ATT 1 - Resolution — Mountain View City Council, January 24, 2023

Attachment 1
-1-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2023

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

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR ANNUAL WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT, PROJECT 19-21:

PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE INSTALLATION ON NORTH WHISMAN ROAD AND EVANDALE AVENUE; WHITNEY DRIVE, WHITNEY COURT,

AND PARKER COURT WATER MAIN REPLACEMENTS,

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Mountain View prepared an Initial Study and approved for circulation a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Annual Water Main Replacement Project: Pressure Reducing Valve Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Cou rt, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements (the “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration”) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively “CEQA”); and

WHEREAS, the Annual Water Main Replacement Project: Pressure Reducing Valve Installation of North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements (the “Project”) , analyzed under the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, is to install a pressure reducing valve (PRV) and vault on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue and replace aging water mains on Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court. A more detailed description of the Project is set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts due to implementation of the Project to a less-than-significant level;

WHEREAS, the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public comment from June 9, 2022 through July 11, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View did not receive any public comments and prepared a final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which is unchanged from the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, to facilitate implementa tion of all identified mitigation measures, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared to identify the timing of, and the agency responsible for, monitoring of each mitigation measure to be implemented to reduce significant impacts to a less-than-significant level; and

-2-

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

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are on file at the City of Mountain View and available for inspection by any interested person; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED: that the City Council finds the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Council finds on the basis of the whole record before the City Council, including the Initial Study, that the Project will have no significant effect on the environment if the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is implemented; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Counci l finds the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independen t judgment and analysis of the City of Mountain View ; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the Public Works Director, at 500 Castro Street, First Floor, Mountain View, California, 94041, is designated as the custodian of documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project.

– – – – – – – – – – –

TE/LL/1/RESO
980-01-24-23r

Exhibit: A. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to Toni Eguilos, Assistant Engineer, City of Mountain View Public Works Department from Chri
stina Lau, Project Manager
re Fin
al IS/MND for Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Project
date D
ecember 9, 2022
This memo was prepared as an informational document for the City of Mountain View for the Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Project. The purpose of this Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) Memo is to summarize the public review process for the project. This Final IS/MND Memo and Attachments, together with the Draft IS/MND (June 2022), comprise the CEQA environmental review for the project.

Section 15074(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.”
The 30-day public review period for the draft IS/MND began on June 9, 2022 and closed on July 11, 2022. The Notice of Intent (NOI) was filed at the Santa Clara County Clerk’s office on June 9, 2022 (Attachment B) and published in the Palo Alto Daily Post on June 9, 2022 (Attachment C). The document was also submitted for State Agency review with the State Clearinghouse (SCH#2022060188).

No written comments were received from any state or local agency, or the public during the comment period. No errata or text changes are necessary for the IS/MND as a result of the public review process.

Exhibit A
2 MIG, Inc.

Attachment A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) Attachment B: Notice of Intent County and Filing Receipts Attachment C: Palo Alto Daily Post Notice
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21 December 2022 City of Mountain View
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, which state:
“When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects” (§15074(d)) and;
“The Lead Agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. “Reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. “Monitoring” is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight.

There is often no clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited to ensuring compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both.” (§15097 (c))
The table beginning on the next page list the impacts, mitigation measures, and timing of the mitigation measures (when the measures will be implemented) related to the City of Mountain View’s Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements. All mitigation measures listed here will be implemented by the City and its contractors.

According to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4 (a) (2), “Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments. In the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.” Therefore, all mitigation measures as listed in this MMRP will be adopted by the City when the project is approved.

Attachment A
Th
is page intentionally left blank.

Attachment A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21 December 2022 City of Mountain View
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Impact BIO-1:

Project construction
could impact nesting
birds if construction
takes place during
the nesting season.

Mit igation Measure BIO-1: If construction, demolition, major renovation, or removal of trees and shrubs occurs between February 1 and August 31, pre- activity surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist provided by the City. These surveys shall be conducted no more than seven (7) calendar days prior to the initiation of these activities in any given area.

During each survey, the biologist shall inspect all potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, and buildings) within the work area, as well as within 300’ of the work area for raptor nests and within 100’ of the work area for nests of nonraptors.

Implementation:

City of Mountain
View or its
contractor shall
implement this
measure with a
qualified biologist
Timing:

During
construction
activities.

Monitoring:

City of Mountain
View and a
qualified
biologist.

Initials: ________
Date: _________

Impact CUL-1:

Construction of the
project could result
in disturbance to
both recorded and
unknown
archaeological
resources.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. The City shall retain a Professional Archaeologist on an “on- call” basis during ground disturbing construction activities to review, identify and evaluate any potential cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. The Professional Archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historical resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The City of
Mountain View
shall implement
this measure with
a qualified
Archeologist
Timing: During
construction
activities.

Monitoring:

City of Mountain
View. In the
event
archaeological
resources are
discovered, a
qualified
archaeologist
shall write a
report detailing
their findings and
submit it to the
Attachment A
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21 December 2022 City of Mountain View
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
avoidance, preservation in -place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery among other options. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and/or Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) that may include data recovery may be recommended by the Professional Archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing c onstruction. Development and implementation of the AMP and ATP and treatment of significant cultural resources will be determined by the City in consultation with any regulatory agencies.

A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavation was undertaken.

City of Mountain
View.

Initials: ________
Date: _________
Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: Tribal Cultural Resources Awareness Training. Prior to the start of ground disturbing construction activities, the City shall implement a Worker Awareness Environmental Training (WAET) program for cultural resources at Location 3 (Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court construction sites).

Training shall be required for all personnel participating in ground disturbing construction to alert them to the archaeological sensitivity of the project area and provide protocols to follow in the event of a discovery of archaeological materials. A Professional Archaeologist shall develop and distribute for job site posting an "ALERT SHEET" summarizing potential finds that could be exposed and the protocols to be followed as well as points of contact to alert in the event of a discovery. Training shall be scheduled at the discretion of the contractor in consultation with the City.

Implem
entation:

City of Mountain
View or its
contractor shall
implement this
measure with a
qualified
archaeologist
Timing: During
construction
activities.

Monit
oring:

City of Mountain
View and a
qualified
archeologist
Initials: ________
Date: _________
Attachment A
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21 December 2022 City of Mountain View
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Impact CUL-2:

Project excavation
could disturb
previously unknown
buried
archaeological
resources and/or
human remains.
.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2a: Construction Plans. The City of Mountain View shall note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources including prehistoric Native American burials. Significant prehistoric cultural resources are defined as human burials, features or other clusterings of finds made, modified or used by Native American peoples in the past. The prehistoric and protohistoric indicators of prior cultural occupation by Native Americans include artifacts and human bone, as well as soil discoloration, shell, animal bone, sandstone cobbles, ashy areas, and baked or vitrified clays.

Prehistoric materials may include:
a. Human bone - either isolated or intact burials.
b. Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as
interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground
depressions, differences in compaction (e.g., house floors).

Implem
entation:

The City of
Mountain View
shall implement
this measure
Timing:

During
construction
activities.

Monitoring:

City of Mountain
View and a
qualified
archeologist
Initials: ________
Date: _________
Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains.

In accordance with Section 7050.5, Chapter 1492 of the California Health and Safety Code and Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code, if potential human remains are found, the lead agency (City of Mountain View) staff and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The coroner would provide a determination regarding the nature of the remains within 48 hours of notification. No further excavation or disturbance of the identified material, or any area reasonably suspected to overlie additional remains, can occur until a determination has been made. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, of Native American ancestry, the coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage Commission must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant from the deceased N ative American. Within 48 hours of this Implementation:

The City of
Mountain View or
its contractor
shall implement
this measure
Timing:

Measures to be
implemented
during
construction.

Monitoring:

City of Mountain
View. In the
event human
remains are
discovered the
County Coroner
shall be notified
and if
appropriate, the
Coroner would
notify the NAHC.

The NAHC would
in turn notify the
MLD.

Attachment A
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21 December 2022 City of Mountain View
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
notification, the Most Likely Descendant would recommend to the lead agency their preferred treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

Initials: ________
Date: _________
Impact GEO -1:

Project construction
could unearth
paleontological
resources, including
fossils.

Mitigation Measure GEO -1: Stop -work provision . If paleontological resources are discovered during construction, ground-disturbing activities shall halt immediately until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the discovery. Depending on determinations made by the paleontologist, work may either be allowed to continue once the discovery has been recorded, or if recommended by the paleontologist, recovery of the resource may be required, in which ground-disturbing activity within the area of the find would be temporarily halted until the resource has been recovered. If treatment and salvage is required, recommendations shall be consistent with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines and current professional standards.

The City of Mountain View shall ensure that information on the nature, location, and depth of all finds is readily available to the scientific community through university curation or other appropriate means.

Implementation:

The City of
Mountain View or
its contractor
shall implement
this measure.

Timing:

Measures to be
implemented
during
construction
Monitoring:

City of Mountain
View. In the
event
paleontological
resources are
encountered, a
paleontologist
shall be
contacted to
evaluate the find.

Initials: ________
Date: _________
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Attachment B
Public Notice
CMV NOI_W ATERMAIN.CITYMOUNTAINVIEW
6/9/2022
6/9/2022
6/7/2022
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Project The City of Mountain View has directed the preparation of a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19- 21: PRV Installation on Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Project, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

The City is implementing a project identified in their Annual Water and Sewer Main Replacements, Projects 19-21 and 19-22 which includes installing a pressure reducing valve near the intersection of North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue and replacing water mains on Whitney Drive (1,200 linear feet), Whitney Court (125 linear feet) and Parker Court (124 linear feet). These proposed improvements would occur within existing road rights-of-way. The purpose of the project is to provide updated facilities and to meet future demand and fire flow requirements per the North Bayshore Precise Plan 2.0 and various utility impact studies from future developments and to replace aged facilities.

Public review of the draft MND and supporting documents will begin on June 9, 2022, and will continue for 30 days, until July 11, 2022. The document will be available for review on the City of Mountain View website: https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/ pw/projects/annual_water_and_sewer_main_replacements_project.asp.

An electronic or paper copy of the draft MND can be requested by contacting Toni Eguilos at 650-903-6097 or email [email protected]. Comments on the draft MND may be submitted in writing to: Toni Eguilos, City of Mountain View, Public Works Division, 231 N. Whisman Road, Mountain View, CA 94043 or Toni.

[email protected].

Attachment C
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21:

PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and
Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court,
and Parker Court Water Main Replacements
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
June 2022
Prepared by MIG, Inc.
2205 Junction Ave, Suite 205
San Jose, CA 95131

This page i
s intentionally blank
Page i

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements City of Mountain View
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project: Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements
Project Proponent: City of Mountain View
Public Works Department,
231 N. Whisman Road
Mountain View, CA 94043

Property Owner: City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
231 N. Whisman Road
Mountain View, CA 94043

Lead Agency: City of Mountain View, 500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94041 Availability of Documents: The Initial Study for this Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for review at:
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/pw/projects/annual_water_and_sewer_main_replacements _project.asp
Contact – Toni Eguilos, Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Public Services Division, (650) 903-6097, [email protected]

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project addressed in this Initial Study is part of the City of Mountain View’s Annual Water and Sewer Main Replacements program ( Projects 19-21 and 19-22) and involves the proposed installation of a new pressure reducing valve and replacement of the existing water mains at three locations, as described below.

The project proposes the installation of a new pressure reducing valve (PRV) to move water from Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 1. This improvement is needed to meet future domestic and fire flow demands for the North Bayshore Precise Plan area and to meet flow requirements identified by various utility impact studies from future developments located within Zone 1. The proposed location of the new valve facility is in the southbound lane of North Whisman Road, just before the intersection with Evandale Avenue.

In addition to the new PRV installation, the project includes the replacement of several existing water mains, including 615 linear feet of six-inch and 633 linear feet of eight-inch diameter cast iron pipes (CIP) in Whitney Drive, 125 linear feet of 4-inch CIP at Whitney Court, and 124 linear feet of four-inch CIP in Parker Court. Although the City standard minimum diameter for new water mains with fire hydrant connections is eight inches, final pipe size will be determined during final design and could be larger than eight inches.

Page ii

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements City of Mountain View

PROPOSED FINDINGS
The City of Mountain View (City) has reviewed the attached Initial Study and determined that the Initial Study identifies potentially significant project effects, but:

1. Revisions to the project plans incorporated herein as mitigation would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effects would occur; and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15064(f)(3) and 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for consideration as the appropriate CEQA document for the Project.

BASIS

OF FINDINGS
Based on the environmental evaluation presented in the attached Initial Study, the project would not cause significant adverse effects related to; air quality, aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities/service systems, and wildfire. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

The environmental evaluation has determined that the project would have potentially significant impacts on biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and geology and soils, as described below.

Mitigation Measures
The project could result in significant adverse effects to biological resources, cultural resources , and tribal cultural resources. However, the project includes the mitigation measures listed below, which reduce these impacts to a less -than-significant level. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Nor would the project cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly.

Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project:

Measure BIO-1: If construction, demolition, major renovation, or removal of trees and shrubs occurs between February 1 and August 31, preactivity surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist provided by the City. These surveys shall be conducted no more than seven (7) calendar days prior to the initiation of these activities in any given area.

Page iii

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements City of Mountain View
If active nests are found sufficiently close to work areas that may be disturbed by construction activities, the biologist, in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall determine the extent of a Wildlife Buffer Zone, a disturbance -free buffer zone to be established around the nest(s).

If the Professional Archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, he/she shall notify the City and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommend mitigation measures to mitigate to a less -than significant impact in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5. Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery among other options. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and/or Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) that may include data recovery may be recommended by the Professional Archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction. Development and implementation of the AMP and ATP and treatment of significant cultural resources will be determined by the City in consultation with any regulatory agencies.

A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavation was undertaken.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: Tribal Cultural Resources Awareness Training. Prior to the start of ground disturbing construction activities, the City shall implement a Worker Awareness Environmental Training (WAET) program for cultural resources at Location 3 (Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court construction sites).

Page iv

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements City of Mountain View
b. Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground depressions, differences in compaction (e.g., house floors).

Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if potential human remains are found, the lead agency (City of Mountain View) staff and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The coroner would provide a determination regarding the nature of the remains within 48 hours of notification. No further excavation or disturbance of the identified material, or any area reasonably suspected to overlie additional remains, can occur until a determination has been made. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, of Native American ancestry, the coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage Commission must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant from the deceased Native American. Within 48 hours of this notification, the Most Likely Descendant would recommend to the lead agency their preferred treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

Impact GEO-1: Project construction could unearth paleontological resources, including fossils.

