Mountain View 2012b
). Therefore, for
this analysis traffic with the project is
estimated to be 27,116 vehicles.

The proposed project’s contribution to roadway noise was evaluated through a calculation by comparing existing traffic noise levels with operation of the project. Generally, a doubl ing of traffic
(i.e., 100 percent traffic increase) would increase noise levels by approximately 3 dBA, which is the human level of perception for an increase in noise (FTA 2018).

The proposed project
’s traffic
addition

would
result in an approximately 1.2

percent increase in average daily traffic along
Shoreline Boulevard. T
hus, the proposed project would result in a noise increase of approximately

0.04 dBA.

Such an increase would be not perceptible and would not lead to higher ambient noise levels; theref
ore, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Construction activities known to generate excessive groundborne vibration , such as pile driving,
are
not proposed
. The greatest anticipated source of vibration during general project construction activities would be from a dozer, which may be used within 25 feet of the nearest off -
site structure.

A dozer creates approximately 0
.089 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet (Caltrans 2020). This vibration level is lower than the
human annoyance
threshold of 0.24 in/sec

and the residential
structure threshold of 0.2 in/sec

PPV. Therefore, temporary impacts associated with construction w
ould be less than significant.

Environmental

Checklist

Noise

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

89 The project does not include substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Therefore, operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

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 excessi ve
noise levels?

As discussed in Section 9,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
, the nearest airport to the project site is
the Moffett Federal Airfield, located approximately 1.6 miles northeast.

The

project site is
not
located within the Moffett Federal Airf
ield Influence Area

and

is outside of existing noise level
contours, the Runway Protection Zone, Inner Safety Zone, Outer Safety Zone, Turning Safety Zone, and Sideline Safety Zone (
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission 2012).

Thus, the
proposed p
roject would not subject
residents

at the site to excessive noise and there would be no
impact.

NO IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

90 This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental

Checklist

Population and Housing

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

91 14

Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Les
s than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Induce substantial
unplanned
population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads
or other
infrastructure)?

□

■

□

Displace substantial
numbers
of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

□

■

Setting

According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), Mountain View has an estimated
population of 83,864 with 38,916 housing units (DOF 2022). The average number of persons per household is estimated at 2.35. The City of Mountain View General Plan Environmental Impact Report provides projections for the City
’s population through the year 2030. The population of
Mountain View is projected to be 88,570 by the year 2030 (City of Mountain View 2012 a
).

Impact Analysis

Would the project 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)?

The proposed project would involve the construction of
new residences

and would directly generate
population grow
th in the City of Mountain View. The City’s General Plan bases growth projections on General Plan land uses and economic assumptions, including expected
types of building and
future demand for housing and commercial uses

(City of Mountain View 2012
a
).

The
City’s General
Plan EIR projects that
population growth

until 2030

would occur primarily due to construction of
new housing in the City (
City of Mountain View

2012
b
). Additionally, development of new housing
units
is

supported by General Plan policies, whi
ch encourage construction of affordable housing and
transit
-
oriented residential development.

The proposed
project would add 85 affordable housing units or approximately 2 00

new residents to
the City
3 .

As stated above, t
he
current population of Mountain
View is 83,864, and the projected
2030 population is 88,570, meaning that the City’s population is expected to increase by 4,706 persons by 2030. The 200 new residents added by the proposed project would constitute approximately 4 percent of the total grow
th until 2030
4 . Thus, t
he addition of 85 new units and 2
00 3

85 units x 2.35 persons per unit [DOF 2022] = approximately 200 new residents)

4 [(200/4,706) x 100] = 4.25

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Av
enue Residential Project

92 new residents to the City of Mountain View would be within the growth envisioned under the City’s General Plan and would not represent substantial unplanned population growth; impacts would be les
s than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The project site is currently developed with
a 12,300
-
square
-
foot office building. Demolition of the
existing structure is included as part of the proposed project; however, the office building does not provide housing

and the project would

no
t displace

ho
using or people. The proposed project would
have no impact regarding the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

NO IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Public Services

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

93 15

Public Services

Potentiall
y
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project r
esult in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environme
ntal 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?

□

■

□

Setting

The Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) provides fire and emergency medical services to the City. MVFD maintains five fire stations; the project site is served by Fire Station No. 1, located at 251 South Shoreline Boulevard, approximately 0.6
-
mile south o
f the project site. Each station has at
least three firefighters on duty at any given time. The MVFD fleet includes seven fire engines, one rescue vehicle, one hazardous materials vehicle, and one fire truck. In the 2020 -
2021 fiscal year,
MVFD responded to

8,512 incidents, most of which were rescue and EMS (6,003 calls). Other incidents include fire, good intent, hazardous conditions, overpressure/explosions, and false alarms (MVFD 2021).

The Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) provides police protectio n services to the City.

MVPD operates one police station and employs 181 individuals, including approximately 74 police officers. In 2020, MVPD received 27,127 total calls for service, of which 1,126 were emergency calls.

MVPD officers were on the scene in

less than four minutes for 709 of these emergency calls. In 2020, MVPD recorded 4,440 reported crimes and had an arrest rate of 23.05 arrests per 1,000 residents (MVPD 2020).

The Mountain View
-
Whisman School District (MVWSD) and Mountain View
-
Los Altos H
igh School
District (MVLA) provide public education services to the City. MVWSD operates nine elementary schools (grades K
–

5) and two middle schools (grades 6
–

8), and as of June 2021 the district served
City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

94 4,765 students (MVWSD 2021). MVLA operates three
high schools and one adult school, and as of
the 2021 academic year the district served approximately 5,000 students (MVLA 2021).

The Mountain View Community Services Department maintains parks through the Parks Division and maintains recreational facilit
ies through the Recreation Division. The Parks Division manages 35 parks and four miles of bicycle and pedestrian trails in the City and is also responsible for the maintenance of Shoreline at Mountain View and other regional open space. This totals over 1 ,000
acres of parks and open space (City of Mountain View 2012 a
). According to the 2030 General Plan,
the City has nearly 1,000 acres of parks and open space, and the City adopted a standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (City of Mountain View 2012
a
). The Recreation Division
operates a center for performing arts, a community center, four community gardens, two pools, two historic buildings, and a senior center, among other facilities (City of Mountain View 2021b).

Impact Analysis

a.1.

Woul
d the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
fire protection
facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
fire protection
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?

Fire protection
and emergency medical services are

provided to the City by the Mountain View
Fire
Department.

The project sit
e is served by
Fire Station No. 1, located at 251 S
outh

Shoreline
Boulevard,
approximately 0.6
-
mile south of the project site.

