CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Prepared by
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2022020129
City of
Mountain View
In conjunction with
July 20` 2
Resolution No. 105
Resolution No. 18755
11 111 - 1 11 ' W
to] IF1,10, QW, We) U-61 M
Prepared by
E % lliIaqqwe City of Mountain
View In
conjunction with EK&
W, 787
The Alameda Suite
250 San
Jose, CA 95126 408.
660. 4000 esassoc.
com Bend
Orlando San Jose Camarillo
Pasadena Santa Monica Delray
Beach Petaluma Sarasota Doctin
Portland 0,( Akttlw Wine
Sacramento Tampa Los
Angeles San Diego Oakland
San Francisco D202000806
July
2022 ESA
Resolution No. 18755
Resolution No. 18755
TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Mountain View Housing Element
Update
Egge
Chapter1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 14 11 ProjectOverview_—_--.................. —.... .................................................. 1- 1 1. 2 Purpose and Use ofthis E|Fl......................................................................... 1-2 13 This
iaoProgram BR........................................................................................ 1-214 Environmental Review Process ................. ....................................................... 1-31. 5 Organization ofthe Draft BR ....................................
1-4 Chapter2, Summary .......................................................................................................... 2~ 21 Project Summary -------------------------------' 2-
1 2.2
Project Summary ............................................................................................... 2- 2 2.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 2-7 2.4 Summary ofAlternatives .................... ............................................................... 2- 7 2.5Areas ofControversy Raised inSoopng Comments ........................................... 2-72.8Issues toBeResolved ....................................................................................... 2- U Chapter 3,Project Description .......................................................................................... 3- 31 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3- 13. 2 Project Location and Setting ......................................................................... 3- 2 33 Background ................................................................................................... 3-2 34 Project Description ............................................................................................. 3- 8 3. 5 Project Objectives ............................................................ ............................... 3- 15
3. 8 Intended Uses ofthis E|
R.................................................................. ............. 3- 15 3'7 References .................................................................. ................................... 3- 17 Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measwrms--.----- 4J0- 4.0 Introduction tothe Environmental -----------------' 4I- 1 4] Aesthetics .............................................................................................. ........ 41-1 4.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................
4. 2- 1 4.
3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 4. 3-1 4, 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources .........................................
4. 4- 1 4.5 Energy ............................................................................................................ 4.5- i 4. 8 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources ............................................. 4. 6- 1 47 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 47- 1 4. 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................... ............................ ................ 4. 8- 1 4. 9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................... —.......................................... 4. S1 41O Land Use and Planning ................................................................................ 41O- 1 411 Noise and Vibration ................................ ............ ........................................ 4.11- 1 412 Population and Housing ...................................................................... ......... 412- 1 413Pub| ic Services and Recreation .................................................................... 4j3- 1 414 Transportation ........ ..................................................................................... 4j4-1 City ofMountain View Housing Element Update i ESA '
c02o00o06 Draft Environmental Impact Report Ju* u02z
Resolution No. 18755
able of Contents
4. 15 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................... 4. 15- 1 410 Effects Found Not toBnSignificant .............................................................. 41S- 1 Chapter 5, Alternatives tmthe Project .............................................................................. 5-1 51 CE0ARequirements ...................... .................................................................. 1 5.2 Factors
inthe Selection ofAlternatives ............................... .............. 5-3 5.3 Description ofAlternatives Selected for Analysis ............................................... 5-5 5/$ Comparative Analysis ofthe AKernativea-------------------. 5' 7 5.5 Overall Comparison ofthe Alternatives ........................................................... 5- 15 ChapterQ' Other CEQA Considerations --...-...------------.......—... G1 61 Significant EnvronnlontuEffects ....... .............................................................. U'1 6. 2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .......................... ..................... 8- 1 h. i GrnvvUh-| nduningImpacts .................................. —............................................ O-2 84 Cumulative Impacts .... ................................................................ ..................... 6- 5 Chapter 7[ Report Preparers ^^'~'-^.--.—_—..........--._.--_--.—.~—....—.- 74 71 Lead Agency ............................................ ......................................................... 7-
17. 20RConsultants ................................................................................................. 7- 1 A. Notice of Preparation,
Scoping Materials, and Scoping Comment Letters ..............
A- 1 B. Draft City ofMountain View 2023-2031 Housing Element ....................................... B1 C. Noise Supporting Information ................................................................................. C-1 Figupe3- 1Project Location Map ................................................................................... 3- 3Figure 3- 2 Neighborhoods
and Precise Plan Locations ................................................ 3- 5 Figure 3-3 Housing Site Locations Overview .............................................................. 3-10 Figure 4. 8-1 Hazardous Materials Cleanup Sites ......................................................... 4. 8- 3 Figuna4. 8-2 FAR Part 77Surface ................................................................................ 4.8- 7 Figure411- 1 2022Noise Contours for Moffett Federal Airfield .................................. 411- 16 Figure 414- 1 Roadway Classifications ......................................................................... 414-2 Figune414-2Existing Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................ 414' 4 Figure4. 14- 3Existing Transit Services ........................................................................ 414-8 Figuro414-4 HEUHousing Sites and
VK8TPer Capita ............................................. 4j4- 21 List ofTables Table 2- 1 Mountain View Regional Housing Needs Allocation 8mHousing Element Cycle ( 2023- 2031) ......................................................................... 2- 3 Table 2- 2 Summary nfImpacts and Mitigation Measures for the Project ..................... 2-8 Table 3-
1 Mountain View Regional Housing Needs Allocation 6mHousing Element Cycle C2023- 2O31L--------------............................. 3- 7 Table 3- 2 Mountain View Growth Projections for 2040.......................................... 3-
13 Tabks4. O-1 204UHousing and
Employment Projections with and without the
Resolution No. 105
Page108 of628
Table ofContents
Epge
Table 4. 0- 2 Cumulative Non -Residential Development Projects in the City -----. 4.0- 8 Table 4. 2- 1 Sounces, Environmental and Health Effects ofCriteria Air Pollutants ....... 4. 2- 3 Table
4.2-2 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ........................ ........... 4. 2-4 Table
4.2-3 Summary nfAmbient Air Quality Data inthe Project Area ........................ 42-7 Table 4. 2-
4 Air Quality Index Statistics for the SFBAAB................................. ............ 4.2-0 Table4. 2- 5
State And National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Major Sources...................................................... ...... ......
4.2-
11 Table 4. 2-
8 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Attainment Status ---------. 4.2-i3 Table 4. 2- 7 Recommendations for Siting NewSensitive Land Uses ......................... 4.2-15 Tab| e4. 2- B Recommendations for Siting New Sensitive Land Uses ......................... 42-1O Table4. 2-9 Consistency with Potentially Applicable Cm8/ WMeumo*oio?O17 Clean Air Plan Control Measures -------------------' 4.2-27 lable 4. 2- 0 huxease Ill Vk8Tvm/ uus FlupulaUm/ G/mwU'...... ..................................... 42-3\ Table 4. 3i Special Status Species Potential toOccur inthe HEUStudy Area .......... 4.3-7 Table 4/41 Known Historic Resources ........................................................................ 4. 4-8 Table 4. 4-2Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources ....................................
4.4-10 Table4. 5-1Existing Annual State and Regional
Energy Use .................... ................. 4. 5-2 Table 4.7-1 State ofCalifornia Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................ 4J- 6 Table 4.7-2City nfMountain View Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................. 47- 7 Table 4.7-3 Consistency with Applicable GHQReduction Actions \ n2017 Scooing Plan Update .............................................................................. 4. 7-38 Table 4.84 Federal Laws and Regulations Related toHazardous Materials Management.............................................................................................
4.O-8 Tebka4.8-2 State Laws and Regulations Related
toHazardous Materials KXanagomenL-----------------------------' 4. 8-1O Table 4.8-3 Indoor Air Cleanup Levels for
Long- term Exposure for
the MEW Siia- Residential Buildings ............................................................... ..... 4.8-15 Tab|e4.y-1Designated Beneficial Uses for Water Bodies inthe Study Area ..............
4.A-8 Table 411-1Sound Levels That Protect Public Health (dBA)..................................... 411- 2 Table 4] 1-2 Reference Construction Equipment Noise Levels 50feet from source) ......................................................... .................. 411- 1O Table 4113 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ........................................ 4.11- i2 Table4. 11-4
Baseline and
Projected Peak Hour Traffic Noise Levels Along Streets Housing Element Update ------------------- 411- 14 Table 412-1Population Trends, 2010-2020 --------------------- 412-1 Table 412-2 Housing Trenda, 2U10-
202O................................................................... 412- 2 Table 412-3 Mountain View Regional Housing Needs Allocation 0mHousing Element Cycle 031L---------------------- 4]2- 4 Table413- 1 Existing
Existing Transit
Parks ..................................................................... 413- Services ........................ ............................................... 4 Table 414-1
414- 7 Table
414' 2 Mountain View Growth Projections ------------------. 414-17 City wMountain View Housing Element Update
ESA /z02o00o06 Draft Environmental Impact Report ^*a022 Table of Contents
Resolution No. 18755
This page intentionally left blank
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update iv ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
r, N
This Draft Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines to analyze potential physical environmental impacts of the proposed City of Mountain View Housing Element Update ( HEU), referred to in this EIR as " Project", 1 A brief over -view of the Project and the environmental review process, and a description of the purpose of this Draft EIR and opportunities for public comment, are provided below, along with an explanation of how this Draft EIR is organized.
The Project analyzed in the EIR would include adoption of a General Plan amendment to add or modify goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs related to housing in the Housing Element of the City' s General Plan. The Housing Element itself would contain: an updated housing needs assessment; updated goals, policies, and programs that address the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing and that affirmatively further fair housing; and a housing inventory that meets the City' s Regional Housing Needs Assessment ( RHNA) allocation and provides a buffer of additional housing development capacity. The Project would also include modifications to provisions in the City' s General Plan Land Use Map, zoning ordinance, zoning map, and adopted Precise Plans, as needed, to reflect the housing sites inventory, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description.
Based on the City' s Regional Housing Needs Assessment ( RHNA) allocation, the HEU plans for an additional 11, 135 dwelling units plus a sizeable " buffer." This EIR evaluates the potential for approximately 15, 000 multi -family housing units (including approximately 96 accessory dwelling units) during the HEU planning period as a maximum scenario for purposes of the CEQA evaluation, understanding that the buffer size and the final sites selected for inclusion in the Housing Element will be determined by the City Council upon adoption of the HEU. Of this, approximately 13, 600 units are already allowed under the City' s adopted General Plan, zoning, and Precise Plans and the remaining 1, 400 units would be created through rezonings and General Plan amendments. In addition, the EIR also analyzes a possible increase in housing production from rezonings and General Plan Amendments of approximately 2, 700 units beyond 2031.
In addition to the amendments that would take place within the General Plan' s Housing Element, the HEU could require amendments to other elements of the General Plan to ensure internal The California Environmental Quality Act can be found in the California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq. The State CEQA Guidelines, formally known as the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act, can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15000 et seq.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
1. Introduction
consistency and constancy between the General Plan and zoning/ Precise Plans. Please see Chapter 3, Project Description, for more information.
1. 2 Purpose and Use of this E1U
CEQA requires a public agency to prepare an EIR describing the environmental effects of a project before a public agency can approve a project that may have potentially significant, adverse physical effects on the environment. The EIR is a public information document that identifies and evaluates potential environmental impacts of a project, recommends mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate significant adverse impacts, and examines feasible alternatives to the project. The information contained in the FIR must be reviewed and considered by the City of Mountain View and by any responsible agencies ( as defined In CEQA) prior to a decision to approve or modify the. project.
1. 3 This is a Program EIR
This EIR is a program EIR, as provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, and consistent with Section 15168( b) ofthe CEQA Guidelines, allows the City " to consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts." As a program EIR, this EIR analyzes potential impacts of development that would be allowed by the HEU without having site -specific development proposals in hand, and broadly considers proposed sites, their environmental setting, and potential impacts that could stem from their development. Readers will note that the level of detail is different than in a project -specific EIR, which generally considers a single, specific proposal on an individual site.
Future discretionary actions that would be facilitated by the HEU' s adoption, such as those related to the development of housing, would be assessed to determine consistency with the analysis provided in this program EIR. Potential future actions would also be subject to the mitigation measures established in this program FIR unless superseded by a subsequent environmental document that is required to analyze significant environmental impacts not foreseen in this program EIR.
It is important to note that while the law requires the HEU to include an inventory of housing sites and requires the City to zone those sites for multifamily housing, the City is not required to actually develop housing on these sites. Future development on identified sites would be at the discretion of individual property owners and would be largely dependent on market forces and -- in the case of affordable housing -- available funding and/ or other incentives. Nonetheless, this FIR considers potential impacts of development that may result from adoption of the HEU, focusing on proposed actions to encourage housing production such as changes in allowable densities, changes in development standards, and adoption of incentives.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 1- 2 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
1. Introduction
1100mr-M
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA for the initiation of environmental review, on February 4, 2022, the City sent a Notice of Preparation ( NOP) to the State Clearinghouse, responsible and trustee government agencies, organizations, and individuals potentially interested in the Project.
The NOP requested that agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the Project describe that authority and identify relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in the FIR.
Interested members of the public were also invited to comment. The comment period for the NOP extended from February 4, 2022 to March 7, 2022, during which time, the City accepted written comments on the scope of the EIR. 2 A scoping meeting was hold by the City on February 24, 2022 to accept oral comments.
The NOP and the comments received on the NOP are included in Appendix A of this EIR. As discussed in the NOP and Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the City did not prepare a CFQA Initial Study prior to preparation of the EIR, because the City determined that It was clear at the time of the issuance of the NOP that an FIR was required ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15060[ d]).
1. 4.2 Public Review of this Draft EIR
This Draft FIR is available for public review and comment as set forth in the Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion circulated by the City. During the review and comment period, written comments (including email) regarding the Draft FIR may be submitted to the City at the address below.
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
Attention: Ellen Yau, Senior Planner
500 Castro Street, P. O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039- 7540
ellen. yau@mountainview. gov
The Draft EIR, Notice of Availability, and other supporting documents, are available for public review on the City' s website at:
www.mountainview.gov/CEQA or on the Project website at:
https:// www.mvhousingelement. org/ and on the State Clearinghouse Website at:
https:// ceqanet. opr.ca. gov/ Project/ 2022020129.
The City Environmental Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 7: 00 p.m., during which verbal comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted. The meeting will be held virtually via Zoom webinar, and members of the public and public agencies may participate remotely. All interested persons may participate by joining the video conference and may access the meeting information at the following website: https:Hmountainview.legistar.comJCalendar.aspx. 2 Late comments were also accepted and received through March 14, 2022.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 1- 3 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
1. Introduction
17MAR1092-TWIMUN
Following the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR, the City will prepare responses that address all substantive written and oral comments on the Draft FIR' s environmental analyses that are received within the specified review period. The City will also identify any clarifying revisions to the Draft FIR that are necessary to address the comments received. When taken together, the responses to comments and the Draft FIR ( as amended if necessary) will constitute the Final EIR for the project. The City ( following a recommendation by the City' s Environmental Planning Commission) will consider certification of the Final FIR prior to making a decision on adoption of the LIEU and related approval actions,
1. 4. 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Throughout this FIR, Mitigation measures are identified where applicable and presented In language that will facilitate preparation of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP).
As required under CEQA, a MMRP will be prepared and presented to the City Council for adoption at the same time they consider approval of the Project, and will identify the timing and roles and responsibilities for implementation of adopted mitigation measures.
1. 5 Organization of the Draft EIR
This Introduction ( Chapter 1) presents an overview of the process by which this EIR will be reviewed and used by the decision - makers in their consideration of the project.
The Summary ( Chapter 2) includes a brief project description and a summary table that lists the environmental impacts, proposed mitigation measures, and the level of significance after mitigation. Detailed analysis of these impacts and mitigation measures is provided in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The Summary also provides a summary of the alternatives to the project.
The Project Description ( Chapter 3) describes the project location and boundaries; lists the project objectives; and provides a general description of the technical, economic, and environmental characteristics of the project. This chapter also includes a list of required approvals for the project and other agencies that may be responsible for approving aspects of the project.
The Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ( Chapter 4) contains a description of the environmental setting ( existing physical environmental conditions), the regulatory framework, and the environmental impacts ( including cumulative impacts) that could result from the project. It includes the thresholds of significance used to determine the significance of adverse environmental effects. This chapter also identifies the mitigation measures that would avoid or substantially lessen these significant adverse impacts. The impact discussions disclose the significance of each impact both with and without implementation of mitigation measures.
Alternatives to the Project ( Chapter 5) evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the project and identifies an environmentally superior alternative, consistent with the requirements of CEQA.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 1- 4 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
1. Introduction
The alternatives analysis evaluates each alternative' s ability to meet the project objectives and its ability to reduce environmental impacts.
Other CEQA Considerations ( Chapter 6) addresses growth -inducing effects, significant irreversible environmental changes, and significant unavoidable environmental effects of the Project.
Report Preparers ( Chapter 7) identifies the authors of the EIR. Persons and documents consulted during preparation of the EIR are listed at the end of each analysis section.
Appendices. The appendices include environmental scoping information and technical reports and data used in the preparation of the Draft FTR. These documents are included on the City' s Project vvebsil.e.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 1- 5 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
1. Introduction
Resolution No. 18755
This page intentionally left blank
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 1- 6 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
a
As provided by Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines CEQA Guidelines), this chapter provides a brief summary of the City of Mountain View Housing Element Update ( IIEU) and its consequences. This chapter is intended to summarize in a stand- alone section the Project described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the impacts and mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, and the alternatives analysis presented in Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Project.
This Draft Environmental Impact Report ( Draft EIR) has been prepared to evaluate the anticipated environmental effects of the HEU in conformance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The lead agency, the City of Mountain View (City), is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for approving the HEU, This EIR is a Program EIR, as provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, Section 15168 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a Program EIR is appropriate for projects which are "... a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
1. Geographically;
2. A logical part in the chain of contemplated actions;
3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulating authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways."
Section 15168( b) of the CEQA Guidelines further states: " Use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages. The Program EIR can:
1. Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action;
2. Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case -by -case analysis;
3. Avoid duplicate consideration of basic policy considerations; City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 1 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
2. Sum
4. Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternative and program -wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and
5. Allow reduction in paperwork."
Future discretionary actions that would be facilitated by the HEUS adoption, particularly those related to the development of housing, would require additional assessment to determine consistency with the analysis provided in this Program EIR. Potential future actions would also be subject to the mitigation measures established in this Program FIR unless superseded by a subsequent environmental document that is required to analyze significant environmental impacts not foreseen in this Program FIR
Ai
The City of Mountain View is located in the southern San Francisco Bay area, approximately 11 miles northwest of San Jose, California. The City is located in northern Santa Clara County, and is bordered by the San Francisco Bay to the north, the City of Palo Alto to the west, the City of Los Altos to the south and southwest, and Moffett Federal Airfield and the City of Sunnyvale to the east. The City encompasses approximately 12. 24 square miles with a population of approximately 82, 376 people. The geographic extent of environmental analysis included in the FIR for the proposed project will be the City limits.
95911= 03M
The HEU would identify specific sites appropriate for the development of multifamily housing, and the City would rezone those areas if/as necessary to meet the requirements of State law. The proposed sites that can accommodate development of multifamily housing are primarily located within the boundaries of adopted Precise Plans and along commercial corridors, though sites are also included from other parts of the City.
2 State law requires the City to have and maintain a general plan with specific contents in order to provide a vision for the City' s future, and inform local decisions at land use and development, including issues such as circulation, conservation, and safety. The City' s current General Plan was adopted in 2012 and contains eight chapters or " elements," including one about housing. The City' s Housing Element was last updated in 2014, and covers the " 5th Cycle" Housing Element planning period from 2014 through 2022. Because this period is drawing to a close, State law Government Code Section 65588] requires the City to update its Housing Element and provides a deadline of January 31, 2023 for submission of an adopted Housing Element. In accordance with State law, the planning period for the updated Housing Element will extend from January 31, 2023 to January 31, 2031, and is referred to as the " 6th cycle".
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 2 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
2. Summary
In addition to including goals, policies, and implementation programs regarding housing issues, Housing Elements must include an inventory or list of housing sites at sufficient densities to accommodate a specific number of units at various levels of affordability ( very low income, low income, moderate income, and above moderate income) assigned to the City by the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG) . This assignment is referred to as a Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA).
The City' s existing 5th Cycle Housing Element Includes housing sites Inventory sufficient to accommodate the 2015 RHNA allocation of 2, 926 units In the 2018 annual progress report APR), the City utilized the recently -updated North Bayshore Precise Plan to replace lower and moderate Income sites lost to redevelopment, as well as to create a significant buffer. Ott December 16, 2021, ABAG adopted the Final RIINA, which distributed the regional housing need issued by the Department of Housing and Community Development ( HCD) . The HCD allocated 441, 176 housing units to the nine -county Bay Area (" bulk allocation").
The City of Mountain View' s RI INA is 11, 135 units, distributed among four income categories as shown in ' fable 2- 1, below.
TABLE 2- 1
MOUNTAIN VIEW REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
6 TH HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE ( 2023- 2031)
Very Low Low Income Moderate Above Mod
Income Units Units Income Units Units Total New
0- 50% AMI) 51- 80% AMI) 81- 120% AMI) 120% AMI) Units
6' Cycle RHNA 2, 773 1, 597 1, 885 4, 880 11, 135
of Total 25% 14% 17% 44% 100%
SOURCE: Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG), Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031 adopted December 2021,
The HEU is required to identify housing sites to meet the City' s RHNA at specified levels of affordability. HCD recommends that jurisdictions plan for their RHNA plus a buffer of additional units equivalent to 15- 30 percent. To be conservative, the City intends to identify a buffer of at least 20 to 30 percent of units at all income levels and a total unit capacity of up to approximately 15, 000 units.
In addition, the HEU would identify sites appropriate for the development of multifamily housing, and the City would rezone those sites as necessary to meet the requirements of State law.
The City will need to maintain internal consistency between various elements of the General Plan and zoning ordinance, therefore, changes to elements of the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, and Precise Plans may be needed to ensure that the General Plan as a whole remains consistent with the HEU.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 3 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
2. The Project analyzed in this EIR would include adoption of a General Plan amendment to add or modify goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs related to housing in the Housing Element of the City' s General Plan.
The Housing Element itself would contain:
An updated housing needs assessment;
Updated goals, policies, and programs that address the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing and that affirmatively further fair housing; A housing inventory that meets the City' s RI INA and provides a buffer of additional housing development capacity.
The Project would also include modifications to provisions in the City' s zoning ordinance, zoning map, and adopted Precise Plans, as needed, to reflect the housing sites inventory, which is described below.
Housing Needs Assessment & Updated Goals, Policies, and Programs
The proposed Project would adopt updated goals, policies, and programs to address the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing and to affirmatively further fair housing in the City. Proposed updates to the goals, policies, and programs in the 5th Cycle Housing Element were informed by a review of the implementation and effectiveness of that document, as well as updated information on demographic and economic trends, existing housing and market conditions, and special housing needs experienced by disabled persons, elderly households, large family households, single female -headed households, and homeless persons. The proposed goals, policies, and programs were also crafted to address an updated assessment of non -governmental and governmental constraints to the development, conservation, and rehabilitation of housing in the City, and to affirmatively further fair housing. For more information, including the definition of these terms, and the proposed updates to goals, policies, and programs, please see the Public Review Draft Housing Element Update available on the City' s website at https://www.mvhousingelement.org/.
Housing Sites Inventory
The proposed Project would address the requirements for a housing inventory and meet the City' s 6t" Cycle RHNA plus a buffer via a number of strategies as provided for in State law and HCD guidance.
Pipeline Projects. The City has approved a number of housing and mixed -use projects that are likely to result in production of multifamily housing during the housing element planning period.
The City also has active applications on file for single family and multifamily housing and/or mixed use developments that may be approved, constructed, and occupied during the housing element planning period. These types of "pipeline projects" would count towards the City' s RHNA, and could collectively total at least 8, 600 units by 2031.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 4 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
2. Summary
Accessory Dwelling Units. The City may assume that the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) during the planning period is equivalent to that in recent years. Based on information contained in the City' s annual production reports to HCD, approximately 96 ADUs are assumed over the eight year planning period.
Existing OpportuniLy Sites, The City' s existing precise plans, General Plan Land Use designations, and zoning permit a range of residential densities in different areas of the City that can accommodate development of multifamily housing without adjustment. A preliminary analysis estimates that there may be sufficient sites to accommodate approximately 4, 700 units. Most of these sites are within Precise Plan areas, including El Camino Real, San Antonio, North Bayshore, and East Whisman, although there are sites identified for inclusion in the inventory in other areas of the City as well. See Figure 3- 2 for a map showing City neighborhoods and precise plan locations.
