20230124_Resolution 18755 Certifying 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Environmental Impact Report — Mountain View City Council, January 24, 2023 (part 7 of 7)

This page intentionally left blank
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 6- 6 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

Page 584 of 628 ends

blifflufam
Report Preparers

7. 1 Lead Agency
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street, P. O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039- 7540
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director Eric Anderson, Advance Planning Manager
Ellen Yau, Senior Planner

7. 2 EIR Consultants
Environmental Consultant
Environmental Science Associates ( ESA)
787 The Alameda, Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95126
Luke Evans, Project Director Technical Review; Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Jill Feyk- Miney, Project Manager Technical Review; Quality Assurance/ Quality Control; Agriculture and Forestry Resources; Population and
Housing; Utilities and Service Systems; Alternatives;
Other CEQA Considerations
Steve Smith Aesthetics; Land Use and Planning
Cheri Velzy Air Quality
Brian Pittman Biological Resources; Senior Technical Review Rebecca Acosta Biological Resources
Jyothi Iyer Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Energy
Becky Urbano Historic Architectural Resources
Heidi Koenig Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources; Senior Technical Review
Ashleigh Sims Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Michael Burns Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Geology, Soils, Paleontological and Mineral Resources; Senior
Technical Review
Brandon Carroll Geology, Soils, Paleontological and Mineral Resources City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 7- 1 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

Page 585 of 628 ends

7. Report Preparers
Ryan Yasuda Hydrology and Water Quality; Public Services and Recreation
Chris Sanchez Noise and Vibration; Senior Technical Review Nick Reynoso Noise and Vibration
Jason Neilsen GIS Services
Ron Teitel Graphics
Kristine Olsen Word Processing and Report Production
Transportation
H( axap,otl' l'ratisp()rlali()C Consultants, Inc.
100 Century Center Court, Suite Wl
San Jose, California 95112
At van den Hout, Vice President and Principal Associate Utilities
Schaaf and Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers
4699 Old Ironsides Dr., Ste. 350
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Leif M. Coponen, PE, Vice President
Brett F. Crews, Assistant Engineer
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 7- 2 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Resolution No. 18755

Page 586 of 628 ends

Exhibit B

FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW HOUSING

ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT
City of
Mountain View
DECEMBER 2022
Resolution No. 18755

Page 587 of 628 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
Page
Section1: Introduction......................................................................................................... 1 Statutory Requirements for Findings.............................................................................. 1 Record of Proceedings................................................................................................... 2 Incorporation By Reference........................................................................................... 3 Findings......................................................................................................................... 3 Section 2: Project Background and Overview....................................................................4 Brief Project Description................................................................................................. 4 ProjectObjectives.......................................................................................................... 4 Alternatives.................................................................................................................... 5 Section 3: Effects Determined to Be Mitigated to Less -Than - Significant Levels ............ 6 Section 4: Significant Effects That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less -Than - Significant Level 24
Section 5: Feasibility of Alternatives to the Proposed Project ....................................... 27 ProjectAlternatives...................................................................................................... 27 Section 6: Statement of Overriding Considerations........................................................ 29 Section 7: Conclusion; No Recirculation of the Final EIR is Required .......................... 32 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations i December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 588 of 628 ends

Section 1: Introduction
Statutory Requirements for Findings
To support a decision on a project for which an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) is prepared, the lead or responsible agency must prepare written findings offact (Findings) for each significant effect on the envlrotnnetit Identified in the EIR (e. g., Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code). The City of Mountain View, as the lead agency, has prepared these Findings for the City of Mountain View Housing Element Update ( Project). The Findings must be adopted by the Mountain View City Council, which the City Council hereby elects to do as detailed more fully herein.

Sectlon 15091( a) of (lie CallfutnIa Envhonmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines states that:
a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each ofthose significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:

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

In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives where feasible to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of a project. For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less -than - significant level, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 states: " If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ` acceptable."'
1 Public Resources Code Section 21081( b).

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 589 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Record of Proceedings
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council bases its Findings and decisions contained herein. For purposes of CEQA and the Findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings ( Record of Proceedings) for the City' s decision on the Project consists o£ ( a) matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, federal, State and local laws and regulations; and ( b) the following documents which are in the custody of the City:

Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Ptuject ( see, e. g., Al)lieudlx A ut' the Diall L1R 1'ui the Nutice 1Ut' Pteltetxll01t); The Public Review draft FIR and supporting documentation prepared for the Project Draft EIR published in July 2022 and all attached Appendices, and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred to therein;
All written and verbal comments and documents submitted to the City by agencies, organizations and members ofthe public on the Project and the Final EIR (before, during, and after the close ofthe public comment period up through the close ofthe public testimony portion ofthe City Council' s public hearing on the Project); The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( MMRP); The Public Review Final Environmental Impact Report/Responses to Comments Document and supporting documentation prepared for the Project (Final EIR published in November 2022), and all decisions, determinations, documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred to therein;
All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, referred to therein; All locally adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plans, specific plans and ordinances, master plans together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs, and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area such as the City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, adopted by the City Council on July 10, 2012 and the City' s Climate Action Plan ( Climate Protection Roadmap adopted in 2015); The City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2011012069), including all appendices attached thereto, certified by the Mountain View City Council on July 10, 2012, and all findings, decisions, determinations, and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the General Plan EIR;
All staffreports, presentation materials, and other documents prepared by the City with respect to the Final EIR and the Project, and any minutes or verbatim transcripts of all Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 590 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
1 information and Study Sessions, workshops, public meetings and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; and
Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by public Resources Code Section 21167. 6, subdivision ( e).

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

City of Mountain View Community Development Department
500 Casttu Sttcet, P. O. Llux 7.540
Mountain View, CA 94039- 7540
Contact: Ellen Yau, ellan.yau@mountainviow. gov
Incorporation By Reference
The Final EIR is hereby incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the comparative analysis of alternatives, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the scope and nature of mitigation measures, and the reasons for approving the Project despite the conclusion regarding associated significant and unavoidable adverse impact.

Findings
The Findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence contained in the Record of Proceedings, including, without limitation, the Final EIR, including relevant technical studies, reports, and evaluations supporting the Final EIR' s analysis. As previously stated, the Draft EIR including, without limitations, all appendices attached thereto) addresses the potential effects on the environment that are associated with the Project as required under CEQA, and the Final EIR includes the public comments received on the Draft EIR and minor text and graphic revisions to the Draft EIR, which includes the Errata document dated November 2022. See Section 1 above for information regarding the location and custodian ofthe documents that comprise the Record of Proceedings.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 591 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Section 2: Project Background and Overview
This section provides a brief description ofthe Project, lists the objectives ofthe Project, and lists the Project alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR.