The
project site is

surrounded by residential and commercial development that is currently served by the City’s Fire Department.

The proposed project would incrementally increase demand for fire and emergency medical services.

According to the City’s General Plan, the Fire Department reviews all new development plans, including building design and access for emergency vehicles, to ensure
they meet fire and safety codes (City of Mountain View 2012 a
).

In 2019, the City of Mountain View
adopted the 2018 Edition of the International Fire Code and the 2019 Edition of the California Fire Code as the City’s Fire Code (MVMC Section 14.10.1)
. Both the International Fire Code and the
California Fire Code contain regulations and accepted practices concerning fire prevention, fire
protection, life safety, and storage and handling of hazardous materials.

The proposed project
would also be require
d to comply
with City requirements for fire access and onsite fire prevention facilities.

As described in Section 1
4 ,
Population and Housing
, the proposed project would not generate
growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan. Therefore, the propos ed project would not
result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities and would not require construction of new fire protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ra
tios, response times, or other performance objectives. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Public Services

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

95 a.2.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
police protection

facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
police protection

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?

Law enforcement services in the City and to the project site are provided by the
Mountain View
Police Department (MVPD) (City of Mountain View 2012
a
).

The nearest police station to the site is
located at 1000 Villa Street, approximately

0.7 -
mile

south of the project site. The proposed project
would involve the construction of 85

new
residential units on a site surrounded by existing
development currently served by the MVPD. Although the proposed project would incrementally increase the demand for police services, the project site is located in the vicinity of the City’s police
he
adquarters, and was envisioned as part of future residential development in the City’s General Plan. The proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of

police protection
facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios and response tim es, thus, impacts to
police protection

would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

a.3.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
schools
, or the need for

new or physically altered
schools
, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios

or other performance objectives?

The project site is served by the Mountain View
-
Whisman

School Dist
rict (MV
W
SD)
, which only
serves residents of Mountain View, as well as the Mountain View -
Los Altos Union High School
District (MVLA HUSD), which provides high school services to Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills (
City of Mountain View 2012b).

T
he General Plan EIR states that construction of new
housing in the City as a result of General Plan implementation could generate approximately 1,514 new students (
City of Mountain View 2012b

)
, and that new school facilities would be needed to
accommodate

anticipated increases in student enrollment.

The MVWSD Master Facilities Plan
(MFP), developed after completion of the General Plan EIR, prioritizes projects regarding school safety and expansion when considering City growth until 2029. The MFP concluded that schools
have capacity to accommodate growth within the next five years, but that additional facilities would be needed to accommodate growth within the next ten years (MVWSD 2019).

The proposed project would
add 200 new residents to the City of Mount
ain View. Considering the
proposed project would constitute 0.5 percent of the anticipated population growth within the General Plan, the addition of new students as a result of the proposed project would not constitute substantial
growth that would require new or expanded school facilities.

Additionally,
pursuant to Senate Bill 50 (Section 65995(h)), payment of mandatory fees to the affected school district would reduce potential school impacts to a less than significant level unde r
CEQA.

As discussed in Section 1
4 ,
Population and Housing
, the proposed project would not result in
unplanned substantial population growth.

Given the minor population increase from the proposed
project and prioritization of school expansion within the MF P
, the proposed project would have less
than significant impacts regarding school provision and service ratios.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residenti
al Project

96 a.4.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or ph
ysically altered
parks
, or the need for new or physically altered
parks
, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?

The City of Mountain view cont
ains nearly 1,000 acres of parks and open space, as well as an interconnected system of trails, City
-
owned community facilities, and recreational and arts
programs and services (City of Mountain View 2012
a
). The proposed project would include

a total of
3,
503 square feet of

private
residential unit
open space, as well as
a total of 9,700 square feet of
common open space areas
including

front courtyard, amenity deck, and rear courtyard. The
proposed project would also include
recreational areas onsite such

as
defined garden areas, a
barbeque

area, and a children’s play area.

MVMC Section 41.6 states that for residential developments with high dwelling density, each dwelling unit must have 0.006 acre of land dedicated for parks and open space. The proposed project would have 85 dwelling units and thus would require 0.51 acre, or 22,216 square feet of parks and open space. Project plans include 9,700 square feet of common open space area.

However, nearby recreational facilities include
mini parks such as
San
Veron Park

and
Jackson Park,
as well as regional parks intended to serve the entire City, such as

the Stevens Creek Trail

and
Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park
.

The City’s standard specifies at least three acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents. In 2
010, Mountain View’s 972 acres of parkland exceeded this standard, with about 13.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents

(City of Mountain View 2012
a
).

It can be assumed that residents would utilize
existing recreational

facilities
;

however, the
proposed
recreational facilities offered by the project would reduce the demand on pre -
existing parks and
would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration is accelerated.

Therefore, the proposed pr
oject would have a less than significant
impact with respect to City parks.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

a.5.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
other
new or physically altered
public
facili
ties, or the need for

other

new or physically
altered
public
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?

As discussed i
n Section 1
4 ,
Population and Housing
, the proposed project would not result in
unplanned substantial population growth in the City of Mountain View, and is consistent with growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan. Impacts to stormwater, wastewater, an d water
facilities are discussed in Section 19,
Utilities and Service Systems
. The proposed project involves
demolition of an existing office building and construction of new residential units and would not result in a material effect on the need for addit
ional public facilities. Therefore, the proposed
project would not substantially increase demand for public facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Recreation

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

97 16

Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Signifi
cant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

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
?

□

■

□

Does the project i
nclude recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?

□

■

□

Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

The City of Mountain view contains nearly 1,000 acres of parks and open space, as well as an interconnected system of trails
, City
-
owned community facilities, and recreational and arts
programs and services (City of Mountain View 2012
a
).

The proposed project would include private
open space for each residential unit, which ranges
depending

on story level (Level 1 has 255 square

feet; Levels 2, 3, and 4 have 837 square feet; Level 5 has 737 square feet). The proposed project would also include common usable open space, such as a front courtyard (3,400 square feet), an amenity deck (3,500 square feet) and a rear courtyard (2,800 s quare feet); as well as defined garden
areas, a BBQ area, and a children’s play area.

MVMC Section 41.6 states that for residential developments with high dwelling density, each dwelling unit must have 0.006 acre of land dedicated for parks and open space.

The proposed
project would have 85 dwelling units and thus would require 0.51 acre, or 22,216 square feet of parks and open space. Project plans include 9,700 square feet of common open space area.