Mitigation Measure GEO1: Stop- work Provision. If paleontological resources are discovered during construction, ground-disturbing activities shall halt immediately until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the discovery. Depending on determinations made by the paleontologist, work may either be allowed to continue once the discovery has been recorded, or if recommended by the paleontologist, recovery of the resource may be required, in which ground-disturbing activity within the area of the find would be temporarily halted until the resource has been recovered. If treatment and salvage is required, recommendations shall be consistent with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines and current professional standards.

The City will ensure that information on the nature, location, and depth of all finds is readily available to the scientific community through university curation or other appropriate means.

Table of Contents Page v

ANNUAL WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Background and Overview ............................................................................... 1

1.2 Regulatory Guidance .................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Lead Agency Contact Information ................................................................................ 2

1.4 Document Purpose and Organization ........................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 3

2.1 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Projec t Location and Site Description ........................................................................... 3

2.3 Proposed Project .......................................................................................................... 3

2.4 Standard Specifications .............................................................................................. 12

2.5 Required Approvals .................................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND RESPONSES ....................................... 14

3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 18

3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources ............................................................................. 20

3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 22

3.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 27

3.5 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 34

3.6 Energy ........................................................................................................................ 43

3.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 47

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................... 53

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................. 57

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................... 63

3.11 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................. 68

3.12 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................... 70

3.13 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 71

3.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................. 77

3.15 Public Services ........................................................................................................... 78

3.16 Recreation .................................................................................................................. 80

3.17 Transportation ............................................................................................................. 81

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 83 Table of Contents Page vi

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................... 86

3.20 Wildfire ........................................................................................................................ 88

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................ 90 CHAPTER 4. LIST OF PREPARERS ....................................................................................... 92

TABLES
Table 2-1. Project Construction Equipment Estimates ................................................................................. 4 Table 2-2: Standard Specifications Applicable to the Project ..................................................................... 12 Table 3-1. Potentially Applicable BAAQMD Rules and Regulations .......................................................... 24 Table 3-2. Typical Outdoor and Indoor Noise Levels ................................................................................. 72

FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Location ........................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2 Pressure Reducing Valve Location 1 .............................................................................................. 6 Figure 3 Pressure Reducing Valve Aerial ..................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4 Water Main Replacements Locations ............................................................................................. 8 Figure 5 Site Photographs ............................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 6 Site Photographs .......................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 7 Site Photographs .......................................................................................................................... 11

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Archaeological Review, Basin Research Associates, February 2022 [Confidential – held on file at the City]

Introduction Page 1

These proposed activities constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The City of Mountain View (City ) is the CEQA Lead Agency for the project. No responsible agencies have been identified.

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City is implementing a project identified in their Annual Water and Sewer Main Replacements Project 19-21 to install a pressure reducing valve (PRV) near the intersection of North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue and replacing water mains on Whitney Drive (approximately 1,20 0 linear feet), Whitney Court (approximately 125 linear feet) and Parker Court (approximately 124 linear feet) in the City of Mountain View. These proposed improvements would occur within existing road rights-of-way. The project addressed in this Initial Study is part of a larger project; Annual Water and Sanitary Sewer Main Replacements Projects 19-21 and 19-22.

The purpose of the project is to provide updated facilities and to meet future demand and fire flow requirements per the amended North Bayshore Precise Plan and various utility impact studies from future developments and to replace aged facilities.

1.2 REGULATORY GUIDANCE
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15000 et seq.) establish the City as the lead agency for the project. The lead agency is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 as, “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” The lead agency is responsible for preparing the appropriate environmental review document under CEQA. The Mountain View City Council serves as the decision-making body for the City and is responsible for adopting the CEQA document and approving the project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 states that a public agency shall prepare a proposed Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration when:

1. The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or

2. The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
• Revisions in the project plans made before a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effects would occur, and • There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

Pursuant to Section 15070, the City has determined a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental review document for the project.

Introduction Page 2

1.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
The lead agency for the project is the City of Mountain View. The contact person for the lead agency is:

Toni Eguilos, Assistant Engineer
Public Works Department, Public Services Division
City of Mountain View
231 N. Whisman Road
Mountain View, CA 94043
Phone: (650) 903-6097
Email: [email protected]

1.4 DOCUMENT PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION
The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed pressure reducing valve and water mains installations. This document is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1 – Introduction. This chapter introduces the project and describes the purpose and organization of this document.
• Chapter 2 – Project Description. This chapter describes the project location, area, site, objectives, and characteristics.
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Checklist and Responses. This chapter contains the Environmental Checklist that identifies the significance of potential environmental impacts (by environmental issue) and a brief discussion of each impact resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This chapter also contains the Mandatory Findings of Significance.
• Chapter 4 – Report Preparation. This chapter provides a list of those involved in the preparation of this document.
• Appendices

Project Description Page 3

2.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the project is to provide updated facilities and to meet future demand and fire flow requirements per the amended North Bayshore Precise Plan and various utility impact studies from future developments . The project addressed in this Initial Study is part of a larger project; Annual Water and Sanitary Sewer Main Replacements, Projects 19-21 and 19-22.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The project is located in the northern part of the City of Mountain View, north of El Camino Real, but south of State Route 101. The PRV would be installed near the intersection of North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue and the water mains would be replaced on Whitney Drive between Mayfield Avenue and Hamilton Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court (see Figure 1 Project Location). The PRV location is located near medium -high density residential, high density residential, and high intensity office park uses, while the main replacements would occur in a single-family residential neighborhood. All construction activities would occur within existing street rights-of- way.

2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The project analyzed in this Initial Study includes the following improvements:

Pressure Reducing Valve
The new PRV would be located underground in the southbound lane of North Whisman Road just north of Evandale Avenue (Figure 2 and Figure 3). The PRV installation would require disturbance of an area approximately 120 square feet in size with a maximum depth of six feet.

Water Main Replacements
See Figure 4 for the mapped locations of the proposed water main replacements.

Whitney Drive – A pproximately 1,200 linear feet of six- to eight-inch cast iron pipe ( CIP) water mains would be abandoned and replaced with new eight-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC). A total of 24 service laterals and associated water meters would also be replaced. See site photos in Figure 5 Whi
tney Court – Approximately 125 linear feet of 4-inch CIP would be abandoned and replaced with 6-inch PVC. Three service laterals and associated water meters would also be replaced. See site photos in Figure 6.

Parker Court – Approximately 124 linear feet of 4-inch CIP would be abandoned and replaced with 6-inch PVC. Four service laterals and associated water meters would also be replaced. See site photos in Figure 7.

Construction
The proposed project is anticipated to start construction in early 2023 and take approximately three months to complete. The PRV and mains will be constructed using open trench excavation.

Project Description Page 4
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Construction includes the following phases: trenching, installation of vault or piping, backfill, and pavement restoration.

The project is estimated to disturb a total of approximately 4,400 square feet of land including:
• PRV: approximately 120 square feet
• Whitney Drive 3,600 square feet (1,200 feet long by 3 feet wide) • Whitey Court: 375 square feet (125 feet long by 3 feet wide) • Parker Court: approximately 372 square feet (124 feet long by 3 feet wide) Earthwork quantities are estimated in cubic yards (CY) as follows:
• Approximate cut: 1,000 CY
• Approximate fill: 1,000 CY
• Approximate net: 0 CY of cut
Total off-haul (cut) is estimated at approximately 1,000 CY of soil. The project also anticipates an estimated 80 CY of asphalt and 500 CY of base rock. Assuming a capacity of nine CY per truck, this would result in approximately 112 round trips for the off-haul, 9 round trips for the import of asphalt and 55 round trips for the import of base rock over the three-month construction period.

The expected construction equipment type and numbers of days in use for the project are as follows:

Table 2
-1. Project Construction Equipment Estimates
Equipment Type No. on Site No. of Working
Days In Use
Excavator, bobcat 1 1 month
On average, the project expects approximately five construction workers on site for the duration of the construction period. Project plan specifications include an erosion control plan which describes the measures for erosion and sediment control, tracking control, non-s tormwater management control (including, but not limited to, dewatering operations, paving and grinding operations, illicit connections/discharge, and non-s tormwater discharges), waste management and materials pollution control (spill prevention and control, solid, liquid, and hazardous waste management, etc.)
Staging areas are not yet identified in the project plans, however this analysis assumes staging would occur in already developed areas and would not require ground disturbance or tree trimming/removal. Public road or lane closures are not anticipated to accommodate the proposed construction. The contractor will be required to prepare contractor will prepare temporary traffic control plan to divert traffic, pedestrians and bicycles from work area within existing streets.

Normal
construction hours would be limited to 7:3 0 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday and no construction on Saturday or Sunday unless prior approval is granted, consistent with the City’s noise regulations for construction hours (Municipal Code Chapter 8.70). ^_ ^_
Z:\Shared\San Jose\Env\16214_Mountain View Annual Water & Sewer Main Repl CEQA\GIS\MXD\Figure1_Regional_Location_2022_0304.mxd 3/4/2022 Source: ESRI 2022; MIG 2022
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements 0 1.5 30.75
Miles
K
Figure 1 Regional Location
San Jose
Fremont
Hayward
Palo Alto
Redwood City
San Mateo
^_ Project Locations
!(
Z:\Shared\San Jose\Env\16214_Mountain View Annual Water & Sewer Main Repl CEQA\GIS\MXD\Figure2_Pressure_Reducing_Valve_Location_2022_0509.mxd 5/10/2022 Source: ESRI 2022; MIG 2022
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements 0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
K
Figure 2 Pressure Reducing Valve Location
N. Whisman Road
Source: BKF January 2022
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Figure 3 Pressure Reducing Valve Aerial

Z:\Shared\San Jose\Env\16220 CDPR OHMVR Division\Grants Program Site Visits\2022 Site Visits\BLM Redding\GIS\MXD\Susanville- Rice Canyon OHV\Figure4_Water_Main_Replacement_Locations_2022_0509.mxd 5/9/2022 Source: ESRI 2022; MIG 2022
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements 0 0.25 0.50.125
Miles
K
Figure 4 Water Main Replacement Locations
Whitney Drive
Parker Court
Project Description Page 9

Photo 1. Viewing northwest along Whitney Drive.

Photo 2. Viewing southeast along Whitney Drive.

Project Description Page 10

Figure 6 Site Photographs

Photo 3. Viewing southwest at Whitney Court from Whitney Drive.

Photo 4. Viewing southwest at Parker Court from Parker Street.

Project Description Page 11

Photo 5. Viewing northeast along North Whisman Road from Evandale Avenue.

Photo 6. Viewing southwest along North Whisman Road towards Evandale Avenue.

Project Description Page 12
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

2.4 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
The project plans contain the following project-specific and City of Mountain View specifications that will be applied to the project. Because these specifications are included on the project plans they are considered part of the project and not mitigation. Table 2-2 lists the project-specific and City of Mountain View Specifications that would be applied to the project that help avoid or reduce potential project impacts.

Table 2-2: Standard Specifications Applicable to the Project Impact Section Best Management Practice
Dust Control –
Construction Notes
Specification 9
At all times during construction and until final completion and acceptance of the work, the contractor shall prevent the formation of an airborne dust nuisance in such a manner that it will contain dust particles to the immediate surface of the work per Section 5 -10 of the Standard Provisions.

The contractor shall perform such treatment within 2 hours after notification by the City that an airborne nuisance exists.

Construction Noise -
Construction Notes
Specification 26
Noise working hour restrictions.

In order to limit disturbing noises, construction work shall occur only between the hours of 7:30 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Work outside of these hours is prohibited, unless the city grants an exception. Exceptions will be considered only when, in the opinion of the Public Works Director, construction during normal construction hours would
inconvenience the public and neighboring residents more than working outside of these hours. Exceptions will not be granted merely to expedite the construction work.

Discharge to curbside
gutter, storm sewer,
storm drain or natural
outlets.

Mountain View
Municipal Code Chapter

35.31.3.1 It shall be unlawful to discharge or cause a threatened discharge to any curbside gutter, storm sewer, storm drain gutter, creek or natural outlet any domestic sewage, sanitary sewage, industrial wastes or polluted waters except where permission is granted by the fire chief or his designee. Unlawful discharges to storm drains shall include, but are not limited to discharges from: toilets, sinks, commercial or industrial processes, cooling systems, air compressors, boilers, fabric or carpet cleaning, equipment cleaning, vehicle cleaning, swimming pools, spas, fountains, const ruction activities (e.g., painting, paving, concrete placement, saw cutting, grading}, painting, and paint stripping, unless specifically permitted by a discharge permit or unless exempted pursuant to regulations established by the fire chief or his designee.

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

Mountain View
Municipal Code Chapter

35.32.2.1 Discharge
Permit
It shall be unlawful for any person or organization to discharge or cause to be discharged any industrial wastes or polluted water whatsoever directly or indirectly into the sewer system without first obtaining a permit for discharge. The discharge applicant shall not commence discharge prior to permit issuance. Furthermore, it shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any industrial wastes or Project Description Page 13
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View polluted water in excess of the quantity or quality limitations, or to violate any other requirement set forth in this article or in a permit for discharge.

Traffic Control -
Construction Notes
Specification 22
Maintain traffic control devices.

The contractor shall install and maintain fences, barriers, lights and signs that are necessary to give adequate warning to the public at all times per Section 7-05 of the Standard Provisions in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Maintenance of Work
Site – Construction
Notes Specification 12
The contractor shall keep the street and work site clean and free from rubbish and debris per Section 5-15 of the Standard Provisions. This provision requires preventing spillage on haul routes, cleaning up spillage, sweeping all streets of mud and dirt and debris that are the result of the contractor’s work and keeping the work site in a clean and neat appearance. Any spillage on haul routes shall be immediately removed and cleaned up.

Hazardous Materials
and Wastes –
Construction Notes
Specification 24.

All work shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials or hazardous waste to the soil or groundwater, and minimizes the discharge of hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, polluted water and sediments to the storm drain system per Section 7-08 of the Standard Provisions.

Compliance with
environmental
documents –
Construction Notes
Specification 20
The contractor shall comply with the provisions of all permits, licenses or other authorizations applicable to the work with respect to the Environmental Quality Act per Section 7-02 of the Standard Provisions.