Brief Project Description
The proposed Project includes actions by the City of Mountain View to update the City' s Housing Element in conformance with State law and make necessary adjustments to other elements ofthe City' s General Plan, zoning, and precise plans to maintain consistency within and lretweelt these ducutrteulr. Strlle letw [ equites the lily itt ulul1tlr ilv out tell( ltuusiug elelueut by January 31, 2023. The Project analyzed in the FIR would include adoption of a General Plan amendment to add or modify goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs related to housing in the Housing Element ofthe City' s General Plan. The Housing Element itself would contain: an updated housing needs assessment; updated goals, policies, and programs that address the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing and that affirmatively further fair housing; and a housing inventory that meets the City' s Regional Housing Needs Assessment ( RHNA) allocation and provides a buffer of additional housing development capacity. The Project would also include modifications to provisions in the City' s General Plan Land Use Map, zoning ordinance, zoning map, and adopted Precise Plans, as needed, to reflect the housing sites inventory. Based on the City' s RHNA allocation, the HEU plans for an additional 11, 135 dwelling units plus a sizeable " buffer." This EIR evaluates the potential for approximately 18, 000 multi -family housing units ( including approximately 96 accessory dwelling units) during the HEU planning period ( 2023- 2031) as a maximum scenario for purposes ofthe CEQA evaluation, understanding that the buffer size and the final sites selected for inclusion in the Housing Element will be determined by the City Council upon adoption of the HEU. Of this, approximately 16, 530 units are already allowed under the City' s adopted General Plan, zoning, and Precise Plans and the remaining 1, 250 units would be created through rezonings and General Plan amendments. In addition, the EIR also analyzes a possible increase in housing production from rezonings and General Plan Amendments of approximately 2, 850 units beyond 2031.

Project Objectives
The primary purpose ofthe HEU is to comply with the requirements of State law by analyzing existing and projected housing needs, and updating goals, policies, objectives, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The proposed Project is intended to ensure the City' s conformance with State housing requirements and seeks to:

Protect existing housing;
Encourage new housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs;
Remove undue constraints on itew liuusing development, including for afforditble housing development;
Affirmatively further fair housing; and
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 592 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Identify specific sites that could accommodate required housing units to meet the City' s RHNA.

Conducting community engagement and soliciting feedback to inform the contents ofthe HEU is a critical component of the planning process and will help to shape the HEU that is ultimately adopted by the City Council.

Alternatives
Based on the Project objectives and anticipated environmental consequences and pursuant to Section 15126. 6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following Project alternatives were selected for analysis:

Alternative l: No Project. This alternative assumes that the HEU would not be adopted and that the goals; and policies within the existing Housing Flement would remain uncharged Further, the City' s existing land use and zoning designations would also remain unchanged.

Rezoning within portions ofthe City would not occur, however reasonably foreseeable development could still proceed, and residential development within the City would continue to be directed and governed in the manner that it is currently.

Alternative 2: Reduced Sites Alternative. This alternative would reduce the number of opportunity sites and rezoning areas identified in the HEU and locate development and resulting construction activity farther from existing neighborhoods.

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

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 593 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Section 3: Effects Determined to Be Mitigated to Less - Than -Significant Levels
The Final EIR identified certain impacts that would not be significant under the applicable CEQA thresholds and certain potentially significant effects that could result from the Project. Adoption of the mitigation measures described therein and summarized below will reduce these potentially significant effects to less -than -significant levels in most circumstances. The City makes CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 finding ( a) with respect to all of the following impacts. This section provides a summary ofthe environmental effects ofthe Project determined to be less than signifcaul as a rosult of Chu imphuinuntation of mitigation, which are evaluated in detail in the Final FIR, and provides written findings for each ofthose effects and significance conclusions, accompanied by a brief explanation ofthe rationale for each finding;.

Air Quality
Impact AIR-3: Implementation of the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact 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 HEU area proposing projects within 1, 000 feet of existing or approved sensitive receptors shall prepare a project -level Health Risk Assessment ( 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 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), California Air Resources Board ( GARB), California Environmental Protection Agency' s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA) and United States Environmental Protection Agency ( 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- 1' 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.

Finding
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 AIR2 would reduce construction health risk impacts to less than significant with mitigation by use of Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 594 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
clean construction equipment that meet the Tier 4 Final off -road emission standards, or equivalent Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy ( VDECS), as certified by CARB.

Mitigation measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant air quality impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final FIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation ofthe mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measures set lot [It above will seduce the significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will ensure the mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the Project.

Impact AIR- LCU: Implementation of the Project, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial levels offine particulate matter (PM2.5) and toxic air contaminants ( TACs) under cumulative conditions; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Refer to Mitigation Measure AIR-2.

Finding
Health risk impacts from construction ofresidences within the Project areas could combine with risks from these existing TAC sources that would exceed BAAQMD cumulative risk thresholds.

However, future development under the Project 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 measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant air quality impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measures set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will ensure the mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the Project.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 595 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element
Biological Resources
Impact BI0- 1: Implementation of the Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS); however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would bo less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 1110 1; Spacial Status Bat Protection Meastire. s.

In coordination with the laity, a preconstruction survey for special -status bats shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in advance oftree 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 1 to April 15 and August 15 to October 15; outside of bat maternity roosting season ( approximately April 16 — August 14) and outside the months of winter torpor approximately October 16 — February 28), to the extent feasible.

If removal of trees during the periods when bats are active is not feasible and active bat roosts being used for maternity or hibernation purposes are found on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site where tree and building removal is planned, a no -disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established around these roost sites until they are determined to be no longer active by a qualified biologist. A 100- foot no -disturbance buffer is a typical protective buffer distance; however, this may be modified by the qualified biologist depending on existing screening around the roost site ( such as dense vegetation) as well as the type of construction activity which would occur around the roost site.

The qualified biologist shall be present during tree removal if potential bat roosting habitat or active bat roosts are present. Trees with active roosts shall only be removed when no rain is occurring or is forecast to occur for 3 days and when daytime temperatures are at least 50° F.

Removal oftrees with potential bat roosting habitat or active bat roost sites shall follow a two- step removal process:

On the first day oftree 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 chainsaws.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 8 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 596 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
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).

Finding
The Project has the potential to adversely affect special -status bats which may roost in and around the Project area through the removal oftrees 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 Mcaanre 1310 1, which would require preconctruction 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 measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant biological resources impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project.

Impact BIO- 1. CU: Implementation of the Project, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, could contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on Biological Resources; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be. less than significant.

Refer to Mitigation Measure BI0- 1.

Finding
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 ofthe 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.

Mitigation measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant biological resources impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 597 of 628 ends

of Mountain View Housina Element
implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CI IL l: Implementation of the, Project could entire a substantial adverse ohango in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15O64. 5; howover, with implomentation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

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 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, if the building has been previously evaluated for eligibility as a historic resource under CEQA and that evaluation or survey is more than five -years old, the findings of that evaluation should be confirmed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior' s Professional Qualifications as stated above.

Mitigation Measure CUL lb: Historic Resource Avoidance.

If, after implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL la, the subject property is found to qualify as a historic resource and the proposed project includes demolition ofthe historic resource, the project shall be redesigned to remove or avoid demolition. Any redesign that includes significant alteration ofthe historic resource, as defined by Section 36.54.55( e) ofthe City of Mountain View Zoning Code, shall be required to comply with City Standard Condition of Approval Secretary of the Interior Standards).

Finding
Housing development planned under the Project could result in the demolition or significant alteration of potential historical resources ( as defined in Sec. 36. 54. 55 ofthe 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, adherence to existing zoning and permit procedures, and application of Mitigation Measure CUL-la and CUL- lb, impacts to Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 10 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 598 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
known and potential historic resources at the National, State, and local levels would be reduced to less than significant.

Impact CUL LCU: Implementation of the Project, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, could contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on historic architectural resources; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL- la and CUL- lb.