However, nearby recreational facilities include mini park s such as San Veron Park and Jackson Park,
as well as regional parks intended to serve the entire City, such as the Stevens Creek Trail and Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park.

The City’s standard specifies at least three acres of
parkland per 1,000 r
esidents. In 2010, Mountain View’s 972 acres of parkland exceeded this standard, with about 13.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents

(City of Mountain View 2012
a
).

It can be assumed that residents would utilize
existing recreational

facilities
;

however, the proposed
recreational facilities offered by the project would reduce the demand on pre -
existing parks and
would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities such that substantial physical City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

98 deterioration is accelerated.

Therefore, th
e proposed project would have a less than significant
impact with respect to City parks.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Transportation

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

99 17

Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No
Impact

Would the project:

Conflict with
a program
,

plan
,

ordinance or
policy
addressing

the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?

□

■

□

Conflict
or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?

□

■

□

Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?

□

■

Result in inadequate emergency
access?

□

■

The information and analysis included in this section is based upon a Multi
-
Modal Transportation
Analysis prepared by TJKM Consultants in February 2022 (Appendix TRA).

Regulatory Setting

Senate Bill 743 and Vehicle Miles Traveled

Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law by Governor Brown in 2013 and tasked the State Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) with establishing new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743 requires the new criteria to “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emi ssions, the development of
multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” It also states that alternative measures of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generat
ion rates, or automobile trips generated.”

SB 743 implements changes to the method for performing transportation impact analyses under CEQA. SB 743 requires the Governor’s OPR to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts w
ithin CEQA. In January 2018, OPR transmitted its proposed CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 743 to the California Natural Resources Agency for adoption, and in January 2019 the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, which incorpor
ated SB 743 modifications, and are now in effect. SB 743 changed the way that public agencies evaluate the transportation impacts of projects under CEQA, recognizing that roadway congestion, while an inconvenience to drivers, is not itself an environmental

impact (Public
Resource Code, § 21099 (b)(2)). In addition to new exemptions for projects consistent with specific plans, the CEQA Guidelines replaced congestion
-
based metrics, such as auto delay and level of
City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

100

service (LOS), with VMT as the basis for deter
mining significant impacts, unless the Guidelines
provide specific exceptions.

City of
Mountain View

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) indicates that land use projects would have a significant impact if the project resulted in vehicle miles traveled (VMT
) exceeding an applicable threshold of
significance.

In June 2020, the City of
Mountain View

adopted the following thresholds of
significance for VMT analysis according
to

guidance from OPR
:



Residential:

15 percent below existing
n
ine
-
c
ounty Bay Area regio
nal reference average VMT
per capita



Office:

15 percent below
existing
n
ine
-
c
ounty Bay Area regional reference average VMT per
employee



Retail:

Net increase in total VMT

(difference in total VMT in the area affected with and without the project).



Mixed
-
Use and all other Project Types:

Each land use within a mixed
-
use project, and all other
project types, shall be evaluated independently by applying the most appropriate threshold of significance from above to each land use type included in the project

In addition, the City of
Mountain View

has developed screening criteria to provide project applicants with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in potentially significant VMT impacts. If the screening criteria are met by a project, t he applicant would not need to perform a
detailed VMT assessment for their project.

The project meets the affordable housing screening, as it is a project with 100 percent affordable housing, and thus

does not need to include a detailed VMT
assessment, as described within threshold (b).

Impact Analysis

a
.

Would the project

conflict with a program
,

plan,
ordinance,

or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and ped
estrian facilities?

As the Congestion Management Agency for
Santa Clara
County, the
Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA)

is responsible for establishing, implementing, and monitoring the County’s Congestion Management Program (CMP). Through its implementa
tion of the CMP, the
VTA works to reduce
traffic congestion and improve land
-
use decision
-
making and air quality.

The proposed project
would not involve intersections included within the CMP, and thus CMP intersections are not
considered
in the analysis

(
A
ppendix

TRA
)

T
he proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding alternative transportation
as the proposed project would not result in a

significant

impact to or
inconsistencies with existing or planned pedestrian o
r bicycle polices, guidelines, or standards in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. Furthermore, the proposed project meets all transportation requirements in the zoning ordinance of the City’s Municipal Code (Appendix TRA
). T
he proposed
project wou
ld not involve the obstruction,
removal,

or relocation of, or excessive additional demand
for, existing transit, pedestrian, or bicycle facilities.

I
mpacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Environmen
tal

Checklist

Transportation

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

101

Would the project

conflict or be i
nconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

In June 2020, the City adopted a new transportation policy, Resolution No. 18484, that established Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the methodology for evaluating transportation impacts of n ew
developments

(Appendix
TRA
)
. The Mountain View Multi
-
Modal Transportation Analysis Handbook
outlines detailed screening criteria of the need to conduct a CEQA VMT analysis; for the proposed project, the Affordable Housing Screening and Transit Screening were applicable.

The Afforda
ble Housing Screening threshold
states that projects with 100 percent affordable
housing
do

not require a CEQA VMT analysis, and the Transit Screening threshold states that all projects within a half
-
mile of a major transit stop or high
-
quality transit cor
ridor
do

not require a
CEQA VMT analysis. The proposed project would include 100 percent affordable housing

and

is 0.5
mile from the Caltrain Mountain View Station, 700 feet from a Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Local Route 40 stop, approximat
ely

0.47 mile

from a Mountain View Transportation
Management Association Shuttle Route B stop, and

0.36 mile

from a Mountain View Community
Shuttle stop (Appendix H).

The proposed project thus meets the Affordable Housing Screening

and
Transit Screening
cr
iteria (Appendix H)
, and i
mpacts regarding VMT would be less than significant

pursuant to the City’s VMT thresholds
.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

c
.

Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves o
r dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?

Project implementation would occur on
an

existing parcel and would not alter or effect existing
street and intersection networks.

Sufficient turning areas and access opportunities for t ruck and
passenger vehicle access are proposed in accordance with City requirements. No new roadways or alterations to existing roadway design would occur
, save for an internal drive aisle to access the
project site from Montecito Avenue
.

Vehicles exiting
each driveway would continue to have a clear
line of sight to each other. To reduce the potential for conflicts to occur between vehicles exiting the driveway in the same direction, the proposed project would include the installation of a stop sign at the
project driveway to ensure that vehicles exiting the project site would come to a complete stop and yield to all conflicting traffic.

In addition, the proposed project would be required
to comply with the City’s design standards for vehicular access and ci rculation and the Fire Code.

Compliance would prevent hazardous design features and would ensure adequate and safe site access and circulation. The
proposed
project involves
construction and operation of a residential
building

and would not introduce an incompatible use

to circulation
networks
. There

would be no
impact.

