Mountain View City Council
January 24, 2023

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
0 Regulation 6, Rule 6 ( Prohibition of Trackout). This measure controls trackout of solid material onto public paved roads from large bulk material sites, large construction sites, and large disturbed area sites. Under this regulation, the owners and operators of a construction site are required to clean up trackout on public roadways within four hours of identification and at the conclusion of each workday. The rule also includes requirements regarding the emissions of fugitive dust during cleanup of trackout, and tequiteinetiLs 1`01 monitoring and reporting trackout at regulated sites. Construction activities associated with development under the HEU would be subject to this rule.

Regulation 8, Rule 3 ( Architectural Coatings). Through this rule the BAAQMD regulates the quantity of VOCs in architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, of manufactured. This rule imposes VOC content limits on architectural coatings and includes requirements for painting practices, solvent usage and storage, and compliance 111011ttoling tend ( Up011ing Applt(.atton of architectural coatings associated with new construction and maintenance activities resulting from the HEU would be subject to this rule.

Regulation 9, Rule 8 ( Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines). This rule regulates emissions of NOx and CO from stationary internal combustion engines and imposes emissions limits on spark -ignited engines powered by waste and fossil -derived fuels, compression -ignited engines, and dual fuel pilot compression -ignited engines. The rule also limits the hours of operation for emergency standby engines, which must be equipped with a non-resettable totalizing meter that measures either hours of operation or fuel usage. Usage records must be kept for two years and be available for inspection by BAAQMD. Any emergency generators proposed as part of development within the HEU area would be subject to this rule.

Regulation 11, Rule 2 ( Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). This rule regulates emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition, renovation, milling, and manufacturing. It prohibits the use of asbestos on certain roadways, in molded insulating materials, and on buildings during construction, alteration, and/ or repair. The rule also prohibits visible emissions from any operation involving the demolition, renovation, removal, manufacture, or fabrication of asbestos -containing products and includes required procedures for waste disposal and requirements for waste disposal sites to prevent emissions from asbestos -containing materials. This rule applies to demolition activities undertaken as part of development under the HEU.

In 2016, BAAQMD prepared its Planning Healthy Places guidebook to assist local governments, planners, elected officials, developers, community groups, and other parties in addressing and minimizing potential air quality issues associated with local sources of air pollutants, especially TACs and PM. The guidebook provides best management strategies to reduce emissions and human exposure to pollutants that can be implemented in city or county general plans, neighborhood or specific plans, land use development ordinances, or individual projects.

BAAQMD has developed a map identifying areas where best management practices should be applied, and where further study is needed (BAAQMD, 2016b). As shown on the Planning Healthy Places map, many of the HEU areas are located where the recommended best management practices should be applied to reduce exposure and subsequent health impacts City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 20 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
associated with air pollution. Best management practices recommended by the Planning Healthy Places guidebook include a number of emissions reduction strategies.

III iF111,•
The MTC is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization for the nine -county Bay Area, which includes Santa Clara County and Mountain View. On ,July 18, 2013, Plan Bay Area was jointly approved by the ABAG' s Executive Board and by MTC ( MTC & ABAG, 2013). The plan includes the region' s Sustainable Communities Strategy ( SCS), as required under SB 375, and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. Though the purpose of the SCS is to lay out how the region will meet GHG emissions reduction targets set by GARB, by concentrating future growth within Priority Development Areas ( PDAs) and Transit Priority Areas ( I'PAs), the reduction in VMT will also reduce associated air pollutant emissions. 4 Some of (lit-, HEU areas are located within both a Priority Development Area and a Transit Priority Area ( MTC, 2022).

On July 26, 2017, MTC adopted Plan Bay Area 2040, a focused update that builds upon the growth pattern and strategies developed in the original Plan Bay Area ( 2013), but with updated planning assumptions that incorporate key economic, demographic, and financial trends since the original plan was adopted ( MTC & ABAG, 2017).

Most recently, on October 21, 2021, the MTC and ABAG jointly adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 as the official regional long- range plan for the Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2050 connects the elements of housing, the economy, transportation, and the environment through 35 strategies that will make the Bay Area more equitable for all residents and more resilient in the face of unexpected challenges. In the short-term, the plan' s Implementation Plan identifies more than 80 specific actions for MTC, ABAG and partner organizations to take over the next five years to make headway on each of the 35 strategies ( MTC & ABAG, 2021). It will be several years before the regional transportation model and county transportation models are updated to reflect Plan Bay Area 2050 ( the models currently incorporate data from Plan Bay Area 2040).

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- term vision and guide local decision - making to achieve that vision. Air quality goals and policies are contained in the Mobility and Infrastructure and Conservation elements of the General Plan. The following list includes the goals and policies in both of these elements ( City of Mountain View, 2021). 4 To be eligible for designation as a Priority Development Area, an area must be within an existing community, near existing or planned fixed transit or served by comparable bus service, and planned for more housing. A Transit Priority Area is an area within one- half mile of an existing or planned major transit stop such as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by transit, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 21 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
Mobility
Goal MOB-9: Achievement of state and regional air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

Policy MOB 93: Greenhouse gas emissions. Develop cost- effective strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions In coordination with [ lie Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program.

Policy MOB 9.2: Reduced vehicle miles traveled. Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled.

Policy MOB 9.3: Low -emission vehicles. Promote use of fuel -efficient, alternative fuel and low ernisslon vehicles.

Goal INC- 20: Clean, breathable air and strongly controlled city sources of air pollution.

Policy INC 20. 1: Pollution prevention. Discourage mobile and stationary sources of air pollution.

Policy INC 20.2: Collaboration. Participate in state and regional planning efforts to improve air quality.

Policy INC 20.3: Pollution -reduction technologies. Encourage the use of non -fossil fuels and other pollution -reduction technologies in transportation, machinery and industrial processes.

Policy INC 20.4: Freight routes. Identify and maintain primary freight routes that provide direct access to industrial and commercial areas.

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

Policy INC 20. 6: Air quality standards. Protect the public and construction workers from construction exhaust and particulate emissions.

Policy INC 20. 7: Protect sensitive receptors. Protect the public from substantial pollutant concentrations.

Policy INC 20.8: Offensive odors. Protect residents from offensive odors.

Reach Codes are amendments to the Energy and Green Building Standards Codes to reduce GHGs. Adopting Reach Codes create opportunities for local governments to lead initiatives on climate change solutions, clean air, and renewable energy. On November 12, 2019, the Mountain View City Council approved the Green Building Code amendments, Which hICILide the Reach Codes efforts.. These include electrification, solar readiness of buildings, provision of EV charging infrastructure, and energy efficiency for all new construction projects. The Reach Codes establish higher standards for new construction to provide environmental and health benefits to City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 22 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
the community, The Mountain View Reach Codes focus on new residential, commercial, and multifamily buildings that will be seeking building permits after December 9, 2020. The ordinance does not apply to additions or alterations.

FIT17,11718PIPM7 4? 11
In February 2021, the City published the MTA Handbook, which provides a process for 1) assessing transportation operational effects of a development project or plan, and 2) identifying transportation improvements to address adverse effects. These identified improvements would be included as Conditions of Approval to projects and plans.

As part of discretionary review, the City has standard conditions f6t different types of dppiovdls updated as of October 25, 2021). The City has standard conditions relating to air quality, as summarized below.

The applicant is required to secure a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District or provide written assurance that no permit is required prior to issuance of a building permit.

Basic Air Quality Construction Measures
The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures: ( a) all exposed surfaces ( e. g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day, (b) all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site will be covered; ( c) all visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; ( d) all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 mph; ( e) all roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; (f) idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes ( as required by the California airborne toxics control measures Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; (g) all construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer' s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation; and ( h) post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Mountain View regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD' s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Additional measures could also be required.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 23 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
Sam
The thresholds used to determine the significance of impacts related to air quality are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project could have a significant impact on the environment if it would:

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

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

Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, Result in other emissions ( such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial iluillbel of people.

Approach to Analysis
This section analyzes impacts related to air quality Chat could occur from implementation of the HEU. It describes the methods used to determine impacts and lists the thresholds that were used to conclude whether an impact would be significant. Mitigation measures are identified as necessary to reduce or avoid significant impacts.

AI RRT" F ffMIMS I
The analysis of criteria air pollutants on regional air quality has been conducted at a plan level using significance thresholds recommended by the BAAQMD for programs and plans BAAQMD 2 0 1 7b) and also considers whether future projects that implement the plan could result in significant impacts. For programs and plans, the BAAQMD recommends that the analysis consider a comparison of the rate of increase in VMT to the rate of population growth to assess impact on regional air quality. Projects are generally compared to the BAAQMD' s project - level thresholds for criteria pollutants for construction and operation.

The BAAQMD' s current plan -level thresholds for health risks focus on avoiding or minimizing exposure of future sensitive receptors proposed as part of a plan to existing health risks. However, as detailed below, impacts of the environment on a project are no longer required to be analyzed under CEQA unless a project exacerbates existing impacts ( see Non- CEQA Impacts of the Environment on the Project below). The BAAQMD does not provide guidance or thresholds for the analysis of health risks of a plan on existing sensitive receptors. In the absence of guidance from the BAAQMD, the analysis presented below discusses the types of TAC sources that would be associated with future development under the HEU.

In a 2018 decision ( Sierra Club V County ofFi-esno, 6 Cal. 5th 502, also referred to as Friant Ranch), the California Supreme Court decided that CEQA requires disclosure of the potential for a project' s emissions to affect human health when the project' s criteria air pollutant emissions exceed applicable thresholds and contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact. The City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 24 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
decision requires EIRs to either: ( 1) make a " reasonable effort" to substantively connect the estimated amount of a given air pollutant a project will produce and the health effects associated with that pollutant, or ( 2) explain why such an analysis is infeasible. 5 The Court also clarified that CEQA " does not mandate" that FIRs include " an in- depth risk assessment" that provides " a detailed comprehensive analysis ... to evaluate and predict the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environment and the potential for exposure of human populations and to assess and quantify both the individual and population wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure." 6
Typically, [lie health impact of a particular criteria Pollutant is analyzed by air districts on a regional scale, based on how close the area is to attaining the ambient air quality standards.

Because BAAQMD' s attainment plans and supporting dh quality modeling tools ate regional in nature, they are not typically used to evaluate the impacts of individual projects and plans on ambient concentrations of criteria air pollutants, or to correlate those impacts to potential resultant effects on public health. The complex nature of dispersion of criteria air pollutants and the complex atmospheric chemistry ( especially in the case of ozone and fine particulate matter) limit the usefulness of applying the available models to predict health impacts on a project level. The accumulation and dispersion of air pollutant emissions within an air basin depends on the size and distribution of emission sources in the region and meteorological factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, atmospheric pressure, and topography. Various air districts in California agree that it is very difficult to quantify health impacts and that the specific tools and methods to use are still under development. Therefore, the health effects of criteria pollutants generated by the implementation of the HEU are discussed qualitatively in this analysis.

LKMN= 11 1111 1111911 111111IT111111 III 11111111 111111, 111; mlinam As discussed in the Regulatory Setting,? CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider how existing environmental conditions might impact a project' s users or residents, except where a project would exacerbate an existing environmental condition. This analysis focuses on air quality impacts on the existing sensitive receptors from new emissions from the proposed HEU, during both construction and operational phases. Existing emissions from off -site sources are addressed under cumulative conditions.
5 Sierra Club V. County ofFresno, 6 Cal. 5th at 510- 511. 6 Sierra Club V. County ofFresno, 6 Cal. 5th at 521.
7 California Building Industry Association V. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369. Opinion Filed December 17, 2015.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 25 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
Impact AIR- 1: Implementation of the HEU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. ( Less than Significant) In determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD recommends that the analysis consider whether the project would:

Support the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan*,
Include applicable control measures of the Clean Air Plan; and Avoid disrupting or hindering implementation of control measures identified in the Clean Air Plan.

The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to protect air quality and public health at the regional and local scale and protect the climate by reducing regional criteria air pollutant emissions and reducing local air quality -related health risks ( by meeting state and national ambient air quality standards). To meet these goals, the 2017 Clean Air Plan includes 85 control measures aimed at reducing air pollutants in the SFBAAB ( BAAQMD, 2017c). These control measures are grouped into the following sectors: stationary ( industrial) sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, and waste management.

The vast majority of the control measures included in the 2017 Clean Air Plan do not apply directly to the HEU and subsequent development projects because they target facilities or land uses that do not currently exist and are not proposed in the HEU ( e. g., energy generation, waste management, agricultural, forest or pasture lands); vehicles or equipment that would not be employed in the HEU area ( e.g., airplanes, farming equipment); and/ or involve rulemaking or other actions under the jurisdiction of agencies not directly involved with design and approval of the HEU and its related actions. For example, the Agriculture, Natural and Working Lands, and Water measures address emissions sources not applicable to the proposed HEU future developments, but rather the BAAQMD' s own programs and regional air quality planning and are less applicable to local agencies' decisions and projects. In addition, 40 of these measures address stationary sources ( such as oil refineries and cement kilns, and large boilers used in commercial and industrial facilities) and will be implemented by the BAAQMD using its permit authority and are therefore not suited to implementation through local planning efforts.

Most of the control measures identified in the Clean Air Plan fall under the implementation responsibility of the BAAQMD and would not be directly applicable to the HEU. However, subsequent projects proposed as part of the HEU would include features, either by design, required as part of compliance with regulations or their location close to transit facilities, that support implementation of transportation-, energy-, building-, waste-, and water conservation - related measures included in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Table 4. 2- 9 provides a consistency analysis of the proposed HEU with applicable control measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 26 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- 9

CONSISTENCY WITH POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE CONTROL MEASURES IN 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN CONTROL MEASURES
Control Measure I Description I Consistency Analysis
Stationary Source Control Measures
SS21: New Source SS21 addresses air toxics emissions through Consistent. Any stationary sources such as Review for Air BAAQMD Rule 2- 5, New Source Review of emergency generators proposed as part of the Taxies Toxic Air Contaminants. development in the HEU would be required to comply with BAAQMD Rule 2- 5 at the time of
project review.

SS25: Coating, SS25 will reduce emissions of ROG from Consistent. All subsequent projects in the Solvents, arohitootural ocatingr and other materials by HEU would comply with all applicable Lubricants, Sealants proposing more stringent ROG limits as BAAQMD rule-; and regulations regarding RO(' , wnd Adhosivos aloptopriato emission limitA
SS30: Residential SS30 will reduce emissions of NOx by creating Consistent All stihsequent pmjoct,; In the Fan type Furnaces more stringent limits on new and replacement HEU would be required to use all -electric central furnace installations. Strategies may space and water heating systems for include regulations regarding sale of fossil fuel- residential and commercial use, consistent with based space and water heating systems for the Mountain View Reach Code. Though the residential and commercial use. City' s Reach Code allows for exemptions, Mitigation Measure GHG- 1 in the Greenhouse
Gas section of this EIR will require no
exemptions to the all -electric requirement.

SS32: Emergency S32 will reduce emissions of DPM, TACs, and Consistent. Any emergency backup Backup Generators criteria pollutants from emergency backup generators proposed would be compliant with generators by enforcing Rule 11- 18, resulting in the regulations set forth in BAAQMD Rule 11- 18. reduced health risks to impacted individuals.

This measure will also have climate protection
benefits through reduces GHG emissions.

SS36: PM from SS36 developed Regulation 6, Particulate Matter; Consistent. All future construction activities Trackout Rule 6: Trackout ( Rule 6-6) to address mud and associated with the proposed HEU would dirt that can be " tracked out" from construction implement BMPs required by the BAAQMD, as sites, bulk material storage, and disturbed part of City Standard Condition of Approval surfaces onto public paved roads where vehicle Basic Air Quality Construction Measures), traffic will pulverize the mud and dirt into fine which would reduce trackout of PM from particles and entrain them into the air. construction sites.

SS38 Fugitive Dust SS38 reduces particulate matter ( PM, o & PlviU Consistent. All future construction activities fugitive dust emissions from traffic and other pursuant to the HEU would implement dust operations on construction sites, large disturbed control BMPs required by the BAAQMD as part surfaces, and other sources of fugitive PM of City Standard Condition of Approval ( Basic emissions. Air Quality Construction Measures), to reduce fugitive dust.

TR5: Transit
Efficiency and Use
Measures
TR5 will improve transit efficiency and make
transit more convenient for riders through
continued operation of 511 Transit, full
implementation of Clipper@ fare payment
system and the Transit Hub Signage Program
Consistent. Projects would be located near the
Valley Transportation Authority bus and light rail
lines, where the Clipper@ fare payment system
can be used on various transit operators. It is
noted that 511 no longer provides trip planner
service or transit agency schedules.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 27 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- 9 ( CONTINUED)

CONSISTENCY WITH POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE CONTROL MEASURES IN 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN CONTROL MEASURES
Control Measure I Description
Transportation Control Measures (cont.)
TR8: Ridesharing
I RIO: Land Use
Strategies
TR8 promotes ridesharing services and
incentives through the implementation of the 511
Regional Rideshare Program, as well as local
rideshare programs implemented by Congestion
Management Agencies. These activities will
include marketing rideshare services, operating
a rideshare information call contot and wolusitc,
and provide vanpool support services. In
addition, this measure Includes provisions for
encouraging car sharing programs.

I his measure supports land use patterns that
reduce VMT and associated emissions and
exposure to TACs, especially within infill
locations and impacted communities.
ergy Control Measures
EN1: Decarbonize ENI focuses on lowering carbon emissions by Electricity switching the fuel sources used in electricity Production generation. The measure would promote and
expedite a transition away from fossil fuels used
in electricity generation ( i. e., natural gas) to a
greater reliance on renewable energy sources
e.g., wind, solar). In addition, this measure
would promote an increase in cogeneration,
which results in useful heat in addition to
electricity generation from a single fuel source.

Energy Control Measures ( cont.)
EN2: Decrease
Electricity Demand
BLI: Green
Buildings
EN2 would decrease electricity demand through
the adoption of additional energy efficiency
policies and programs.

BL1 seeks to increase energy efficiency and the
use of on -site renewable energy for all types of
existing and future buildings. The measure
includes policy assistance, incentives, diffusion
of public information, and targeted engagement
and facilitation of partnerships in order to
increase energy efficiency and on -site
renewable energy in the buildings sector.

Consistency Analysis
Consistent. Ridesharing services to the HEU
area are available through the 511 Regional
Rideshare Program as well as other private
rideshare programs.

Consistent. The HEU would comply with this
measure as it would locate high density,
transit -oriented, mixed use development of
land uses in an infill location. It would evaluate
a mix of land uses including residential, office,
and retail uses in close proximity of existing
transit services, thereby reducing the number
of vehicle trips and VMT. Some of the HEU
areas are also located in a Priority
Development Area and Transit Priority Area
adjacent to the Transit Center which includes a
regional Caltrain station and Transit Center
served by light rail.

Consistent. Electricity supplied to
development in the HEU area would be
provided by Pacific Gas and Electric ( PG& E)
and Silicon Valley Clean Energy ( SVCE).

PG& E and SVCE are required to comply with
SB 100 and the RPS.

Consistent. Development under the HEU would
be subject to energy efficiency standards
enforced through the California Building
Efficiency Standards ( CCR, Title 24, Part 6),
California Green Building Standards Code
CCR, Title 24, Part 11 - CALGreen). Buildings
constructed as part of the HEU would be
designed to comply with the most recent version
of Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
and mandatory CALGreen measures.

Consistent. In addition to compliance with the
most recent version of Title 24 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards and mandatory CALGreen
measures, subsequent development in the
HEI.) area would be subject to the Mountain
View Green Building and Reach Codes, which
require, among other things, photovoltaic ( PV)
requirements.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 28 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- 9 ( CONTINUED)

CONSISTENCY WITH POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE CONTROL MEASURES IN 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN CONTROL MEASURES
Control Measure I Description
BL2: Decarbonize BL2 seeks to reduce GHG omissions, criteria Buildings pollutants and TACs by limiting the installation of space- and water - heating systems and
appliances powered by fossil fuels. This
measure is to be implemented by developing
model policies for local governments that
support low- and zero - carbon technologies as
well as potentially developing a rule limiting the
sale of natural- gas furnaces and water heaters
BL4: Urban Heat This control measure aims to reduce the " urban Island Mitigation heat island" phenomenon by increasing the application of " cool roofing" and " cool paving"
technologies, as well as increasing the
prevalence of urban forests and vegetation,
through voluntary approaches and educational
outreach.

Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
Consistency Analysis
Consistent. Subsequent development pursuant
to the HEUwould be subject to theMountain
View Reach Code, which requires, among other
things, all -electric construction for new
residential and non- residential buildings with no
natural gas infrastructure, and photovoltaic ( PV)
requirements. In addition, SVCE, a community
choice aggregation, offers clean energy to City
residents, and will be available to future
residents of development proposed as part of
the HEU.

Consistent. Development in the HEU Would be
required to be concistont with the Mountain
View Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance.

NW2: Urban Street NW2 promotes the planting of trees in urbanized Consistent. Development in the HEU area Planting settings to take advantage of the myriad benefits would be required to be consistent with the provided by these trees, including: shading to Mountain View Heritage Tree Preservation reduce both the " urban heat island" Ordinance.
phenomenon and the need for space cooling,
and the absorption of ambient criteria air
pollutants as well as carbon dioxide.
inagernent Control Measures
WA3: Green Waste WA3 seeks to reduce the total amount of green Diversion waste being disposed in landfills by supporting WA4: Recycling the diversion of green waste to other uses. and Waste WA4 seeks to reduce GHG emissions by diverting Reduction recyclables and other materials from landfills.

Water Control Measures
WR2: Support WR2 seeks to promote water conservation,
Water including reduced water consumption and
Conservation increased on -site water recycling, in residential, commercial and industrial buildings for the
purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Consistent. Subsequent projects in the HEU
area would be serviced by a waste hauler that
offers residential and commercial composting
services and that would be required to comply
with the requirements of the California Integrated
Waste Management Act and AB 341. Consistent
with AB 341 - Commercial Recycling and AB
1826 - Commercial Organics, commercial,
business, or multifamily establishments that
generate two cubic yards or more of solid and
organic waste per week will be required to
have a recycling and/ or organics program.

Consistent. The Water Conservation Act of
2009 sets an overall goal of reducing per capita
urban water use by 20 percent by December 31,
2020, Each urban retail water supplier shall
develop water use targets to meet this goal.