Finding
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 ofApproval Secretary ofthe Interior Standards) which would require Secretary ofthe Interior' s Standards compliance review for significant alterations of historic resources, would reduce the severity of impacts associated with the Project. 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 ofthe Project 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 Project' s contribution to the potentially significant cumulative impact on historic architectural resources would not be considerable, and the cumulative impact of the Project combined with cumulative development would be less than significant.

Mitigation measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant cultural resources impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measures set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less -than -significant Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 599 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will ensure the mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the Project.

Impact CUL 2: Implementation of the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064. 5; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL 2a: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources.

If pre -contact orhlstodc. era archaeuloL;lcal tesoutces ate oucouuloled dutlug holed couslutdioll and implementation, all construction activities within 100 foot shall halt and tho City shall be notified. Pre contact archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked - stone tools e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil midden") containing heat -affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment ( e. g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as 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 ofthe Interior' s Standards ( SOIS) for Archeology shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery.

Ifthe City determines that the resource qualifies as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource ( as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines) and that the project has potential to damage or destroy the resource, mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083. 2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 4, with a preference for preservation in place. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one ofthe 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 (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 Public Resources Code ( 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 ofthe 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, individual project applicants shall request a non -confidential records search from the Northwest Information Center ( KWIC) to determine ifthe proposed project site has Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 12 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 600 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
archaeological sensitivity. Ifthe NWIC recommends that the proposed project site be reviewed by an archaeologist, 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 ofthe 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. Ifthe 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 paining tttay be requited to identify, evaluate, and mitigate impacts to cultural resources, as recunnnended by the SOIS qualified archaeologkt 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 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 ofthe research shall be prepared and submitted for review by the City and a final draft shall be submitted to the NWIC.

Finding
Mitigation Measure CUL- 2a, Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources revises the Discovery ofArchaeological 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 based upon review of a NWIC non -confidential records search of the proposed project site. These mitigation measures would address potential impacts to archaeological resources and reduce the potential of the Project to impact archaeological resources to a less -than - significant level.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerafions 13 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 601 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Impact CUL 2. CU: Implementation of the Project, in combination with other cumulative development, could 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; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-2a and CUL-2b.

Finding
The Project would contribute a negligible less than significant impact after the implementation of Measures CUL 2a and CUL 2b, which would require a SOTS qualifled archaeologist to conduct a review of discretionary 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 resources are inadvertently identified during project construction.

As a result, the less -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- 1: Implementation of the Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL-2a and CUL-2b.

Finding
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.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 14 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 602 of 628 ends

Impact TCR- I.C1J: Implementation ol' the Project, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, could contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Refer to Mitigation Measures CUL- 2a and CUL- 2b.

Finding
The Project would contribute a negligible less -than -significant incremental 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 near known cultural resources or within archaeological sensitivity areas prior to construction, the cessation of activities and buffering offinds, 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.

Mitigation measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant tribal cultural resources impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 15 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 603 of 628 ends

of Mountain View Housing Element U
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG- 1: Implementation of the Project could generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure GHG- 1: Require Compliance with Electric Vehicle ( EV) Requirements in CALGreen Tier 2.

Subsequent development projects propowd m part ofthe IIFJ T shall comply with FV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2 at the time that a building permit application is filed.

Mitigation Measure TRA- 1: Implement Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT) Reduction Measures.

Individual multifamily housing development proposals that do not screen out from VMT impact analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis using the methods outlined by the City' s most recent VMT guidelines. Projects that result in a significant impact shall include travel demand management measures and/or physical measures ( i. e. improving multimodal transportation network, improving street connectivity) to reduce VMT. The City' s VMT guidelines identify four tiers of mitigation measures, all of which can be quantified within the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) VMT tool:

Tier 1— Project Characteristics. Although it may be difficult to revise a project during environmental review, Tier 1 strategies allow the user to increase the project density, diversity of land uses, and add affordable and/ or below -market -rate housing to the residential and employment projects to reduce VMT.

Tier 2— Multi-Modal Network Improvements. These improvements include implementing bicycle lanes, improving the pedestrian network, implementing traffic calming, increasing transit accessibility, and improving network connectivity. These improvements require coordination with Mountain View staff and additional studies signal warrant studies, traffic calming studies, etc.) to determine feasibility. Consultants should prioritize public improvements included in the City' s approved plans which contain various transportation improvements to bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway facilities as VMT mitigation. ( See above for list of adopted plans and policies.) Tier 3— Parking. Parking strategies shown to effectively reduce VMT include reduced parking, increased bike parking or end -of -trip bike facilities. In order to be most effective, the areas surrounding the projects with reduced parking should have parking permit programs.

Tier 4— Travel Demand Management ( TDM) There are a multitude of TDM measures to reduce VMT. The VMT Tool includes all allowable TDM measures and their relative Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 16 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 604 of 628 ends

of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
effectiveness. Based on the percentage of participation selected by the user, the VMT Tool calculates the resulting VMT reduction. The various TDM measures in the VMT v, Tool include school carpool programs, bike -sharing programs, car -sharing programs, trip reduction marketing/ educational campaigns, parking cash -out, subsidized transit, telecommuting, alternative work schedules, shuttles, pay to park, ride -sharing, unbundled parking, and subsidized vanpools.

Finding
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG- 1 and TRA- 1, all future projects proposed for development pursuant to the Project would be consistent with the BAAQMD' s recommended 611G significance thresholds. Compliance with these thresholds would mean that these projects would not generate UHU emissions either directly or indiroctly, that would havo a significant impact on the environment. ' Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant GHG impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation ofthe mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measures set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will ensure the mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the Project.

Impact GHG- 2: Implementation of the Project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Refer to Mitigation Measures GHG- 1 and TRA- 1.

Finding
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG- 1 would ensure the Project' s consistency with BAAQMD GHG threshold A(2)( a) by requiring future development under the Project to comply with the EV charging infrastructure requirements in the version of CALGreen standards in place at the time ofindividual project review. The Project would be consistent with the other three GHG thresholds recommended by the BAAQMD. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG- 1, the Project would be consistent with the updated GHG thresholds recommended by the BAAQMD to meet the state' s GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals in SB 32, EO B- 55- 13 and the 2017 Scoping Plati Update. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 17 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 605 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Mitigation measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant GHG impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation ofthe mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measures set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will ensure the mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the Project
Impact ( TH( T- 1.(: ll: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, could result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Refer to Mitigation Measures GHG- 1 and TRA- 1.

Finding
Implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG- 1 and TRA- 1 by ensuring consistency with all four GHG thresholds recommended by the BAAQMD which would in turn ensure consistency with the state' s GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals for 2030 and beyond. Given that GHG emission impacts are cumulative in nature, the Project' s incremental contribution to significant cumulative GHG emissions would therefore not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact of GHG emissions generated by the Project would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant GHG impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measures set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Adoption ofthe conditions of approval will ensure the mitigation measures would be implemented as part ofthe Project.

Findings of Fad and Statement of Overriding Considerations 18 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 606 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-3: Implementation of the Project could be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962. 5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ- 1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.

Prior to the initiation of any construction requiring ground -disturbing activities on listed active hazardous materials cleanup sites, the project applicant shall complete a Phase 1 environmental site ztssessillent 1'or that property in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials Standard E1527 for those active hazardous materials sites to ascertain their current status. Any recommended follow up sampling (i.e., Phase 11 activities) set forth in the Phase I assessment shall be implemented prior to construction. The results of Phase 11 studies, if necessary, shall be submitted to the local overseeing agency and any required remediation or further delineation of identified contamination shall be completed prior to commencement of construction.