2.5 REQUIRED APPROVALS
The City is both the proponent and the Lead Agency for the proposed project. The proposed project is not anticipated to require any approvals from state, federal, or local agencies.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 14
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist and Responses

1. Project Title: Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation and Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Mountain View, 500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94041

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Toni Eguilos , Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Public Services Division, City of Mountain View, 231 N. Whisman Road, Mountain View, CA 94043, Phone: (650) 903-6097, Email:

[email protected]

4. Project Locations: City of Mountain View at:
• Intersection of North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue, • Whitney Drive between Mayfield Avenue and Hamilton Avenue, • Whitney Court
• Parker Court

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Same as the Lead Agency

6. General Plan Designation: N/ A (within City streets)

7. Zoning: N/A (within City streets)

8. Description of the Project: The project proposes to install a pressure reducing valve and replace approximately 1,450 linear feet of water mains within the City.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Adjacent land uses consist of medium to high density residential, high density residential, high intensity office park and single -family residential uses.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.

Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? The City of Mountain View has not received a request from Native American tribes for consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1. Letters and/or emails were sent by Basin Research Associates in January 2022 to the nine locally knowledgeable Native American individuals/organizations identified by the NAHC to determine if any potential resources of interest to the Native American community were present. No responses were received.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 15

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Greenhouse Ga s
Emissions Public Services
Agricultural and
Forestry Resources Hazards a nd Hazardous
Materials Recreation
Air Q uality Hydrology/Water Q uality Transportation Biological R esources Land U se/Planning Tribal C ultural Resources
Cultural R esources Mineral R esources Utilities/Service S ystems Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology/Soils Population/Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 16
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basi
s of this initial evaluation:

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

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

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

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

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

Signatur
e Date
Name (print) Title
Dawn Cameron Public Works Director
DocuSign Envelope ID: 20B6EA49-AC78-478A-B522-569CFC44EC36 6/9/2022 | 8:25 AM PDT
Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 17
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Dec laration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in 5. below, may be cross- referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead a gencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 18
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.1 AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:*
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage points.) If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
*Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099

3.1.1 Environmental Setting
The project is located with in the City of Mountain View, in fully developed suburban neighborhoods consisting mostly of single- and multi - family residential land uses. Campus industrial uses (Google Fairchild campus) are also located on the east side of North Whisman Road, near the proposed pressure reducing valve installation location. The project proposes to replace subsurface water mains and install a subsurface pressure reducing valve structure within existing city streets in two separate residential neighborhoods. Since the proposed r eplacement mains and new valve structure would be located underground, the facilities would not be readily visible from above except for occasional manholes at the ground surface along the valve structure and replacement water main alignments . The views from the proposed construction sites are primarily of the surrounding residential and campus industrial development, with limited views of the distant Santa Cruz Mountains to the south and Diablo Range to the north. The US 101 freeway is visible from the proposed pressure reducing valve site on North Whisman Road.

3.1.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. For purposes of determining significance under CEQA, a scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the public.

There are no such viewpoints at either the pressure reducing valve installation site on North Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 19

3.1.3 References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed on December 14, 2021, at:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa
City of Mountain View. 2012. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. September.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 20
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project*:
a) Convert Prime F armland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with ex isting zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other c hanges in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
*In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
The project is located in the City of Mountain View in an area designated as Urban and Built-up Land by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program .

The project site is within city street rights-of-way and therefore has no official land use or zoning designations (City of Mountain View 2012).

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 21
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.2.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. (Responses a – e). There are no forest lands or agricultural lands on or near the proposed project site, which is within a regional park. The project would not convert or cause the conversion of any farmland or forest land to a non-agricultural/non-forest use. The proposed project would not impact Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, forest land, or land under a Williamson Act contract. Thus, the project would not result in impacts to any agricultural or forestry resources.

3.2.3 References
California Department of Conservation. 2021. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2018.

Division of Land Resource Protection. August. Accessed on December 14, 2021 at https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/RequestFile/2834917 City of Mountain View, 2021. Mountain View 2030 General Plan.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 22

3.3 AIR QUALITY

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project*:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) 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?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

*Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

3.3.1 Environmental Setting
Air quality is a function of pollutant emissions, and topographic and meteorological influences.

The physical features and atmospheric conditions of a landscape interact to affect the movement and dispersion of pollutants and determine its air quality.

Federal, state, and local governments control air quality through the implementation of laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards. The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for “criteria” pollutants considered harmful to the environment and public health. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO
2), ozone (O 3), fine particulate matter (particles

2.5 microns in diameter and smaller, or PM2.5), inhalable coarse particulate matter (particles 10 microns in diameter and smaller, or PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are more stringent than the national standards for the pollutants listed above and include the following additional pollutants: hydrogen sulfide (H 2S), sulfates (SOX), and vinyl chloride. In addition to these criteria pollutants, the federal and state governments have classified certain pollutants as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as asbestos and diesel particulate matter (DPM).

The proposed project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), an area of non-attainment for national and state ozone, state PM
10, and national and state PM 2.5 air quality
standards. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has jurisdiction over air quality in the SFBAAB.

Existing Emissions Sources
The operation of water infrastructure requires a system to pump water within the system. The pumps system is electrical and indirectly generates a nominal amount of criteria air pollutants through normal operations.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 23

Sensitive Receptors
Some people are more affected by air pollution than others. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as “facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly and people with illnesses” (BAAQMD 2017). In general, children, senior citizens, and individuals with pre-existing health issues (e.g., asthmatics) are considered sensitive receptors. Both CARB and the BAAQMD consider schools, schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare facilities, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential areas as sensitive air quality land uses and receptors.

3.3.2 Regulatory Setting
In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation
On July 26, 2007, CARB adopted a regulation to reduce DPM and NO x emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Such vehicles are used in construction, mining, and industrial operations. This regulation applies to all off-road diesel vehicles over 25 horsepower used in California and most two-engine vehicles (except on-road two-engine sweepers), which are subject to the Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets (Off- Road regulation). Additionally, vehicles that are rented or leased are included in this regulation.

The Off-Road regulation:
• Imposes limits on idling, requires a written idling policy, and requires a disclosure when selling vehicles;
• Requires all off-road diesel vehicles over 25-horsepower be reported to CARB (using the Diesel Off-Road Online Report System DOORs) and labeled; • Restricts the adding of older vehicles into fleets; and, • Requires fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, VDECS (i.e., exhaust retrofits).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for maintaining air quality and regulating emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants within the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD carries out this responsibility by preparing, adopting, and implementing plans, regulations, and rules that are designed to achieve attainment of state and national air quality standards.

The BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for maintaining air quality and regulating emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants within the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD carries out this responsibility by preparing, adopting, and implementing plans, regulations, and rules that are designed to achieve attainment of state and national air quality standards. The BAAQMD currently has 13 regulations containing more than 100 rules that control and limit emissions from sources of pollutants. Table 3-1 summarizes the major BAAQMD rule and regulation that may apply to the proposed project.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 24

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Table 3-1. Potentially Applicable BAAQMD Rules and Regulations Regulation R ule Description
1 – General Provisions 1 – General Provisions and
Definitions
301- Public Nuisance:

Establishes that no person shall
discharge quantities of air
contaminants or other materials
which cause injury, detriment,
nuisance or annoyance to any
considerable number or person
or the public; or which endangers
the comfort, repose, health or
safety of any such person or the
public.
6 – Particulate Matter 1 – General Requirements Limits visible particulate matter emissions.

Source: BAAQMD 2021
On April 19, 2017, the BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (Clean Air Plan), which updates the District’s 2010 Clean Air Plan, and continues to provide the framework for assuring that the NAAQS and CAAQS would be attained and maintained in the Bay Area in compliance with state and federal requirements. The BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan is a multi -pollutant plan focused on protecting public health and the climate. Specifically, the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to:
• Attain all state and national quality standards;
• Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic air contaminants; and
• R educe Bay Area greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Clean Air Plan includes 85 distinct control measures to help the region reduce air pollutants and has a long-term strategic vision which forecasts what a clean air Bay Area will look like in the year 2050. The control measures aggressively target the largest sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, ozone pollutants, and particulate matter emissions (transportation ). The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes more incentives for electric vehicle infrastructure, off-road electrification projects such as Caltrain and shore power at ports, and reducing emissions from trucks, school buses, marine vessels, locomotives, and off-road equipment.

3.3.3 Discussion
Would the proposed project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with nor obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Clean Air P lan includes increases in regional construction, area, mobile, and stationary source activities and operations in its emission inventories and plans for achieving attainment of air quality standards. Chapter 5 of the 2017 Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 25

The proposed project consists of the rehabilitation and installation of water main facilities and does not affect housing or population; therefore, it would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the region, which are the basis of the Clean Air Plan projections. The control measures in the Clean Air Plan do not directly apply to the proposed project and, therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan. Furthermore, as described under b), below, the increase in regional emissions generated by the proposed p roject would be less than the BAAQMD’s emissions thresholds. No impact would occur.
b) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards. Emissions from the proposed project are those incurred during construction only. The project is the installation of water infrastructure facilities which do not result in operational emissions or additional long term operational trips.

Construction would last approximately three months and involve a small area of ground disturbance (approximately 4,400 square feet total including 1,450 linear feet of water main installation). The project would not require demolition activities, extensive site preparation, material transport (i.e., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export), or the simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., grading and trenching and building construction, grading and paving and trenching). The proposed project anticipates approximately 1,000 cubic yards of off-haul for trenched water main excavation spoils, an estimated 80 cubic yards of asphalt, and 500 cubic yards of base rock. Construction dust will be controlled in accordance with Dust Control – Construction Notes Specification 9, (see Table 2-2 in the Project Description). Therefore, the potential impacts would be less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive residential receptors are located all around the project site. Project-related construction activities would emit PM

2.5 from equipment exhaust. Nearly all
the project’s PM2.5 emissions from equipment exhaust would be diesel particulate matter (diesel PM), a TAC.

Water main installation is expected to progress at approximately 100 to 200 feet of installed water main per day. Sensitive receptors such as the neighboring residences along the water main alignment would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction (such as equipment and vehicle exhaust). This finding is based on the anticipated amount of equipment required for water main trenching, installation, and repaving, and taking into account that construction vehicles and equipment would remain near any one location for a relatively short time; typically from one to three days as construction progresses.

As noted above, the project would not require demolition activities, extensive site preparation, material transport (i.e., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export), or the simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., grading and trenching and building construction, grading and paving and trenching).

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 26
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View As described above, the project is below all BAAQMD construction emission thresholds and heavy-duty construction equipment would operate intermittently during the daytime along the water main alignment during weekday hours (typically 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM), installing approximately 100-200 linear feet of water main per day. The City would implement construction air quality BMPs (See Table 2-2 in Section 2.4), which requires the City’s contractors to incorporate measures into the project that would reduce potential emissions of fugitive dust and limit diesel construction equipment idling to no more than five minutes. The proposed project would not result in long-term increases in operational emissions. This impact would be less than significant.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the project would generate typical odors associated with construction activities, such as fuel and oil odors. The odors generated by the project during construction would be intermittent and localized in nature and would disperse quickly. There are no other anticipated odorous emissions. Therefore, the project would not create emissions or odors that adversely affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant.

3.3.4 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. BAAQMD. January 5, 2017. Web. Accessed October 21, 2021. <http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment- status>
_______2017b. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA.

June 2010, updated May 2017.
_______2017c. 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. BAAQMD, Planning, Rules, and Research Division. San Francisco, CA. April 19, 2017. _______2021. “Current Rules”. Web. Accessed October 21, 2021. <https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/current-rules> California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Sacramento, CA. 2005. April. Available online at:
<https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf>
Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 27

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?

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

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

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

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

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

3.4.1 Environmental Setting
The PRV site is located at the intersection of North Whisman Road /Evandale Avenue and the water main replacement sites are located at Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court in the City of Mountain View. The project is located in a fully developed suburban area, and the proposed construction sites are within existing paved streets that are surrounded by residential and campus industrial uses. The sites are near major roadways – the US 101 freeway and Central Expressway are located within 400 feet of the proposed North Whisman Road and Parker Court sites, respectively. The nearest natural area containing aggregated open space and wildlife habitat is the South San Francisco Bay shoreline areas to the north of the project.

The Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area Preserve is located approximately 1.4 miles north of the North Whisman Road site. There are open space preserves located in the foothills of the Coast Ranges, approximately four miles to the southwest. There are no riparian habitat zones or waterways on or near any of the proposed construction sites.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 28

Existing land uses, vegetation communities, and habitats within and adjacent to the project site are described below.

The project site is located within the street rights-of-way. It does not support any vegetation and is entirely developed consisting of paved roadway. Vegetation adjacent to the project site consists of a variety of landscape vegetation associated with the adjacent residences. Landscaped vegetation adjacent to the project site consists primarily of ornamental trees and shrubs, including London plane tree (Platanus hybrida), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), white birch (Betula pendula), coast redwood ( Sequoia sempervirens ), privet ( Ligustrum sp.), potato bush (Lycianthes rantonnetii), rosemary ( Rosmarinus officinalis ), and turf grass . There are no existing trees or landscape vegetation that would be directly impacted by the proposed construction.

Wildlife
Wildlife species observed within or adjacent to the site included house finch ( Haemorhous mexicanus), northern mockingbird ( Mimus polyglottos), California towhee (Melozone crissalis ), and mourning dove ( Zenaida macroura). Other wildlife that commonly occur s in urban environments are also likely present in the surrounding project area. Some examples may include native species such as the California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus ), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), American robin (Turdus migratorius), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica ), northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis ); and the non-native species such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus), rock pigeon (Columba livia), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger ), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and brown rat (Rattus norvegicus). However, due to the entirely developed nature of the project site and the lack of vegetation, no wildlife species are expected to reside within the impacted construction site. The only wildlife that may occur on the site would be those species that are passing through on route between residential and street landscaping surrounding the project sites.

3.4.2 R egulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC §§ 703 et seq., Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 10) states it is “unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or in part, of any such bird or any part, nest or egg thereof…” In short, under MBTA it is illegal to disturb a nest that is in active use, since this could result in killing a bird, destroying a nest, or destroying an egg. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) enforces MBTA. The MBTA does not protect some birds that are non-native or human-introduced or that belong to families that are not covered by any of the conventions Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 29
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View implemented by MBTA. Also see the discussion under the California Migratory Bi rd Protection Act and California Fish and Game Code below.

