Mountain View City Council
January 24, 2023

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-20 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
• Regulation 6, Rule 6 (Prohibition of Trackout). This measure controls trackout of solid material onto public paved roads from large bulk material sites, large construction sites, and large disturbed area sites. Under this regulation, the owners and operators of a construction site are required to clean up trackout on public roadways within four hours of identification and at the conclusion of each workday. The rule also includes requirements regarding the emissions of fugitive dust during cleanup of trackout, and requirements for monitoring and reporting trackout at regulated sites. Construction activities associated with development under the HEU would be subject to this rule.
• Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings). Through this rule the BAAQMD regulates the quantity of VOCs in architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured. This rule imposes VOC content limits on architectural coatings and includes requirements for painting practices, solvent usage and storage, and compliance monitoring and reporting practices. Application of architectural coatings associated with new construction and maintenance activities resulting from the HEU would be subject to this rule.
• Regulation 9, Rule 8 (Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines). This rule regulates emissions of NOX and CO from stationary internal combustion engines and imposes emissions limits on spark-ignited engines powered by waste and fossil-derived fuels, compression-ignited engines, and dual fuel pilot compression-ignited engines. The rule also limits the hours of operation for emergency standby engines, which must be equipped with a non-resettable totalizing meter that measures either hours of operation or fuel usage. Usage records must be kept for two years and be available for inspection by BAAQMD. Any emergency generators proposed as part of development within the HEU area would be subject to this rule.
• R egulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). This rule regulates emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition, renovation, milling, and manufacturing. It prohibits the use of asbestos on certain roadways, in molded insulating materials, and on buildings during construction, alteration, and/or repair. The rule also prohibits visible emissions from any operation involving the demolition, renovation, removal, manufacture, or fabrication of asbestos-containing products and includes required procedures for waste disposal and requirements for waste disposal sites to prevent emissions from asbestos-containing materials. This rule applies to demolition activities undertaken as part of development under the HEU.

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

BAAQMD has developed a map identifying areas where best management practices should be applied, and where further study is needed (BAAQMD, 2016b). As shown on the Planning Healthy Places map, many of the HEU areas are located where the recommended best management practices should be applied to reduce exposure and subsequent health impacts

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-21 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
associated with air pollution. Best management practices recommended by the Planning Healthy Places guidebook include a number of emissions reduction strategies.

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

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

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

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan is the guiding document for the City's physical development and preservation. It includes goals, policies and graphics that convey a long-term vision and guide local decision-making to achieve that vision. Air quality goals and policies are contained in the Mobility and Infrastructure and Conservation elements of the General Plan. The following list includes the goals and policies in both of these elements (City of Mountain View, 2021).

4 To be eligible for designation as a Priority Development Area, an area must be within an existing community, near existing or planned fixed transit or served by comparable bus service, and planned for more housing. A Transit Priority Area is an area within one-half mile of an existing or planned major transit stop such as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by transit, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-22 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Mobility
Goal MOB-9: Achievement of state and regional air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

Policy MOB 9.1: Greenhouse gas emissions. Develop cost-effective strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in coordination with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program.

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

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

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

Policy INC 20.1: Pollution prevention. Discourage mobile and stationary sources of air pollution.

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

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

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

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

Policy INC 2 0.6: Air quality standards. Protect the public and construction workers from construction exhaust and particulate emissions.

Policy INC 20.7: Protect sensitive receptors. Protect the public from substantial pollutant concentrations.

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

Mountain View Reach Codes
Reach Codes are amendments to the Energy and Green Building Standards Codes to reduce GHGs. Adopting Reach Codes create opportunities for local governments to lead initiatives on climate change solutions, clean air, and renewable energy. On November 12, 2019 , the Mountain View City Council approved the Green Building Code amendments, which include the Reach Codes efforts.. These include electrification, solar readiness of buildings, provision of EV charging infrastructure, and energy efficiency for all new construction projects. The Reach Codes establish higher standards for new construction to provide environmental and health benefits to

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-23 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
the community. The Mountain View Reach Codes focus on new residential, commercial, and multifamily buildings that will be seeking building permits after December 9, 2020. The ordinance does not apply to additions or alterations.

Mountain View Multimodal Transportation Analysis (MTA) Handbook In February 2021, the City published the MTA Handbook, which provides a process for 1) assessing transportation operational effects of a development project or plan, and 2) identifying transportation improvements to address adverse effects. These identified improvements would be included as Conditions of Approval to projects and plans.

Mountain View Standard Conditions of Approval
As part of discretionary review, the City has standard conditions for different types of approvals (updated as of October 25, 2021). The City has standard conditions relating to air quality, as summarized below.

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-24 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.2.4 Significance Criteria
The thresholds used to determine the significance of impacts related to air quality are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project could have a significant impact on the environment if it would:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

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

Criteria Air Pollutants
The analysis of criteria air pollutants on regional air quality has been conducted at a plan level using significance thresholds recommended by the BAAQMD for programs and plans (BAAQMD 2017b) and also considers whether future projects that implement the plan could result in significant impacts. For programs and plans, the BAAQMD recommends that the analysis consider a comparison of the rate of increase in VMT to the rate of population growth to assess impact on regional air quality. Projects are generally compared to the BAAQMD’s project- level thresholds for criteria pollutants for construction and operation.

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

Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
In a 2018 decision (Sierra Club V. County of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th 502, also referred to as Friant Ranch), the California Supreme Court decided that CEQA requires disclosure of the potential for a project’s emissions to affect human health when the project’s criteria air pollutant emissions exceed applicable thresholds and contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact. The

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-25 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
decision requires EIRs to either: (1) make a “reasonable effort” to substantively connect the estimated amount of a given air pollutant a project will produce and the health effects associated with that pollutant, or (2) explain why such an analysis is infeasible.5 The Court also clarified that CEQA “does not mandate” that EIRs include “an in-depth risk assessment” that provides “a detailed comprehensive analysis … to evaluate and predict the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environment and the potential for exposure of human populations and to assess and quantify both the individual and population wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure.”6
Typically, th e health impact of a particular criteria pollutant is analyzed by air districts on a regional scale, based on how close the area is to attaining the ambient air quality standards.

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

Non-CEQA Impacts of the Environment on the Project
As discussed in the Regulatory Setting,7 CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider how existing environmental conditions might impact a project’s users or residents, except where a project would exacerbate an existing environmental condition. This analysis focuses on air quality impacts on the existing sensitive receptors from new emissions from the proposed HEU, during both construction and operational phases. Existing emissions from off-site sources are addressed under cumulative conditions.

5 Sierra Club V. County of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 510–511. 6 Sierra Club V. County of Fresno, 6 Cal.5th at 521.
7 California Building Industry Association V. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal.4th 369. Opinion Filed December 17, 2015.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-26 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.2.5 Impacts of the Project
Impact AIR-1: Implementation of the HEU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Less than Significant) In determining consistency with the Clean Air Plan, BAAQMD recommends that the analysis consider whether the project would:
• Support the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan;
• Include applicable control measures of the Clean Air Plan; and • Avoid disrupting or hindering implementation of control measures identified in the Clean Air Plan.

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

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

Most of th e control measures identified in the Clean Air Plan fall under the implementation responsibility of the BAAQMD and would not be directly applicable to the HEU. However, subsequent projects proposed as part of the HEU would include features, either by design, required as part of compliance with regulations or their location close to transit facilities, that support implementation of transportation-, energy-, building-, waste-, and water conservation- related measures included in the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Table 4.2-9 provides a consistency analysis of the proposed HEU with applicable control measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-27 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.2-9

CONSISTENCY WITH POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE CONTROL MEASURES IN 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN CONTROL MEASURES
Control Measure Description Consistency Analysis
Stationary Source Control Measures
SS21: New Source
Review for Air
Toxics
SS21 addresses air toxics emissions through
BAAQMD Rule 2-5, New Source Review of
Toxic Air Contaminants.

Consistent. Any stationary sources such as
emergency generators proposed as part of the
development in the HEU would be required to
comply with BAAQMD Rule 2-5 at the time of
project review.

SS25: Coating,
Solvents,
Lubricants, Sealants
and Adhesives
SS25 will reduce emissions of ROG from
architectural coatings and other materials by
proposing more stringent ROG limits as
appropriate.

Consistent. All subsequent projects in the
HEU would comply with all applicable
BAAQMD rules and regulations regarding ROG
emission limits.

SS30: Residential
Fan Type Furnaces
SS30 will reduce emissions of NOx by creating
more stringent limits on new and replacement
central furnace installations. Strategies may
include regulations regarding sale of fossil fuel-
based space and water heating systems for
residential and commercial use.

Consistent. All subsequent projects in the
HEU would be required to use all-electric
space and water heating systems for
residential and commercial use, consistent with
the Mountain View Reach Code. Though the
City’s Reach Code allows for exemptions,
Mitigation Measure GHG-1 in the Greenhouse
Gas section of this EIR will require no
exemptions to the all-electric requirement.

SS32: Emergency
Backup Generators
S32 will reduce emissions of DPM, TACs, and
criteria pollutants from emergency backup
generators by enforcing Rule 11- 18, resulting in
reduced health risks to impacted individuals.

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

Consistent. Any emergency backup
generators proposed would be compliant with
the regulations set forth in BAAQMD Rule 11-18.

SS36: PM from
Trackout
SS36 developed Regulation 6, Particulate Matter;
Rule 6: Trackout (Rule 6-6) to address mud and
dirt that can be “tracked out” from construction
sites, bulk material storage, and disturbed
surfaces onto public paved roads where vehicle
traffic will pulverize the mud and dirt into fine
particles and entrain them into the air.

Consistent. All future construction activities
associated with the proposed HEU would
implement BMPs required by the BAAQMD, as
part of City Standard Condition of Approval
(Basic Air Quality Construction Measures),
which would reduce trackout of PM from
construction sites.

SS38 Fugitive Dust SS38 reduces particulate matter (PM10 & PM2.5) fugitive dust emissions from traffic and other
operations on construction sites, large disturbed
surfaces, and other sources of fugitive PM
emissions.

Consistent. All future construction activities
pursuant to the HEU would implement dust
control BMPs required by the BAAQMD as part
of City Standard Condition of Approval (Basic
Air Quality Construction Measures), to reduce
fugitive dust.

Transportation Control Measures
TR5: Transit
Efficiency and Use
TR5 will improve transit efficiency and make
transit more convenient for riders through
continued operation of 511 Transit, full
implementation of Clipper® fare payment
system and the Transit Hub Signage Program.

Consistent. Projects would be located near the
Valley Transportation Authority bus and light rail
lines, where the Clipper® fare payment system
can be used on various transit operators. It is
noted that 511 no longer provides trip planner
service or transit agency schedules.

I I
I I

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-28 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.2-9 (CONTINUED)

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

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

TR10: Land Use
Strategies
This measure supports land use patterns that
reduce VMT and associated emissions and
exposure to TACs, especially within infill
locations and impacted communities.

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

Energy Control Measures
EN1: Decarbonize
Electricity
Production
EN1 focuses on lowering carbon emissions by
switching the fuel sources used in electricity
generation. The measure would promote and
expedite a transition away from fossil fuels used
in electricity generation (i.e., natural gas) to a
greater reliance on renewable energy sources
(e.g., wind, solar). In addition, this measure
would promote an increase in cogeneration,
which results in useful heat in addition to
electricity generation from a single fuel source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I I
I I

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-29 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.2-9 (CONTINUED)

CONSISTENCY WITH POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE CONTROL MEASURES IN 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN CONTROL MEASURES
Control Measure Description Consistency Analysis
BL2: Decarbonize
Buildings
BL2 seeks to reduce GHG emissions, criteria
pollutants and TACs by limiting the installation of
space- and water-heating systems and
appliances powered by fossil fuels. This
measure is to be implemented by developing
model policies for local governments that
support low- and zero-carbon technologies as
well as potentially developing a rule limiting the
sale of natural-gas furnaces and water heaters.

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

BL4: Urban Heat
Island Mitigation
This control measure aims to reduce the “urban
heat island” phenomenon by increasing the
application of “cool roofing” and “cool paving”
technologies, as well as increasing the
prevalence of urban forests and vegetation,
through voluntary approaches and educational
outreach.

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

Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
NW2: Urban Street
Planting
NW2 promotes the planting of trees in urbanized
settings to take advantage of the myriad benefits
provided by these trees, including: shading to
reduce both the “urban heat island”
phenomenon and the need for space cooling,
and the absorption of ambient criteria air
pollutants as well as carbon dioxide.

Consistent. Development in the HEU area
would be required to be consistent with the
Mountain View Heritage Tree Preservation
Ordinance.

Waste Management Control Measures
WA3: Green Waste
Diversion
WA4: Recycling
and Waste
Reduction
WA3 seeks to reduce the total amount of green
waste being disposed in landfills by supporting
the diversion of green waste to other uses.