Pipeline Sites Requiring Rezoning and General Plan Amendment. There are a limited number of sites that could accommodate multifamily housing - and in some cases specifically affordable housing for lower income households - if rezoned to allow residential use at appropriate densities.
These sites, which include development projects under review and under discussion are located at 1265 Montecito Avenue, 1020 Terra Bella Avenue, 1010 Linda Vista Avenue and East Evelyn Avenue between Highway 85 and Pioneer Way, and could accommodate approximately 580 units.
Rezonings Adopted with the Housing Element. The City proposes to adopt Zoning and Precise Plan Amendments concurrent with this Housing Element Update, to clarify standards for allowed uses and densities at General Plan Village Centers and El Camino Real Village Centers. These amendments accommodate approximately 800 units in the site inventory, but the total additional capacity of these areas is greater - approximately 2, 500 units I.
ODDortunitv Sites Reauirin2 Rezoninus and/ or General Plan Amendments (" Back -Pocket" Areas). In the event that the above opportunities are inadequate to accommodate the RHNA, either at the time of Housing Element adoption or over the course of the 6th Cycle due to the " no net loss" law, the proposed Housing Element will also include programs to adopt additional rezonings and General Plan amendments in targeted urban infill areas ( areas on previously developed sites and/ or completely surrounded by urban uses):
Moffett Boulevard
Other shopping areas, such as Leong Drive, Bailey Park shopping center, Monta Loma Plaza A Joint Development at the Mountain View Transit Center Other non- residential sites south of El Camino Real, such as 1949 Grant Road and offices near Blossom Valley Shopping Center
This number is less than the total amount of units that could be allowed across these sites, since it is unreasonable to assume replacement of all existing uses over the horizon of this study. The number does consider the sites most likely to be redeveloped.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 5 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
PA
These rezoning opportunities could accommodate approximately 1, 000 additional units, depending on the densities adopted.
Total Inventory. The HEU is planning for the period from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031, and is expected to plan for approximately 15, 000 new housing units within this period, although the actual pace of development will depend on market conditions, property owner interest, and other factors. Also, of the approximately 15, 000 new units, only approximately 1, 400 would result from changes in City policy, zoning, or Precise Plans, and the balance could theoretically occur with or without the Project because it is consistent with existing policy, zoning, and Precise Plans. However, development of these units may be accelerated compared to the theoretical No Project scenario, due to programs in the Housing Element that streamline, incentiVi7(' or remove constraints for housing
Adoption of the I IE U would potentially result in 4, 100 more dwelling units in the in the City' s cumulative capacity beyond 2031 than would otherwise occur. This is due to the additional development potential that would be created the General Plan, Zoning and Precise Plan Amendments described above. The balance of the units included in the proposed HEU represent existing development potential that is already reflected in the City' s cumulative growth capacity. 0 CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 (b) requires the description of the project in an EIR to state the objectives sought by the project.
A clearly written statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project." The primary purpose of the HEU is to comply with the requirements of State law by analyzing existing and projected housing needs, and updating goals, policies, objectives, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The proposed Project is intended to ensure the City' s conformance with State housing requirements and seeks to:
Protect existing housing;
Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs;
Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development;
Affirmatively further fair housing; and
Identify specific sites that could accommodate required housing units to meet the City' s RHNA.
Conducting community engagement and soliciting feedback to inform the contents of the HEU is a critical component of the planning process and will help to shape the HEU that is ultimately adopted by the City Council.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 6 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
2. Summary
As provided by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15123 (b) ( 1), an EIR must provide a summary of the impacts, mitigation measures and significant impacts after mitigation for a proposed project. This information is presented in the various subsections within Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, of this EIR, and summarized in Table 2- 2 at the end of this chapter.
The Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impact:
Impact AIR- 2: Implementation of the HEU 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. , S'irnilicantand Unavoidable with Mitigation)
2. 4 Summary • Alternatives
2. 4. 1 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Chapter 5, Alternatives to the Project, analyzes a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed HEU, including the No Project Alternative and the Reduced Sites Alternative. The analysis of the alternatives, including a comparison of alternatives to the proposed HEU, is presented in Chapter 5, which provides a summary of impact levels within all environmental topic areas.
Overall, the analysis shows that neither the No Project Alternative nor the Reduced Sites Alternatives would reduce the proposed HEU' s significant impact related to air quality, but may reduce its severity due to lesser development overall. The No Project would also result in a new significant land use and planning -related impact and not meet project objectives.
Based on the evaluation described in Chapter 5, the Reduced Sites Alternative would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the purpose of this analysis based on its potential reduction in overall criteria air pollutant emissions and air quality -related health risk and the ability of the alternative to meet all of the basic project objectives of the proposed HEU ( albeit to a lesser degree than the proposed HEU).
I i I • Ipiiiplq
Section 15123 (b) (2) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR summary identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including those issues raised by other agencies and the public. Issues raised by the public have included concerns regarding biological resources, cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, population and housing, public services and recreation, and transportation. As a result, these issues are potential areas of controversy.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 7 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
0 Section 15123( b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR present the issues to be resolved including the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate identified significant effects. The major issues to be resolved for the Project include decisions by the City of Mountain View, as the Lead Agency, as to whether:
This EIR adequately describes the environmental impacts of the Project; Recommended mitigation measures should be adopted or modified; Additional mitigation measures need to be applied to the Project; Feasible dheindt1vus exist [ fiat vvould achleve the objectives of [ Ile Iloject acid leduce significant onvilloninctital inipads;
Significant and unavoidable impacts would occur if the Project is adopted and implemented; and
The Project should or should not be approved.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 8 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
D
I
F,- : E * : E ff r') 0 0 =
E - * * ff r:: * * ff ff 5 5,- ff ID ff 0
z
W Z)
a,, CD
go)
a)
0<- >
D 0
M
0' I'D >
a. — - 0 IP M m m 7 m
0-
m
TD IDW
W D
D CDr N C)
CD
m - 0 0 ry C Cn —
M
CD : 3 W
Z3
Cn
n @ C
Cn
0-
a
a - g 3
a
CD 3
CD CD 3 ciT a 0 CD 3 T ' D 3
1 ID
D
C < CD CD CD r
0 CD M
ID
g
0 on
CD CD cn M CL cn
D
T C) 0, 0 0
m 0 3 CD m =
0 a = ID ( a =
t,
D
3 cr
CD
C a CD 0
x
CD 0
D
S 9 = 7
CD CD
C) CD
CD FD :_ 3
0 Ow C-D
2:
m 4: m m
E cn
U) CD M
ZI (
a CD M
0 CD M
c
C D
c
a)
m C:
D z r F,,- (D C: 3 ( D C: V) 0 0 0
3 T
m
w a.,-
OCL mod
CL CL
COD
3 ff
OW = 0r cl CD CD CD Z3
g
Ln
14 _ j
CCT CU 0
CD 0 < W Ci o C, N Fla)
P, CD o CD Cn iD CD
Nam'
C1
A
D
m
CL
z z z z z z
03 0 0
D CD CD
CD CD
CLD CL O. O. CL A.
r- D r- CD r- CD r- CD r- CD r- CD
cnU) U) w 0 h f)
U) 1)
0 0
0) w 0)
5 0
LnD
03 m
Resolution No. 18755
0 m
ca D 5- 3
RU CD K >
cn - 0 cD
0 CD Cb0
w
3 cr 00 CLD CD
Cj CD 3
ll M ( D
Fn' CD
0z =; 0
01 ff @
J- M = a I= D'
3 ID
0 C: M
CL'< 0
CL
co w0U 0
CD
O
Ot
ID 5:"!R Dr ( D 0 _
0 3 @ 6 0oCo D O Z3 Z' cD — 1 5 0 6 3 - a3 z 5 5- 3 = r 0 : 5 < 0 ( D 0 - 0) CD - -- C a) ( D = Xr M= 0 CD -
2, a) Q) 0 cD 0, <
a = 3 ( D E- 0 rL i'
a) ' D O. E < 3 2 C-) 0 - 3 ' D ID 0 -0 - 0 E; @- CD M m 0 2 3 3 3 oa w< O= 00 & D c=D ' ' CD - C<D 0 W -- 0 ' D
CD cz
CD W 2) C: I =h - I ID :
3 CD 0 CD -
2' R ID , , 3 C , = 3 cD o
0 w j
I'D
o -- ( D 6_ - q
5- 1 0
CL - 0, a =I
D :
3 3 F 0 0 0 -- 3 0, 0• 0 a. m
Cl- -
m
0 0) 0 ( D C - 0 C) C(Inj cd CD'
r 0 0 ID = 0_ 0 CD - 0 Cf) ' D CD : 3
W 0 M CD - ( D 0
8 00 5 0 0
3 a M - CD - 0 CD - 0
D ( 0 < CD ! D CD =; 4 Q) 0- n =
3 0 m 0
D o K) n 0 Q) CD : 3 a 27 - 0 0 M 0 CD CD cD 3 (.' mill ' a ::
r ' D
0 3 D' N
cD 53 0 CrL
M =*t - CD CL 0) FD' CD M 0 cn 0 Uj ( CD a CI U M OD 0 0 FL 55 W ! R ID 0 0
CD CD - 0 -
0) c
3 - 0 CD Z D 3 ; L 0 E; U'V COD 0 0 6
R yyo
0 Ln- ( n -
i* L 0 @ ( D 3 > In. xO:i' C- :-:14 J =wr 3 5- Cn - 0 C=Dr ff,-, - -- t CL 5' 0) ( n =. W 9 0 CD @ 0 = = cD 0 u) = r
CD W m O' D 0 M
3 : 3 5- 0
c: ' 0
o'
m CD CD M ' M E 0 -0 ( D I-D 0- W= C) = 5 07 3 0 5D ff ' Q o3 D C) - ID QL = U' - 5 a CD VO. D C/) : 3 X ' a
x
2. 3 =
0 :: 0 CD 0 ( D En M ( D 0 CD ( A
a (OD 00) ( D 3 3 ' 00 00 0
c
0 , ( D 3 ( D E ( D Eh : 3 3 - 3 - ( D
cn = r cn 0 ( D 2L
3 - 600 m 0_ 5: r 3 c.1 ( D cD 0 c; 0 cn - cD F
T. = r
CD W : 3- 0
En S - W, E 0 - = r W, 5
CL < ( CO ( D
D 3 0 In = r --- Mo Ea. ,
w =
pr 0 C,) CD 3 En, Z
2. 2 - EF
60 Co
ID
0 3
U> S:. ID CL 0 C" c,
a 0 _
C/) : 3 CD
CT . 0 0 0
cr 0 - a) = r a)
COD CC, Co CD ( D
0 r- -
j = D
CD (
D 5
U) 00 Q=), ID Ep 11 CD CL
CD : 3 < T 00 a<) 00 ( D 6 (D < U 3 0 3- - 0
0 0 , -= ( D 5 2: =n 0 CD CD CD E; 0 - 0 0 - PQ CD 0) 0) 0) ( 0< -,< =.
0- ( D
CD 0. ( D 0 CD
n CD = - a . _ , = = 3aBt CD . R "_ < 0
3, S3 2: 3F- -(D -- n
0 3 cb 2 a
CD :: r (
n 0 CL
CD . 0
C15 CL - ch = r
1< w 3 0 h
0 - - n = r O' R o CU)L 0 0 0 ID _ M _ E ( D
m 6' - 0 0 00 0 0 0 C'r S. w 0 < m F), ai 2 m
x - 8 - 0 CL -- c - 6 3- to m E3 a) 0 - -
0 ID 0 - 0- 0 CD 3 ( D 0) d CD a: 0 CD 0 C=D' 0
r 0 X ( tp D 0) 3
D = --
C - - - CD cn
m Cr ( n
ID
0 =
r CD CEL CD' a 0- W M' S
D
ID -
0 1 - 0 C-n I-D - 3. ( n
0 0)
0 ID _ _ __
3 Cn _.
F =3 w
0 CD ( n U) CD : E 3 Fo- cD Er CD 0 5 c g.0 3 w 0) CD R3 U-) (, n) D g) CL 6(0
CD E; - 0 - ; 0) ( D - CC Cr C, C. CD, IR
3 0- w - n cn 0 = C Er CD = T CD 0.
0 : 3 0 Er =( 2 w F,- 3 0
3 ZF 0 CD' 0 -. 0 CD a
C, . o . o
CD - R :
3 C- 5' 3 FD, 0 a) o CDL 5-
D M CD o 0
C=D, : E Cr F ' CD 5. CD 0 a) CL - ID
0) = 0 - 0 CD Ui. @ 0 P,'< ET 0 m 0 > ID -0
0-- -
1 Z, , @CD CD ID
a -- ' 0 (g. 3 Fl- - n c ( a w =Wr cn 0 M I'D ( D
o '
0 a = = . 0 50- FD" 0 CD c: S' pO CD 3- C: CD 0 a) (< D 0 Cn 5, 2) ;_- CWL CD Z W CD = 0 w 3
2. cD 7" 0 C) 0 UT m
CD ( a M - 0, 0 ( D E: - -
0) , 2: 2 0 0 U) - - CD c -<.a x Cn ( D 5- = r O. 0 0
n ' (
D
0 j = -; - cn CD r- 3 3. Sr - 0
S. 0 0 w 3
0 E-- o w 0
0) ( D ( D - CD viaCD C<D 3 = r Q 5 - 0 - ( D
3 ICUD 70 ZI
m 0 CTFCL" 2D W ; zi: CD a) M
6 CL ( CnD < 3 ' ID , 0.
CD 5' ow aw) CL ( n ( a
Q . a : I R W CD M 0
D 5' CD CD 5' (D ID 0 ' FD- 5
o) ( n 0 0)( 0 CL WI CD CL - 0 (
n = 3 0 0 0
0) 5 n 0 m > - In 0 -a LD - , = 5r
mo
CD , , *
C: _,
0- 3CD CD CD -
CC 0- - 0 3 cD 3 0 S, COD w ( a
0 ,
0)
anD
X = r CD ( D - 0 C CD - n
C:
0 ( D 15.
0 CD 0
0 CD
0 ct a R C,D m
5- 0L = r ( D
0 =
r 0)
3 - 3 CD0- CD CD CD W ( D ( D CD
q C
C, 5 3 CD 0 a: 0 ( n
CD ( D 3L 5 1< CL ( D ( D
Resolution No. 18755
I 0 0 5, 0 —. 9
0) ff r Q) CD 3 CD - Z ( D - 1 11 0 mW Ma) 00
0) 3 = r 20 ( 3D
U)
CD w 7 R > C: —
M ( D >
2 : — m FD' >
M
ZT ICD ' a0) 0 ; 0
cD w CQ c 0M ("0D I
D ( D X
o) 7:5
0- =5 --
cD ( n -
CD
r-O C
0 CD' D
U) 3 0
CD
9 3
z
R CD
m
3 0 CD
3 D
3 3
U
CD C/)— 0CD M W0 CD CD
to cr CD 0 0 p 0 K cn 0 3 N a>
0 N ( D
WO
W ( D
0 W
CD 0
CD
O.
CD 110 0 Z5' 1 CD 0 0 0 - Z = 5 3 = 3
0 0.
D
8 F- ( p = Dr
D 5
7-
0 ( D
6 C: c:
Mn a) &CD0 M 3 ( n M
0- CD D 0CL 0 *
D c:
a)
6 c 5 d
Cos 0
2: :E w 0 r- CY Er CL CD CL
I D
3 0
H C,
C: m
S
0 CD XD CD 7 5,
EL
I:r
CD
CD
Z
0. 070 QCL 0 C CL
z0 mx Z0
r
C)_ a
cu 0) en - a m
1 0 CD E3 x
0 0
D Z) CD
WO a : 7
Q w ( D
CL— = _ 0
OxUD M ID CD ID ( 0
0 > CD
0 10
0 a @
1: 6 a) U) 3 -0 ( ID U) to
3 CD
CL
CD
a2CD Er
w ,,,)> 9 0)
7 M (: D C)
0', a) ( D Mw ma
n
CL m
E,
CL ! 1 C<D CD CD0<
c") - -
6 " m
ID r . -
CL
tv
OC
r' ' cr
CD
D 3
CD Fn' OL U) = 1 ' D @ 0 CD 0 0.
U CD0- ID j a) 5 >
a) cn CO r
CD : 5 0 U) Q) rya) n) ( 0 0 C)
D
n 4 CD7
2 C)
Cn 2 0 CD M
c.' m j 3
13' ' D
F CD CL
CD ( n
r
CD
to =) 0
CD CL L11, U) 0
n
FD. C
A 0 3
CD, @ In 0
CD E3. CD
0 M 0 =
u) ID CL 0' ID - FL ; 0 0
M CL CD
0 G)
u) ScL - 5' CL CD 0 0 a G) :- _ 0)
0 cl U) CD CD = 0) r 2- 0 0. CD0 23 0 (<D Cn. 0
0 0 @ -, M
W = D 0 ( D CD
c
7" CD O 0
U53 K S -
0. U>
ID CD
0. =
r T .
0 co 00'
C, k 0 '
r 0 ip CD
M Cn W 3 mo CLD u) m U) r
fn
p
Uj- 0 rCl
CCD 07- W
0- = 2
th V)
D CD
0 3 S 0 06 3 0
0 n , c:
0. CO: a
0 C0 50L 3CL' IQ
0- 05
5 CL a) ( 2.D0 0- 3 O. CD cn0, cn = 3: co CD Su m
Q cr
LA n
a)) ' 0 n
a- E3 Z 0
0 A m a
po = 0, C- O
m 0
cr ; 3 = m
I
C r
a
C) - = , C D < 0
a
rD
0) 0- 0 - 1 0 3
0 0
m
cr 0 =
r SD N K2 Cna CD 0=)r
Ow R' 5 CL 0 3 D CD CD 0
CD C: m CL CD 0) g
cr
o
3 - 0 a
CD
0 - 20 ri
0 CD
CD 3
D- S: CD
C:
CD - 0
2 0 5D 2
D < 0CD
D m
D
3 0 0 111O
0 0
0 0
2. TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
00 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT 1-1 0
Zo Significance
After Incorporation of
nA
Impacts
Mitigation g Measures Mitigation
a
Section 4. 3, Biological Resources
ct: -
Impact BIO- 1: Implementation of the HEU would - gave a Mitigation Measure 810- 1: Special -Status Bat Protection Measures. Less Than Significant substantial adverse effect, either directly or throug' t habitat In coordination with the City, a preconstruction survey for special -status bats shall be conducted modifications, on any species identified as a cand date, sensitive, by a qualified biologist in advance of tree and structure removal within the subsequent project or special status species in local or regional plans policies, or sites to characterize potential bat habitat and identify active roost sites. Should potential roosting regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. ( Less than Significant habitat or active bat roosts be found in trees and/ or structures to be removed under the project, with Mitigation) the following measures shall be implemented:
Removal of trees shall occur when bats are active, approximately between the periods of March 1 to April 15 and August 15 to October 15; outside of bat maternity roosting season approximately April 16 — August 14) and outside the months of winter torpor (approximately October 16 — February 28), to the extent feasible.
If removal of trees during the periods when bats are active is not feasible and active bat roosts being used for maternity or hibernation purposes are found on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site where tree and building removal is planned, a no -disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established around these roost sites until they are determined to be no longer active by a qualified biologist. A 100-foot no -disturbance buffer is a typical protective buffer distance; however, this may be modified by the qualified biologist depending on existing screening around the roost site ( such as dense vegetation) as well as the type of construction activity which would occur around the roost site.
The qualified biologist shall be present during tree removal if potential bat roosting habitat or active bat roosts are present. Trees with active roosts shall only be removed when no rain is occurring or is forecast to occur for 3 days and when daytime temperatures are at least 50° F.
Removal of trees with potential bat roosting habitat or active bat roost sites shall follow a twostep removal process:
On the first day of tree removal and under supervision of the qualified biologist, branches and limbs not containing cavities or fissures in which bats could roost, shall be out only using chainsaws.
On the following day and under the supervision of the qualified biologist, the remainder of the tree may be removed, either using chainsaws or other equipment ( e. g., excavator or backhoe).
Impact BIO-2: Implementation of the HEU would not interfere None required Less Than Significant substantially with the movement of any native res Jent or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. ( Less than Significant)
2- 1 2
ESA 202000806
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2022
1 July 2022
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Ln 00 TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
Ln r*
4 III ( D SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT 00 —
q
0 6 00
z
0 bo
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
0 A
a) Impact BIO- 3: Implementation of the HEU would not conflict with None required any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. ( Less thar Significant)
Impact BIO- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, when comoined Mitigation Measure BIO- 1: Special -Status Bat Protection Measures. See above. with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on Biolagicar Resources. ( Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Section 4.
4, Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL 1: Implementaticn of the HEU would rot cause a Mitigation Measure CUL la: Historic Resource Evaluation. substantial adverse change in the significance of a histork::al Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any previously unevaluated building 45-years of age or resource pursuant to Section 15064. 5. ( Less than Signific3n: vrith older on a site included in the housing sites inventory, the City shall require an evaluation of historical Mitigation) significance that includes consideration of the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. This evaluation shall be completed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications for History, Architecture, Architectural History, or Historic Architecture.
In accordance with Section 5024. 1, if the building has been previously evaluated for eligibility as a historic resource under CEQA and that evaluation or survey is more than five -years old, the findings of that evaluation should be confirmed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior' s Professional Qualifications as stated above.
Mitigation Measure CUL 1b: Historic Resource Avoidance.
If, after implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL 1
a, the subject property is found to qualify as a
historic resource and the proposed project includes demolition of the historic resource, the project shall be redesigned to remove or avoid demolition. Any redesign that includes significant alteration of the historic resource, as defined by Section 36.54.55( e) of the City of Mountain View Zoning Code, shall be required to comply with City Standard Condition of Approval ( Secretary of the Interior Standards).
Impact CUL 2: Implementation cf the HEU may cause a & xstantial Mitigation Measure CUL 2a: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource If pre -contact or historic -era archaeological resources are encountered during project construction pursuant to Section 15064. 5. { Less than Significant with & Ntigarion) and implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt and the City shall be notified. Pre -contact archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked -stone tools e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (" midden") containing heat -affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment ( e. g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as harnmerstones and pitted stones. Historic -era materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/ or ceramic refuse. An archaeologist meeting the U. S. Secretary of the Interior' s Standards ( SCIS) for Archeology shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery.
Significance
After Incorporation of
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
ESA 202000806
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 13
July 2022
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Impacts
City of Mountain View Housing Element L) pda-,e
Draft Environmental Impact Report
TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT Mitigation Measures
If the City determines that the resource qualifies as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource ( as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines) and that the project has potential to damage or destroy the resource, mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083. 2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 4, with a preference for preservation in place. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: ( 1) siting improvements to completely avoid the archaeological resource; ( 2) incorporating the resource into a park or dedicated open space, by deeding the resource into a permanent conservation easement; ( 3) capping and covering the resource before building the project on the resource site after the resource has been thoroughly studied by a SOTS qualified archaeologist and a report written on the findings.
If avoidance is not feasible, the City shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes ( if the resource is pre -contact or indigenous), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource pursuant tc PRC Section 21083. 2, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 4. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery ( according to PRC Section 21083. 2), if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource ( according to PRC Section 21084. 3).
Mitigation Measure CUL 2b: Cultural Resources Study Requirements.
Prior to approval of development permits for multifamily projects that include ground -disturbing activities, City staff shall review the most recent and updated Northwest Information Center NWIC) list: Historic Property Directory for the County of Santa Clara, to determine if known archaeological sites underlie the proposed project site. If it is determined that known cultural resources are within 0. 25- mile of the project site, the City shall require a site -specific cultural resources study by an archaeologist meeting the U. S. Secretary of the Interior' s Standards ( SOTS) for Archeology. The study shall consist of a cultural report that includes the results of: a cultural resources records search performed at the NWIC of the California Historical Resources Information System for the project area, a pedestrian survey of the project area, a historic context, an assessment of the sensitivity of the project area for buried precontact and historic -era resources, and identify if the project would potentially impact cultural resources. If the a- chaeologist determines that known cultural resources or potential archaeological sensitivity areas may be impacted by the project, additional research or treatment, potentially including subsurface testing, and/ or a cultural resources awareness training may be required to identify, evaluate, and mitigate impacts to cultural resources, as recommended by the SOIS qualified archaeologist. If avoidance is not feasible, the City shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes ( if the resource is pre -contact or indigenous), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083. 2, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 4. This shall irclude documentation of the resource and may include data recovery ( according to PRC Section 21083. 2), if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource (according to PRC Section 21084. 3). The cultural report detailing the results of the research shall be prepared a -id submitted for review by the City and a final draft shall be submitted to the NWIC.
Significance
After Incorporation of
Mitigation
2- 14 ESA l202000806
July 2022
A
Ln
Ln
00 C14
1" 00
1 0
6 0M z
r
0 bo
TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT Significance
After Incorporation of
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Impact CUL 3: Implementation of the HEU may disrLrb any 1- u- nan Nore required Less Than Significant
remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Less than Significant)
Impact TCR- 11: Implementation of the HEU may cause a sibstantial Mitigation Measure CUL 2a: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. See above Less Than Significant adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultured resource Mitigation Measure CUL 2b: Cultural Resources Study Requirements. See above. defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. (- ass & ar.