Prior to final project design of any individual project that includes any earth -disturbing activities, the project applicant shall conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ( Phase I assessment). The Phase I assessment shall be prepared in general accordance with ASTM Standard E1527- 21, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process ( or most current edition that is in force at the time of final project design), which is the current industry standard. The Phase I assessment shall include a records review of appropriate federal, State, and local databases within ASTM- listed search distances regarding hazardous materials use, storage, or disposal at the given site, a review of historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, a site reconnaissance, interviews with persons knowledgeable about the sites historical uses, and review of other relevant existing information that could identify the potential existence of Recognized Environmental Conditions, including hazardous materials, or contaminated soil or groundwater. If no Recognized Environmental Conditions are identified, then no further action would be required.

If Recognized Environmental Conditions are identified and the Phase I assessment recommends further action, the project applicant shall conduct the appropriate follow- up actions, which may include further records review, sampling of potentially hazardous materials, and possibly site cleanup. In the event that site cleanup is required, the project shall not proceed until the site has been cleaned up to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory agency ( e.g., Department of Toxic Substances Control [ DTSC], Regional Water Quality Control Board [ RWQCB], or Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health [ SCCEHD]) such that the regulatory agency issues a No Further Action letter or equivalent.

Finding
Mitigation Measure HAZ- 1 would ensure that site assessment and, if needed, site cleanup, would occur prior to any earth -disturbing activities within a given project site. This would reduce the potential for an unanticipated discovery during project construction, and reduce the potential Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 19 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 607 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
effects on construction workers, the public, and the environment. With the implementation ofthis mitigation measure, this impact would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant hazardous materials impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project.

Transportation
Impact TRA- 2: Implementation of the Project could exceed an applicable vehicle miles traveled VMT) threshold of significance; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Implement VMT Reduction Measures.

Individual multifamily housing development proposals that do not screen out from VMT impact analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis using the methods outlined by the City' s most recent VMT guidelines. Projects that result in a significant impact shall include travel demand management measures and/ or physical measures ( i.e. improving multimodal transportation network, improving street connectivity) to reduce VMT. The City' s VMT guidelines identify four tiers of mitigation measures, all of which can be quantified within the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) VMT tool:

Tier 2— Multi-Modal Network Improvements. These improvements include implementing bicycle lanes, improving the pedestrian network, implementing traffic calming, increasing transit accessibility, and improving network connectivity. These improvements require coordination with Mountain View staff and additional studies signal warrant studies, traffic calming studies, etc.) to determine feasibility. Consultants should prioritize public improvements included in the City' s approved plans which contain various transputtatiun itnhtoventents to bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway facilities as VMT mitigation. ( See above for list of adopted plans and policies.) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 20 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 608 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Tier 3— Parking. Parking strategies shown to effectively reduce VMT include reduced r
parking, increased bike parking or end -of -trip bike facilities. In order to be most effective, the areas surrounding the projects with reduced parking should have parking permit programs.

Tier 4— Travel Demand Management ( TDM) There are a multitude of TDM measures to reduce VMT. The VMT Tool includes all allowable TDM measures and their relative effectiveness. Based on the percentage of participation selected by the user, the VMT Tool calculates the resulting VMT reduction. The various TDM measures in the VMT Tool include school carpool programs, bike -sharing programs, car -sharing programs, trip reduction markuting/edueatioual ca npaigus, parking eash out, subsidized transit, telecommuting, alternative work schedules, shuttles, pay to park, ride -sharing, unbundled parking, and subsidized vanpools
Finding
Mitigation Measure TRA- 1 would ensure that VMT per resident is less than 85 percent of the regional VMT per resident for residential sites located in areas of the City where the VMT per resident is higher than 85 percent. With the implementation ofthis mitigation measure, this impact would be reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant transportation impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project.

Impact TRA- 2. CU: Implementation of the Project, in combination with cumulative development, could exceed an applicable VMT threshold of significance; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Refer to Mitigation Measure TRA- 1.

Finding
Project sites that are located in areas of the City where the VMT per resident is higher than 85 percent can be mitigated by implementing the mitigation measures identified in Mitigation Measure TRA- 1. Therefore, the Project sites, in combination with cumulative developments, would also result in a less than significant VMT impact with mitigation.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 21 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 609 of 628 ends

Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measures set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less - than - significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will ensure the mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the Project
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTL-I: Implementation of the Project could require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects; however, with implementation ofthe identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure UTL-I: Fair -Share Contributions Toward Utility Improvements.

Subsequent development projects shall contribute the fair share amount identified by the City of Mountain View Public Works Department to fund capital improvements to the water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater drainage systems prior to issuance of a building permit.

Finding
Overall, the potential improvements or extension of utility infrastructure to serve development as a result ofthe Project would be installed primarily in existing roadways and utility rights -of -way.

Aside from short- term construction disturbance, no unusual or further environmental impacts would be generated beyond those identified elsewhere in the EIR for overall construction activity for the project. As such, the implementation of the Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Mitigation Measure UTL- I would ensure that subsequent development projects contribute their fair share toward Capital Improvement Projects ( CIPs) identified by the City, based on the project' s determined contribution. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant utilities impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City ofMountain View hereby finds that implementation ofthe mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measures set Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 22 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 610 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less -than - significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will ensure the mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the Project.

Impact UTL- LCU: Implementation of the Project, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, could contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on utility infrastructure; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Re.1' ei lu Mitigation Moacure UTI 1
Finding
Cumulative development would be subject to applicable development and utilities fees that would be collected by the City, construction of system improvements, and fair -share contributions to address the new utility system demand. The potential improvement or extension ofutility infrastructure to serve cumulative development would be installed primarily in existing roadways and utility rights -of -way. Aside from short-term construction disturbance, no unusual or further environmental impacts would be generated beyond those identified elsewhere in the EIR for overall construction activity associated with future development as a result ofthe Project. For these reasons, and because changes proposed to utilities infrastructure as part offuture developments will be subject to review and permitting requirements, and Mitigation Measure UTL- 1, the Project would not contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact in this regard, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation measures have been identified that, when implemented by the Project, will avoid or reduce this potentially significant utilities impact to a less -than -significant level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measures set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less -than -significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will ensure the mitigation measures would be implemented as part ofthe Project.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 23 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 611 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Section 4: Significant Effects That Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less -Than -Significant Level
This section provides a summary of the environmental effects ofthe Project determined to be significant and unavoidable, which are evaluated in detail in the Final EIR, and provides written findings for each of those significant effects and significance conclusions, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.

A significant unavoidable impact is an impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level ifthe project i, implemented, because feasible mitigation would not reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level. Here, the Project will result in a project -level air quality impact that camlot be fully mitigated. The City makes Section 15091( a) findings ( 1) and ( 3) with respect to this impact for the reasons summarized below and as detailed more fully in the Final EIR.

Air Quality
Impact AIR-2: Implementation of the HEU would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

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.

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 CARB, 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) Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 24 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 612 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
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 inudets, inuallation of the equipment would create a safety liazard or hapaiied visibility Ice• 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.

3. 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.