WA4 seeks to reduce GHG emissions by diverting
recyclables and other materials from landfills.

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

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

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

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

I I
I I
I I

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-30 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.2-9 (CONTINUED)

CONSISTENCY WITH POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE CONTROL MEASURES IN 2017 CLEAN AIR PLAN CONTROL MEASURES
Control Measure Description Consistency Analysis
Solid Waste
California
Integrated Waste
Management Act
(IWMA) of 1989
and AB 341
IWMA requires all California cities to divert
50-percent of all solid waste from landfill
disposal through source reduction, recycling,
and composting activities. AB 341 directs
CalRecycle to develop and adopt regulations for
mandatory commercial recycling and sets a
statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction
by the year 2020.

Consistent. Recology Mountain View is under
contract with the City to provide solid waste and
residential recycling services to Mountain View
and is responsible for recycling and solid waste
management in the City. Recology’s services
yield waste diversion results consistent with
citywide recycling targets. These services would
be supplied to all future development under the
HEU. Consistent with AB 341 - Commercial
Recycling and AB 1826 - Commercial Organics,
all commercial, business, and multifamily
establishments that generate enough solid and
organic waste are required to have a recycling
and/or organics program.

As shown in Table 4.2-9, required compliance with regulations from various agencies as well as the City, and implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 required to mitigate Impact AIR-2 discussed below, would ensure that implementation of the HEU would be consistent and support all applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

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

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

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

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

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-31 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Impact AIR-2: Implementation of the HEU would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation)
For a plan-level analysis, the BAAQMD recommends that the significance of the impact of criteria air pollutant emissions generated be based on consistency with regional air quality planning, including an evaluation of population growth and growth in VMT (BAAQMD, 2017b). For a proposed plan to result in a less-than-significant impact from criteria air pollutants, an analysis must demonstrate that the plan’s growth in VMT would not exceed the plan’s population growth. This analysis is presented below, followed by a qualitative analysis that considers whether development allowed by the HEU could exceed quantitative (project-level) thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants, requiring mitigation.

Comparison of Growth in VMT with Growth in Population
Based on the transportation analysis, the population of the area due to development proposed as part of the HEU would increase by approximately 6.1 percent compared to the 2040 scenario without the HEU, as shown in Table 4.2-10.

TABLE 4.2-10

INCREASE IN VMT VERSUS POPULATION GROWTH

Cumulative
Growth no HEU
Cumulative Growth
with HEU
HEU Contribution to
Cumulative Growth % Increase
Populationa 134,000 142,200 8,200 6.1%
VMTb 2,189,929 2,204,929 15,000 0.7%
NOTE:
a Population increase based on the City’s projections which assumes persons-per-household factor of 2.0. b VMT estimations provided by Hexagon and represents VMT on all roads within the City of Mountain View.

The transportation analysis also estimates the increase in VMT associated with the HEU buildout, which is also shown in Table 4.2-10. The increase in daily VMT associated with the HEU buildout would represent a smaller increase than the population increase, when compared to the 2040 No Project scenario.

The BAAQMD Justification Report8 explains that the impact to air quality is not necessarily growth but where that growth is located. Because transportation sources typically constitute the largest percent of air quality emissions generated from land use development projects and plans, a comparison of the rate of increase in VMT to the population growth rate will determine if planned growth will impact air quality of the area. Compact infill development in proximity to transit services, such as many of the site in the HEU, inherently generate less vehicle travel and more transit opportunities than suburban sprawl to accommodate the same amount of growth. Because

8 BAAQMD staff analyzed various options for CEQA air quality thresholds of significance for use within BAAQMD’s jurisdiction. The analysis and evaluation undertaken by BAAQMD staff is documented in the Revised Draft Options and Justification Report – California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance (Draft Options Report) (BAAQMD October 2009).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-32 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
the rate of increase in VMT would be less than the rate of population growth, the HEU would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to regional criteria air pollutants when analyzed by comparing the rate of population growth to the rate of VMT growth.

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

Emissions generated during construction activities would include exhaust emissions from the use of heavy-duty off-road diesel equipment, on-road diesel trucks, and employee vehicles; fugitive dust emissions associated with earth-disturbing activities and other demolition and construction work; and fugitive ROG emissions from paving and architectural coatings. Emissions generated during operation of new development would include emissions from motor vehicle trips, building energy use, and any stationary sources such as backup generators and area sources (landscaping equipment, consumer products and architectural coatings associated with maintenance activities).

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

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

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

Estimating exhaust emissions generated by construction activities (i.e. construction equipment and vehicles) requires project-specific data regarding the construction schedule and phasing, and equipment needs (equipment type and number, horsepower, activity level). If estimated emissions are found to exceed the BAAQMD’s project-level significance thresholds for construction, they would contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the SFBAAB is in nonattainment. Projects requiring substantial ground disturbance, constructed on

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-33 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
extremely compressed construction schedules, or requiring specialty equipment could lead to exceedance of the significance thresholds. Because at least some development allowed by the HEU would likely exceed BAAQMD screening criteria, and the specific characteristics of each subsequent project are not currently known, this impact is conservatively considered to be potentially significant.

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

The primary source of operational criteria pollutant emissions would be motor vehicle trips generated by new development, although the proximity of transit facilities in the area would help reduce vehicle trips, VMT, and associated air pollutant emissions, as would Mountain View’s TDM requirements. In addition, Mountain View has adopted amendments to the City’s Chapter 8 Building code, approving “Reach Codes” that amend the State’s Title 24 Energy and Green Building Standards Codes and specifies EV charging requirements for new construction to facilitate future installation and use of electric chargers (City of Mountain View 2019). Reach codes are local building energy codes that “reach” beyond the state minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction. The Mountain View Reach Codes apply to all new residential, commercial, and multifamily buildings. Mitigation Measure GHG-1, discussed in Chapter 4.7 Greenhouse Gases, would require that EV charging infrastructure be provided consistent with the applicable Tier 2 CALGreen standards in effect at the time. The provision of EV charging would encourage use of electric vehicles and reduce associated criteria pollutant emissions from gasoline- fueled vehicles.

The s econd major source of criteria pollutant emissions in land use development projects is energy use in buildings from the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating. However, consistent with the City’s Reach Codes, all newly constructed buildings would be required to be all-electric buildings. An all-electric building is a building that has no natural gas or propane plumbing installed within the building and that uses electricity as the source of energy for its space conditioning, water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances, and clothes drying appliances (City of Mountain View, 2019). Exemptions may be granted to non-residential buildings containing kitchens and residential buildings that contains only low income units as long as the natural gas burning devices do not have a continuously burning pilot light. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 in Chapter 4.7 of this EIR would require all future projects in the Plan-wide amendments area to be all-electric and to be constructed without natural gas infrastructure. This would eliminate direct air pollutant emissions from building energy use.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-34 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
ROG emissions from projects that include a substantial residential component may also potentially exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. ROG emissions from residential uses are primarily generated from the use of consumer products which are chemically formulated products used by household and institutional consumers, including, but not limited to, degreasers, fertilizers/pesticides, detergents; cleaning compounds; polishes; floor finishes; cosmetics; personal care products; home, lawn, and garden products; disinfectants; sanitizers; aerosol paints; and automotive specialty products. With transportation-related emissions of ROG decreasing over time from stricter controls on air pollution, the relative importance of emissions from consumer products has increased. Studies estimate that consumer products now contribute as much to urban air pollution as tailpipe emissions from vehicles despite the fact that people use a lot more fuel than they use consumer products—about 15 times more by weight (Fell, 2018).

Current methodology for estimating ROG emissions from consumer products uses the most recent version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod 2020.4.0) which relies on the 2008 CARB Consumer Product Emission Inventory (CARB, 2009). These emission factors have not been updated recently to reflect low emission products available in the market and are therefore conservative. In addition, consumer product emissions are largely based on personal choices and usage patterns of consumers that the city does not have control over. Hence, there are no effective mitigation measures restricting the use of certain consumer products or limiting the choice. ROG emissions from consumer products are regulated by CARB through the California Consumer Products Regulations (Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5).

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

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

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

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-35 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Clean Construction Equipment.

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

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

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

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

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

Operational Emission Reductions

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

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

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

Significance after Mitigation.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is expected to be effective at reducing criteria pollutant emissions from construction and operation of individual projects developed in the HEU area to below the BAAQMD thresholds; however, the specific emissions associated with

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-36 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
future projects are not currently known, and therefore the effectiveness of emission reduction measures cannot be definitively determined. It is possible that projects with substantial ground disturbance, specialty construction equipment, or compressed and highly intensive construction schedules could exceed construction significance thresholds, particularly if the Tier 4 Final equipment required by the mitigation measure is not commercially available. Also, ROG emissions from consumer products used during project operations may remain significant because use of such products is a function of consumer choice and commercial availability. For these reasons, criteria air pollutants from construction and operation of subsequent projects developed under the proposed HEU would conservatively be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.

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

Health Implications of Significant Impacts Related to Ozone Precursors The health effects associated with emissions of criteria pollutants and ozone precursors are described in Table 4.2-1 under Section 4.2.1, Environmental Setting above. The main health concern of exposure to ground-level ozone formed from ROG and NOX, the ozone precursors, is the effect on the respiratory system, especially on lung function.

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

Significance after Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable _________________________
Impact AIR-3: Implementation of the HEU would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The BAAQMD 2017 Guidelines recommend analysis of local community risk and hazards of plans by the following criteria:
• Presence of sensitive receptors around existing and planned sources of TACs (including adopted Risk Reduction Plan areas); and
• Presence of sensitive receptors within 500 feet from all freeways and high-volume roadways

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-37 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
According to these criteria, impacts would be significant if the HEU would introduce sensitive receptors in the vicinity of existing and planned sources of TACs, such as freeways and high- volume roadways. However, in the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District case decided in 2015, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider how existing environmental conditions might impact a project’s users or residents. Nonetheless, this analysis considers the potential for new receptors to be exposed to TAC emissions from existing TAC sources for informational purposes.

Many of the HEU development areas are within 500 feet of U.S. 101 and State Routes (SR) 85 and 237, numerous stationary sources, mostly diesel backup generators (BAAQMD 2022b), and the Caltrain line. Cancer risk and PM2.5 levels near these sources of TAC are already exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Health Risks from HEU Future Development Projects
The BAAQMD does not provide any guidance to analyze health risk impacts of plans on the environment. Nonetheless, subsequent projects developed under the HEU would generate TACs, primarily DPM, during construction and operation. DPM emissions would be generated from the combustion of diesel fuel in construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks transporting materials and equipment to and from individual project sites. Based on the land uses proposed in the HEU, the likely sources of operational TAC emissions would be any proposed emergency generators (required for residential structures over 75-feet) and truck traffic serving the commercial uses in the HEU area.

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

As discussed under Impact AIR-2, projects that are below the BAAQMD screening sizes are not expected to have a significant impact from criteria pollutant emissions. However, for health risks, the severity of the impact depends on the proximity of the emissions-generating activity to sensitive receptors, the meteorological conditions, and the duration of exposure. Therefore, to evaluate the significance of the impacts from construction of individual development projects, a health risk assessment would be required to determine whether health risk levels would exceed significance thresholds of 10 in one million cancer risk and 0.3 µg/m3 annual PM2.5 concentrations.

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-38 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Operational sources of health risk from HEU development projects would primarily include emergency generators fire pumps required in taller buildings as part of the emergency power systems and standby power systems requirement of the California Building Code for high-rise buildings with occupied floors located more than 75 feet from the lowest level of fire department vehicle access. Installation and operation of fire pumps and emergency diesel generators would require an Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate from the BAAQMD, who would evaluate emissions based on size and require Best Available Control Technology, if warranted.

Per its Policy and Procedure Manual, the BAAQMD would deny an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate for any new or modified source of TACs that exceeds a cancer risk of 10 in one million or a chronic or acute Hazard Index of 1.0, the BAAQMD’s thresholds for health risk impacts. Therefore, health risks associated with operational sources proposed as part of the HEU would be less than significant.

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

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

In th e event that a project-specific HRA finds that the project could result in significant construction health risks that exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1’s requirement for the use of all Tier 4 Final construction equipment to reduce project-level health risks to a less than significant level. In addition, all tower cranes, forklifts, man- and material- lifts shall be electric powered.