Significant with Mitigation)
Impact CUL 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined Mitigation Measure CUL la: Historic Resource Evaluation. See above. Less Than Significant with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable orojeds would Mitigation Measure CUL 1b: Historic Resource Avoidance. See above. not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts onhis—wn c architectural resources. ( Less than Significant with Alitigalion) Impact CUL 2. CU: Implementation of the HEU, in comLination with Mitigation Measure CUL 2a: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. See above. Less Than Significant other cumulative development, would not cause a suDstan: ial Mitigation Measure CUL 21b: Cultural Resources Study Requirements. See above. adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064. 5 or could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of icrrnal cemeteries. ( Less than Significant Impact, with Mi6catioal Impact TCR- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, when car- bined Mitigation Measure CUL 2a: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. See above. Less Than Significant with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable Drojects, could Mitigation Measure CUL 2b: Cultural Resources Study Requirements. See above. contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on triml cutUral resources. ( Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Section 4.5, Energy
Less Than Significant
Impact ENE- 1: Implementation of the HEU would not e-eult in None required potentially significant environmental impact due tc wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy rescurces, during project construction or operation or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Less than Significant)
Less Than Significant
Impact ENE- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU would - io7 result in None required wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption o-- energy resources during project construction and operation or c; 7nfiqct with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable enefgy cr energy efficiency. ( Less than Significant)
ESA 202000806
City of Mountain view Housing Element Update 2- 15
July 2022
Draft Environmental Impact Report
PA
TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
00 - SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT rH U
zo a
Significance
After Incorporation of
Q Wto Impacts
Mitigation g Measures Mitigation
0 Section 4. 6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources Impact GEO- 1: Implementation of the HEU would not direc- ly or None required Less Than Significant
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, includ ng the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaKing. ( Less than Significant)
Impact GEO- 2: Implementation of the HEU would not direc: ly or None required Less Than Significant
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, includ ng the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related grounc failure, including liquefaction. ( Less than Significant) Impact GEO- 3: Implementation of the HEU would not diremly or None required Less Than Significant
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, inckading the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. ( Less than Significant)
Impact GEO- 4: Implementation of the HEU would not result in None required Less Than Significant
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. ( Less Phan Significant)
Impact GEO- 5: Implementation of the HEU would not be located None required Less Than Significant
on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially - esult in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, Iiquefactior or collapse. ( Less than Significant)
Impact GEO- 6: Implementation of the HEU would not be located None required Less Than Significant
on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indi- ect risks to life or property. ( Less than Significant)
Impact GEO- 7: Implementation of the HEU would not d redty or None required Less Than Significant
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or &-.e or unique geologic feature. ( Less than Significant with Mitigatiera) Impact GEO- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, w"1- en combined None required Less Than Significant
with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impac-,s on geology, soils, or paleontological resources. ( Less than Sigmifican_) 2- 16
ESA t 202
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Julyy 2022022 Draft Environmental Impact Report
2. TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
in r40
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT 00rt o
z
Significance
After Incorporation of
W
Impacts
Mitigation Measures g
Mitigation
0 Section 4.
7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
z
Impact GHG- 1: Implementaton of the HEU would not generaEe Mitigation Measure GHG- 1: Require Compliance with EV Requirements in CALGreen Tier 2. Less Than Significant greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that -nay Subsequent development projects proposed as part of the HEU shall comply with EV have a significant impact on the environment. ( Less this requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2 at the time that a building Significant with Mitigation) permit application is filed.
Mitigation Measure TRA- 1: Implement VMT Reduction Measures. See Section 4. 14, Transportation, below.
Impact GHG- 2: Implementaton of the HEU would not confl ctwvith Mitigation Measure GHG- 1: Require Compliance with EV Requirements in CALGreen Tier 2. Less Than Significant an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of See above. reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. ( Less than Mitigation Measure TRA- 1: Implement VMT Reduction Measures. See Section 4. 14, Significant with Mitigation) Transportation, below.
Impact GHG- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, in combina_ ion wrth Mitigation Measure GHGA: Require Compliance with EV Requirements in CALGreen Tier 2. Less Than Significant past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably See above. foreseeable future projects, would result in a cumulatively Mitigation Measure TRA- 1: Implement VMT Reduction Measures. See Section 4. 14, considerable contribution to GHG emissions that may have a Transportation, below.
significant impact on the environment or conflict with appli, e plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reduc- Ig the emissions of greenhouse gases. ( Less than Significant w4th Mitigation)
Section 4. 8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZA: Implementation of the HEU would not create a None required
Less Than Significant
significant hazard to the public or the environment through :he routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials. ( Less than Significant)
Impact HAZ- 2: Implementation of the HEU would not -Emit None required Less Than Significant
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hardcus materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile -.-f an existing or proposed school. ( Less than Signihcaw)
Impact HAZ- 3: Implementation of the HEU would not oe locoed Mitigation Measure HAZA: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Less Than Significant on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materals sites Prior to the initiation of any construction requiring ground - disturbing activities on listed active compiled pursuant to Goverrment Code § 65962. 5 and, as a hazardous materials cleanup sites, the project applicant shall complete a Phase I environmental result, would it create a signi- icant hazard to the public cr the site assessment for that property in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials environment. ( Less than Significant with Mitigation) Standard El527 for those active hazardous materials sites to ascertain their current status. Any recommended follow up sampling (i. e., Phase II activities) set forth in the Phase I assessment shall be implemented prior to construction. The results of Phase 11 studies, if necessa , shall be ESA
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 17 /
20200
July2022 2022
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Ln 00
Ln r"I
r,
004 0
6 mm
0 F, M
0 TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT Significance
After Incorporation of
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
submitted to the local overseeing agency and any required remediation or further delineation of identified contamination shall be completed prior to commencement of construction.
Prior to final project design of any individual project that includes any earth -disturbing activities, the project applicant shall conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ( Phase I assessment). The Phase I assessment shall be prepared in general accordance with ASTM Standard El 527- 21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process ( or most current edition that is in force at the time of final project design), which is the current industry standard. The Phase I assessment shall include a records review of appropriate federal, State, and local databases within ASTM- listed search distances regarding hazardous materials use, storage, or disposal at the given site, a review of historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, a site reconnaissance, interviews with persons knowledgeable about the sites historical uses, and review of other relevant existing information that could identify the potential existence of Recognized Environmental Conditions, including hazardous materials, or contaminated soil or groundwater. If no Recognized Environmental Conditions are identified, then no further action would be required.
If Recognized Environmental Conditions are identified and the Phase I assessment recommends further action, the project applicant shall conduct the appropriate follow- up actions, which may include further records review, sampling of potentially hazardous materials, and possibly site cleanup. In the event that site cleanup is required, the project shall not proceed until the site has been cleaned up to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory agency ( e. g., DTSC, RWQCB, or SCCEHD) such that the regulatory agency issues a No Further Action letter or equivalent.
Impact HAZ- 4: Implementation of the HEU would not result ir, a None required Less Than Significant safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or worldng in the project area related to a public airport or public use a rper-..
Less than Significant)
Impact HAZ- 5: Implementation of the HEU would not in -pair None required Less Than Significant
implementation of or physically interfere with an adoptec emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. ( Less than Significant)
Impact HAZ- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, w-ien comb red None required Less Than Significant
with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projec: s,, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials. ( Less than Significan,, Section 4. 9, Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD- 1: Implementation of the HEU would rot violate a-ly None required Less Than Significant water quality standards or waste discharge requirements cr otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water qjalty_ Less than Significant)
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2- 18 ESA 1202000806
July 2022
L0
Ln
00 r1J
I" Q0
00 —
l 0
6 ch
Z M
0 on
p M
3 0
W
1=
TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT Significance
After Incorporation of
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Impact HYD- 2: Implementation of the HEU would rot substantially None required Less Than Significant decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substarrially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of -,he basin. ( Less than Significarf) Impact HYD- 3: Implementation of the HEU would rot substantially None required Less Than Significant
alter the existing drainage patern of the site or area inclucinc through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or trrcugh the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner wh -ch would i, result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; ii) sUbstartially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner whir-lwould result in flooding on- or offsite; iii) create or ccnt- ibu_a runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or iv) impede or redirect food flows.
Less than Significant)
Impact HYD- 4: Implementation of the HEU would rot risk release of None required Less Than Significant
pollutants due to project inuncation due to being located in a flood hazard zone. ( Less than Significant)
Impact HYD- 5: Implementation of the HEU would rot confiict with or None required Less Than Significant
obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. ( Less man Signdicant) Impact HYO- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU. when combined None required Less Than Significant
with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projec- s, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality. ( Less than Sigrificant)
Section 4. 10, Land Use and planning
Less Than Significant
Impact LUP- 1: Implementation of the HEU would - iot physically None required divide an established community. ( Less than Significant) Impact LUP- 2: Implementation of the HEU would - tot cause a None required Less Than Significant
significant environmental impact due to a conflict with arry land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. ( Less than S;gnificanfl Impact LUP- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU. w, 3en curtained None required Less Than Significant
with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would not physically divide an established community. ( Less than Significant)
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 19 ESA 202000806 July 2022
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2. Ln 00
Ln (' 11
r- cD
00 —
1-
1 0
6 Ln
z
0 Uo
Impacts
0 Impact LUP- 2. CU: Implementation of the HEL., when comb ned None required with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a co-1lict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the p, rpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. ( Less tt-.aiSignificant) TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT Mitigation Measures
Significance
After Incorporation of
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Impact NOW: Implementation of the HEU would rct generate a None required Less Than Significant
substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standarcs established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. ( Less : han S gV'cant,' Impact NOB- 2: Stationary noise sources from deveiloonem within None required Less Than Significant
the HEU area would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or roise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. ( Less than Significant) Impact NO- 3: Implementation of the HEU would not generate None required Less Than Significant
excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne nose levels.
Less than Significant)
Impact NOI- 4: Transportation increases along roadwaVs under None required Less Than Significant
the HEU would not result in a substantial pern- tanev irr-rease in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above baseine levels without the project. ( Less than Significant)
Impact NOI- 5: Implementation of the HEU would r.ct expose None required Less Than Significant
people residing or working in the project area to ex-- ssiv-- rose levels due to being located w1hin the vicinity of a prKia-- e airstr p or an airport land use plan or wi- hin two miles of a pudic airport or public use airport. ( Less than Significant)
Impact NOI- 1. CU: Construction activities associated witl- None required Less Than Significant
implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambieric noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of stanrierds established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. ( Less ahan Signi canf) City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 20 ESA 1202000806 July 2022
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2. Ln 00
Ln ( 14
r00 — i 0
6 LD
z ro
C
0 0
a)
Cr
TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT Significance
After Incorporation of
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Impact NOI- 2. CU: Stationary noise sources from ceve ocaren: None required Less Than Significant
within the HEU area, when combined with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in a surstanzial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local gereral plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Less than Significant)
Impact NOI- 3. CU: Construction activities associated with None required Less Than Significant
implementation of the HEU, when combined with ( Aber past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive qt-01 m: home vibration levels. ( Less than S,griflcant)
Impact NOI- 4. CU: Transportation activities under the HEJ, wnen None required Less Than Significant
combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in a substantial permanent increase In ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above baseline leids without the project and cumulative development. ( Less than Significant)
Section 4. 12, Population and Housing
Impact POP- 1: Implementaton of the HEU would rot inauce None required Less Than Significant
substantial unplanned population growth in an area either directly or indirectly. ( Less than Significant)
Impact POP- 2: Implementaton of the HEU would rot displace None required Lees Than Significant
substantial numbers of existing people or housing necessitating the construction of replacemen: housing elsewhere ( Less than Significant)
Impact POP- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combig-.ed None required Less Than Significant with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute conside ably to cumulative impacts in population and housing. ( Less ! han Significant)
Section 4. 13, Public Services and Recreation
Impact PSR- 1: Implementation of the HEU would no- result in None required Less Than Significant
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilites, -,he construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2- 21 ESA / 202000806
July 2022
Ln 00
Ln r"!
1"
00 ri
0 6 rz ro
0 bz
0 2.
TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT Significance
After Incorporation of
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
other performance objectives for fire protection. ( Le_zs than Significant)
Impact PSR- 2: Implementation of .he HEU would not rest. t it None required Less Than Significant
substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provision of or need for new or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant enviro7 menta impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, respcise firr-es or other performance objectives for police protection. Bess tan Significant)
Impact PSR- 3: Implementation of the HEU would not rest -it it None required Less Than Significant
substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provision of or need for new or physically altered school faciliSes, the construction of which could cause significant enviro' 7menta, impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, respc ise times or other performance objectives for schools. ( Less than Sigrui' iccant) Impact PSR- 4: Implementation of the HEU would root increase the None required Less Than Significant
use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical oeterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. ( Less than Sigr.ficapt,' Impact PSR- 5: Implementation of the HEU would riot include None required Less Than Significant
recreational facilities or require the construction or eKpans, on of recreational facilities which might have an adverse oysica effect on the environment. ( Less than Significant)
Impact PSR- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, when comoired None required Less Than Significant
with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts o public_ services that would require new or physically altered governmental talities, construction of which could have s,gnificant physical envircnmen7al impacts. (Less than Significant)
Impact PSR- 2. CU: Implementation of the HEU, combined with Norte required Less Than Significant
cumulative development in the vicinity and citywide, would no: result in significant cumulative impacts to parks and recreat,on. Tess than Significant Impact)
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report
ESA 202000806 2- 22
July 2022
L
2. Summary
Ln 00 TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
00 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT rq O
z m Significance
After Incorporation of
o
a
Impacts
Miti
g
a
non Measures Mitigation
0 Section 4.14, Transportation
c
Impact TRA- 1: Implementation of The HEU would not conflict with None required Less Than Significant
an applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of address nc the circulation system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. ( Less than Significant)
Impact TRA-2: Implementation of the HEU would not exceed an Mitigation Measure TRA- 1 Implement Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT) Reduction Measures. Less Than Significant applicable VMT threshold of s•gnificance. ( Less than Signifcart Individual multifamily housing development proposals that do not screen out from VMT impact with Mitigation) analysis shall provide a qua- ititative VMT analysis using the methods outlined by the City' s most recent VMT guidelines. Projects that result in a significant impact shall include travel demand management measures and/ or physical measures ( i. e. improving multimodal transportation network, improving street connectivity) to reduce VMT. The City' s VMT guidelines identify four tiers of mitigation measures. all of which can be quantified within the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) VMT tool:
Tier 1— Project Characteristics. Although it may be difficult to revise a project during ervironmental review, Tier 1 strategies allow the user to increase the project density, diversity of land uses, and add affordable and/ or below -market -rate housing to the residential and employment projects to reduce VMT.
Tier 2— Multi- Modal Network Improvements. These improvements include implementing bicycle lanes, improving the pedestrian network, implementing traffic calming, increasing transit accessibility, and improving network connectivity. These improvements require coordination with Mountain View staff and additional studies ( signal warrant studies, traffic calming studies, etc.) to determine feasibility. Consultants should prioritize public improvements included in the City' s approved plans wh ch contain various transportation improvements to bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway facilities as VMT mitigation. ( See above for list of adopted plans and policies.) Tier 3— Parking. Parking strategies shown to effectively reduce VMT include reduced parking, increased bike parking or end -of -trip bike facilities. In order to be most effective, the areas surrounding the projects with reduced parking should have parking permit programs.
Tier 4— Travel Demand Management (TDM) There are a multitude of TDM measures to reduce VMT. The VMT Tool includes all allowable TDM measures and their relative effectiveness.
Based on the percentage of participation selected by the user, the VMT Tool calculates the resulting VMT reduction. The various TDM measures in the VMT Tool include school carpool programs, bike -sharing programs, car -sharing programs, trip reduction marketing/ educational campaigns, parking cash -out, subsidized transit, telecommuting, alternative work schedules, shuttles, pay to park, ride -sharing, unbundled parking, and subsidized vanpools.
Impact TRA- 3: Implementation of the HEU would not suE stantally None required Lem Than Significant
increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or
incompatible uses. ( Less thar Significant)
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 23 ESA / 202000806 July 2022
Draft Environmental Impact Report
i
Ln
Ln,
00 r14
1`
1 u7
00 —
1 0
o a)
M
0 ao
2. TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT Significance
After incorporation of
Impacts
Mitigation Measures Mitigation
Impact TRA- 4: Implementation of the HEU would not result it Nore required Less Than Significant
inadequate emergency access. ( Less than Significant)
Impact TRA- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, in comi> ia-ic-i Nore required
Less Than Significant
with cumulative development, would not conflict w th an -applicable program, plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures oeffectiveness for the performance o: addressing the ciroLlaton system, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilitle-z. C- ess than Significant)
Impact TRA- 2. CU: Implementation of the HEU, in comb Mitigation Measure TRA- 1: Implement VMT Reduction Measures. See above. Significant and Unavoidable with cumulative development, would not exceed an apDlcaole VMT threshold of significance. ( Significant and Umvefdable with Mitigation)
Impact TRA- 3. CU: Implementation of the HEU, it comN- iaJ(_n None required
Less Than Significant
with cumulative development, would not substantially iioreasa hazards due to a geometric Design - eature or incon- paitle uses.
Less than Significant)
Impact TRA-4. CU: Implementation of the HEU, it combi-iaJcn None required Less Than Significant with cumulative development, wound not result in inadeq - ate emergency access. ( Less than Significant)
Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTLA: Implementation of the HEU would not require or Mitigation Measure UTL- 1: Fair -Share Contributions Toward Utility Improvements. Less Than Significant result in the relocation or corstruction of new or expanded % Aater, Subsequent development projects shall contribute the fair share amount identified by the City of wastewater treatment or scorn water drainage, electric power Mountain View Public Works Department to fund capital improvements to the water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the cost= ticn or and stormwater drainage systems prior to issuance of a building permit. relocation of which could caLse significant environrnemal effects.
Less than Significant with h4tigatior7)
Impact UTL- 2: Implementation of the HEU would bare -31- ftent None required Less Than Significant water supplies available to serve the project and reasonaby foreseeable future development duri- ig normal, dry aid multiple dry years. ( Less than Significant,
Impact UTL- 3: Implementation of the HEU would result it a None required
Less Than Significant
determination by the wastewater treatment provide-, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve tne project' s projected demand in, addition to the provider' s existing commitments. ( Less than Sic ,nificatit)
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 24 ESA / 202000806 July 2022
Draft Environmental Impact Report
2. Lr) 00 TABLE 2- 2 ( CONTINUED)
Ln ( 11
I"
00 — o SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROJECT a 0
6 C>
z I"r
q
C: C)
0 impacts
Mitigation Measures
0 Impact UTL- 4: Implementation of the HEU would not gentxale solid None required waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the. atta nment of solid waste reduction goals. ( Less than Significant)
Impact UTL- 5: Implementation of the HEU would not 3ornply with I None required federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Signifcant) I Impact UTL- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, wher COITIDined Mitigation Measure UTL- 1: Fair -Share Contributions Toward Utility Improvements. See with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable Drojec- s, would above. not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts On utility infrastructure. ( Less than Significant with Mitigation) Impact UTL- 2. CU: Implementation of the HEU, wher comoined None required with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable orcjeG-,_z, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on water SLX)ty.
Less than Significant)
Impact UTL- 3. CU: Implementation of the HEU, wher co fired None required with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable o- cjects, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on wastewater treatment capacity. ( Less than Significant)
Impact UTL4. CU: Implementation of the HEU, when cornoired None required with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable o- cjects. would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on solid waste.
Less than Significant)
Significance
After Incorporation of
Mitigation
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
Less Than Significant
2- 25 ESA 1202000806
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update July 2022
Draft Environmental Impact Report
Resolution No. 18755
This page intentionally left blank
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 2- 26 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
INZYMAZRA
1 10,1141 R-1111111ta RrQ;0J
0" E=* I
Stale law requires the City to have and maintain a general plan with specific contents in order to provide a vision for the City' s future. The general plan informs local decisions about land use and development, including issues such as circulation, conservation, and safety. The City of Mountain View' s 2030 General Plan was comprehensively updated in 2012 and identifies major themes and overarching strategies related to quality of life, sustainability, diversity, health and wellness, and economic prosperity. The 2030 General Plan update included six topical chapters or " elements" and one chapter summarizing the character of eight planning areas and identifying policies specific to each area. The City maintains
the Housing Element of its General Plan
as a separate document, although it
comprises an integral part of the overall
plan, providing goals, policies, and
programs regarding the preservation and
development of housing in the City.
The City' s Housing Element was last
updated in 2014, and covers the
5th Cycle" housing element planning
period from 2014 through 2022. Because
this period is drawing to a close, State
L Planning Areas
2. Land Use and Design
3. Mobility
4. Infrastructure and Conservation
5. Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
6. Noise
7. Public Safety
8, Housing Element (separately updated in
2014).
law [ Government Code Section 65588]
requires the City to update its Housing Element by the deadline of January 31, 2023. In accordance with State law, the planning period for the updated Housing Element is from January 31, 2023 to January 31, 2031 and is referred to as the " 61h cycle." Concurrent with the Housing Element update, the City proposes to undertake any changes to the City' s General Plan Land Use Map, zoning ordinance, Zoning Map and Precise Plans that are needed to reflect the updated Housing Element and to maintain consistency with the General Plan. Over the course of implementing the Housing Element, the City may also update the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map and Precise Plans as directed by the Housing Element. These proposed actions ( updates to the Housing Flement of the General Plan, General Plan Land Use Map, and conforming changes to the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map and Precise Plans) are the subject of this Environmental Impact Report ( EIR), and are collectively referred to as the Housing Element Update ( HEU) or " the Project." The HEU is described in this City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 1 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
3. Project Description
chapter, which also provides background information, project objectives, and describes intended uses of the EIR, including approval actions required.
The proposed Project would update the City of Mountain View' s Housing Element, which is a policy document that addresses housing issues and applies citywide. The housing sites inventory component of the housing element primarily identifies sites for development of multifamily housing that are principally located within the boundaries of adopted Precise Plans ( see Section 3. 3. 1 below) and along commercial corridors, though sites are also included from other parts ofthe City.
The City includes approximately 1?.,?, 4 square miles and is located in northern Santa Clara County, it boidelis [ lie Stij Fiducisco Boly to the North, the City of Palo Alto to the West, the City of Los Altos to the South and Southwest, and Moffett Federal Airfield and the City of Sunnyvale to the East. ( See Figure 3- 1.)
3. 3 Backe -round 11
The City' s current General Plan land use designations, zoning, and precise plans provide for development of multifamily housing in many areas of the City and provides the context for the HEU and its inventory of housing sites. This section provides a summary of these existing land use controls as well as a summary of required components of the HEU.
3. 3. 1 Existing Planning and Zoning
2030 General Plan
The 2030 General Plan is the guiding document for the City' s physical development and preservation. It includes goals, policies and graphics that convey a long- term vision and guide local decision - making to achieve that vision. Included in the 2030 General Plan are land use designations and a land use map. Land use designations define the type, intensity and density of development within the City, and include five general groups: Residential; Commercial; Office/ Industrial; Mixed -Use; and Public/Institutional. Multifamily residential uses are allowed under the Residential and Mixed -Use land use designations at varying densities ranging from 7 to 80 dwelling units per acre in residential designations or 1. 05 to 3. 0 FAR in mixed -use designations. rii • i7TME
The City' s Zoning Ordinance plays a key role in regulating development type, density, and land use, and generally supports the vision of the 2030 General Plan. Development standards identified in the Zoning Ordinance include setbacks, lot area, lot width, density, floor area ratio, site coverage, landscaping and open area requirements, height limits, storage, and parking. The Zoning Ordinance organizes zoning districts into four broad categories: residential; commercial/ professional; industrial-, and special purpose. Multifamily residential units are permitted uses under the R3 ( Residential — Multiple -Family), R4 ( Residential —High -Density Multiple -Family), and Planned community ( P) districts.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 2 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
SAN MATEO SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY BAY
T
Shoreline Park
CM OF,
kC6ALTO
CitAt!, ESTON Rol -
WAY
ir— - 4
h
c$San ' Anto i Ce4e
c
ALAMEDA
COUNTY
I Berkeley
San Fra.,.,
Hayward
ISan Mateo
0 PAA
Mountain View San Jose
Alto
L., Gatos
REGIONAL
LOCATION
NASA Ames
Research Center
Moffett Field
v
7 A ( Zell
J-/, UVWIILVWII
ir
C
S .-
S
F
i: vr in'—p
TOWN, OF J" ii;; ' 0i
SUNNYVALE
LOSALTO
s
HILLS J
I Sphere of Influence and Planning Area
7 Freeways
El Camino:''
ULli lin, — Hospital X
Q
x City Limits
Major Roads
K
Bodies of Water
0,
0 . 5 1. 0
4 p MI. mi es
SOURCE: City of Mountain View, 2011
ESA
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Figure 3- 1
Project Location Map
Resolution No. 18755
I
To address site -specific development needs, the City has developed 25 Precise Plans covering various locations within the City. Precise Plans are a tool for coordinating future public and private improvements on specific properties where special conditions of size, shape, land ownership, or existing or desired development require particular attention. The Precise Plans provide detailed specifications for land uses, relationship to surrounding areas, use intensity, circulation, design, procedures for development review, and special conditions for development occurring within each Precise Plan area. The City' s Precise Plan areas are shown in Figure 3- 2. In the City, Precise Plans range from a small 3- acre development to large neighborhoods. The Precise Plans covering the largest areas and with the highest development potential as relevant to the HEU are detailed below:
Last Whisman Precise Plan
The East Whisman Precise Plan ( adopted November 5, 2019, as amended through October 13, 2020) advances a sustainable, transit -oriented area with complete mixed -use neighborhoods and enhanced area mobility in an approximately 412- acre area on the eastern border of the City. It includes land use and development regulations for up to 2 million square feet of net new office uses, 100, 000 square feet of retail uses, 200 hotel rooms, and 5, 000 multi -family residential units with goal of making 20 percent of the total residential units affordable).