NO IMPACT

d
.

Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

The project site is directly accessible via Montecito Avenue. The proposed project would

be required
to comply with all building, fire, and safety codes; additionally, the project site would be subject to final review by the City of Mountain View Public Works Department and the Mountain View Fire Department (Appendix
TRA
). Review from these a
gencies would ensure the project site includes
adequate vehicular access for emergency

vehicles, and that all existing and/or newly constructed emergency facilities, such as fire hydrants, are clearly marked, unobstructed, and accessible for emergency resp
onders. Furthermore, the proposed project would not require temporary or City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

102

permanent closures to roadways. There would be no impact involving inadequate emergency
access.

NO IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

103

18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code
S
ection 21074 as either a site, feat
ure, place,
or
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code
S
ection
5020.1(k), or

□

■

□

A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Cod Section
5 024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision

(c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significan
ce
of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.

□

■

□

Existing Setting

Rincon Consultants conducted a search of the California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center located at Sonoma State University on December 15, 2021. The CHRIS search was conducted for the project site and a 0.5 -
mile radius surrounding it. The
search identified 26

previously recorded

resources
, none of which are located
within or adjacent to
the
project site and none of which are archaeological in nature. The search did not indicate the presence of known cultural resources within the project site. Rincon additional ly conducted an
archaeological survey of the project site on March 30, 2022. The survey was negative for cultural remains and/or

archaeological resources
.

Rincon additionally completed a search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Land
s File (SLF) for the project. The NAHC SLF search was positive. The NAHC additionally provided a list of nine Native American tribes culturally affiliated with the project site. A positive

SLF search
result

indicat
es

the presence

of cultural
resources known to the NAHC
in the vicinity of the project
site, but it
does not provide specific locations of cultural resources as part of the search. Therefore, a positive SLF search alone does not indicate the presence of cultural resources within the project
site

or its immediate vicinity
.

Assembly Bill (AB) 52, detailed in the
Regulatory Setting

below, requires lead agencies to conduct
formal consultation with California Native American tribes during the CEQA process to identify tribal City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

104

cultural resour
ces that may be subject to significant impacts by a project. In

compliance with
AB 52,
the City sent

letter
s on May 30, 2022
to the
nine

Native American
contacts provided by the NAHC

request
ing

that
they
contact the City If they
wanted to consult on the pr
oject.

The City received
one response
. On May 31, 2022, the City received an email response from Kanyon Sayers
-
Roods

on behalf of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan. Ms. Sayers -
Roods stated
that the project site “
overlaps or is near the management

boundary of a potentially eligible cultural
site” and that she was interested in in consulting on the project.

She also provided the following
recommendations for the project: the presence of
a Native American
m
onitor and an
a
rchaeologist
on
-
site at all t
imes during any/all ground disturbing activities
, and cultural sensitivity training at the
beginning of the project. Despite follow up emails, the City was unable to contact Ms.

Sayers
-
Roods

to set up a consultation meeting. In a letter dated
July 13, 2022
,
and

emailed to Ms. Sayers
-
Roods
the same day, the City indicated that, based on her request, standard conditions of approval would be implemented for the project.

Regulatory Setting

As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was ena cted and expands CEQA by
defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may hav
e a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21 084.3).

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:

1. Listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial ev
idence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 al
so establishes a formal consultation progress for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation progress must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a Califo rnia Native American tribe that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the progress are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdi
ction of the lead agency.

Environmental

C
hecklist

Tribal Cultural Resources

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

105

Impact Analysis

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?

Neit
her the
CHRIS

s
earch nor

the archaeological survey
identified cultural resources listed on or
eligible for listing on the CRHR or a local register within the project site. However, there is always potential to uncover buried archaeological and
/or

Tribal cu
ltural resources during ground disturbing
activities,
such as the excavation and grading that would be required for project construction.

Therefore, the project will be required to comply with the following standard City conditions of approval.

Standard Ci
ty of Mountain View
Conditions

of Approval



PL
-
203 Native American Archaeological Monitor
.

A Native American archaeological monitor
shall be present for all ground
-
disturbing activities throughout the project construction process.



PL
-
202 Cultural Sensitivi
ty Training
.

As requested during the Tribal Consultation process for the project, 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 th e indigenous
history of peoples in the vicinity of the project site.



PL
-
204 Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources
.

If indigenous

or historic
-
era archaeological
resources are encountered during construction activities, all activity within 100’ of the find shall
cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance.

The City and a qualified archaeologist, defined
as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and a Native American representative shall b e immediately informed of the
discovery.

The qualified archaeologist and the Native American representative shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of their initial assessment.

Indigenous
archaeological materials might inclu
de obsidian and chert
-
flaked stone tools (e.g.,

projectile
points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking
debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat -
affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars,
pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones.

Historic
-
era materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

If the f
ind is determined to be potentially
significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.

Implementation of these standard City c
onditions of approval would reduce impacts to tribal
cultural resources to a less than significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

106

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental

Checklist

Utilities and Service Systems

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

107

19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Would the project:

Require or result in the
relocation or
construction of new
or expanded water,
wastewater treatment
or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the
construction

or relocation

of which could
cause significant environmental effects?

□

■

□

Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project
and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years
?

□

■

□

Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?

□

■

□

Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local i
nfrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?

□

■

□

Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

□

■

□

Setting

The information and analysis included in this section is based primarily
upon a Utility Impact Study
prepared by Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers in January 2022 (Appendix I
).

Potable Water

Potable water would be provided to the project by th
e City of Mountain View, which receives its
water supply from three sources. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) provides 87 percent of Mountain View’s water supply. According to SFPUC, most of its water is sourced from Sierra Nevada Moun
tains snowmelt. Other sources include the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, located in Yosemite National Park; regional watersheds, including Alameda, Peninsula, and City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

108

Upper Tuolumne; and various groundwater sources (SFPUC 2021). Remaining supply is provid ed by
the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) (10 percent) and local groundwater sources (3 percent). Small parts of the City receive water supplied by California Water Company (City of Mountain View 2013).

According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water M
anagement Plan (UWMP), the City’s service population
is 79,772 residents. The City’s municipal water system consists of three pressure zones with three wholesale water turnouts, as well as four reservoirs, three pump stations, four active groundwater suppl
y wells, and over 188 miles of water conveyance pipelines. The UWMP forecasts future water demand for the year 2045, which is projected to be 15,894 acre -
feet per year (AFY) in a base
-
case
scenario or 13,361 AFY with improvements to plumbing codes and cons ervation efforts. The UWMP
also forecasts that commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings will have a projected demand of 2,411 AFY in 2045 (City of Mountain View 2021a).