State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq.) requires public agencies to review activities which may affect the quality of the environment so that consideration is given to preventing damage to the environment. When a lead agency approves a development project that could affect the environment, it must disclose the potential environmental effects of the project. This is done with an “Initial Study and Negative Declaration” (or Mitigated Negative Declaration) or with an “Environmental Impact Report”. Certain classes of projects are exempt from detailed analysis under CEQA if they meet specific criteria and are eligible for a Categorical Exemption.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 defines endangered, threatened, and rare species for purposes of CEQA and clarifies that CEQA review extends to other species that are not formally listed under the state or federal Endangered Species acts but that meet specified criteria. The state maintains a list of sensitive, or “special -status”, biological resources, including those listed by the state or federal government or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as endangered, threatened, rare or of special concern due to declining populations. During CEQA analysis for a proposed project, the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) is usually consulted. CNDDB relies on information provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), USFWS, and CNPS, among others. Under CEQA, the lists kept by these and any other widely recognized organizations are considered when determining the impact of a project.

California Migratory Bird Protection Act
California Fish and Game Code Section 3513 states that federal authorization of take or possession is no longer lawful under the state Fish and Game Code if the federal
rules or regulations are inconsistent with state law. The California Migratory Bird Protection Act
(MBPA) was passed in September 2019 to provide a level of protection to migratory birds in
California consistent with the U.S. MBTA prior to the 2017 rule change limiting protection of migratory birds under the U.S. MBTA to purposeful actions (i.e., directly and knowingly removing
a nest to construct a project, hunting, and poaching). Thus, under the MBPA, protections for migratory birds in California are consistent with rules and regulations adopted by the
United States Secretary of the Interior under the U.S. MBTA before January 1, 2017. The MBPA reverts to existing provisions of the U.S. MBTA on January 20, 2025.

C
alifornia Fish and Game Code
Sections 3503.5 and 3513 Nesting Birds. Nesting birds, including raptors, are protected under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503, which reads, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” In addition, under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto”. Passerines and non-passerine land birds are further protected under California Fish and Game Code 3513. As such, CDFW typically recommends surveys for nesting birds that could potentially be directly (e.g., actual removal of trees/vegetation) or indirectly (e.g., noise disturbance) impacted by Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 30
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View project-related activities. Disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by CDFW.

Sections 4150-4155 Non-Game Mammals.

Sections 4150-4155 of the California Fish and Game Code protect non-game mammals, including bats. Section 4150 states “A mammal occurring naturally in California that is not a game mammal, fully protected mammal, or fur -bearing mammal is a nongame mammal. A non-game mammal may not be taken or possessed except as provided in this code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission”. The non-game mammals that may be taken or possessed are primarily those that cause crop or property damage. Bats are classified as non-game mammal s and are protected under the California Fish and Game Code, in addition to being protected if they are a listed species (e.g., CSSC, CFP, state or federal threatened, or state or federal endangered).

Local
City of Mountain View General Plan. The State of California requires every city and county to have a general plan to guide growth. General plans typically include goals, policies, implementing actions and supporting graphics. These components work together to convey a long-term vision and guide local decision making to achieve that vision.

The following goals and policies from the Infrastructure and Conservation Element of the City of Mountain View’s General Plan (2012) apply to protection of biological resources at the project site:

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

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

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

Goal IN C-17: A healthy and well -managed watershed that contributes to improved water quality and natural resource protection.

Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 32- Tr
ees, Shrubs and Plants. Chapter 32 of the
Mountain View Municipal Code states that: “ No person shall cut, trim, prune, plant, spray, remove, injure or interfere with any street tree or shrub without the prior written permission of the director of parks and recreation” (Section 32.6). A “street tree” includes any tree or shrub, by whomever owned or planted, in a street or public place (Section 32.2) . Damage to street trees from hazardous materials in the root zone of street trees is also prohibited (Section 32.9).

The ordinance also contains provisions for the preservation of heritage trees, which include any of the following:

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

2. A multi-branched tree which has major branches below fifty -four (54) inches above the natural grade with a circumference of forty- eight (48) inches measured just below the first major trunk fork ;
Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 31
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3. Any quercus (oak), sequoia (redwood), or cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of twelve (12) inches or more when measured at fifty -four (54) inches above natural grade;

4. A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the city council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit (Section 32.23).

3.4.3 Discussion
Woul
d the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. There is no potential for special-status species to occur in or near the project site because there is no suitable habitat for such species in the project area. A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2022, CNPS 2022) revealed that there are records of numerous special-status species within 5 miles of the project site. However, all of these records occur near the San Francisco Bay or in the Coast Ranges located approximately 1.5 miles and four miles from the site, respectively. Furthermore, all of these species have specialized habitat requirements that are not present in the project area, such as aquatic habitat (wetlands, marsh, streams or riparian habitat), specialized soils (alkaline or serpentine, etc.), natural vegetation communities (grasslands, scrub, woodlands, etc.), or geologic features (coastal bluff, etc.).

Nesting birds may occur in landscaped trees and shrubs adjacent to the project site. M igratory bird species are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (with some exceptions) , the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, and the California Fish and Game code. If construction activities occur during the avian breeding season (February 1 to August 15), injury to individuals or nest abandonment could occur. Noise and increased construction activity could temporarily disturb nesting or foraging activities, potentially resulting in the abandonment of nest sites.

However, with the implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1, potential impacts from the project to nesting birds would be less than significant.

Impact BIO-1: Project construction could impact nesting birds if construction takes place during the nesting season.

Measure BIO -1: If construction, demolition, major renovation, or removal of trees and shrubs occurs between February 1 and August 31, preactivity surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist provided by the City. These surveys shall be conducted no more than seven (7) calendar days prior to the initiation of these activities in any given area.

If active nests are found sufficiently close to work areas that may be disturbed by construction activities, the biologist, in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall determine the extent of a Wildlife Buffer Zone, a disturbance-free buffer zone to be established around the nest(s).Have a substantial adverse effect on any Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 32
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. No riparian habitat or other sensitive habitat occurs on or adjacent to the project site (CNDDB 2022, NWI 2022) . The Stevens Creek riparian corridor is located approximately 3,400 feet (0.64 mile) west of the proposed PRV location and approximately 1.75 miles east of the proposed water main replacement locations. The proposed construction locations are separated from the riparian corridor by dense urban development. The project will not impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no state or federally protected wetlands on or near the project site. As stated in the response to Question b above, Stevens Creek is located at least 0.64 miles away from the project site and is not expected to be impacted by the project. There are no other aquatic features or potentially jurisdictional habitats in the project area. c) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The proposed project would not impact wildlife movement or nursery sites. The project site is in a highly urbanized area and there are no established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites in the project area. The proposed project would involve construction activities within existing fully developed (paved) street rights-of-way. Wildlife movement is already restricted in the project area by roads, buildings, and other development.

Although common wildlife adapted to urban areas may move through the project area (including through storm drains), the area does not generally support species typically found in more natural areas and movement opportunities for large mammals or species with specialized habitat requirements are limited to non-existent. After project implementation wildlife movement conditions will be similar to existing conditions since all work is limited to underground locations under paved streets.
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (including the County Heritage and Significant Tree Ordinances)?
No Impact. Project-related runoff via roadside storm drains within the project site boundaries has the potential to indirectly impact biological resources known to occur in the nearby San Francisco Bay shoreline area. Such and impact would conflict with the City of Mountain View’s General Plan Goals and Policies related to protecting habitat for special-status species (Policy INC 16.3), wetlands and other aquatic habitats (Policy INC 16.5), and watersheds (Goal INC-17). However, as described in Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality (subsection 3.10.3a), the proposed project will i nclude standard and project-specific BMPs to protect water quality and prevent erosion during the project. Thus, the project will not conflict with the City of Mountain View’s Goals related to protection of such biological resources.

The proposed project would not conflict with Chapter 32 of the Mountain View Municipal Code (Trees, Shrubs and Plants) because the project does not include any activities that would cut, Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 33

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View trim, prune, plant, spray, remove, injure or interfere with any street tree or shrub. Nor would the project be expected to cause damage to street trees from hazardous materials in the root zone of any street trees near the proposed construction zones.

As described above, the proposed project would not impact special -status species, sensitive habitats, wetlands or other aquatic features, or wildlife movement or nursery sites because the project site is in a highly urbanized area where such resources are not present. In addition, potential impacts to nesting birds would be avoided by the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any local poli cies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that applies to the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with such a plan.

3.4.4 References
[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2022. Results of electronic records search.

Rarefind 5. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch.

Accessed February 15, 2022 from
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/mapsanddata.asp. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2022. Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California. Version 8-02. Accessed February 15, 2022 from http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/advanced.html.

Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 32 - Trees, Shrubs and Plants. https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTII THCO_CH32TRSHPL. Accessed February 15, 2022.
[NWI] National Wetlands Inventory. 2022. Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Accessed September 2022 from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 34

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

The following discussion is based on an archaeological review memo report prepared by Basin Research Associates (Basin), dated February 14, 2022 [Confidential – held on file at the City].

The memo incorporates the findings of a prehistoric and historic site record and literature search completed for the project site by the California Historical resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park (CHRIS/NWIC File No. 22-0945 dated 1/07/22). In addition, reference material from the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley and Basin was also consulted. Specialized listings for cultural resources consulted include:
• California History Plan (CAL/OHP 1973)
• California Inventory of Historic Resources (CAL/OHP 1976) • Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (CAL/OHP 1988) • National Register for Historic Places (NRHP) listings in Santa Clara County (USNPS 2015, 2017, 2020)
• Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for Santa Clara County (CAL/OHP 2021a)
• Listed California Historical Resources for Santa Clara County (CAL/OHP 2021b) • Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility for Santa Clara County [ADOE] (CAL/OHP 2021c)
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted regarding resources on the Sacred Lands File (SLF). No other agencies, departments or local historical societies were contacted regarding landmarks, potential historic sites or structures due to the nature of the proposed project improvements. A field inventory was not completed due to the nature of the proposed projects and the lack of visible native sediments.

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
Prehistoric
The Basin report describes the 1912 Loud map of Indian Mounds Vicinity of Mountain View as showing two mounds in the vicinity of the project’s water main installations.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 35

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View The Castro Mound is described as one of the most important pr ehistoric archaeological sites known in the South Francisco Bay Region and is one of the few prehistoric sites to merit inclusion in the historic resources inventory of Santa Clara County (Pace 1975:22, #9). Excavations have documented dark midden sediment with periodic ash lenses, two house floors, and 61 burials with many having grave goods. Few shellfish remains were present compared to other Bay Area mounds with the California horn shell predominant. Bird bone was common at a depth of 36-48 inches and fish bone was infrequent throughout. Artifacts included lithic debitage, bone awls and ground stone (i.e., pestles, mortars) (Loud 1912; Beardsley 1954:92).

The site has yielded a variety of archaeological features, artifacts, faunal remains and Native American human remains since the 1890s. Various archaeological testing programs have been completed including research by the University of California at Berkeley and Stanford University (see Anonymous 1953) as well as for various development actions. The most recent, a 2005 project by Wiberg (2005) failed to discover intact archaeological deposits; rather, it exposed redeposited and/or disturbed material, a finding in concert with the historic levelling and spreading of the mound core for urban development. In that a “potential for discovery of significant prehistoric archaeological deposit” archaeological monitoring was recommended.

Prehistoric archaeological features and artifacts include a circular house floor almost 20 feet in diameter, bone awls and needles, a barbed fish spear, antler wedges and flakers, notched deer scapula fleshers, numerous bone whistles, projectile points (obsidian and chert leaf-shaped), mortars, pestles, hammerstones, steatite labrets, ear plugs, charmstones, Olivella shell beads, Haliotis pendants and mussel shell ornaments (possibly spoons with perforations for attachment), as well as steatite pipes and a quartz crystal, shell and fauna (Anonymous 1953:7; Beardsley 1954:92-94). Reportedly, "Burials in upper levels are primary and tightly flexed; a westerly orientation may be predominant." (Anonymous1953).

Chronologically diagnostic artifacts suggest an occupation during the: (1) "Castro facies" of the Middle Horizon, Alameda District dating to 1100 B.C.- 800 B.C. [A2 or Long Scheme] or 200 B.C.- A.D. 100 [B 1 or Short Scheme]; and, (2) Ponce Facies of the Middle -Late Horizon Transition attributed to A.D. 100-A.D. 300 [A2 or Long Scheme] or A.D. 700-A.D.900 [BI or Short Scheme] (Elsasser 1978:38-39 with Bard and Busby 1986:85, Table 1; see also Beardsley 1954:92-94).

The rapid removal of the mound due to its use for topsoil and fill suggests that midden constituents including artifacts and human bone from the site may be dispersed at locations throughout the City of Mountain View and beyond. In addition, the levelling of the mound during subdivision development by 1956 strongly suggests that portions of cultural deposit associated with the former site may have been dispersed throughout the area around the core location of the resource (see Garaventa and Anastasio 1990 and Wiberg 2005 and citations for an extensive review of the site). Gullard and Lund (1989) have a dramatic photograph of ongoing “mining” of the site.

Historic
Hispanic Period
The Spanish philosophy of government in northwestern New Spain was directed at the founding of presidios, missions, and secular towns with the land held by the Crown (1769-1821), while the later Mexican Period policy (1822-1848) stressed individual ownership of the land (Hart 1987).

A west/north segment of the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail [1776] corridor is mapped just south of project Location 3 (Whitney Drive/Parker Court). The eastward segment of the Trail corridor appears to follow the approximate alignment of U S 101 and includes project Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 36

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Location 10 (North Whisman Road). The projects will have no effect on the value for which the trail has been recognized. The earlier 1769 Portolá-Crespi expedition route under Sergeant José Francisco Ortega followed a similar route through the project area but passed further south. None of the rancho adobe dwellings or other structures and features have been identified in or adjacent to the project locations.

Project Location 3 is located partly within the former Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas (sheep pasture, ewe lambs pasture), alternatively Refugio (refuge) and the Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito. Location 10 is located partly within the former Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas (sheep pasture, ewe lambs pasture), alternatively Refugio (refuge).

American Period
The Basin report notes that none of the known notable American Era sites or places within the City of Mountain View are located in and/or adjacent to the project locations. A 1940 map of the City does not show any of the streets associated with Location 3 but does show Location 10, (North Whisman Road at Evandale Avenue) in existence. The streets in or adjacent to Location 3 (Parker Court) were constructed between 1940 and 1961 as mapped by the USGS (1961) and US War Department (1943 [photography and topography 1940]).

Records Search Results
Archaeological Resources
The CHRIS/NWIC records search initiated by Basin was positive for archaeological reports within or adjacent to the project sites, as described below.
• Location 3 – five reports on or adjacent, with 11 additional studies within 500 feet of the project area.
• Location 10 – no reports on or adjacent, with 14 studies within 500 feet of the project area.