North Bayshore Precise Plan
The North Bayshore Precise Plan ( adopted November 25, 2014, as amended through December 7, 2021) supports transition of an approximately 650- acre area in the northern portion of the City into an innovative, sustainable, and complete mixed -use district that protects and stewards biological habitat and open space, and continues its role as a major high- technology employment center. The original North Bayshore Precise Plan did not include residential uses, but updates to the development standards and design guidelines of the plan adopted in December 2017 added residential uses in the areas designated for mixed - use development. The North Bayshore Precise Plan provides a vision and guiding principles, development standards, and design guidelines for up to 9, 850 new multi -family residential units and 3. 6 million square feet of office and commercial development. The North Bayshore Precise Plan has a target of approximately 20 percent of residential units being affordable.
El Camino Real Precise Plan
The El Camino Real Precise Plan ( adopted November 17, 2014, as amended through April 13, 20 2 1) provides planning priorities, development regulations, and an implementation strategy for the 3. 9- mile stretch of the El Camino Real that runs through Mountain View. The El Camino Real Precise Plan contains direction for potential street improvements, and implementation actions, standards and guidelines for new residential densities and focused commercial areas.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 4 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
O
a 2000
N
Feet
SOURCE: ESRI, 2021.
ESA
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Figure 3- 2
Neighborhoods and Precise Plan Locations
Resolution No. 18755
3. Project Description
The San Antonio Precise Plan ( adopted December 2, 2014, as amended through November 17, 2020) guides the transformation of the existing regional commercial area into a mixed -use core within a broader existing residential neighborhood, taking into account the area' s proximity to transit services and location along two ofthe most heavily traveled corridors in the City:
El Camino Real and San Antonio Road. The San Antonio Precise Plan identifies planning principles and policies, development regulations, mobility improvements and an implementation strategy for approximately 123 acres of land including and surrounding the San Antonio Center shopping area. It also includes allowances for higher densities of housing, and an office cap of 600, 000 square feet.
State law tequilies that the City' s Housing Eleineut be updated by January 31, 2023dild III& It contain specific contents, including: an updated assessment of housing need; updated goals, policies, and programs; and an inventory or list of housing sites at sufficient densities to accommodate a specific number of units at various levels of affordability assigned to the City by the Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG). ABAG assigns unit amounts to Bay Area jurisdictions based on a regional housing production target set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). This assignment is referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA).
The City' s existing 5th Cycle Housing Element for the period from 2015 to 2023 includes a housing sites inventory sufficient to accommodate the 2015 RHNA allocation of 2, 926 units. In the 2018 annual progress report ( APR), the City utilized the recently -updated North Bayshore Precise Plan to replace lower and moderate income sites lost to redevelopment, as well as to create a significant buffer. A buffer is necessary to ensure that if one or more of the identified sites are developed at lower densities than projected, or with non -housing uses, the inventory maintains sufficient capacity to provide an ongoing supply of sites for housing during the eight - year planning period/ cycle of the Housing Element. Ifthere were no buffer and an identified site developed with a non -housing project or developed at a density less than that anticipated in the Housing Element, then the City could be obliged to identify new sites and amend the Housing Element prior to the end of the cycle.
The need for a substantial buffer is even more important during the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update because of new rules in the Housing Accountability Act' s " no net loss" provisions.
California State Senate Bill 166 ( 2017) required that the land inventory and site identification programs in the Housing Element always include sufficient sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA. This means that if a site is identified in the Housing Element as having the potential for housing development that could accommodate lower -income units is actually developed with units at a higher income level, then the locality must either identify and rezone, if necessary, an adequate substitute site or demonstrate that the land inventory already contains an adequate substitute site. An adequate butter will be critical to ensure that the City remains compliant with these provisions without having to identify and rezone sites prior to the end of the housing cycle in early 2031.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 6 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
3. Proiect Description
On December 16, 2021, ABAG adopted the Final RHNA, which distributed the regional housing need of 441, 176 units across all local jurisdictions in the nine -county Bay Area. Each jurisdiction' s RHNA includes an allocation of housing need ( units) in four income -based categories: very low income, low income, moderate income, and above moderate income. The four categories are defined based on the household' s percentage of Area Median Income ( AMI).
Specifically, very low income units accommodate households at 0- 50 percent of AMI, low income units accommodate households at 51- 80 percent of AMI, moderate income units accommodate households at 81- 120 percent of AMI, and above moderate income units accommodate households at greater than 120 percent of AMI. As a point of reference, Santa Clara County' s 2021 Area Median Income ( AMI) for a household of four persons is $ 151, 300.
City' s HEU must plan for its RHNA allocation of housing units by income group, and a buffer is recommended by HCD to ensure that Sufficient capacity exists in the Housing Element to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period. 'fable 3- 2 shows the City' s RHNA across the four income categories.
TABLE 3- 1
MOUNTAIN VIEW REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
6TH HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE ( 2023- 2031)
Very Low Low Income Moderate Above Mod
Income Units Units Income Units Units Total New
0- 50% AMI) 51- 80% AMI) 81- 1200/. AMI) 120% AMI) Units 6 lh Cycle RHNA 2, 773 1, 597 1, 885 4, 880 11, 135
of Total 25% 14% 17% 44% 100%
SOURCE: Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG), Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023- 2031 adopted December 2021.
The 11, 135 total housing units required in the 6th Cycle RHNA are substantially higher than the City' s 5th Cycle RHNA of 2, 926 units in part because the Bay Area region' s overall allocation of 441, 176 units from HCD is more than double the last Housing Element cycle' s allocation, which was approximately 189, 000 units.
The HEU is required to identify housing sites to meet the City' s RHNA at specified levels of affordability. HCD recommends that jurisdictions plan for their RHNA plus a buffer of additional units equivalent to 15- 30 percent. To be conservative, the City intends to identify a buffer of at least 20 to 30 percent of units at all income levels and a total unit capacity of up to approximately 15, 000 units. Inclusion of a generous buffer is in the City' s interest because:
0 As the analysis of the Housing Element Update progresses through the preparation and adoption process, sites may be modified or removed from the inventory; and A generous buffer would avoid the need to identify and potentially rezone additional sites if ono or more sites included in the Housing Element to accommodate lower or moderate income housing later develops with fewer such units during the eight year planning period.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 7 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
3. While a significant number of identified sites will already have adequate Zoning for the units identified, the City is also choosing to rezone some of the identified sites and amend applicable Precise Plans to create the desired buffer proposed in the inventory ( the rezonings are not necessary to meet the RHNA). Over the course of the 6th Cycle, the City' s buffer may be exhausted and the City may need to amend the General Plan Map, the Zoning Map, and the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate any shortfalls. As noted below in Section 3. 4, the number of sites likely to require rezoning represents a small percentage of the total inventory.
While State law requires the Housing Element to include an inventory of housing sites and requires the City to appropriately zone sites for multifamily housing, the City is not required to actually develop/construct housing on these sites. Future development on identified sites would be at the discretion of individual property owners and would be largely dependent on market forces and -- in the case of affordable housing -- available funding and/ or other incentives.
Nonetheless, this EIR considers potential impacts of development that may result from adoption of the HEU, focusing on proposed actions to encourage housing production such as changes in allowable densities, changes in development standards, and adoption of incentives.
3. 4 Project Description
The Project analyzed in this EIR would include adoption of a General Plan amendment to add or modify goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs related to housing in the Housing Element of the City' s General Plan.
The Housing Element itself would contain:
An updated housing needs assessment;
Updated goals, policies, and programs that address the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing and that affirmatively further fair housing; A housing inventory that meets the City' s RHNA and provides a buffer of additional housing development capacity.
The Project would also include modifications to provisions in the City' s General Plan land use map, zoning ordinance, zoning map, and adopted Precise Plans, as needed, to reflect the housing sites inventory, which is described below.
3.4. 1 Housing Needs Assessment & Updated Goals,
Policies, and ••
The proposed Project would adopt updated goals, policies, and programs to address the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing and to affirmatively further fair housing in the City. Proposed updates to the goals, policies, and programs in the 5th Cycle Housing Element were informed by a review of the implementation and effectiveness of that document, as well as updated information on demographic and economic trends, existing housing and market conditions, and special housing needs experienced by disabled persons, elderly households, large family households, single female -headed households, and homeless City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 8 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
3. Project Description
F
persons. The proposed goals, policies, and programs were also crafted to address an updated assessment of non -governmental and governmental constraints to the development, conservation, and rehabilitation of housing in the City, and to affirmatively further fair housing. For more information, including the definition of these terms, and the proposed updates to goals, policies, and programs, please see the HCD Draft Housing Element Update available on the City' s website at https:// www.mvhousingelement. org/ and included as Appendix B.
The proposed Project would address the requirements for a housing inventory and meet the City' s 61h Cycle RHNA plus a buffer via a number of strategies as provided for in State law and HCD guidance. See Figure 3- 3 for an overview of housing site locations included in the HEU.
Pipeline Projects. The City has approved a number of housing and mixed -use projects that are likely to result in production of multifamily housing during the housing element planning period.
The City also has active applications on file for single family and multifamily housing and/or mixed use developments that may be approved, constructed, and occupied during the housing element planning period. These types of "pipeline projects" would count towards the City' s RHNA, and could collectively total at least 8, 600 units by 2031, not including pipeline rezoning projects ( described below).
Accessory Dwelling Units. The City may assume that the development of accessory dwelling units ( ADUs) during the planning period is equivalent to that in recent years. Based on information contained in the City' s annual production reports to HCD, approximately 96 ADUs are assumed over the eight year planning period.
Existing Opportunity Sites. The City' s existing precise plans, General Plan Land Use designations, and zoning permit a range of residential densities in different areas of the City that can accommodate development of multifamily housing without adjustment. A preliminary analysis estimates that there may be sufficient sites to accommodate approximately 4, 700 units.
Most of these sites are within Precise Plan areas, including El Camino Real, San Antonio, North Bayshore, and East Whisman, although there are sites identified for inclusion in the inventory in other areas of the City as well. See Figure 3- 2 for a map showing City neighborhoods and precise plan locations.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 9 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
1 I City of Mountain View
Q Neighborhoods
Pipeline Projects
100% Affordable Housing
Project
Approved, Under Review
Formal), and Under
Review (Informal)
Pipeline Projects -
NASA Ames Rezoning Required
Federal)
Opportunity Sites
Opportunity Sites - No
Rezoning Required
Opportunity Sites -
Rezoning Required
IIIIIII Rezone Area for General Plan Village Center Sites Monta Loma/ Farley/ Rock Street ] Rezone Area for El
Camino Real Village
Federall
SAAmes
Center Sites
O
0 4, 000
N
Feet
SOURCE: ESRI, 2022.
ESA
North Bayshore
q K
c
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Figure 3- 3
Housing Site Locations Overview
Resolution No. 18755
3. Proiect Description
111FIF111, 1111 • III! 111 11191411
Pipeline Sites Requiring Rezoning and General Plan Amendment. There are a limited number of sites that could accommodate multifamily housing - and in some cases specifically affordable housing for lower income households - if rezoned to allow residential use at appropriate densities. These sites, which include development projects under review and under discussion are located at, 1265 Montecito Avenue, 1020 Terra Bella Avenue, 1010 Linda Vista Avenue and East Evelyn Avenue between Highway 85 and Pioneer Way, and could accommodate approximately 580 units.
Rezonings Adopted with the Housing Element. The City proposes to adopt Zoning and Precise Plan Amendments concurrent with this Housing Flement Update, to clarify standards for allowed uses and densities at General Plan Villdge Centets and El CdInluo Red] V111, 1ge CentelS. These amendments accommodate approximately 800 units in the site Inventory, but [ he total additional capacity of these areas is greater - approximately 2, 500 unitsi.
Opportunity Sites Requiring Rezonings and/ or General Plan Amendments (" Back -Pocket" Areas). In the event that the above opportunities are inadequate to accommodate the RHNA, either at the time of Housing Element adoption or over the course of the 6th Cycle due to the " no net loss" law, the proposed Housing Element will also include programs to adopt additional rezonings and General Plan amendments in targeted urban infill areas ( areas on previously developed sites and/ or completely surrounded by urban uses):
Moffett Boulevard
Other shopping areas, such as Leong Drive, Bailey Park shopping center, Manta Loma Plaza A Joint Development at the Mountain View Transit Center Other non- residential sites south of El Camino Real, such as 1949 Grant Road and offices near Blossom Valley Shopping Center
These rezoning opportunities could accommodate approximately 1, 000 additional units, depending on the densities adopted.
Total Inventory. This EIR analyzes the impacts associated with the site inventory to 2031, an increase in approximately 15, 000 dwelling units, focused primarily along the commercial corridors and in areas that currently accommodate commercial/ industrial uses, mixed uses, and/ or multifamily housing. 2 Of this, approximately 13, 600 units3 are already allowed under the City' s adopted General Plan, zoning, and Precise Plans and the remaining 1, 400 units would be created through rezonings and General Plan amendments. In addition, the EIR also analyzes a possible increase in housing production from rezonings and General Plan Amendments of approximately This number is less than the total amount of units that could be allowed across these sites, since it is unreasonable to assume replacement of all existing uses over the horizon of this study. The number does consider the sites most likely to be redeveloped.
The actual site inventory in the current draft is closer to 14, 800. However, 15, 000 is a conservatively large round number and small changes to the site inventory are expected up to adoption, based on newly submitted applications.
Approximately 13, 400 units in the current draft. See previous footnote.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 11 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
3. Project Description
2, 700 units beyond 2031 ( described in detail above). More information is provided in Section
3. 4. 3 below.
Future development on identified sites would continue to be at the discretion of individual property owners and will be largely dependent on market forces and -- in the case of affordable housing -- available funding and/or other incentives. Nonetheless, the analysis in this FIR conservatively assumes build -out of the sites inventory within the eight year planning period ending in January 2031, as discussed further in Section 3. 4. 3 below.
MEWEENTsw20=
As a program -level FIR, this EIR presents an analysis of potential impacts of the HEU by assessing proposed policy and zoning/Precise Plan changes and does not contain a site -specific analysis of development that may occur following adoption of the HEU.
Use of growth projections as a basis for analysis is appropriate when the project being analyzed is a proposed plan, and provides an envelope for the analysis of potential impacts. This approach recognizes that it is not possible to predict the details of development that may be proposed for construction on any individual site once the HEU is adopted. Also, as stated earlier, the precise location of housing inventory sites and densities may evolve based on public outreach during preparation of this EIR.
The HEU is planning for the period from January 31, 2023 through January 31, 2031, and is expected to plan for approximately 15, 000 new housing units within this period, although the actual pace of development will depend on market conditions, property owner interest, and other factors. Also, of the approximately 15, 000 new units, only a small percentage would result from changes in City policy, zoning, or Precise Plans, and the balance could theoretically occur with or without the Project because it is consistent with existing policy, zoning, and Precise Plans.
However, development of these units may be accelerated compared to the theoretical No Project scenario, due to programs in the Housing Element that streamline, incentivize or remove constraints for housing.
The Project scenario has an analysis year of 2031, since that is the horizon of the Housing Element, and all the site inventory units are expected to be built by that time. In addition, a cumulative scenario is also studied, which looks at the difference between the buildout of the City without and with the proposed General Plan, Zoning and Precise Plan Amendments. This includes anticipated growth beyond 2031. Table 3- 2 below presents growth projections used in this analysis, and shows the amount of growth attributable to the Project and to cumulative growth and development.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 12 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
3. Project Description
TABLE 3- 2
HEU
Existing 2031 Cumulative Contribution Cumulative
Baseline Under Proposed HEU Conditions with Growth no to Cumulative Growth with 2020) Construction 20212031) Proposed HEU HEU Growth3 HEU Dwelling Units 37, 820 1, 847 15, 000 54, 700 63, 000 4, 100 67, 100 Population' 82, 826 3, 740 30, 000 116, 600 134, 000
1 8, 200 142, 200
Jobs 101, 965 8, 800 01 120, 000 133, 000 01 133, 000
NOTES:
I Assumes an average of 2 persons per housing unit, based on the City' s projections. 2 Iohgrc) wth is onnsidarod as honliground and in not part oftho pimpnood HEU 3 itruludubtlib Prujeut' butititribuiJuti dub to RuLoning and General a6 pert ufthe 1IEU, SOURCE:
City of Mountain View, March 2022. As
shown in Table 3-2, adoption ofthe HEU would potentially resultin4,100 more dwelling units inthe cumulative growth capacity than would otherwise occur. This is due to the additional development potential that would be created the General Plan, Zoning and Precise Plan Amendments described in Section 3.4. 1, Housing Sites Inventory, above (about 1,400 units inthe site inventory and about 2,700 units beyond 2031). The balance ofthe units included inthe proposed HEU represent existing development potential that is already reflected inthe City' s cumulative growth capacity. In
addition tothe amendments that would take place within the General Plan's Housing Element, the City is concurrently adopting amendments tothe General Plan Land Use Map to reflect changes indensity and land use designations of sites that are included inthe housing sites inventory.
These include: Amend
the General Plan Map at 1010 Linda Vista Avenue (APN 153-15-011) from General Industrial to High Density Residential Amend
the General Plan Map at 57 through 87 East Evelyn Avenue (APNs 160- 65- 002, 160- 65- 008 and 160- 65-009) from High Intensity Office to High Density Residential 3.
4. 5 Zoning Map Amendments The
City is also concurrently adopting amendments toits Zoning Map to reflect changes indensity of sites that are included inthe housing sites inventory. These include: Amend the Zoning Map at 1010 Linda Vista Avenue (APN 153-15-011) from MM to R4 Amend the Zoning Map at 57 through 87 East Evelyn Avenue (APNs 160-65- 002, 160- 65- 008 and 160- 65-009) from MM to R4 City
of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 13 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
3. Project Description
3.4.6 Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The City is also concurrently adopting amendments to its Zoning Code to reflect and facilitate changes in density of sites that are included in the housing sites inventory. These include:
Amend the R4 zone to allow lot sizes less than 1 acre at 100% affordable developments Amend the Commercial Zones ( CN and CS) to allow residential uses, with the following stipulations:
Residential uses are only allowed within " mixed -use" designations in the General Plan.
Projects must provide minimum retail or similar neighborhood -serving Uses as determined by an analysis of typical amounts of such uses in the underlying zone.
Street frontages shall be primarily lined with commercial (retail/neighborhood- serving) uses.
At least one public gathering/ open space/ plaza shall be provided, with a minimum area to be determined based on site size. Provide potential exemptions to one or more standards to facilitate provision of open space to maintain residential density.
Residential uses shall use the development standards of the R3 Zoning District, CRA Zoning District, or El Camino Real Precise Plan, depending on the allowed density in the General Plan.
The City is also concurrently adopting amendments to two Precise Plans to reflect and facilitate changes in density of sites that are included in the housing sites inventory. These include:
Amendments to the El Camino Real Precise Plan to allow " Tier I " approvals for residential projects up to 2. 3 FAR in Village Centers and eliminating the " Tier 2" ( overlay zoning) requirement for those projects.
Amendments to the Grant/ Phyllis Precise Plan to allow residential uses, with the following stipulations:
Projects must provide minimum retail or similar neighborhood -serving uses consistent with the amount existing in the Plan area.
Street frontages shall be primarily lined with commercial ( retail/ neighborhood- serving) uses.
At least one public gathering/ open space/ plaza shall be provided, with a minimum area to be determined based on site size. Provide potential exemptions to one or more standards to facilitate provision of open space to maintain residential density.
Residential uses shall use the development standards of the El Camino Real Precise Plan.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 14 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
3. Project Description
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 (b) requires the description of the project in an EIR to state the objectives sought by the project.
A clearly written statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project."
The primary purpose of the HEU Is to comply with the requirements of State law by analyzing existing and projected housing needs, and updating goals, policies, ohjpctive,, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The proposed Project is intended to ensure the City' s conformance with State housing requirements and seeks to:
Protect existing housing;
Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs;
Remove undue constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development;
Affirmatively further fair housing; and
Identify specific sites that could accommodate required housing units to meet the City' s RHNA.
Conducting community engagement and soliciting feedback to inform the contents of the HEU is a critical component of the planning process and will help to shape the HEU that is ultimately adopted by the City Council.
Because the Housing Element establishes policies, goals and guidelines, and describes potential housing development that may or may not be built on any particular site, environmental review of the HEU will necessarily be general. The CEQA Guidelines instruct that environmental review of a planning -level document need not contain the level of detail required for review of a specific construction project, for example. ( CEQA Guidelines, Section 15146 (" [ t] he degree of specificity required ... will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity").
The Housing Element' s inventory of sites is a State -mandated requirement to ensure that the City' s RHNA can be accommodated. In other words, the housing inventory demonstrates that there is enough land zoned at appropriate densities to accommodate the RHNA allocation.
However this inventory does not include all potential development sites within the City limits, and does not mean that sites in the inventory will be developed at the allowable densities. In addition, information about the design and placement of buildings on the sites will not be available unless/until a specific development is proposed.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 15 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
3. Future discretionary development proposals will be reviewed to determine whether their impacts fall within the scope of the analysis in this EIR and additional site -specific environmental review will be required if new significant impacts would result. As provided for in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15385, any subsequent environmental document that might be required could tier" from this FIR and focus its analysis on any new potentially significant impacts.
While the City' s proposed HEU is subject to review and certification by HCD, adoption and implementation of the HEU would require a series of interrelated planning and regulatory approvals by the City of Mountain View, as Lead Agency. Specifically, the City would take the following approval actions:
Certification of the HFI I FIR pursuant to CEQA;
Adoption of a resolution amending the General Plan to update the Housing Element, and make any corresponding changes to other elements of the General Plan needed to maintain internal consistency and comply with State law;
Adoption of an ordinance ( two readings) amending the City' s zoning ordinance, and the City' s zoning map if/as needed to reflect the location and density of land uses permitted by the General Plan amendment.
Adoption of resolutions amending applicable precise plans if/as needed to reflect the location and density of land uses permitted by the General Plan amendment.
All of these proposed actions would require review and recommendation by the Environmental Planning Commission, followed by consideration and action by the City Council.
3. 6. 2 Other Governmental Agency Approvals
As the Lead Agency and as appropriate under CEQA, the City also intends the EIR to serve as the CEQA-required environmental documentation for consideration of the HEU by other Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies which may have discretionary approval authority over the HEU or related actions. Under the CEQA Guidelines, the term " Responsible Agency" includes all public agencies, other than the Lead Agency, which have discretionary approval power over aspects of the project for which the Lead Agency has prepared an FIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381); and the term " Trustee Agency" means a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project which are held in trust by the people of California Section 15386). Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies with approval actions associated with the project may include, but are not limited to, the following:
California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
California Department of Motor Vehicles
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 16 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
3. Proiect Description
Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG), 2021. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation RHNA) Plan.- San Francisco BayArea, 2023-2031, Adopted December 16, 2021.
Available at: https:// abag. ca.gov/ sites/ default/files/ documents/ 2021- 12/ proposed% 2OFinal— RHNA—Allocation—Report—ZOZ3- 2031. pdf. Accessed December 22, 2021.
California Department of Housing and Community Development ( HUD) ?021. Revised State Income Limits for 2021, December 31, 2021.