The 2020 UWMP analyzed water supply scenarios for three different hydrologi cal conditions to
determine the long
-
term reliability of water supplies: normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years. The UWMP projects that supply from SCVWD treated water, groundwater, and recycled water will be fully available in each scenario
through 2045. Water sourced from SFPUC is projected
to experience supply shortfalls in single and multiple dry years, and will likely experience rationing between 36 to 54 percent. SFPUC is currently developing an Alternative Supply Program to address proj
ected shortfalls.

Table
17 summarizes the projected water demand of Mountain View and the combined projected water supply of the City’s three water sources. Projections are summarized
across the different water supply scenarios through the year 2045, in acre -
feet per year.

Table
17 2045 Projected Water Supply and Demand Comparison

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

Normal Year

Supply Total

12,058

12,548

13,064

13,607

14,163

Demand Total

12,058

12,548

13,064

13,607

14,163

Difference

0 0

0 Single Dry Year

Supply Total

9,646

10,038

10,451

10,886

11,330

Demand Total

12,058

12,548

13,064

13,607

14,163

Difference

2,412

2,510

2,613

2,721

2,833

Five Multiple Dry Years

Supply Total

9,646

10,038

10,451

10,886

11,330

Demand Total

12,058

12,548

13,064

13,607

14,163

Difference

2,412

2,510

2,613

2,721

2,833

Source: City of Mountain View 2021a

Wastewater

According to the 2018 Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), the City of Mountain View operates a sanitary sewer system that serves approximately 74,000 residents. The system consists of 159 miles of gravity sewers, 1 mile of force main, and two pump station s. The City’s sewer system also
serves the City of Los Altos. Wastewater from the City is conveyed to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) in Palo Alto, located approximately 3.6 miles northwest. The RWQCP treats Envir
onmental

Checklist

Utilities and Service Systems

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

109

water prior to its discharge in
to the San Francisco Bay and has the capacity to treat 39 million gallons of wastewater per day (City of Palo Alto 2021).

Stormwater

Stormwater from the project site drains north to
Montecito

Avenue, where it is collected by storm
drains into the City’s s
tormwater system. Stormwater runoff is collected and disposed of by an integrated system of storm drains, inlets, curbside gutters, catch basins, drainage ditches, and man -
made channels. Ultimately, stormwater that enters the City’s system drains to the Sa n Francisco Bay
(City of Mountain View 2020).

Solid Waste

Recology manages all trash and recycling services in Mountain View. In 2019, 63,117.04 tons of solid waste was generated in Mountain View and disposed of at a total of 20 different facilities (CalR
ecycle 2019
a
). Approximately 78 percent (49,412.47 tons) of the City’s solid waste was disposed of at Kirby Canyon Recycling and Disposal Facility in Morgan Hill

(CalRecycle 2019b).

Other Utilities

Gas and electric utilities to the project site would be p rovided by Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE)
using Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) infrastructure. Infrastructure capable of supporting gas, electric and telecommunications is present at the project site and in the project vicinity.

Regulatory Se
tting

State of California

ALIFORNIA
G
REEN
B

UILDING
S

TANDARDS
C
ODE

In January 2020, the state of California adopted CalGreen that establishes mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code covers five categories: planning and design, energy
efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. These standards include a mandatory set of guidelines, as well as more rigorous voluntary measures, for new const
ruction projects to achieve specific green building
performance levels.



Reducing indoor water use by 20 percent



Reducing wastewater by 20 percent



Recycling and/or salvaging 50 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris



Providing readily acc
essible areas for recycling by occupant

City of Mountain View Municipal Code

The

MVMC contains standards relevant to utility services. Chapter 16 discusses solid waste, Chapter 34 discusses underground utility systems, and Chapter 35 discusses water and se wage
management.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

110

Impact Analysis

a
.

Would the project
require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the constructio
n or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

Would th
e project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Water Supply

A significant impact would occur if
a
project would increase water consumption or wastewater
generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the project site would be exceeded or that new water sources would need to be identif ied.

The City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) assesses Mountain View’s water supply reliability, and describes the City’s anticipated water demand, water shortage contingency plans, and water conservation strategies. The UWMP is updated every five ye ars and is based on growth
projections in the City’s General Plan.

The City anticipates meeting projected water demand during normal and dry
-
year scenarios using a combination of existing supplies and demand -
reduction
measures. Valley Water, local groundwa
ter, and recycled water supplies are projected to be fully available during all year types (normal and dry) through 2045. Mountain View will have full SFPUC supply availability during normal years but will experience SFPUC supply shortfalls between 36 perc
ent and 54 percent during dry years (City of Mountain View 2021 a
).

The
utility impact study prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler for the proposed project (Appendix
I
)
concluded that
there is sufficient water supply and infrastructure to serve the project . No new
deficiencies in the water system

are created after including project
-
associated water demand.

Impacts regarding water supply and construction of new or expanded water facilities would be less than significant.

Wastewater Generation

A significant impact to

wastewater facilities would occur if a project would:



Discharge wastewater with pollutant concentrations that exceed the regulatory limits established by the governing agency;



Increase wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities

currently serving
the project site would be exceeded; or



Increase wastewater flows such that a sewer or treatment plant is constrained or would become constrained.

Water quality in the State of California is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board
(State Water Board) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The City of Mountain View

is located in the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that states ide ntify water bodies including bays,
Environmental

Checklist

Utilities and Service Systems

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

111

rivers, streams, creeks, and coastal areas that do not meet water quality standards and the pollutants that are causing the impairment. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) describe the maximum amount of a pollutant that a w
ater body can receive while still meeting established water quality standards. A TMDL requires that all sources of pollution and all aspects of a watershed's drainage system be reviewed and set forth action plans that examine factors and sources adversely affecting water quality and identify specific plans to improve overall water quality and reduce pollutant discharges into impaired water bodies.

Domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater from Mountain View is treated at the Palo Alto Regional Water Q
uality Control Plant. Sewage is conveyed through the collection system to the plant, and treated effluent is discharged into San Francisco Bay.

The treatment facility discharges
into the San Francisco Bay under a permit with the RWQCB ;
operational discharge flows treated at
the
plant

would be required to comply with applicable water discharge requirements issued by the RWQCB. Compliance with conditions or permit requirements established by the City as well as water discharge requirements

outlined by the RWQCB would ensure that wastewater discharges coming from the project site and treated by the
plant

would not exceed applicable RWQCB wastewater
treatment requirements.