Significance After Mitigation: Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would require subsequent projects within 1,000 feet of existing or approved sensitive receptors to undergo a project-level HRA at the time the project is proposed and to utilize the clean construction equipment required by Mitigation Measure AIR-1 if the project-specific health risk thresholds are exceeded. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would reduce construction health risk impacts to less than significant with mitigation by use of clean construction equipment that meet the Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards, or equivalent VDECS, as certified by CARB.
_________________________
Impact AIR-4: Implementation of the HEU would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant)
The u se of construction equipment at future construction sites in the HEU could potentially create objectionable odors that may affect receptors in the immediate vicinity. Construction-related odors would be localized and temporary, and the use of low-VOC surface coating materials in accordance with BAAQMD Rules would reduce potentially objectionable odors from painting operations. Land uses proposed as part of the HEU are not expected to generate odors that would

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-39 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
adversely affect a substantial number of people. The impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________

4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts
This section presents an analysis of the cumulative effects of the HEU in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could cause cumulatively considerable impacts. Significant cumulative impacts related to air quality could occur if the incremental impacts of the HEU combined with the incremental impacts of one or more cumulative projects.

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

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

Impact AIR-1.CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and TACs under cumulative conditions. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation)
Many so urces of TACs are already present in the vicinity of the HEU development areas: U.S. 101 and State Routes (SR) 85 and 237, numerous stationary sources, mostly diesel backup generators (BAAQMD 2022b), and the Caltrain line. Cancer risk and PM2.5 levels near these sources of TAC are already exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

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

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

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

Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant
_________________________

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-40 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Impact AIR-2.CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not combine with other sources of odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant) Impact AIR-4 describes the potential of odorous emissions from the HEU. Development under the HEU would be residential and would not include land uses that are identified by the BAAQMD as common odor sources. Therefore, there is no potential for the HEU to combine with cumulative projects to result in a significant cumulative odor impact. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________

4.2.7 Summary of Air Quality Impacts
Impact
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance After
Mitigation
Impact AIR-1: Implementation of the HEU would
not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.

Less than Significant None required -
Impact AIR-2: Implementation of the HEU would
result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
AIR-1: Emission
Reduction Measures
for Projects
Exceeding the
Significance
Thresholds for
Criteria Pollutants
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact AIR-3: Implementation of the HEU would
not expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
AIR-2: Emission
Reduction Measures
for Subsequent
Projects Exceeding
the Significance
Thresholds for
Health Risks from
Construction
Less than
Significant
Impact AIR-4: Implementation of the HEU would
not result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.

Less than Significant None required -
Impact AIR-1.CU: Implementation of the HEU,
when combined with other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable projects, would not
result in exposure of sensitive receptors to
substantial levels of fine particulate matter
(PM

2.5) and TACs under cumulative conditions.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
AIR-2: Emission
Reduction Measures
for Subsequent
Projects Exceeding
the Significance
Thresholds for
Health Risks from
Construction
Less than
Significant
Impact AIR-2.CU: Implementation of the HEU,
when combined with other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable projects, would not
combine with other sources of odors that would
adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Less than Significant None required -

_________________________

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-41 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.2.8 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2011. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2011. Available online:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/baaqmd-modeling- approach.pdf, accessed February 2, 2022.

BAAQMD, 2016a. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines, December 2016. Available online: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/permit-modeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed September 15, 2021.

BAAQMD, 2016b. Planning Healthy Places. Interactive Map of the Bay Area Showing Areas with Estimated Elevated Levels of Fine and/or Toxic Air Contaminants, posted May 20, 2016. Available online: https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html? id=51c2d0bc59244013ad9d52b8c35cbf66, accessed February 3, 2022.

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

Available online: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed February 2, 2022.

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

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

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

Available online: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/ 2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed February 3, 2022.

BAAQMD, 2021a . 2020 Air Monitoring Network Plan, July 1, 2021. Available online:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/technical-services/2020-network-plan-draft- 202100526-pdf.pdf?la=en, accessed February 2, 2022.

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

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

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

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 1998. Fact Sheet: The Toxic Air Contaminant Identification Process: Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Diesel-fueled Engines, October 1998. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/ toxics/dieseltac/factsht1.pdf, accessed September 15, 2021.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-42 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
CARB, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April 2005. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf, accessed September 15, 2021.

CARB, 2009. Almanac Emission Projection Data by EIC – Statewide Solvent Evaporation (510-Consumer Products), 2009. Available online: https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/ emseic_query.php?F_YR=2008&F_DIV=-4&F_SEASON=A&SP=2009&SPN=2009_ Almanac&F_AREA=CA&F_EICSUM=510, accessed April 7, 2022.

CARB, 2022a. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Available online:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards, accessed February 2, 2022.

CARB, 2022b. Common Air Pollutants. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/ common-air-pollutants, accessed February 2, 2022.

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

CARB, 2022d. iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics – Top 4 Summary. Available online:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php, accessed February 2, 2022.

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

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

California Energy Commission. 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, December 2018. Available online:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF_0.pdf.

Accessed January 30, 2022.

CEC. 2022. 2 022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, 2022. Available online:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency- standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed January 30, 2022.

California Housing and Community Development. n.d. 2022 CALGreen, no date. Available online: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/ctc-meetings/2021/2021-04/tab-2- hcd-pres-a11y.pdf. Accessed January 30, 2022.

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-43 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
City of Mountain View, 2019. 2019 Mountain View Green Building and Reach Codes, effective January 1, 2020. Available online: blobdload.aspx (mountainview.gov). Accessed April 21, 2022.

City of Mountain View, 2003. Ordinance No. 01.03, Protection of the Urban Forest. Available online:
http://laserfiche.mountainview.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=12025&page=1&dbid=0& cr=1. Accessed April 21, 2022.

Fell, Andy, 2018. Consumer, Industrial Products Overtake Transportation as Source of Urban Air Pollution, February 15, 2018. Available online: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/consumer- industrial-products-overtake-transportation-source-urban-air-pollution, accessed April 7, 2022.

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

Available online: http://files.mtc.ca.gov/pdf/Plan_Bay_Area_FINAL/Plan_Bay_Area.pdf.

Accessed on January 30, 2022.

MTC & ABAG. 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040. Adopted July 26, 2017. Available online:
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Final_Plan_Bay_Area_2040.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2022.

MTC & ABAG. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050, Adopted October 21, 2021. Available online:
https://planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021. pdf. Accessed January 28, 2022.

MTC, 2022. Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050). Available online:
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area- 2050/explore?location=37.476065%2C-122.151715%2C12.06. Accessed February 15, 2022.

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

San Francisco Department of Public Health, 2008. Assessment and Mitigation of Air Pollutant Health Effects from Intra-Urban Roadways: Guidance for Land Use Planning and Environmental Review, May 2008. Available online: https://www.gsweventcenter.com/ Draft_SEIR_References/2008_0501_SFDPH.pdf, accessed September 15, 2021.

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.2 Air Quality
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.2-44 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2014. Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014.

Pollution Engineering, 2006. New Clean Diesel Fuel Rules Start, July 2, 2006, Available online:
https://sj-admin.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/2006_0700-PollutionEngineering_ NewCleanDiesel.pdf, accessed February 2, 2022.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-1 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.3 Biological Resources

4.3.1 Introduction
This section assesses the potential for the Project to result in significant adverse impacts on Biological Resources. This section first includes a description of the existing environmental setting as it relates to Biological Resources, and provides a regulatory framework that discusses applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This section also includes an evaluation of potential significant impacts of the Project on Biological Resources.

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

The primary information sources used to prepare this section include the following:
• Historic and current aerial imagery available on Google Earth • Subscription-based biological resource databases including the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW, 2022), CNPS Rare Plant Inventory (CNPS, 2022), and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation Official Species List (USFWS, 2022)
• The 2030 General Plan (City of Mountain View, 2021)
• North Bayshore Precise Plan (City of Mountain View, 2014)

4.3.2 Environmental Setting
Regional Setting
The Project is located in the Central California Coast Bioregion in Santa Clara County, which has a mild Mediterranean climate with generally warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. The city and its Project comprise approximately 10,475 acres at the northwest end of the low-lying alluvial plain of the Santa Clara Valley, which is bounded to the north by San Francisco Bay, to the west by the Santa Cruz Mountains, and to the east by the Diablo Range. Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek, both of which originate in the Santa Cruz Mountains and flow north to San Francisco Bay, are the primary watercourses within the Mountain View City limits, while Adobe

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-2 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Creek runs parallel to a small portion of the western City boundary. Permanente Creek consists of a cement-lined flood control channel for the majority of its length within City limits (except the southern reach from the city boundary to Cuesta Drive, and the northern reach from the Highway 101 to Mountain View Slough), while Stevens Creek has more of a natural character with a gravel and soil streambed and earthen banks. Stevens Creek becomes Whisman Slough as it approaches the Bay, while Permanente Creek becomes Mountain View Slough. Charleston Slough, a portion of which is a former salt pond (i.e., Inner Charleston Slough), connects to the Bay at the northwestern corner of the city limits (City of Mountain View, 2021).

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

Vegetation Communities/Habitat Types and Associated Wildlife Species A vegetation community is a recognizable collection of plant species that interact with each other and the elements of their environment and are distinct from adjacent vegetation communities.1 The terrestrial plant community classification presented in this assessment is based on field observations and the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
2 Plant communities generally correlate with wildlife habitat types. Developed and ruderal (disturbed) habitat does not fall within recognized vegetation communities and is presented as a habitat type. The 2030 General Plan identifies the following habitat types within the 10,475-acre Project area:
• Developed/Landscape/Ruderal
• Grassland
• Woodland
• Tidal Marsh or Mudflat

1 Holland, R. F., 1986, Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, California Department of Fish and Game.
2 Holland, R. F., 1986, Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, California Department of Fish and Game.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-3 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
The following subsections describe these communities and their locations in the study area.

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

Ornamental trees in the developed portions of the Project are primarily non-native but include some native species. Common ornamental trees and shrubs in the City include: deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), camphor (Cinnamomum camphora), Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), oleander (Nerium oleander), London plane (Platanus x. acerifolia), California pepper tree (Schinus molle), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), among many others. Native but non-local trees in developed areas include Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak (Q. lobata) are local native species that occur in developed areas of the Project.

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

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

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

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-4 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Typical non-native plant species in grasslands include wild oats (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), sweet fennel, fireweed (Epilobium brachycarpum), stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), hare barley (Hordeum leporinum), Italian ryegrass, common mallow (Malva neglecta), bur-clover (Medicago polymorpha), prickly oxtongue (Picris echioides), smilo grass (Piptatherum miliaceum), cut-leaf plantain (Plantago coronopus), curly dock (Rumex crispus), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), clover (Trifolium sp.), and brome fescue (Vulpia sp.). These species are common, nonnative grasses and forbs that typically occur in non- native grasslands throughout the Bay Area and are expected to occur throughout grassland habitats within the Project.

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

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

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

Other tree species observed along Stevens Creek include a mix of native and non-native species such as red ironbark eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sideroxylon), Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra), glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), California bay (Umbellularia californica), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), California black walnut (Juglans californica), valley oak, and California pepper tree. The understory along Stevens Creek includes a mix of native and non-native herbs and shrubs including California rose (Rosa californica), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), English ivy (Hedera helix), and annual grasses (City of Mountain View, 2021). The western segment of Permanente Creek that runs from western boundary of the Project to Cuesta Avenue at Miramonte Avenue has a canopy that is mostly coast live oak with the exception being near the Saint Francis High School where Monterey pine shares canopy dominance. Other ornamental trees can be found along the banks here as well and the understory consists of non-native herbs and grasses including Oregon manroot (Marah fabaceus), bedstraw

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-5 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
(Galium aparine), greater periwinkle (Vinca major), small-leaf spiderwort (Tradescantia fluminensis), ground cover juniper (Juniperus sp.), smilo grass, English ivy, California buckeye, toyon, and California blackberry (City of Mountain View, 2021). Although not considered as coast live oak woodland, large solitary coast live oaks can be found growing throughout the Project in residential and industrial parcels as well as within and around old agricultural areas such as the Grant/Levin and Francia properties and the western part of Cuesta Park.

Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus woodland ranges from monotypic blue gum stands with little or no understory to scattered trees with a well-developed understory. The best example of this habitat type occurs along the banks of Stevens Creek north of Sleeper Park where the woodland contains an assemblage of blue gum, coast live oak, and Monterey pine. The upland creek banks adjacent to Sleeper Park support an understory of native and non-native forbs including common geranium (Pelargonium hortorum), elm- leaf blackberry (Rubus ulmifolius), Catalina cherry (Prunus lyonii), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster lacteus), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), toyon, Oregon manroot, bedstraw, and various annual grasses (City of Mountain View, 2021).

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

Tidal Marsh or Mudflat
Tidal marsh is a highly productive community consisting of salt tolerant, hydrophytic plants that form moderate to dense cover. Plants are usually segregated vertically depending on their tolerance of inundation and saline soils. This habitat type is typically associated with and occurs adjacent to intertidal mudflats that are devoid of vegetation; during an ebb tide, the bottom is bare mud, cobble, or rock. Within the Project, this habitat type is strictly limited to the lower, tidal portions of Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek. Areas outside of the HEU planning area include Mountain View Slough, Whisman Slough, Stevens Creek Tidal Marsh, Mountain View Marsh, Charleston Slough, Coast Casey Forebay, and marshes near the mouths of Mountain View and Whisman Sloughs adjacent to the Bay (i.e., north of salt ponds A1 and A2W).