The CHRIS/NWIC records search was positive for one recorded prehistoric resource within or adjacent to one project location. Location 3 appears to have a high sensitivity for the discovery of prehistoric archaeological resources based on the available archaeological information. The Castro Mound, CA-SCL-01, a “destroyed” mound was levelled in the 1940s and 1950s and the remnants used for subdivision fill. Remnants could be present within Whitney Drive and there is a potential for intact basal mound deposits within the public right of way although it is probable that the installation of subsurface infrastructure during subdivision development has destroyed or severely impacted any cultural deposits.

Location 10 appears to have a very low sensitivity for the discovery of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources based on the available archaeological information and prior construction impacts from a previous vault installation. No recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites are located within, adjacent or within a 500-foot radius of the Location 10 project site.

No known ethnographic Native American villages, trails, traditional use areas or contemporary use areas and/or other features of cultural significance have been identified in or adjacent to the project sites. In addition, no known potential Hispanic Period archaeological resources (e.g., adobe dwellings or other structures, features, etc.) and no American Period archaeological sites have been recorded or reported within or adjacent to the project sites.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 37
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Historic Resources
No listed or known potential National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources are located within or adjacent to the project sites. No other significant or potentially significant local, state or federal cultural resources/historic properties, landmarks, points of interest, etc. have been identified within or adjacent to the project sites.

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

State
California Environmental Quality Act
Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In addition, resources included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with state guidelines are also considered historic resources under CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts demonstrates otherwise. Per CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude a Lead Agency from determining that the resource may be a historic resource as defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1. CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a historical resource or (2) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a “unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria:

1. The archaeological resource contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. The archaeological resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 38
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria.12 Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet the significance criteria described previously and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and, therefore, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance.” The processes of determining integrity are similar for both the CRHR and NRHP and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. These seven characteristics include 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association.

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

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

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

Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050 and 7052
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbances must cease, and the county coroner must be notified. Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.

California Penal Code Section 622.5
California Penal Code Section 622.5 provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands but specifically excludes the landowner.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 39

Government Code Section 6250 et. seq.

Records housed in the Information Centers of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) are exempt from the California Public Records Act.

Local
Mountain View General Plan
The following goal and policies from the Mountain View 2030 General Plan Land Use Element (City of Mountain View, 2012) relate to protection of historic and cultural resources.

Goal LUD-11: Preserved and protected important historic and cultural resources. • Policy LUD 11.5: Archaeological and paleontological site protection. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits.
• Policy LUD 11.6: Human remains. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of human remains.

3.5.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Ca use a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact. There are no historical resources located on or within the immediate vicinity of the project construction sites on North Whisman Road, Whitney Drive, Whitney Court or Parker Court that would be affected by the project.
b) Ca use a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The CHRIS/NWIC records search conducted for the project sites indicated that there is one recorded prehistoric archaeological site mapped as extending into Location 3, which is considered to have a high sensitivity for the discovery of prehistoric archaeological resources , based on the available archaeological information obtained in the records search.

Both Location 3 and Location 10 have been previously disturbed as a result of previous projects.

Location 3 has been previously disturbed by existing water main installations while Location 10 has been impacted by an in-place valve unit. Subsurface testing for buried archaeological resources does not appear feasible due to subsurface disturbance from the installation of in-place infrastructure and locations within contemporary streets or adjacent medians. However, because the proposed construction could potentially affect both recorded and unknown archaeological Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 40

Impact CUL-1: Construction of the project could potentially result in disturbance to both recorded and unknown archaeological resources.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1a : Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources.

The City shall retain a Professional Archaeologist on an “on- call” basis during ground disturbing construction activities to review, identify and evaluate any potential cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. The Professional Archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historical resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavation was undertaken.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-1a and MM CUL-1b would ensure that the project would not have a significant impact on buried archaeological resources. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As described above, Location 3 is considered to have a high sensitivity for the discovery of prehistoric cultural resources. Although Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 41

Impact CUL-2: Project excavation could disturb previously unknown buried archaeological resources and/or human remains.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5, Chapter 1492 of the California Health and Safety Code and Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code, if potential human remains are found, the lead agency (City of Mountain View) staff and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The coroner would provide a determination regarding the nature of the remains within 48 hours of notification.

No further excavation or disturbance of the identified material, or any area reasonably suspected to overlie additional remains, can occur until a determination has been made.

If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, of Native American ancestry, the coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage Commission must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant from the deceased Native American. Within 48 hours of this notification, the Most Likely Descendant would recommend to the lead agency their preferred treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-2a and MM CUL-2 b would ensure that the project would not have a significant impact on buried archaeological resourc es. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

3.5.4 References
California State Parks. 2021. Office of Historic Preservation. Built Environment Resource Directory. Accessed February 16, 2022, at https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ National Park Service. 2021. National Register of Historic Places NPGallery Database.

Accessed on February 16, 2022, at https://npgallery.nps.gov/nrhp.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 42

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 43

3.6 ENERGY

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?

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

3.6.1 Environmental Setting
Energy consumption is closely tied to the issues of air quality and GHG emissions, as the burning of fossil fuels and natural gas for energy has a negative impact on both, and petroleum and natural gas currently supply most of the energy consumed in California.

Energy is primarily categorized into three areas: electricity, natural gas, and fuels used for transportation. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA), California is the most populous state in the U.S., representing 12 percent of the total national population, has the largest economy, and is second only to Texas in total energy consumption. However, California has one of the lowest per capita energy consumption levels in the U.S. This is a result of California’s mild climate, extensive efforts to increase energy efficiency, and implementation of alternative technologies. California leads the nation in electricity generation from solar, geothermal, and biomass resources (U.S. EIA 2021).

In 2020, almost half of California’s net electricity generation was from renewable resources, including hydropower

1. In 2020 the California electric system used 272,576 GWh of electricity, down two percent, or 5,356 GWh, from 2019. Santa Clara County consumed 16,435 GWh of electricity, about six percent of the state’s electricity consumption in 20202. In 2018, California consumed about 12,638 million therms of natural gas. Approximately 35 percent of this natural gas was consumed by the residential sector. Santa Clara County consumed approximately 440 million therms of natural gas in the same year, accounting for approximately 3.5 percent of statewide consumption. The residential and non-residential sectors made up approximately 53 percent and 47 percent of county-wide consumption

3. According to the Board of Equalization (BOE), statewide taxable sales figures indicate a total of 15,339 million gallons of gasoline and 3,074 million gallons of diesel fuel were sold in 20184 .

Although exact estimates are not available by County, retail fuel outlet survey data indicates

1 https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-r eports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system- electric-generation
2 https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA
3 http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx
4 https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline/piira_retail_survey.html and http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm
Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 44

3.6.2 Regulatory Setting
Since increased energy efficiency is closely tied to the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions and address global climate change, the regulations, policies, and action plans aimed at reducing GHG emissions also promote increased energy efficiency and the transition to renewable energy sources. The U.S. EPA and the State address climate change through numerous pieces of legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and implementation programs aimed at reducing energy consumption and the production of GHG.

The proposed project would not involve the development of facilities that include energy intensive equipment or operations. While there are numerous regulations that govern GHG emissions reductions through increased energy efficiency, the following regulatory setting description focuses only on regulations that: 1) provide the appropriate context for the proposed project’s potential energy usage; and 2) may directly or indirecly govern or influence the amount of energy used to develop and operate the proposed improvements.

CARB Lo w Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation (LCFS)
CARB initially approved the LCFS regulation in 2009, identifying it as one of the nine discrete early action measures in the 2008 Scoping Plan to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The LCFS regulation defines a Carbon Intensity, or “CI,” reduction target (or standard) for each year, which the rule refers to as the “compliance schedule.” The LCFS regulation requires a reduction of at least ten percent in the CI of California’s transportation fuels by 2020 and maintains that target for all subsequent years. In 2018, CARB approved amendments to the LCFS regulation, which included strengthening and smoothing the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 in-line with California's 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32, adding new crediting opportunities to promote zero emission vehicle adoption, alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies to achieve deep decarbonization in the transportation sector. Under the 2018 amendment, the LCFS regulation now requires a reduction of at least 20 percent in CI by 2030 and beyond.

City of Mountain View Climate Action Plans
The City has adopted the following Climate Action Plans:
• Climate Protection Roadmap (CPR) - This 2015 plan identifies strategies and mechanisms to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. • Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan (MOCAP) - This 2015 plan identifies strategies and actions to reduce municipal operations greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
• Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) - This 2012 plan mitigates the environmental impacts of the 2030 General Plan to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The GGRP identifies five strategies and 20 measures that will enable the City to achieve the 2020 and 2030 emissions reductions goals mandated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

5 2019 California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report Results (CEC-A15) Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 45

3.6.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project replace and install underground potable water infrastructure which would not measurably increase energy consumption during p roject operation. Construction activities associated with the project would require the use of construction equipment and construction-related vehicle trips that would combust fuel, primarily diesel and gasoline. Heavy-duty construction equipment would be required to comply with CARB’s airborne toxic control measures, which restrict heavy -duty diesel vehicle idling to five minutes. Since petroleum use during construction would be temporary and needed to rehabilitate the sewer main, it would not be wasteful or inefficient. Therefore, the proposed project’s would not result in a potentially significant environmental effect due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. This impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would replace and install potable water infrastructure. Project construction would require the use of construction equipment and generate construction-related vehicle trips that would combust fuel, primarily diesel and gasoline. The proposed project would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency. As discussed under response a), the proposed project is the involves potable water infrastructure which would not increase energy consumption over the long term. No impact would occur.

3.6.4 References
California Department of Tax and Finance. Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons 2008 – 2017.

Sacramento, CA. 2018. Accessed October 2 1, 2021. Available at http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm.

California Energy Commission (CEC) 2021. 2020 Total System Electric Generation in Gigawatt Hours. June. Accessed November 19, 2021. Available at
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-al
manac/california-electricity-data/2020-
total-system-electric-generation.
______2021b. Electricity Consumption by County. Accessed November 22, 2021 at https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA
______2019b. “California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results.” Retail Fuel Outlet Survey Results. CEC, Energy Almanac, Gasoline Data, Facts, and Statistics. 2019. Accessed February 26, 2019. Available at
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline/piira_retail_survey.html ______2019c. 2019 California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report Results (CEC-A15). Excel File.

Sacramento, CA. July 1, 2019.

United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA).

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 46

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View 2021. “Profile Analysis – California”. February 18, 2021. Web. Accessed October 21, 2021.

Available at https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA.

City of Mountain View. 2015. Climate Protection Roadmap. September. Accessed October 16, 2020 at https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=19516 City of Mountain View. 2015. Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan. May. Accessed October 16, 2020 at
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=19517 City of Mountain View. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. August. Accessed October 16, 2020 at https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10700

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 47

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
Note: Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks
to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?

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

3.7.1 Environmental Setting
Much of the information contained in the following section is derived from the City’s General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (LSA Associates September 2012).

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 48

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Regional Geologic Setting
The City of Mountain View spans approximately 12 square miles 6 and is located entirely on the alluvial plains adjacent to San Francisco Bay. Alluvium consists mainly of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposits that have been subject to redistribution by fluvial (stream) processes.

The Santa Cruz Mountains rise in a series of ridges to the southwest of the City.

Near the shore of the San Francisco Bay, young Bay Mud is exposed at the surface, and has a thickness of approximately 28 feet at the Bay’s margin. Receding inland, the young Bay Mud becomes thinner until dissipating completely near the location of US 101. This inland young Bay Mud is generally overlain by man- made fill and recent Holocene fluvial deposits. Underlying the young Bay Mud, and in areas further inland, old Bay Mud deposits which are denser and stiffer than the young Bay Mud underlie alternating bands of freshwater fluvial deposits, Holocene alluvium, and near the City’s southwestern border, older Pleistocene alluvium. Franciscan Complex bedrock underlie these multi -layered sedimentary deposits at depths of approximately 600 to 700 feet below ground surface (bgs) at the Bay’s margin, and approximately 270 feet bgs near the Los Altos border

7. Seismicity
Mountain View is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. The main feature generating the seismic activity in the region is the tectonic plate boundary between the North American and Pacific plates. Locally, this boundary is referred to as the San Andreas Fault Zone (SAFZ) and includes numerous active faults found by the California Geological Survey under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act to be “active” (i.e., to have evidence of fault rupture in the past 11,000 years). Some of the major active faults within the SAFZ include the San Andreas, Hayward, San Gregorio-Seal Cove, Concord – Green Valley, Greenville, and Calaveras faults. In a report published in 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that there was a 63 percent probability that between 2008 and 2038, a 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake will occur in the San Francisco Bay Region. The probability of a 6.7 magnitude or greater earthquake occurring along individual faults was estimated to be 21 percent along the San Andreas Fault, 31 percent along the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault, and 7 percent along the Calaveras Fault.

3.7.2 Regulatory Setting
Alquist-Priolo E
arthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act regulates development in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. There are no Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones on the project site (Santa Clara County 2012).

Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was passed in 1990 following the Loma Prieta earthquake to reduce threats to public health and safety and to minimize property damage caused by

6 City of Mountain View website. 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/about/learn/default.asp. Accessed on January 24, 2022.

7 LSA Associates. 2012. City of Mountain View Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=13902. Accessed on January 24, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 49

California B
uilding Code
The 2019 California Building Codes (CBC) cover grading and other geotechnical issues, building specifications, and non-building structures.

California Public Resources Code
Section 5097 of the Public Resources Code specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, including human remains, historic or prehistoric resources, paleontological resources on nonfederal land.