City of Mountain View, 2021. Mountain View 2030 General Plan, adopted July 10, 2012, as amended through April 13, 2021. Available at: https:// www. mountainview. gov/ civicax/ filebanldblobdload. aspx?blobid= 10702. Accessed January 21, 2022, City of Mountain View, 2014. City ofMountain 6jew2015-2023Housing EIeiiiejit Adopted October 14, 2014. Available at: https:// www, mountainview. gov/civicax/ filebank/ blobdload. aspx?BloblD= 15284. Accessed January 21, 2022. City
of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 17 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
This page intentionally left blank
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 3- 18 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
0 1
11111WORM4
Setting, Impacts, and
Measures
This program environmental Impacl. report ( EIR) evaluates and documents the physical environmental effects that would potentially occur with the implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update ( Project) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21000, et seq., and the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines), California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15000, et seq.).
Sections 4. 1 through 4. 16 in this chapter consider the existing conditions, regulatory background, and environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Project, as well as mitigation measures to reduce the impact of Project -specific and cumulative environmental impacts, and the level of significance of impacts following mitigation.
This FIR is a Program EIR, as provided for in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 and will allow the City " to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures" as noted in Section 15168( b) (4). Section 15168 ( a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a Program EIR is appropriate for projects which are "... a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
1. Geographically;
2. A logical part in the chain of contemplated actions;
3. In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or
4. As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulating authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways."
Future discretionary actions that would be facilitated by the HEU' s adoption, particularly those related to the development of housing, would generally require additional assessment to determine consistency with the analysis provided in this Program FIR, The potential future actions would also be subject to the mitigation measures established in this Program EIR, unless superseded by a subsequent environmental document prepared to analyze environmental impacts not foreseen in this Program FIR.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.0- 1 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures This EIR uses a number ofterms that have specific meaning under CEQA. Among the most important of the terms used in the EIR are those that refer to the significance of environmental impacts. The following terms are used to describe environmental effects of the Project:
Significance Thresholds: A set of standards used by the lead agency to determine whether an impact would be considered significant. ( See CEQA Guidelines Section 15064. 7.) Standards of significance used in this EIR were derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines unless otherwise noted. In determining the level of significance, the analysis assumes that the Project would comply with relevant federal, State, and local regulations and ordinances.
Significant Impact: A Project impact is considered significant If the Project would result In a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions of the environment. Significant impacts are identified by the evaluation of Project -related physical changes compared to specified significance thresholds, which may be qualitative or quantitative. A significant impact is defined as " a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance" ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15382).
Less -than -Significant Impact: A Project impact is considered less than significant when the physical change caused by the project would not exceed the applicable significance threshold. 0 Significant and Unavoidable Impact: A Project impact is considered significant and unavoidable if it would result in a substantial adverse physical change in the environment that cannot be feasibly avoided or mitigated to a less -than -significant level.
Cumulative Impact: Under CEQA, a cumulative impact refers to " two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts" ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). A significant cumulative impact is one in which the cumulative adverse physical change would exceed the applicable significance criterion and the Project' s contribution is " cumulatively considerable" ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15130( a)).
Mitigation Measure: A mitigation measure is an action that could be taken to avoid or reduce the magnitude of a significant impact. Section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines defines mitigation as:
a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation;
c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and
e. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments, including through permanent protection of such resources in the form of conservation easements.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 0- 2 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures MW
Chapter 4 is divided into technical sections ( e. g., Section 4. 1, Aesthetics) that present the physical environmental setting, regulatory setting, significance criteria, methodology and assumptions, and impacts on the environment for each environmental resource issue area. Where required, potentially feasible mitigation measures are identified to lessen or avoid potentially significant impacts. Each section includes an analysis of project -specific and cumulative impacts for each issue area.
The resource topic areas addressed in this EIR chapter are listed below, and the abbreviations for each resource topic that are used in the naming of impact statements and mitigation measures are shown in parentheses:
Section 4. 1: Aesthetics ( AES)
Section 4. 2: Air Quality (AIR)
Section 4. 3: Biological Resources ( BIO)
Section 4. 4: Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources ( CUL & TCR) Section 4. 5: Energy (ENE)
Section 4. 6: Geology, Soils, Paleontological and Mineral Resources ( GEO) Section 4. 7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ( GHG)
Section 4. 8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials ( HAZ)
Section 4. 9: Hydrology and Water Quality (HYD)
Section 4. 10: Land Use and Planning ( LUP)
Section 4. 11: Noise and Vibration (NOI)
Section 4. 12: Population and Housing (POP)
Section 4. 13: Public Services and Recreation ( PSR)
Section 4. 14. Transpoilatlon and Circulation ( TRA)
Section 4. 15: Utilities and Service Systems ( UTL)
Section 4. 16: Effects Found Not to Be Significant
The technical environmental sections each begin with a description of the Project' s environmental setting and the regulatory setting as it pertains to a particular issue. The environmental setting provides a point of reference for assessing the environmental impacts of the Project and Project alternatives. The environmental setting discussion addresses the conditions that existed at the time ofissuance on the EIR' s Notice of Preparation (NOP) in February 2022 and prior to implementation of the Project. This setting establishes the baseline by which the Project and Project alternatives are measured for environmental impacts. The regulatory setting presents relevant information about federal, state, regional, and/or local laws, regulations, plans or policies that pertain to the environmental resources addressed in each section.
Next, each section presents significance criteria, which identify the standards used by the City to determine the significance of the environmental effects of the Project.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.0- 3 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Settina. Impacts. and Miticiation Measures An approach to analysis discussion in each section presents the analytical methods and key assumptions used in the evaluation of effects of the Project, and is followed by an impacts of the Project discussion. The impacts of the Project portion of each section includes impact statements, prefaced by a number in bold-faced type. An explanation of each impact is followed by an analysis of its significance. The subsection concludes with a statement that the impact, following implementation of the mitigation measures) and/ or the continuation of existing policies and regulations, would be reduced to a less - than -significant level or would remain significant and unavoidable.
The analysis of environmental impacts considers potential impacts of the actions described as the Project" in Chapter 3, Project Description, including potential impacts of future construction and occupancy of housing planned for in the IIEU As Iloquited by Section 15126. 2( a) of the CFQA Caridelines, direct, indirect, short term, long term, onsite, and/ or off site impacts are addressed, as appropriate, for the environmental Issue area being analyzed. Under CEQA, economic or social changes by themselves are not considered to be significant impacts, but may be considered in linking the implementation of a project to a physical environmental change, or in determining whether the physical change is significant.
Where enforcement exists and compliance can be reasonably anticipated, this EIR assumes that the Project would meet the requirements of applicable laws and other regulations.
Mitigation measures pertinent to each individual impact, if available, appear after the impact discussion section. The magnitude of reduction of an impact and the potential effect ofthat reduction in magnitude on the significance of the impact is also disclosed. An example of the format is shown below using the topic of air quality ( AIR).
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Impact AIR-1: Impact Statement.
A discussion of the potential impact of the Project on the resource is introduced in paragraph form. To identify impacts that may be site- or Project element -specific, where appropriate, the discussion differentiates between construction effects and operational effects. A statement of the level of significance before application of any mitigation measures is provided in bold.
Mitigation Measure
If the impact is determined to be less than significant, the text will say, " None required." Ifthe impact is determined to be significant or potentially significant, mitigation with be included in the following format:
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Mitigation Measure Title.
Recommended mitigation measure, numbered in consecutive order.
Where appropriate, one or more potentially feasible mitigation measures are described. A statement of the significance of the impact following implemented mitigation measure( s) is included in bold, with an explanation of the measure( s) effectiveness if necessary.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.0-4 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Settina. Impacts. and Mitigation Measures musit 01MAIMPRMG710T.-W
An analysis of cumulative impacts follows the Project -specific impacts and mitigation measures evaluation in each section, and starts by describing the geographic context in which cumulative impacts are analyzed.
A cumulative impact consists of an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects causing related impacts ( 15355). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15130( b)( 1), cumulative impacts may be analyzed using either a " list of past, present, and probable future projects" or " a summary of projections contained In an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan or related planning document." This EIR primarily uses the projections -based approach, as explained here.
The proposed IIEU isdplan which provides the potential for increased residential development in specific locations across a broad geography. The use of growth projections as a basis for a cumulative analysis is appropriate when the project being analyzed is a proposed plan that involves a broad geography because specific information about development that may occur as a result of the plan is not available and other changes within and outside the planning area cannot be predicted with any specificity. In this case, the amount of development anticipated in the Housing Sites Inventory portion of the HEU is used to analyze Project impacts, but specific information about how and when those sites might develop is not available. Even the precise location of housing inventory sites and densities may evolve based on public outreach and the results of the sites analysis that will be conducted in parallel to preparation of this EIR.
Thus, this EIR analyzes Project -related growth in housing combined with other, cumulative growth using projections from Plan BayArea 2040, which was the Bay Area' s Regional Transportation Plan ( RTP) /Sustainable Communities Strategy ( SCS) until Plan Bay Area 2050 was adopted in October 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 is not used because the plan is awaiting CARB' s determination and it does not at this point contain growth projections specific to individual jurisdictions. It will likely take up to three years for the regional agencies to develop a detailed growth forecast for Plan Bay Area 2050 and integrate that forecast into MTC' s transportation model, after which updates to each county' s transportation model will be required.
Thus Plan Bay Area 2040 represents the best available source of information to form the foundation for long range population, housing and employment projections.
Table 4. 0- 1 summarizes the levels of housing and employment that is projected with and without adoption of the City' s HEU and summarizes 2040 projections for housing units and employment in the City and the nine -county Bay Area. These projections are inherent in the county transportation model and form the foundation for the cumulative analyses in this EIR.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 0- 5 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Resolution No. 18755
TABLE 4. 0- 1
Dwelling Units - No HEU
Growth
2020 to 2040
City of Mountain View 37, 820 63, 000 25, 180
Santa Clara County per Plan Bay Area 2040 706, 565 881, 655 175, 090 Bay Area Region per Plan Bay Area 2040 2, 88 M 3. 43 M 544, 735 Dwelling Units - With HFU
City of Mountain View with the HEU8 37, 820 67, 100 29, 280 Santa Clara County with the HEU 706, 565 885, 755 179, 190 Bay Area Region 2. 88 M 3. 43 M 548, 835
Jobs
City of Mountain View' 110, 765 133, 000 22, 235
Santa Clara County 1, 120, 420 1, 289, 870 169, 450
Bay Area Region 4, 14 M jobs 4. 70 M jobs 562, 185
NOTES:
a Dwelling units in the City reflect City data, rather than data in Plan Bay Area 2040, consistent with Table 3- 2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, Growth with the HEU includes additional capacity created by general plan amendments, zoning amendments and precise plan amendments, whether or not it is in the site inventory. Housing growth anticipated as a result of the HEU has also been used to adjust the Plan Bay Area 2040 projections for Santa Clara County.
SOURCE: City of Mountain View and Metropolitan Transportation Commission/ Association of Bay Area Governments, Plan Bay Area 2040, Final plan adopted July 26, 2017.
Of course, the City is not the only Bay Areajurisdiction that has received a RHNA allocation and is engaged in updating its housing element. All other local jurisdictions in Santa Clara County are doing the same, as are other local jurisdictions throughout the Bay region. However, based on past experience, it is highly unlikely that all of the units that are planned for in each housing element will be constructed between 2022 and 2040, and therefore using that total RHNA number for the region as the basis for the cumulative effects analysis would substantially overstate the level of impact. For this reason, and to more realistically assess the level of impact that could be reasonably foreseen during the HEUs planning period, for all jurisdictions other than the City, this EIR considers the regional projections presented in Plan Bay Area 2040 as a reasonable estimate of likely new housing construction and population and employment growth through 2040 despite planning efforts underway in other jurisdictions to address their housing needs.
There are, however, a number of ongoing activities that inform the cumulative analysis in this EIR, including the City' s ongoing Downtown Precise Plan Update, and other City development project applications, as described below.
Downtown Precise Plan Update
In December 2019, the City Council authorized city staff to update three sub -areas of the Downtown Precise Plan, including A, H, and G. The updates are focused on strengthening the existing character of Downtown Mountain View and promote active City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 0- 6 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ground -floor uses, through design standards, guidelines, and minor land use changes to administrative office uses.
Senate Bill (SB 9) Code Amendments
S13 9 requires ministerial approval of a proposed housing development containing two residential units on a single- family residential zoned ( RI zone) property ifthe proposed development meets certain standard requirements ( referred to as " duo developments").
SB 9 also requires ministerial approval of a lot subdivision in a single- family residential zone ( R I zone) if it meets certain lot requirements ( these are referred to as " urban lot splits"). The City approved text amendments to the City Code to be consistent with SR 9 in March 2022.
Develolmient Projects in the City
The City has approved or has pending applications on file for a number of projects that may be developed in the City between now and 2040 that are not included in the housing development pipeline. These include, but are not limited to those listed in Table 4. 0- 2.
With very few exceptions, these projects are employment - generating ( rather than providing new housing), and some are near or adjacent to the housing inventory sites included in the HEU. The City' s cumulative projections show an increase in employment for the City, consistent with these developments, plus additional capacity available in the City. Potential cumulative impacts associated with development within the City are discussed broadly ( i.e. without reference to specific projects) and qualitatively where relevant in this EIR, most notably in the consideration of potential cumulative impacts related to cultural and natural resources.
There are also a number of ongoing activities that are early in their development, so are not well enough defined to be included in the cumulative analysis, such as the City' s R3 Multi -family Residential Zoning District Update.
As noted above, where a cumulative impact is significant when compared to existing or baseline conditions, the analysis addresses whether the project' s contribution to the significant cumulative impact is " considerable." If the contribution of the project is considerable, then the EIR identifies potentially feasible measures that could avoid or reduce the magnitude of the project' s contribution to a less -than -considerable level. If the project' s contribution is not considerable, it is considered less than significant and no mitigation of the project contribution is required ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15130( a) ( 2).
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 0- 7 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures TABLE 4. 0- 2
Project Name I Description of Project
Approved Development Projects
600 Ellis Street 259, 595 square foot office building
369 North Whisman Road ( The Quad ( Lovewell) 70, 846 square foot office building and 109, 927 square foot office building
701 West Evelyn Avenue ( Marwood) commercial building containing 6, 500 square feet of ground -floor retail and 28, 090 square feet of office
1860-2159 Landings Drive, 1014 - 1058 Huff 800, 000 square foot office building Avenue, 900 Alta Avenue, 2000 North Shoreline
Boulevard ( Google Landings) __
2019 Leghorn Street 12, 050 square -foot office building 855 - 1023 Webt El Camino Real 60- bed senior memory care facility with 5, 083 square feet of ground floor retail and restaurant use
2300 West El Camino Real 153- room hotel
747 West Dana Street 7, 000 square feet of office and 1, 600- square feet of ground - floor retail
Hope Street Lots ( City Lots 4 and 8) 120, 000 square foot hotel building and ground floor accessory commercial space, approximately 52, 000 square foot mixed -use building
Development Projects Under Review
756 California Street 6, 997 square -foot commercial building with ground -floor retail and office above
189 North Bernardo Avenue 80, 000 square foot office building 590 Castro Street 106, 000 square foot office building
365 - 405 San Antonio Road and 2585 - 2595
California Street ( San Antonio Center Phase 111)
182, 352 square foot commercial building
301 East Evelyn Avenue 125, 000 square foot office building 705 West Dana Street 19, 017 square foot building with 1, 100 square feet of ground - floor retail and upper floor office
2110 Old Middlefield Way gas station with 6 fueling stations, a drive -through car wash, and a 547 square foot convenience store
1057, 1059, 1061 El Monte Avenue 90- room senior care facility 1155 and 1185 Terra Bella Avenue 20, 000 square foot office building 1040 Terra Bella Avenue public storage buildings
1885 Miramonte Avenue (St. Francis High School) add 12, 800 square feet of administrative space SOURCE: City of Mountain View, February 2022. Development Update — February 2022. https:// www. mountainview. gov/ civicax/ filebank/ blobdioad. aspx? BloblD= 37124, City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.0- 8 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
This section evaluates the potential for the Project to result in substantial adverse effects related to aesthetics. The Environmental Setting portion of this section includes descriptions of existing conditions relevant to aesthetics. Existing plans and policies relevant to aesthetics associated with implementation of the Project are provided in the Regulatory Setting section. Finally, the impact discussion evaluates potential impacts related to aesthetics that could result from implementation of the Project in the context of existing conditions.
The Notice of Preparation ( NOP) for the FIR was circulated on February 4, 2022 and a scoping meeting was held on February 24, 2022. The NOP and the comments received during [lie public comment period can be found in Appendix A of this EIR. No comments relating to aesthetics were received during the NOP comment period.
1. 1. 2 Environmental Settirr
Regional Setting
The City of Mountain View is located in northwestern Santa Clara County, in the San Francisco Bay Area. The City is located in close proximity to two prominent natural features: San Francisco Bay, which is located to the north, and the pronounced ridgelines of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range, located several miles to the west and south and which provides a visual backdrop to the City. The City takes its name from the vista of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The baylands, or marshlands, are located directly to the north of the City and, together with Shoreline Park, form a buffer between Mountain View and San Francisco Bay. The City is bordered by urbanized areas on all other sides, specifically, by the City of Palo Alto to the northwest, the City of Sunnyvale to the east, and the City of Los Altos to the south and west. These cities are visually characterized by generally low-rise development, tree -lined residential streets, and corporate office parks of generally modern construction.
The City of Mountain View is generally suburban in visual character, characterized by lower -rise buildings ( mostly one to two stories in height), extensive landscaping, and a low to moderate intensity of uses. The City includes several visually distinct neighborhood areas that are separated by major roadways, highways, and transit corridors, and which generally correspond with the planning areas identified in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan. Each of the City' s geographic areas contains one or more commercial districts surrounded by residential land uses, with the exception of the North Bayshore area and the eastern portion of the Moffett/Whisman area, which contain predominantly office parks and light industrial and research and development uses. More dense and urban areas with taller buildings and more concentrated commercial activity are located in the Downtown area along Castro Street, as well as portions of El Camino Real. The visual characteristics of areas in the City with the highest development potential as relevant to the Project are described in more detail below.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 1 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
Gateways and Landmarks
As discussed in the Visual Resources section of the Mountain View 2030 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), gateways are the entries to a city, district, or neighborhood.
They act as a point of distinction between different areas and contribute to a sense of place by announcing a threshold or a passage Into a place while also reinforcing [ lie unique Identity of that place. For the most part, gateways in Mountain View are associated with the City' s major transportation corridors, particularly those which cross the jurisdictional boundaries of Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale. Important gateways within the City also include rail stations along the Central Expressway. Shoreline Boulevard also serves as a gateway into downtown Mountain View from U.S. I fighway 101 ( US 101). East and west gateways to the City exist along El Camino Real and Fast Fvolyn Avonue Other gateways include the convergence of Old Middlefield Way and Middlefield Road at the City border with Palo Alto, Grant Road at the border with Los Altos, and transitions between bordering cities along the Central Expressway.
As defined in the Visual Resources section of the Mountain View 2030 General Plan Draft EIR, landmarks are external points of reference that are usually simply defined physical objects (e.g., a building or sign). The prominent visual features of a city are its landmarks. Some landmarks are very large and seen at great distances, and some landmarks are very small ( e. g., a tree within an urban square) and can only be seen close up, Landmarks are an important element of urban form because they help people to orient themselves in the city and help identify an area. Landmarks and other gateways relevant to the Project are described in more detail below.
Scenic vistas and viewsheds generally consist of expansive and high -quality views of natural features and landscapes that are visible from public locations. Views of features within and surrounding a city contribute to a feeling of community identity, visual enjoyment, and function as a resource for physical orientation. As previously noted, Mountain View takes its name from the views of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the south and west that are available throughout the City. Views of other natural features such as the Diablo Mountain Range to the southeast, Mission Peak to the east, San Francisco Bay to the north, and Stevens Creek in the eastern portion of the City are available from various locations within Mountain View. Views of the San Francisco Bay are generally only available from Shoreline Park in the North Bayshore Area.
California' s Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963 to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The State Scenic Highway Program includes a list of highways that either are eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been so designated. The State Scenic Highway Program identifies State Route ( SR) 9 as the only officially designated State scenic highway in Santa Clara County. The program also identifies portions of SR 17, 35, and 152, and Interstate 280 as eligible for State scenic highway designation, but not officially designated as City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 2 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4A Aesthetics
such. No officially designated State scenic highways are located in or easily visible from the City of Mountain View. I
There are two main creek corridors in Mountain View: Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek, both of which include creek -side trails. Stevens Creek extends from Shoreline Regional Park south through the City and into Sunnyvale. Permanente Creek extends south from the Shoreline Regional Park area through the rest of the City and into the City of Los Altos. The multi -use, paved Stevens Creek Trail runs from Shoreline Park, four miles south through both tidal marshlands and riparian habitat along the western side of State Route 85 as far as Yuba Drive near El Camino Real.
The Stevens (', reek' l'ralt Is wooded in some areas, opens onto the ( 1ty' s urban landscape in outer areas, offers views of the creek, groves of various types of trees, bridges, Whisman Park, wind tunnels near the NASA Ames Research Center, hangers at the Moffett Air Field, and open spaces like the Stevens Creek Tidal and Crittenden Marshes.
The Permanente Creek Trail also extends southward from Shoreline Regional Park and P'oes, as far as the Central Expressway. The Permanente Creek trail is also paved, landscaped, and is more fragmented and is not heavily wooded like segments of the Stevens Creek Trail. 2 As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, to address site -specific development needs, the City has developed 25 Precise Plans covering various locations within the City. Precise Plans are a tool for coordinating future public and private improvements on specific properties where special conditions of size, shape, land ownership, or existing or desired development require particular attention. Precise Plans provide detailed specifications for land uses, relationship to surrounding areas, use intensity, circulation, design, procedures for development review, and special conditions for development occurring within each Precise Plan area. The City' s Precise Plan areas are shown in Figure 3- 2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, Precise Plans range from a small 3- acre development to large neighborhoods. The visual characteristics of the Precise Plan areas in the City with the highest development potential tinder the Project are described below.
The East Whisman Precise Plan area is generally bordered by US 101 and Moffett Federal Airfield/NASA Ames Research Center to the north, North Whisman Road to the west, Central Expressway to the south, and the City of Sunnyvale to the east. The area is visible from the immediate surrounding area and roadways, including North Whisman Road, Middlefield Road, SR 237, and US 101.
California Department ol'' fransportation, 2022. California State Scenic Highways. Available: lit(ps: Hdot. ca. gov/ programs/ designilap-landscape- architecture- and-community-livability/lap- liv-i-scenic- highways. Accessed May 3, 2022.
City of Mountain View, 2012. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. September 2012.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 3 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
The East Whisman Precise Plan area is relatively flat and located within a developed, urban area of Mountain View. The area is developed with single- to multi -story office buildings, as well as similar -looking research and development, light -industrial, and commercial buildings. Buildings tend to have a large front and side setbacks occupied by surface parking and landscaped areas.
The East Whisman Precise Plan area contains numerous mature trees in building parking lots, in various landscaped areas, and in the public right- of-way along streets and sidewalks. Office buildings in the East Whisman Precise Plan area exhibit a variety of styles. Older office buildings are one to two stories and made of brick, stucco, or concrete. Newer office buildings are more contemporary in style (with glass expanses, stone facades, and metal details) and are up to five stories. Older commercial and retail buildings in the Village Center neighborhood are brick and wood, one- story structures. 3
11 i Ill I
a & -
The North Bayshore Precise Plan area is located in the northernmost portion of the City. This area is bordered by Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park and San Francisco Bay to the north, the NASA Ames Research Center to the east, US 101 to the south, and Palo Alto to the west. The site is visible from the immediate surrounding area and roadways, including North Shoreline Boulevard, San Antonio Road, Charleston Road, Amphitheater Parkway, US 101, and Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park. The Santa Cruz Mountains are visible to the south and west of the North Bayshore Precise Plan area, and the Diablo Range is visible to the east.
The approximately 650- acre Precise Plan area is relatively flat and is located within a developed, urban area of Mountain View. The area may be visible from the higher areas of the Santa Cruz Mountains but generally the area is not visible from other locations, apart from US 101. The Precise Plan area is comprised of large- scale office, research and development, and light industrial buildings. The area is characterized by almost entirely large building footprints that reflect the industrial and office uses in the area. Buildings tend to have large front and side setbacks occupied by surface parking and landscaped areas, with floor area ratios (FARs) of less than 0. 3 ( i.e., low -intensity). The North Bayshore Precise Plan area contains numerous ( likely thousands) of mature landscaping trees and shrubs throughout the parking lots and landscaped areas.
Office buildings in the North Bayshore Precise Plan area exhibit a variety of styles depending on when they were constructed. Many of the older buildings from the 1960s and 1970S are one or two stories and made of brick and stucco, while newer buildings from the 1980s and 1990s are characterized by more streamlined architecture. Older retail uses along Shoreline Boulevard are characterized by fairly nondescript buildings with no identifiable architectural style. More recent retail uses at Shoreline Boulevard and Pear Avenue are more distinct, with a contemporary style and stone architectural detailing.