The tidal portions of Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek within the Project are similar in vertical structure, starting at the low elevation mudflat to the upland vegetation on adjacent levees. The

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-6 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
lowest elevation vegetation strata contain dense stands of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) co- dominanting places with saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) that are interspersed with areas of open water (or mudflat at low tide). Pickleweed and saltgrass are dominant components on the elevated benches of the tidal marsh where patches of alkali heath (Frankenia salina), gumplant (Grindelia stricta ssp. angustifolia), and cordgrass (Spartina sp.). The upland vegetation on the surrounding levees is dominated by non-native grasses and ruderal herbs that may support black mustard (Brassica nigra), tall wheatgrass (Elytrigia pontica), and smilo grass. The western portion of this marsh is included in the Stevens Creek Nature Study Area owned and managed by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) (City of Mountain View, 2021).

Special-Status and Protected Species
The term special-status species refers to plant and wildlife species that are considered sufficiently rare that they require special consideration and/or protection and should be, or currently are, listed as rare, threatened, or endangered by the federal and/or state governments. Such species are legally protected under the federal and/or state Endangered Species Acts or other regulations or are species that are considered sufficiently rare by the regulatory and scientific community to qualify for protection. The term special-status species includes the following:
• Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (Code of Federal Regulations Title 50, Section 17.12 [listed plants] and Section 17.11 [listed animals] and various notices in the Federal Register [FR] [proposed species]);
• Species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA (61 FR 40, February 28, 1996);
• Species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 670.5);
• Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code [CFGC] Section 1900 et seq.); • Animals fully protected under the CFGC (Sections 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians]);
• Species that meet the definitions of rare and endangered under CEQA. CEQA Section 15380 provides that a plant or animal species may be treated as “rare or endangered” even if not on one of the official lists (CEQA Guidelines Section 15380); and • Plants considered by CDFW and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (California Rare Plant Rank 1A, 1B, and 2).

A list of special-status plant and wildlife species that were considered within the HEU planning area is presented in Table 4.3-1. The CNDDB (CDFW, 2022) and CNPS (2022) Rare Plant Inventory were queried based on a search of a 5-mile radius from the HEU and associated 7.5- minute U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles, respectively. The USFWS Official List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or May Be Affected by the Projects (USFWS, 2022) was queried based on a 5-mile radius of the project sites. No critical habitat occurs within

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-7 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
the HEU sites (USFWS, 2022). These queries formed the basis to examine the potential for various special-status plant and wildlife species to occur in the study areas.

TABLE 4.3-1

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE HEU STUDY AREA Common Name
Scientific Name
Listing Status:

Federal/State/Other Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence Fish
Central California Coast
Steelhead
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus
FT/CSC/-- Spawns and rears in coastal
streams between the Russian
River and Aptos Creek, as
well as drainages tributary to
San Francisco Bay, where
gravelly substrate and shaded
riparian habitat occurs.

Low. No suitable or potentially suitable
freshwater habitat would be present
within any of the HEU sites.

Longfin smelt
Spirinchus thaleichthys
FC/ST/-- Open water estuaries, can be
found in both saltwater and
freshwater in the San
Francisco Bay.

Absent. No suitable or potentially
suitable freshwater habitat would be
present within any of the HEU sites.

Reptiles
Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
--/CSC/-- Ponds, streams with deep
pools, drainages and
associated uplands for egg
laying.

Moderate. Not expected in the HEU
planning area due to the intensity of
urbanization. May occur in Steven’s
Creek where suitable basking sites
(sandy banks and rocks) are present;
however, limited habitat at project sites.

Amphibians
California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
FT/CSC/-- Ponds, streams, drainages
and associated uplands;
requires areas of deep, still,
and/or slow-moving water for
breeding.

Low. Known to occur in upper reaches
of Permanente Creek, but no habitat on
urbanized project sites. Steven’s and
Permanente creeks provide limited
habitat.

Birds
Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
CSC Open, dry grasslands that
contain abundant ground
squirrel burrows.

Moderate. Known to occur at Shoreline
Regional Park and Moffett Airfield.

California black rail
Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
FT/CFP Salt marshes bordering larger
bays, also found in brackish
and freshwater marshes.

Absent. No habitat in planning area.

Habitat present at Shoreline Regional
Park, Charleston Slough, and Palo Alto
Baylands, approximately 1 mile
northwest of Project.

California least tern
Sternula antillarum browni
FE/SE/FP Sandy beaches, alkali flats,
hard-pan surfaces (salt
ponds).

Absent. No habitat in planning area.

Known to forage in Charleston Slough
and salt ponds north of Moffett Federal
Airfield for post-breeding foraging and
dispersal.

California Ridgway’s rail
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
FE/SE/FP Tidal salt marshes with
sloughs and substantial
cordgrass (Spartina sp.)
cover.

Absent. No habitat in planning area.

Known to occur at mouth of Charleston
Slough and in Mountain View Marsh;
may also occur in lower, tidal portions
of Steven’s Creek.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-8 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.3-1 (CONTINUED)

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE HEU STUDY AREA Common Name
Scientific Name
Listing Status:

Federal/State/Other Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence Alameda song sparrow
Melospiza melodia pusillula
CSC Tidal salt marshes dominated
by pickleweed; nests primarily
in pickleweed and marsh
gumplant.

Absent. No habitat in planning area.

Occurs near tidal marshlands at
Charleston Slough and Permanente
Creek/Mountain View Slough, and
along salt pond levees.

Northern harrier
Circus hudsonius
CSC Nests in wet meadows and
marshes, forages over open
grasslands and agricultural
fields.

Low. No habitat within planning area.

Known to occur at Charleston Slough
and along margins of salt ponds.

Saltmarsh common
yellowthroat
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
CSC Salt, brackish, and freshwater
marshes; and riparian
woodlands; nests on or near
ground in low vegetation.

Absent. No habitat in planning area.

Known to occur in marshes adjacent to
Charleston Slough and within Coast
Casey Forebay, likely occurs in other
brackish and freshwater habitats along
Permanente and Stevens Creek.

Western snowy plover
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
FT/ CSC Sandy beaches, salt ponds,
and salt pond levees.

Absent. No habitat within planning
area, Habitat on salt pond levees north
of Shoreline Regional Park and Moffett
Federal Airfield.

White-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus
FP Open grasslands, meadows,
or marshes; require dense-
topped trees or shrubs for
nesting and perching.

Present. Nests on Shorebird Way
within the North Bayshore Precise Plan
area in 2021/2022. May nest and
forage at Shoreline Regional Park,
north of the planning area.

Mammals
Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
CSC/WBWG: High A variety of open arid habitats
(e.g., chaparral, open
woodland, deserts); primary
roost sites include bridges,
old buildings, and in tree
hollows and/or bark;
sometimes roost in caves and
rock crevices.

Moderate. May occasionally forage
over open habitats within Project (e.g.,
grasslands, tidal marsh), but no known
active roost sites in vicinity.

Western red bat
Lasiurus blossevillii
CSC/WBWG: High Habitats include forests and
woodlands from sea level up
through mixed conifer forests.

Solitary rooster in tree foliage.

May hibernate in leaf litter.

Moderate. Suitable roosting habitat
present in oak woodland. No CNDDB
occurrences from the study area.

Hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
--/WBWG: Medium Prefers open habitats or
habitat mosaics, with access to
trees for cover and open areas
or habitat edges for foraging.

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

Moderate. Lack of open habitat leaves
only marginally suitable roosting habitat
in the project study area. Not identified
from area since 1894.

Townsend’s big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii
CSC/WBWG: High May use buildings, bridges,
rock crevices, and hollow trees
as roost sites.

Moderate. Suitable roosting habitat
present in oak woodland.

Yuma myotis
Myotis yumanensis
--/WBWG: Low Optimal habitats are open
forests and woodland with
sources of water over which to
feed. Roost in buildings, under
bridges, and in tree crevices,
caves and mines.

Moderate. Suitable roosting habitat
present in tree crevices bridge joints in
riparian woodland and oak
woodland/grassland. No CNDDB
occurrences from the study area.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-9 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.3-1 (CONTINUED)

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE HEU STUDY AREA Common Name
Scientific Name
Listing Status:

Federal/State/Other Habitat Description Potential for Occurrence Salt-marsh harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys raviventris
FE/SE/CFP Tidal salt marshes of San
Francisco Bay and its
tributaries. Requires tall,
dense pickleweed for cover.

Absent. No habitat in planning area.

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

Salt marsh wandering shrew
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
CSC Tidal marshes with abundant
driftwood and other debris (for
shelter and foraging).

Absent. No habitat in planning area.

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

Plants
Congdon’s tarplant
Centromadia parryi ssp.

Congdonii
1B.1 Grasslands in alkaline or
saline soils, sometimes
described as heavy white
clay; 1-230 meters. Blooms
from May to October
(sometimes into November).

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

KEY:

Federal: (USFWS)
FE = Listed as Endangered by the Federal Government
FT = Listed as Threatened by the Federal Government
FC = Candidate for listing by the Federal Government
State: (CDFW)
SE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California
ST = Listed as Threatened by the State of California
SR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) SC = Candidate for listing by the State of California
CSC = California Species of Special Concern
FP = CDFW Fully Protected Species
* = CDFW protects nesting colonies
WL = Species on the CDFW Watch List
CRPR: (California Rare Plant Rank)
Rank 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California
Rank 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere
Rank 2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere
Rank 3 = Need more information
Rank 4 = Limited distribution – a watch list

0.1 = Seriously endangered in California

0.2 = Fairly endangered in California

0.3 = Not very endangered in California
– = No Listing
SOURCES: CDFW, 2022; CNPS, 2022; USFWS, 2022; City of Mountain View, 2021

Based on this analysis and available habitat in the HEU study area, and review of identified species in the North Bayshore Precise Plan, which is south of sensitive habitats at Shoreline Regional Park, a limited number of special-status species were identified with at least a moderate potential to occur in portions of the HEU project that includes western pond turtle, northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), and several special-status bats. Due to the general absence of salt marsh habitat within the planning area, the salt marsh-dependent species identified in CDFW’s scoping letter are not expected within the HEU planning area and are not discussed further. The burrowing owl has potential to occur within the North Bayshore Precise Plan area, specifically in an area where a Steven’s Creek would be bridged. In Shoreline Park immediately north of the Precise Plan area, the City supports an ongoing burrowing owl monitoring and management program (City of Mountain View, 2017). A rookery (or nesting areas) of great egrets (Ardea alba), snowy egrets (Egretta thula), and black-crowned night-herons (Nycticorax nycticorax)

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-10 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
exists along Shorebird Way. This rookery is regionally significant as one of the largest egret colonies in the South Bay (City of Mountain View, 2017).

Critical Habitat
USFWS can designate critical habitat for species that have been listed as threatened or endangered. Critical habitat is defined in FESA Section 3(5)(A) as those lands (or waters) within a listed species’ current range that contain the physical or biological features that are considered essential to its conservation. There is no critical habitat within the HEU planning area.

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

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

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-11 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
FESA Section 7(a)(2) requires all federal agencies, including USFWS, to evaluate projects authorized, funded, or carried out by federal agencies with respect to any species proposed for listing or already listed as endangered or threatened and the species’ critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Federal agencies must undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and are prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its “critical habitat.” As defined in the FESA, “individuals, organizations, states, local governments, and other non- federal entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on federal lands, require a federal permit, license, or other authorization, or involve federal funding.” No federally listed species are expected in the study area.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA is the domestic law that affirms and implements a commitment by the United States to four international conventions (with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. Unless and except as permitted by regulations, the MBTA makes it unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to intentionally pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds anywhere in the United States. The law also applies to the intentional disturbance and removal of nests occupied by migratory birds or their eggs during the breeding season.

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

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

The Magnuson-Stevens Act defines essential fish habitat (EFH) as those waters and substrate that support fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or maturation. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that NMFS, the regional fishery management councils, and federal agencies taking an action that may

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-12 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
affect managed fish species covered under the Magnuson-Stevens Act identify EFH and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat.

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

Salmon EFH under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan includes portions of lower Permanente and Stevens creeks to the extreme high tide line. 3 This area is designed to
protect habitat for commercially important salmonid species. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is the only one of these species that may be seasonally present in the study area, although historically Coho salmon (O. kisutch) were common in San Francisco Bay.

State
In addition to CEQA, the primary state planning, treatment, and review mechanisms for biological resources in the study area are the CESA, CFGC Sections 1600–1603 and 3503, 3503.5, and 3511, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit. Each is summarized below.