Water to development as part of the HEU would
be supplied by the City' s own water utility, which
is required to comply with SB X7- 7 standards. In
2018, Senate Bill 606 and Assembly Bill 1668
were passed that build on California' s ongoing
efforts to make water conservation a way of
life. They emphasize efficiency and stretching
water supplies in cities and farms, and
establish mandates for water budget planning
and efficiency objectives for water suppliers,
not individuals, homeowners, or businesses.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 29 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- 9 ( CONTINUED)

CONSISTENCY WITH POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE CONTROL MEASURES IN 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN CONTROL MEASURES
Control Measure I Description I Consistency Analysis
Solid Waste
California iWMA requires all California cities to divert Consistent. Recology Mountain View is under Integrated Waste 50- percent of all solid waste from landfill contract with the City to provide solid waste and Management Act disposal through source reduction, recycling, residential recycling services to Mountain View IWMA) of 1989 and composting activities. AB 341 directs and is responsible for recycling and solid waste and AB 341 CalRecycle to develop and adopt regulations for management in the City. Recology' s services mandatory commercial recycling and sets a yield waste diversion results consistent with statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction citywidr, recycling targoM Those, sorvicoe would by the year 2020. be supplied to all future development under the HCU. Consistent with AB341 Curnmoiciul
Recycling and AB 1826 - Coinineicial Organics,
all commercial, busin( ism, and niultifunilly
establishments that generate enough solid and
organic waste are required to have a recycling
and/ or organics program.

As shown in Table 4. 2- 9, required compliance with regulations from various agencies as well as the City, and implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 required to mitigate Impact AIR-2 discussed below, would ensure that implementation of the HEU would be consistent and support all applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Further, the proposed HEU would not cause the disruption or delay in the implementation of Clean Air Plan control measures. Projects that would hinder implementation of control measures are projects that would preclude the extension of a transit line or bike path or projects that propose excessive parking beyond City parking requirements. The HEU proposes development that would include housing near transit, including the Mountain View Transit Center, served by Caltrain and Valley Transportation Authority light rail.

In addition, some of the HEU areas are located within a Priority Development Area pursuant to the Association of Bay Area Governments' Sustainable Communities Strategy: Plan Bay Area 2040 ( MTC/ ABAC 2017). This designation applies to new development areas that would support the day-to-day needs of residents and workers in a pedestrian -friendly environment served by transit. Further, the HEU would support infill development, an increase in the density of housing, and additional housing near transit. In areas where there is not a lot of transit, the City has historically imposed TDM requirements and a trip cap, so a lower number of vehicle trips is achieved.

The HEU would advance and would not obstruct implementation of any measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan that aim to improve connectivity and reduce transportation - related emissions.

Therefore, the proposed HEU would not hinder or delay implementation of any control measures contained in the 2017 Clean Air Plan and this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 30 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
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. (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation)
For a plan -level analysis, the BAAQMD recommends that the significance of the Impact of criteria air pollutant emissions generated be based on consistency with regional air quality planning, including an evaluation of population growth and growth in VMT ( BAAQMD, 2017b), For a proposed plan to result in a less -than -significant impact from criteria air pollutants, an analysis must demonstrate that the plan' s growth in VMT would not exceed the plan' s population growth. This analysis is presented below, followed by a qualitative analysis that considers whether development allowed by the HEU could exceed quantitative ( project level) thresholds of significance for criteria Pollutants, requiring mitigation.

Based on the transportation analysis, the population of the area due to development proposed as part of the HEU would increase by approximately 6. 1 percent compared to the 2040 scenario without the HEU, as shown in Table 4. 2- 10.

TABLE 4. 2- 10

INCREASE IN VMT VERSUS POPULATION GROWTH
Cumulative
Growth no HEU
Cumulative Growth
with HEU
HEU Contribution to
Cumulative Growth Increase
Population' 134, 000 142, 200 8, 200 6. 1%
VMTb 2, 189,929 2, 204, 929 15, 000 0. 7%
I =0
a Population increase based on the City's projections which assumes persons -per -household factor of 2. 0. b VMT estimations provided by Hexagon and represents VMT on all roads within the City of Mountain View.

The transportation analysis also estimates the increase in VMT associated with the HEU buildout, which is also shown in Table 4. 2- 10. The increase in daily VMT associated with the HEU buildout would represent a smaller increase than the population increase, when compared to the 2040 No Project scenario.

The BAAQMD Justification Report8 explains that the impact to air quality is not necessarily growth but where that growth is located. Because transportation sources typically constitute the largest percent of air quality emissions generated from land use development projects and plans, a comparison of the rate of increase in VMT to the population growth rate will determine if planned growth will impact air quality of the area. Compact infill development in proximity to transit services, such as many of the site in the HEU, inherently generate less vehicle travel and more transit opportunities than suburban sprawl to accommodate the same amount of growth. Because 8 BAAQMD staff analyzed various options for CEQA air quality thresholds of significance for use within BAAQMD' s jurisdiction. The analysis and evaluation undertaken by BAAQMD staff is documented in the Revised Draft Options and Justification Report - California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance ( Draft Options Report) ( BAAQMD October 2009).

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 31 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
the rate of increase in VMT would be less than the rate of population growth, the HEU would result in a less -than -significant impact with respect to regional criteria air pollutants when analyzed by comparing the rate of population growth to the rate of VMT growth.

Nonetheless, the HFI I would allow for development of new residential uses and replace existing uses in the area, which would generate emissions. This development would entail demolition and removal of existing structures, excavation, site preparation, and construction of new buildings.

Emissions generated during construction activities would include exhaust emissions from the use of heavy-duty off -road diesel equipment, on -road diesel trucks, and employee vehicles; fugitive dust emissions associated with earth -disturbing activities and other demolition and construction work; and fugitive RUG emissions from paving and architectural coatings. Emissions generated during olteratlon of now do\/ olopulont Would include Hnlk' iow' r1oln motor Volli( lo trill." btlildillf; energy use, and any stationary sources such as backup generators and area sources ( landscaping equipment, consumer products and architectural coatings associated with maintenance activities) .

Screening criteria based on development type and size ( Table 3 1 of the _9017B,4AQA4D' CEQA Air Quality Cuidelines) are generally used to determine if construction or operational emissions from individual projects would likely result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in non - attainment criteria air pollutants. A project that exceeds the screening criteria generally requires a detailed air quality assessment to determine whether criteria air pollutant emissions would exceed significance thresholds ( BAAQMD, 2017b). Projects below the screening criteria do not require future analysis, and the impact of criteria pollutant emissions from those projects are presumed to be less than significant.

Construction Emissions
Activities that generate dust include demolition, grading and excavation, and equipment movement on unpaved construction areas. Dust can be an irritant causing watering eyes or irritation to the lungs, nose, and throat. Fugitive dust from construction activities can also be wind- blown and that adds to the particulate matter concentrations in the local atmosphere leading to potentially significant Impacts.

The BAAQMD has taken a qualitative approach to addressing fugitive dust emissions from construction activities and considers any project that implements the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Projects ( Best Management Practices) to not result in a significant impact with respect to fugitive dust. City of Mountain View Standard Condition ( Basic Air Quality Construction Measures), includes BAAQMD- recommended measures to address construction dust and would apply to all subsequent projects developed as part of the HEU.

Estimating exhaust emissions generated by construction activities ( i.e. construction equipment and vehicles) requires project -specific data regarding the construction schedule and phasing, and equipment needs ( equipment type and number, horsepower, activity level). If estimated emissions are found to exceed the BAAQMD' s project -level significance thresholds for construction, they would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the SFBAAB is in nonattainment. Projects requiring substantial ground disturbance, constructed on City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 32 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
extremely compressed construction schedules, or requiring specialty equipment could lead to exceedance of the significance thresholds. Because at least some development allowed by the HEU would likely exceed BAAQMD screening criteria, and the specific characteristics of each subsequent project are not currently known, this impact is conservatively considered to be potentially significant.

Individual projects allowed by the HEU would generate operational emissions from a variety of sources. The primary operational sources of emissions are motor vehicle trips generated by the proposed land uses, energy use in buildings, area sources ( landscaping equipment, use of consumer products, re- applicaLlon of architectural coatings as pail of maintenance activities, etc.), and any stationary sources such as diesel fueled fire pumps and emergency generators. As described below, exceedances of the significance thresholds in larger projects are likely to result from NOx and PM emissions from transportation sources, NOx emissions from energy use, and ROG emissions from area sources, specifically consumer products.

The primary source of operational criteria pollutant emissions would be motor vehicle trips generated by new development, although the proximity of transit facilities in the area would help reduce vehicle trips, VMT, and associated air pollutant emissions, as would Mountain View' s TDM requirements. In addition, Mountain View has adopted amendments to the City' s Chapter 8 Building code, approving " Reach Codes" that amend the State' s Title 24 Energy and Green Building Standards Codes and specifies EV charging requirements for new construction to facilitate future installation and use of electric chargers ( City of Mountain View 2019). Reach codes are local building energy codes that " reach" beyond the state minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction. The Mountain View Reach Codes apply to all new residential, commercial, and multifamily buildings. Mitigation Measure GHG- I, discussed in Chapter 4. 7 Greenhouse Gases, would require that EV charging infrastructure be provided consistent with the applicable Tier 2 CALGreen standards in effect at the time. The provision of EV charging would encourage use of electric vehicles and reduce associated criteria pollutant emissions from gasoline - fueled vehicles.

The second major source of criteria pollutant emissions in land use development projects is energy use in buildings from the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating. However, consistent with the City' s Reach Codes, all newly constructed buildings would be required to be all -electric buildings. An all -electric building is a building that has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building and that uses electricity as the source of energy for its space conditioning, water heating ( including pools and spas), cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances ( City of Mountain View, 2019). Exemptions may be granted to non- residential buildings containing kitchens and residential buildings that contains only low income units as long as the natural gas burning devices do not have a continuously burning pilot light. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG- 1 in Chapter 4. 7 of this EIR would require all future projects in the Plan -wide amendments area to be all -electric and to be constructed without natural gas infrastructure. This would eliminate direct air pollutant emissions from building energy use.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 33 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
ROG emissions from projects that include a substantial residential component may also potentially exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. ROG emissions from residential uses are primarily generated from the use of consumer products which are chemically formulated products used by household and institutional consumers, including, but not limited to, degreasers, fei t itiz.ers/ pes( iddes, detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. With transportation - related emissions of ROG decreasing over time from stricter controls on air pollution, the relative importance of emissions from consumer products has increased. Studies estimate that consumer products now contribute as much to urban air pollution as tailpipe emissions from vehicles despite the fact that people use a lot more filet than they use, consumer products — about 15 times more by weight (Fell, 2018).

Current methodology for estimating ROG ernissions from consumer products uses the most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model ( CaIEEMod 2020. 4. 0) which relies on the 2008 CARB Consumer Product Emission Inventory ( CARB, 2009). These emission factors have not been updated recently to reflect low emission products available In the market and are therefore conservative. In addition, consumer product emissions are largely based on personal choices and usage patterns of consumers that the city does not have control over. Hence, there are no effective mitigation measures restricting the use of certain consumer products or limiting the choice. ROG emissions from consumer products are regulated by CARB through the California Consumer Products Regulations ( Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8. 5).

Based on the potential for NOx, PM, and ROG emissions from development projects allowed by the HEU to exceed significance thresholds, operational emissions of criteria pollutants are considered potentially significant.

Measure AIR- 1 would require a quantitative analysis of projects exceeding the BAAQMD' s screening criteria for criteria pollutant emissions and specifies emission reduction measures that shall be implemented if significance thresholds for criteria pollutants are exceeded.

Mitigation Measure AIR- 1: Emission Reduction Measures for Projects Exceeding the Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants.

Project applicants proposing projects that exceed BAAQMD screening levels shall prepare a project -level criteria air pollutant assessment of construction and operational emissions at the time the project is proposed. The project -level assessment shall either include a comparison ofthe project with other similar projects where a quantitative analysis has been conducted, or shall provide a project -specific criteria air pollutant analysis to determine whether the project exceeds the BAAQMD' s criteria air pollutant thresholds.

In the event that a project -specific analysis finds that the project could result in criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, the project applicant shall implement the following emission reduction measures to the degree necessary to reduce the impact to less than the significance thresholds, and shall implement additional feasible measures if necessary to reduce the impact to less than the significance thresholds.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 34 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
Clean Construction Equipment.

1. The project applicant shall use electric construction equipment when feasible.

2. The project applicant shall ensure that all diesel off -road equipment shall have engines that meet the Tier 4 Final off -road emission standards, as certified by GARB, except as provided for in this section. This requirement shall be verified through submittal of an equipment inventory that includes the following information: ( 1) Type of Equipment, ( 2) Engine Year and Age, ( 3) Number of Years Since Rebuild of Engine ( if applicable), ( 4) Type of Fuel Used, ( 5) Engine HP, ( 6) Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy ( VDECS) information if applicable and other related equipment data. A Certification Statement is also required to be made by the Contractor for documentation of compliance and for future review by the BAAQMD as necessary. The Certification Statement must state that the Contractor agrees to compliance and acknowledges that a violation of this requirement shall constitute a material breach of contract.

The City may waive the requirement for Tier 4 Final equipment only under the following unusual circumstances: If a particular piece of off -road equipment with Tier 4 Final standards is technically not feasible or not commercially available; the equipment would not produce desired emissions reduction due to expected operating modes; installation of the equipment would create a safety hazard or impaired visibility for the operator; or there is a compelling emergency need to use other alternate off -road equipment. For purposes of this mitigation measure, " commercially available" shall mean the availability of Tier 4 Final engines similar to the availability for other large- scale construction projects in the region occurring at the same time and taking into consideration factors such as ( i) potential significant delays to critical -path timing of construction for the project and ( ii) geographic proximity to the project site of Tier 4 Final equipment.

The project applicant shall require the idling time for off -road and on -road equipment be limited to no more than 2 minutes, except as provided in exceptions to the applicable state regulations regarding idling for off -road and on -road equipment.

Legible and visible signs shall be posted in multiple languages ( English, Spanish, Chinese) in designated queuing areas and at the construction site to remind operators of the 2- minute idling limit.

Operational Emission Reductions

1. Projects shall be constructed without natural gas infrastructure and shall be " all electric."

2. As required by Mitigation Measure GHG- 1, projects shall provide EV charging infrastructure consistent with the applicable Tier 2 CALGreen standards in effect at the time.

3. Project applicants that do not screen out from VMT impact analysis shall implement VMT reduction measures as required by Mitigation Measure TRA- 1.

Significance after Mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AIR- 1 is expected to be effective at reducing criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation of individual projects developed in the HEU area to below the BAAQMD thresholds; however, the specific emissions associated with City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 35 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
future projects are not currently known, and therefore the effectiveness of emission reduction measures cannot be definitively determined. It is possible that projects with substantial ground disturbance, specialty construction equipment, or compressed and highly intensive construction schedules could exceed construction significance thresholds, particularly if the Tier 4 Final equipment required by the mitigation measure is not commercially available. Also, ROG emissions from consumer products Used during project operations may remain significant because use of such products is a function of consumer choice and commercial availability. For these reasons, criteria air pollutants from construction and operation of subsequent projects developed under the proposed HEU would conservatively be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.

The identification of this significant and unavoidable impact does not preclude the finding of a less- than- siguirtcant or tillpad rot
subsequent projects that are below the applicable screening criteria or that meet the criteria air pollutant thresholds of significance with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR- 1.

The health effects associated with emissions of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors are described in Table 4. 2- 1 under Section 4. 2. 1, Environmental Settingabove. The main health concern of exposure to ground -level ozone formed from ROG and NOx, the ozone precursors, is the effect on the respiratory system, especially on lung function.

As discussed above, although the HEU as a whole would be considered to result in a less than significant impact, individual projects could generate criteria pollutant emissions ROG, NOx, and particulate matter during construction and/or operation that exceed the BAAQMD' s project -level thresholds. In the absence of project -specific information, it would be speculative to quantify criteria pollutant emissions and these impacts have been assessed qualitatively, resulting in programmatic mitigation measures that would apply to future development projects. Without quantification of criteria pollutant emissions, it is not possible to quantify the health impacts of these emissions on sensitive receptors. There is also currently no guidance or thresholds for a significance determination regarding health effects from criteria pollutant emissions.

Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable Impact AIR- 3: Implementation of the HEU would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. ( Less than Significant with Mitigation) The BAAQMD 2017 Guidelines recommend analysis of local community risk and hazards of plans by the following criteria:

Presence of sensitive receptors around existing and planned sources of TACs ( including adopted Risk Reduction Plan areas); and
Presence of sensitive receptors within 500 feet from all freeways and high -volume roadways City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 36 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
According to these criteria, impacts would be significant ifthe HEU would introduce sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing and planned sources of TACs, such as freeways and high - volume roadways. However, in the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District case decided in 2015, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider how existing environmental conditions might impact a project' s users or residents. Nonetheless, this analysis considers the potential for new receptors to be exposed to TAC emissions from existing TAC sources for informational purposes.

Many of the HEU development areas are within 500 feet of U. S. 101 and State Routes ( SR) 85 and 237, numerous stationary sources, mostly diesel backup generators ( BAAQMD 20221:i), and the Caltram line, Cancer risk and PMz r levels near these sources of TAC are already exposing SellSiLiVe receptors to Substantial Pollutant concentrations The BAAQMD does not provide any guidance to analyze health risk impacts of plans on the environment. Nonetheless, subsequent projects developed under the HEU would generate TACs, primarily DPM, during construction and operation. DPM emissions would be generated from the combustion of diesel fuel in construction equipment and heavy- duty trucks transporting materials and equipment to and from individual project sites. Based on the land uses proposed in the HEU, the likely sources of operational TAC emissions would be any proposed emergency generators required for residential structures over 75- feet) and truck traffic serving the commercial uses in the HEU area.

As the specific characteristics of each subsequent project proposed under the HEU and the required construction equipment information ( Year and duration of construction, equipment type, operating hours, horsepower, etc.) are not known, it is not possible to quantify construction - related health risks from exposure to TAC emissions from all projects in the HEU area.

As discussed under Impact AIR- 2, projects that are below the BAAQMD screening sizes are not expected to have a significant impact from criteria pollutant emissions. However, for health risks, the severity of the impact depends on the proximity of the emissions - generating activity to sensitive receptors, the meteorological conditions, and the duration of exposure. Therefore, to evaluate the significance of the impacts from construction of individual development projects, a health risk assessment would be required to determine whether health risk levels would exceed significance thresholds of 10 in one million cancer risk and 0. 3 Vg/m3 annual PM2.5 concentrations.

Operations
Operational emissions would be predominantly generated by new vehicle trips, expected to be mainly gasoline -powered passenger vehicles, which do not emit a substantial amount of TACs.

However, vehicles emitting fugitive PM2. 5 in the form of road dust, brake wear, and tire wear, could exceed BAAQMD' s PM2. 5 concentration significance threshold.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 37 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
Operational sources of health risk from HEU development projects would primarily include emergency generators fire pumps required in taller buildings as part of the emergency power systems and standby power systems requirement of the California Building Code for high-rise buildings with occupied floors located more than 75 feet from the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. Installation and operation of fire pumps and emergency diesel generators would require an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate from the BAAQMD, who would evaluate emissions based on size and require Best Available Control Technology, if warranted.

Per its Policy and Procedure Manual, the BAAQMD would deny an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate for any new or modified source of TACs that exceeds a cancer risk of 10 in one million or a chronic or acute Hazard Index of 1. 0, the BAAQMD' s thresholds for health risk impacts. Therefore, health risks associated with operational sources proposed as part ofthe HEU would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Emission Reduction Measures for Subsequent Projects Exceeding the Significance Thresholds for Health Risks from Construction.

Project applicants within the IIEU area proposing projects within 1, 000 feet of existing or approved sensitive receptors shall prepare a project -level HRA of construction impacts at the time the project is proposed. The HRA shall be based on project -specific construction schedule, equipment and activity data and shall be conducted using methods and models approved by the BAAQMD, CARB, OEHIJA and U.S. EPA. Estimated project -level health risks shall be compared to the BAAQMD' s health risk significance thresholds for projects.

In the event that a project -specific HRA finds that the project could result in significant construction health risks that exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure AIR- I' s requirement for the use of all Tier 4 Final construction equipment to reduce project -level health risks to a less than significant level. In addition, all tower cranes, forklifts, man- and material- lifts shall be electric powered.

Significance After Mitigation: Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would require subsequent projects within 1, 000 feet of existing or approved sensitive receptors to undergo a project -level HRA at the time the project is proposed and to utilize the clean construction equipment required by Mitigation Measure AIR- 1 ifthe project -specific health risk thresholds are exceeded. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR- 2 would reduce construction health risk impacts to less than significant with mitigation by use of clean construction equipment that meet the Tier 4 Final off -road emission standards, or equivalent VDECS, as certified by CARB.

Impact AIR-4: Implementation of the HEU would not result in other emissions ( such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant)
The use of construction equipment at future construction sites in the HEU could potentially create objectionable odors that may affect receptors in the immediate vicinity. Construction -related odors would be localized and temporary, and the use of low-VOC surface coating materials in accordance with BAAQMD Rules would reduce potentially objectionable odors from painting operations. Land uses proposed as part of the HEU are not expected to generate odors that would City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 38 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
adversely affect a substantial number of people. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation: None required.
i =0
This section presents an analysis of the cumulative effects of the HEU in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could cause cumulatively considerable Impacts. Significant cumulative Impacts related to air quality could occur if Lite incremental impacts of the I IEU combined with [ lie incremental impacts of one or more cumulative projects.

The geographic scope for cumulative effects on air quality is the SFBAAB.

The SFBAAB is a nonattainment area for both the federal and state ozone standards; therefore, a cumulative air quality impact already exists. Additional emissions of ozone precursors NOx or ROG over threshold amounts would further degrade air quality related to ozone. Impact AIR- 2 evaluates whether the HEU' s contribution to this significant impact would be considerable and concludes that the impact would be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. For this reason, no further analysis of cumulative criteria pollutants is necessary.

Impact AIR- LCU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial levels of fine particulate matter ( PM2. 5) and TACs under cumulative conditions.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation)
Many sources of TACs are already present in the vicinity of the HEU development areas: U. S. 101 and State Routes ( SR) 85 and 237, numerous stationary sources, mostly diesel backup generators (BAAQMD 2022b), and the Caltrain line. Cancer risk and PM2.5 levels near these sources of TAC are already exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Health risk impacts from construction of residences within the HEU areas could combine with risks from these existing TAC sources that would exceed BAAQMD cumulative risk thresholds.

However, future development under the HEU would not cause a significant contribution to these existing risk levels, as shown in Impact AIR- 3. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR- 2.

Mitigation Measure AIR- 2: Emission Reduction Measures for Subsequent Projects Exceeding the Significance Thresholds for Health Risks from Construction.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 39 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
Impact AIR- 2. CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not combine with other sources of odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant) Impact AIR- 4 describes the potential of odorous emissions from the HEU. Development under the HFt J would be residential and would not include land uses that are identified by the BAAQMD as common odor sources. Therefore, there is no potential for the HEU to combine with cumulative projects to result in a significant cumulative odor impact. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.

4.2. 7 Summary of Air Quality Impacl
Significance Before Significance After
Impact Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation
Impact AIR- 1: Implementation of the HEU would Less than Significant None required not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.