The project site is located in an urbanized area within the boundarie s of the City of Mountain View.

Wastewater infrastructure would not require significant improvements other than infrastructure to service the proposed new
residential building. A utility impact study prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler for the proposed project (A
ppendix
I
) concluded that
the sewer system has deficiencies for both
pre
-

and post
-
project flows in the existing condition; however, the
proposed
project
would

not
create new deficiencies in the existing condition
. Several pipes downstream of the project s
ite are
already included in the General Plan Update Utility Impact Study and will be upsized

regardless of
the project
, and Schaaf & Wheeler recommend upsizing another existing pipe to improve flow. As the proposed project would not exceed wastewater capac
ity of the existing system, nor require new
or expanded facilities, impacts would be less than significant.

Stormwater

A significant impact to stormwater facilities may occur if the volume of stormwater runoff would increase to a level exceeding the capac
ity of the storm drain system serving a project site, resulting in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities.

The project site is currently developed
with an existing office building and associated parking lot and landscaping.

Stormwater runof
f from
the proposed project would drain into bioretention basins within designated planting areas. The City of Mountain View is regulated by the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollution

Discharge
Elimination

System
Permit (MRP), which requires muni
cipal maintenance such as street sweeping
and storm drain cleaning. The Mountain View storm drain system operates adequately, with
targeted improvements and upgrades occurring over the next twenty years (City of Mountain View 2012
a
).

Mountain View’s

syste
m of stormwater collection and filtration would not change with implementation of the project.

As discussed in Section 10,
Hydrology and Water Quality
, the
proposed project would decrease the amount of impervious area on the project site to a total of 30,6
20 square feet, and the construction of stormwater management

bioretention areas would
allow stormwater runoff from the project site to infiltrate into the ground, thus, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge of water suppl y aquifers.

As the area of
disturbance is less than one acre, the proposed project would not require a discharge permit from the RWQCB.

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residentia
l Project

112

Thus
, the
proposed
project would not result in the need for new off
-
site storm water drainage
facilities.

S
ite run
-
off would be directed to the City’s existing municipal storm drainage system, which was designed to accommodate flows resulting from buildout in the project are a.

Impacts
regarding stormwater would be less than significant.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications

A significant impact to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities may occur if the demand for services exceeds the capacity
of local providers. Electricity would be provided to the project site by PG&E
; the project would not use natural gas
.

The City of Mountain View does not
directly supply telecommunications, but coordinates with providers

and allows access to public
rights
-
o
f
-
way to ensure telecommunications are well integrated in the community

(City of Mountain
View 2012
a
)
.

Telecommunications services would be provided by AT&T,
Comcast
, or other
providers, at the discretion of future tenants. Telecommunications are generally

available in the
project area, and facility upgrades would not likely
be necessary.

As described in Section 6,
Energy
, the

proposed

project would require approximately 0.
3 GWh of
electricity.

PG&E provided 78,518.8 GWh of electricity
in 2020; therefore, PG
&E would have
sufficient supplies for the proposed project.

Additionally,
the proposed residential building
would
include rooftop solar PV panels that would further off set energy consumption.

Improvements to
existing facilities or the provision of new ele
ctricity and natural gas facilities is not anticipated. The proposed
project would have a less than significant impact on local electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications providers.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

d
.

Would the project g
enerate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e
.

Would the project
comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction
statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?

The City of Mountain View
’s contracted solid waste services include curbside garbage, recycling, and yard waste pickup for residential, business
, or school uses. Collected materials are taken to the
Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station (SMaRT Station) , approximately 3.8 miles
northeast of the project site
. Hazardous household waste is disposed at the Santa Clara County Household Hazar
dous Waste Facility, and non
-
recyclable waste from the SMaRT Station is
transported to the Kirby Canyon Landfill in San Jose
, approximately 27 miles southeast of the project
site (City of Mountain View 2012
a
).

From 2018
-
2019, the SMaRT Station
diverted 107
,464 tons of
material from the landfill, and the Kirby Canyon Landfill received 152,145 tons of municipal solid waste (Bay Counties Waste Services 2020).

Based on current disposal rates, the Kirby Canyon
L
andfill is estimated to be in operation until 2059
(Waste Management Intellectual Property
Holdings 2022).

As discussed in Section 14,
Population and Housing
, the proposed project would add approximately
200 new residents to the City of Mountain View. This growth would constitute 0.5 percent of population

growth envisioned in the General Plan.

The SMaRT Station has a design capacity of 1,500
peak tons per day, and from 2018
-
2019, processed approximately
554

tons of waste per day (Bay
Counties Waste Services 2020). Given the existing capacity within the SMa RT Station and
estimated
Environmental

Checklist

Utilities and Service Systems

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

113

lifespan of the Kirby Canyon Landfill until 2059, the population growth encouraged by the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of local infrastructure capacity.

CALGreen requires covered projects to recycle an
d/or salvage for reuse a minimum 65% of the
nonhazardous construction and demolition waste or meet a local construction and demolition waste management ordinance, whichever is more stringent.

MVMC

Section 16.62

requires that applicants
for all construction

and demolition projects
that involve 5,000 square feet or more (which includes
the proposed project) submit a construction and demolition debris management plan that identifies waste materials expected to be generated.

Applicants for such covered projects

are also required to
divert at least fifty percent of materials generated for discards by the project. Any applicant that fails to meet this diversion rate will pay a
penalty amount. Through these measures, the City of
Mountain View aims to maintain its h
igh diversion rate (7
8 percent in
2019
), which is among the
highest in the State of California
.

Thus, given the existing solid waste facilities, and when considering implementation of the City’s recycling programs, including construction debris, impacts from the proposed project regarding solid waste generation would be less than significant. The pro posed project would comply with
reduction statutes related to solid waste, and no new or expanded solid waste facilities would be needed.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

114

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental

Checklist

Wildfire

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

115

20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less t
han
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

□

■

Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks

and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

□

■

Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result
in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

□

■

Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post
-
fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?

□

■

Setting

The City of Mountain View is not located within
a Fire Hazard Severity Zone designated by
the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

[CalFIRE]
. The project site is located within an
urbanized area of the City and is surrounded by existing commercial and residential development.

The neares
t Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) is approximately 7.3 miles south of the project site (
CalFIRE

2007).

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Proje
ct

116

Impact Analysis

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the
project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope,
prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks

and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classifie d as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that ma
y result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including down slopes
or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -
fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?