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

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

In accordance with the requirements of CESA, an agency reviewing a project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed endangered or threatened species could be present in the study area. The agency also must determine whether the project could have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, the department encourages informal consultation on any project that could affect a candidate species. No state listed species are expected in the study area.

3 Pacific Fishery Management Council, Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan: for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California as Revised through Amendment 19, effective March 2016. Available at https://www.pcouncil.org/documents/2016/03/salmon-fmp- through-amendment-19.pdf/.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-13 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600–1603
All diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California that supports fish or wildlife resources are subject to the regulatory authority of CDFW under CFGC Sections 1600–1603. Under the CFGC, a stream is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically, or intermittently, through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. Included are watercourses with surface or subsurface flows that support or have supported riparian vegetation. Specifically, CFGC Section 1603 governs private-party individuals, and CFGC Section 1601 governs public projects.

CDFW jurisdiction in altered or artificial waterways is based on the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. CDFW must be contacted by the public or private party for a streambed alteration agreement for any project that might substantially affect a streambed or wetland.

CDFW has maintained a “no net loss” policy regarding potential impacts and has required replacement of lost habitats.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan is the guiding document for the City’s physical development and preservation. It includes goals, policies and graphics that convey a long-term vision and guide local decision-making to achieve that vision. Goals, policies, actions in the 2030 General Plan related to biological resources include:

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

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

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

Policy LUD 16.1: Protected open space. Protect and enhance open space and habitat in the North Bayshore area.

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

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

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

Policy LUD 16.1: Protected open space. Protect and enhance open space and habitat in the North Bayshore area.

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-14 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Goal INC-8: An effective and innovative stormwater drainage system that protects properties from flooding and minimizes adverse environmental impacts from stormwater runoff.

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

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

Policy INC 8.6: Green streets. Seek opportunities to develop green streets and sustainable streetscapes that minimize stormwater runoff, using techniques such as on-street bio- swales, bio-retention, permeable pavement or other innovative approaches.

Policy INC 8.7: Stormwater quality. Improve the water quality of stormwater and reduce flow quantities.

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

Policy INC 16.1: Natural areas. Work with regional agencies to protect and enhance natural areas.

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

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

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

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

Policy INC 16.6: Built environment habitat. Integrate biological resources, such as green roofs and native landscaping, into the built environment.

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

Policy INC 19.1: Municipal integrated pest management. Control and prevent invasive weeds and pests using integrated pest management on all City property, including the following principles:
• A focus on control of pests at established acceptable levels, instead of eradication. • Preventive cultivation practices appropriate for local conditions. • Monitoring.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-15 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
• Mechanical controls such as hand-picking, barriers, traps and disruption. • Biological controls such as beneficial insects or biological insecticides. • Chemical controls only as required or during targeted times during a pest’s life cycle Policy INC 19.2: Herbicides and pesticides. Discourage the use of herbicides and pesticides on City property.

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

Goal POS-3: Open space areas with natural characteristics that are protected and sustained.

Policy POS-3.1: Collaboration on sea-level rise impacts. Collaborate with regional, state and federal agencies to address the effects of potential rises in sea levels through.

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

Standard conditions relating
to biological resources are summarized below.

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

Landscaping
Detailed landscape plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out to the street curb must be included in building permit drawings. Minimum plant sizes are flats or one-gallon containers for ground cover, five-gallon for shrubs, and 24” box for trees. The drawings must be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit issuance and implemented prior to occupancy. All plans should be prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and should comply with the City’s Landscape Guidelines, including the Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations (forms are available online at

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-16 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
www.mountainview.gov/planningforms). Additional landscaping materials or modifications may be required by the Planning Division at final inspection to ensure adequate planting coverage and/or screening.

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

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

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

Monthly Arborist Inspections
Throughout demolition and construction, a qualified arborist must conduct monthly inspections to ensure tree protection measures and maintenance care are provided. A copy of the inspection letter, including recommendations for modifications to tree care or construction activity to maintain tree health, shall be provided to the Planning Division at [email protected].

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

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-17 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Tree Protection Measures
The tree protection measures listed in the arborist’s report shall be included as notes on the title sheet of all grading and landscape plans. These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, 6’ chain link fencing at the drip line, a continuous maintenance and care program, and protective grading techniques. Also, no materials may be stored within the drip line of any tree on the project site.

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

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

Off-Site Tree Mitigation
There is no suitable on-site location for replacement trees. Therefore, the applicant shall either pay a fee or donate box trees to the City or other public agency to be used elsewhere in the community. The fee for replacement of a tree or trees shall be, at a minimum, based on the cost of a 24” box tree of the same species, delivered and installed.

Tree Replacement Fee
In exchange for site constraints and/or the limited ability to plant new trees on-site, the applicant shall offset the loss of Heritage/street tree(s) with a replacement fee made payable to the City of Mountain View, based on the adopted fee schedule. The fee must be paid prior to building permit issuance.

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

The applicant shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the project site and surrounding 500’ for active nests —with particular emphasis on nests of migratory birds —if construction (including site preparation) will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31. If active nests are observed on either the project site or the surrounding area, the applicant, in coordination with the appropriate City staff, shall establish no -disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-18 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
(usually 100’ for perching birds and 300’ for raptors). The no- disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction ceases for two days or mo re and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present .

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

4.3.4 Significance Criteria
The thresholds used to determine the significance of impacts related to Biological Resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project could have a significant impact on the environment if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
• Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. • Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Approach to Analysis
This impact analysis is based on the resources, references, and data collection methods identified in Section 4.3.1. The analysis addresses potential direct and indirect impacts from construction or

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-19 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
operation of the residential projects that could be constructed if the HEU is implemented, defined as follows:
• Direct impacts are those that could occur at the same time and place as project implementation, such as the removal of habitat as result of ground disturbance. • Indirect impacts are those that could occur either at a later time or at a distance from the project areas, but that are reasonably foreseeable, such as the loss of an aquatic species as a result of upstream effects on water quality or quantity.

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

The analysis considers the potential impacts of the HEU’s implementation and the development of multi-family housing on suitable habitat, special-status species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and wildlife corridors, using the significance criteria listed above. When appropriate, standard conditions of approval adopted by the City and presented in Section 4.3, Regulatory Setting, have been applied to reduce potential impacts. For impacts that remain significant following the application of standard conditions of approval, mitigation measures are identified, as necessary, to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.

Topics Considered and No Impact Determined
The Project would have no impact to the following topics based on the Project characteristics, its geographical location, and underlying site conditions. Therefore, these topics are not addressed further in this document for the following reasons:
• Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. Due to the nature of the Project and its physical setting, the Project would not result in impacts related to Criterion b) (effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations). • State or federally protected wetlands. The Project would not result in impacts related to Criterion c) (a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands) listed above. The Project area is urbanized, and no wetlands, streams, or other aquatic features are present within the planning footprint. Thus, implementation of the Project would not have an adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands. • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-20 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

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

Special-Status Wildlife Species
Wildlife species considered special-status and analyzed in this EIR that have a moderate potential to occur and to be exposed to impacts resulting from development of the Project are as follows (see Table 4.3-1 for the full list of species considered):

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-21 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Impacts on Special-Status and Nesting Birds
Migratory and resident birds that breed locally in Mountain View have the potential to nest, roost, and forage in tree and shrub vegetation throughout the planning area. Special-status and migratory birds that breed locally could nest in the mature trees and landscaped vegetation that is prevalent throughout the Project area during breeding bird season, cautiously interpreted as the period between February 1 and August 31 by CDFW. Construction activities, especially those that involve heavy machinery, could adversely affect birds attempting to nest on or nearby the Project area directly through such activities as tree and vegetation removal, and indirectly through noise disturbance associated with new construction. Sensitive avian nesting areas within the North Bayshore Precise Plan area include burrowing owl habitat at Shoreline Park, and an egret rookery of great egrets, snowy egrets, and black-crowned night-herons on Shorebird Way, as described in the North Bayshore Precise Plan. The loss of an active bird nest that is attributable to Project activities would be considered a significant impact under CEQA, if that nest was occupied by a bird species protected by the MBTA or other regulations. Disruption of nesting migratory or native birds is not permitted under the federal MBTA or the California Fish and Game Code, as it could constitute unauthorized take. However, the City would apply the City Standard Condition of Approval (Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey) concerning nesting birds, which includes restricting certain construction activities during breeding bird season, requiring preconstruction surveys, and implementing avoidance measures if active nests are located. Adherence to the measures outlined in the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval would reduce impacts to special-status and nesting birds to a less than significant level.

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

Because the construction of new multi-story buildings within the Project area could represent potential collision hazards to birds in the Project area, specific planning standards would be applied to reduce hazards, as appropriate for each precise plan area. The City Standard Condition of Approval (Bird-Strike Management Plan) would be applied to all new multistory construction and building renovation projects. Adherence to the measures outlined in the City’s Standard

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-22 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Conditions of Approval (Bird-Strike Management Plan) would reduce impacts related to bird collisions to a less than significant level.

Impacts to Special-Status Bats
The CNDDB documents occurrences of several special status bats, including pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and hoary bat, in urban area within 5 miles of the Project area.

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

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

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

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

In coordination with the City, a preconstruction survey for special-status bats shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in advance of tree and structure removal within the subsequent project sites to characterize potential bat habitat and identify active roost sites. Should potential roosting habitat or active bat roosts be found in trees and/or structures to be removed under the project, the following measures shall be implemented:
• Removal of trees shall occur when bats are active, approximately between the periods of March 1 to April 15 and August 15 to October 15; outside of bat maternity roosting season (approximately April 16 – August 14) and outside the months of winter torpor (approximately October 16 – February 28), to the extent feasible. • If removal of trees during the periods when bats are active is not feasible and active bat roosts being used for maternity or hibernation purposes are found on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site where tree and building removal is planned, a no-disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established around these roost sites until they are determined to be no longer active by a qualified biologist. A 100-foot no- disturbance buffer is a typical protective buffer distance; however, this may be modified by the qualified biologist depending on existing screening around the roost site (such as dense vegetation) as well as the type of construction activity which would occur around the roost site.
• The qualified biologist shall be present during tree removal if potential bat roosting habitat or active bat roosts are present. Trees with active roosts shall only be removed when no rain is occurring or is forecast to occur for 3 days and when daytime temperatures are at least 50°F.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-23 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
• Removal of trees with potential bat roosting habitat or active bat roost sites shall follow a two-step removal process:
− On the first day of tree removal and under supervision of the qualified biologist, branches and limbs not containing cavities or fissures in which bats could roost, shall be cut only using chainsaws.
− On the following day and under the supervision of the qualified biologist, the remainder of the tree may be removed, either using chainsaws or other equipment (e.g., excavator or backhoe).

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

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________
Impact BIO-3: Implementation of the HEU would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Less than Significant)
As discussed above under Local Regulations and Policies, the City of Mountain View City Code contains protections for heritage trees and street trees throughout the City. The Mountain View City Code defines a "heritage tree" to be any tree 48-inch circumference (15.3-inch diameter) at 54-inches above grade, plus any oak, redwood, or cedar that has a 12-inch circumference (3.8-inch diameter).

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-24 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Permits to remove, relocate, or otherwise alter Heritage trees cannot be implemented until a building permit is secured and an individual Project is pursued. If appliable, project applicants would individually request a Heritage Tree Removal Permit, which is subject to City review and approval. The permit would include conditions for protection, relocation, and replacement, in accordance with City standards. As long as tree removal is consistent with all permitting conditions, Project removal of Heritage trees would not conflict with local ordinances or policies.

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

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

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________

4.3.6 Cumulative Impacts
This section presents an analysis of the cumulative effects of the HEU in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could cause cumulatively considerable impacts. Significant cumulative impacts related to biological resources could occur if the incremental impacts of the HEU combined with the incremental impacts of one or more cumulative projects would cause the project to have a cumulatively considerable impact on special-status species, wetlands or other waters of the U.S., or other biological resources protected by federal, state, or local regulations or policies (based on the significance criteria and thresholds presented earlier). This analysis considers whether the incremental contribution of the HEU’s implementation to this cumulative impact would be considerable. Both conditions must apply for a project’s cumulative effects to be significant.

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

The Mountain View Housin g Element Update analyzed cumulative impacts at a high level without specific identification of cumulative projects or housing unit projections. The HEU found that the potential impacts of the proposed project on biological resources would be site -

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-25 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
specific and the overall cumulative effect would be dependent on the degree to which native vegetation (e.g., native grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian woodland), populations of special - status plant or animal species, and wetland features occur, and are protected on a particular development site. Importantly, the refinement of the HEU housing site inventory has resulted in lower potential for housing development to occur in natural habitats. The HEU housing inventory sites are concentrated in urbanize d areas and no parcels are proposed within natural habitats such as coastal salt marsh, salt ponds, tidal marsh, oak woodland or grassland .

Therefore, potential cumulative impacts to biological resources are generally low within HEU planning area.