Finding
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is expected to be effective at reducing criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation of individual projects developed in the Project area to below the BAAQMD thresholds; however, the specific emissions associated with 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 ifthe Tier 4 Final equipment required by the mitigation measure is not commercially available. Also, reactive organic gas ( ROG) emissions Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 25 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 613 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
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 Project would conservatively be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.

The identification ofthis significant and unavoidable impact does not preclude the finding of a less -than -significant or less -than -significant -with -mitigation Impact for 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.

Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Pioject that will reduce the above -described slgnlficant air quality lrupact, trot ( lie utiliugalion wrnlld not reduce impaal lu a significant level, level, as described more fully in the Final EIR. The City hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval for the Project.

Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR but not to a level of insignificance. Adoption of the conditions of approval will ensure the mitigation measures would be implemented as part ofthe Project. Since mitigation would not be adequate to reduce the significant air quality impact to a less than significant level, the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 26 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 614 of 628 ends

of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Section 5: Feasibility of Alternatives to the Proposed
Project
The Draft EIR included several Project alternatives. The City hereby concludes that the Draft EIR sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project so as to foster informed public participation and informed decision -making. The City finds that the alternatives identified and described in the Draft EIR were considered and further finds that two of them ( an off -site alternative, an alternative containing Additional Housing Sites, and an alternative using reduced parking ratios) to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth bolo%v puiauLuit to CE QA Section , 1091 ag doscribed in Section 2 i ofthc Draft FIR In addition to the Project, the following alternatives were evaluated in the Draft EIR and are more fully described in Chapter 5 ofthe Draft EIR. Each alternative was evaluated against the Project Objectives listed in Section 2 ofthis document, as reference points for stakeholders and decision - makers in evaluating Project alternatives.

Project Alternatives
No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project would not be adopted and the goals and policies within the City' s existing Housing Element would remain unchanged. The land use and zoning designations currently in place would continue the land use decisions and development parameters that currently exist in the City. The overall number of new units accommodated under the No Project Alternative would be anticipated to be lower than those expected to be accommodated by the proposed Project.

Finding
While the No Project Alternative could lessen the severity ofthe identified significant and unavoidable air quality impact identified for the proposed Project, the No Project Alternative would not eliminate the impact, as it is possible that projects with substantial ground disturbance, specialty construction equipment, or compressed and highly intensive construction schedules could exceed construction criteria air pollutant emission significance thresholds.

The No Project Alternative would also introduce a new significant and unavoidable impact related to land use and planning. The No Project Alternative would not meet any ofthe objectives ofthe HEU as defined above in Section 5. 1. 1, nor is it legally feasible to implement. The No Project Alternative would also not provide housing to fulfill the requirements of State law or meet the City' s RHNA requirements, which result in a significant and unavoidable land use and planning impact, as compared to the less -than -significant impacts associated with the proposed Project. For all of these reasons, this alternative is infeasible, as supported by the administrative record for the proposed project.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 27 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 615 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Reduced Sites Alternative
Under the Reduced Sites Alternative, the number of opportunity sites and rezoning areas identified in the Project would be reduced and development and resulting construction activity would be located farther from existing neighborhoods. Opportunity sites and rezone areas generally located outside of Precise Plan areas within the Mira Loma/ Farley/ Rock Street and Springer/ Cuesta/ Phyllis neighborhoods were eliminated resulting in a reduction of approximately 537 units of development capacity.

Finding
While the Reduced Sites Alternative could lessen theseverity ofthe identified significant and unavoidable air quality impact identified for the proposed Project, the Reduced Sites Alternative would not eliminate the impact, as it is possible that projects with substantial ground disturbance, specialty construction equipment, or compressed and highly intensive construction schedules could exceed construction criteria air pollutant emission significance thresholds.

This alternative would meet the objectives of the Project, but to a lesser extent than the proposed Project. Fewer sites would be identified under the Reduced Sites Alternative that could accommodate required housing units to meet the City' s RHNA. As such, there would be lesser encouragement ofnew housing for households at all income levels and for households with a range of diverse housing needs and a reduction in the removal of constraints on new housing development, including for affordable housing development. For all ofthese reasons, the City Council declines to adopt the Reduced Sites Alternative.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines § 15126. 6( e)( 2) requires an EIR to identify an environmentally superior alternative. Ifthe environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR also must identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is defined as that alternative with the least adverse impacts to the project area and its surrounding environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126. 6( a) places emphasis on alternatives that " avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects" of a project.

Determining an environmentally superior alternative can be difficult because ofthe many factors that must be balanced. For example, the Reduced Sites Alternative could be preferred because, relative to the proposed Project, this lesser -intensity development would presumably emit fewer overall emissions, and air quality -related health risk could be reduced in some areas ofthe City due to the farther distance of some emissions -generating activity to sensitive receptors, even though the impact conclusions would be the same as the proposed Project. However, the Reduced Sites Alternative would also result in a greater impact to land use and planning due to the reduction in the buffer in the housing sites inventory intended to provide housing to fulfill the requirements of State law and to meet the City' s RHNA requirements, although ultimately impacts would be the same as the proposed Project. The City has identified the Reduced Sites Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative because ofits potential reduction in overall criteria air pollutant emissions and air quality -related health risk.

Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations 28 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 616 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
Section 6: Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City is the lead agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Final EIR. As the lead agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts ofthe proposed action, which ofthose impacts are significant, and which impacts can be mitigated through imposition of feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize such impacts to a level of " less than significant.

CEQA requires the lead agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable adverse impacts when deytettuit iul; Mio( hei to appiuve & project. iu lratticulat, Public Retsoutce s Code sectiotr 21081( a) provides; Ihat utt public ageuc.y utay at prove ut cauy out a lnujecl fist Which all euvittnuueutal impact report has been certified that Identifies one or more significant effects on the envlroruneut that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more ofthree findings with respect to each significant effect. Public Resources Code section 21081( b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the lead agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits ofthe project outweigh the significant effects ofthe project. Ifthe specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable [ CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093( a)].

CEQA requires the lead agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record [ CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093( b)]. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If a lead agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record ofthe project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The statement of overriding considerations does not substitute for, and is in addition to, findings required by CEQA Guidelines section 15091.

As required under Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City, having reviewed and considered the Final EIR, all other written materials within the Record of Proceeding, and all oral testimony presented at public hearings and other public meetings on the Final EIR, has balanced the benefits ofthe proposed Project against the identified unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project, and hereby adopts all feasible mitigation measures with respect to such impacts, certifies the Final EIR, and approves the Project. The City has also examined alternatives to the Project, none of which is feasible, meets the majority of the Project objectives, or is environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed in the Summary of Alternatives Evaluated ( Section 5) and the Final EIR.

After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits ofthe proposed Project, the City has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations 29 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 617 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
identified above are acceptable due to the following specific considerations in the record, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts ofthe Project. Each ofthe considerations in the record, standing alone, is sufficient to support approval ofthe Project, in accordance with CEQA.

The Project will result in an air quality impact that cannot be fully mitigated. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project, however, these would not fully mitigate the impact under CEQA. This significant unavoidable impact is identified and discussed in Section 4 ofthese Findings. The City further specifically finds that the significant unavoidable air quality during construction, is outweighed by the proposed Project' s benefits and is acceptable in light ofthe heue( its ol' the htujecl, based on the liudiugs below.