The project site is not located within or near a

VHFHSZ

or State Responsibility Area (SRA). The
nearest VHFHSZ is south of Cupertino, appr
oximately 7.3 miles south of the project site (
CalFIRE

2007).

The nearest SRA is within the Santa Clara foothills, approximately 4.4 miles southwest of the project site

(
CalFIRE
2007)
. As the project site is not within or near a VHFHSZ or SRA, the project would have no impacts regarding wildfires.

NO IMPACT

Environmental

Checklist

Mandatory Findings of Significance

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

117

21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact

Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated

Less than
Significant
Impact

No Impact

Does the project:

Have

the potential to substantially
degrade

the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
-
sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal commun
ity, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?

□

■

□

Have

impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current p
rojects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?

□

■

□

Have

environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?

□

■

□

a
.

Does the project

have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal c ommunity,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Based on the information and analysis provided throughout this

IS
-
MND
, implementation of the
proposed
project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment and would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
-
sustaining l
evels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare
or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of California history
or prehistory.

Cultural resources, which illustrate examples of

California history and prehistory, are discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources,
and Section 18,
City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

118

Tribal Cultural Resources
.

With implementation of the City condition of approval related to archaeological resource preservation (COA PL
-
194), the proposed
project would not significantly
impact cultural resources.

Biological resources are addressed in Section 4,
Biological Resources.

With
implementation of City conditions of approval

related to nesting birds

and
tree preservation
,
the

proposed

project would
not substantially reduce wildlife habitat or population. Based on the ability of the identified
COAs

to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, the proposed
project’s impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connect
ion with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Cumulative impacts associated with some of the resource areas are addressed in the individual resource sections above: Air Quality,
Greenhouse Gases, Water Supply, and Solid Waste (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)) and would be less than significant. Some of the other resource areas were determined to have no impact in comparison to existing conditions and therefore would not contri
bute to cumulative impacts, such as Mineral Resources and Agricultural Resources. As such, cumulative impacts in these issue areas would also be less than significant (not cumulatively considerable). The
proposed
project involves development of
a residenti
al building with 85
affordable housing units, and following approval of the requested land use designation and zoning change, the proposed project
would be consistent with the City’s General Plan designation and density for the site. The
proposed
project w
ould not result in a significant contribution to
cumulatively considerable impacts.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Effects to human beings are generally associated with air quality, noise, traffic safety, and hazards/hazardous materials. As discussed in this Initial Study, implementation of the proposed
project would result in less than
significant environmental impac
ts
with mitigation incorporated,
with respect to geology and soils and hazardous materials .

With implementation of the City
condition of approval related to adherence with geotechnical recommendation s (COA PL
-
48 )
, health
and safety risks from expansive soi
ls would be reduced and the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.

With implementation of the City condition of approval related to discovery of paleontological resources (
COA PL
-
196
), impacts to paleontological resources would be

reduced and the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.

Additionally, implementation of City conditions of approval pertaining to hazardous materials (
COA
PL
-
191
)
would ensure that construction
activities do not lead to release o
f or exposure to asbestos
-
containing materials or lead
-
based paints
. With this mitigation,
t
he
proposed
project would

not
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigati
on.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

References

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

119

References

Bibliography

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2018.

Plan Bay Area Projections 2040
:

A Companion
to Plan Bay Area 2040
.
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Projections_2040 -
ABAG
-
MTC
-
web.pdf

(accessed
February 28, 2022).

_____
. 2020. Plan Bay
Area 2050. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021 -
11/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf (accessed November 2021).

_____. 2021.

MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map. 2021.
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35 dfcd086fc8

(accessed May 2022).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. https:/
/www.baaqmd.gov/about
-
air
-
quality/research
-
and
-
data/air
-
quality
-
standards
-
and
-
attainment
-
status (accessed
February 28, 2022).

_____
. 2017b. Final
2017 Clean Air Plan. Spare the Air Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning
-
and
-
research/plans/2017
-
clean
-
air
-
plan/attachment
-
a_
-
proposed
-
final
-
cap
-
vol
-
1 -
pdf.pdf?la=en

(accessed
February 28, 2022).

_____
. 2017c. California Environmental Quality Act
Air Quality Guidelines.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning
-
and
-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017
-
pdf.pdf?la=en

(accessed
February 28, 2022).

Bay Coun
ties Waste Services. 2020. SMaRT Station Annual Report 2018 -
2019. April 2020.
https://sunnyvale.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=25741

(accessed
February

2,
2022).

California Air Resources Board (CARB).
2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community
Health Perspective. April 2005.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf

(accessed
March

4, 2022)
.

_____.
2015. California modified Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (CA
-
GREET) 2.0 Model. September 2015.

_____
. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf

(accessed March 4, 2022)
.

____
_
. 2021
. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health.”
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview
-
diesel
-
exhaust
-
and
-
health

(accessed March 4, 2022)
.

California Department of Conservation (DOC)
. 1996. Mineral Land Classification.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc (accessed December 2021).

_____
. 2016. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. 2016. https://maps.conservation.ca
.gov/cgs/EQZApp/

(accessed 6 January 2022).

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

120

_____
. 2018. California Important Farmland Finder Program.

https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/

(accessed 24 November 2021).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). 2022.
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?bookma
rk=648

(accessed May 2022).

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2022. E
-
5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State. 2022.
https:/
/dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/estimates -
e5
-
2010
-
2021/

(accessed May 2022).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. November 2007.
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/

(accessed
3 December

2021).

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019 a
. Transported Solid
Waste.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Statewide/TransportedSolid Waste (accessed
May

202
2 ).

____. 2019b. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Kirby Canyon Recycl. & Disp. Facility. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.
gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1370?siteID=3393
(accessed
May

202
2 ).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. https://dot.ca.gov/
-
/media/dot
-
media/programs/environmen
tal
-
analysis/documents/env/tens
-
sep2013
-
a11y.pdf (accessed March 17, 2022).

_____. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/
-
/media/dot
-
media/programs/environmental
-
analysis/documents/env/tcvgm
-
apr2020
-
a11y.pdf

(accessed March 17, 2022).

_____.

2021. State
Scenic Highway Map
.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap
-
landscape
-
architecture
-
and
-
community
-
livability/lap
-
liv
-
i
-
scenic
-
highways

(accessed
24 November

20 21
).

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020 -
03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf (accessed March 17, 2022).

_____. 2022a. Ca
lifornia Energy Consumption Database: Electricity Consumption by Entity, PG&E, Total, 2020. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx (accessed March 17, 2022).

_____. 2022b. California Energy Consumption Database: Natural Gas Consumption by Entity, PG&E,
Total, 2020. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/Default.aspx (accessed March 17, 2022).