Impact BIO-1.CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on Biological Resources. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) As discussed above, the Project would have no impact to riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities, State or federally protected wetlands, wildlife corridors, or provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; therefore, would not contribute to a significant impact related to these topics.

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

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

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-26 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Impacts from Bird Collisions from HEU Buildings
Because the construction of new multi-story buildings on the Project site could represent potential collision hazards to birds in the Project area, specific planning standards would be applied to reduce hazards, as appropriate for each precise plan area. Where bird protection measures are deemed necessary by the City based on the identified level of collision hazard, they have been identified in precise plans, and conditions of approval are additionally identified. For example, all new construction and major renovations in the North Bayshore Precise Plan, the planning area closest to San Francisco Bay, must incorporate design measures to promote bird safety. In addition, much of the planned new housing would be infill development that is away from avian movement corridors and would not pose a threat to birds in flight.

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

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

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

Mitigation: Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant.

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-27 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Summary
Overall, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the geographic context for this analysis, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on biological resources.

Mitigation: Mitigation Measure BIO-1.

Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant.
_________________________

4.3.7 Summary of Biological Resources Impacts
Impact
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance After
Mitigation
Impact BIO-1: Implementation of the HEU
would have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as
a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Less than Significant
with Mitigation.

Mitigation Measure
BIO-1: Special-Status
Bat Protection
Measures
Less than Significant
Impact BIO-2: Implementation of the HEU
would not interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.

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

Less Than Significant None Required -
Impact BIO-1.CU: Implementation of the
HEU, when combined with other past,
present, or reasonably foreseeable
projects, would not contribute considerably
to cumulative impacts on Biological
Resources
Less Than Significant Mitigation Measure
BIO-1: Special-Status
Bat Protection
Measures
Less than Significant

_________________________

4.3.8 References
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. California Natural Diversity Database printout for U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles.

Accessed April 5, 2022.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2022. CNPS Rare Plant Program, Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online editions, v9-01 1.0). Available online:
https://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. April 5, 2022.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.3 Biological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.3-28 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
City of Mountain View, 2021. Mountain View 2030 General Plan, adopted July 10, 2012, as amended through April 13, 2021.

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

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

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

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. Official List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or May Be Affected by the Project.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-1 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources

4.4.1 Introduction
This section assesses the potential for the Project to result in significant adverse impacts on cultural resources, including historic architectural resources, historic-era and pre-contact archaeological resources, and human remains as well as tribal cultural resources. This section first includes a description of the existing environmental setting as it relates to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, and provides a regulatory framework that discusses applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This section also includes an evaluation of potential significant impacts of the Project on cultural resources and tribal cultural resources.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on February 4, 2022 and a scoping meeting was held on February 24, 2022. The NOP and the comments received during the public comment period can be found in Appendix A of this EIR. The City received scoping comments from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which recommended, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21074(a) [Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52)], that the City conduct consultation with tribes that are affiliated with the City of Mountain View.

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

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

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

During the Early Period (Lower Archaic, 8000–3500 B.C.), geographic mobility continued from the Paleoindian Period and is characterized by the millingslab and handstone as well as large wide-stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile points. The first cut shell beads and the mortar and pestle are first documented in burials during the Early Period (Middle Archaic, 3500–500 B.C.), indicating the beginning of a shift to sedentism. During the Middle Period, which includes the

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-2 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Lower Middle Period (Initial Upper Archaic, 500 B.C.–A.D. 430), and Upper Middle Period (Late Upper Archaic, A.D. 430–1050), geographic mobility may have continued, although groups began to establish longer term base camps in localities from which a more diverse range of resources could be exploited. The first rich black middens are recorded from this period. The addition of milling tools, obsidian, and chert concave-base projectile points, as well as the occurrence of sites in a wider range of environments, suggest that the economic base was more diverse. By the Upper Middle Period, mobility was being replaced by the development of numerous small villages. Around A.D. 430, a dramatic cultural disruption occurred as evidenced by the sudden collapse of the Olivella saucer bead trade network. During the Initial Late Period (Lower Emergent, A.D. 1050–1550), social complexity developed toward lifeways of large, central villages with resident political leaders and specialized activity sites. Artifacts associated with the period include the bow and arrow, small corner-notched projectile points, and a diversity of beads and ornaments.

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

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-3 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
In 1770, the Ohlone lived in approximately 50 separate and politically autonomous nations. The typical size of an Ohlone village ranged from 40 to 200 members. During the Mission Period (1770 to 1835), native populations, especially along the California coast, were brought—usually by force—to the missions by the Spanish missionaries to provide labor. The missionization caused the Ohlone people to experience cataclysmic changes in almost all areas of their life, particularly a massive decline in population caused by introduced diseases and declining birth rate, resulting in large part from colonization by the Spanish missionaries. Following the secularization of the missions by the Mexican government in the 1830s, most Native Americans gradually left the missions and established rancherias in the surrounding areas (Levy, 1978).

After European contact, Ohlone ways of life were severely disrupted by missionization, disease, and displacement. Today the Ohlone still have a strong presence in the San Francisco Bay Area and are very interested in their historic-era and pre-contact past. There are currently seven Ohlone groups listed on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) contact list for the Mountain View area.

Historic Period
Spanish and Mexican Period (1776–1848)
Gaspar De Portola led a company of 64 Spanish explorers through the Santa Clara Valley in the fall of 1769 (Archives & Architecture [A&A], 2012).

Juan Bautista de Anza and Pedro Font led
the next expedition through the area in early 1776, leaving a substantial record of their travels.

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

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

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

The period of Spanish governance in the area ended in 1821 when Spain ceded their North American colonial outposts to the newly independent Republic of Mexico and Upper California became a province of the Republic of Mexico. Following independence, the new Mexican government secularized the missions and divided the former mission lands into large ranchos, or tracts, which were then granted to prominent, wealthy, or otherwise well-connected individuals as a reward for their services to the government. Between 1833 and 1845, 38 of these grants were made within what is now Santa Clara County (A&A, 2012).

The City of Mountain View was part
of the 8,800-acre Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas. This rancho was granted to Francisco Estrada

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-4 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
and his wife, Inez Castro in 1842 (MVHA, 2022). In 1844, 3,042 acres was granted to Lupe Ynigo, a local Native American.1 His Rancho Posolmi later became Moffett Field (Holman & Associates, 2017). Yñigo was a Ohlone man who worked in as an alcalde at Mission Santa Clara until it was secularized (Shew, 1903).

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

Late 19th Century (1849–1901)
In 1848, California became part of the United States and gold was discovered in the Sierra Nevada mountains. These two events increased the population throughout California, especially in San Francisco and San Jose. Travel on the bay and over land between the two settlements increased, and reliable transport of people and goods became of critical importance. Ports were developed and transportation improved. In 1850, the Butterfield Stage Line began coach service on El Camino Real. A stop was established on present-day Grant Road in Mountain View, around which grew a small business district (MVHA, 2022). This was followed in 1864 by the San Francisco-San Jose Railroad which was located approximately a mile northwest of the original settlement of Mountain View along the present-day Caltrain alignment. A business district grew around the new train station, eventually becoming the heart of present-day Mountain View (Kusz, 2002).

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

Early Mountain View (1902–1940)
Improvements in transportation, expansion of agriculture throughout the area, and a steady influx of settlers lead to incorporation of the City of Mountain View on November 7, 1902. The initial population of the city was 610 people with city limits defined on the north by Washington Street, on the south by El Camino Real, on the west by Pettis Avenue, and on the east roughly by Calderon Avenue (MVHA, 2022). A small increase on population followed the 1906 earthquake as people fled urban areas like San Francisco and San Jose, but generally the town retained its agricultural and semi-rural atmosphere. Fruit cultivation and processing dominated both local land use and the local economy throughout this period. Aerial photographs from the first half of 1 His name appears in the archival records as both “Lope” and “Lupe.” Lupe is used in this document.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-5 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
the 20th century show large orchards with small, concentrated areas of development along the railroad tracks and vehicular routes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

World War II and the Birth of Silicon Valley (1941–Present) The advent of World War II initiated a long period of substantial growth in Mountain View and throughout Santa Clara Valley. Proximity to major existing military installations, such as Moffett Field, and the rapid construction of new military facilities around San Francisco Bay, made the entire Bay Area a major strategic asset. Thousands of soldiers shipping out to the Pacific front passed through the area and many returned at the end of the war. They joined the thousands of workers that came to work at the shipyards, airfields, and associated research and commercial facilities during the war.

Proximity to these military and associated research and commercial facilities, combined with the nearby academic facilities of Stanford University and other local institutions is credited with supporting the tremendous technological advances that followed the end of World War II. The birth of Silicon Valley has been historically linked to Fairchild Semiconductor, a pioneer in semiconductor product development (Computer History Museum [CHM], 2022). Fairchild Semiconductor was founded in Palo Alto (844 East Charleston Road, extant) (Liebson, 2018) in 1957 by eight former Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory employees (CHM, 2022). The company met with early and swift financial success, moving to a larger facility at 464 Ellis Street in Mountain View in the late 1960s (The Rusty Bucket, nd) (demolished in 1993) (Liebson, 2018)

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-6 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
and spurring a wave of spinoff started by ex-Fairchild Semiconductor employees as well as similar technology companies. In the 1960s alone, more than 30 startups emerged in the area.

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

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

By the early 1970s, Silicon Valley had a work force of 58,000. Over half of this number were employed by firms manufacturing electronic components (Lecuyer, 2001). These components were critical to a wide array of advanced industrial and military systems, bringing outsized influence of the industry on American economic politics (Lecuyer, 2001). In the larger area, many of the street names reflect this early industrial history – Fairchild Drive, National Avenue, Circuit Way, Optic Loop. More broadly, a 2014 research study traced more than 92 public Bay Area tech companies to the founders and employees of Fairchild. At that time, the market value of all of these companies was more than $2 trillion” (CHM, 2022).

Residential Construction of the Era
Many of the temporary war housing was replaced in the post-World War II period with large suburban housing developments. These developments transformed former agricultural fields and orchards into whole neighborhoods of similarly-designed, single-family residences. The Ranch

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-7 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
style evolved from traditional housing forms to become a dominant residential style. These one- story, elongated plan residences are often sited near the center of the building lot, with front- facing garages and integrated landscaping. Also prominent in Mountain View is the distinctive design associated with the developer Joseph Eichler. His version of the Mid-Century Modern style features “glass walls, post-and-beam construction, and open floor plans, which are reminiscent of Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings through their integration of indoor and outdoor spaces” (LSA, 2012). Mountain View has two Eichler developments – the Eichler/Trophy Drive area and parts of the Monta Loma area.

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

ESA completed a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) on March 22, 2022 (File No. 21-1554). The review included the entire City of Mountain View. Previous surveys, studies, and site records were accessed. Records were also reviewed in the Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for Santa Clara County, which contains information on places of recognized historical significance including those evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Inventory of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest (OHP, 2022). The purpose of the records search was to (1) determine whether known cultural resources have been recorded within the project vicinity; (2) assess the likelihood for unrecorded cultural resources to be present based on historical references and the distribution of nearby sites; and (3) develop a context for the identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources.