As defined in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan, two gateways into the City are located within the North Bayshore Precise Plan area. Shoreline Boulevard serves as a gateway into 3 City of Mountain View, 2020. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 4 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
downtown Mountain View from US 101 and also acts as a gateway into the North Bayshore area.
Rengstorff Avenue also serves as a gateway into downtown and functions as a primary gateway to the North Bayshore area.
Four landmarks identified in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan are located adjacent to the North Bayshore Precise Plan area, are visible from various locations throughout the Precise Plan area, and are described below.
Rengstorff House. The Rengstorff House is a significant historic building that serves as a landmark for the City. The house was one of the first to be built in Mountain View, by Henry Rengstorff. The house' s striking Victorian Italianate architecture and location within Shoreline Park make it a landmark for the City. The Rengstorff House is located north of the North Bayshore Precise, Plan area, and tall buildings in the Precise Plan area might be seen from the vicinity of the Rengstorff I louse.
Shoreline Amphitheatre. This amphitheater was built in 1985 by a private developer and a joint partnership agreement with the City of Mountain View as part of the Shoreline Park project. It is distinguished by its large white tent structures.
Moffett Federal Airfield Hangar One. Built during the Depression era, Hangar One at Moffett Federal Airfield remains one of the largest unsupported structures in the country. The unique shape and scale of the hangar makes it a visual landmark from US 101 and many neighborhoods in the City of Mountain View. Hanger One is located on the Moffett Federal Air Station, east of the Precise Plan area across Stevens Creek.
NASA Wind Tunnels. The world' s largest wind tunnel is housed in a large multi -roofed building at the NASA Ames Research Center, east of the Precise Plan area across Stevens Creek. This tunnel, which is used to test planes with wing spans of up to 100 feet, is over 1, 400 feet long and 180 feet high.4
The El Camino Real Precise Plan area includes nearly all parcels immediately fronting on El Camino Real ( between Del Medirr Avenue and Crestview Drive), as well as some additional parcels adjacent to the street. El Camino Real carries high traffic volumes and functions as a commercial corridor through the El Camino Real Precise Plan area. Land uses include low- and medium -intensity retail and commercial, with some multi -family residential buildings. Chain stores and strip malls are common, in addition to some hotels/ motels. Auto repair shops and auto dealerships are also located along the corridor.
Within the El Camino Real Precise Plan area, buildings tend to be set back from the street and separated by parking lots or driveways. Buildings are between two and four stories in height.
Most of the El Camino Real right- of-way is dedicated to vehicles, with six lanes of travel and two parking lanes. A significant portion of El Camino Real includes a center median that provides for landscaping and trees, as well as turning lanes. Sidewalks are located on both sides of El Camino 4 City of Mountain View, 2017. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.
March 2017.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 5 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
Real, with an average width of between 8 and 10 feet. Stretches of El Camino Real include a planting strip that includes street trees. 5
Located at a prominent location at the intersection of State Route 85 and El Camino Real, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation is identified as a City landmark in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and is clearly visible and distinctive upon the entrance to Mountain View from Sunnyvale and on State Route 85. The three- story medical center opened in 2007 and is 250, 000 square feet.
The 'San Antonio area is located along the City of Mountain View' s western edge, adjacent to the cities of Palo Alto and Los Altos, and currently includes a mix of predominantly commercial uses, with limited existing residential development. It is anchored by the San Antonio Center, a local and regional shopping destination that consists of one- and two- story buildings surrounded by large surface parking.
The San Antonio Center is identified as a City landmark in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and is visible from various locations throughout the Precise Plan area. Large buildings, expansive parking lots, and a signage feature at the junction of San Antonio Road and El Camino Real distinguish the San Antonio Center. The signage feature is a columnar element that harkens to the establishment of the Center in the 1950s and 1960s, and is visible from a distance along both El Camino Real and San Antonio Road. White the appearance of the Center is not architecturally distinctive, its urban form and regional draw makes it an easy reference point in Mountain View.
The San Antonio Precise Plan area is comprised of 123 acres and surrounds the San Antonio Center. The area is characterized by medium to large building footprints reflecting the commercial and multi -unit residential developments characteristic of this area. Commercial buildings have the largest building footprints of the area and are generally located to the east and west of San Antonio Road. These buildings typically have side and large front setbacks. The open areas around buildings are occupied by large surface parking areas. These building footprints have different shapes, but they are typically boxy or rectangular. A few smaller commercial buildings have footprints that are closer to the street and sidewalk. These buildings have a distinct auto- orientation. 6
Nighttime lighting is necessary to provide and maintain safe, secure, and attractive environments; however, these lights have the potential to produce spillover light and glare, and if designed incorrectly, could be considered unattractive. Although nighttime light is a common feature of urban areas, spillover light can adversely affect light-sensitive uses, such as residential units at nighttime.
5 City of Mountain View, 2014. El Camino Real Precise Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. December 2014. 6 City of Mountain View, 2014. San Antonio Precise Plan FinalEnvironmental Impact Report. December 2014.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 6 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
Glare results when a light source directly in the field of vision is brighter than the eye can comfortably accept. Squinting or turning away from a light source is an indication of glare. The presence of a bright light in an otherwise dark setting may be distracting or annoying ( discomfort glare) or may diminish the ability to see other objects in the darkened environment ( disability glare). Reflective glare, such as the reflected view of the sun from a window or mirrored surface, can be distracting during the day.
ME=
Mountain View is a predominantly suburban city with a small number of more urbanized commercial corridors. For this reason, night lighting and glare mostly occur within and around these more densely developed areas, although residential and Industrial areas produce limited amounts of nighttime lighting. Existing sources of ambient nighttime lighting generally include noon and fluorescent signs in developed - areas; exterior lighting installed along buildings for safety, architectural accent, or to illuminate nighttime operations; lights within buildings that illuminate the exteriors of buildings through windows; landscape and wayfinding signage lighting; street and parking lot lighting; and vehicle headlights. The Shoreline Amphitheatre is also a prominent source of nighttime direct and ambient light. Glare is created by reflection of natural ( i.e., sunlight) and artificial light off of existing windows and building surfaces.? There are no federal regulations pertaining to aesthetics that are applicable to the Project.
Title 24 Outdoor Lighting Standards
As published in Section 6 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 is a broad set of requirements for energy conservation, green design, construction and maintenance, fire and life safety, and accessibility that apply to the structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems in a building. The code applies to all buildings in California. California updates its energy code every three years. Construction projects with permit applications applied for on or after January 1, 2023 must follow the 2022 Energy Code. If a permit is applied for before then, buildings follow the 2019 Building Efficiency Standards. The code includes energy efficiency standards for outdoor lighting for both the public and private sector. The standards regulate lighting characteristics such as, maximum power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls to turn lighting on and off.
California' s Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963 to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The State laws governing the Scenic Highway Program are found in the 7 City of Mountain View, 2012. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. September 2012.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 7 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
Streets and Highways Code, Section 260 et sell. The State Scenic Highway System includes a list of highways that either are eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been so designated. These highways are identified in Section 263 of the Streets and Highways Code. As discussed above in the Environmental Setting, no officially designated State scenic highways are located in or easily visible from the City of Mountain View. 8 The Mountain View 2030 General Plan is the guiding document for the City' s physical development and preservation. It includes goals, policies and graphics that convey a long -team vision and guide local decision -making to achieve that vision. The Land Use and Design Element of the. 2030 General Plan contains the following goals and policies related to visual character, visual quality, scenic views, and light and glare that are applicable to the Project.
Goal LUD-6: Distinctive neighborhoods that preserve and enhance the quality of life for residents.
Policy LUD 6. 1: Neighborhood character. Ensure that new development in or near residential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character.
Policy LUD 6. 3: Street Presence. Encourage street facades and frontages that create a presence at the street and along interior pedestrian paseos or pathways.
Goal LUD- 7: A vibrant Downtown that serves as the center for Mountain View social and civic life.
Policy LUD 7.3: Human -scaled building details. Support new and renovated Downtown buildings that include human -scaled details such as transparent windows on the ground floor that face the street, awnings and architectural features to create a comfortable and interesting pedestrian environment.
Policy LUD 7.5: Compatible uses and design. Ensure compatible uses and building design Downtown along the boundaries between residential and commercial areas.
Policy LUD 8. 1: City Gateways. Emphasize city gateways that create a distinct and positive impression
Goal LUD- 9: Buildings that enhance the public realm and integrate with the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy L UD 9. 1: Height and setback transitions. Ensure that new development includes sensitive height and setback transitions to adjacent structures and surrounding neighborhoods.
8 California Department of Transportation, 2022. California State Scenic Highways. Available online:
https:// dot. ca. gov/ programs/ design/ lap- landscape- architecture- and- community- livability/ lap- liv-i-scenic- highways.
Accessed May 3, 2022.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 8 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4A Aesthetics
Policy LUD 9.3: Enhanced public space. Ensure that development enhances public spaces through these measures:
Encourage strong pedestrian -oriented design with visible, accessible entrances and pathways from the street,
Encourage pedestrian -scaled design elements such as stoops, canopies and porches.
Encourage connections to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Locate buildings near the edge of the sidewalk.
Encourage design compatibility with surrounding uses.
Locate parking lots to the rear or side of buildings.
Entourage building articulation and use of special materials to provide visual interest.
Promote and regulate high -quality sign materials, colors and design that are compatible with site and building design.
Encourage attractive water -efficient landscaping on the ground level.
Policy LUD 9.5: View preservation. Preserve significant viewsheds throughout the community.
Policy L UD 9.6: Light and glare. Minimize light and glare from new development.
Goal LUD- 10: High -quality, sustainable and healthful building design and development.
Policy LUD 10. 1: Sustainable design and materials. Encourage high -quality and sustainable design and materials.
Policy LUD 10. 2: Low -impact development. Encourage development to minimize or avoid disturbing natural resources and ecologically significant land features.
The City of Mountain View addresses visual considerations for development in many City documents, including the Municipal Code. The City Zoning Ordinance ( Title 36) sets forth specific design guidelines, height limits, building density, building design and landscaping standards, architectural features, sign regulations, and open space and setback requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance promotes good design and careful planning of development projects to enhance the visual environment. The City' s development review process includes the review of preliminary plans, the consideration of public input at the Development Review Committee, Zoning Administrator, Environmental Planning Commission and the City Council, The City' s Planning Division reviews private and public development applications for conformance with City plans, ordinances, and policies related to zoning, urban design, subdivision, and CEQA. The Zoning Adintinstialot inakes iiecoininendalons to the City Council fur large development projects and makes final decisions for permits and variances, and the Development Review Committee reviews the architecture and site design of new development and provides project City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 9 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
applicants with appropriate design comments. The development review process ensures that the architecture and urban design of new developments would protect the City' s visual environment.
Mountain View Standard Conditions of Approval
As part of discretionary review, the City has standard conditions for different types of approvals ( as of October 25, 2021). The standard conditions of approval related to aesthetics include the following:
Building Design/ Plan Modifications
Based on direction from the Development Review Committee ( DRC), modifications shall be made to the architectural design, huilding materials, colors, landscaping, and/ or other site or building design details prior to issuance of a building permit and shown on building permit drawings. The modifications are subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator to confirm compliance with the DIZC' s recommendation.
Exterior Materials
High -quality materials and finishes shall be used throughout the project and shall remain in compliance with the materials identified in the approved plans, except as modified by the conditions of approval herein. Details regarding all color and architectural details shall be provided in the building permit plan submittal and shall be subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to the issuance of building permits.
Lighting Plan
The applicant shall submit a lighting plan in building permit drawings. This plan should include photometric contours, manufacturer' s specifications on the fixtures, and mounting heights. The design and location of outdoor lighting fixtures shall ensure there will be no glare and light spillover to surrounding properties, which is demonstrated with photometric contours extending beyond the project property lines. The lighting plan submitted with building permit drawings must be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit issuance.
4. 1. 4 Significance Criteria
The thresholds used to determine the significance of impacts related to aesthetics are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project could have a significant impact on the environment if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
In nonurbanized 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 publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 10 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Settina. Impacts. and Mitiaation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
The analysis of potential impacts related to aesthetics in this FIR relies on qualitatively comparing the existing built and natural environment to the future built and natural environment that may result from implementation of the Project. Whether an adverse environmental effect on aesthetics occurs is based on whether development that would be allowed by the HEU would result in the substantial interference or obstruction of a scenic view from at public vantage, point or have a substantial demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The obstruction of an individual landowners' view from private property is not considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA. As a result, the analysis generally does not consider or evaluate the Project' s impact on views from private residences or other private vantage points. A significance determination for impacts related to scenic vistas ( e. g., broad expansive views of natural features and landscapes') and scenic resources ( e. g., gateways, landmarks, or urban creeks) is based on whether development allowed by the Project would prominently obstruct or block the majority of the expanse of scenic vista or scenic resource as seen by most viewers from public locations while taking into account the view as a whole as well as the City' s land use policies. The analysis considers the sensitivity of the affected resource based on the prominence of its visibility and/ or the viewpoint location, as well as the characteristics of the view. View characteristics include whether it is widely unobstructed, fleeting, intermittent, or transitory as viewed from roadways. Moreover, the significance is measured in light of the context in which the effect occurs. For example, an activity which may be significant in a rural area may not be significant in an urban area. With respect to visual character, for a project to have significant visual impacts, the project must either block views of an aesthetic resource, be located in an area that is itself considered to be an aesthetic resource, or have a substantial demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The analysis also addresses whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and/ or other regulations governing scenic quality or create a new source of substantial light or glare.
It should also be noted that CEQA Section 21099( d), which was added to the statute in 2019, states that " Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed -use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment." Thus, to the extent that this analysis identifies impacts to aesthetics resulting from infill sites within a transit priority area, its conclusions are provided for informational purposes only.
3mm=
As described above in Section 4. 1. 3, Regulatory Setting, there are no officially designated State scenic highways within or visible from the City of Mountain View. For this reason, the second significance criterion listed above is not addressed further in this section of the EIR.
4. 1. 5 Impacts of the Project
Impact AES- 1: Implementation of the HEU would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. ( Less than Significant)
As described above in Section 4. 1. 2, Environmental Setting, scenic vistas generally consist of expansive and high -quality views of natural features and landscapes that are visible from public City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4A- 11 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
locations. Views of features within and surrounding a city contribute to a feeling of community identity, visual enjoyment, and function as a resource for physical orientation. As previously noted, Mountain View takes its name from the views of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the south and west that are available throughout the City. Views of other natural features such as the Diablo Mountain Range to the southeast, Mission Peak to the east, San Francisco Bay to the north, and Stevens Creek in the eastern portion of the City are available from various locations within Mountain View. Views of the San Francisco Bay are generally only available from Shoreline Park in the North Bayshore Area.
This analysis also considers views of established City gateways and landmarks. As discussed above in the Environmental Setting, gateways are the entries to a city, district, or neighborhood.
They act as a point of distinction between different areas and contribute to a sense of place by announcing a threshold or a passage into a place while also reinforcing the unique identity of that place. For the most part, gateways in Mountain View are associated with the City' s major transportation corridors, particularly those which cross the jurisdictional boundaries of Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale. Important gateways within the City also include rail stations along the Central Expressway. Shoreline Boulevard also serves as a gateway into downtown Mountain View from US 101. East and west gateways to the City exist along El Camino Real and East Evelyn Avenue. As discussed above in the Environmental Setting, established City landmarks include the Rengstorff House, the San Antonio Center, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Shoreline Amphitheatre, Moffett Federal Airfield Hangar One, and NASA Wind Tunnels.
As presented in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Project would include adoption of a General Plan amendment to add or modify goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs related to housing in the Housing Element of the City' s General Plan. The Housing Element itself would contain an updated housing needs assessment-, updated goals, policies, and programs that address the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing and that affirmatively further fair housing; and a housing inventory that meets the City' s Regional Housing Needs Allocation ( RHNA) and provides a buffer of additional housing development capacity. The Project would also include amendments to other elements of the General Plan in order to maintain internal consistency between the General Plan, the zoning ordinance, and adopted Precise Plans. The Project would also include modifications to provisions in the City' s General Plan Land Use map, zoning ordinance, zoning map, and adopted Precise Plans, as needed, to reflect the housing sites inventory.
As detailed in Section 3. 4. 1, Housing Sites Inventory, in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Project would include a number of strategies as provided for in State law and California Department of Mousing and Community Development ( HCD) guidance to address the requirements for a housing inventory and meet the City' s 6th Cycle RHNA plus a buffer. While strategies and sites included in the Project will be refined based on community input and analysis as the EIR is being prepared, this FIR analyzes the impacts associated with the possible increase in housing production assuming use of the aforementioned strategies to plan for Lip to approximately 15, 000 units to the year 2031, focused primarily along the commercial corridors and in areas that currently accommodate commercial/ industrial uses, mixed uses, and/ or multifamily housing. Of the total units it is assumed that 1, 400 units would be enabled by changes City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 12 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
in development capacity via rezoning. The balance of approximately 13, 600 units represents development that is already permitted under the City' s adopted General Plan, zoning, and Precise Plans. Future development on identified sites would continue to be at the discretion of individual property owners and will be largely dependent on market forces and, in the case of affordable housing, available funding and/ or other incentives. Nonetheless, the analysis in this EIR conservatively assumes build -out of the sites inventory. In addition, the analysis in this FIR also considers approximately 2, 700 units beyond 2031 that would be enabled by changes in development capacity via rezoning.
New development that could occur under the Project would generally occur along commercial corridors; in areas that currently accommodate commercial/ industrial uses, mixed uses, and/ or muttifamilv housing; and other areas that are visually appropriate for increased development intensities. New development under the Project would generally not affect areas with a high degree of scenic value. However, implementation of the Project could potentially result in the construction of housing in a scenic vista visible from one or more locations within the City or in proximity to a scenic resource, such as a City landmark.
The City' s General Plan includes policies designed to ensure new development would not substantially adversely affect scenic vistas and scenic resources. Policy LUD 9. 5 ensures preservation of significant viewsheds throughout the community. Policy LUD 10. 2 encourages development to minimize or avoid disturbing natural resources and ecologically significant land features. Policy LUD 9. 1 requires new development to include sensitive height and setback transitions to adjacent structures and surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LUD 9. 3 encourages design compatibility with surrounding uses. Related policies under the City' s Precise Plans support the maintenance of high quality and compatible architectural and site design, gradual well -designed transitions between different land uses, and sensitivity and access to visual view corridors. In addition, as previously described, the City' s development review process, which includes the City Zoning Administrator and the Development Review Committee, would ensure that the architecture and urban design of new developments would protect the City' s visual environment, including scenic vistas and scenic resources. The Zoning Administrator makes recommendations to the City Council for large development projects and makes final decisions for permits and variances, and the Development Review Committee reviews the architecture and site design of new development and improvements, and provides project applicants with appropriate design comments. Required adherence to applicable City policies, regulations, and development standards governing scenic quality would ensure that impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 13 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
Impact AES- 2: Implementation of the HEU would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Less than Significant) As described above in Section 4. 1. 2, Environmental Setting, the City of Mountain View is generally suburban In visual character, characterized by lower -rise buildings ( mostly one to two stories in height), extensive landscaping, and a low to moderate intensity of uses. The City includes several visually distinct neighborhood areas that are separated by major roadways, highways, and transit corridors. Each of the City' s geographic areas contains one or more commercial districts surrounded by residential land uses, with the exception of the North Bayshore Area and the eastern portion of the Moffett/ Whisman Area, which contain pro -dominantly office parks and light industrial/research and development uses More den -se and urban areas with taller buildings and more concentrated commercial activity are located in the Downtown area along Castro Street, as well as portions of El Camino Real.
Changes to the visual character or quality of a site affect each individual differently, and thus to some extent are based on subjective and individual perspectives. As discussed above in Impact AES- 1 and detailed in Section 3. 4. 1, Housing Sites Inventory, in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Project would include a number of strategies as provided for in State law and HCD guidance to address the requirements for a housing inventory and meet the City' s 6th Cycle RHNA plus a buffer. While strategies and sites included in the Project will be refined based on community input and analysis as the EIR is being prepared, this EIR analyzes the impacts associated with the possible increase in housing production assuming use of the aforementioned strategies to plan for up to approximately 15, 000 units to the year 2031, focused primarily along the commercial corridors and in areas that currently accommodate commercial/ industrial uses, mixed uses, and/ or multifamily housing. Of the total units it is assumed that 1, 400 units would be enabled by changes in development capacity via rezoning. The balance of approximately 13, 600 units represents development that is already permitted under the City' s adopted General Plan, zoning, and Precise Plans. In addition, the analysis in this EIR also considers approximately 2, 700 units beyond 2031 that would be enabled by changes in development capacity via rezoning.
The development of new housing of increased density, greater scale, and higher height than currently exists in many areas of the City would result in changes to visual conditions where the new development occurs. In general, changes to the visual environment that could result with implementation of the Project would occur in areas characterized by infill parcels, vacant lots, and other underutilized areas within or immediately adjacent to existing developed areas in the City. New development would generally occur along commercial corridors; in areas that currently accommodate commercial/industrial uses, mixed uses, and/ or multifamily housing; and other areas that are visually appropriate for increased development intensities. New development under the Project would generally not affect areas with a high degree of scenic value, including, natural environments such as Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 14 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
The City' s General Plan includes policies designed to ensure visual quality and compatible visual character:
Policy LUD 6. 1 ensures that new development in or near residential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character.
Policy LUD 9. 1 requires new development to include sensitive height and setback transitions to adjacent structures and surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy LUD 9. 3 encourages design compatibility with surrounding uses.
Policy LUD 9. 5 ensures preservation of significant viewsheds throughout the community.
Policy LUD 10. 2 encourages development to minimize or avoid disturbing natural resources and ecologically significant land features.
Related policies under the City' s Precise Plans support the maintenance of high quality and compatible architectural and site design, gradual well -designed transitions between different land uses, and sensitivity and access to visual view corridors.
As noted above, a relatively small portion of the housing sites inventory ( 1, 400 units out of 15, 000 total) and approximately 2, 700 units beyond 2031 would not be consistent with current zoning provisions and would be rezoned, allowing changes in use, density, and/or height. The General Plan amendment and zoning ordinance proposed for adoption as part of the Project would by definition resolve any conflicts with provisions of those documents. In addition, as previously described, the City' s development review process ensures that the architecture and urban design of new developments would protect the City' s visual environment. Required adherence to applicable City policies, regulations, and development standards governing scenic quality would ensure that adverse impacts related to visual character or quality of public views or conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Impact AES- 3: Implementation of the HEU would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. ( Less than Significant)
As discussed above in the Environmental Setting, Mountain View is a predominantly suburban city with a small number of more urbanized commercial corridors. For this reason, night lighting and glare mostly occur within and around these more densely developed areas, although residential and industrial areas produce limited amounts of nighttime lighting. Existing sources of ambient nighttime lighting generally include neon and fluorescent signs in developed areas; exterior lighting installed along buildings for safety, architectural accent, or to illuminate nighttime operations; lights within buildings that illuminate the exteriors of buildings through windows; landscape and wayfinding signage lighting; street and parking lot lighting; and vehicle City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 15 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
headlights, The Shoreline Amphitheatre is also a prominent source of nighttime direct and ambient light.
Development of new housing anticipated under the Project would result in increased amounts of lighting associated with new development ( generally installed for security and safety reasons) and reflective building surfaces. New lighting and reflective building surfaces ( including windows) would be similar to those that characterize existing urban development in the City. The City' s General Plan includes policies to ensure that new buildings and associated lighting would not substantially adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. Policy LUD 9. 6 directs light and glare from new development to be minimized. Policies LUD 6. 1, LUD 7. 5, and LUD 9. 1 would ensure that new development tent Includes sei isItive height and setback transitions to ddjd(,eiit structures acid surrounding neighborhoods and is compatible with neighborhood character These policies would assist In reducing light and glare spillover Into areas adjacent to new development. Potential glare from new developments also would be minimized with implementation of Policy LUD 10. 1 encourages high -quality and sustainable design and materials that would be expected to generate little glare. In addition, as previously described, Standard Condition of Approval ( Lighting Plan) and the City' s development review process would ensure that the architecture and urban design of new developments would protect the City' s visual environment including ensuring that new development does not generate adverse light and glare. Required adherence to applicable City policies, regulations, standard conditions of approval, and development standards would ensure that adverse impacts related light and glare would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
arl"ArOT-1m.
This section presents an analysis of the cumulative effects of the Project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development that could cause cumulatively significant impacts. Significant cumulative impacts related to aesthetics could occur if the incremental impacts of the Project combined with the impacts of cumulative development identified in Section 4. 0. 3, Cumulative Impacts, would result in a significant cumulative impact and if the Project' s contribution would be " considerable." Impact AES- I.CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable development, would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (Less than Significant)
As presented above, Section 4. 0. 3, Cumulative Impacts, includes a discussion of cumulative development projections. Given development patterns in the region, cumulative development within the City and surrounding areas would predominately comprise infill projects in an already - developed urban environment. As with past projects, all current and future development within the City would be subject to applicable policies, development standards, discretionary permits, and development review processes, each of which has components designed to protect and enhance scenic quality. Evaluations of proposed projects according to these requirements take City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 16 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impart Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
into account cumulative conditions and consistency with existing surroundings. Where applicable, individual projects would adhere to conditions and/ or mitigation measures, applicable design guidelines, and development standards to address potential adverse impacts related to scenic vistas.