Impact AIR- 2: Implementation of the HEU would Potentially Mitigation Measure Significant and result in a cumulatively considerable net Significant AIR- 1: Emission Unavoidable increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Reduction Measures project region is non -attainment under an for Projects applicable federal or state ambient air quality Exceeding the standard. Significance
Thresholds for
Criteria Pollutants
Impact AIR- 3: Implementation of the HEU would Potentially Mitigation Measure Less than not expose sensitive receptors to substantial Significant AIR- 2: Emission Significant pollutant concentrations. Reduction Measures
for Subsequent
Projects Exceeding
the Significance
Thresholds for
Health Risks from
Construction
Impact AIR- 4: Implementation of the HEU would Less than Significant None required not result in other emissions ( such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.

Impact AIR- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, Potentially Mitigation Measure Less than when combined with other past, present, or Significant AIR- 2: Emission Significant reasonably foreseeable projects, would not Reduction Measures result in exposure of sensitive receptors to for Subsequent substantial levels of fine particulate matter Projects Exceeding PM2, 5) and TACs under cumulative conditions. the Significance Thresholds for
Health Risks from
Construction
Impact AIR- 2. CU: Implementation of the HEU, Less than Significant None required when combined with other past, present, or
reasonably forei.;Peahlp projects, would not
combine with other sources of odors that would
adversely affect a substantial number of people.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2- 40 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4, 2 Air Quality
Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD), 2011. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2011. Available online:
https:// www. baaqmd. gov/-/ media/ files/ planning- and- research/ ceqa/ baaqmd- modelingapproach. pdf, accessed February 2, 2022.

BAAQMD, 2 016a. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines, December 2016. Available online: https:// www.baaqmd. gov/-/ media/files/planning-andresearch/ permit-modeling/hra- Ruidelines- 12- 7- 2016- clean-pdf.pdf?la= en, accessed September 15, 2021.

BAAQMD, 2016b. Planning Iled1thy Places. Inteiddive Map of the BdY Ated Showing At ed's with Fstintaled Elevated Levels of Fine andlor lbyjcA! j, C. antaininants, posted May 20, 2016. Available online: https:// baaqmd. maps. arcgis. com/ apps/ webappviewer/ index. html? id= 51c2dObc59244013ad9d52b8c35cbf66, accessed February 3, 2022.

BAAQMD, 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017.

Available online: https:// www. baaqmd. gov/-/ media/ files/ planning- and- research/ ceqa/ ceqa- guidelines- may20l7- pdf.pdf?la= en, accessed February 2, 2022.

BAAQMD, 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, last updated January 5, 2017.

Available online: https:// www.baaqmd. gov/about- air-quality/research- and- data/ air- qualitystandards- and- attainment- status, accessed February 2, 2022.

BAAQMD, 2017c. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan - Spare the Air, Cool the Climate, April 19, 2017.

Available online: https:// www. baaqmd. gov/-/ media/files/ planning- and-research/ plans/ 2017- clean- air-plan/ attachment- a-- proposed- final- cap- vol- l-pdf.pdf.?Ia= en, accessed February 3, 2022.

BAAQMD, 2021a. 2020 Air Monitoring Network Plan, July 1, 2021. Available online:
https:// www. baaqmd. gov/-/ media/ files/ technical- services/ 2020- network- plan- draft202100526- pdf.pdf?la= en, accessed February 2, 2022.

BAAQMD, 2021b. Revised BACT Guideline for Diesel backup Generators > 1000 BHP, Frequently Asked Questions, March 17, 2021. Available online:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/-/ media/ files/ engineering/ backup- diesel- generators/ faq- bact- for- large- diesel- pdf.pdf?la= en, accessed February 3, 2022.

BAAQMD, 2022a. Monthly Air Quality Index for South Central Bay. Available online:
https:// www.baaqmd. gov/about- air- quality/ current- air-quality/ air- monitoring- data/#/ aqihighs?date= 2021- 12- 02& view= monthly, accessed February 21, 2022.

BAAQMD, 2022b. Tools and Methodology, Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool, http:// www. baaqmd. gov/ plans- and- climate/ california- environniental- quality- act- ceqa/ ceqatools, May 30. Accessed on April 22, 2022.

California Air Resources Board ( CARS), 1998. Fact Sheet: The Toxic Air• Contaminant Identification Process: Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Diesel -fueled Engines, October 1998. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/classic/ toxics/ dieseltac/ factshti. pdf, accessed September 15, 2021.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 41 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
CARB, 2005. Air Quality andLand Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April 2005. Available online: https:// ww3. arb. ca.gov/ ch/ handbook. pdf, accessed September 15, 2021.

CARB, 2009. Almanac Emission Projection Data by EIC — Statewide Solvent Evaporation 510- Consumer Products), 2009. Available online: https:// www. arb. ca. gov/ app/ emsinv/ emseic—query.php?F—YR=2008& F—DIV=-4& F—SEASON= A& SP= 2009& SPN= 2009— Almanac& F—AREA=CA& F—EICSUM= 5 10, accessed April 7, 2022.

CARB, 2022a. California Ambient Air Quality Standards ( CAAQS). Available online:
https:// ww2. arb. ca.gov/resources/ california-ambient-air-quality-standards, accessed February ?, ? 0??
CARB, 2022b. Common Air Pollutants. Available online: lit.ti) s: HwwZ. ai-1). ca.gov/resources/ common -air -pollutants, accessed February 2, 2022.

CARB, 2022c. Sources of Air Pollution. Available online: https:// ww2.arb. ca.gov/resources/ sources -air -pollution, accessed February 2, 2022.

CARB, 2022d. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics — Top 4 Summary. Available online:
https:// www.arb. ca.gov/ adam/ topfour/topfourl. php, accessed February 2, 2022.

CARB, 2022e. In -Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation. Available at https://ww2. arb. ca.gov/our-work/programs/use-road-diesel-fueled-fleets-regulation, accessed February 3, 2022.

California Building Standards Commission ( CBSC). 2019. Guide to the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code Nonresidential. November 2019. Available online: https:// cdncodes- pdf.iccsafe. org/ uploads/ bookpdfs/ Guide% 20to% 202019`/` 20CALGreen% 2OBuild 20Stand% 20NonRes. pdf. Accessed January 27, 2022.

California Energy Commission. 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, December 2018. Available online:
https:// www. energy. ca. gov/ sites/ default/ files/ 2021- 06/ CEC- 400- 2018- 020- CMF—O. pdf, Accessed January 30, 2022.

CEC. 2022, 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, 2022. Available online:
https:// www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and- topics/programs/building-energy-efficiencystandards/ 2022- building- energy- efficiency. Accessed January 30, 2022.

California Housing and Community Development. n.d. 2022 CALGreen, no date. Available online: https:Hcatc.ca.gov/-/ media/ctc- media/documents/ ctc-meetings/ 2021/ 2021- 04/ tab- 2- hcd- pres- al ly.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2022.

CALFIRE, 2022. Stats and Events. Available online: https:// www. fire. ca. gov/ stats- events/, accessed February 3, 2022.

CalMatters, 2021. New Study: California' s Trailblazing Diesel Rules Save Lives, March 26, 2021. Available online: https: Hcalmatters. org/ environment/ 2021/ 03/ california- diesel- rules, accessed February 2, 2022.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-42 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View, 2019. 2019 Mountain View Green Building and Reach Codes, effective January 1, 2020. Available online: blobdload. aspx ( mountainview. gov). Accessed April 21, 2022.

City of Mountain View, 2003. Ordinance No. 01. 03, Protection of the Urban Forest. Available onlinehttp:// Iaserfiche. mountainview. gov/WebLink/ DocView. aspx?id= l 2025& page= 1 & dbid= O& cr= l. Accessed April 21, 2022.

Fell, Andy, 2018. Consumer, Industrial Products Overtake Transportation as Source of Urban Air Pollution, February 15, 2018. Available online: https:// www.ucdavis. edu/ news/ consumerindit-,trial- prodticts- overtal( o transportation source urban air pollution, accessed April 7, 2022.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments ABAG). 2013. Bay Area Plan - Strategy for A Sustainable Region, July 13, 2013.

Available online: http:// files. mtc. ca.gov/ pdf/Plan- Bay- Area- FINAL/ Plan- Bay. Area. pdf.

Accessed on January 30, 2022.

MTC & ABAG. 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040. Adopted July 26, 2017. Available online:
https: Hmtc. ca. gov/ sites/ default/ files/ Final- Plan- Bay. Area- 204O. pdf. Accessed January 27, 2022.

MTC & ABAG. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050, Adopted October 21, 2021. Available online:
https: Hplanbayarea. org/ sites/ default/ files/ documents/ Plan- Bay- Area- 2050- October- 2021. pdf. Accessed January 28, 2022.

MTC, 2022. Priority Development Areas ( Plan Bay Area 2050). Available online:
https:Hopendata. mtc.ca.gov/datasets/ priority- development- areas- plan- bay- area2050/ explore? location= 37. 476065/ 2C- 122. 151715`/` 2Ct2. 06. Accessed February 15, 2022.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA), 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines - Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015. Available Online: https:// oehha. ca. gov/ mediajdownloads/ crnr/ 2015guidancemanual. pdf, Accessed February 10, 2022.

San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2008. Assessment and Mitigation of Air Pollutant Health Effects from Intra- Urban Roadways: Guidance for Land Use Planning and Environmental Review, May 2008. Available online: https:// www. gsweventcenter. com/ Draft- SEIR- References/ 2008- 0501- SFDPH. pdf, accessed September 15, 2021.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SjVAPCD), 2014. Application for Leave to File Brief ofAmicus Curiae Brief ofSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support ofDefendant and Respondent, County ofFresno and Real Party in Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters ofFresno v. County ofFresno, 2014.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 2- 43 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 2 Air Quality
South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD), 2014. Application ofthe South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief ofAmicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief ofAmicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters ofFresno v. County ofFresno, 2014.

Pollution Engineering, 2006. Now Clean Diesel Fuel Rules Start, July 2, 2006, Available online:
https:// sj- admin. s3- us- west- 2. amazonaws. com/ 2006- 0700- PollutionEngincering— NewCleanDiesel.pdf, accessed February 2, 2022.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-44 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
i
EIRMIN 11111M IMEi 11 a
I
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
This section assesses the potential for the Project to result in significant adverse impacts on Biological Resources. This section first includes a description of the existing environmental setting as it relates to Biological Resources, 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 Biological Resources.

The Notice of Preparation ( NOP) fur the EIR was circulated on February 4, 2022, and d scoping meeting was hold on February 24, 2022. The NOP and Clio comments iecelVed dining the public comment period can be found in Appendix A of this EIR. Comments relating to Biological Resources received during the NOP comment period were received from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) and included concerns related to impacts to local special -status species, including various salt marsh species such as; western pond turtle ( Emys marmorata), northern harrier ( Circus cyaneus), burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia), salt -marsh harvest mouse ( Refthrodontomys raviventris), California Ridgway' s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), California black rail ( Laterallusjamaicensis coturniculus), longfin smelt ( Spirinchus thaleichthys), salt -marsh wandering shrew ( Sorex vagrans halicoetes), saltmarsh common yellowthroat ( Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), and Alameda song sparrow ( Melospiza melodia pusillula), and appropriate mitigation to minimize impacts; bird strike potential on buildings adjacent to avian habitat; and potential impacts to wetland and riparian features.

The primary information sources used to prepare this section include the following:
0 Historic and current aerial imagery available on Google Earth 0 Subscription -based biological resource databases including the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database ( CNDDB) ( CDFW, 2022), CNPS Rare Plant Inventory ( CLAPS, 2022), and a U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation Official Species List (USFWS, 2022)
The 2030 General Plan ( City of Mountain View, 2021)
North Bayshore Precise Plan ( City of Mountain View, 2014) I A -
P
The Project is located in the Central California Coast Bioregion in Santa Clara County, which has a mild Mediterranean climate with generally warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. The city and its Project comprise approximately 10, 475 acres at the northwest end of the low- lying alluvial plain of the Santa Clara Valley, which is bounded to the north by San Francisco Bay, to the west by the Santa Cruz Mountains, and to the east by the Diablo Range. Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek, both of which originate in the Santa Cruz Mountains and flow north to San Francisco Bay, are the primary watercourses within the Mountain View City limits, while Adobe City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 1 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
Creek runs parallel to a small portion of the western City boundary. Permanente Creek consists of a cement -lined flood control channel for the majority of its length within City limits (except the southern reach from the city boundary to Cuesta Drive, and the northern reach from the Highway 101 to Mountain View Slough), while Stevens Creek has more of a natural character with a gravel and soil strearribed and earthen banks. Stevens Creek becomes Whisnian Slough as it approaches the Bay, while Permanente Creek becomes Mountain View Slough, Charleston Slough, a portion of which is a former salt pond ( i.e., Inner Charleston Slough), connects to the Bay at the northwestern comer of the city limits ( City of Mountain View, 2021).

I ocal Setting
I Idbitdt types and laud use ! it the Project have not changed appreciably since those characterized in the 2030 General Plan. The Project occurs mostly within the developed urban footprint ofthe city, within the boundaries of adopted Precise Plans and commercial corridors. Undeveloped areas within City limits occur principally near Shoreline Regional Park in the northern portion of the Project and creek corridors. Shoreline Regional Park supports much of the grassland, tidal marsh/mudflat, and open water habitats within the city limits; however, as identified in Project Description Figure 2, these areas and associated sensitive habitats are outside of the North Bayshore Precise Plan; and hence outside of the HEU planning area. Woodland habitat within the City occurs on the Stevens Creek corridor ( City of Mountain View, 2021). The following section describes the vegetation communities and associated habitat types in the HEU in more detail.

A vegetation communityls a recognizable collection of plant species that interact with each other and the elements of their environment and are distinct from adjacent vegetation communities.

The terrestrial plant community classification presented in this assessment is based on field observations and the Preliminary Descriptions ofthe Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. 2 Plant communities generally correlate with wildlife habitat types. Developed and ruderal ( disturbed) habitat does not fall within recognized vegetation communities and is presented as a habitat type. The 2030 General Plan identifies the following habitat types within the 10, 475- acre Project area:

Developed/ Landscape/ Ruderal
Grassland
Woodland
Tidal Marsh or Mudflat
Holland, R. F., 1986, Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, California Department of Fish and Game.
2 Holland, R. F., 1986, Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, California Department of Fish and Game.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 2 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
The following subsections describe these communities and their locations in the study area.

Developed/ Landscape/ Ruderal
Developed. Developed lands, which constitute the majority of the Project Area, include residential neighborhoods; commercial and industrial buildings; roads; schools; golf courses; and urban parks and associated landscaping consisting of lawns, ornamental trees, and ornamental shrubs. Many commercial and industrial buildings ( e. g., Google campus) also have extensive maintained lawns and ornamental landscaping.

Ornamental trees in the developed portions of the Project are primarily non- native but include some native species. Common ornamental trees and shrubs in the City include: doodar cedar ( Cedrus de(i& na), camphor ( Cinnanionwin caiui Italian cypress ( CUPI-65SUS Seu7perviren,$), blue gum huCalyJAUSgIOWUs), Sweet gUni southern magnolia ( Magnolia grandiflora), oleander (Nerium oleander}, London plane (Platanusx. acerifolia), California pepper tree ( Schinus molle), and Mexican fan palm ( Wasbingtonia robusta), among many others. Native but non -local trees in developed areas include MonLeiey pine (,Pinus iadiala), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesij), and coast redwood ( Sequoia sempervirens). Coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak ( Q. lobata) are local native species that occur in developed areas of the Project.

Most of the urban parks within the Project are considered developed because they consist of playgrounds, picnic areas, fields, and ornamental landscaping. Some exceptions to this include undeveloped portions of Shoreline Regional Park.

Ruderal. Ruderal habitat is comprised of individuals or large patches of disturbed, often barren habitat, within areas that are comprised primarily of non- native plants adapted to colonizing and persisting in disturbed areas. Such habitat is limited within the mostly developed Project area.

The species composition is usually comprised of weedy, herbaceous forbs, non- native annual grasses, and ornamental plants, but some native species are also typically present. Ruderal habitat is present on the levee banks and other disturbed areas in the vicinity of lower Stevens Creek, Whisnian Slough, Mountain View Slough, Charleston Slough, the Bayview Parcel, Permanente Creek, and NASA Ames Research Center. The Bayview Parcel may have been used most recently for dry land farming and consists mostly of non- native annual grasses and herbs. Small areas within the Bayview Parcel may have seasonally wet patches of grassland. Ruderal habitat was also observed occurring sporadically along the northern edges of Shoreline Regional Park.

Sweet fennel ( Foeniculum vulgare), bristly ox-tongue ( Picris echioides), broad- leaved poppergrass ( Lepidium ladfolium), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), and others, occur in patches and interspersed with wild oats and soft chess. Native species that occur in ruderal areas include coyote brush ( Baccharispilularis), toyon ( Heteromeles arbutifolia), and gumplant ( Grindelia stricta var. angustifolia) ( City of Mountain View, 2021).

Grassland
Most grasslands in and near the Project occur in the vicinity of Shoreline Regional Park, north of the HEU planning area. This habitat type is dominated by non-native annual grasses and includes native and non- native forbs. Native habitat restoration areas at Vista Slope and Shoreline Regional Park are more likely to support native grasses, forbs, and trees.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 43-3 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
r
F Typical non- native plant species in grasslands include wild oats ( Avena fatua), ripgut brome Bromus diandrus), soft chess ( Bromus hordeaceus), Italian thistle ( Carduus pycnocephalus), yellow star -thistle ( Centaurea solstitialis), bull thistle ( Cirsium vulgare), Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon), stinkwort ( Dittrichia graveolens), sweet fennel, fireweed ( Epilobium brachycarpum), stork' s bill (Erodiurn cicutarium), summer mustard ( Hirsclifeldia incana), hare barley ( I-Ioi-deum leporinum), Italian ryegrass, common mallow ( Malva neglecta), bur -clover Medicago polymorpha), prickly oxtongue (PicTis echioides), smilo grass (Piptatherum miliaceum), cut -leaf plantain ( Plantago coronopus), curly dock ( Rumex crispus), Russian thistle Salsola tragus), milk thistle ( Silybum marianum), clover ( Trifolium sp.), and brome fescue. 1, ulpia sp.). Those specios are common, nonnative grasses and fortis that typically occur in nonnative grasslands throughout the Bay Area and are expected to occur throughout grassland habitats within [ lie Project.

Native grasses and forbs observed in this habitat include clarkia ( Clarkia sp.), California golden poppy ( Eschscholzia californica), and purple needlegrass ( Nassella pulchra). Coyote brush, a native shrub, occurs in scattered locations, particularly at Vista Slope. Native tree and shrub species observed in restoration areas include manzanita ( Arctostaphylos manzanita), coast live oak, and valley oak (City of Mountain View, 2021).

Woodland
Woodland habitats within the Project consist of three broadly defined vegetation series: ( 1) coast live oak woodland, consisting of woodlands where coast live oak is the sole or dominant tree in the canopy; ( 2) eucalyptus, a closed -canopy system dominated by blue gum or other eucalyptus species; and ( 3) mixed riparian woodland, which is co -dominated by riparian species such as arroyo willow, black cottonwood, and/ or white alder ( City of Mountain View, 2021). Woodland habitats primarily occur along Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek, which would generally be avoided by HEU activities, and are described below.

Coast Live Oak Woodland. Coast live oak woodland occurs along the upland stream banks and terraces of Stevens Creek and the western, unchannelized section of Permanente Creek. Coast live oaks are not the only trees along these creeks, but in some areas they dominate the canopy layer.

Other tree species observed along Stevens Creek include a mix of native and non- native species such as red ironbark eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sideroxylon), Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra), glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidurn), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fre-mondi), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), big leaf maple (Acer macrisiphyllum), California bay ( Umbellularia californica), California buckeye ( Aesculus californica), California black walnut ( Juglans californica), valley oak, and California pepper tree. The understory along Stevens Creek includes a mix of native and non- native herbs and shrubs including California rose ( Rosa californica), coffeeberry ( Rbamnus californica), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California blackberry ( Rebus ursinus), English ivy (Hedera helix), and annual grasses ( City of Mountain View, 2021). The western segment of Permanente Creek that runs from western boundary of the Project to Cuesta Avenue at Mlianionte Avenue has a canopy that is mostly coast live oak with [lie exception being near the Saint Francis High School where Monterey pine shares canopy dominance. Other ornamental trees can be found along the banks here as well and the understory consists of non-native herbs and grasses including Oregon manroot (Marah fabaceus), bedstraw City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 4 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
Galium aparine), greater periwinkle ( Vinca major), small -leaf spiderwort ( Tradescanda flaminensis), ground coverjuniper (Jumperus sp.), smilo grass, English ivy, California buckeye, toyon, and California blackberry ( City of Mountain View, 2021). Although not considered as coast live oak woodland, large solitary coast live oaks can be found growing throughout the Project in residential and industrial parcels as well as within and around old agricultural areas such as the Grant/ Levin and Francia properties and the western part of Cuesta Park.

Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus woodland ranges from monotypic blue gum stands with little or no understory to scattered trees with a well -developed understory. The best example of this habitat type occurs along the banks of Stevens Creek north of Sleeper Park where the woodland contains an assemblage of blue gum, coast live oak, and Monterey pine. The upland creek banks adjacent to Sleeper Park support an uudorstoly of uati\' e and non -naive rotb" in( lulling Common geranium ( Pe1X-,q017i11117 h0t-(0171111r), elm - leaf hlackherry ( Mtthu,; idtnitc, 105), Catalina cherry ( Prunits ( Yonit"), dandelion ( Taraxacum officinale), cotoneaster ( Cotoneaster lacteus), cheeseweed ( Malva parviflora), toyon, Oregon manroot, bedstraw, and various annual grasses ( City of Mountain View, 2021).

Mixed Riparian Woodland. Mixed riparian woodland is dominated by riparian tree species that are adapted to wetland stream banks, floodplains and creek terraces that are seasonally flooded or permanently saturated by freshwater. Mixed riparian woodland is abundant along Stevens Creek and is also associated with freshwater marsh habitats, including the detention basin west of the Charleston Pump Station, as well as freshwater ditches associated with the open space and golf course at Shoreline Regional Park. Mixed riparian woodland along Stevens Creek generally supports a dense, well -developed canopy of riparian trees that include both native and non- native trees. Native trees observed along Stevens Creek include arroyo willow ( Safix1asiolepis), white alder ( Alnus rhombifolia), blue elderberry ( Sambucas mexicanus), black cottonwood ( Populus balsamilera subsp. trichocarpa), valley oak, California buckeye, California black walnut, California wax myrtle, Fremont cottonwood, and coast live oak. Non- native ornamental trees observed along Stevens Creek include Oregon ash ( Fraxinus latifiblia), Chinese elm ( Ulmus parvifolia), and Modesto ash. Understory vegetation is comprised of a mixture of annual and perennial species including giant reed ( Arundo donaA), English ivy, German ivy, elm -leaf blackberry, and other herbaceous grasses and forbs (City of Mountain View, 2021).