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

All Mitigation Measures recommended in the Final EIR have been incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval and will be implemented through the MMRP, incorporated by reference herein.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has, in determining whether or not to approve the Project, balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, including regionwide or Statewide environmental benefits ofthe project against these unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The following statements specify the reasons why, in the City' s judgment, the benefits ofthe Project outweigh its unavoidable environmental risks. The City also finds that any one ofthe following reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval ofthe Project.

Thus, every if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City will stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient.

The substantial evidence supporting the City' s Findings and the benefits described below can be found in the Record ofProceedings.

The Project will assist the City in meeting its RHNA and goals for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing in the City, including affordable housing.

This will have benefits in reducing the City' s jobs -housing imbalance, which will improve access to jobs for the region. It will also increase the availability of affordable housing, improving standards of living for lower and moderate - income individuals and families.

Providing housing associated with the Project to meet the needs of all income levels is critical to the long-term social and economic health ofthe City of Mountain View, including attracting and retaining middle -income professionals such as teachers and firefighters, providing housing opportunities for an aging population and/ or multi - generational living, and managing the effects of homelessness on the community.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 30 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 618 of 628 ends

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
The Project will allow the City to comply with State housing law, retain local land use control, and maintain eligibility to receive critical State and Federal funding for infrastructure improvements and public amenities.

The Project supports the City' s efforts to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and nonrenewable energy, to decrease its share of GHG emissions and contributions to global climate change, and to help make Mountain View a more attractive place to live by adding density on underutilized sites served by existing transportation and infrastructure including the requirements not to incorporate any natural gas infrastructure.

As iueulloued above, lire littegullig ltetivfils ltiuvided to llte public nod llte bloadei Muulttaill Vlew community thiuugh appiuval and hupleineutation of the Pioject outweigh (lie identified significant adverse environmental impact of the Project that cannot be mitigated. Each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified in the Final EIR, and therefore, the City finds those impacts to be acceptable.

Economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project as set forth in the MMRP.

On balance, the City finds that there are specific considerations associated with the Project that serve to override and outweigh the Project' s significant unavoidable effect. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, this adverse effect is considered acceptable.

For the foregoing reasons and as otherwise supported by substantial evidence in the Record of Proceeding, the City hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations (" SOC"), which has balanced the benefits ofthe Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching a decision to approve the Project.

Each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified in the Final EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.

Economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project or further Mitigation Measures beyond those incorporated into the Project.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 31 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 619 of 628 ends

of Mountain View Housina Element
Section 7: Conclusion; No Recirculation of the Fina!'
EIR is • •
An EIR is adequate as long as it provides specific response to all specific questions about significant environmental issues and as long as the EIR, as a whole, reflects a good -faith effort at full disclosure. " Recirculation is not required where the new information added to an EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modification in an adequate EIR." ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15088. 5( b))
Per CFQA ( midelines Section l 5088. 5( a), new information added to an EIR is not " significant" unless the 1- JR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect on the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project' s proponents have declined to implement.

Significant new information" requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing:

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

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

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

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

The changes and new information provided in the Final EIR (including the information contained in Chapter 2, Updated Project Information, and Chapter 4, Errata to the Draft EIR) merely amplifies and clarifies the Draft EIR analysis and do not include identification of new significant impacts or more severe impacts of any previously -identified significant impacts associated with the Project or mitigation measures, or new Project alternatives or mitigation measures that warrant consideration. None of the revisions made in the Final EIR change the significance findings ofthe Draft EIR or identify a new or more severe impact not disclosed in the Draft EIR or otherwise constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the EIR.

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

Moreover, no new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified that are considerably different from others previously analyzed and would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts ofthe Project that the City has declined to implement. All ofthe responses Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 32 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 620 of 628 ends

of Mountain View Housing Element Update Project
to comments contained in this Final EIR merely provide information that clarifies and amplifies the evaluation of impacts contained in the Draft EIR. The City of Mountain View further finds that incorporating the new information does not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on the Project or its effects, and that no information has been added to the Final EIR that would warrant recirculation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092. 1.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091( a), based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and the information contained in the record, the City Council has made one or more ofthe following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the Project:
1 Cllallgces to nitelethous have been tetlnito' d if[, of incoipolnlod inlu, the 1' tttjcct, vvltich avoid or substantially lessen the significant, effects as identified ill the Filial EIR. As described above, mitigation measures have been incorporated for significant effects to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Transportation, and Utilities and Service Systems.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. As described above, a mitigation measure for Hazards and Hazardous Materials requires review and approval by regional regulatory agencies that oversee site contamination issues.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. As described above, there are specific overriding considerations that make infeasible project alternatives and potential mitigation measures that would reduce a significant Air Quality impact to a less than significant level.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 33 December 2022 Resolution No. 18755

Page 621 of 628 ends

Exhibit C
1 :2: 2 4ki 171 I_1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Purpose of this Document
This chapter contains the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( MMRP) prepared in compliance with Public Resources lode Section 11081. 6( a). The IV MRP will be considered for adoption by the Environmental Planning Commission ( EPC) and/ or the City Council and will aid the City in its implementation and monitoring of measures included in the EIR and adopted by the EPC and/ or City Council.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update ESA / 202000806 Final Environmental Impact Report November2022
Ln 00
n
00 r+ o
O N
Z N
C
O
b
0 N ( Oa
0 a)
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pmogram

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW ROUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Implemented By When Implemented Monitored By Verified By nn %XuauLy
Mitigation Measure AIR- 1: Emission Reduction Measures for Projects Exceeding the Project applicant During construction Community Community Development Development
Significance Thresholds for Criteria Pollutants. Department Department Project applicants proposing projects that exceed E..AAGMD screening levels shall prepare a project -level criteria air pollutant assessment of c:. r-struction and operational emissions at the time the project is proposed. The project -level assessment shall either include a comparison of the project with other similar projects where a quartatative analysis has been conducted, or shall provide a project -specific criteria air pollutant anaivsis tc determine whether the project exceeds the BAAQMD' s criteria air pollutant thresholds.

In the event that a project - specific analysis finds tia t the project could result in criteria air pollutant emissions that exceed BAAQMD significarce tnresholds, the project applicant shall implement the following emission reduction measures tc the degree necessary to reduce the impact to less than the significance thresholds, arc shall implement additional feasible measures if necessary to reduce t7,e impact to le=ssc _ han the significance thresholds.

Clean Construction Equipment.

1. The project applicant shall use electric construction equ€oment when feasible.

2. The project applicant shall ensure that all these off -road equipment shall have engines that meet the Tier 4 Final off -road ennission standards, as certified by CARB, except as provided for in this section. This requirement shall be veriiier, 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 Engwe ( if applicable), ( 4) - ype of Fuel Used, ( 5) Engine HP, ( 6) Verified Diesel E-nission Control Strategy (VDECS) information if applicable and other related equipment Bata. A Certificatier, S_atsennent is also required to be made by the Contractor for documentation of compliance and forsuturereview bythe BAAQMD as necessary.

The Certification Statement must she that the Contractor agrees to compliance and acknowledges that a violation of this requi- ement shall constitute a material breach of contract.

The
City may waive the requirement for Tier 4 F nac equipment only under the following unusual circumstances: if a parficular piece of zff-road equipment with Tier 4 Final standards is technically notfeasible or not commercially miailabie; the equipment would not produce desired emissions reduction due to expected o-Deratirgmodes; installation ofthe equipment would create asafety hazard or impaired visiblilk for he operator; or there is a compelling emergency need to use other alternate off -roar equipment. For purposes ofthis mitigation measure, " commercially available" shall mean tl a availability of Tier 4 Final engines similar to the availability for other large-scale construction projects inthe region occurring atthe same time and taking into consideration factors such as () potential significant delays to critical - path timing of construction for the prcgect and (ii) geographic . proximity to the project site of Tier 4 Final equipment. 3.