Identified Historic Resources
The City of Mountain View conducted a Citywide Historic Properties Survey in 2008 to identify those properties that may have potential State or National significance. At that time, 45 such properties were identified. The City of Mountain View also maintains the City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (local register). As of 2012, the local register was composed of 41 locally significant historic architectural resources. This inventory is currently being updated but as of publication of this document, the revised results were not available to review as they have not yet been adopted. The following provides a list of previously identified historic resources as presented in previous City documents, as well those listed on the National Register, California Register, and local register (Table 4.4-1).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-8 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.4-1

K NOWN HISTORIC RESOURCES
Name of Resource Location Status
Date of
Construction Source
1181 Boni ta Avenue Local Register 1930 2030 GP EIR
James Shower House 206 Bush Street Local Register 1904 2030 GP EIR “Willie Garliepp House”;
Craftsman Bungalow
725 Calderon Avenue Local Register 1910 2030 GP EIR
1560 Cali fornia Street Local Register 1900 2030 GP EIR 1610 Cali fornia Street Local Register c.1900 2030 GP EIR 1690 Cali fornia Street Local Register 1920 2030 GP EIR Weilheimer Store 124 Castro Street Local Register 1874 2030 GP EIR Rogers Building 142-156 Castro Street Local Register 1906 2030 GP EIR Ames Building 169-175 Castro Street Local Register 1903 2030 GP EIR Farmers and Merchants
Bank
201 Castro Street Local Register -- 2030 GP EIR
Mountain View Theater 228 Castro Street Local Register 1926 2030 GP EIR Scarpa’s Meat Market 298 Castro Street Local Register 1908 2030 GP EIR 251 Chiqui ta Avenue Local Register 1915 2030 GP EIR
595 Churc h Street Local Register 1930 2030 GP EIR
Levin Huff House 2715 Diericx Drive Local Register 1925 2030 GP EIR 394 Fr anklin Street Local Register 1890 2030 GP EIR
403 Hope St reet Local Register 1915 2030 GP EIR
425 Hope St reet Local Register 1906 2030 GP EIR
James Cochran House 1390 Latham Street Local Register 1912 2030 GP EIR 1655 Lloy d Way Local Register c.1920 2030 GP EIR
484 Loret o Street Local Register 2030 GP EIR
CampHouse 336 Mariposa Avenue Local Register 1900 2030 GP EIR 496 Mar iposa Avenue Local Register 1920 2030 GP EIR
1855 Mi ramonte Avenue Local Register 1927 2030 GP EIR
Mountain View Adobe 157 Moffett Blvd. National Register-listed, California Register-listed
1934 NARA
360 Oak Street Local Register 1924 2030 GP EIR
296 Pal o Alto Avenue Local Register 1915 2030 GP EIR
390 Pal o Alto Avenue Local Register 1930 2030 GP EIR
562 Petti s Avenue Local Register 1920 2030 GP EIR
Henry A. Rengstorff
House
3070 N. Shoreline Blvd.
(relocated)
National Register-listed,
California Register-listed
1867 NARA
472 S. S horeline
Boulevard
Local Register 1910 2030 GP EIR
1531 Ty ler Park Way Local Register 1925 2030 GP EIR
McPheeter’s House 322 View Street Local Register 1910 2030 GP EIR 327 Vi ew Street Local Register 1925 2030 GP EIR

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-9 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.4-1 (CONTINUED)

K NOWN HISTORIC RESOURCES
Name of Resource Location Status
Date of
Construction Source
Tank House 515 Villa Street Local Register 1890 2030 GP EIR Pearson House 902 Villa Street Local Register c.1888 2030 GP EIR Air Base Laundry 954 Villa Street National Register-eligible, California Register-listed
1931 City of Mountain
View
Weilheimer House 938 Villa Street National Register-eligible, California Register-listed
1905 City of Mountain
View
1043 Vi lla Street Local Register c.1904 2030 GP EIR
1643 Vi lla Street Local Register 1915 2030 GP EIR
1645 Vi lla Street Local Register 1915 2030 GP EIR
1655 Vi lla Street Local Register 1915 2030 GP EIR
1074- 76 Wright Avenue Local Register 1875 2030 GP EIR
680 Yos emite Avenue Local Register 1928 2030 GP EIR
SOURCE: National Archives (NARA), 2022 Santa Clara County BERD, 2030 General Plan EIR, personal communication with City of Mountain View.

In addition to the above, th e NWIC r ecords search indicated th at 118 previously recorded historic-age architectural resources are recorded within the City of Mountain View.

Identified Archaeological Resources
The NWIC re cords search i ndicated th at eleven previously recorded archaeological reso urces are recorded within the City of Mountain View. Table 4.4-2 describes these eleven archaeological resources.

Only one (Crittendon Mound) of the eleven resources has been formally evaluated for the National Register, and it was determined not eligible for inclusion. None of th e archaeological resources have been fo rmally ev aluated fo r t he California Register an d th erefore are treated as potential historical resources for the purposes of th is analysis. Three of these resources (Castro- P
once Mound, Li ttle C a stro, a nd Bert Gerow marking) inc lude hum a n rem ains, and it is lik ely that these archaeological resources would be el igibl e for th e California Register and/or t he National Register, if evaluated.

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-10 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.4-2

P REVIOUSLY RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Name of Resource Source Description Eligibility
Castro-Ponce Mound
(P-43-000021) NWIC Pre-contact habitation site
with burials
Not evaluated, Potential historical
resource
Little Castro
(P-43-000042) NWIC Pre-contact habitation site
with burials
Not evaluated, Potential historical
resource
Crittendon Mound
(P-43-000043) NWIC Pre-contact habitation site
Determined not eligible for the
National Register; Not evaluated for
the California Register
Bert Gerow marking
(P-43-000418) NWIC Pre-contact habitation site
with burials
Not evaluated, Potential historic
property and/or historical resource
DOT-04-SCL-101-1
(P-43-000441) NWIC Pre-contact habitation site Not evaluated, Potential historic property and/or historical resource
C-161
(P-43-000635) NWIC Pre-contact habitation site Not evaluated, Potential historic property and/or historical resource
Adobe/Alma
(P-43-000669) NWIC Pre-contact habitation site Not evaluated, Potential historic property and/or historical resource
Moffett Blvd./Rt. 101 Interchange
(P-43-001473) NWIC Pre-contact lithic scatter Not evaluated, Potential historic property and/or historical resource
P-43-003172 NWIC Pre-contact habitation
scatter
Not evaluated, Potential historic
property and/or historical resource
711 Church Street
(P-43-003180) NWIC Pre-contact site Not evaluated, Potential historic property and/or historical resource
C-1512
(P-43-003530) NWIC Pre-contact site Not evaluated, Potential historic property and/or historical resource
SOURCE: NWIC 2022

4.4.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Under federal law, historical and archaeological resources are considered through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 306108), and its implementing regulations. Before an “undertaking” (e.g., federal funding or issuance of a federal permit) is implemented, Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties (i.e., properties listed in or eligible for listing in the national register) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register. Under the NHPA, a property is considered significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria A through D, at 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60.4, as follows:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and that:
a) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-11 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
b) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or c) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, or d) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

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

Federal review of the effects of un dertakings on significant cultural resources is carried out under Section 106 of the NHPA and is often referred to as “Section 106 review.” This process is the responsibility of the federal lead agency and occurs when an undertaking involves federal funding or a federal approval action. Section 106 review typically involves a four -step procedure, which is described in detail in the implementing regulations of the NHPA (36 Code of Federal Regulations 800):
• Define the Area of Potential Effects in which an undertaking could directly or indirectly affect historic properties;
• Identify historic properties in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office and interested parties;
• Assess the significance of effects of the undertaking on historic properties; and • Consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer, other agencies, and interested parties to develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of historic properties and notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and proceed with the project according to the conditions of the agreement.

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-12 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
State
The State of California implements the NHPA of 1966, as amended, through its statewide comprehensive cultural resource surveys and preservation programs. The California Office of Historic Preservation, as an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, implements the policies of the preservation act on a statewide level. The Office of Historic Preservation also maintains the California Historical Resources Inventory. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is an appointed official who implements historic preservation programs within the state’s jurisdictions.

CEQA and the California Register of Historical Resources The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1[a]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including those formally determined eligible for or listed in the National Register (PRC 5024.1[d][1]). These resources are termed “historical resources.”
Based on Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, historical resources include, but are not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant or that is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Generally, a resource is considered by a lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register (PRC Section 5024.1), or qualifies as a “unique historical resource” (PRC Section 21083.2). As noted in Section 15062.5(a)(4), the fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in the California Register or in a local register “does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.” To be eligible for the California Register, a cultural resource must meet one or more of the following criteria:

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

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

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

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-13 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Impact assessment under CEQA considers only historically significant cultural resources; that is, resources that meet CEQA criteria for eligibility to the California Register (historical resources) or qualify as unique archaeological resources, as detailed below. Impacts on resources that do not meet these criteria are not considered in impact assessment under CEQA. Similarly, for projects with federal involvement, only resources that meet the criteria of eligibility for the National Register receive further consideration in impact analysis.

CEQA considers archaeological resources as an intrinsic part of the physical environment and thus requires that, for any project, the potential of the project to adversely affect archaeological resources be analyzed (CEQA Section 21083.2). For a project that may have an adverse effect on a significant archaeological resource, CEQA requires preparation of an environmental impact report (CEQA Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15065). CEQA recognizes two different categories of significant archaeological resources: “unique” archaeological resource (CEQA Section 21083.2) and an archaeological resource that qualifies as a “historical resource” under CEQA (CEQA Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5).

Public Resources Code Section 21074 (AB 52)
Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), enacted in September 2014, amended CEQA to explicitly recognize that California Native American tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices. AB 52 established a new category of cultural resources known as tribal cultural resources in order to consider tribal cultural values when determining impacts on cultural resources. Public Resources Code Section 21074(a) defines a tribal cultural resource as any of the following:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
– included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register; or – included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).2
• A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c).3 In applying these criteria, the lead agency would consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
• A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of CEQA Section 21074(a)4 also is a tribal cultural resource if the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope.

2 Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) defines “local register of historical resources” as “a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.”
3 The criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c) include whether a resource: “(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.”
4 A cultural landscape meets the criteria of Public Resources Code Section 21074(a) if it either is “included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources” or is “included in a local register of historical resources” pursuant to Section 5020.1(k).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-14 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
• An historical resource as described in CEQA Section 21084.1,5 a unique archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Section 21083.2,6 or a non-unique archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Section 21083.27 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it meets the criteria of CEQA Section 21074(a).

AB 52 requires lead agencies to analyze project impacts on “tribal cultural resources” separately from archaeological resources (Public Resources Code Sections 21074, 21083.09), in recognition that archaeological resources have cultural values beyond their ability to yield data important to prehistory or history. AB 52 also defines “tribal cultural resources” in Public Resources Code Section 21074 (see above), and requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes (Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3).

Assembly Bill 168 – Tribal Consultation under Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process (SB 35)
Assembly Bill 168 (AB 168), enacted in September 2020, amended the Government Code Sections 65400, 65913.4, and 65941.1, to add tribal consultation requirements to housing projects which would otherwise qualify for a streamlined ministerial approval process which was mandated by Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) in 2017. SB 35 requires cities who are not meeting their demand for housing (as per the Regional Housing Needs Assessments) to allow developers to avoid the requirement of a CEQA document if the proposed housing meeting specific requirements, such as the number of units, zoning, affordability, and avoidance of specific environmental impacts. AB 168 added a requirement to SB 35 which prescribes that developers must submit a preliminary application with information about the project and the local government must conduct tribal consultation with tribes, similar to what is required by CEQA and AB 52, to identify if there are tribal cultural resources that may be impacted by the project. If impacts to tribal cultural resources are identified, the project is ineligible for SB 35 streamlining and is subject to CEQA.

Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code Section 65450 et seq.). The intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use 5 Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 defines an “historical resource” as “a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources.” 6 Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource” as “an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: (1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. (3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.” 7 Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(h) defines “nonunique archaeological resource” as “an archaeological artifact, object, or site which does not meet the criteria in subdivision (g).”

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-15 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places.

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

Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 through 5097.991 describe the duties and role of the NAHC and requires the cooperation of State and local agencies in carrying out their duties with respect to Native American resources.

California Public Resources Code and California Health and Safety Code Provisions Regarding Human Remains
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 protects human remains by prohibiting the disinterring, disturbing, or removing of human remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery. Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) also identify steps to follow in the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery. Health and Safety Code Section 7052 states that the disturbance of Native American, or any other, human remains is a felony, unless the disturbance has been lawfully authorized.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan is the guiding document for the City's physical development and preservation. It includes goals, policies and graphics that convey a long-term vision and guide local decision-making to achieve that vision. The Land Use and Design Element of the General Plan includes the following policies related to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources (City of Mountain View, 2012).

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

Policy LUD 11.1: Historical preservation. Support the preservation and restoration of structures and cultural resources listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the California Register of Historic Places[sic] or National Register of Historic Places.

Policy LUD 11.2: Adaptive re-use. Encourage the adaptive re-use of historic buildings in ways that retain their historical materials and character-defining features.

Policy LUD 11.3: Incentives. Encourage historical preservation through incentives and opportunities.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-16 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Policy LUD 11.4: Moffett Field. Support the preservation of historic buildings and hangars at Moffett Field and NASA Ames.

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.

Action LUD 11.5.1: Review Historic Property Directory List. Prior to approval of development permits for projects that include ground-disturbing activities, City staff shall review the most recent and updated Northwest Information Center list: Historic Property Directory for the County of Santa Clara, to determine if known archaeological and paleontological sites underlie the proposed project. If it is determined that known cultural resources are within ¼ mile of the project site, the City shall require the project applicant to conduct a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University to confirm whether there are any recorded cultural resources within or adjacent to the project site. Based on that research, the City shall determine whether field study by a qualified cultural resources consultant is recommended.

Policy LUD 11.6: Human remains. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of human remains.