Tidal marsh is a highly productive community consisting of salt tolerant, hydrophytic plants that form moderate to dense cover. Plants are usually segregated vertically depending on their tolerance of inundation and saline soils. This habitat type is typically associated with and occurs adjacent to intertidal mudflats that are devoid of vegetation; during an ebb tide, the bottom is bare mud, cobble, or rock. Within the Project, this habitat type is strictly limited to the lower, tidal portions of Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek. Areas outside of the HEU planning area include Mountain View Slough, Whisman Slough, Stevens Creek Tidal Marsh, Mountain View Marsh, Charleston Slough, Coast Casey Forebay, and marshes near the mouths of Mountain View and Whisinan Sloughs adjacent to the Bay (i.e., north of salt ponds Al and A2W).

The tidal portions of Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek within the Project are similar in vertical structure, starting at the low elevation mudflat to the upland vegetation on adjacent levees. The City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 5 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
lowest elevation vegetation strata contain dense stands of pickleweed ( Salicornia virginica) codominanting places with saltgrass ( Distichlis spicata) that are interspersed with areas of open water ( or muldflat at low tide). Pickleweed and saltgrass are dominant components on the elevated benches of the tidal marsh where patches of alkali heath ( Frankenia salina), gumplant ( Grindelia stricta ssp. angustifolia), and cordgrass ( Spartina sp.). The upland vegetation on the surrounding levees is dominated by non- native grasses and ruderal herbs that may support black mustard Brassica nigra), tall wheatgrass ( Elytrigia pontica), and smilo grass. The western portion of this marsh is included in the Stevens Creek Nature Study Area owned and managed by the Midpeninsulat Regional Open Space District ( MROSD) ( City of Mountain View, 2021).

The term spocialstatu- species refers to plant and wildlife species that are considered sufficiently rare that they require special consideration and/ or protection and should be, or currently are, listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by the federal and/ or state governments. Such species are legally protected under the federal and/ or state Endangered Species Acts or other regulations or are species that are considered sufficiently rare by the regulatory and scientific community to qualify for protection. The term special -status species includes the following:

Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act ( FESA) ( Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Section 17. 12 [ listed plants] and Section 17. 11 [ listed animals] and various notices in the Federal Register [ FR] proposed species]);
Species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA ( 61 FR 40, February 28, 1996);
Species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act ( CESA) ( California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 670. 5);
Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act California Fish and Game Code [ CFGC] Section 1900 et seq.); Animals fully protected under the CFGC ( Sections 3511 [ birds], 4700 [ mammals], and 5050 reptiles and amphibians]);
Species that meet the definitions of rare and endangered under CEQA. CEQA Section 15380 provides that a plant or animal species may be treated as " rare or endangered" even if not on one of the official lists ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15380); and Plants considered by CDFW and the California Native Plant Society ( CLAPS) to be " rare, threatened or endangered in California" ( California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 113, and 2).

A list of special -status plant and wildlife species that were considered within the HEU planning area is presented in Table 4. 3- 1. The CNDDB ( CDFW, 2022) and CLAPS ( 2022) Rare Plant Inventory were queried based on a search of a 5- mile radius from the HEU and associated 7. 5- minute U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles, respectively. The USFWS Official List ofFederal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or May Be Affected by the Projects ( USFWS, 2022) was queried based on a 5- mile radius of the project sites. No critical habitat occurs within City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 6 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4, 3 Biological Resources
the HEU sites ( USFWS, 2022). These queries formed the basis to examine the potential for various special -status plant and wildlife species to occur in the study areas.

TABLE 4. 3- 1

SPECIAL - STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE HEU STUDY AREA Common Name Listing Status: Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence Scientific Name Federal/ State/ Other
Fish
Central Calirornia Coast FT/ CSC/-- Spawns and rears in coastal Low. No suitable or potentially suitable Steelhead streams between the Russian freshwater habitat would be present Oncorhynchus mykiss River and Aptos Creek, as within any of the I IELI sites. ifideus well as drainages tributary to
grann Francisco Bay, whore
gravelly substrate and shaded
riparian habitat occurs.

Longfin smelt FC/ STI-- Open water estuaries, can be Absent. No suitable or potentially Spirinchus thaleichthys found in both saltwater and suitable freshwater habitat would be freshwater in the San present within any of the HEU sites.

Francisco Bay.

Reptiles
Western pond turtle CSC/-- Ponds, streams with deep Moderate. Not expected in the HEU Emys marmorata pools, drainages and planning area due to the intensity of associated uplands for egg urbanization. May occur in Steven' s laying. Creek where suitable basking sites
sandy banks and rocks) are present;
however, limited habitat at project sites.

Amphibians
California red - legged frog FT/ CSC/-- Ponds, streams, drainages Low. Known to occur in upper reaches Rana draytonii
and associated uplands; of Permanents Creek, but no habitat on requires areas of deep, still, urbanized project sites. Steven' s and and/ or slow - moving water for Permanente creeks provide limited breeding. habitat.

Birds
Burrowing owl CSC Open, dry grasslands that Moderate. Known to occur at Shoreline Athene curricularia contain abundant ground Regional Park and Moffett Airfield. squirrel burrows.

California black rail FT/ CFP Salt marshes bordering larger Absent. No habitat in planning area.

Laterallusjamaicensis bays, also round in brackish Habitat present at Shoreline Regional cotumiculus
and freshwater marshes. Park, Charleston Slough, and Palo Alto Baylands, approximately I mile
northwest of Project.

California least tern FE/ SE/ FP Sandy beaches, alkali flats, Absent. No habitat in planning area.

Sternula antillarum, browni hard - pan surfaces ( salt Known to forage in Charleston Slough ponds). and salt ponds north of Moffett Federal
Airfield for post -breeding foraging and
dispersal.

California Ridgway' s rail FE/ SE/ FP Tidal salt marshes with Absent. No habitat in planning area.

Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
sloughs and substantial Known to occur at mouth of Charleston cordgrass ( Spartina sp.) Slough and in Mountain View Marsh; cover. may also occur in lower, tidal portions
of Steven' s Creek.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 7 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
TABLE 4. 3- 1 ( CONTINUED)

SPECIAL -STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE HEU STUDY AREA Common Name Listing Status: Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence Scientific Name Federal/ State/ Other
Alameda song sparrow CSC Tidal salt marshes dominated Absent. No habitat in planning area.

Melospiza melodia pusillula by pickleweed; nests primarily Occurs near tidal marshlands at in pickleweed and marsh Charleston Slough and Permanente gumplant. Creek/ Mountain View Slough, and
along salt pond levees.

Northern harrier CSC Nests in wet meadows and Low. No habitat within planning area.

Circus hudsonius
marshes, forages over open Known to occur at Charleston Slough grasslands and agricultural and along margins of salt ponds. fields.

Saltrnarsh common CSC Salt, brackish, and freshwater Absent. No habitat in planning area. yollowthroat inuishuti;, and riparian Known to u(;(; ui in inatbliels adjacent to Sorex vaqrans halicoetes woodlands; nests on or near Charleston Slough and within Coast ground in low vegetation. Casey Forebay, likely occurs in other brackish and freshwater habitats along
Permanente and Stevens Creek
Western snowy plover
ffi
FT/ CSC Sandy beaches, salt ponds, Absent. No habitat within planning Charadrius nivasus nivosus and salt pond levees. area, Habitat on salt pond levees north of Shoreline Regional Park and Moffett
Federal Airfield.

White- tailed kite FP Open grasslands, meadows, Present. Nests on Shorebird Way Elanus leucurus or marshes; require dense- within the North Bayshore Precise Plan topped trees or shrubs for area in 2021/ 2022. May nest and nesting and perching. forage at Shoreline Regional Park, north of the planning area.

Pallid bat CSC1WBWG: High A variety of open and habitats Moderate. May occasionally forage Antrozous pallidus
e.g., chaparral, open
woodland, deserts); primary
over open habitats within Project ( e. g.,
grasslands, tidal marsh), but no known
roost sites include bridges, active roost sites in vicinity. old buildings, and in tree
hollows and/ or bark;
sometimes roost in caves and
rock crevices.

Western red bat CSCNVBWG: High Habitats include forests and Moderate. Suitable roosting habitat Lasiurus blossevilfii
woodlands from sea level up
through mixed conifer forests.
present in oak woodland. No CNDDB
occurrences from the study area.

Solitary rooster in tree foliage.

May hibernate in leaf litter.

Hoary bat NVBWG: Medium Prefers open habitats or Moderate. Lack of open habitat leaves Lasiurus cinereus
habitat mosaics, with access to
trees for cover and open areas
only marginally suitable roosting habitat
in the project study area. Not identified
or habitat edges for foraging. from area since 1894.

Roosts in dense foliage of
medium to large trees. Feeds
primarily on moths; requires
water.

Townsend' s big -eared bat CSC1WBWG: High May use buildings, bridges, Moderate. Suitable roosting habitat Corynorhinus townsendii
rock crevices, and hollow trees
as roost sites.
present in oak woodland.

Yuma myotis NVBWG. Low Optimal habitatst are open Moderate. Suitable roosting habitat forests and woodland with present in tree crevices bridge joints in Myotis yumanensis sources of water over which to riparian woodland and oak feed. Roost in buildings, under wood land/ grassland. No CNDDB bridges, and in tree crevices, occurrences from the study area. caves and mines. I
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 8 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
TABLE 4. 3- 1 ( CONTINUED)

SPECIAL - STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE HEU STUDY AREA Common Name
Scientific Name
Salt -marsh harvest mouse
Reithrodontorrys raviventris
Salt marsh wandering shrew
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
Plants
Congdon' s tarplanl
Cer7tron7adia parryi ssp.

Congdonii
Listing Status: Habitat Description
Federal/ State/ Other
FE/ SE/ CFP Tidal salt marshes of San
Francisco Bay and its
tributaries. Requires tall,
dense pickleweed for cover
CSC
ITidal
marshes with abundant
driftwood and other debris ( for
sholtor and foraging)
1B, I Grasslands in alkaline of
saline soils, sometimes
described as heavy white
clay; 1- 230 meters, Blooms
from May to October
sometimes into November).

KEY:

Federal: ( USFWS)
FE = Listed as Endangered by the Federal Government
FT = Listed as Threatened by the Federal Government
FC = Candidate for listing by the Federal Government
State: ( CDFW)
SE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California
S T = Listed as Threatened by the State of California
SR = Listed as Rare by the State of California ( plants only) SC = Candidate for listing by the State of California
CSC = California Species of Special Concern
FP = CDFW Fully Protected Species
CDFW protects nesting colonies
WL = Species on the CDFW Watch List
Potential for Occurrence
Absent. No habitat In planning area.

Occurs in tidal marshes north of Moffett
Federal Airfield and in Stevens Creek
Marsh; may occur in other tidal marsh
habitats in northern portion of Project.

Absent. No habitat in planning area.

Habitat occurs in tidal marsh habitats
within and adjacent to Shoreline
Regional Park.

Mudetate. Occurs ht Shoteline at
Mountain View Regional Park
immediately north of the North
Bayshore Precise Plan area, and could
occur in ruderal grassland areas,
particularly along the northern edge of
the Precise Plan area. Not expected
elsewhere in the planning area.

CRPR: (California Rare Plant Rank)
Rank 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California
Rank 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
Rank 2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere
Rank 3 = Need more information
Rank 4 = Limited distribution - a watch list

0. 1 = Seriously endangered in California

0. 2 = Fairly endangered in California

0. 3 = Not very endangered in California
No Listing
SOURCES: CDFW, 2022; CNPS, 2022; USFWS, 2022; City of Mountain View, 2021 Based on this analysis and available habitat in the HEU study area, and review of identified species in the North Bayshore Precise Plan, which is south of sensitive habitats at Shoreline Regional Park, a limited number of special -status species were identified with at least a moderate potential to occur in portions of the HEU project that includes western pond turtle, northern harrier ( OrCLIS IlUdsonjus), and several special -status bats. Due to the general absence of salt marsh habitat within the planning area, the salt marsh -dependent species identified in CDFW' s scoping letter are not expected within the HEU planning area and are not discussed further. The burrowing owl has potential to occur within the North Bayshore Precise Plan area, specifically in an area where a Steven' s Creek would be bridged. In Shoreline Park immediately north of the Precise Plan area, the City supports an ongoing burrowing owl monitoring and management program ( City of Mountain View, 2017). A rookery ( or nesting areas) of great egrets ( Ardea alba), snowy egrets ( Egretta thula), and black -crowned night -herons ( Nycticorax rlycdcorax) City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 43-9 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
exists along Shorebird Way. This rookery is regionally significant as one of the largest egret colonies in the South Bay (City of Mountain View, 2017). 16GIM, I •
USFWS can designate critical habitat for species that have been listed as threatened or endangered. Critical habitat is defined in FESA Section 3 (5) ( A) as those lands ( or waters) within a listed species' current range that contain the physical or biological features that are considered essential to its conservation. There is no critical habitat within the HEU planning area.

Sensitive natural communities are designated by various resource agencies such as (' I) FW, or in local policies and regulations; are generally considered to have Important functions or values for wildlife and/ or recognized as declining in extent or distribution; and are considered threatened enough to warrant some level of protection. Two sensitive natural communities were identified within the city limits: coastal salt marsh and oak woodland. The HEU study area does not include coastal salt marsh. A limited portion of the HEU includes oak woodlands, which are primarily associated with stream corridors and riparian habitat in the City of Mountain View. The Project would have limited elements within woodlands or riparian habitat associated with stream corridors.

VYTAVTMM••
Both the shoreline and open waters of the Bay, as well as project area creeks are potential wildlife corridors. No portion of the HEU study area is within the shoreline band or open waters of the Bay; however, Steven Creek and Permanente Creek traverse the HEU study area and is considered a wildlife corridor.

I
The FESA, Migratory Bird Treaty Act ( MBTA), and Magnuson - Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act are the primary federal planning, treatment, and review mechanisms for biological resources in the study area. Each is summarized below.

USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) are the designated federal agencies responsible for administering the FESA. The FESA defines species as " endangered" and threatened" and provides regulatory protection for any species thus designated. FESA Section 9 prohibits the " take" of species listed by USFWS as threatened or endangered. As defined in the FESA, taking means "... to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in such conduct." Recognizing that take cannot always be avoided, FESA Section 10 (a) includes provisions for takings that are incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 10 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
FH FESA Section 7 (a) (2) requires all federal agencies, including USFWS, to evaluate projects authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies with respect to any species proposed for listinp, or already listed as endangered or threatened and the species' critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Federal agencies must undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and are prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its " critical habitat." As defined in the FESA, " individuals, organizations, states, local governments, and other nonfederal entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only iftheir actions occur on federal lands, require a federal permit, license, or other authorization, or involve federal funding No federally listed species are expected in the study area The MBTA is the domestic law that affirms and implements a commitment by the United States to four international conventions ( with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. Unless and except as permitted by regulations, the MBTA makes it unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to intentionally pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds anywhere in the United States. The law also applies to the intentional disturbance and removal of nests occupied by migratory birds or their eggs during the breeding season.

Clean Water Act Section 404
CWA Section 404, which is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE), regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into " waters of the United States." USACE has established a series of nationwide permits that authorize certain activities in waters ofthe United States, provided that the proposed activity can demonstrate compliance with standard conditions. Projects that result in relatively minor impacts on waters of the United States can normally be conducted under one of the nationwide permits, if consistent with the standard permit conditions. Use of any nationwide permit is contingent on compliance with FESA Section 7. In the project area, Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek, and Adobe Creek qualify as waters of the United States.

The Magnuson -Stevens Act of 1976 ( U. S. Code Title 16, Sections 1801- 1884 [ 16 USC 1804- 1884]), as amended in 1996 and reauthorized in 2007, is intended to protect fisheries resources and fishing activities within 200 miles of shore. Conservation and management of U.S. fisheries, development of domestic fisheries, and phasing out of foreign fishing activities are the main objectives of the Magnuson -Stevens Act. The Magnuson -Stevens Act provided NMFS with legislative authority to regulate U.S. fisheries in the area between 3 and 200 miles offshore and established eight regional fishery management councils that manage the harvest of the fish and shellfish resources in these waters.

The Magnuson -Stevens Act defines essential fish habitat (EFH) as those waters and substrate that support fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or maturation. The Magnuson -Stevens Act requires that NMFS, the regional fishery management councils, and federal agencies taking an action that may City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3- 11 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
affect managed fish species covered under the Magnuson -Stevens Act identify EFH and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat.

The regional fishery management councils, with assistance from NMFS, are required to develop and implement Fishery Management Plans. These plans delineate EFH and management goals for all managed fish species, including some fish species that are not protected under the Magnuson - Stevens Act. Federal agency actions that fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely affect EFH are required under Magnuson - Stevens Act Section 305( b), in conjunction with required Section 7 consultation tinder FESA, to consult with NMFS regarding potential adverse effects of their actions on FFH and to respond in writing to NMFS' s recommendations.

Salmon EFI I under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan includes portions of lower Pormanente and Stevens creeks, to the extreme high tide line 31his area is designed to protect habitat for commercially important salmonid species. Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawvtscha) is the only one ofthese species that may be seasonally present in the study area, although historically Coho salmon ( 0. kisutch) were common In San Francisco Bay.

In addition to CEQA, the primary state planning, treatment, and review mechanisms for biological resources in the study area are the CESA, CFGC Sections 1600- 1603 and 3503, 3503. 5, and 3511, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Permit. Each is summarized below.

The CESA closely parallels the conditions of the FESA; however, it is administered by CDFW.

CESA prohibits the take of plant and animal species that the California Fish and Game Commission has designated as either threatened or endangered in California. " Take" in the context of this regulation means to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill a listed species ( CFGC section 86). The take prohibitions also apply to candidates for listing under CESA. However, section 2081 of the act allows the department to issue permits for the minor and incidental take of species by an individual or permitted activity listed under the act. Unlike FESA, species that are candidates for state listing are granted the same protections as listed species under CESA.

In accordance with the requirements of CESA, an agency reviewing a project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state -listed endangered or threatened species could be present in the study area. The agency also must determine whether the project could have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, the department encourages informal consultation on any project that could affect a candidate species. No state listed species are expected in the study area.
3 Pacific Fishery Management Council, Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan: for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries offthe Coasts of Washington, Oregon. and California as Revised through Amendment 19, effective March 2016. Available at https:// www. pcouncil. org/ documents/ 2016/ 03/ salmon- fmpthrough- amendment- 19. pdf/.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 12 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
All diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California that supports fish or wildlife resources are subject to the regulatory authority of CDFW under CFGC Sections 1600- 1603. Under the CFGC, a stream is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically, or intermittently, through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. Included are watercourses with surface or subsurface flows that support or have supported riparian vegetation, Specifically, CFGC Section 1603 governs private -party individuals, and CFGC Section 1601 governs public projects.

CDFW jurisdiction lit altered or artificial waterways is based on the value of those watei ways to fish and wildlife. CDFW must be contacted by the public or privato party for a Vtroambed alteration agreement for any project that might Substantially affect a streambed or wetland CDFW has maintained a " no net loss" policy regarding potential impacts and has required replacement of lost habitats.

IWOM
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-term vision and guide local decision -making to achieve that vision. Goals, policies, actions in the 2030 General Plan related to biological resources include:

Goal LUD 10: High -quality, sustainable and healthful building design and development.

Policy LUD 10.2: Low impact development. Encourage development to minimize or avoid disturbing natural resources and ecologically significant features.

Goal LUD- 16: A diverse area of complementary land uses and open space resources.

Policy LUD 16. 1: Protected open space. Protect and enhance open space and habitat in the North Bayshore area.

Goal LUD 10: High -quality, sustainable and healthful building design and development.

Policy LUD 10. 2: Low impact development. Encourage development to minimize or avoid disturbing natural resources and ecologically significant features.

Goal LUD- 16: A diverse area of complementary land uses and open space resources.

Policy LUD 16. 1: Protected open space. Protect and enhance open space and habitat in the North Bayshore area.

Goal INC- 5: Effective and comprehensive programs utilizing water use efficiency, water conservation and alternative water supplies to reduce per capita potable water use.

Policy INC 5.5 Landscape efficiency. Promote water -efficient landscaping including drought- tolerant and native plants, along with efficient irrigation techniques.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 13 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
Goal INC- 8: An effective and innovative stormwater drainage system that protects properties from flooding and minimizes adverse environmental impacts from stormwater runoff.

Policy INC 8.4: Runoff pollution prevention. Reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and stormwater pollution entering creeks, water channels and the San Francisco Bay through participation in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.

Policy INC 8.5: Site -specific stormwater treatment. Require post -construction stormwater treatment controls consistent with MRP requirements for both new development and redevelopment projects.

Poliqv INC 8. 6: Green streets. Seek opportunities to develop green streets and sustainable streetscapes that minimize stormwater runoff, using lcCl111iqLIQSSL1Ch of On Street bio swales, bio- retention, permeable pavement or other Innovative approaches.

Policy INC 8. 7. Stormwater quality. Improve the water quality of stormwater and reduce flow quantities.

Goal INC- 16: Rich and biologically diverse ecological resources which are protected and enhanced.

Policy INC 16. 1: Natural areas. Work with regional agencies to protect and enhance natural areas.

Policy INC 16.2: Shoreline at Mountain View. Manage Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park to balance the needs of recreational, open space, habitat, commercial and other uses.

Policy INC 16. 3: Habitat. Protect and enhance nesting, foraging and other habitat for special- status species and other wildlife.

Policy INC 16.4: Invasive species. Contain and reduce the amount of invasive species.

Policy INC 16.5: Wetland habitat. Collaborate with and support regional efforts to restore and protect wetlands, creeks, tidal marshes and open -water habitats adjacent to San Francisco Bay.

Policy INC 16. 6: Built environment habitat. Integrate biological resources, such as green roofs and native landscaping, into the built environment.

Goal INC- 19: Effective and ecologically sensitive programs to control invasive species and plants.

Policy INC 193: Municipal integrated pest management. Control and prevent invasive weeds and pests using integrated pest management on all City property, including the following principles:

A focus on control of pests at established acceptable levels, instead of eradication.

Preventive cultivation practices appropriate for local conditions.

Monitoring.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 14 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
Mechanical controls such as hand- picking, barriers, traps and disruption.

Biological controls such as beneficial insects or biological insecticides.

Chemical controls only as required or during targeted times during a pest' s life cycle Policy INC 19.2; Herbicides and pesticides. Discourage the use of herbicides and pesticides on City property.

Policy INC 19.3: Citywide integrated pest management. Encourage and educate residents and businesses to implement integrated pest management principles and reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Gael POS- 1 Open Spd(, e Weds With IldtUldl ChdidUtellStICS didt die protected and sustdined.

Policy POS- 3. 1: Collaboration on sea -level rise Impacts. Collaborate with regional, state and federal agencies to address the effects of potential rises in sea levels through.

As part of discretionary review, the City has standard conditions for different types of approvals updated as of October 25, 2021). The 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan Subsequent DEIR, as adopted ( City of Mountain View, 2017) identified potential impacts to biological resources, including impacts to burrowing owl and the heron rookery at Shoreline Way, that could occur due to indirect impacts related to recreation at Shoreline Park. Specifically, the analysis found that indirect impacts could occur to burrowing owls and an egret rookery in Shoreline Park due to an increased presence of people, pets ( dogs and cats), and children related to residential development. Trash generated by increased use was also deemed an attractant to nuisance species e. g., American crow and Norway rat) that could predate upon sensitive avian species. In response, the SEIR amended the Precise Plan standards and guidelines to protect and enhance biological resources. Such measures included the development of a burrowing owl Habitat Overlay Zone and an egret rookery Habitat Overlay Zone, and development measures intended to minimize the potential for impacts to burrowing owls on the northern edge of the planning area and in Shoreline at Mountain Regional View Park. Standard conditions relating to biological resources are summarized below.