The project applicant shall require the idling time for cif -road and on -road equipment belimited to no more than 2 minutes, except as prridea it exceptions to the applicable state regulations regarding idling for cfif-road and on --.. ad equpment. Legible and visible signs shall be posted in multiple languages ( English, Spar s-i, Cnirese) in designated queuing areas and at the construction site to remind operators oftie 2-minite idling limit. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Final
Environmental Impact Report2
ESA / 202000806
U
November2022
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
V)
r

1. 0
001 v— o
o nn
Z N
c
o
tXo
toa
0 v
Of

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ( CONTINUED) Implemented By When Implemented Monitored By erified By Operational mission Reductions

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

2. As required by Mitigation Measure GHG- 1, projec_s 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 \,%JT impact analysis shall implement VMT reduction measures as required by Mitigation Measure TRA- 1.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Emiss on Reduction Measures for Subsequent Projects Project applicant Prior to construction Community Development
community
Development
Exceeding the Significance Thresholds for Heal-h Risks from Construction. Department Department Project applicants within the HEU area proposing projects within 1, 000 feet of existing or approved sensitive receptors shall prepare a projec- level I - RA of construction impacts at the time the project is proposed. The HRA shall be based or project - specific construction schedule, equipment and activity data and shall be conducted ising rmethods and models approved by the BAAQMD, CARE, OEHHA and U. S_ EPA. Estimamc: protect -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 t1-) e project could result in significant construction health risks that exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure AIR- 1' s require - lent for the use of all Tier 4 Final construction equipment to reduce project -level heaU: h riscs'. o a less -than -significant level. In addition, all tower cranes, forklifts, mean- and material- lifts shall be electric powered. 0:-.:__ in
WIG Ivulte. I
I........

Mitigation Measure BI0- 1: Special -Status Bat Protection Measures. Qualified project staff Prior to construction Community Community Development Development
In coordination with the City, a preconstruction surve-ey for special -status bats shall be conducted biologist
Department Department
by a qualified biologist in advance of tree and structure rernoval within the subsequent project sites to characterize potential bat habitat and ider- u- y active roost sites. Should potential roosting habitat or active bat roosts be found in trees and/ cr 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 1 to April 15 and August 15 to October 15 outside of bat maternity roosting season approximately April 16 - August 14) and outsize 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 pumoses are found on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site where tree and building • ern oval is planned, a no -disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established around these roost sites until they are determined to be no longer active by a qualified biologist. A 100- foo. no -disturbance buffer is a typical protective buffer distance; however, this may be modified Ay 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 : he roost site.

The qualified biologist shall be present during tr-- re- noval 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 =or 3 days and -*her daytime temperatures are at least 50° F.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Final Environmental Impact Report
ESA / 202000806
November2022
t
rq
r- . o
00 v—
r+ o
o
Z N
N
o
en
c
0 v
A. Mitigation Monitoring and

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ( CONTINUED) Implemented By When Implemented Monitored By Verified By Removal of trees with potential at roosting a izat cr actrve bat roost sites shall o ow a twostep removal process:

On the first day of tree remova and under surse- vis. on of the qualified biologist, branches and limbs not containing cavities or fissures i7 which bats could roost, shall be cut only using chainsaws.

On the following day and unde- the supervisi- r of tt-.e qualified biologist, the remainder of the tree may be removed, either using chainsaws cr otter equipment ( e. g., excavator or backhoe).

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL 1a: Historic Resource E-valuiation. Qualified project staff Prior to demolition issuance
Community
Development
Community
Development
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any previously unevaluated building 45- years of age or professional permit Department Department
older on a site included in the housing sites inventor -I the City shall require an evaluation of historical significance that includes consideration of ?he crlIeria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. This evaluation shall be completed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior' s Professional Qualifications for Historw Ar& itecture, Architectural History, or Historic Architecture.

In accordance with Section 5024. 1, if the building as been previously evaluated for eligibility as a historic resource under CEQA and that evaluaticn or sLrvey is more than five -years old, the findings of that evaluation should be confirmed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior' s Professional Qualifications as stated above - Mitigation Measure CUL 1b: Historic Resource Avoidance. Qualified project staff Prior to demolition issuance
Community
Development
Community
Development
If, after implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL ^ a, the subject property is found to qualify as a professional permit
Department Department
historic resource and the proposed project includes mo-kion of the historic resource, the project shall be redesigned to remove or avoid demolition. Any reces. gn 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 wi_h City Standard Ccrdition of Approval ( Secretary of the Interior Standards).

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Final Environmental Impact Report
4 ESA / 202000806
November 2022
tin N
r W
00 —
1 o
O N
Z p
o
Z a
0 A. Mitigation Monitoring and

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ( CONTINUED) Implemented By When Implemented Monitored By Verified By Mitigation Measure CUL 2a: Inadvertent DiscovM of Cultural Resources. Construction contractors, City staff,
During project
construction
Community
Development
Community
Development
If pre -contact or historic -era archaeological resources are encountered during project construction and implementation, alk construction actvi-ies within 100 feet shall halt and the City Qualified archaeologist Department Department shall be notified. Pre -contact archaeological materials night include obsidian and chert flaked - stone tools ( e. g., projectile points, knives, scrapers, or- oolnraking debris; culturally darkened soil (°midden") containing heat -affected rocks, artitacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment ( e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or nlinc slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic -era r-aa, enits might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; ana cep osits of metal, glass, and/ or ceramic refuse. An archaeologist meeting the U. S. Secretaj-y ofll Interior' s Standards ( SOTS) for Archeology shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of d'Isravery.

If the City determines that the resource qualifies as a Kstorical resource or a unique archaeological resource ( as defined pursuant to the CE rA Guidelines) and that the project has potential to damage or destroy the - esource, mitigation shag be implemented in accordance with PRC Section 21083. 2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 4, with a preference for preservation in place. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: ( 1) siting improvements to completely avod the archaeological resource; ( 2) incorporating the resource into a park or dedicated ooer space, by deeding the resource into a permanent conservation easement: (3) capping and couErir=g the resource before building the project on the resource site after the resource has Deer thoroughly studied by a SOIS qualified archaeologist and a report written on the findings.

If avoidance is not feasible, the City shall consult w.th aoprcpriate Native American tribes ( if the resource is pre -contact or indigenous), and other auprcedate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, mininize, or mitigate any Dotential impacts to the resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083. 2, and CEQA Guicieiiin—_ Section 15126. 4. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include daa 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 anc integrity of the resource ( according to PRC Section 21084. 3).