The disposition of Native American burial s falls within the jurisdiction of the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Section 5097.5 of the Code states the following:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

3.7.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other significant evidence of a known fault? No Impact. No Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault zones are mapped trending through or immediately adjacent to the project sites (Santa Clara County 2012). ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Region. Significant earthquakes have occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area and are believed to be associated with crustal movements along a system of subparallel fault zones that generally trend in a northwesterly direction. Strong ground-shaking at the project site will probably occur during the design life of the project as a result of a major earthquake on one of the active faults in the region. The project consists of the installation of new and replacement underground water utility infrastructure. The new water mains and PRV would be designed and constructed according to relevant City and American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards. The project does not propose housing or other above-ground structures that could expose people to loss, injury, or death from the rupture of a fault. The project would not create potential for or Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 50

The proposed project located in an identified liquefaction zone (California Geological Survey 2006). The purpose of the project is to replace old water mains that are susceptible to rupture due to old age. T he proposed water mains are not part of a critical distribution system and are therefore proposed to be constructed of PVC and consistent with the City’s standard design. The project would not affect the existing conditions along the installation alignment. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to seismic-related ground failure. iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project sites are located in a flat area sounded by other flat topography and do not create significant new cut slopes that would be susceptible to landslide. Shoring would be used during construction to ensure the disturbed area does not collapse during construction. The sites are not located in or adjacent to any mapped landslides and are not located within a county or state regulatory zone for landsliding (California Geological Survey 2006). Once installed, the new water mains would be buried and repaved. Therefore, the proposed project would not create or exacerbate landslide conditions on or adjacent to the site. b) Result in significant soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Im pact. The project site is in a relatively flat area and would not be exposed to substantial slope instability, erosion, or landslide related hazards. The proposed improvements would be installed using open trench installation. In order to reduce the potential for temporary erosion during project construction, erosion control measures would be implemented as discussed in Section 2.4, Standard Specifications . Once the water main is installed, disturbed soils would be returned to pre-project conditions (repaved as roadway or natural surface pathway). See Section 3.9 of this document for a complete discussion regarding erosion.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less Than Significant Impact. Subsidence is the sinking of the Earth's surface in response to geologic or man-induced causes. Lateral spreading involves the lateral movement of a liquefied soil layer (and overlying layers) toward a free face. Lateral spreading is typically associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of an exposed slope.

As stated above, no proposed water main replacements are located in a liquefaction hazard area that could become unstable due to liquefaction subsidence, collapse, or lateral spreading. This is determined to have a less than significant impact because the improvements proposed would improve potable water infrastructure and will not house people for residence or work. The project construction would not exacerbate existing site conditions related to unstable geologic conditions.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 51

Proposed project excavation would occur at an average depth of around six feet. Fossils are found in sedimentary rock strata and gravel layers. Ground disturbing works is anticipated to be predominantly in previously disturbed ground. Where excavation is not in disturbed ground, it is anticipated to be in surficial soils. The project has a low risk of encountering unique paleontological resources, due to the urban developed nature of the site. However, there is still a possibility that the project could encounter paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that if discovered, paleontological resources would be protected. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

Impact GEO-1: Project construction could unearth paleontological resources, including fossils.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Stop-work provision. If paleontological resources are discovered during construction, ground-disturbing activities shall halt immediately until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the discovery. Depending on determinations made by the paleontologist, work may either be allowed to continue once the discovery has been recorded, or if recommended by the paleontologist, recovery of the resource may be required, in which ground-disturbing ac tivity within the area of the find would be temporarily halted until the resource has been recovered. If treatment and salvage is required, recommendations shall be consistent with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines and current professional standards.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 52

3.7.4 References
California Geological Survey. 2006. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Mountain View Quadrangle. Seismic Hazard Zones. Official Map. Released October 18. Accessed January 24, 2022 at
https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=MOUNTAIN_VIEW_EZRIM.pdf City of Mountain View. 2012. Mountain View 2030 General Plan.

Macrostrat 2022. Macrostrat Geologic Map. Accessed January 24, 2022 at https://macrostrat.org/map/#/z=12.4/x=-122.0027/y=37.3939/bedrock/lines/fossils/ Maguire, K. C. and P. A. Holroyd. 2016. Pleistocene vertebrates of Silicon Valley (Santa Clara County, California). PaleoBio. 33:1-14
Santa Clara County. 2012. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones. October 26. Accessed January 24, 2022 at
https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/GEO_GeohazardATLAS.pdf.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 53

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?

3.8.1 Environmental Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as greenhouse gases (GHGs). Many chemical compounds found in the earth’s atmosphere exhibit the GHG property. GHGs allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the earth’s surface, it is either absorbed or reflected back toward space. Earth that has absorbed sunlight warms up and emits infrared radiation toward space. GHGs absorb this infrared radiation and “trap” the energy in the earth’s atmosphere. Entrapment of too much infrared radiation produces an effect commonly referred to as “Global Warming”, although the term “Global Climate Change” is preferred because effects are not just limited to higher global temperatures.

GHGs that contribute to climate regulation are a different type of pollutant than criteria or hazardous air pollutants because climate regulation is global in scale, both in terms of causes and effects. Some GHGs are emitted to the atmosphere naturally by biological and geological processes such as evaporation (water vapor), aerobic respiration (carbon dioxide), and off- gassing from low oxygen environments such as swamps or exposed permafrost (methane); however, GHG emissions from human activities such as fuel combustion (e.g., carbon dioxide) and refrigerant use (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons) significantly contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, climate regulation, and global climate change.

Human production of GHG has increased steadily since pre -industrial times (approximately pre- 1880) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased from a pre-industrial value of 280 parts per million (ppm) in the early 1800’s to 413 ppm in September 2021 (NOAA 2021).

The effects of increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere include climate change (increasing temperature and shifts in precipitation patterns and amounts), reduced ice and snow cover, sea level rise, and acidification of oceans. These effects in turn will impact food and water supplies, infrastructure, ecosystems, and overall public health and welfare.

The 1997 United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol international treaty set targets for reductions in emissions of four specific GHGs – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride – and two groups of gases – hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. These GHGs are the primary GHGs emitted into the atmosphere by human activities. The six common GHGs are described below.
• Carbon Dioxide (CO
2). CO2 is released to the atmosphere when fossil fuels (oil, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, and wood or wood products are burned.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 54

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View • Methane (CH4). CH4 is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills and the raising of livestock. • Nitrous oxide (N2O). N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.
• Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). SF6 is commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage electrical transmission and distribution equipment such as circuit breakers, substations, and transmission switchgear. Releases of SF
6 occur during maintenance and servicing as
well as from leaks of electrical equipment.
• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). HFCs and PFCs are generated in a variety of industrial processes.

GHG emissions from human activities contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and the corresponding effects of global climate change (e.g., rising temperatures, increased severe weather events such as drought and flooding). GHGs can remain in the atmosphere long after they are emitted. The potential for a GHG to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its global warming potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is CO 2,
which has a GWP of one. By comparison, CH4 has a GWP of 25, which means that one molecule of CH 4 has 25 times the effect on global warming as one molecule of CO2. Multiplying the estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHGs by their GWP determines their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which enables a project’s combined global warming potential to be expressed in terms of mass CO2 emissions. GHG emissions are often discussed in terms of Metric Tons of CO 2e, or MTCO2e.

Existing GHG Emission Sources at the Project Site
As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the proposed project would be located within city streets right-of-way. The water infrastructure produces indirect GHG emissions from electrical energy used to pump water within the system.

3.8.2 Regulatory Setting
California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) and Related Legislation California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the lead agency for implementing Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act adopted by the Legislature in 2006. AB 32 requires the CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan containing the main strategies that will be used to achieve reductions in GHG emissions in California.

Executive Order B-30-15, 2030 Carbon Target and Adaptation, issued by Governor Brown in April 2015, sets a target of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels in 2030. By directing state agencies to take measures consistent with their existing authority to reduce GHG emissions, this order establishes coherence between the 2020 and 2050 GHG reduction goals set by AB 32 and seeks to align California with the scientifically established GHG emissions levels needed to limit global warming below two degrees Celsius.

To reinforce the goals established through Executive Order B-30-15, Governor Brown went on to sign SB 32 and AB197 on September 8, 2016. SB 32 made the GHG reduction target to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 a requirement as opposed to a goal.

AB 197 gives the Legislature additional authority over CARB to ensure the most successful strategies for lowering emissions are implemented, and requires CARB to, “protect the state’s Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 55

BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan
As discussed in Section 3.3, Air Quality, the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan is a multi-pollutant plan focused on protecting public health and the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan lays the groundwork for a long-term effort to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, consistent with GHG reduction targets adopted by the state of California.

3.8.3 Discussion
Global climate change is the result of GHG emissions worldwide; individual projects do not generate enough GHG emissions to influence global climate change. Thus, the analysis of GHG emissions is by nature a cumulative analysis focused on whether an individual project’s contribution to global climate change is cumulatively considerable. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate GHG emissions from short- term construction activities. There are no long-term operational emissions associated with the project because the operation of the improvements are potable water infrastructure for an existing operation and would not change significantly as a result of the project.

Construction activities would generate GHG emissions primarily from equipment fuel combustion as well as worker, vendor, and haul trips to and from the project site during trenching, installation, and paving. Construction activities would cease to emit GHGs upon completion. Construction is expected to take approximately three months, and ground disturbance would be limited to the locations specified in the project description. Due to the short-term duration and small area of disturbance, GHG emissions from project construction are not expected to have a significant impact on the environment.
b) Conflict with an applicable, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including the and the BAAQMD Clean Air Plan. The policies contained in these plans generally apply to larger projects and uses that result in high trip generation (e.g., commercial buildings, residential structures, etc.), and not to school/student support projects. No impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 56

3.8.4 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Spare the Air – Cool the Climate, Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2021. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Earth System Research Laboratory. Global Monitoring Division. October 5, 2021. Web. October 21, 2021.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 57

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use
airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project area?

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

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

3.9.1 Environmental Setting
The project is located within local city street rights-of-way within the City of Mountain View. The project is adjacent to various uses including medium to high density residential, high density residential, high intensity office park, and single-family residential uses. Office park and residential uses do not typically use significant amounts of hazardous materials. However, historic uses in the area resulted in soil and groundwater contamination adjacent to the PRV location.

Fairchild Semiconductor System 3 was one of many Fairchild Semiconductor facilities operated in Mountain View. Semiconductors were manufactured there and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily trichloroethylene (TCE), were released from the facility during operations, impacting soil and groundwater. The facility at 313 Fairchild Drive, adjacent to the PRV project site reportedly ceased operations in 1988 and began closure in 1989. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) approved clean closure of the facility in 1995. Remediation at the site is ongoing under Environmental Protection Agency (WPA) oversight.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 58

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View The EPA added this site to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1991. This Superfund site is comprised of several former Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation facilities spanning 56 acres in Mountain View. The Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation - Mountain View site is one of three Superfund or NPL sites that are being cleaned up simultaneously. The other two Superfund sites are the Intel - Mountain View site and the Raytheon site. All three sites are located in the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Study Area and are being addressed collectively as the MEW Site. Site investigations at several of these facilities during 1981 and 1982 revealed extensive soil and groundwater contamination, primarily VOCs. Soil cleanup by soil vapor extraction, excavation, and aeration has been completed at all the MEW study area sites. Groundwater remediation is ongoing at the MEW Study Area.

Several other sites appearing on the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker database appear near the project sites, however these cleanup sites are considered “Completed – Case Closed”.

3.9.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 to serve as a single source collection of all federal research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement activities to make sure there is appropriate protection of the environment. The EPA’s duty is to create and enforce regulations that protect the natural environment and apply the laws passed by Congress. The EPA is also accountable for establishing national criteria for various environmental programs and enforcing compliance.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a Federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through CERCLA, the EPA was given power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enacted in 1976 governs the disposal of solid waste and hazardous materials. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act gives the EPA the power to control the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances that cannot be disposed of in ordinary landfills. It also allows for each state to apply their own hazardous waste programs instead of implementing the federal program on the condition that the state’s program is just as strict in its requirements. This state program must be permitted by the EPA in order to be used.

State
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) was established in 1991 and is comprised of: the California Air Resources Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, CalRecycle, the Department of Toxic Substances Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 59

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is one of nine regional water quality control boards that exercise rulemaking and regulatory activities by basins throughout the state. The boards were created by the landmark Porter-Cologne Act. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board covers Region 2, which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Santa Clara (north of Morgan Hill), San Mateo, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano Counties.

The RWQCB oversees cases involving groundwater contamination within the San Francisco Bay Area from Spills, Leaks, Incidents and Clean-up (SLIC) cases. The County of Santa Clara’s Department of Environmental Health, however, is charged with oversight of most leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases. In the incidence of a spill at a project site, the applicant would notify the County of Santa Clara to determine which agency would be the lead regulator - County, RWQCB or Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC).

Cortese List
The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List”. The Cortese list was authorized by the state legislature in 1985. A list of several types of hazardous materials sites is gathered by several agencies as directed by the statute.

Under Government Code Section 65962.5.(a), the Department of Toxic Substances Control shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following:

1. All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

2. All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.

3. All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land.

4. All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code.

Under Government Code Section 65962.5. (c) the State Water Resources Control Board shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following:

1. All underground storage tanks for which an unauthorized release report is filed pursuant to Section 25295 of the Health and Safety Code.

2. All solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a migration of hazardous waste and for which a California regional water quality control board has notified the Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 60

3. All cease and desist orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water Code, and all cleanup or abatement orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13304 of the Water Code, that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials.

The proposed project site is not on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List (DTSC 2021).

California Department of Toxic Control
The California Department of Toxic Control, a department of the Cal/EPA, is the primary agency in California for regulating hazardous waste, cleaning up existing contamination, and finding ways to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced in California. The California Department of Toxic Control regulates hazardous waste primarily under the authority of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

Local
Mountain View General Plan
The following goal and policies of the Mountain View General Plan Public Safety Element relate to hazardous materials.

Goal PSA-3: A community protected from fire, hazardous materials and environmental contamination.

PSA 3.2: Protection from hazardous materials. Prevent injuries and environmental contamination due to the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials through prevention and enforcement of fire and life safety codes.

PSA 3.3: Development review. Carry out development review procedures that encourage effective identification and remediation of contamination and protection of public and environmental health and safety.

3.9.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes the construction of underground water utility infrastructure within city streets. Project operations would not involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Use of hazardous materials would be limited to small quantities of construction fuels and fluids during the short-term construction period as well as small quantities of cleansers and other chemicals for cleaning purposes. These materials would be stored and used in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications . The compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations would reduce any chance of upset conditions to less than significant levels.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 61

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed construction of underground water utility infrastructure would not include the use of hazardous materials after project completion.

Construction of the project would involve the use of hazardous materials ( fuels, oils and other vehicle-related products) . These materials would be used in relatively small quantities, in compliance with local and state safety requirements. Waste management and materials pollution control BMPs include designated areas for material delivery and storage, materials use, stockpile management, spill prevention and control, solid and hazardous waste management, contaminated soil, concrete waste, sanitary/septic, and liquid waste management would also be implemented as required at the construction sites . With the implementation of these BMPs, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or hazardous waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project PRV site is not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest schools are the German International School of Silicon Valley and the Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary School which are both more than 0.5 mile from the PRV location. The water main replacements at Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court are approximately 0.15 mile from Monta Loma Elementary School and the Waldorf School of the Peninsula. No structures, except for roadway pavement are proposed for demolition as part of the project. Proposed project activities occur within city street rights-of- way. Trenching would be limited to linear excavations necessary for the water main installations and proceed along the project alignments at a rate of approximately 100- to 200-feet per day.