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2021a. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(c). https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section
-
65962
-
5c/

(accessed 30 November
2021).

_____. 2021b. Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a).
https://calepa.ca.g
ov/sitecleanup/corteselist/section
-
65962
-
5a/

(accessed 30 November
2021).

References

Final Initi
al Study
–

Negative Declaration

121

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit.

November 2015.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/Mu nicipal/R2_2015_0049_amended.pdf

(accessed 1 December 2021).

County of Santa Clara. 2008. Regional Parks and Scenic
Highways Map. June 2008.
https://plandev.sccgov.org/ordinances
-
codes/general
-
plan

(accessed 24 November 2021).

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. FEMA’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer.

May 2009.
https://hazards
-
fema.maps.arcgis.co
m/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b552 9aa9cd

(accessed 1 December 2021).

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/resea rch
-
innovation/118131/transit
-
noise
-
and
-
vibration
-
impact
-
assessment
-
manual
-
fta
-
report
-
no
-
0123_0.pdf (accessed March 17, 2022).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC). 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [
Masson
-
Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L.

Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthe
ws, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)
] Cambridge University Press.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR 6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

(accessed
March 4, 2022).

Kimley
-
Horn & Associates. 2016. Addendum to the Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 89022812). December 2016.
https://sunnyvale.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=27711

(accessed February
2, 2022).

Mountain View, City of. 2012
a
. 2030 General Plan. July 2012.
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10702

(accessed
23 November 2021).

_____.
2012b. City of Mountain View Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous e Gas Reduction
Program Final Environmental Impact Report.

September 2012.

https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=13900

(accessed
May 202
2 ).

_____. 2012
c
. Mountain View Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. August 2012. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10700

(accessed
May 2022).

_____. 2015. Climate Protection Roadmap. September 2015. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=19516 (accessed March 17, 2022).

__
___. 2020. Environmental Protection
–

Stormwater.
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fire/environment/protection.asp (accessed May 2022).

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

122

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

(accessed 1
December 2021).

_____. 2021b. Recreation Division Facility Rentals.
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/cs/rec/facilities/default.asp (acc essed May 2022).

_____. 2022a.

Garbage and Recycling Services: Residents.
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/pw/recycling/garbage/residents/default.asp

(accessed July 2022)

_____. 2022
b
. “What is Zero Waste?”
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/pw/recycling/zero/default.asp

(accessed March 16,
2022).

Mountain View Fire Department. 2021. Fire Department Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2021 -
2020.

August 30, 2021.
https://www.mountainview.gov/documents/MVFD/Annual%20Report%20FY%2020 -

21.pdf

(accessed November 2021).

Mountain View Los Altos High School

District (MVLA). 2021. Schools.
https://www.mvla.net/Schools/index.html (accessed May 2022).

Mountain View Police Department. 2020. 2020 Annual Report. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=36134 (accessed May 2022).

Mounta
in View
-
Whisman School District

(MVWSD)
. 2019. Master Facilities Plan (MFP) Strategies for
Growth. December 2019.
https://www.mvwsd.org/district_business/fa
cilities/master_facilities_plan_2019
-
2029

(accessed 3 December 2021).

______. 2022. Facts and Figures. https://www.mvwsd.org/about/facts___figures (accessed May 2022).

Palo Alto, City of. 2021. Quick Information. https://cleanbay.org/our -
programs/regional
-
water
-
quality
-
control
-
plant/ (accessed May 2022).

San Francisco Bay RWQCB. 2021. San Francisco Bay R2.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/

(accessed
May

202
2 ).

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2021. Water Supply. https://sfpuc.org/programs/water
-
supply (Accessed May 2022).

Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). 2012. Moffett Federal Airfield –

Comprehensive Land Use Plan. November 2012.
https://plandev.sccgov.org/sites/
g/files/exjcpb941/files/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf

(accessed 29
November 2021).

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Plan. 2016. https://cleanwater.sccgov.or
g/sites/g/files/exjcpb461/files/SCVURPPP_C.pdf

(accessed
May
2022
).

State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report.

August 27, 2018.
http://www.c
limateassessment.ca.gov/state/

(accessed
March 4,
2022
).

References

Final Initial Study
–

Negative Declaration

123

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources.
https://vertpaleo.org/wp
-
content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines -

1.pdf

(accessed December 12,
2021).

United States Department of Transportation. 2022. National Transportation Statistics. https://www.bts.gov/topics/national
-
transportation
-
statistics (accessed March 17, 2022).

United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2022. Californ ia State Energy Profile.
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA

(accessed March 17, 2022).

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
2021a
. “Criteria Air Pollutants.” Last
modifie
d:

August 16, 2021
.
https://www.epa.gov/criteria
-
air
-
pollutants

(accessed
March 4,

2022
).

_____.
2021
b
. “Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases.” Last modified: July 21, 2021. epa.gov/climate
-
indicators/climate
-
change
-
indicators
-
atmospheric
-
concentrations
-
greenhouse
-
gases (accessed
March 4,

2022
).

United States Fish and W
ildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. National Wetlands Inventory. 2022. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands
-
mapper/

(accessed May 2022).

Waste Management Intellect
ual Property Holdings, LLC. 2022. “About Us”.
https://kirbycanyon.wm.com/about
-
us/index.jsp#:~:text=Capacity%3A,tons%20of%20material%20p er%20day
. (accessed
February 2, 2022).

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP). 2015. Long -
Term Time
-
Dependent
Probabilities for the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3). https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/b
ssa/article
-
abstract/105/2A/511/331850/long
-
term
-
time
-
dependent
-
probabilities
-
for
-
the?redirectedFrom=fulltext (accessed
March 16,
2022
).

List of Preparers

Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS
-
MND under contract to the City of
Mountain View
. Persons
involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below
.

R
INCON
C

ONSULTANTS
,

I
NC
.

Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Principal
-
in
-
Ch
arge

Leslie Trejo
, Project Manager

Gianna Meschi, Assistant Project Manager

Nicholas Carter, Environmental Planner

Leanna Flaherty, Cultural Resources Project Manager

Rachel Perzel, Architectural Historian

Elaine Foster, Archaeologist

Andrew McGrath
, Assoc
iate Paleontologist

Je
nnifer DiCenzo
, Principal Investigator, Paleontologist

Gina Gerlich
, GIS Analyst

City of
Mountain View

1265 Montecito Avenue Residential Project

124

This page intentionally left blank.

Mountain View City CouncilDecember 6, 2022

Mountain View City Council
December 6, 2022