A bird -strike management plan, which provides project design features to reduce bird strikes, and a bird -strike monitoring plan postconstruction shall be submitted as part of the building permit submittal with recommended provisions included in the building permit plans.

Landscaping
Detailed landscape plans encompassing on- and off -site plantable areas out to the street curb must be included in building permit drawings. Minimum plant sizes, are flats or one -gallon containers for ground cover, five -gallon for shrubs, and 24" box for trees. The drawings must be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit issuance and implemented prior to occupancy. All plans should be prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and should comply with the City' s Landscape Guidelines, including the Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations (forms are available online at
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 15 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
www.mountainview. gov/ planningforms). Additional landscaping materials or modifications may be required by the Planning Division at final inspection to ensure adequate planting coverage and/ or screening.

MEMO=
A qualified arborist shall provide written instructions for the care of the existing tree( s) to remain on -site before, during, and after construction. The report shall also include a detailed plan showing installation of chain link fencing around the dripline to protect these trees and installation of an irrigation drip system and water tie- in for supplemental water during construction. Arborist' s reports shall be received by the Planning Division and must be approved prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to occupancy, tile arborist shall certify in writing that all tree preservation measures have been implemented. Approved measures from the report shall be included In the building pornill, drawings.

During demolition activity and upon demolition completion, a qualified albollst shall inspect and verify the measures described in the arborist report are appropriately implemented for construction activity near and around the preserved trees, including the critical root zones.

Should it be determined that the root systems are more extensive than previously identified and/ or concerns are raised of nearby excavation or construction activities for the project foundation or underground parking garage, the design of the building and/ or parking garage may need to be altered to maintain the health of the trees prior to building permit issuance.

Throughout demolition and construction, a qualified arborist must conduct monthly inspections to ensure tree protection measures and maintenance care are provided. A copy of the inspection letter, including recommendations for modifications to tree care or construction activity to maintain tree health, shall be provided to the Planning Division at planning. division@mountainview. gov.

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

The applicant shall offset the loss of each Heritage/ street tree with replacement trees, as determined by the Planning Division. Each replacement tree shall be no smaller than a 24" box and shall be noted on the landscape plan as Heritage or street replacement trees.

Street Tree Protections
All designated City street trees are to be protected throughout construction activity with protection measures shown on building permit plans.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3- 16 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
The tree protection measures listed in the arborist' s report shall be included as notes on the title sheet of all grading and landscape plans. These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, 6' chain link fencing at the drip line, a continuous maintenance and care program, dnd PIOLeCtiVe grading techniques. Also, no materials may be stored within the drip line of any tree on the project site.

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

Tree Relocation( s)
Tree( s) numbered in the arborist report prepared shall be relocated to another location on -site as identified in the approved site and landscape plans.

Off -Site Tree Mitigation
There is no suitable on -site location for replacement trees. Therefore, the applicant shall either pay a fee or donate box trees to the City or other public agency to be used elsewhere in the community. The fee for replacement of a tree or trees shall be, at a minimum, based on the cost of a 24" box tree of the same species, delivered and installed. 03013
In exchange for site constraints and/ or the limited ability to plant new trees on -site, the applicant shall offset the loss of Heritage/ street tree( s) with a replacement fee made payable to the City of Mountain View, based on the adopted fee schedule. The fee must be paid prior to building permit issuance.

To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys will be performed no more than two days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests as follows:

The applicant shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the project site and surrounding 500' for active nests — with particular emphasis on nests of migratory birds — if construction ( including site preparation) will begin during the bird nesting season, from February I through August 31. If active nests are observed on either the project site or the surrounding area, the applicant, in coordination with the appropriate City staff, shall establish no -disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 17 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
usually 100' for perching birds and 300' for raptors). The no -disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction ceases for two days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present.

This project is located in the habitat area of burrowing owls, a protected Special Status species under the Endangered Species Act. Any construction activity in this area shall be performed carefully and with attention to any ground disturbances, exterior lighting, and operations of mechanical or construction equipment which may impact the species. During construction activity, if a burrowing owl is present within 250' of the site, then no disturbances or construction activity may occur that would cause the owl to abandon their burrow or nest. Additionally, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) must be contacted immediately and a safety plan will need to be developed and approved by CDFW to determine the impacts the project may have on the owl( s). Construction activity must cease during this period.

4. 3.4 Significance Criteria
The thresholds used to determine the significance of impacts related to Biological Resources are based on Appendix G of the CFQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project could have a significant impact on the environment if it would:

Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

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

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

Approach to Analysis
This impact analysis is based on the resources, references, and data collection methods identified in Section 4. 3. 1. The analysis addresses potential direct and indirect impacts from construction or City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 18 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
operation of the residential projects that could be constructed ifthe HEU is implemented, defined as follows:

Direct impacts are those that could occur at the same time and place as project implementation, such as the removal of habitat as result of ground disturbance.

Indirect impacts are those that could occur either at a later time or at a distance from the project areas, but that are reasonably foreseeable, such as the loss of an aquatic species as a result of upstream effects on water quality or quantity.

Direct and indirect impacts on biological resource may vary in duration; they may be temporary, short term, or long term.

The analysis considers the potential impacts of the HEU' s implementation and the development of muRi- fandly housing on suitable habitat, special -status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and wildlife corridors, using the significance criteria listed above. When appropriate, standard conditions of approval adopted by the City and presented in Section 4. 3, Regulalo_ry Setting, have been applied to reduce potential impacts. For impacts that remain significant following the application of standard conditions of approval, mitigation measures are identified, as necessary, to reduce impacts to less -than -significant levels.

Topics Considered and No Impact Determined
The Project would have no impact to the following topics based on the Project characteristics, its geographical location, and underlying site conditions. Therefore, these topics are not addressed further in this document for the following reasons:

Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. Due to the nature of the Project and its physical setting, the Project would not result in impacts related to Criterion b) ( effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations).

State orfederally protected wetlands. The Project would not result in impacts related to Criterion c) ( a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands) listed above. The Project area is urbanized, and no wetlands, streams, or other aquatic features are present within the planning footprint. Thus, implementation of the Project would not have an adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands.

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

The Project would not result in impacts related to Criterion 0 ( conflict with an adopted local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan) listed above. The Project area is not located in the SCV Habitat Plan area and does not provide suitable habitat for the species of concern identified in the SCV Habitat Plan ( County of Santa Clara et al., 2012; Appendix Q. Thus, no impact would occur.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 19 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
Impact 1310- 1: Implementation of the HEU would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Special -Status Plants
The proposed project would primarily occur in urbanized areas where special -status plant species are not expected to occur. The Project area is largely developed and its undeveloped surfaces are either landscaped or highly disturbed. Even so, the North Bayshore Precise Plan concluded that based on the proximity of the Precise Plan area to known occurrences of Congdon' s tarplant in Shoreltne at Mountain View Regional Park immediately north of [tie Precise Plan area and the ability to grow in disturbed habitats, potentially suitable habitat for Congdon' s tarplant could exist within the North Bayshore Precise Plan area, particularly along the northern edge of the Precise Plan area. With the adherence to Landscape Design guidelines of the North Bayshore Precise Plan, special status plants are unlikely to occur in the Precise Plan area. Accordingly, adoption of the great HEU would not result in a significant impact to special -status plant species Less than Significant Impact].

Special -Status Wildlife Species
Wildlife species considered special - status and analyzed in this EIR that have a moderate potential to occur and to be exposed to impacts resulting from development of the Project are as follows see Table 4. 3- 1 for the full list of species considered):

Special - Status and Otherwise Protected Species
Breeding birds and their nests protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code
Pallid bat
Townsend' s big -eared bat
Hoary bat
Western red bat
Yuma myotis
Several special - status wildlife species were identified that may occur within portions of the HEU planning area, but for which no impacts were identified. These include western pond turtle, Central California Coast steethead, which could occur in riparian and aquatic and habitats that will not be affected by the proposed project. In addition, the absence of coastal salt marsh, tidal habitats, and salt ponds from the HEU planning area eliminates those species associated with salt marsh habitats from further consideration.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 20 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
Impacts on Special - Status and Nesting Birds
Migratory and resident birds that breed locally in Mountain View have the potential to nest, roost, and forage in tree and shrub vegetation throughout the planning area. Special -status and migratory birds that breed locally could nest in the mature trees and landscaped vegetation that is prevalent throughout the Project area during breeding bird season, cautiously interpreted as the period between February I and August 31 by CDFW. Construction activities, especially those that involve heavy machinery, could adversely affect birds attempting to nest on or nearby the Project area directly through such activities as tree and vegetation removal, and indirectly through noise disturbance associated with new construction. Sensitive avian nesting areas within the North Bayshore Precise Plan area include burrowing owl habitat at Shoreline Park, and an egret rookery of great egrets, snowy egrets, and black -crowned night -herons on Shorebird Way, as described in the North Bayshore Precise Plan. The, loss of an active bird nest that is attributable to Project activities would be considered a significant impact tinder CFQA, If that nest was occupied by a bird species protected by the MBTA or other regulations. Disruption of nesting migratory or native birds is not permitted under the federal MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code, as it could constitute unauthorized take. However, the City would apply the City Standard Condition of Approval ( Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey) concerning nesting birds, which includes restricting certain construction activities during breeding bird season, requiring preconstruction surveys, and implementing avoidance measures if active nests are located. Adherence to the measures outlined in the City' s Standard Conditions of Approval would reduce impacts to special -status and nesting birds to a less than significant level.

The project area is located within the Pacific Flyway with portions of the planning area near San Francisco Bay. Although specific avian migratory corridors near the project area are unknown, it can be assumed that numerous birds pass overhead or in the project vicinity during their spring and fall migrations. While the precise height and composition of new construction and building renovation projects is not available, the proposed project is likely to increase the amount of glass and the height of structures in the built environment. Typically, as building size increases, so does the amount of glass, making larger buildings more of a collision threat to flying birds. To minimize adverse effects on native and migratory birds colliding with new and renovated structures where such hazards exist, some of the City' s existing precise plans have adopted Bird Safe Design measures to promote bird safety. Where such measures are deemed necessary by the City, they have been identified in precise plans and conditions of approval are identified. For example, all new construction and major renovations in the North Bayshore Precise Plan, the planning area closest to San Francisco Bay, must incorporate design measures to promote bird safety. Bird Safe Design measures are intended to help diminish the likelihood of building collision fatalities through facade treatments and light pollution reduction. These measures apply to both residential and non- residential land uses, except where specified.

Because the construction of new multi -story buildings within the Project area could represent potential collision hazards to birds in the Project area, specific planning standards would be applied to reduce hazards, as appropriate for each precise plan area. The City Standard Condition of Approval ( Bird -Strike Management Plan) would be applied to all new multistory construction and building renovation projects. Adherence to the measures outlined in the City' s Standard City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3- 21 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
Conditions of Approval ( Bird - Strike Management Plan) would reduce impacts related to bird collisions to a less than significant level.

M
The CNDDB documents occurrences of several special status bats, including pallid bat, Townsend' s big -eared bat, and hoary bat, in urban area within 5 miles of the Project area.

Additionally, Yuma inyotis and western red bat also has the potential to occur on the Project area.

Suitable roosting habitat for these bats includes tree foliage, underneath the exfoliating bark of trees, and in tree cavities. Bats could also be present seasonally in tree foliage, in tree cavities, or under the loose, peeling bark of trees at or in proximity to the Project area.

The Project has the potential to adversely affect speciat- status hats which may roost in and around the Project area through the removal of trees during construction. Direct mortality of special status bats would be a significant impact. Potential Project -related impacts to special -status bats would be minimized to a less -than -significant level with the implementation of Mitigation Measure B10- 1, which would require preconstruction survey for special -status bats and other avoidance measures during construction. With incorporation of this mitigation measure, construction -related impacts to special -status bats roosting in and around the Project area would be minimized and the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure B10- 1: Special -Status Bat Protection Measures.

In coordination with the City, a preconstruction survey for special -status bats shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in advance of tree and structure removal within the subsequent project sites to characterize potential bat habitat and identify active roost sites. Should potential roosting habitat or active bat roosts be found in trees and/ or structures to be removed under the project, the following measures shall be implemented:

Removal of trees shall occur when bats are active, approximately between the periods of March I 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 I 00- 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.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 22 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
0 Removal of trees with potential bat roosting habitat or active bat roost sites shall follow a two- step 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 cut only using chatinsaws.

On the following day and under the supervision ofthe qualified biologist, the remainder of the tree may be removed, either using chainsaws or other equipment e. g., excavator or backhoe).

Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 1110 1 would reduce impacts to roosting bats to a less than significant level Impact 1310- 2: Implementation of the HEU would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Less than Significant)
The Project would not result in impacts related to Criterion d) ( effects on the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, on wildlife corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites). Even with the presence of Permanente Creek and Stevens Creek in the planning area, the project occurs in an area where habitat has been highly fragmented by intensive residential and commercial development and fragmented by U.S. 101. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, small size, lack of connectivity with other habitat areas, and location within a developed area, developed portions of the HEU planning area do not serve as a regional wildlife movement or dispersal corridor. Thus, no impact would occur.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact 1310- 3: Implementation of the HEU would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Less than Significant)
As discussed above under Local Regulations and Policies, the City of Mountain View City Code contains protections for heritage trees and street trees throughout the City. The Mountain View City Code defines a " heritage tree" to be any tree 48- inch circumference ( I 5. 3- inch diameter) at 54- inches above grade, plus any oak, redwood, or cedar that has a 12- inch circumference ( 3. 8- inch diameter) .

Street trees are defined as trees located in the public right- of-way, which is typically defined as 5 feet from the back edge of the sidewalk or 10 feet from the beginning of the curb edge. The project area contains heritage trees and street trees that would be subject to removal and replacement consistent with City standards; although it is not known how many would be removed from the site. The Project proposes to comply with the City' s standard requirements to avoid impacts to protected trees under the City of Mountain View' s Heritage Tree Ordinance, and then provide replacement as needed.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 23 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
Permits to remove, relocate, or otherwise alter Heritage trees cannot be implemented until a building permit is secured and an individual Project is pursued. If appliable, project applicants would individually request a Heritage Tree Removal Permit, which is subject to City review and approval. The permit would include conditions for protection, relocation, and replacement, in accordance with City standards. As long as tree removal is consistent with all permitting conditions, Project removal of Heritage trees would not conflict with local ordinances or policies.

The City' s Standard Conditions of Approval include the following measures related to protected trees: Landscaping, Arborist Report, Arborist Inspections, Monthly Arborist Inspections, Tree Removals, Replacement Trees, Street Tree Protections, Tree Protection Measures, Irrevocable Damage to Heritage Trees, Tree Relocation( s), Off -Site Tree Mitigation, and Tree Replacement Fee.

With approval of the Ileritage Tree Removal permit and implementation of permit conditions, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, including the City' s Heritage Tree protection ordinance. No other local policies or ordinances related to biological resources would conflict with the Project. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
am
This section presents an analysis of the cumulative effects of the HEU in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could cause cumulatively considerable impacts. Significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources could occur if the incremental impacts of the HEU combined with the incremental impacts of one or more cumulative projects would cause the project to have a cumulatively considerable impact on special - status species, wetlands or other waters of the U. S., or other biological resources protected by federal, state, or local regulations or policies (based on the significance criteria and thresholds presented earlier). This analysis considers whether the incremental contribution of the HEU' s implementation to this cumulative impact would be considerable. Both conditions must apply for a project' s cumulative effects to be significant.

The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts on biological resources encompasses the HEU housing inventory sites and biologically linked areas in the City of Mountain View and greater San Francisco Bay. Historic development in the region has already caused substantial adverse cumulative changes to biological resources in the HEU study area and the City of Mountain View generally. This includes the engineering of portions of the Permanente Creek watershed to allow urban development over and around these waterways, and the loss of the riparian corridors and floodplains to urban encroachment.

The Mountain View Housing Element Update analyzed cumulative impacts at a high level without specific identification of cumulative projects or housing unit projections. The HEU found that the potential impacts of the proposed project on biological resources would be site - City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 24 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
specific and the overall cumulative effect would be dependent on the degree to which native vegetation ( e. g., native grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian woodland), populations of special - status plant or animal species, and wetland features occur, and are protected on a particular development site. Importantly, the refinement of the HEU housing site inventory has resulted in lower potential for housing development to occur in natural habitats. The HEU housing inventory sites are concentrated in urbanized areas and no parcels are proposed within natural habitats such as coastal salt marsh, salt ponds, tidal marsh, oak woodland or grassland.

Therefore, potential cumulative impacts to biological resources are generally low within HEU planning area.
1111PALIL B10- LCU: 1111pleflientatiOu Of the IIEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute considerably to cumulative Impacts on Biological Resources. ( Less than Significant with Mitigation.) As discussed above, the Project would have no impact to riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, State or federally protected wetlands, wildlife corridors, or provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; therefore, would not contribute to a significant impact related to these topics.

Impacts on Special -Status and Nesting Birds, and Roosting Bats Construction within the HEU housing inventory sites could result in direct impacts on nesting birds due to tree removal or trimming, and similar impacts to special -status roosting bats. Cumulative projects could potentially indirectly impact nesting birds and roosting bats due to clearing and L
grubbing, and increased noise, vibration and/or visual disturbance during construction, which could cause nest/ roost failure or abandonment, or disrupt sheltering, breeding, and foraging in adjacent habitat, such as Permanente Creek or Stevens Creek, by nesting birds. These cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements protecting biological resources, the City of Mountain View' s Tree Protection Ordinance, and project -specific mitigation measures ( where applicable) similar to those of the HEU.

With the implementation of City Standard Conditions of Approval, the HEU, in combination with cumulative projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impacts to nesting birds during construction With the application of City of Mountain View Standard Condition of Approval Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey), implementation of the HEU would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts; therefore, the cumulative impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant.

The implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO- 1 would avoid and minimize impacts to roosting bats, thereby reducing the magnitude of this impact at the project -level to less than significant.

The Project' s contribution would not be considered cumulatively considerable because the Project would, like other projects that are part of the cumulative scenario, be required to implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts special status bats, including performing preconstruction surveys to identify and protect active bat roosts. Therefore, the cumulative impacts to special -status bats would be less than significant.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 25 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
Because the construction of new multi -story buildings on the Project site could represent potential collision hazards to birds in the Project area, specific planning standards would be applied to reduce hazards, as appropriate for each precise plan area. Where bird protection measures are deemed necessary by the City based on the identified level of collision hazard, they have been identified in precise plans, and conditions of approval are additionally identified. For example, all new construction and major renovations in the North Bayshore Precise Plan, the planning area closest to San Francisco Bay, must incorporate design measures to promote bird safety. In addition, much of the planned new housing would be infill development that is away from avian movement corridors and would not pose a threat to birds in flight.

The HELI, in combination with cumulative projects, could result in a significant Cumulative impact on related to bird collisions with buildings during operations. However, with the application of City of Mountain View Standard Condition of Approval ( Bird -Strike Management Plan), implementation of the HEU would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts; therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.

Local Policies or Ordinances/ Heritage Trees and Street Trees Other reasonably foreseeable projects could result in the removal of existing trees, including heritage trees. A tree removal permit is required from the City for the removal of any heritage trees. Projects constructed in Mountain View are required to mitigate for the removal of Heritage trees, and protect any trees that remain in place from potential construction damage. The Project' s contribution would not be considered cumulatively considerable because the Project would, like other projects that are part of the cumulative scenario, be required to perform tree removal consistent with all Heritage Tree permitting conditions and would not conflict with the City' s Heritage Tree protection ordinance.

Summary
Overall, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the geographic context for this analysis, [ lie Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on biological resources.

Mitigation: Mitigation Measure BIO- 1.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

City of Mountain View Heritage Tree Ordinance
Other reasonably foreseeable projects could result in the removal of existing trees, including Heritage trees. A tree removal permit is required from the City for the removal of any Heritage trees. Pro * jects constructed in Mountain View are required to mitigate for the removal of Heritage trees and protect any trees that remain in place from potential construction damage. The Project' s contribution would not be considered cumulatively considerable because the Project would, like other projects that are part of the cumulative scenario, be required to perform tree removal consistent with all Heritage Tree permitting conditions and would not conflict with the City' s Heritage Tree protection ordinance.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 26 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
Summary
Overall, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the geographic context for this analysis, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on biological resources.

Mitigation: Mitigation Measure BIO 1.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant,
Significance Before Significance After
Impact Mitigation Mitigation Mitigation
Impact 1310- 11: Implementation of the HEU Less than Significant Mitigation Measure Less than Significant would have a substantial adverse effect, with Mitigation. BIO- 1: Special - Status either directly or through habitat Bat Protection
modifications, on any species identified as Measures
a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the CDFW or LISFWS.

Impact BIO-2: Implementation of the HEU Less Than Significant None Required would not interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.

Impact 1310- 3: Implementation of the HEU Less Than Significant None Required would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance.

Impact BIO- 1. CU: Implementation of the Less Than Significant Mitigation Measure Less than Significant HEU, when combined with other past, 1310- 1: Special - Status present, or reasonably foreseeable Bat Protection
projects, would not contribute considerably Measures
to cumulative impacts on Biological
Resources
M
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW). 2022. California Natural Diversity Database printout for U. S. Geological Survey 7. 5- minute topographic quadrangles.

Accessed April 5, 2022.

California Native Plant Society ( CLAPS). 2022. CLAPS Rare Plant Program, Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California ( online editions, v9- 01 1. 0). Available online:
https:// www, rareplants. cnps. org/. April 5, 2022.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 27 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View, 2021. Mountain View 2030 General Plan, adopted July 10, 2012, as amended through April 13, 2021.

City of Mountain View, 2014. North Bayshore Precise Plan, adopted November 25, 2014.

Available online at:
https:// www. mountainview. gov/ civicax/ filebank/ blobdload. aspx? BloblD= 29702.

Goals Project. 2000. Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles.- Life Histories and Environmental Requirements ofKey Plants, Fish and Wildlife. Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project, ed. P. R. Clofson. Oakland, CA:

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS). 2022. Official List ol"Pederal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or May Be Affected by the Pi-(?IecL City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 3- 28 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
4 A .& t Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources jA.1 Introduction
This section assesses the potential for the Project to result in significant adverse impacts on cultural resources, including historic architectural resources, historic -era and pre -contact archaeological resources, and human remains as well as tribal cultural resources. This section first includes a description of the existing environmental setting as it relates to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, 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 oil cultural resources tnd tribal cultural resources.