Therefore, construction emissions would not significantly affect nearby sensitive receptors (see Section 3.3.3. for additional information). Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to schools in the vicinity.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact . The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (otherwise known as the Cortese List)(CalEPA 2022, DTSC 2022, SWRCB 2022). The PRV project site is adjacent to a known superfund site associated with Fairchild Semiconductor . No proposed project activities would extend onto this adjacent site, therefore there would be no impact to soil or groundwater at the adjacent site. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The
project site is located approximately 0.4 miles southwest of the Moffett Federal Airfield. The site is within the Airport Influence Area according to Figure 8 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but outside the Airport Safety Zones depicted in Figure 7 of the Moffett Federal Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 62

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Airfield (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 2012). However, the project is the rehabilitation of existing underground water infrastructure and would not include any buildings or aboveground structures. Therefore, the p roject would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is the installation of underground water utility infrastructure. The construction contractor would maintain access for emergency vehicles for the duration of construction and therefore would not significantly impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency evacuation plan. After project construction is completed, there would be no impediment to vehicular or emergency vehicle access. Thus, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact to emergency plans.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is not within the wildland-urban interface (ABAG 2022). The nearest mapped wildland-urban interface is located approximately two miles southwest of the site. The project does not propose new structures within areas designated within the wildland-urban interface and is therefore not subject to wildfire-related building practices.

3.9.4 References
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Bay Area Hazards: Wildland-Urban Interface.

Accessed February 8, 2022 at
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=d45bf08448354073a26 675776f2d09cb
California Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStor Database. Accessed February 8, 2022 at
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=whisman+drive+and+evand ale+avenue.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 20 21. Cortese List Data Resources.

Accessed February 8, 2022 at: https://calepa.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf.

City of Mountain View. 2012. Mountain View 2030 General Plan. Adopted July 10, 2012.

Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. 2012. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County: Moffett Federal Airfield. Adopted November 2, 2012. Amended 12/19/18.

Accessed on February 8, 2022 at:
https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022 . GeoTracker Database. Accessed February 8, 2022 at
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=313+Fairchild +Drive%2C+Mountain+view+ca.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 63

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?

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

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;

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

iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

3.10.1 Environmental Setting
The project is located in the City of Mountain View where the climate is Mediterranean. Summers are warm and dry, while winters are mild and wet. However, both summers and winters are somewhat moderated due to its relative proximity to the Pacific, although it has a lesser maritime influence than San Francisco, further north on the peninsula. The annual average high temperature is 69 ºF and the annual average low temperature is 51 ºF. Annual average precipitation is 14.7 inches (US Climate Data, 2020).

The closest streams to the project site are Stevens Creek (0.7 mile west of PRV location), Permanente Creek (0.6 mile east of Whitney Drive) and Adobe Creek (0.7 mile west of Whitney Drive).

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 64

3.10.2 Regulatory Setting
In addition to CEQA, other federal and state laws apply to the hydrology and water quality identified in this report. Each of these laws is identified and discussed below.

Stormwater Drainage
The discharge of stormwater from the City’s municipal storm sewer system is regulated primarily under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The RWQCB implements these regulations at the regional level. Under the CWA, the RWQCB has regulatory authority over actions in waters of the United States, through the issuance of water quality certifications.

As authorized by the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls water pollution by regulating point and non-point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or outfalls that convey pollutants directly to surface waters. Non-point sources, such as stormwater runoff, convey pollutants indirectly to these waters. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards administer the NPDES permit program in California for general and individual discharge permits. The City is a co- permittee with other members of a regional association known as the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), which shares a joint municipal discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB to municipalities in Bay Area counties to allow the discharge of stormwater runoff into the San Francisco Bay (Order R2-2015-0049) This regional municipal discharge permit and known as the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). New and redevelopment projects within these jurisdictions are subject to applicable provisions of the MRP.

In addition to the MRP, which includes post-construction requirements for new and redevelopment projects, construction projects that disturb one or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under the statewide General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit). To be covered under the Construction General Permit, a project applicant would be required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The subject project is not required to obtain coverage under this permit as it disturbs less than one acre of soil.

Flood Zone Mapping
The National Flood Insurance Program branch of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maintains maps of floodways and floodplains for the United States. FEMA maps these areas on Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FIRMs. A typical FIRM will show specific flood hazard areas, flood risk zones, and floodplains at a local level of detail. In some identified flood hazard zones, certain types of construction and/or uses are prohibited or property owners are required to carry flood insurance. The project sites are located within a designated Zone X, which is defined as containing areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood, areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from one percent annual chance flood. 8 8 FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Santa Clara County, California and Incorporated Areas, Map Nos. 06085C0036H & 06085C0045H. May 18, 2009.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 65

Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 35- Water , Sewage and Other Municipal Services Section 35.32.3.1 of the Mountain View Municipal Code states:
“It shall be unlawful to discharge or cause a threatened discharge to any discharge to any curbside gutter, storm sewer, storm drain gutter, creek or natural outlet any domestic sewage, sanitary sewage, industrial wastes, polluted waters, construction waste, litter or refuse except where permission is granted by the fire chief. Unlawful discharges to storm drains shall include, but are not limited to, discharges from: toilets, sinks, commercial or industrial processes, cooling systems, air compressors, boilers, fabric or carpet cleaning, equipment cleaning, vehicle cleaning, swimming pools, spas, fountains, construction activities (e.g., painting, paving, concrete placement, saw cutting, grading), painting and paint stripping, unless specifically permitted by a discharge permit or unless exempted pursuant to regulations established by the fire chief. Additionally, it shall be unlawful to discharge any pollutants or waters containing pollutants that would contribute to violations of the city's stormwater discharge permit or applicable water quality standards.”
Section 35.33.11 states:
“All construction projects occurring within city limits shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials or hazardous waste to the soil or groundwater, and minimizes the discharge of hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, pol luted water and sediment to the storm sewer system. Practices which shall be implemented to meet the intent of this requirement are described in city guidelines. The city may require any additional practices consistent with its NPDES stormwater discharge permit if it concludes that the intent of this section is not being met during the construction process. ” The Section goes on to list example sediment and erosion control BMPs such as: (1) Silt fences around the site perimeter; (2) Gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (3) Filter fabric over catch basins; (4) Covering of exposed stockpiles; (5) Concrete washout areas; (6) Stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and (7) Vegetation, hydroseeding or other soil stabilization methods f or high erosion areas.

3.10.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed project could impact water quality during the short-term construction period through the accidental release of construction fuels or fluids or through an increase in sedimentation or erosion due to ground disturbance.

As previously stated, the project does not involve more than one acre of disturbance and is not required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. However, the project plans include an erosion control plan which describes the measures for erosion and sediment control, Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 66

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View tracking control, non-stormwater management control (including, but not limited to, dewatering operations, paving and grinding operations, illicit connections/discharge, and non-stormwater discharges), waste management and materials pollution control (spill prevention and control, solid, liquid, and hazardous waste management, etc.) that will be implemented during construction of the project. Implementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality to less than significant levels.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact. The project is the installation of underground potable water utility infrastructure. The project is located within city streets that are already paved and would not result in a net increase in impervious pavement or associated stormwater runoff. The project is not located in a groundwater recharge area. Therefore, the project would not affect groundwater supplies, quality, or management.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not alter any creeks, increase impervious surface area, or otherwise alter the drainage pattern of the project site or area. The proposed PRV and water mains project does not include any aboveground structures or any permanent changes to the ground surface. The proposed c onstruction will utilize open trench techniques, and standard and project-specific BMPs to protect water quality and prevent erosion will be implemented during construction (see response to Question a above). Therefore, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- of off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Impede or redirect flood flows.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
No Impact. The project would not result in a net increase in impervious areas on the site or change the site’s topography. Therefore the project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff which would result in flooding on- or off-site. iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
No Impact. As stated above, the project would not result in a net increase in impervious areas on the site., therefore the project would not contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
iv) Im
pede or redirect flood flows?
Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 67

3.10.4 References
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CalEOS). 2022 . MyHazards Webmapping Tool. Accessed on February 8, 2022 at: http://myhazards.caloes.ca.gov/ California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2020. GeoTracker. Accessed FEMA 2022. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. FIRM panel 06085C0045H, effective 05/18/2009 and FIRM panel 06085C0038H, effective 05/18/2009. Accessed February 8, 2022 at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery#searchresultsanchor FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Santa Clara County, California and Incorporated Areas, Map Nos. 06085C0036H & 06085C0045H. May 18, 2009.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 68

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

3.11.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is located in the City of Mountain View within existing city streets. As such, the project construction sites do not have land use or zoning designations, but are adjacent to various uses including medium to high density residential, high density residential, high intensity office park and single-family residential uses.

3.11.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The proposed project improvements are located underground. The project does not include any physical barriers such as new roads or fences such that existing land use patterns would change resulting in a division of an established community. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. The project is the installation of water utility infrastructure. The project would not conflict with the goals and policies in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (City of Mountain View, 2012) or with the City’s Municipal Code (City of Mountain View, 2022b) with incorporation of the standard and project-specific measures contained in the Design Plans for the Project (BKF Engineers, 2022), compliance with applicable regulations, and implementation of the mitigation measures contained in this document. No new uses are proposed. Mitigation is included with the project, as described in this Initial Study to reduce potential environmental effects of the project to less than significant levels.

3.11.3 References
BKF Engineers. 2022. PRV and Water Main Project, CIP Project #18-21. Draft 65% Submittal.

Prepared for the City of Mountain View. Jan 2022.

City of Mountain View . 2022. General Plan Land Use Map. Accessed on March 3 , 2022 at:
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=10701 Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 69

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View City of Mountain View. 2012. Mountain View 2030 General Plan. Adopted July 10, 2012.

City of Mountain View. 2022b. City of Mountain View Municipal Code. Current through August

25. Accessed March 4, 2022 from:
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 70

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local -general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?

3.12.1 Environmental Setting
The project is in the City of Mountain View within existing developed streets. There are no mines or mineral resources in the City of Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012).

3.12.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact (Responses a – b). As stated in the environmental setting, there are no mines or other mineral resources within the City of Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012). The project site has no potential for use in resource recovery and therefore, would have no impact on the availability of mineral resources.

3.12.3 References
City of Mountain View. 2012. General Plan 2030. Adopted July 10, 2012. Accessed March 4, 2022 at https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10702 Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 71

3.13 NOISE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or in other applicable standards of
other agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?

3.13.1 Environmental Setting
Noise may be defined as loud, unpleasant, or unwanted sound. The frequency (pitch), amplitude (intensity or loudness), and duration of noise all contribute to the effect on a listener, or receptor, and whether the receptor perceives the noise as objectionable, disturbing, or annoying.

The Decibel Scale (dB)
The decibel scale (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative amplitude of a sound.

Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a tenfold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dBs is 100 times more intense, 30 dBs is 1,000 more intense, and so on. In general, there is a relationship between the subjective noisiness, or loudness of a sound, and its amplitude, or intensity, with each 10 dB increase in sound level perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness.

Sound Characterization
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common method is the “A-weighted sound level,” or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is typically most sensitive. Thus, most environmental measurements are reported in dBA, meaning decibels on the A-scale.

Human hearing matches the logarithmic A-weighted scale, so that a sound of 60 dBA is perceived as twice as loud as a sound of 50 dBA. In a quiet environment, an increase of three dB is usually perceptible, however, in a complex noise environment such as along a busy street, a noise increase of less than three dB is usually not perceptible, and an increase of five dB is usually perceptible. Normal human speech is in the range from 50 to 65 dBA. Generally, as environmental noise exceeds 50 dBA, it becomes intrusive and above 65 dBA noise becomes excessive.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 72

Table 3-2. Typical Outdoor and Indoor Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
-110- Rock Band
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet
-100-
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
-90-
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet -80- Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noise urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower, 100 feet -70- Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet -60-
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime -50 Dishwasher next room
Quite urban nighttime -40- Theater, large conference room (background)
Quiet suburban nighttime
-30- Library
Quite rural nighttime Bedroom at night
-20-
Broadcast/recording studio
-10-

Lowest threshold of human hearing -0- Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: Caltrans 2013

Sound levels are typically not steady and can vary over a short time period. The equivalent noise level (Leq) is used to represent the average character of the sound over a period of time. The Leq represents the level of steady noise that would have the same acoustical energy as the sum of the time-varying noise measured over a given time period. Leq is useful for evaluating shorter time periods over the course of a day. The most common Leq averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events over a given time period.

Variable noise levels are values that are exceeded for a portion of the measured time period.

Thus, L01 is the level exceeded one percent of the time and L90 is the level exceeded 90 percent of the time. The L90 value usually corresponds to the background sound level at the measurement location.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 73
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Noise exposure over the course of an entire day is described by the day/night average sound level, or Ldn, and the community noise equivalent level, or CNEL. Both descriptors represent the 24-hour noise impact on a community. For Ldn, the 24-hour day is divided into a 15-hour daytime period (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) and a nine-hour nighttime period (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) and a 10 dB “penalty” is added to measure nighttime noise levels when calculating the 24-hour average noise level. For example, a 45 dBA nighttime sound level would contribute as much to the overall day-night average as a 55 dBA daytime sound level. The CNEL descriptor is similar to Ldn, except that it includes an additional five dBA penalty beyond the 10 dBA for sound events that occur during the evening time period (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM). The artificial penalties imposed during Ldn and CNEL calculations are intended to account for a receptor’s increased sensitivity to sound levels during quieter nighttime periods.

Sound Propagation
The energy contained in a sound pressure wave dissipates and is absorbed by the surrounding environment as the sound wave spreads out and travels away from the noise generating source.

Theoretically, the sound level of a point source attenuates, or decreases, by six dB with each doubling of distance from a point source. Sound levels are also affected by certain environmental factors, such as ground cover (asphalt vs. grass or trees), atmospheric absorption, and attenuation by barriers. Outdoor noise is also attenuated by the building envelope so that sound levels inside a residence are from 10 to 20 dB less than outside, depending mainly on whether windows are open for ventilation or not.