As discussed above in Impact AES- 1, the Project could result in new housing on developed and undeveloped pieces of land within the City. New development that could occur under (lie Project would generally occur along commercial corridors; in areas that currently accommodate commercial/ industrial uses, mixed uses, and/ or multifamily housing-, and in other areas that are visually appropriate for increased development intensities. New development under the Project would generally not affect. dieds with d high degree of scenic value. The City' s General Plan includes policies ( as described in Impact AES - 1) designed to ensure, new development would not substantially adversely affect scenic vistas, In addition, as previously described, Ifie, City' s development review process would ensure that the architecture and urban design of new developments would protect scenic vistas. For these reasons, the cumulative impact related to a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Impact AES- 2. CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable development, would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings or conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Less than Significant) As discussed above in Impact AES- LCU, given development patterns in the region, cumulative development within the City and surrounding areas would predominately comprise infill projects in an already -developed urban environment, and thus these projects would not likely combine to create significant adverse effects to visual character and visual quality. As with past projects, all current and future projects would be subject to applicable policies, development standards, discretionary permits, and development review processes, each of which has components designed to protect and enhance visual character and the quality of public views. Evaluations of proposed projects according to these requirements take into account cumulative conditions and consistency with existing surroundings. Where applicable, individual projects would adhere to conditions and/ or mitigation measures, applicable design guidelines, and development standards to address potential adverse impacts related to visual character and quality.
As discussed above in Impact AES- 2, the development of new housing of increased density, greater scale, and higher height under the Project than currently exists in many areas of the City would result in changes to visual conditions where the new development occurs. In general, changes to the visual environment that could result with implementation of the Project would occur in areas characterized by infill parcels, vacant lots, and other underutilized areas within or immediately adjacent to existing developed areas in the City. New development would generally occur along commercial corridors; in areas that currently accommodate commercial/ industrial uses, mixed uses, and/or multifamily housing; and other areas that are visually appropriate for City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 17 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
increased development intensities. In addition, The City' s General Plan includes policies ( as described in Impact AES- 2) designed to ensure visual quality and compatible visual character in areas where new housing is developed. Finally, as previously described, the City' s development review process would ensure that the architecture and urban design of new developments would protect the City' s visual environment. For these reasons, the cumulative impact related to a substantial degradation of visual character or quality of public views or conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
Impact AES- 3. CU: Implementation of the LIEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable developtneW, would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. ( Less than Significant)
Cumulative development within the City and surrounding areas would predominately comprise infill projects in an already -developed urban environment that includes substantial amounts of existing nighttime ambient light. As with past projects, all current and future projects would be subject to applicable policies, development standards, discretionary permits, and development review processes, each of which has components designed minimize adverse light and glare.
Evaluations of proposed projects according to these requirements take into account cumulative conditions and consistency with existing surroundings. Where applicable, individual projects would adhere to conditions and/ or mitigation measures, applicable design guidelines, and development standards to address potential adverse impacts related to light and glare.
As discussed above in Impact AES- 3, development of new housing anticipated under the Project would result in increased amounts of lighting associated with new development (generally installed for security and safety reasons) and reflective building surfaces. New lighting and reflective building surfaces (including windows) would be similar to those that characterize existing urban development in the City. The City' s General Plan includes policies ( as described in Impact AES- 3) to ensure that new buildings and associated lighting would not substantially adversely affect daytime or nighttime views. In addition, as previously described, the City' s development review process would ensure that the architecture and urban design of new developments would ensure that new development does not generate adverse light and glare. For these reasons, the cumulative impact related to related light and glare would be less than significant.
Mitigation: None required.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4A- 18 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
4. 1. 7 Summary of Aesthetics Impacts
Significance Before Significance After
Impact Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation
Impact AES- 1: Implementation of the HELI Less than Significant None required would not have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista.
Impact AES-2: Implementation of the HELI Less than Significant None required would not substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings or conflict with
applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic. quality.
Impact AES-3: Implementation of the HELI Less than Significant None required would not create i now source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area.
Impact AES- 1. CU: Implementation of the HELI, Less than Significant None required when combined with other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable development, would
not have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista.
Impact AES- 2. lImplementation of the HELI, Less than Significant None required when combined with other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable development, would
not substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings or conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality.
Impact AES-3. CU: Implementation of the HELI, Less than Significant None required when combined with other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable development, would
not create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area.
California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), 2022. California State Scenic Highways.
Available: https:// dot.ca.gov/programs/ design/ lap- landscape- architecture- and- communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways, Accessed May 3, 2022.
City of Mountain View, 2012. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. September 2012.
City of Mountain View, 2014. El Camino Real Precise Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
December 2014.
City of Mountain View, 2014. San Antonio Precise Plan Final Environmental Impact Report December 2014.
City of Mountain View, 2017. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. March 2017.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 19 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 1 Aesthetics
City of Mountain View, 2020. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020.
City of Mountain View, 2021. Mountain View 2030 General Plan, adopted July 10, 2012, as amended through April 13, 2021.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 1- 20 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
33923=
This section assesses the potential for the Project to result in significant adverse impacts on air quality. This section first includes a description of the existing environmental setting as it relates to air quality and provides a regulatory framework that discusses applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This section also includes an evaluation of potential significant impacts of the Project on air quality.
The Notice of Preparation ( NOP) for the FIR was circulated on February 4, 2022 and a scoping meeting was held on February ? 4, ? 0?? The NOP and the comments received during the public comment period can be found In Appendix A of [his EIR. No comments relating to uh qL1, 11ity were received during the NOP comment period.
ME&=. 017
The City of Mountain View is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin ( SFBAAB), in the Santa Clara Valley. Air quality is influenced by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions.
The Santa Clara Valley is bounded by the Bay to the north and by mountains to the east, south and west. Temperatures are warm on summer days and cool on summer nights, and winter temperatures are fairly mild. At the northern end of the valley, mean maximum temperatures are in the low- 80' s during the summer and the high- 50' s during the winter, and mean minimum temperatures range from the high- 50' s in the summer to the low- 40' s in the winter. Wind speeds are greatest in the spring and summer and weakest in the fall and winter. Nighttime and early morning hours frequently have calm winds in all seasons, while summer afternoons and evenings are quite breezy. Strong winds are rare, associated mostly with the occasional winter storm.
The air pollution potential of the Santa Clara Valley is high. High summer temperatures, stable air and mountains surrounding the valley combine to promote ozone formation. In addition to the many local sources of pollution, ozone precursors from San Francisco, San Mateo and Alameda Counties are carried by prevailing winds to the Santa Clara Valley. The valley tends to channel pollutants to the southeast. In addition, on summer days with low level inversions, ozone can be recirculated by southerly drainage flows in the late evening and early morning and by the prevailing northwesterly winds in the afternoon. A similar recirculation pattern occurs in the winter, affecting levels of carbon monoxide and particulate matter. This movement of the air up and down the valley increases the impact of the pollutants significantly. Pollution sources are plentiful and complex in this subregion. The Santa Clara Valley has a high concentration of industry at the northern end, in the Silicon Valley, Some of these industries are sources of air toxics as well as criteria air pollutants. In addition, Santa Clara Valley' s large population and City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 1 ESA 7202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
many work -site destinations generate the highest mobile source emissions of any subregion in the SFBAAB ( BAAQMD 2017a).
As required by the 1970 Federal Clean Air Act, the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( U. S. EPA) initially identified six air pollutants that are pervasive in urban environments for which state and federal health -based ambient air quality standards were established, The U.S. EPA calls these pollutants " criteria air pollutants," and the agency has regulated them by developing specific public health - based and welfare - based criteria as the basis for setting permissible levels. Ozone, CO, particulate matter ( PM), nitrogen dioxide NO2), sulfur dioxide ( SO2), and lead are the slx criteria all- pollutants originally Identilled by the U.S. EPA. Later, subsets of PM were identified and permissible levels were established.
These III( JUde I' Mio, with a didinete, or io microns, aid Pwb, vviih , diatnete, or 2. 5 ini(' 1olls or less ( PM2,5).
Table 4. 2- 1 briefly summarizes the sources and the most common health and environmental effects for each of the air pollutants for which there is a national and/ or California ambient air quality standard ( ambient air quality standards are discussed below and further under the Regulatory Setting).
MTK#Imu
As discussed above, National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS) for criteria air pollutants have been set at levels considered safe to protect public health and welfare and protect the environment. Table 4. 2- 2 summarizes the current NAAQS and CAAQS for each of the criteria air pollutants. Although the federal Clean Air Act established standards, individual states retained the option to adopt more stringent standards and to include other pollution sources. California had already established its own air quality standards when federal standards were established, and as shown in Table 4. 2- 2, there are differences between the state and national ambient air quality standards. California ambient standards tend to be at least as protective as national ambient standards or are often more stringent. In addition to the six criteria air pollutants, California has adopted ambient air quality standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, visibility reducing particles, and vinyl chloride.
In addition to criteria air pollutants, individual projects may emit TACs. TACs collectively refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause chronic ( i.e., of long duration) and acute ( i.e., severe but short-term) adverse effects on human health, including carcinogenic effects. Human health effects of TACs include birth defects, neurological damage, cancer, and death. There are hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Thus, individual TACs vary greatly in the health risk they present; at a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 2 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
TABLE 4. 2- 1
SOURCES, ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS Criteria Air Pollutant Sources Environmental & Health Effects Ozone Formed when reactive organic gases Respiratory symptoms ROG) and nitrogen oxides ( NOx) react Worsening of lung disease leading to in the presence of sunlight. Major premature death
sources include on -road motor vehicles,
solvent evaporation, and commercial e Damage to lung tissue industrial mobile equipment. 9 Crop, forest and ecosystem damage Damage to a variety of materials, including
rubber, plastics, fabrics, paint and metals
Carbon Monoxide Internal combustion engines, primarily Chest pain in patients with heart disease od"'olille- powelod lito(of Headache
I.
Rodunod mental niortness
Nitrogen Dioxide Motor vehicles, petroleum refining Lung irritation operations, industrial sources, aircraft, 9 Enhanced allergic responses hips, and railroads
Sulfur Dioxide Fuel combustion, chemical plants, Worsening of asthma: increased symptoms, sulfur recovery plants, and metal increased medication usage, and emergency processing. room visits
Particulate Matter Dust and fume -producing industrial and Premature death & hospitalization, primarily for PM10) agricultural operations, combustion, worsening of respiratory disease atmospheric photochemical reactions, Reduced visibility and material soiling and natural activities ( e. g., wind - raised
dust and ocean sprays),
Particulate Matter Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, Premature death PM2. 5) equipment, and industrial sources; Hospitalization for worsening of cardiovascular residential and agricultural burning; Also, disease
formed from photochemical reactions of
other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur Hospitalization for respiratory disease oxides, and organics. Asthma - related emergency room visits Increased symptoms, increased inhaler usage
Lead Present sources: lead smelters, battery Impaired mental functioning in children manufacturing and recycling facilities. Learning disabilities in children Past source: combustion of leaded
gasoline. Brain and kidney damage
Sulfates Produced by the reaction in the air of Same as PM2, 5, particularly worsening of S02. asthma and other lung diseases
Reduces visibility
Hydrogen Sulfide Geothermal power plants, petroleum Nuisance odor ( rotten egg smell) production and refining At high concentrations: headache & breathing difficulties
Visibility Reducing See PM2, 5 Reduced airport safety, scenic enjoyment, road Particles safety, and discourages tourism
Vinyl Chloride Polyvinyl chloride and vinyl Central nervous system effects, such as manufacturing. dizziness, drowsiness & headaches
Long- term exposure: liver damage & liver
cancer
SOURCE: CARE, 2022b; CARE, 2022c
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 3 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
TABLE 4. 2- 2
STATE AND FEDERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Averaging Time
State Standards
CAAQS) a
Federal Standards
NAAQS) b
Ozone
I hour 0. 09 ppm NA
8 hours 0. 070 ppm 0. 070 ppm'
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
8 hours 9. 0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide ( NO2)
1 hour 0. 18 ppm 0A00 ppm
Annual 0. 03 ppin 0. 053 pprn
Sulfur Dioxide ( SO?)
1 Iluut
24 hours
025 ppm 0. 075 ppm
0. 04 ppm 0. 14 ppm
Annual NA 0. 03 ppm
Particulate Matter ( PMm)
24 hours 50 pg/ m3 150 lug/ M3
Annuals 20 lIg/ M3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter
PM2.5)
24 hours NA 35 Ag/ M3
Annual 12 jug/ rn3 12 pg/ M3
Lead
30 days 1. 5 lug/ M3 NA
Calendar quarter NA 1. 5 lug/ rn'
Rolling 3- month average NA 0. 15 Vg/ M3
Sulfates 24 hours 25 µg/ rr,3 NA
Hydrogen Sulfide I hour 0. 03 ppm NA
Visibility reducing particles 8 hours e
NA
Vinyl Chloride 24 hours _+ 0. 0 1PP1 NA
NOTES:
A = Attainment; N = Nonattainment; U = Unclassified; NA = Not Applicable, no applicable standard; ppm = parts per million; jug/ m' micrograms per cubic meter
a CAAQS = California ambient air quality standards. CAAQS for ozone, CO ( except Lake Tahoe), S02 ( one -hour and 24- hour), NO2, particulate matter, and visibility -reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All other State standards shown are values not to be equaled or exceeded.
b NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards. NAAQS, other than ozone and particulates, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The eight -hour ozone standard is attained when the three- year average of the fourth highest daily concentration is 0. 08 ppm or less. The 24- hour PMio standard is attained when the three- year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than the standard. The 24- hour PM2. 5 standard is attained when the three- year average of the 98th percentile is less than the standard.
On October 1, 2015, the national 8- hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0. 075 to 0. 070 ppm, An area will meet the standard if the fourth -highest maximum daily 8- hour ozone concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0. 070 ppm. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the ozone level in the area.
d State standard = annual geometric mean; national standard = annual arithmetic mean. a Statewide visibility -reducing particle standard ( except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0. 23 per kilometer when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a I 0- mile nominal visual range.
SOURCE: BAAQMD, 2017b.
Unlike criteria air pollutants, TACs are not subject to ambient air quality standards but are regulated by air districts using a risk -based approach to determine which sources and which pollutants to control as well as the degree of control. A health risk assessment (HRA) is an City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 4 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
analysis that estimates human health exposure to toxic substances, and when considered together with information regarding the toxic potency of the substances, an HRA provides quantitative estimates of health risks. 1
The Office of Environmental Hazard Health Assessment ( OEHHA, 2015) and the BAAQMD BAAQMD, 2016) provide guidelines for conducting HRAs. Exposure assessment guidance published by the BAAQMD in January 2016 adopts the assumption that residences would be exposed to air pollution 24 hours per day, 350 days per year, for 30 years ( BAAQMD, 2016a).
Therefore, assessments of air pollutant exposure to residents typically result in the greatest adverse health outcomes of all population groups.
Exposure to fine PM (PM2.5) is strongly associated with mortality, respiratory diseases, and poor lung development in children, and Wier health effects, Such as hospitalization for cardiopulmonary disease ( San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2008). Diesel particulate matter ( DPM), a byproduct of diesel fuel combustion, is also of concern. CARB identified DPM as a TAC in 1998, primarily based on evidence demonstrating cancer effects in humans ( CARB, 1998). The estimated cancer risk from exposure to DPM is much higher than the risk associated with any other TAC routinely measured in the region. DPM is discussed further, below.
In addition to monitoring criteria air pollutants, the Bay Area' s air toxics network includes 16 monitoring sites, five of which were established by the CARB and are maintained by the BAAQMD. The remaining 11 sites are operated by the BAAQMD. These stations measure concentrations of volatile organic compounds ( VOl polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and metals categorized as TACs. The TACs selected for monitoring are those that traditionally have been found in the highest concentrations in ambient air and therefore tend to produce the most significant risk. However, there are no monitoring stations in the immediate vicinity of the HEU area that measure ambient concentrations of carcinogenic TACs. 1pl111: lli llllirlzii Wiql J
Motor vehicles are responsible for a large share of air pollution, especially in California. Vehicle tailpipe emissions contain diverse forms of particles and gases, and vehicles also contribute to particulates by generating road dust and tire wear. Epidentiologic studies have demonstrated that people living close to freeways or busy roadways have poorer health outcomes, including increased asthma symptoms and respiratory infections, and decreased pulmonary function and poor lung development in children. Air pollution monitoring conducted in conjunction with epiderniologic studies has confirmed that roadway -related health effects vary with modeled exposure to PM and NO2, In traffic -related studies, the additional cancer health risk attributable to roadway proximity was seen within 1, 000 feet of the roadway and was strongest within 300 feet ( CARB, 2005). As a result, CARB recommends that new sensitive land uses not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads carrying more than 100, 000 vehicles per day. CARB notes that these recommendations are advisory and should not be interpreted as defined " buffer zones," and that In general, an HRA is requited if the BAAQMD concludes that projected emissions of a specific air toxic compound from a proposed new or modified source suggest a potential public health risk. The applicant is then subject to a HRA for the source in question. Such an assessment generally evaluates chronic, long- term effects, estimating the increased risk of cancer as a result of exposure to one or more TACs.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 5 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
local agencies must balance other considerations, including transportation needs, the benefits of urban infill, community economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues. With careful evaluation of exposure, health risks, and affirmative steps to reduce risk where necessary, CARB' s position is that infill development, mixed use, higher density, transit -oriented development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can be compatible with protecting the health of individuals at the neighborhood level ( CARB, 2005). Sometimes, suggesting project design changes or mitigation measures in the project review phase can also reduce or avoid potential impacts. This underscores the importance of addressing potential incompatible land uses as early as possible in the project review process, ideally in the general plan itself.
CARB identified Drm as a TAC in 1998, primarily based on evidence demonstrating cancer effects In humans. The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate components, many of which are toxic. Mobile sources such as trucks and buses are among the primary sources of diesel emissions, and concentrations of DPM are higher near heavily traveled highways. CARB estimated average bay area cancer risk from exposure to diesel particulate, based on a population -weighted average ambient diesel particulate concentration, at about 480 in one million as of the year 2000, which is much higher than the risk associated with any other toxic air pollutant routinely measured in the region.
In 2000, CARB approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce diesel emissions from both new and existing diesel -fueled vehicles and engines. Subsequent CARB regulations apply to new trucks and diesel fuel. With new controls and fuel requirements, 60 trucks built in 2007 would have the same particulate exhaust emissions as one truck built in 1988 ( Pollution Engineering, 2006). The regulation was anticipated to result in an 80 percent decrease in statewide diesel health risk in 2020 as compared with the diesel risk in 2000. Many of the measures of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan have been approved and adopted, including the federal on -road and off -road 2 diesel engine emission standards for new engines, as well as adoption of regulations for low sulfur fuel in California. Subsequent regulations regarding on -road diesel truck retrofits with particulate matter controls, 2010 or later engine standards, and fleet average emission rate standards to increase vehicle turnover have resulted in much lower DPM and PM2. 5 emissions over time. It is estimated that these regulations reduced diesel particulate emissions 78 percent from 1990 levels ( Cal Matters, 2021). Despite notable emission reductions, CARB recommends that proximity to sources of DPM emissions be considered in the siting of new sensitive land uses.
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and is subjective. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors. Odor impacts should be considered for any proposed new odor sources located near existing receptors, as well as any new sensitive receptors located near existing odor sources. Odor sources typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, 2 Non -road is the term EPA uses for vehicles and equipment that are not on -road, where in California this term is off -road.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-6 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
confined animal facilities, composing stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants ( BAAQMD, 2017a).
The B,AAQMD has jurisdiction to regulate air quality within the nine -county SFBAAB Accordingly, the region' s air quality monitoring network provides information on ambient concentrations of criteria air pollutants at various locations in the SFBAAB. Table 4. 2- 3 presents a five-year summary for 2016 to 2020 ofthe highest annual criteria air pollutant concentrations, recorded at the air quality monitoring station closest to the HEU area, operated and maintained by the BAAQMD at 897 Barron Avenue in Redwood City, approximately 9 miles northwest of the I IEU area. The data collected at this monitoring station are representative of the ambient air quality In Mountain View. It also compares these concentrations with the most stringent applicable ambient air quality standards ( whether state or federal). Concentrations shown In bold indicate an exceedance of that standard. CO is not included in this table as CO concentrations have been well below the standards throughout the Bay Area since the SFBAAB was designated as attainment with respect to the CO standards in 1998. Lead and S02 are not included in this table because ambient lead concentrations are only monitored on an as -warranted basis, and the SFBAAB has never been designated as non -attainment for S02. Lead levels in the air have decreased substantially since leaded gasoline was eliminated. The only lead monitoring station in the Bay Area is located at Reid- Hillview Airport in San Jose ( BAAQMD, 2021a). General aviation airports can be sources of lead because piston engine aircraft continue to use leaded fuel.
TABLE 4. 2- 3
SUMMARY OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA IN THE PROJECT AREA Pollutant
Ozone
Monitoring Data by Year'
Standard 1 2016 1 2017 1 2018 1 2019 1 2020
Maximum 1 - Hour Concentration ( ppm) 0. 090 ppmb 0. 075 0. 115 0. 067 0. 083 0. 098 Days 1- 1 lour Standard Exceeded 0 2 0 0 1
Maximum 8- Hour Concentration ( ppm) 0. 070 ppmc 0. 061 0. 087 0. 050 0. 077 0. 078 Days 8- Hour Standard Exceeded 0 2 0 2 1
Fine Particulate Matter ( PM2, S)
Maximum 24- Hour Concentration ( pg/ m3) 35 pg/ m 3 c 19. 5 60. 8 120, 9 29. 5 124. 1 Annual Average ( pglml) 12 pg/ m' b, c 9A 10. 6 7. 0 9. 8 Days 24- Hour Standard Exceeded 0 6 13 0 9
Nitrogen Dioxide ( NO2)
Maximum 1 - Hour Concentration ( ppm) > 0. 100 PPMC 45. 7 67. 4 77, 3 54. 9 45. 9 Days 1 - Hour Standard Exceeded 0 0 0
I
0 I
0 NOTES: ppm = parts per million; pgIm' = micrograms per cubic meter a "- 2' indicates that data are not available.
b State standard, not to be exceeded; also a federal standard, not to be exceeded more than one per year. c Federal standard, not to be exceeded.
SOURCE: GARB, 2022d
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 7 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
Compliance with the standards is on a regional basis. In the air basin, compliance is demonstrated by ongoing measurements of pollutant concentrations at more than 30 air quality monitoring stations operated by the BAAQMD in all nine bay area counties. An exceedance of an ambient air quality standard at any one of the stations counts as a regional exceedance.
As shown in Table 4. 2- 3, the most stringent applicable standards for ozone ( the state one -hour standard of 0. 09 ppm and the federal eight -flour standard of 0. 07 ppm) were exceeded between 2017 and 2020. Table 4. 2- 3 also shows that the state 24- hour PMlo standard of 35 micrograms per cubic meter ( pg/ M3) was exceeded on 28 days between 2017 and 2020. The state annual average standard was riot exceeded between 2016 and 2020, This station does not monitor PMIO, but ambient levels of NO2 Were well below the, standards.
Air Quality Index
The U. S. EPA developed the Air Quality Index ( AQI) scale to make the public health impacts of air pollution concentrations easily understandable. The index, much like an air quality thermometer," translates daily air pollution concentrations into a number on a scale between 0 and 500. The numbers in the scale are divided into six color -coded ranges, with numbers 0 through 500 as outlined below:
Green ( 0- 50) indicates " good" air quality. No health impacts are expected when air quality is in the green range.
Yellow ( 51- 100) indicates air quality is " moderate." Unusually sensitive people should consider limiting prolonged outdoor exertion.
Orange ( 101- 150) indicates air quality is " unhealthy for sensitive groups." Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should limit outdoor exertion.
Red ( 151- 200) indicates air quality is " unhealthy." Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit prolonged outdoor exertion.
Purple (201- 300) indicates air quality is " very unhealthy." Active children and adults, and people with respiratory disease, such as asthma, should avoid prolonged outdoor exertion; everyone else, especially children, should limit outdoor exertion.
Maroon ( 301- 500) indicates air quality is " hazardous." This would trigger health warnings of emergency conditions, and the entire population is more likely to be affected.