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 the public comment period can be found in Appendix A of this EIR. The City received scoping comments from the Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHQ which recommended, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21074( a) [ Assembly Bill 52 ( AB 52)], that the City conduct consultation with tribes that are affiliated with the City of Mountain View.

SE16= 9
Categorizing the pre -contact period into broad cultural stages allows researchers to describe a broad range of archaeological resources with similar cultural patterns and components during a given time frame, thereby creating a regional chronology. This section provides a brief discussion of the pre -contact chronology for the area known now as the City of Mountain View.

Archaeologists developed individual cultural chronological sequences tailored to the archaeology and material culture of each sub -region of California. Each of these sequences is based principally on the presence of distinctive cultural traits and stratigraphic separation of deposits.

Milliken et al. provide a framework for the interpretation of the San Francisco Bay Area Milliken, 2007). The authors divided human history in California into three periods: the Early Period, the Middle Period, and the Late Period. In many parts of California four periods are defined; the fourth being the Faleoindian Period (11500- 8000 B.C.), characterized by big -game hunters occupying broad geographic areas. Evidence of human habitation during the Paleoindian Period has not yet been discovered in the San Francisco Bay Area. Economic patterns, stylistic aspects, and regional phases further subdivide cultural periods into shorter phases. This scheme uses economic and technological types, socio- politics, trade networks, population density, and variations of artifact types to differentiate between cultural periods.

During the Early Period ( Lower Archaic, 8000- 3500 B.C.), geographic mobility continued from the Palectindian Period and is characterized by the millingslab and handstone as well as large wide -stemmed and leaf -shaped projectile points. The first cut shell beads and the mortar and pestle are first documented in burials during the Early Period ( Middle Archaic, 3500- 500 B.C.), indicating the beginning of a shift to sedentism. During the Middle Period, which includes the City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 1 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Lower Middle Period ( Initial Upper Archaic, 500 B. C.- A.D. 430), and Upper Middle Period Late Upper Archaic, A.D. 430- 1050), geographic mobility may have continued, although groups began to establish longer term base camps in localities from which a more diverse range of resources could be exploited. The first rich black middens are recorded from this period. The addition of milling tools, obsidian, and chert concave - base projectile points, as well as the occurrence of sites in a wider range of environments, suggest that the economic base was more diverse. By the Upper Middle Period, mobility was being replaced by the development of numerous small villages. Around A.D. 430, a dramatic cultural disruption occurred as evidenced by the sudden collapse of the Olivella saucer bead trade network. During the Initial Late Period Lower Emergent, A.D. 1050- 1550), social complexity developed toward lifeways of large, centiet], villages vvitli resident political leaders and specialized activity sites. Artifacts associated with the period include the bow and arrow, small corner -notched projectile points, and a diversity of beads and oinantents.

A compilation of ethriolustorical, historical, and archeological data Indicates that the Sari Francisco Bay Area was inhabited by a cultural group known as the Ohlone before the arrival of Europeans Milliken, 1995). While traditional anthropological literature portrayed the Ohlone peoples as having a static culture, today it is better understood that many variations of culture and ideology existed within and between villages. While these static descriptions of separations between native cultures of California make it an easier task for ethnographers to describe past behaviors, this approach masks Native adaptability and self-identity. California' s Native Americans never saw themselves as members of larger cultural groups, as described by anthropologists. Instead, they saw themselves as members of specific village communities, perhaps related to others by marriage or kinship ties, but viewing the village as the primary identifier of their origins.

Levy describes the language group spoken by the Ohlone (often referred to as " Costancian" in the literature) ( Levy, 1978). This term is originally derived from a Spanish word designating the coastal peoples of Central California. Today, Costanoan is used as a linguistic term that refers to a larger language family that included distinct sociopolitical groups that spoke at least eight languages of the Penutian language group. The Ohlone once occupied a large territory from San Francisco Bay in the north to the Big Sur and Salinas Rivers in the south. The Ohlone people that occupied the San Francisco peninsula, spoke Ramaytush and the Ohlone people that occupied the Santa Clara Valley spoke Tamyen (or Tamien). Mountain View is located within the boundary zone of these two dialects of Ohlone.

Economically, the Ohlone engaged in hunting and gathering. Their territory encompassed both coastal and open valley environments that contained a wide variety of resources, including grass seeds, acorns, bulbs and tubers, bear, deer, elk, antelope, a variety of bird species, and rabbit and other small mammals. The Ohlone acknowledged private ownership of goods and songs, and village ownership of rights to land and/or natural resources; they appear to have aggressively protected their village territories, requiring monetary payment for access rights in the form of clam shell beads, and even shooting trespassers if caught.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 2 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
In 1770. the Ohlone lived in approximately 50 separate and politically autonomous nations. The typical size of an Ohlone village ranged from 40 to 200 members. During the Mission Period 1770 to 1835), native populations, especially along the California coast, were brought — usually by force — to the missions by the Spanish missionaries to provide labor. The missionization caused the Ohlone people to experience cataclysmic changes in almost all areas of their life, particularly a massive decline ] it population caused by introduced diseases and declining birth rate, resulting in large part from colonization by the Spanish missionaries. Following the secularization of the missions by the Mexican government in the 1830s, most Native Americans gradually left the missions and established rancherials in the surrounding areas ( Levy, 1978).

After F,uropean contact, Ohlone ways of life were severely disrupted by missionization, disease, and displacement. Today the Ohlone still have a Strong pleSeIlCe ill [lie San Francisco Bay Area and are very interested in their historic era and pic contact past. There arc currently seven Ohlone groups listed on the Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHC) contact list for the Mountain View area.

Fill
Gaspar De Portola led a company of 64 Spanish explorers through the Santa Clara Valley in the fall of 1769 ( Archives & Architecture [ A& A], 2012). Juan Bautista de Anza and Pedro Font led the next expedition through the area in early 1776, leaving a substantial record of their travels.

The explorers commented on the level land and good pasturage, concluding that the area would be an excellent site for settlement.

Soon after this initial phase of exploration, the Spanish established military, religious, and secular settlements in the area to solidify their influence. Military presidicis were established at presentday San Francisco and Monterey. Franciscan missionaries established 23 missions throughout the state, including Mission Santa Clara de Asis and Mission San Jose in present- day Santa Clara County. The closest mission to present- day Mountain View, Mission Santa Clara de Asis, was established approximately 17 miles to the southeast of the City in 1777 by Spanish Lt. Jose Moragat and Fray Tomas de la Pena ( Mountain View Historical Association [ MVHA], 2022).

Mission Santa Clara de Asis was the eighth of 21 missions established by the Franciscan order in present- day California. The route that connected them was known as El Camino Real ( the Royal Road) which is roughly approximated locally by present- day El Camino Real ( State Highway 82) California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation [ OHP], 2022).

The period of Spanish governance in the area ended in 1821 when Spain ceded their North American colonial outposts to the newly independent Republic of Mexico and Upper California became a province of the Republic of Mexico. Following independence, the new Mexican government secularized the missions and divided the former mission lands into large ranchos, or tracts, which were then granted to prominent, wealthy, or otherwise well- connected individuals as a reward for their services to the government. Between 1833 and 1845, 38 of these grants were made within what is now Santa Clara County (A&A, 2012), The City of Mountain View was part of the 8, 800- acre Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas. This rancho was granted to Francisco Estrada City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 3 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
and his wife, Inez Castro in 1842 ( MVHA, 2022). In 1844, 3, 042 acres was granted to Lupe Ynigo, a local Native American. 1 His Rancho Posolmi later became Moffett Field ( Holman & Associates, 2017). Yhigo was a Ohlone man who worked in as an alcalde at Mission Santa Clara until it was secularized ( Skew, 1903).

During the 1840s, relations between the United States and Mexico became strained, with Mexico fearing American encroachment into their territories. The political situation became unstable and war between the two nations broke out in 1846. American attempts to seize control of California ensued, and within two months California was taken by the United States. Skirmishes between the two sides continued until the United States officially annexed California on February 2, 1848 Kyle, 2002).

Late ( 1849- 1901)
In 1848, California became part of the United States and gold was discovered in the Sierra Nevada mountains. These two events increased the population throughout California, especially in San Francisco and Safi Jose. Travel off the bay and over land between the two settlements increased, and reliable transport of people and goods became of critical importance. Ports were developed and transportation improved. In 1850, the Butterfield Stage Line began coach service on El Camino Real. A stop was established on present- day Grant Road in Mountain View, around which grew a small business district ( MVHA, 2022). This was followed in 1864 by the San Francisco -San Jose Railroad which was located approximately a mile northwest of the original settlement of Mountain View along the present- day Caltrain alignment. A business district grew around the new train station, eventually becoming the heart of present- day Mountain View ( Kusz, 2002).

Extant residential development from this period is quite limited. The 2012 General Plan EIR notes that " very few Victorina-era houses survive in Mountain View" ( LSA, 2012). Those that remain were once part of farms and ranches and were widely scattered. Many were associated with early and prominent families. " They range in style from Queen Anne Victorian, to Gothic Revival, to Italianate. They also exhibit a broad range in size, from large houses ... to more modest Victorian cottages or small Folk Victorian houses" ( LSA, 2012).

Improvements in transportation, expansion of agriculture throughout the area, and a steady influx of settlers lead to incorporation of the City of Mountain View on November 7, 1902. The initial population of the city was 610 people with city limits defined on the north by Washington Street, on the south by El Camino Real, on the west by Pettis Avenue, and on the east roughly by Calderon Avenue ( MVHA, 2022). A small increase on population followed the 1906 earthquake as people fled urban areas like San Francisco and Safi Jose, but generally the town retained its agricultural and semi -rural atmosphere. Fruit cultivation and processing dominated both local land use and the local economy throughout this period. Aerial photographs from the first half of I His name appears in the archival records as both " Lope" and " Lupe." Lope is used in this document.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 4 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
the 201h century show large orchards with small, concentrated areas of development along the railroad tracks and vehicular routes.

Another major influence on the development of the City from this period was the establishment of the Sunnyvale Naval Air Station in the 1933 on a portion of the former Rancho Posolmi.

Construction of the base, including the massive hangars needed to house the dirigibles USS Macon and USS Akron brought jobs and people to Mountain View and the surrounding communities. The street leading to the new base ( Moffett Boulevard) became lined with restaurants, bars, and entertainment venues (Kurz, 2002). Military development extended beyond the base to include new support and technology businesses such as machinists, electronics development, plastics and fabrication shops, and engineering firms of all sorts.

Housing stock from this era is relatively modest in size and dominated by single- family homes in the Craftsman, or Bungalow, style (LSA, 2012). Neighborhoods constructed prior to World War 11, many near downtown Mountain View, showcase this style and era of construction. They are generally single story, clad with wood (shingles or lap siding), and have prominent front porches.

Also popular, during this period were various revival styles. " The revival styles in Mountain View most commonly took the form of Colonial Revival, Mission or Spanish Colonial Revival, and Tudor Revival or English Cottage style" ( LSA, 2012). Houses from in these revival styles are general one- or two -stories high, constructed of wood but clad in brick, stone, or stucco.

Housing construction slowed in the 1930s as a result of the economic hardships associated with the Great Depression. Stock from this period is generally modest in scale and simple in form.

Architecturally, the predominant style from this period is Minimal Traditional, a style largely devoid of ornament or complicated forms.

I
The advent of World War 11 initiated a long period of substantial growth in Mountain View and throughout Santa Clara Valley. Proximity to major existing military installations, such as Moffett Field, and the rapid construction of new military facilities around San Francisco Bay, made the entire Bay Area a major strategic asset. Thousands of soldiers shipping out to the Pacific front passed through the area and many returned at the end of the war. They joined the thousands of workers that came to work at the shipyards, airfields, and associated research and commercial facilities during the war.

Proximity to these military and associated research and commercial facilities, combined with the nearby academic facilities of Stanford University and other local institutions is credited with supporting the tremendous technological advances that followed the end of World War 11. The birth of Silicon Valley has been historically linked to Fairchild Semiconductor, a pioneer in semiconductor product development ( Computer History Museum [ CHM], 2022). Fairchild Semiconductor was founded in Palo Alto ( 844 East Charleston Road, extant) ( Liebson, 2018) in 1957 by eight former Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory employees (CHM, 2022). The company met with early and swift financial success, moving to a larger facility at 464 Ellis Street in Mountain View in the late 1960s ( The Rusty Bucket, nd) ( demolished in 1993) ( Liebson, 2018) City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 5 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
and spurring a wave of spinoff started by ex -Fairchild Semiconductor employees as well as similar technology companies. In the 1960s alone, more than 30 startups emerged in the area.

Many started in Mountain view including Amelco ( founded 1961, 1300 Terra Bella Avenue) CHM, 2022; Drummer and Robertson, 2014) and Intel ( founded 1968, 365 East Middlefield Road) ( CHM, 20??: Mazurek, 1998) Amelco later became a division of Teledyne Semiconductor, Competitors also set tip shop in the area, including Advanced Technology Laboratories/ American Standard ( 1961, 369 North Whisman Road, demolished) ( Melgar Commercial Photographers, 1961).

Other companies started by ex -Fairchild Semiconductor employees began operations in the communities around l7ditclilld Senticonductut. According to the Computer I listory Museum they included:

GMe ( Santa Clara, 1963)
Applied Materials Technology ( Santa Clara, 1967)
Advanced Micro Devices ( AMD), (Sunnyvale, 1969)
National Semiconductor ( Santa Clara, 1967)
KLA Tencor ( San Jose, 1975)
Apple Computer ( Los Altos, 1976)
Oracle ( Santa Clara, 1977)
U- B Networks ( Santa Clara, 1979)
VLSI (Los Gatos, 1979)
The almost immediate financial gain associated with technological advancements from these early technology companies attracted investors and spurred further innovation. The modem venture capital hotbed surrounding Silicon Valley has its roots in the early success of Fairchild Semiconductor and its spinoffs ( CHM, 2022). Several individuals associated with the early technological success moved from the laboratory to the board room, forming Sequoia Capital, Kleiner Perkins Caufeld & Byers, and other venture capital firms ( CHM, 2022).

By the early 1970s, Silicon Valley had a work force of 58,000. Over half of this number were employed by firms manufacturing electronic components ( Lecuyer, 2001). These components were critical to a wide array of advanced industrial and military systems, bringing outsized influence of the industry on American economic politics ( Lecuyer, 2001). In the larger area, many of the street names reflect this early industrial history — Fairchild Drive, National Avenue, Circuit Way, Optic Loop. More broadly, a 2014 research study traced more than 92 public Bay Area tech companies to the founders and employees of Fairchild. At that time, the market value of all of these companies was more than $ 2 trillion" ( CHM, 2022). itesidentlal Construction of tho Era
Many of the temporary war housing was replaced in the post -World War 11 period with large suburban housing developments. These developments transformed former agricultural fields and orchards into whole neighborhoods of similarly -designed, single-family residences. The Ranch City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 6 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
style evolved from traditional housing forms to become a dominant residential style. These onestory, elongated plan residences are often sited near the center of the building lot, with front - facing garages and integrated landscaping. Also prominent in Mountain View is the distinctive design associated with the developer Joseph Eichler. His version of the Mid -Century Modern style features " glass walls, post -and -beam construction, and open floor plans, which are reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright' s buildings through their integration of indoor and outdoor spaces" ( LSA, 2012). Mountain View has two Eichler developments - the Eichler/Trophy Drive area and parts of the Monta Loma area.

For the purposes of this section, cultural resources are defined as physical evidence or a place of past human activity, including sites, objects, landscapes, or structures of significance to a group of people traditionally associated with it. Archaeological resources can be both pro contact and historic - era and consist of cultural resources that are on the surface or in the subsurface. Historic resources are historic -era ( i.e., 45 years old or older) buildings or structures that have been determined as significant and eligible for, or listed on, the National Register of I fistoric Places National Register) and/ or California Register of Historical Resources ( California Register).

ESA completed a records search at the Northwest Information Center ( KWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System ( CHRIS) on March 22, 2022 ( File No. 21- 1554). The review included the entire City of Mountain View. Previous surveys, studies, and site records were accessed. Records were also reviewed in the Built Environment Resources Directory BERD) for Santa Clara County, which contains information on places of recognized historical significance including those evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Inventory of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest ( OHP, 2022). The purpose of the records search was to ( t) determine whether known cultural resources have been recorded within the project vicinity; ( 2) assess the likelihood for unrecorded cultural resources to be present based on historical references and the distribution of nearby sites; and ( 3) develop a context for the identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources.

The City of Mountain View conducted a Citywide Historic Properties Survey in 2008 to identify those properties that may have potential State or National significance. At that time, 45 such properties were identified. The City of Mountain View also maintains the City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources ( local register). As of 2012, the local register was composed of 41 locally significant historic architectural resources. This inventory is currently being updated but as of publication of this document, the revised results were not available to review as they have not yet been adopted. The following provides a list of previously identified historic resources as presented in previous City documents, as well those listed on the National Register, California Register, and local register ( Table 4. 4- 1).

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4- 7 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
TABLE 4. 4- 1

KNOWN HISTORIC RESOURCES
Name of Resource Location Status
Date of
Construction Source
1181 Bonita Avenue Local Register 1930 2030 GP EIR
James Shower House 206 Bush Street Local Register 1904 2030 GP EIR Willie Garliepp House";
Craftsman Bungalow
725 Calderon Avenue Local Register 1910 2030 GP EIR
1560 California Street
1610 California Street
Local Register
Local Register
1900
C. 1900
1920
1814
2030 GP EIR
2030 GP EIR
2030 GP EIR
Woilheimer Store 2030 UP LIR
1690 California Street
124 Castro Street
Local Register
Local Rogigtor
Rugetb Building 142 156 Castro Street Loral Register 19013 2030 Gr on Ames Building 169- 175 Castro Street Local Register 1903 2030 GP EIR Farmers and Merchants
Bank
201 Castro Street Local Register 2030 GP EIR
Mountain View Theater 228 Castro Street Local Register 1926 2030 GP EIR Scarpa' s Meat Market 298 Castro Street Local Register 1908 2030 GP EIR 251 Chiquita Avenue Local Register 1915 2030 GP EIR
595 Church Street Local Register 1930 2030 GP FIR
Levin Huff House 2715 Diericx Drive Local Register 1925 2030 GP EIR 394 Franklin Street Local Register 1890 2030 GP FIR
403 Hope Street Local Register 1915 2030 GP EIR
425 Hope Street Local Register 1906 2030 GP EIR
James Cochran House 1390 Latham Street Local Register 1912 2030 GP EIR 1655 Lloyd Way Local Register c. 1920 2030 GP EIR
484 Loreto Street Local Register 2030 GP EIR
CampHouse 336 Mariposa Avenue Local Register 1900 2030 GP EIR 496 Mariposa Avenue Local Register 1920 2030 GP EIR
1855 Miramonte Avenue Local Register 1927 2030 GP EIR
Mountain View Adobe 157 Moffett Blvd. National Register -listed, California Register - listed
1934 NARA
360 Oak Street Local Register 1924 2030 GP EIR
296 Palo Alto Avenue Local Register 1915 2030 GP EIR
390 Palo Alto Avenue Local Register 1930 2030 GP EIR
562 Pettis Avenue Local Register 1920 2030 GP EIR
Henry A. Rengstorff
House
3070 N. Shoreline Blvd,
relocated)
National Register -listed,
California Register - listed
1867 NARA
472 S. Shoreline
Boulevard
Local Register 1910 2030 GP EIR
1 b31 I yler Park Way Local Register 1925 2030 UP Elk
McPheeter' s House 322 View Street Local Register 1910 2030 GP EIR 327 View Street Local Register 1925 2030 GP EIR
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4- 8 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
TABLE 4. 4- 1 ( CONTINUED)

KNOWN HISTORIC RESOURCES
Name of Resource Location Status
Date of
Construction Source
Tank House 915 Villa Street I octal Register 1890 2030 GP FIR Pearson House 902 Villa Street Local Register C. 1888 2030 GP EIR Air Base Laundry 954 Villa Street National Register - eligible, California Register - listed
1931 City of Mountain
View
Weilheimer House 938 Villa Street National Register - eligible, California Register -listed
1905 City of Mountain
View
1043 Villa Street Local Regict@r c. 1904 2030 GP FIR
1H41 Villa Street I octal Henister 1915 2030 ( ip FIR
1645 Villa Street Local Register 1015 2030 GP EIR
1655 Villa Street Local Register 1915 2030 GP EIR
1074- 76 Wright Avenue Local Register 1875 2030 GP EIR
680 Yosemite Avenue Local Register 1928 2030 61, EIR
SOURCE: National Archives ( NARA), 2022 Santa Clara County BERD, 2030 General Plan EIR, personal communication with City of Mountain View.

In addition to the above, the NWIC records search indicated that 118 previously recorded historic -age architectural resources are recorded within the City of Mountain View.

Identified Archaeological Resources
The KWIC records search indicated that eleven previously recorded archaeological resources are recorded within the City of Mountain View. Table 4. 4- 2 describes these eleven archaeological resources.

Only one ( Crittendon Mound) of the eleven resources has been formally evaluated for the National Register, and it was determined not eligible for inclusion. None of the archaeological resources have been formally evaluated for the California Register and therefore are treated as potential historical resources for the purposes of this analysis. Three of these resources ( Castro - Ponce Mound, Little Castro, and Bert Gerow marking) include human remains, and it is likely that these archaeological resources would be eligible for the California Register and/ or the National Register, if evaluated.

Identified Tribal Cultural Resource
Native American Consultation
In accordance with the requirements of Senate Bill 18 ( SB 18) and AB 52 ( Public Resources Code Section 21074 (a)), City staff conducted Native American outreach and consultation efforts.

On March 4, 2022, the City emailed thirteen letters to ten tribes based on prior consultation. On May 11, 2022, the City sent tribal outreach letters to eleven Native American representatives from eight tribes that were identified by the City based on a Tribal Consultation list developed by the Native American Heritage Commission. No tribes have responded to the tribal consultation efforts within 90 days and no responses have been received as of July 22, 2022, the filing date of the DEIR.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4- 9 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
TABLE 4. 4- 2
Name of Resource Source Description Eligibility
Castro - Ponce Mound
NWIC
Pre -contact habitation site Not evaluated, Potential historical P- 43- 000021) with hurials resource
Little Castro
NWIC
Pre -contact habitation site Not evaluated, Potential historical P 43 000042) with burials resource
Determined not eligible for the
Crittenden Mound NWIC Pre - contact habitation site National Register; Not evaluated for P- 43- 000043)
the California Register
Rort Gomw marking NWIC
Pre -contact habitation site Not evaluated, Potential historic P- 43- 0004 18) with burials properly alld/ ol Ili.molk. al wsoulmDOT 04-,'; Ct - 101- 1 NVVIG Pie-uUntaut Ildbitatfull site
Not evaluated, Potential historic
r-43- 000441) proporty and/ or historical resource
C- 161
NWIC Pre -contact habitation site
Not evaluated, Potential historic
P- 43- 000635) property and/ or historical resource
Adobe/ Alma
NWIC Pre -contact habitation site
Not evaluated, Potential historic
P- 43- 000669) property and/ or historical resource
Moffett Blvd./ Rt. 101 Interchange
NWIC Pre -contact lithic scatter
Not evaluated, Potential historic
P- 43- 001473) property and/ or historical resource
P- 43-003172 NWIC
Pre -contact habitation Not evaluated, Potential historic scatter property and/ or historical resource
711 Church Street
NWIC Pre -contact site
Not evaluated, Potential historic
P- 43- 003180) property and/ or historical resource
C- 1 512
NWIC Pre -contact site
Not evaluated, Potential historic
P- 43- 003530) property and/ or historical resource
SOURCE: NWIC 2022
Under federal law, historical and archaeological resources are considered through the National Historic Preservation Act ( NHPA) of 1966, as amended ( 54 U. S. C. 306108), and its implementing regulations. Before an " undertaking" ( e. g., federal funding or issuance of a federal permit) is implemented, Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties ( i.e., properties listed in or eligible for listing in the national register) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register. Under the NHPA, a property is considered significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria A through D, at 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60. 4, as follows:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, fooling, and association and that:
a) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 10 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
b) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or c) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, or d) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

For a resource to be eligible for the National Register, it must also retain enough integrity to be recognizable as a historic property and to convey its significance. Resources that are less than 50 years old are generally not considered eligible for the National Register.