When more than one point source contributes to the sound pressure level at a receiver point, the overall sound level is determined by combining the contributions of each source. Decibels, however, are logarithmic units and cannot be directly added or subtracted together. Under the dB scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a three-dB increase in noise levels. For example, if one noise source produces a sound power level of 70 dB, two of the same sources would not produce 140 dB – rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear can discern 1‐dB changes in sound levels when exposed to steady, single ‐frequency (“pure‐tone”) signals in the mid‐frequency (1,000–8,000 Hz) range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of one to two dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people can begin to detect sound level increases of three dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a five-dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10‐ dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness.

Noise Effects
Noise effects on human beings are generally categorized as:
• Subj
ective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and/or dissatisfaction • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning, or relaxing • Physiological effects such as startling and hearing loss Mos
t environmental noise levels produce subjective or interference effects; physiological effects are usually limited to high noise environments such as industrial manufacturing facilities or airports.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 74
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Predicting the subjective and interference effects of noise is difficult due to the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and past experiences with noise; however, an accepted method to determine a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise source is to compare it to the existing environment without the noise source, or the “ambient” noise environment. In general, the more a new noise source exceeds the ambient noise level, the more likely it is to be considered annoying and to disturb normal activities.

Under
controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern one‐dB changes in sound levels when exposed to steady, single‐frequency (“pure‐tone”) signals in the mid‐frequency (1,000–8,000 Hz) range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of one to two dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people are able to begin to detect sound level increases of three dB in typical noisy environments.

Further, a five-dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10 dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness that would almost certainly cause an adverse response from community noise receptors.

Existing Noise Environment
The proposed project is located within existing City streets. The noise environments in these areas is most influenced by the amount of daily vehicles traveling on the surrounding roadways..

Sensitive Receptors
Noise sensitive receptors are areas where unwanted sound or increases in sound may have an adverse effect on people or land uses. Residential areas, hospitals, schools, and parks are examples of noise receptors that could be sensitive to changes in existing environmental noise levels. The closest noise sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site include:
• The single-family and multi-family residential area on Evandale Avenue located west of North Whisman Road;
• The single-family and multi-family residential area along to Whitney Drive; • The single-family residential areas on Whitney Court; and • The single-family residential area on Parker Court.

Loma Linda Elementary School is located approximately 800 feet north of the proposed project site at Whitney Drive. The Waldorf School of the Peninsula is located slightly farther away at approximately 1,000 feet east of the Whitney Drive location.

3.13.2 Regulatory Setting
Mountain View General Plan
The purpose of Noise Element in the City’s General Plan is to guide policies for addressing exposure to current and projected noise sources in Mountain View. Table 7-1 of the Noise Element contains outdoor noise environment guidelines. Normally acceptable noise levels for golf courses are 55-70 CNEL, while noise levels of 70-80 CNEL are normally unacceptable and above 80 CNEL is clearly unacceptable.

Mountain View Municipal Code
Section 8.70 of the City Code restricts construction activity to the hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday, Sunday or holidays Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 75
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View without written approval from the City. If the hours of construction activity change, then the general contractor, applicant, developer or owner is required to erect a sign at a prominent location on the construction site to let subcontractors and material suppliers know of the working hours.

3.13.3 Discussion
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
The proposed project is the installation of underground potable water infrastructure which would not generate a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vic inity of the Project once installed.

As
described in Section 2.3 construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to take approximately
three months. During this time, construction equipment (e.g., excavator, bobcat etc.)
would be required to dig the pit or trenches and install the new water mains and service con
nections. These activities could temporarily increase noise levels in the project area.

Construction
noise would be intermittent, occurring only when equipment is in operation.

As described in Section 2.3, construction activities would be limited to between 7:30 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., Monday through Friday and would avoid the more noise-se nsitive nighttime and weekend hours. While the City’s noise ordinance allows construction activities until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, the project plans further limit allowable construction hours to no later than 4:00 p.m. (s ee Table 2 -2), therefore the project plans are more restrictive of and would remain consistent with Mountain View Civil Code SEC 1.2 and SEC 8.70. The noise generated from project construction would be temporary (construction would last approximately three months) and would not produc e the same sound levels every day as construction would move along the alignment. Given the short duration of project construction activities and
compliance with the City’s Municipal Code, the project would not generate a significant temporary noise impact, nor would it conflict with an applicable standard. The project facilities are located underground and operations w ould not affect ambient noise levels after construction. The impact is considered less than significant. b) Generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed project is the installation of water util ity infrastructure which would not generate groundborne vibration or groundbor ne noise levels ov er the long term. Project construction would not require rock blasting, or pil e driving, but could require use a vibratory rol ler, excavator , loaded truc ks, and jackhammer. C onstruction activities that use vibratory rollers and bulldozers would be mobile and not operating at the same location for
a prolonged period of time. In addition, equipment operation that could generate gr
oundborne vibration would be short-ter m, since overall p roject construction is expected to take approximately three months. In other words, activities that could generate vibration would not oc
cur on a weekly basi s for an extended amount of time. As s uc h, the proposed project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This impact would be less than si gnificant.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 76

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The project site is located approximately 0.4 miles southwest of the Moffett Federal Airfield. The site is within the Airport Influence Area according to Figure 8 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but outside the Airport Safety Zones depicted in Figure 7 for the of the Moffett Federal Airfield (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 2012). The project is the installation of underground water infrastructure and would not include any buildings or aboveground structures. The proposed project, therefore, would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels.

3.13.4 References
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, California. September 2013.

California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Sacramento, California. April 2020.

U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2010. “Construction Noise Handbook, Chapter 9 Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges”: Accessed online at:
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00 .cfm>

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 77

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce a substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

3.14.1 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed construction of a new pressure reducing valve and replacement of existing water mains are part of a package of water and sanitary main upgrades that the City considers necessary to meet future demand and fire flow requirements per the amended North Bayshore Precise Plan, as well as from various utility impact studies from future developments within the City. The project would therefore not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the area, and implementation of the project would result in a less than significant impact.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project involves construction activities within the developed rights -of-way of existing City streets and would have no effect on housing. As stated in the response to Question a) above, t he proposed project would not induce population growth, either directly or indirectly.

No impact would occur.

3.14.2 References
City of Mountain View Precise Plan 2014. Accessed February 10, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29702

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 78

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:

i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?

3.15.1 Environmental Setting
The Mountain View Fire Department serves the residents of Mountain View, there are five stations servicing the City. In addition to direct fire suppression and prevention, the Mountain View Fire Department performs support functions such as emergency medical services, rescue services, hazardous and toxic materials emergency response, coordination of City-wide disaster response efforts, enforcement of fire and life safety codes, enforcement of state and federal hazardous materials regulations, and investigation of fire cause, arson and other emergency events for cause and origin (City of Mountain View Information and Resources 2022). The stations are found as listed below:
• Fire Station No. 1, 251 S. Shoreline Blvd.
• Fire Station No. 2, 160 Cuesta Dr.
• Fire Station No. 3, 301 N. Rengstorff Ave.
• Fire Station No. 4, 229 N. Whisman Rd.
• Fire Station No. 5, 2195 N. Shoreline Blvd.

The Mountain View Police Department is responsible for public safety in the project area. The Mountain View Police Department has an office at 1000 Villa Street.

3.15.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 79

The proposed project does not include new housing and would not induce population growth (see Response 3.14a); therefore, it would not increase enrollment at local schools, or require the provision of new or physically altered schools nor increase the use of local and regional parks or require the provision of new or physically altered parks, or other governmental facilities.

3.15.3 References
City of Mountain View. 2022. Fire Department Information and Resources. Accessed February 10, 2022, at https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fire/contact.asp

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 80

3.16 RECREATION

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?

b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?

3.16.1 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that significant physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. (Responses a – b). The project proposes to construct water infrastructure improvements within existing street rights -of-way and would not involve parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, it would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and would not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 81
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains
to vehicle miles travelled?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

3.17.1 Environmental Setting
The project is located within City of Mountain View streets including North Whisman Road, Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court. Regional access to these locations are provided by the US 101 freeway via the Ellis Street exit or State Route 85 via the Moffat Boulevard Exit for the PRV site and by the US 101 freeway via the San Antonio Boulevard exit for the Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court locations.

3.17.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. The project is the replacement or installation of underground potable water infrastructure and would not generate traffic over the long term or cause any changes to the circulation system during construction. A temporary traffic control plan would be prepared to ensure access is maintained for all modes of transportation including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to vehicle miles travelled?
No Impact. The proposed project is the replacement or installation of underground potable water infrastructure and does not involve new land uses at the site that have the potential to generate vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, the project will not conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 82

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed project is the replacement or installation of underground potable water infrastructure within existing roadways and would not include new roads or intersections or change the land use of the project site or area. Therefore, the project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed p roject the replacement or installation of underground potable water infrastructure within existing roadways and would not include new buildings or above-ground structures. Construction vehicles would use designated access routes and emergency access would be maintained during construction. Therefore, the p roject would not impact emergency access.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 83
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resources,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American Tribe.

3.18.1 Environmental Setting
Please see discussion in Cultural Resources Section 3.5.1 Environmental Setting for information about the cultural and tribal cultural setting in the project area.

3.18.2 Regulatory Setting
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federally funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation.

Native American Heritage Commission, Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 – 5097.991 Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 84
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Under Section 5097.9 of the PRC, a state policy of noninterference with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion was articulated along with a prohibition of severe or irreparable damage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites or sacred shrines located on public property. Section 5097.98 of the PRC specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner. Section 5097.5 defines as a misdemeanor the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands.

California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001 Codified in the California Health and Safety Code Sections 8010– 8030, the California Native American Graves Protection Act (NAGPRA) is consistent with the federal NAGPRA. Intended to “provide a seamless and consistent state policy to ensure that all California Indian human remains and cultural items be treated with dignity and respect,” the California NAGPRA also encourages and provides a mechanism for the return of remains and cultural items to lineal descendants.

Section 8025 established a Repatriation Oversight Commission to oversee this process. The act also provides a process for non– federally recognized tribes to file claims with agencies and museums for repatriation of human remains and cultural items.

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 requires a lead agency to begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requests in writing to the lead agency, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project.

No Native American tribes contacted the City of Mountain View under AB52, and thus AB52 consultation was not required as part of the project.

3.18.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 85
Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe?
a) Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Under CEQA, a significant resource is one that is listed in a California or local historic register or is eligible to be listed. As such, lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate such resources against the California Register criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources (PRC § 21084.1, 20174, 14 CCR § 15064.5(3).

It is possible for a lead agency to determine that an artifact, site, or feature is considered significant to a local tribe, without necessarily being eligible for the CRHR. A determination of such by a lead agency would make an artifact a significant resource under CEQA.

No recorded Tribal Cultural Resources are known to be present at the area of proposed work or within a quarter-mile of said area, according to the aforementioned CHRIS record search via the NWIC at Sonoma State University.

The Sacred Lands File Search was negative for tribal resources in the project area. Subsequent outreach was made to the tribal contacts provided by the NAHC for information on the location and nature of the resource(s) to determine if the project would impact known resources. No specific information was provided by the tribal contacts regarding the location and nature of tribal resources in the area, therefore, there is no confirmed potential for impacting known tribal cultural resources.

The implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1a and CUL -1b and CUL-2a and CUL-2b (see Section 3.5.3) would safeguard any TCRs if they are found to be present.

3.18.4 References
Basin Research Associates. Memorandum. Archaeological Review – In Support of Environmental Clearance, Water and Sewer Main Replacements, Locations 3 and 10, City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County. February 14, 2022.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 86

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

3.19.1 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. The project that is the subject of this Initial Study is a portion of a larger City of Mountain View CIP project that involves the replacement of approximately 4 ,344 linear feet of water main and service laterals, fire hydrants, and associated water system appurtenances and 5,478 linear feet sanitary sewer main, laterals, cleanouts, and manholes, as well as installation of a new pressure release valve and a new water main segment. The proposed construction and installation of a new pressure reducing valve and replacement of an existing water main would not result in significant environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, as illustrated by the analyses , impact discussions and proposed mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study (see Sections 3.6 Energy, 3.10 Hydrology and Water Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 87

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Quality and 3.16 Public Services). Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on utilities and service systems.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact. (Responses b - c). No additional water supply is being sought as part of the project.

The project is the installation of potable water infrastructure which is not a new land use requiring water supplies.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact. Some construction waste would be generated by the project over the short-term. Construction waste is expected to be minimal and would not exceed the capacity of the landfill that serves the area. The impact is considered less than significant. e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The project would not conflict with any federal, state or local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 88

3.20 WILDFIRE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Is the project located near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones?
Yes No
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

3.20.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is situated within the City of Mountain View and is not located in an area designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity zone (CAL Fire 2008). The nearest area with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity designation is located in the foothills of Cupertino, approximately

8.5 miles south of the project site. The project site mapped as being within a Local Responsibility Area and is not within a fire hazard severity zone.9

3.20.2 Discussion
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

9 Calfire. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ A ccessed December 15, 2021.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 89

Annual Water Main Replacement, Project 19-21: PRV Installation on North Whisman Road and Evandale Avenue; Whitney Drive, Whitney Court, and Parker Court Water Main Replacements Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact (a through d). As discussed in the Environmental Setting provided above, the project is not located in a Very H igh Fire Hazard Severity zone. The nearest such zone is located over eight miles to the south of the project site.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 90

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with
the efforts of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?

3.21.1 Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. There are sensitive biological resources (nesting birds) that would be protected through Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Mitigation is incorporated into the project to prevent potentially significant impacts to Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources (Mitigation Measures CUL-1a , CUL-1b, and CUL-2a and CL-2bc). These include establishing proper procedures and protocols for the protection of resources in the event of unanticipated discoveries of resources, including human remains; tribal cultural resources sensitivity training; and requirement of printing notes on construction plans that address the discovery of cultural resources.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 91

List of Preparers Page 92

Chapter 4. List of Preparers

MIG, Inc.
2055 J
unction Avenue, Suite 205
San Jose, CA 95131
(650) 327-0429
www.migcom.com
Environmental Analysis and Document Preparation
Mike Campbell – Senior Project Manager
Christina Lau – Project Manager
Kim Briones –Biologist
Alex Broskoff - Graphics

Basin Research Associates
Colin I. Busby, Ph.D., RPA
1933 Davis Street, Ste. 214
San Leandro, CA 94577
510-430-8441
www.basinresearch.com

Appendix A: Archaeological Review, Basin Research Associates, February 2022 [Confidential – held on file at the City]

Mountain View City CouncilJanuary 24, 2023

Mountain View City Council
January 24, 2023