The AQI numbers refer to specific amounts of pollution in the air. They are based on the federal air quality standards for ozone, CO, NO2, S02, PMlo, and PM2.5- In most cases, the federal standard for these air pollutants corresponds to the number 100 on the index chart. Thus, if the concentration of any of these pollutants rises above its respective standard, the air quality can be unhealthy for the public. In determining the air quality forecast, local air districts use the anticipated concentration measurements for each of the major pollutants, convert them into index numbers, and determine the highest index for each zone in a district. A Spare the Air Alert is called for the Bay Area when air quality is expected to be unhealthy in any of the region' s five reporting zones.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 8 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
Readings below 100 on the AQI scale would not typically affect the health of the general public although readings in the moderate range of 50 to 100 may affect unusually sensitive people).
Levels above 300 rarely occur in the United States, and readings above 200 have not occurred in the Bay Area in decades, with the exception of the October 2017 and November 2018 wildfires north of San Francisco and the August/ September 2020 complex wildfires that occurred throughout the Bay Area. As a result, the AQI in several neighboring counties reached the " very unhealthy" and " hazardous" designations, ranging from values of 201 to above 350. During those periods, the BAAQMD issued " Spare the Air" alerts and recommended that individuals stay inside with windows closed and refrain from significant outdoor activity. Wildfires appear to be occurring with increasing frequency in California and the Bay Area as a result of global warming and climate change. Eighteen of the state' s 20 largest wildfires and most destructive fires on record have occurred since the year ? 000 ( CAI FIRF, ?0??) AQI statistics over recent years indicate that air quality in the South Central Bay which includes Mountain View is predominantly in the " Good" or " Moderate" categories and healthy on most days for most people. Historical BAAQMD data indicate that the SFBAAB experienced air quality in the red level ( unhealthy) on 34 days between 2017 and 2021. As shown in Table 4. 2- 4, the air basin had a total of 110 red -level or orange -level (unhealthy or unhealthy for sensitive groups) days between 2017 and 2021. A number of these days are attributable to the increasing frequency of wildfires. This table also shows that the SFBAAB experienced a total of 9 purple level ( very unhealthy) days in between 2017 and 2021.
TABLE 4. 2- 4
AIR QUALITY INDEX STATISTICS FOR THE SFBAAB
AQI Statistics
Number of Days per Year
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups ( Orange) AQI: 151- 200 9 8 10 34 3 Unhealthy ( Red) AQI: 201- 300 9 8 0 17 0
Very Unhealthy ( Purple) AQI: 301- 500 3 5 0 1
1 0
SOURCE: BAAQMD, 2022
The BAAQMD' s inventory of permitted stationary sources of emissions shows numerous permitted stationary emission facilities present within the HEU area boundaries. The vast majority of these sources are stationary diesel engines for power generators and fuel stations. The major freeways and roadways in the vicinity of the HEU areas are U. S. 101 and State Routes SR) 82 ( El Camino Real), 85 and 287. In addition, the Caltrain line runs through the center of Mountain View.
Air quality does not affect every individual in the population in the same way, and some groups are more sensitive to adverse health effects than others. More sensitive population groups include: the City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 9 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
elderly and the young; those with higher rates of respiratory disease, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and those with other environmental or occupational health exposures e.g., indoor air quality) that affect cardiovascular or respiratory diseases. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as children, adults, and seniors occupying or residing in residential dwellings, schools, daycare centers, hospitals, and senior - care facilities. Workers are not considered sensitive receptors because all employers must follow regulations set forth by the Occupation Safety and Health Administration to ensure the health and well- being of their employees ( BAAQMD, 2011) The proximity of sensitive receptors to motor vehicles is an air pollution concern, especially in urban areas where building setbacks are limited and roadway volumes are higher than suburban locations of the bay area. Vehicles also contribute to particulates by generating toad dust and through tire, wear. L,xisting sensitive receptors are present throughout the I -IF[ I areas 10=
Regulation of air pollution is achieved through both national and state ambient air quality standards and through emissions limits on individual sources of air pollutants. Local Air Quality Management Districts and Air Pollution Control Districts are responsible for demonstrating attainment with state air quality standards through the adoption and enforcement of Attainment Plans.
Federal
Criteria Air Pollutants
The 1970 Clean Air Act ( most recently amended in 1990) requires that regional planning and air pollution control agencies prepare a regional air quality plan to outline the measures by which both stationary and mobile sources of pollutants will be controlled in order to achieve all ambient air quality standards by the deadlines specified in the act. These ambient air quality standards are intended to protect the public health and welfare, and they specify the concentration of pollutants with an adequate margin of safety) to which the public can be exposed without adverse health effects. They are designed to protect those segments of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, including asthmatics, the very young, the elderly, people weakened from other illness or disease, or persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollution levels that are somewhat above ambient air quality standards before adverse health effects are observed. Table 4. 2- 5 presents current state ( California Ambient Air Quality Standards, or CAAQS) and national ( National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or NAAQS) ambient air quality standards.
NAAQS and CAAQS have been set at levels considered safe to protect public, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly with a margin of safety; and to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. As explained by GARB, " An air quality standard defines the maximum amount of a pollutant averaged over a specified period of time that can be present in outdoor air without duy lidt inful effects on people or the environment" ( GARB, 2017). That is, if a region is in compliance with the ambient air quality standards, its regional air quality can be considered protective of public health. The NAAQS are statutorily required to be set by the U.S. EPA at levels that are City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 10 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
requisite to protect the public health." 3 Therefore, the closer a region is to attaining a particular ambient air quality standard, the lower the human health impact is from that pollutant. See Section
4. 2. 2, above, for a brief description of the health effects of exposure to criteria air pollutants.
TABLE 4. 2- 5
CTOTE AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND MAJOR SOURCES Averaging
Pollutant Time CAAQS NAAQS Major Pollutant Sources
Ozone I hour 0. 09 ppm Formed when reactive organic gases ( ROG) and nitrogen oxides ( NOx) react In the presence of
8 hour 0. 070 ppm 0. 070 ppm Sunlight, Major Sources include on -road motor vehicles, solvent evaporation, and commercial
industrial mobile equipment.
Carbon Monoxide I hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Internal combustion engines, primarily gasolinepoworod motor vehioloi, 8 hour 9. 0 ppm 9 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide 1 hour 0. 18 ppm 100 ppb Motor vehicles, petroleum refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads.
Annual 0. 030 ppm 0. 053 ppm
Avg
Sulfur Dioxide I hour 0. 25 ppm 75 ppb Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing. 3 hour 0. 5 ppm
24 hour 0. 04 ppm 0. 14 ppm
Annual 0, 030 ppm
Avg.
Respirable 24 hour 50 Ug/ M3 150 ug/ m' Dust and fume -producing industrial and agricultural Particulate Matter operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical Annual 20 ug/ m3 PM10) Avg.
reactions, and natural activities ( e. g., wind -raised dust and ocean sprays).
Fine Particulate 24 hour 35 ug/ m' Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, equipment, and Matter industrial sources; residential and agricultural burning; Annual 12 uglm' 12, 0 ug/ m3
PM2. 5) Avg.
Also, formed from photochemical reactions of other
pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides, and organics.
Lead Monthly 1. 5 Ug/ m3 Present source: lead smelters, battery Ave. manufacturing and recycling facilities. Past source:
combustion of leaded gasoline.
Quarterly I 1. 5 Ug1m3
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0. 03 ppm No National Geothermal power plants, petroleum production and Standard refining
Sulfates 24 hour 25 ug/ m3 No
St
National Produced by the reaction in the air Of SO2.
Reducing 8 hour Extinction of No National See PM2. 5,
Particles 0. 23/ km; Standard
visibility of 10
miles or more
Vinyl chloride 24 hour 0. 01 ppm No National Polyvinyl chloride and vinyl manufacturing.
Standard
NOTE:
ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; ug/ ml = micrograms per cubic meter. a Secondary national standard.
SOURCES: CARE, 2016.
3 See https:// www. law. cornell. edu/ uscode/ text/ 42/ 7409.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 11 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
Pursuant to the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments ( FCAAA), the US EPA classifies air basins or portions thereof) as " attainment", " nonattainment", or " unclassified" for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the national standards had been achieved. As shown in Table 4. 2- 5, at the federal level, the SFBAAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the 8- hour ozone standard and the federal 24- hour PM2. 5 standard, The SFBAAB is in attainment for all other federal ambient air quality standards. State -level attainment status of the SFBAAB is discussed further below.
The FCAA requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The FCAA added requirements for states containing areas that violate the national standards to revise their SIPS to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air Pollution The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The U. S. EPA has the responsibility to review all SIPS to determine if they conform to the mandates of the FCAA and will achieve air quality goals when implemented. i UZI
Pursuant to the 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendments, the U.S. EPA classifies air basins ( or portions thereof) as " attainment", " nonattainment", or " unclassified" for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the national standards had been achieved. As shown in Table 4. 2- 6, at the federal level, the SFBAAB is designated as a nonattainment area for the 8- hour ozone standard and the federal 24- hour PM2.5 standard. The SFBAAB is in attainment for all other federal ambient air quality standards.
The California Clean Air Act (California Health and Safety Code section 39600 et seq.) passed in 1988, like its federal counterpart, calls for designation of areas as " attainment", " nonattainment", or " unclassified" with respect to the state standards. The SFBAAB is currently designated as nonattainment for the state 8- hour and 1- hour ozone standards, the state average and 24- hour PM10 standards, and the state average PM2. 5 standards. The SFBAAB is designated as attainment or unclassified with respect to the other state standards.
The FCAA requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan ( SIP). The FCAA added requirements for states containing areas that violate the national standards to revise their SIN to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The U.S. EPA has the responsibility to review all SIPS to determine if they conform to the mandates of the FCAA and will achieve air quality goals when implemented.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 12 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
TABLE 4. 2- 6
SAN FRANCisco BAY AREA AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant Averaging Time
Designation/ Classification
State Standards Federal Standards
Ozone 8 Hour Nonattainment Nonattainment
1 Hour Nonattainment
Carbon Monoxide 8 Hour Attainment Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide
1 Hour
1 Hour
Attainment
Attainment
Attainment
Annual Arithmetic Moan Attainment
iffill Dioxido 74 liolit Alhaiiiinwit
I Hour Attainment
Annual Arithmetic Mean
Respirable Particulate Matter ( PMo) Annual Arithmetic Mean 24 Hour
Nonattainment
Nonattainment Unclassified
Fine Particulate Matter ( PM2. 5) Annual Arithmetic Mean Nonattainment Unclassified/ Attainment 24 Hour Nonattainment
Sulfates 24 Hour Attainment
Lead 30 Day Average Attainment
Calendar Quarter Attainment
Roiling Month Average
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour Unclassified
Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour No information available
Visibility Reducing Particles 8 Hour Unclassified
NOTES:
pg/ ml = micrograms per cubic meter; Avg. = Average; PM2. 5 = particulate matter 2. 5 microns or less in diameter; PM, o = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million SOURCE: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, updated January 5, 2017. Available at https:// www. baaqmd, gov/ about- air- quality/ research- and- data/ air- quality- standards- and- attainment- status. Accessed April 25, 2022. 4-
Wgu
Although the federal Clean Air Act established the NAAQS, individual states retained the option to adopt more stringent standards and to include other pollution sources. California had already established its own air quality standards when federal standards were established, and because of the unique meteorological challenges in California, there are differences between the state and national ambient air quality standards, as shown in Table 4. 2- 5. California ambient standards tend to be at least as protective as national ambient standards or are often more stringent.
In 1988, California passed the California Clean Air Act ( California health and Safety Code section 39600 et seq.), which, like its federal counterpart, called for designation of areas as attainment", " nonattainment", or " unclassified" with respect to the state standards. The City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 13 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
SFBAAB is currently designated as nonattainment for the state 8- hour and 1 - hour ozone standards, the state average and 24- hour PMio standards, and the state average PM2. 5 standards.
The SFBAAB is designated as attainment or unclassified with respect to the other state standards. 07,71W., •
The Health and Safety Code defines TACs as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. The State Air Toxics Program was established in 1983 under AB 1807 ( Tanner). A total of 243 substances have been designated TACs under California law, including the 189 federal) Hazardous Air Pollutants.
I"he CAPB In Use Off Road Diesel Fueled Fleets Regulation ( Off Road Regulation) applies to all self-propelled off -road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater used in California and most two -engine vehicles (except on -road two -engine sweepers). This includes vehicles that are rented or leased ( rental or leased fleets). CARB' s goal is to gradually reduce the state- wide construction vehicle fleet' s emissions through turnover, repower, or retrofits. Now engine emissions requirements were grouped into tiers based on the year in which the engine was built (CARB 2022a). In 2014, new engines were required to meet Tier 4 Final standards, which to date are the most stringent emissions standards for off -road vehicle engines. The goal of the In -Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation is to reduce particulate matter ( PM, o and PM2. 5) and NO,, emissions from off -road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California (CARB 2022e). This regulation also limits idling to 5 minutes, requires a written idling policy for larger vehicle fleets, and requires that fleet operators provide information on their engines to CARB and label vehicles with a CARB- issued vehicle identification number.
CARB recommends that proximity to sources of DPM emissions be considered in the siting of new sensitive land uses. As discussed above, CARB published Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective in April 2005. This handbook is intended to give guidance to local governments in the siting of sensitive land uses near sources of air pollution.
Recent studies have shown that public exposure to air pollution can be substantially elevated near freeways and certain other facilities such as ports, rail yards, and distribution centers. Sensitive receptor siting recommendations for applicable uses in the City of Mountain View are listed in Table 4. 2- 7 below. CARB notes that these recommendations are advisory and should not be interpreted as defined " buffer zones," and that local agencies must balance other considerations, including transportation needs, the benefits of urban infill, community economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues. With careful evaluation of exposure, health risks, and affirmative steps to reduce risk where necessary CARB' s position is that infill development, mixed use, higher density, transit -oriented development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can be compatible with protecting the health of individuals at the neighborhood level CARB, 2005).
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 14 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
TABLE 4. 2- 7
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES
Source Category Advisory Recommendations of Locations to Avoid Freeways and High- 500' of a freeway or urban road with 100, 000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50, 000 Traffic Roads vehicles per day
Dry Cleaners Using 300' of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500'.
Perch loroethylene For operations with three or more machines, consult the local air district. Also, do not site new sensitive receptors in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.
Gasoline Dispensing 300' of a large gas station, defined as a facility with a throughput of 3. 6 million gallons per Facilities year or greater. A 50' separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities, SOURCE. CARB, 2006.
The CARB In -Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation (Off -Road Regulation) applies to all self- propelled off -road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater used in California and most two -engine vehicles ( except on -road two -engine sweepers). This includes vehicles that are rented or leased ( rental or leased fleets). CARB' s goal is to gradually reduce the state- wide construction vehicle fleet' s emissions through turnover, repower, or retrofits. New engine emissions requirements were grouped into tiers based on the year in which the engine was built ( CARB 2022a). In 2014, new engines were required to meet Tier 4 Final standards, which to date are the most stringent emissions standards for off -road vehicle engines. The goal of the In -Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation is to reduce particulate matter ( PMlo and PM2. 5) and NO,, emissions from off -road heavy- duty diesel vehicles in California ( CARB 2022b). This regulation also limits idling to 5 minutes, requires a written idling policy for larger vehicle fleets, and requires that fleet operators provide information on their engines to CARB and label vehicles with a CARB-issued vehicle identification number.
CARB recommends that proximity to sources of DPM emissions be considered in the siting of now sensitive land uses. As discussed above, CARB published Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective in April 2005. This handbook is intended to give guidance to local governments in the siting of sensitive land uses near sources of air pollution.
Recent studies have shown that public exposure to air pollution can be substantially elevated near freeways and certain other facilities such as ports, rail yards, and distribution centers. Sensitive receptor siting recommendations for applicable uses in the HEU area are listed in Table 4. 2- 8 below. CARB notes that these recommendations are advisory and should not be interpreted as defined " buffer zones," and that local agencies must balance other considerations, including transportation needs, the benefits of urban infill, community economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues. With careful evaluation of exposure, health risks, and affirmative steps to reduce risk where necessary CARB' s position is that infill development, mixed use, higher density, transit -oriented development, and other concepts that benefit regional air quality can bo compatible with protecting the health of individuals, at the neighborhood level ( CARR, 2005).
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 15 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
TABLE 4. 2- 8
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SITING NEW SENSITIVE LAND USES
Source Category Advisory Recommendations of Locations to Avoid Freeways and High- 500' of a freeway or urban road with 100, 000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50, 000 Traffic Roads vehicles per day
Dry Cleaners Using 300' of any dry cleaning operation. For operations with two or more machines, provide 500'.
Perch loroethylene For operations with three or more machines, consult the local air district. Also, do not site new sensitive receptors in the same building with perchloroethylene dry cleaning operations.
Gasoline Dispensing 300' of a large gas station, defined as a facility with a throughput of 3. 6 million gallons per Facilities year or greater. A 50' separation is recommended for typical gas dispensing facilities.
SOURCE: CARB, 2005.
am=
The California Energy Commission ( CEC) first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings ( California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although not originally intended to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants or TACs, increased energy efficiency and reduced consumption of natural gas and other fuels would also result in lower criteria pollutant and TAC emissions from residential and non- residential buildings subject to these standards. The standards are updated periodically ( typically every three years) to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods ( CEC, 2018).
The most recent update to the Title 24 energy efficiency standards ( 2019 standards) went into effect on January 1, 2020. On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the next update, the 2022 Energy Code which was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code ( CEC, 2022). The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric -ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic ( PV) and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for on or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code. The 2022 Update includes measures that will reduce energy use in single family, multifamily, and nonresidential buildings. These measures will:
1. Affect newly constructed buildings by adding new prescriptive and performance standards for electric heat pumps for space conditioning and water heating, as appropriate for the various climate zones in California;
2. Require PV and battery storage systems for newly constructed multifamily and selected nonresidential buildings;
3. Update efficiency measures for lighting, building envelope, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ( HVAC); and
4. Make improvements to reduce the energy loads of certain equipment covered by (i.e,, subject to the requirements of) the Energy Code that perform a commercial process that is not related to the occupant needs in the building ( such as refrigeration equipment in refrigerated warehouses, or air conditioning for computer equipment in data processing centers).
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 16 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
As future updates to the Title 24 standards are rolled out, development within the HEU area would be required to adhere to the current version of Title 24 at that time, as conditions of approval for subdivision maps, site development and planned development permits, grading permits, and demolition permits.
rPart 11 of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is referred to as the California Green Building Standards ( CALGreen) Code. The CALGreen Code is intended to encourage more sustainable and environmentally friendly building practices, require low -pollution emitting substances that cause less harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote the use of energy efficient materials and equipment.
Since 2011, the CALGreen Code has been mandatory for all new residential and non- residential buildings constructed in the state. Such mandatory measures include energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality.
Like the Title 24 Part 6 standards, compliance with the CALGreen Code also reduces criteria pollutant and TAC emissions. The CALGreen Code was most recently updated in 2019 to include new mandatory measures for residential and non-residential uses; the new measures took effect on January 1, 2020 ( California Building Standards Commission [ CBSC], 2019). The 2019 standards prescribe Electric Vehicle ( EV) charging requirements for residential and nonresidential buildings.
The next, 2022 CALGreen update simplifies the code and its application in several ways. It offers new voluntary prerequisites for builders to choose from, such as battery storage system controls and heat pump space, and water heating, to encourage building electrification. While the 2019 CALGreen Code only requires provision of EV Capable spaces with no requirement for chargers to be installed at multifamily dwellings, the 2022 CALGreen code mandates chargers ( California Housing and Community Development, n.d).
Regional
BAAQMD
The BAAQMD is the regional agency with jurisdiction over the nine -county region located in the SFBAAB. The Association of Bay Area Governments ( ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC), county transportation agencies, cities and counties, and various nongovernmental organizations also participate in the efforts to improve air quality through a variety of programs. These programs include the adoption of regulations and policies, as well as implementation of extensive education and public outreach programs. The BAAQMD is responsible for attaining and/ or maintaining air quality in the region within federal and state air quality standards. Specifically, the BAAQMD has the responsibility to monitor ambient air pollutant levels throughout the region and to develop and implement strategies to attain the applicable federal and state standards. The BAAQMD has permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and can require stationary sources to obtain permits, and can impose emission limits, set fuel or material specifications, or establish operational limits to reduce air City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 17 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
emissions. The BAAQMD also regulates new or expanding stationary sources of TACs and requires air toxic control measures for many sources emitting TACs.
The most recent clean air plan was updated in 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan.- Spare the Air, Cool the Climate ( 2017 Clean Air Plan; BAAQMD 2017c) was adopted on April 19, 2017 by the BAAQMD in cooperation with the MTC, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the ABAG to provide a regional strategy focusing on two closely -related goals:
protecting public health and protecting the climate.
To fulfill state ozone planning requirements, the 2011 Clean Air Plan includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors ROG acid NOx, and reduce Li at ispot L of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the plan builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD' s efforts to reduce emissions of PMio, PM2. 5, and TACs. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 control measures categorized based on the economic sector framework including stationary sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, and water measures.
CEQA Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines is an advisory document that provides lead agencies, consultants, and project proponents with procedures for assessing air quality impacts and preparing environmental review documents. The document describes the criteria that BAAQMD uses when reviewing and commenting on the adequacy of environmental documents.
It recommends thresholds for use in determining whether projects and plans would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identifies methods for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identifies measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts.
In May 2011, BAAQMD adopted an updated version of its thresholds of significance for use in determining the significance of environmental effects under CEQA and published its CEQA Guidelines for consideration by lead agencies. The 2011 CEQA Guidelines also included methods for evaluating risks and hazards for the siting of new sensitive receptors based on nearby, existing sources of risk ( e. g. freeways).
The BAAQMD resolution adopting the significance thresholds in 2011 was set aside by the Alameda County Superior Court on March 5, 2012. On August 13, 2013, the California Court of Appeals issued a full reversal of the Superior Court' s judgment, and on December 17, 2015, the California Supreme Court reversed in part the appellate court' s judgment and remanded the case for further consideration consistent with the Supreme Court opinion. The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that CEQA review is focused on a project' s impact on the environment and not the environment' s impact on the project" ( California Building Industry Association v.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District [ December 17, 2015162 Cal. 4th 369). The Supreme Court confirmed that " agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project' s future residents or users," The Court also held that when a project has " potentially significant exacerbating effects on existing environmental hazards" those impacts are properly within the scope of CEQA because they can be viewed as City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 18 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755
4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
4. 2 Air Quality
impacts of the project on " existing conditions" rather than impacts ofthe environment on the project.
BAAQMD most recently updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in May 2017 ( BAAQMD, 2017b). These guidelines provide recommended quantitative significance thresholds along with direction on recommended analysis methods. BAAQMD states that the quantitative significance thresholds are " advisory and should be followed by local governments at their own discretion," and that lead agencies are fully within their authority to develop their own thresholds of significance. However, BAAQMD offers these thresholds for lead agencies to use in order to inform environmental review for development projects in the Bay Area. Lead agencies may also I efei et ic e the CE, QA Tljj esholds Optiuns aa id Jus tification Report developed by BAAQMD staff in ?,009 This option provides lead agencies with ajustification for continuing to rely on the BAAQMD 2011 thresholds.
1 11111111 1111111i 111111 1111
As discussed earlier, the BAAQMD is the regional agency responsible for rulemaking, permitting and enforcement activities affecting stationary sources in the Bay Area. Specific rules and regulations adopted by the BAAQMD limit the emissions that can be generated by various uses and/ or activities and identify specific pollution reduction measures that must be implemented in association with various uses and activities. These rules regulate not only emissions of the six criteria air pollutants, but also toxic emissions and acutely hazardous non -radioactive materials emissions. Emissions sources subject to these rules are regulated through the BAAQMD' s permitting process and standards of operation. Through this permitting process, including an annual permit review, the BAAQMD monitors generation of emissions from stationary sources and uses this information in developing its air quality plans. Any stationary sources of emissions proposed as part of the HEU ( e. g. backup generators) would be subject to applicable BAAQMD Rules and Regulations.
The BAAQMD Rules and Regulations applicable to the HEU include, but are not limited to, the following:
Regulation 2, Rule I (General Permit Requirements), Rule 2 ( New Source Review), and Rule 5 ( New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants). Under these rules, all stationary sources that have the potential to emit TACs above a certain level are required to obtain permits from BAAQMD. These rules provide guidance for the review of new and modified stationary sources of TAC emissions, including evaluation of health risks and potential mitigation measures. Any proposed emergency generators and fire pumps proposed as part of the HEU would be subject to these rules. The California Building Code Section 2702. 2. 15 requires emergency and standby power to be provided in buildings with occupied floors located more than 75 feet above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. The BAAQMD recently updated its BACT requirement for emergency generators greater than 1, 000 horsepower ( hp) to achieve EPA Tier 4 standards ( BAAQMD, 2021b). Fire pumps are essential components of a building' s fire protection system, especially in taller structures and are critical in distributing water through sprinkler systems where water pressure from water mains and firefighting equipment cannot reach.
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 19 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755