Federal review of the effects of undertakings on significant cultural resources is carried out under Section 106 of the NHPA and is often referred to as " Section 106 review." This process is the responsibility of the federal lead agency and occurs when an undertaking involves federal funding or a federal approval action. Section 106 review typically involves a four -step procedure, which is described in detail in the implementing regulations of the NHPA ( 36 Code of Federal Regulations 800):

Define the Area of Potential Effects in which an undertaking could directly or indirectly affect historic properties;
Identify historic properties in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and interested parties;
Assess the significance of effects of the undertaking on historic properties; and Consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer, other agencies, and interested parties to develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of historic properties and notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and proceed with the project according to the conditions of the agreement.

MzLfiThe American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 protects the rights of Native Americans to freedom of expression of traditional religions ( 24 U. S. C. Section 1996). This act established " the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions... including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites."
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, provides for increased involvement of Native Americans in archaeology and historic preservation. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act addresses the rights of lineal descendants and Indian tribes to recover Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony that are held by the federal government (25 U.S. C. Section 3001). These parties are to be consulted when such items are inadvertently discovered or intentionally excavated on federal or tribal lands.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4A- 11 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
The State of California implements the NHPA of 1966, as amended, through its statewide comprehensive cultural resource surveys and preservation programs. The California Office of Historic Preservation, as an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Implements the policies of the piesei vdtlun dct on dstdtevvide level. The Office of Historic Preservation also maintains the California Historical Resources Inventory. The State Historic Preservation Officer ( SHPO) is an appointed official who implements historic preservation programs within the state' s jurisdictions.
amEm
The California Register is " an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change" ( PRC Section 5024. 1 [ a]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including those formally determined eligible for or listed in the National Register ( PRC 5024. 1 [ d] [ 1]). These resources are termed " historical resources."
Based on Section 15064. 5 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, historical resources include, but are not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant or that is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Generally, a resource is considered by a lead agency to be " historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register ( PRC Section 5024. 1), or qualifies as a " unique historical resource" ( PRC Section 21083. 2). As noted in Section 15062. 5 (a) ( 4), the fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local register " does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020. 10) or 5024. 1." To be eligible for the California Register, a cultural resource must meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California' s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

For a resource to be eligible for the California Register, it must also retain enough integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey its significance. Resources that are less than 45 years old are generally not considered eligible for the California Register.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 12 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact assessment under CEQA considers only historically significant cultural resources; that is, resources that meet CEQA criteria for eligibility to the California Register ( historical resources) or qualify as unique archaeological resources, as detailed below. Impacts on resources that do not meet these criteria are not considered in impact assessment under CEQA. Similarly, for projects with federal involvement, only resources that meet the criteria of eligibility for the National Register receive further consideration in Impact analysis.

CEQA considers archaeological resources as an intrinsic part of the physical environment and thus requires that, for any project, the potential of the project to adversely affect archaeological resources be analyzed ( CEQA Section 21083. 2). For a project that may have an adverse effect on a significant archaeological resource, CEQA requires preparation of an environmental impact report ( CEQA Section 210831 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15065) . CFQA recognizes two different categories of significant archaeological resources: " UniqlLIC" archaeological resource.

CEQA Section 21083. 2) and an archaeological resource that qualifies as a " historical resource" under CEQA ( CEQA Section 21084. 1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064. 5).

Assembly Bill 52 ( AB52), enacted in September 2014, amended CEQA to explicitly recognize that California Native American tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices. AB 52 established a new category of cultural resources known as tribal cultural resources in order to consider tribal cultural values when determining impacts on cultural resources. Public Resources Code Section 21074 (a) defines a tribal cultural resource as any of the following:

Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register; or included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020. 1 ( k). 2
0 A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024. 1 ( c). 3 In applying these criteria, the lead agency would consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of CEQA Section 21074 (a) 4 also is a tribal cultural resource if the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope. 2 Public Resources Code Section 5020. 1( k) defines " local register of historical resources" as " a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution."
3 The criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024. 1( c) include whether a resource: " ( 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California' s history and cultural heritage. ( 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. ( 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. ( 4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history."
4 A cultural landscape meets the criteria of Public Resources Code Section 21074( a) if it either is " Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources" or is " included in a local register of historical resources" pursuant to Section 5020. 1( k).

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 13 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
An historical resource as described in CEQA Section 21084. 1, 5 a unique archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Section 21083. 2, 6 or a non -unique archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Section 21083. 27 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it meets the criteria of CEQA Section 21074 ( a).

AB 52 requires lead agencies to analyze project impacts on " tribal cultural resources" separately from archaeological resources ( Public Resources Code Sections 21074, 21083. 09), in recognition that archaeological resources have cultural values beyond their ability to yield data important to prehistory or history. AB 52 also defines " tribal cultural resources" in Public Resources Code Section 21074 ( see above), and requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes ( Public Resources Code Sections 21080. 3. 1, 210803. 2, 21082. 3).

A ssembly Bill 168 - Tribal Consultation under Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process ( SB 35)
Assembly Bill 168 ( AB 168), enacted in September 2020, amended the Government Code Sections 65400, 65913. 4, and 6594 1. 1, to add tribal consultation requirements to housing projects which would otherwise qualify for a streamlined ministerial approval process which was mandated by Senate Bill 35 ( SB 35) in 2017. SB 35 requires cities who are not meeting their demand for housing ( as per the Regional Housing Needs Assessments) to allow developers to avoid the requirement of a CEQA document ifthe proposed housing meeting specific requirements, such as the number of units, zoning, affordability, and avoidance of specific environmental impacts. AB 168 added a requirement to SB 35 which prescribes that developers must submit a preliminary application with information about the project and the local government must conduct tribal consultation with tribes, similar to what is required by CEQA and AB 52, to identify if there are tribal cultural resources that may be impacted by the project. If impacts to tribal cultural resources are identified, the project is ineligible for SB 35 streamlining and is subject to CEQA.

WMMINIfflulff: 1
Senate Bill 18 ( Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans ( defined in Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans ( defined in Government Code Section 65450 et seq.). The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use Public Resources Code Section 21084. 1 defines an " historical resource" as " a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources." Public Resources Code Section 21083. 2( g) defines " unique archaeological resource" as " art archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there, is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: ( 1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that Information. 2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. 3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person." Public Resources Code Section 21083. 2( h) defines " nonunique archaeological resource" as " an archaeological artifact, object, or site which does not meet the criteria in subdivision ( g)." City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4- 14 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.

The Native American Heritage Commission ( NAHC) identifies and manages a catalog of places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans. This database, known as the Sacred Lands File ( SLF), is a compilation of information on known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands and other places of cultural or religious significance to the Native American community. The NAHC also performs other duties regarding the preservation and accessibility of sacred sites and burials and the disposition of Native American human remains and burial items.

Public Resources Code Sections 5097. 9 through 5097. 991 describe the duties dild tole of the NAHC and requires the cooperation of State and local agencies in carrying out their duties with respect to Native American resources.

California Public Resources Code and California Health and Safety Code Provisions Regarding Human Remains
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050. 5 protects human remains by prohibiting the disinterring, disturbing, or removing of human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064. 5( e) also identify steps to follow in the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery. Health and Safety Code Section 7052 states that the disturbance of Native American, or any other, human remains is a felony, unless the disturbance has been lawfully authorized.

XOTRRIT
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-term vision and guide local decision -making to achieve that vision. The Land Use and Design Element of the General Plan includes the following policies related to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources ( City of Mountain View, 2012).

Goal LUD- 11: Preserved and protected important historic and cultural resources.

Policy L UD 11. 1: Historical preservation. Support the preservation and restoration of structures and cultural resources listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the California Register of Historic Places [ sic] or National Register of Historic Places.

Policy L UD 11. 2: Adaptive re -use. Encourage the adaptive re -use of historic buildings in ways that retain their historical materials and character - defining features.

Policy L UD 11. 3: Incenfives. Encourage historical preservation through incentives and opportunities.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 15 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Policy LUD 11. 4: Moffett Field. Support the preservation of historic buildings and hangars at Moffett Field and NASA Ames.

Policy L UD 11. 5: Archaeological andpaleontological site protection. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits.

Action L UD 11. 5. L: Review Historic Property Directory List. Prior to approval of development permits for projects that include ground -disturbing activities, City staff shall review the most recent and updated Northwest Information Center list: Historic Property Directory for the County of Santa Clara, to determine if known archaeological and paleontological sites underlie the proposed project. If it is determined dIdt known culundl tesoutces are within 1/ 4 mile of the project site, the City shall requilie the project applicant to conduct d iecoids sedlich di. [lie Northwest Information Center ( NWIC) at Sonoma State university to confirm whether there are any recorded cultural resources within or adjacent to the project site. Based on (hal research, the City shall determine whether field study by a qualified cultural resources consultant is recommended.

Policy LUD 11. 6: Human remains. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of human remains.

Mountain View Zoning Code
The City of Mountain View Zoning Code includes regulations to guide consideration and development of historic resources. It also includes procedures to recognize historic resources as well as incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to demolition. Section 36. 54. 55( c) defines a historic resource as " any building, structure, object or site that the city council has designated for inclusion in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources." Section 36. 54. 5 5 d) establishes the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources as " the inventory of buildings, structures, objects and sites designated by the city council as historic resources pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance and adopted by council resolution as amended from time to time. The Mountain View Register of Historic Resources shall be the City' s only ' local register of historical resources' under Public Resources Code Section 5024. 1. " Other sections of the Zoning Code that guide development of historic resources include:

Section 36. 54. 75 ( d): Predemolition Review. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any building, which had been designated as a historic resource pursuant to Section 36. 54. 70, the applicant shall meet with city staff to review the alternatives, incentives and options to demolition. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the time and place of the meeting within thirty ( 30) days of filing a complete application for a demolition permit. The council may, by resolution, require additional historic buildings, not otherwise designated, to go through this review process.

Section 36. 54. 85 - Requirement of Permit - Development Review Process a. Applicability. No person shall make a significant alteration, redevelop, or relocate any structure or Improvement, or any portion thereof, upon a property designated as a historic resource on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources without first obtaining a " historic preservation permit" or HP permit. An HP permit shall remain in effect for four ( 4) years from the date of approval.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 16 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
b. Exceptions.

1. Exempt alteration. A historic preservation permit shall not be required for an exempt alteration. The city council may, by resolution, adopt a list of alterations that are deemed to be exempt alterations.

Hazardous or unsafe conditions. Construction, aftetation or demolition necessary to correct the unsafe or dangerous condition of any structure, or other feature or part thereof, where such condition has been declared unsafe or dangerous, in writing, by the chief building official or fire marshal and where said officials have declared the proposed measures necessary on an urgency basis to correct the condition. In no event shall any work be performed which is not absolutely necessary to correct the immediate danger created by the unsafe or dangerous condition, and such work shall be done with due regard for prow,lvation of the apilmirance of the snuctule involved

3. Ordinary repair and maintenance. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the ordinary repair and maintenance of any architectural feature of a designated historic resource. The owner of a designated historic resource shall keep and maintain in good condition and repair all exterior portions of the resource and all interior portions whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of the exterior feature.

4. Special submittal requirements. The application shall be submitted to the community development department and, in addition to the application requirements of this division, shall contain information and documentation, including architectural drawings and specifications ( site plan, elevations, floor plans and building materials); current photographs, sketches, drawings or other descriptive materials necessary to illustrate the proposed alteration; and any other information, which could include an historical assessment by a professional consultant, as determined to be necessary by the community development department for a complete and adequate application.
c. Hearings and action. Applications for HP permits shall be initially reviewed by the development review committee. The development review committee shall forward a recommendation to the zoning administrator, who shall hold a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Section 36. 56 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals). d. Findings. The HP permit may be approved or conditionally approved if the following findings are made:

1. The proposed significant alteration will not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource.

2. The proposed significant alteration maintains and enhances the appearance of the community.

SEC. 36. 54. 90. - National and California Register properties. Alterations to buildings which are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 36. 54. 85 " a.," " b.," " c.," d. " and " e., " and except that the city council shall determine whether to grant an HP Permit and the council must find that the alteration is in substantial compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. If an HP Permit is granted, any structure proposed to replace a historic resource shall be subject to design review and approval by the city council.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4- 17 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
As part of discretionary review, the City has standard conditions for different types of approvals as of October 25, 2021). For all construction activities, the City has standard conditions relating to the discovery of archaeological resources, human remains, and the preservation historic architectural resources. The City also has standard conditions for construction work cultural sensitivity training, Native American monitoring, and procedures in the event of the discovery of tribal cultural resources, that can be included if they are requested by a tribe during tribal consultation for a project.

MITSFUST11 1 ............ •
At building permit submittal, the applicant shall prepare a Vibration and Settlement Plan which specifies monitoring and mitigation measures to avoid damage to the adjacent building(s) as a result of project construction. Approve([ monitoring protoco[ssliatt be in place prior to issualice of any building permits for the project.

Secretary of the Interior Standards
All construction activities, including maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of the historical resource, shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior' s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Prior to issuance of building permit for any work being done on the historic structure, the applicant shall provide the following documentation: ( 1) two copies of each historical assessment, printed on archival paper, and ( 2) two complete sets of photographs of the existing property including the immediate neighborhood to establish context), the site ( including any nonhistoric structures), all exterior elevations and features, and all interior spaces and features. The applicant shall utilize a 35- mm camera with black and white film only. The photographs shall be printed on fiber paper, and all negatives and prints must meet the Historic American Building Survey Photographic Standards for archival processing.

All documentation shall be forwarded to the Planning Division (one copy of which will be forwarded to the Mountain View History Center) prior to the issuance of any building or demolition permits for the property.

The applicant shall undertake a salvage program to save and promote reuse of the buildings' historically significant materials and features to the extent reasonably feasible. Salvage allows for the removal of individual architectural elements for potential reuse. Salvaged elements could be reused at the project site or another project or be given to an architectural salvage company.

Salvage has the added benefit of landfill and waste diversion.

Discovery of Archaeological Resources
If prehistoric or historic -period cultural materials are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities, it is recommended that all work within 100 feet of the find be halted until a qualified City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 18 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find.

Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert- flaked stone tools ( e. g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (" midden") containing beat - affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment ( e. g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered -stone tools, such as harnmerstones and pitted stones. Historic -period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/ or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.

Discovery of Human Remains
In the event of [lie discovery of huindill teindilis dulling construction or demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50 foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to their authority, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. A final report shall be submitted to the City' s Community Development Director prior to the release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/ curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City' s Community Development Director.

As requested during the Tribal Consultation process for the project, Cultural Sensitivity Training shall be provided to the construction crews at the beginning of the project to aid those involved in the project to become more familiar with the indigenous history of peoples in the vicinity of the project site.
if Requested) Native American Archaeological Monitor
A Native American archaeological monitor shall be present for all ground -disturbing activities throughout the project construction process.

MOM= ! ill r • SWITT
If indigenous or historic -era archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities, all activity within 100 feet of the find shall cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance. The City and a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior' s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and a Native American representative shall be immediately informed of the discovery. The qualified archaeologist and the Native American representative shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of their initial assessment. Indigenous archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert- flaked stone tools ( e. g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4- 19 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat -affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as harnmerstones and pitted stones. Historic -era materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of metal, glass, and/ or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.

The thresholds used to determine the significance of impacts related to cultural resources and tribal cultural resource-, are based on Appendix G of the CFQA Cuidelines. Implementation of the.

PioJect could have d sIgnil lcdnt finpit- L oil the envitunineia if it vvould. 0 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064. 5.

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064. 5.
0 Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020. 1 ( k); or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024. 1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision ( c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024. 1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

This is a program -level EIR that considers the potential impacts from implementing the HEU.

While the HEU would be applicable Citywide, special focus was given to housing inventory sites where multifamily housing development is planned. Impacts on cultural resources and tribal cultural resources are evaluated using the criteria listed above and based on information included in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (2012) and the Standard Planning Division Conditions 2021).

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 20 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
117-awre =_
Impact CUL- 1: Implementation of the HEU would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064. 5. ( Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The City of Mountain View contains a number of recognized historic resources that are listed, or have been determined eligible for listing on the National, State, and local registers. Not all eligible buildings have been identified or evaluated and the City has a significant number of buildings that were constructed 50 or more years ago that may qualify as historic resources pending additional evaluation. The Project would plan for approximately 15, 000 new housing units during the HEU planning period to ( lie year 2031. Of (lie total units It Is assumed that 1, 400 units would he 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. While growth is anticipated primarily in urban infill areas along commercial corridors and redevelopment of existing parking and industrial sites, some growth is anticipated through wider construction of accessory dwelling units ( ADUs) and rehabilitation and renovation of existing lower income housing. As a result, there is a potential for significant direct and indirect impacts to known and potential historic resources located throughout the city.

However, the City has made a concerted effort to avoid including sites in the housing sites inventory that may include historic resources, and as noted above, the City has adopted numerous policies to guide the recognition and development of historic resources and all new projects would be subject to these provisions. 2030 General Plan policies LUD 11. 1: Historical Preservation, LUD 11. 2: Adaptive Reuse, LUD 11. 3: Incentives, and LUD 11. 4: Moffett Field in combination with the provisions codified under Article XVI, Division 15 of the City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance, such as the HP Permit review process ( zoning code Sections 36. 54. 85 and 36. 54. 90), serve to limit the Impacts of specific projects on known historic resources that have been listed in the National, State, or local registries.

These existing policies and procedures guide development for known historic resources, including those already listed on the National, State, and local registers. In addition, the City of Mountain View regularly updates their city- wide survey of historic and potentially historic buildings. These updates include periodic update surveys to identify buildings that meet the CEQA recommended age threshold of 45- years or older. Buildings that are potentially historic are then documented on DPR forms. For those properties that have not already been evaluated or have not previously been identified by the City as potential historic resources the following mitigation measures are included here.

Mitigation Measure CUL- la: Historic Resource Evaluation Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any previously unevaluated building 45- years of age or older on a site included in the housing sites inventory, the City shall require an evaluation of historical significance that includes consideration of the criteria for listing City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-21 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
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 Interior' s Professional Qualifications for History, Architecture, Architectural History, or Historic Architecture.

In accordance with Section 5024. 1, ifthe 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- lb: Historic Resource Avoidance If, after implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL la, the subject property is found to qudllfy ds d histoilc resource diid the proposed plioJect Includes demolition of [tie Ids(olh_ 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).

Significance after Mitigation: Housing development planned under the HEU could result in the demolition or significant alteration of potential historical resources ( as defined in Sec. 36. 54. 55 of the Zoning Code). It could also diminish the ability of historical resources to convey their historical significance, which would constitute a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resources. However, with implementation of the General Plan polices noted above, adherence to existing zoning and permit procedures, and application of Mitigation Measure C U L- 1 a and C U L- I b, impacts to known and potential historic resources at the National, State, and local levels would be reduced to less than significant.

Impact CUL-2: Implementation ofthe HEU may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064. 5. ( Less than Signzflcant with Mitigation)
As described above in the Environmental Setting, a records search identified previously recorded pre -contact archaeological resources in the City boundary. Given the long history of pre -contact and historic -era human occupation, the City is considered sensitive for the presence of subsurface cultural resources and human remains.

Archaeological resources have the potential to contain intact deposits of artifacts, associated features, and burials that could contribute to the regional pre -contact or historic record and be of substantial importance to members of the local and regional community. Ground disturbance associated with physical development that could occur under the HEU could result in damage to or destruction of these resources, which would constitute a significant impact.

As detailed in the Regulatory Setting above, there are federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect archaeological resources and human remains. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine, prior to approval, if a project would have a significant adverse effect on historical or City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4- 22 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
unique archaeological resources and requires the lead agency to make provisions for handling the inadvertent discovery of historical or unique archaeological resources during construction.

In addition, the proposed HEU and associated General Plan includes policies and implementation programs designed to identify and protect archaeological resources that could be adversely affected by development activities. For example, Policy LU- 11. 5 requires that new development meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological deposits. In coordination with the General Plan policies, the City' s Standard Conditions establish protocol in the event of the discovery of cultural materials during construction.

While the aforementioned regulations and policies proposed under the HEU and established through the General Plan and the City' s Standard Conditions are protective of archaeological resources, if identified during project construction, they specifically only ' recommend' that a 100 toot butter be established to halt work around an archaeological materials find and do not provide for avoidance of significant cultural resources. They also do not establish a pre -construction archaeological review of the project to identify and mitigate impacts to potential archaeological resources prior to ground disturbance. For these reasons, there remains the potential for ground - disturbing construction activities to inadvertently damage or destroy archaeological resources, and the impact of the HEU to archaeological resources is potentially significant.

To address this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure CUL- 2a, Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources revises the Discovery of Archaeological Resources Standard Condition to require a stop -work boundary around cultural material finds and establish protocol for avoidance or preservation in place of significant cultural resources, and Mitigation Measure CUL-2b, Cultural Resources Study Requirements establishes a requirement for a cultural resource study for all multifamily housing projects that require ground disturbance and are located within 0. 25- mile of known cultural resources based upon review of the most recent and updated KWIC list, consistent with General Plan Action LUD 11. 5. 1. These mitigation measures would address potential impacts to archaeological resources and reduce the potential of the HEU to impact archaeological resources to a less - than - significant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL2a: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources.

If pre -contact or historic -era archaeological resources are encountered during project construction and implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt and the City shall be notified. Pre -contact archaeological materials might include obsidian and Cheri 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 hammerstones 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 ( SOIS) for Archeology shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery.

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 City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4A- 23 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
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 SOIS 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 to 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 olliet, 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 ( KWIC) list: Historic Property Directory for the County of Santa Clara, to determine if known archaeological sites underlie the proposed project site. Ifit 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 ( SOIS) 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 ifthe project would potentially impact cultural resources. If the archaeologist 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 ( ifthe 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 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), The cultural report detailing the results of the research shall be prepared and submitted for review by the City and a final draft shall be submitted to the KWIC.

Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL- 2a and CUL- 2b, would reduce the potential impact to a less -than -significant level because all projects with ground -disturbance would be reviewed by an SOIS qualified archaeologist City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4- 24 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
and any potential archaeological resources identified, would be evaluated and treated appropriately, including consulting with Native American representatives.

Impact CUL 3: Implementation of the LIEU may disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. ( Less than Significant) As described above, there are cultural resources with human remains within the City boundary.

Based on the overall sensitivity of the City for cultural resources, there is the potential for previously unknown human remains to be discovered during ground -disturbing activities. In the event didt hunidn ienridins are discovered, including those interred Outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which would be a significant impact for the JAW1,10SCS of CFQA luiplvinvittation of ,;tale litw,, &, pet General Plan Polity IJTD 11 6, and adhering to the Standard Condition of Approval ( Discovery of Human Remains) would ensure that any human remains encountered are appropriately addressed because if human remains are identified, work would stop within 100 feet of the find, the Coroner would be called to identify if the remains are Native American and the appropriate treatment of those remains would be determined, all following Health and Safety Code Section 7050. 5( c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 ( as amended), thus reducing any potential impacts to a less -than -significant level.

Mitigation: None required.

Impact TCR-l: Implementation ofthe HEU may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074.

Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The results of the records search identified eleven previously recorded pre -contact archaeological resources identified in the CHRIS record search and there is the potential for unknown pre - contact archaeological resources to be present in the City boundaries.

As detailed in the Regulatory Setting above, there are federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect tribal cultural resources, including archaeological resources and human remains. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine, prior to approval, if a project would have a significant adverse effect on historical resources, tribal cultural resources, or unique archaeological resources and requires the lead agency to make provisions for the inadvertent discovery of historical or unique archaeological resources during construction, including tribal cultural resources.

As described previously in this section, SB 18 requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and provides California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural places. In accordance with the requirements of SB 18 Mountain View City staff conducted Native American outreach and consultation efforts. As a part the SB 18 process for the proposed HEU, the City emailed thirteen letters to ten tribes based on prior consultation on March 4, 2022 and the City sent tribal outreach letters to eleven Native American representatives from eight tribes that were identified by the City based on a Tribal Consultation list developed by the Native American Heritage Commission on May 11, 2022. No City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4- 25 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
tribes have responded to the tribal consultation efforts within 90 days and no responses have been received as of July 22, 2022, the filing date of the DEIR.

In addition, the proposed HEU and associated General Plan includes policies and implementation programs designed to identify and protect archaeological resources and human remains that could also be tribal cultural resources and could be adversely affected by development activities. For example, Policy LU- 11. 5 requires that new development meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological deposits. In coordination with the General Plan policies, the City' s Standard Conditions establish protocol in the event of the discovery of cultural materials during construction.

While the Joiententloilied regulations and policies proposed under [ lie IIEU and established through the General Plan and the City' s Standard Conditions are protective of archaeological resources, that may also be tribal cultural resources, if identified during project construction, they specifically only ' recommend' that a 1 00-foot buffer be established to halt work around an archaeological materials find and do riot provide for avoidance of significant Cultural resources.

They also do not establish a pre -construction archaeological review of the project to identify and mitigate impacts to potential archaeological resources prior to ground disturbance. For these reasons, there remains the potential for ground - disturbing construction activities to inadvertently damage or destroy archaeological resources that may also be tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the impact of the HEU to tribal cultural resources is potentially significant, requiring mitigation.

Mitigation Measure CUL- 2a: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Cultural Resources Study Requirements Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Measures CUL- 2a. and CUL- 2b would establish protocol to identify, evaluate, and address any potential impacts to previously unknown tribal cultural resources. With implementation of these mitigation measures, any potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
mr, MOPM
This section presents an analysis of the cumulative effects of the HEU in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could cause cumulatively considerable impacts. Significant cumulative impacts related to cultural resources could occur if the incremental impacts of the HEU combined with the incremental impacts of one or more cumulative projects.

The geographic scope for cumulative effects on historic architectural resources, archaeological resources, and human remains is the City of Mountain View.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 26 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL- I.CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on historic architectural resources. ( Less than Significant with Mitigation) Despite City policies and regulations, future development projects within the City of Mountain View could potentially impact architectural historic resources that may be present. The cumulative effect of this future development would be the continued loss of significant architectural historic resources. Potential future development increases the likelihood that additional architectural historic resources could be lost. It is therefore possible that. cumulative development could result in [ lie demolition or destruction of significant architectural historic resources. The, loss of these tesoulices would tesull in a significant. inipdo, and potential impacts associated with the I IEU would be considered cumulatively considerable, resulting in a potentially significant impact
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL- la which would require previously unevaluated historic - age resources be evaluated, Mitigation Measure CUL- lb would require demolition avoidance for historic architectural resources, and City Standard Condition of Approval Secretary of the Interior Standards) which would require Secretary of the Interior' s Standards compliance review for significant alterations of historic resources, would reduce the severity of impacts associated with the HEU. Combined with General Plan Policies LUD 11. 1 - 11. 4 and the procedures for identification and alteration of historic resources in Division 15 of the Mountain View Zoning Code, the impacts associated with implementation of the HEU would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The General Plan Policies and Zoning Code also apply to all projects identified in the cumulative project list. As a result, the HEU' s contribution to the potentially significant cumulative impact on historic architectural resources would not be considerable, and the cumulative impact of the HEU combined with cumulative development would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measures CUL- la and CUL- lb.

Significance After Mitigation: Combined with General Plan Policies LUD 11- 1 - 11. 4 and the regulations for historic resource identification and alteration in the Mountain View Zoning Code, Mitigation Measures CUL- I a and CUL- 1 b would mitigate impacts to historic architectural resources to a less -than -significant level.

Impact CUL- 2. CU: Implementation of the HEU, in combination with other cumulative development, would not cause a substantial 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 formal cemeteries. ( Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation)
Future development in the City could include excavation and grading that could potentially impact archaeological resources and human remains that may be present. The cumulative effect of this future development is the continued loss of cultural remains. Potential future development increases the likelihood that additional archaeological resources could be uncovered. It is City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4- 27 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
therefore possible that cumulative development could result in the demolition or destruction of unique archaeological resources, which could contribute to the erosion of the pre -contact record of the City. The loss of these resources would result in a potentially significant cumulative impact, and the Project' s contribution would be cumulatively considerable prior to mitigation.

Though archaeological resources can sometimes be preserved when discovered during excavation, there is no guarantee that these resources can be protected and preserved. The HEU would contribute a negligible less than significant impact after the implementation of Measures CUL- 2a and CUL- 2b, which would require a SOIS qualified archaeologist to conduct a review of discretionary projects, or projects near known cultural resources, or within archaeological sensitivity areas, prior to construction, the cessation of activities in the vicinity of finds, and tribal consultation when indigenous iesouicvs are inadvertently Identified duthig project constiluctiou. As a result, the Ims than significant incremental impact would not be cumulatively considerable and thus would not combine with the incremental impact of other projects to cause a significant cumulative effect.

Impact TCR-I.CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, could contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources. ( Less than Significant with Mitigation) The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources comprises the entire city of Mountain View. This geographic scope of analysis is appropriate because the archaeological and tribal cultural resources within this radius are expected to be similar to those that occur on the HEU multifamily housing sites because their proximity, similar environments, landforms, and hydrology are expected to have resulted in similar land -uses over time. Based on the professional experience of the EIR preparers, research, and the pre -contact context, the area within this area of analysis may contain tribal cultural resources that have not been documented or recorded.

Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes that the land within this area contains tribal cultural resources that are not yet known.

In this context, the incremental impacts of the HEU could combine with similar incremental impacts of other projects in the cumulative scenario to cause or contribute to a significant cumulative impact.

However, the HEU would contribute a negligible less -than -significant incremental impact after the implementation of Measures CUL- 2a and CUL- 2b, which would require an SCIS qualified archaeologist conduct a review of the project prior to construction, the cessation of activities and buffering of finds, and tribal consultation when indigenous resources are unexpectedly discovered during project construction. As a result, the Project' s incremental impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would not result in a significant cumulative effect.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 28 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
4 4.A 7 Summary of Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Significance Significance
Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation After Mitigation
Impact CUL-' I: Implementation of the HEU Potentially Mitigation Measure Less than would not cause a substantial adverse change Significant CUL- 1 a: Historic Significant in the significance of a historical resource Resource Evaluation pursuant to Section 15064. 5. Mitigation Measure
CUL- 1b: Historic
Resource Avoidance
Impact CUL- 2: Implementation of the HEU Potentially Mitigation Measure Less than may cause a substantial adverse change in the Significant CUL- 2a: Inadvertent Significant significance of an archaeological resource Discovery of Guttural pursuant to Section 15064. 5. Resources
Mitigation Measure
CLIL- 2b: Cultural
Resources Study
Requirements
Impact CUL-3: Implementation of the HEU Less than None required may disturb any human remains, including Significant
those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Impact TCR- 1: Implementation of the HEU Potentially Mitigation Measure Less than may cause a substantial adverse change in the Significant CUL- 2a: Inadvertent Significant significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined Discovery of Cultural in Public Resources Code Section 21074. Resources
Mitigation Measure
CLIL- 2b: Cultural
Resources Study
Requirements
Impact CUL- 1. CU: Implementation of the HEU, Potentially Mitigation Measure Less than when combined with other past, present, or Significant CUL- 1 a: Historic Significant reasonably foreseeable projects, would not Resource Evaluation contribute considerably to cumulative impacts Mitigation Measure on historic architectural resources. CUL- 1b: Historic
Resource Avoidance
Impact CUL- 2. CU: Implementation of the HEU, Potentially Mitigation Measure Less than in combination with other cumulative Significant CUL- 2a: Inadvertent Significant development, would not cause a substantial Discovery of Cultural adverse change in the significance of an Resources
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Mitigation Measure Guidelines Section 15064. 5 or could disturb CUL- 2b: Cultural human remains, including those interred Resources Study outside of formal cemeteries. Requirements
Impact TCR- l.CU: Implementation of the HEU, Potentially Mitigation Measure Less than when combined with other past, present, or Significant CLIL- 2a: Inadvertent Significant reasonably foreseeable projects, could Discovery of Cultural contribute considerably to cumulative impacts Resources on tribal cultural resources. Mitigation Measure
CUL- 2b: Cultural
Resources Study
Requirements
I
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 29 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impart Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources

4. 4. 8 References
Archives & Architecture, Heritage Resource Inventory Update, County of Santa Clara ( 2012), p2l, 27.

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, " The California Mission Trail," parks. ca.gov/?page—id-22722. Accessed April 14, 2022.

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, Built Environment Resource Directory: Santa Clara County (BERD), ohp. parks. ca. gov/ pages/ 1068/ files/ Santa% 20 Clara. csv. Accessed April 20, 2022.

City ol' Mouutaln View, 2012. Mountain View 2030 General Plan, adopted July 10, 2012, is amended through April 13, ? 0? 1
Computer History Museum ( CHM), " Spinoff: Fairchild and the Family Tree of Silicon Valley," Computer History Museum, computerhistory. org/ stories/ spinoff- fairchild/. Accessed March 1, 2022.

Computer History Museum ( CHM), " Fairchildren," Computer History Museum, computerhistory. org/ fairchildren/# 1960s. Accessed March 1, 2022.

Drummer, GW.A and J. Mackinzie Robertson, American Microelectronics Data Annual 1964-

65. Netherlands, Elsevier Science, 2014, p. 11. www.google. com/books/ edition/ American Microelectronics Data, Annual_ I 9/ tdCjBQAAQBAJ? hl= en& gbpv= 1 & dq= amel co+ mountain+ view& pg= PAl 1 & printsec= frontcover. Accessed March 2, 2022 Holman & Associates, " Appendix E Cultural Resources Report,' East Whisman Precise Plan EIR, 2017, p4.

Kusz, Jessica, National Register Nomination: Mountain View Adobe, 2002, p. 8- 2.

Kyle, Douglas E., Historic Spots in California (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2002), xiii—xiv.

Lecuyer, Christophe, " Making Silicon Valley: Engineering Culture, Innovation, and Industrial Growth, 1930- 1970," Enterprise & Society, December 2001, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 666- 672, wwwjstor. org/ stable/ 23699624. Accessed March 1, 2022.

Levy, Richard, " Costanoan", In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485- 495, Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C., 1978.

Liebson, Seven, " For Lease: Birthplace of the IC," Electronic Engineering Journal, www. eejournal. com/ 2018/ 09/ 09/ for-lease- birthplace- of-the- ic/. Accessed March 2, 2022.

LSA, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR, prepared for the City of Mountain View ( 2012), p, 459.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4- 30 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Mazurek, Jan, Making Microchips: Policy, Globalization, and Economic Restructuring in the Semiconductor Industry, MIT Press, 1998, pp. 54- 55, books. google. com/ books?id= Tdssnlxu8g8C& pg= PA54 & lpg= PA54 & dq= intel+ 365+ east+ middlefield& source= bl &ots= 8X—VXSURMU& sig=ACfU3U1- 6M99YNWBtqqDRJrYiMaxKYzUTA& hl=en& sa= X& ved= 2ahUKEwjF7— DNlaj2AhVjJOQIHeMgDTOQ6AF6BAgCEAM# v= onepage& q= iiite19620365'/ 620east'/ 620middlefield& f—false. Accessed March 2, 2022.

Melgar Commercial Photographers, " Advanced Technology Laboratories," Melgar Commercial Photographers, 1961, archive. org/ details/ cmv_001011. Accessed March 2, 2022.

Milliken, Randall, A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the Sari Francisco Bay Area 1769- 1810, Ballena Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1995.

Milliken, Randall, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Ilylkema, Randy G roza, Tom Origer, David C.

Ilieling, Alan I evorithal, Pandy S Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, 1) onna Gillette, \/ tviana Bellifernine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson, " Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area", In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L, Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 99- 124, AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD, 2007.

Mountain View History Timeline," Mountain View Historical Association, mountainviewhistorical. org/. Accessed April 14, 2022; Archives & Architecture, p. 22.

The ' Rusty Bucket,' 464 Ellis Street," California Revealed, californiarevealed. org/ islandora/ object/ cavpp% 3A29926. Accessed March 2, 2022.

Shew, William J., Portrait ofLupe Yfijgo, Santa Clara University Archives and Special Collections, content. scu. edu/ cdm/ ref/collection/ college/ id/ 99, 1903. Accessed February 20, 2022.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 4- 31 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
This page intentionally left blank
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-32 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4, 5 Energy
This section assesses the potential for the Project to result in significant adverse impacts on energy use and conservation. This section first includes a description of the existing environmental setting as it relates to energy, 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 energy resources.

The Notice of Preparation ( NOP) for the FIR was circulated on February 4, 20? 2 find a Scoping meeting was held on February 24, 2022. The NOP and the comments received during the public comment period can be found in Appendix A of this FIR. No comments relating to energy were received during the NOP comment period.

The information in this section has been prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code PRQ Section 21100( b)( 3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 2 (b), and CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 2( b) and Appendix F provide that an FIR should evaluate potential impacts of a proposed project as a result of the demand for energy during the project' s construction and operational phases and encourage measures to avoid or reduce inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. 1 Environmental Settirrt
State Energy Profile
In 2019, total energy usage in California was 7, 802 trillion British thermal units ( Btu) ( the most recent year for which these specific data are available), which equates to an average of 198 million Btu per capita per year. These figures place California second among the 50 states in total energy use and 50th in per -capita consumption. Of California' s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is roughly 39. 4 percent transportation, 23. 1 percent industrial, 18. 8 percent commercial, and

18. 7 percent residential. Electricity and natural gas in California are generally consumed by stationary users such as residences and commercial and industrial facilities, whereas petroleum - based fuel consumption is generally accounted for by transportation - related energy use ( United States Energy Information Administration [ USEIA], 2022).

California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, coal, and nuclear gas generation resources. Approximately 70 percent of the electrical power needed to meet California' s demand is produced in the state; the balance, approximately 30 percent, is imported from the Pacific Northwest and the Southwest. In 2020, California' s in -state electricity use was derived from natural gas ( 48 percent); coal (< 1 percent); large hydroelectric resources ( 9 percent); nuclear sources ( 9 percent), renewable resources that include geothermal, biomass, small hydroelectric resources, wind, and solar ( 33 percent) ( CEC, 2022a).

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 5- 1 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 5 Energy
Electricity
Electricity, as a consumptive utility, is a man- made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of resources —including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources into useable energy. The delivery of electricity involves several system components for distribution and use. Electricity is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid.

Energy capacity, or electrical power, is generally measured in watts ( W), while energy use is IIeaStlr('d III watt- hours, For example, if a lighl bull) has a capacity rating of 100 W, the energy requited to keep the bulb on vvould be tOO watt-hours. Iften 100 W bulbs were on for I hour, the energy required would be 1, 000 watt- hours or I kilowatt- hour. On a utility scale, the capacity of generator is typically rated in megawatts ( MW), which is 1 million watts, while energy usage is measured in megawatt -hours ( MWh) or gigawatt- hours, which is one billion watt- hours.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG& E) provides electrical and natural gas services to approximately 16 million people throughout its 70,000- square- mile service area in northern and central California, from Eureka in the north to Bakersfield in the South, and from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Sierra Nevada in the east ( PG& E, 2022a). PG& E produces and purchases energy from a mix of conventional and renewable generating sources. Approximately 31 percent of PG& E' s 2020 electricity purchases were from renewable sources ( PG& E, 2022b).

Refer to Table 4. 5- 1 for a summary of electricity use in the state and PG& E service area.

TABLE 4. 5- 1

EXISTING ANNUAL STATE AND REGIONAL ENERGY USE
Source Amount
Electricity ( State/ PG& E) a
279, 510 GWh 178, 519 GWh
Natural Gas (State/PG& E) a 1, 232, 858, 394 MMBtu 1450, 746, 500 MMBtu Gasoline ( Statewide/ Santa Clara County) b 12, 572 million gallons 1511 million gallons Diesel ( Statewide/ Santa Clara County) b 4,254 million gallons 171 million gallons NOTES:

MMBtu = million British thermal units; MWh = megawatt - hours; PG& E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

SOURCES: a CEC, 2022b; b CEC, 2020
Natural gas is a combustible mixture of simple hydrocarbon compounds (primarily methane) that is used as a fuel source. Natural gas consumed in California is obtained from naturally occurring reservoirs and delivered through high- pressure transmission pipelines. Natural gas provides almost one-third of California' s total energy requirements and is measured in terms of both cubic feet and Btu.

PG& E provides natural gas transportation services to " core" customers and to " non -core" customers ( industrial, large commercial, and natural gas —fired electric generation facilities) that City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 5- 2 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 5 Energy
are connected to its gas system in its service territory. Core customers can purchase natural gas procurement service ( natural gas supply) from either PG& E or non -utility third -party gas procurement service providers ( referred to as " core transport agents"). When core customers purchase gas supply from a core transport agent, PG& E still provides gas delivery, metering, and billing services to those customers. When PG& E provides both transportation and procurement services, PG& E refers to the combined service as " bundled" natural gas service.

PG& E does not provide procurement service to non -core customers, who must purchase their gas supplies from third -party suppliers. PG& E offers backbone gas transmission, gas delivery ( local transmission and distribution), and gas storage services as separate and distinct services to its non core customers. Access to PG& E' s backbone gas transmission -system is available for all natural gas marketers and shippers, as well as non -core customers. PG'& F1 also delivers gas to off -system customers (i.e., outside of PG& E' s service territory) and to third Party IM11.11111 gas storage customers. 2020 natural gas usage for the state and the PG& E service region are also shown in Table 4. 5- 1.

In 2021, 11. 5 billion gallons of gasoline and 2. 6 billion gallons of diesel fuel were consumed in California ( CDTFA, 2022a, 2022b). Petroleum - based fuels currently account for more than 85 percent of ground transportation fuel use in California (USEIA, 2022).

The State is now working on developing flexible strategies to reduce petroleum used. Over the last decade, California has implemented several policies, rules, and regulations to improve vehicle efficiency, increase the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce air pollutants and GHG emissions from the transportation sector, and reduce vehicle miles traveled ( VMT).

Accordingly, total gasoline consumption in California has declined According to fuel sales data from the California Energy Commission ( CEC), fuel consumption in Santa Clara County was approximately 511 million gallons of gasoline and 71 million gallons of diesel fuel in 2020 ( CEC, 2020). Refer to Table 4. 5- 1 for a summary of statewide fossil fuel consumption in 2020.

PG& E provides natural gas service to the City of Mountain View, while electricity is provided by both PG& E and Silicon Valley Clean Energy ( SVCE). SVCE is a public, not -for -profit agency that provides clean electricity for 270, 000 residential and business customers across 13 Silicon Valley communities. SVCE works closely with PG& E, which delivers electricity over power lines to homes and businesses.

Residents and businesses in Mountain View have the option to choose between PG& E or SVCE as a provider to supply their electric power. By default, all customers in Mountain View are enrolled in SVCE' s " GreenStart", which is made up of carbon free and 50 percent renewable power. SVCE customers can also choose to opt -up to SVCE' s " GreenPrime" option. SVCE' s GreenPrinie provides electricity from 100 percent renewable and carbon -free sources, such as solar, wind and geothermal in California and on the western grid. Consumers can also opt to keep PG& E as their energy provider, whose energy clicks in at about 31 percent renewables currently.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 5- 3 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4. 5 Energy
E= 6
Federal
National Energy Conservation Policy Act
The National idl Energygy Cui iser v ation Policy Act ( NECPA) serves as the underlying authority for federal energy management goals and requirements. Signed into law in 1978, NECPA has been regularly updated and amended by subsequent laws and regulations. This law is the foundation of most federal energy requirements. NECPA established energy -efficiency standards for consumer products and includes a residential program for low- income weatherization assistance, grants, and loan guarantees for energy conservation in schools and hospitals, and energy -efficiency standards for new construction New and continuing, initiatives in these areas are. ongoing.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 was enacted to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. This law includes several provisions intended to build an inventory of alternative - fueled vehicles in large, centrally -fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light -duty alternative fuel vehicles capable of running on alternative fuels each year. Financial incentives are also included. Federal tax deductions are allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of alternative fuel vehicles. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 also requires states to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote alternative -fuel vehicles.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes provisions for renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.

Executive Order 13423 ( Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management), signed in 2007, strengthens the key energy management goals for the federal government and sets more challenging goals than the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The energy reduction and environmental performance requirements of Executive Order 13423 were expanded upon in Executive Order 13514 ( Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance), which was signed in 2009.

Influence of the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Transportation Energy At the federal level, the U. S. Department of Transportation, U. S. Department of Energy, and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) have substantial influence over energy policies related to fuel consumption in transportation. Generally, federal agencies influence transportation energy consumption by establishing and enforcing fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, and by funding projects for energy -related research and development for transportation infrastructure.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4. 5- 4 ESA 1202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755