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Final Environmental Impact Report
ESA / 202000806
November2022
ow
LO N
r W
00 ri o
O N
Z p
c
o W
a
0 WOf
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ( CONTINUED) Implemented By When Implemented Monitored By Verified By Mitigation Measure CUL 2b: Cultural Resources Study Requirements. City staff, Qualified archaeologist
Prior to approval of
development permits
Community
Development
Community
Development
Prior to approval of development permits for multifarr Iw zrojects that include ground -disturbing activities, individual project applicants shall requesi a rwr- confidential records search from the for multifamily projects Department Department Northwest Information Center (NWIC) to determine If the proposed project site has that include ground - disturbing activities archaeological sensitivity. If the NWIC recommencs that -he proposed project site be reviewed by an archaeologist, the City shall require a site- spe-- fic cultural resources study by an archaeologist meeting the U. S. Secretary of the Inter:) rs 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 hi stcric context, an assessment of the sensitivity of the project area for buned precontact and ristaric- era resources, and identify if the project would potentially impact cultural resources If _he archaeologist determines that known cultural resources or potential archaeological sensrtia tW areas may be impacted by the project, additional research or treatment, potentially includ ng su-surface testing, and/or a cultural resources awareness training may oe required to icentfv evaluate, and mitigate impacts to cultural resources, as recommended by the SOIS wualirlied archaeologist. If avoidance is not feasible, the City shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes ( if the resource is pre - contact or indigenous), and other appropriate interes-3% paries to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mi_igate any potential raoacts to the resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083. 2, and CEQA Guidelines Section 16' 26. 4 This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery ( according -o PRC Section 21083. 2), if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the r-=se4rt8 with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting the cultural character anc integrity of the reso rce ( according to PRC Section 21084. 3). The cultural report detailing the results of _re research shall be prepared and submitted for review by the City ane a final draft sl- ah be submitted to the NWIC.

Mitigation Measure GHGA: Require Compliance with EV Requirements in CALGreen Tier Project sponsor When building permit Community Community Development
2 application is filed Development
Subsequent development projects proposed as part of he HEU shall comply with EV Department Department
requirements in the most recently adopted version 1f CALG;reen Tier 2 at the time that a building permit application is filed.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Final Environmental Impact Report
6 ESA / 202000806
November2022
Ln N
n L4
00 1 o
o
Z
N
lD
O on
a
0 Wo'
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ( CONTINUED) Implemented By When Implemented Monitor-3d By Jerified By Rewards and 1- 11272rdtws Materials
Mitigation Measure HAZ- 1: Phase I Environmerrril Site Assessment. Project applicant Prior to final project design and initiation of
Oversight by the City' s
Commurity
ommunity
Jevelopment
Prior to the initiation of any construction requiring gro not disturbing activities on listed active hazardous materials cleanup sites, the project appljcw. snail complete a Phase I environmental any construction Development Department site assessment for that property in accordance witn American Society for Testing and Materials requiring disturbing grounds activities v
Department, DTSC,
RWQCB. and/ or
Standard E1527 for those active hazardous materiA3 s tes to ascertain their current status. Any SCCEHD recommended follow up sampling ( i. e., Phase II activities' set forth in the Phase I assessment shall be implemented prior to construction. The resits of Phase II studies, if necessary, shall be submitted to the local overseeing agency and any rec red remediation or further delineation of identified contamination shall be completed prior tc eammercement of construction.

Prior to final project design of any individual projecct- at includes any earth -disturbing activities, the project applicant shall conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ( Phase I assessment). The Phase I assessment shall be premed in general accordance with ASTM Standard E1527- 21, Standard Practce for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase Environmental Site Assessment Process ( or most a- rrent ecition that is in force at the time of final project design), which is the cuuent industry standard. - he Phase I assessment shall include a records review of appropriate federal, State and local databases within ASTM- listed search distances regarding hazardous materials use, storage, or disposal at the given site, a review of historical topographic maps and aerial pI• o: ograohs, a site reconnaissance, interviews with persons knowledgeable about tine sites historical uses, and review of other relevant existing information that could identify the potential existence of Recognized Environmental Conditions, including hazardous materials, or contaminated so- or groundwater. If no Recognized Environmental Conditions are identified, then no further action would be required.

If Recognized Environmental Conditions are identifed and the Phase I assessment recommends further action, the project applicant shall conduct the appropriate follow- up actions, which may include further records review, sampling of potermially hazardous materials, and possibly site cleanup. In the event that site cleanup is required, the project shall not proceed until the site has been cleaned up to the satisfaction of 7he appropriate regulatory agency ( e. g., DTSC, RWQCB, or SCCEHD) such that the regula-cry agercy issues a No Further Action letter or equivalent.

City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Final Environmental Impact Report
ESA / 202000806
November2022
r
A. Mitigation Monitorinq and

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
In 00 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ( CONTINUED) Ln
n
Implemente By When Implemented Monitored By
o O0
Z
N
lfl
o
Tr n ortatio
IV
a
0 WOr
Verified By
Mitigation Measure TRA- 1: Implement Vehicle IMfi es —raveled ( VMT) Reduction Measures. Consultants and City During environmental Community Development
Community
Development
Individual multifamily housing deveh pment proposals tha- do not screen out from VMT impact Staff review
Department and Public Department and Public
analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis tying :he methods outlined by the City' s most Works Department Works Department recent VMT guidelines. Projects that result in a sigrifcarrt impact shall include travel demand management measures and/ or phys; cal measures ( i. e. irtoroving multimodal transportation network, improving street connectivity) to reduce VMT. Tne City' s VMT guidelines identify four tiers of mitigation measures, all of wnich can be quantifier, wthin the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority ( VTA) VMT tool:

Tier 1— Project Charactesistics. Although - may be difficult to revise a project during environmental review, Tie- 1 strategies anew the tamer to increase the project density, diversity of land uses, and add affordable arid; : r below -market -rate housing to the residential and employment projects to reduceVMT. Tier
2—Multi- Modal Network Improvements. These improvements include implementing bicycle lanes, improving thepedestran network, implementing traffic calming, increasing transit accessibility, and improving network connectivity. These improvements require coordination with Mountain View staff and additional studies signal warrant studies, traffic calming studies, etc) to determine feasibility. Consultants should prioritize public imprck. emens included inthe City' s approved plans which contain various transportation mprovements tobicycle, pedestrian, and roadway facilities as VMT mitigation. (See abo%e for list of adopted plans and policies.) Tier
3—Parking. Parking strategies shown to effectively reduce VMT include reduced parking, increased bike parking or end -or -trip bike facilities. In order to be most effective, the areas surroLinding the projects with reduced parking should have parking permit programs. Tier
4—Travel Demand Mlanagement ( TDM) There are a multitude of TDM measures to reduce VMT. The VMT Tool includes all allouvable TDM measures and their relative effectiveness.

Based on tie percentage sf paricipation selected by the user, the VMT Tool calculates the resulting VMT reduction. The various TDM measures in the VMT Tool include school carpool programs, bike -sharing programs, car -sharing programs, trip reduction marketing/ educational carrmligrt&. parking cash -out, subsidized transit, telecommuting, alternative work schedules sh ales, pay to park, ride -sharing, unbundled parking, and subsidized vanpoc- is Mitigation
Measure UTLA: Fair - Share Contributioias Teward Utility Improvements. Project applicant Prior to building permit issuance Community
Development
Community
Development
Subsequent
development projects shall contribute Te fair share amount identified by the City of Department and Public Department and Public Mountain View Public Works Department to fund carnal morcvements to the water, sanitary Works Department Works Department sewer, and stormwater drainage systems prior to issuance of a building permit. ESA / City
of Mountain View Housing Element Update 8
Novememberber 2022022 Final
Environmental Impact Report

Mountain View City CouncilJanuary 24, 2023

Mountain View City Council
January 24, 2023