Mountain View Zoning Code
The City of Mountain View Zoning Code includes regulations to guide consideration and development of historic resources. It also includes procedures to recognize historic resources as well as incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to demolition. Section 36.54.55(c) defines a historic resource as “any building, structure, object or site that the city council has designated for inclusion in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources.” Section 36.54.55 (d) establishes the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources as “the inventory of buildings, structures, objects and sites designated by the city council as historic resources pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance and adopted by council resolution as amended from time to time. The Mountain View Register of Historic Resources shall be the City’s only ‘local register of historical resources’ under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.” Other sections of the Zoning Code that guide development of historic resources include:

Section 36.54.75 (d): Predemolition Review. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for any building, which had been designated as a historic resource pursuant to Section 36.54.70, the applicant shall meet with city staff to review the alternatives, incentives and options to demolition. The applicant shall be notified in writing of the time and place of the meeting within thirty (30) days of filing a complete application for a demolition permit. The council may, by resolution, require additional historic buildings, not otherwise designated, to go through this review process.

Section 36.54.85 – Requirement of Permit – Development Review Process a. Applicability. No person shall make a significant alteration, redevelop, or relocate any structure or improvement, or any portion thereof, upon a property designated as a historic resource on the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources without first obtaining a "historic preservation permit" or HP permit. An HP permit shall remain in effect for four (4) years from the date of approval.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-17 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
b. Exceptions.

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

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

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

4. Special submittal requirements. The application shall be submitted to the community development department and, in addition to the application requirements of this division, shall contain information and documentation, including architectural drawings and specifications (site plan, elevations, floor plans and building materials); current photographs, sketches, drawings or other descriptive materials necessary to illustrate the proposed alteration; and any other information, which could include an historical assessment by a professional consultant, as determined to be necessary by the community development department for a complete and adequate application.
c. Hearings and action. Applications for HP permits shall be initially reviewed by the development review committee. The development review committee shall forward a recommendation to the zoning administrator, who shall hold a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Section 36.56 (Applications, Hearings and Appeals). d. Findings . The HP permit may be approved or conditionally approved if the following findings are made:

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

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

SEC. 36.54.90. - National and California Register properties. Alterations to buildings which are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 36.54.85 "a.," "b.," "c.," "d." and "e.," and except that the city council shall determine whether to grant an HP Permit and the council must find that the alteration is in substantial compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. If an HP Permit is granted, any structure proposed to replace a historic resource shall be subject to design review and approval by the city council.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-18 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Mountain View Standard Conditions for Approval
As part of discretionary review, the City has standard conditions for different types of approvals (as of October 25, 2021). For all construction activities, the City has standard conditions relating to the discovery of archaeological resources, human remains, and the preservation historic architectural resources. The City also has standard conditions for construction work cultural sensitivity training, Native American monitoring, and procedures in the event of the discovery of tribal cultural resources, that can be included if they are requested by a tribe during tribal consultation for a project.

Vibration and Settlement Plan– For Projects Adjacent to Historic Structures At building permit submittal, the applicant shall prepare a Vibration and Settlement Plan which specifies monitoring and mitigation measures to avoid damage to the adjacent building(s) as a result of project construction. Approved monitoring protocols shall be in place prior to issuance of any building permits for the project.

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

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

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

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

Salvage has the added benefit of landfill and waste diversion.

Discovery of Archaeological Resources
If prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, it is recommended that all work within 100 feet of the find be halted until a qualified

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-19 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find.

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

Discovery of Human Remains
In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction or demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50 foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to their authority, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to the release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director. (If Requested) Cultural Sensitivity Training
As requested during the Tribal Consultation process for the project, Cultural Sensitivity Training shall be provided to the construction crews at the beginning of the project to aid those involved in the project to become more familiar with the indigenous history of peoples in the vicinity of the project site.
(If Requested) Native American Archaeological Monitor
A Native American archaeological monitor shall be present for all ground-disturbing activities throughout the project construction process.
(If Requested) Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources
If indigenous or historic-era archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities, all activity within 100 feet of the find shall cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance. The City and a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and a Native American representative shall be immediately informed of the discovery. The qualified archaeologist and the Native American representative shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of their initial assessment. Indigenous archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert-flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris;

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-20 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.

4.4.4 Significance Criteria
The thresholds used to determine the significance of impacts related to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project could have a significant impact on the environment if it would:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-21 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.4.5 Impacts of the Project
Impact CUL-1: Implementation of the HEU would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The City of Mountain View contains a number of recognized historic resources that are listed, or have been determined eligible for listing on the National, State, and local registers. Not all eligible buildings have been identified or evaluated and the City has a significant number of buildings that were constructed 50 or more years ago that may qualify as historic resources pending additional evaluation. The Project would plan for approximately 15,000 new housing units during the HEU planning period to the year 2031. Of the total units it is assumed that 1,400 units would be enabled by changes in development capacity via rezoning. The balance of approximately 13,600 units represents development that is already permitted under the City’s adopted General Plan, zoning, and Precise Plans. In addition, the analysis in this EIR also considers approximately 2,700 units beyond 2031 that would be enabled by changes in development capacity via rezoning. While growth is anticipated primarily in urban infill areas along commercial corridors and redevelopment of existing parking and industrial sites, some growth is anticipated through wider construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and rehabilitation and renovation of existing lower income housing. As a result, there is a potential for significant direct and indirect impacts to known and potential historic resources located throughout the city.

However, the City has made a concerted effort to avoid including sites in the housing sites inventory that may include historic resources, and as noted above, the City has adopted numerous policies to guide the recognition and development of historic resources and all new projects would be subject to these provisions. 2030 General Plan policies LUD 11.1: Historical Preservation, LUD 11.2: Adaptive Reuse, LUD 11.3: Incentives, and LUD 11.4: Moffett Field in combination with the provisions codified under Article XVI, Division 15 of the City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance, such as the HP Permit review process (zoning code Sections 36.54.85 and 36.54.90), serve to limit the impacts of specific projects on known historic resources that have been listed in the National, State, or local registries.

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

Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: Historic Resource Evaluation Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any previously unevaluated building 45-years of age or older on a site included in the housing sites inventory, the City shall require an evaluation of historical significance that includes consideration of the criteria for listing

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-22 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. This evaluation shall be completed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications for History, Architecture, Architectural History, or Historic Architecture.

In accordance with Section 5024.1, if the building has been previously evaluated for eligibility as a historic resource under CEQA and that evaluation or survey is more than five-years old, the findings of that evaluation should be confirmed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications as stated above.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: Historic Resource Avoidance
If, after implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1a, the subject property is found to qualify as a historic resource and the proposed project includes demolition of the historic resource, the project shall be redesigned to remove or avoid demolition. Any redesign that includes significant alteration of the historic resource, as defined by Section

36.54.55(e) of the City of Mountain View Zoning Code, shall be required to comply with City Standard Condition of Approval (Secretary of the Interior Standards).

Significance after Mitigation: Housing development planned under the HEU could result in the demolition or significant alteration of potential historical resources (as defined in Sec. 36.54.55 of the Zoning Code). It could also diminish the ability of historical resources to convey their historical significance, which would constitute a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resources. However, with implementation of the General Plan polices noted above, adherence to existing zoning and permit procedures, and application of Mitigation Measure CUL-1a and CUL-1b, impacts to known and potential historic resources at the National, State, and local levels would be reduced to less than significant.
_________________________
Impact CUL-2: Implementation of the HEU may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
As described above in the Environmental Setting, a records search identified previously recorded pre-contact archaeological resources in the City boundary. Given the long history of pre-contact and historic-era human occupation, the City is considered sensitive for the presence of subsurface cultural resources and human remains.

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

As detailed in the Regulatory Setting above, there are federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect archaeological resources and human remains. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine, prior to approval, if a project would have a significant adverse effect on historical or

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-23 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
unique archaeological resources and requires the lead agency to make provisions for handling the inadvertent discovery of historical or unique archaeological resources during construction.

In addition, the proposed HEU and associated General Plan includes policies and implementation programs designed to identify and protect archaeological resources that could be adversely affected by development activities. For example, Policy LU-11.5 requires that new development meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological deposits. In coordination with the General Plan policies, the City’s Standard Conditions establish protocol in the event of the discovery of cultural materials during construction.

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

To address this potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure CUL-2a, Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources revises the Discovery of Archaeological Resources Standard Condition to require a stop-work boundary around cultural material finds and establish protocol for avoidance or preservation in place of significant cultural resources, and Mitigation Measure CUL-2b, Cultural Resources Study Requirements establishes a requirement for a cultural resource study for all multifamily housing projects that require ground disturbance and are located within 0.25-mile of known cultural resources based upon review of the most recent and updated NWIC list, consistent with General Plan Action LUD 11.5.1. These mitigation measures would address potential impacts to archaeological resources and reduce the potential of the HEU to impact archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure CUL2a: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources.

If pre-contact or historic-era archaeological resources are encountered during project construction and implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt and the City shall be notified. Pre-contact archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic- era materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. An archaeologist meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) for Archeology shall inspect the findings within 24 hours of discovery.

If the City determines that the resource qualifies as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines) and that the project has potential to damage or destroy the resource, mitigation shall be implemented

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-24 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
in accordance with PRC Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, with a preference for preservation in place. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: (1) siting improvements to completely avoid the archaeological resource; (2) incorporating the resource into a park or dedicated open space, by deeding the resource into a permanent conservation easement; (3) capping and covering the resource before building the project on the resource site after the resource has been thoroughly studied by a SOIS qualified archaeologist and a report written on the findings.

If avoidance is not feasible, the City shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes (if the resource is pre-contact or indigenous), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery (according to PRC Section 21083.2), if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource (according to PRC Section 21084.3).

Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Cultural Resources Study Requirements.

Prior to approval of development permits for multifamily projects that include ground- disturbing activities, City staff shall review the most recent and updated Northwest Information Center (NWIC) list: Historic Property Directory for the County of Santa Clara, to determine if known archaeological sites underlie the proposed project site. If it is determined that known cultural resources are within 0.25-mile of the project site, the City shall require a site-specific cultural resources study by an archaeologist meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) for Archeology. The study shall consist of a cultural report that includes the results of: a cultural resources records search performed at the NWIC of the California Historical Resources Information System for the project area, a pedestrian survey of the project area, a historic context, an assessment of the sensitivity of the project area for buried precontact and historic-era resources, and identify if the project would potentially impact cultural resources. If the archaeologist determines that known cultural resources or potential archaeological sensitivity areas may be impacted by the project, additional research or treatment, potentially including subsurface testing, and/or a cultural resources awareness training may be required to identify, evaluate, and mitigate impacts to cultural resources, as recommended by the SOIS qualified archaeologist. If avoidance is not feasible, the City shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes (if the resource is pre-contact or indigenous), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery (according to PRC Section 21083.2), if deemed appropriate, or other actions such as treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity and protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource (according to PRC Section 21084.3). The cultural report detailing the results of the research shall be prepared and submitted for review by the City and a final draft shall be submitted to the NWIC.

Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a and CUL-2b, would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level because all projects with ground-disturbance would be reviewed by an SOIS qualified archaeologist

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-25 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
and any potential archaeological resources identified, would be evaluated and treated appropriately, including consulting with Native American representatives. _________________________
Impact CUL-3: Implementation of the HEU may disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Less than Significant) As described above, there are cultural resources with human remains within the City boundary.

Based on the overall sensitivity of the City for cultural resources, there is the potential for previously unknown human remains to be discovered during ground-disturbing activities. In the event that human remains are discovered, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, the human remains could be inadvertently damaged, which would be a significant impact for the purposes of CEQA. Implementation of state laws as per General Plan Policy LUD 11.6, and adhering to the Standard Condition of Approval ( Discovery of Human Remains) would ensure that any human remains encountered are appropriately addressed because if human remains are identified, work would stop within 100 feet of the find, the Coroner would be called to identify if the remains are Native American and the appropriate treatment of those remains would be determined, all following Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended), thus reducing any potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________
Im
pact TCR-1: Implementation of the HEU may cause a sub stantial a dverse change in th e significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074. (
Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The results of th e records search identified eleven previously recorded pre-c ontact archaeological r
esources identified in th e CHRIS r e cord sear ch and there i s the potential for unknown pre- co
ntact archaeological resources to be present in the City boundaries.

As detailed in the Regulatory Setting above, there are federal, state, and local regulations in place to protect tribal cultural resources, including archaeological resources and human remains. CE QA requires lead agencies to de termine, pr ior to approval, if a project would have a significant ad
verse effect on hi storical resources, tribal cu ltural resources, or unique archaeological resources and requires the lead agency to make provisions for the inadvertent discovery of historical or unique ar chaeological r e sources dur ing construction, including trib al cultural resources.

As d
escribed previously in this section, SB 18 requires local governments to consult with tribes p
rior to making certain pl anning d ecisions and provides California Native American tribes an opportunity to participate in l ocal land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural places. In accor dan ce with the requirements of SB 18 Mountain View City staff conducted Native American outreach and consultation efforts. As a part the
SB 18 process for the proposed HEU, the City emailed thirteen letters to ten tribes based on prior consultation on March 4, 2022 and the City sent tribal outreach letters to eleven Native American
representatives from eight tribes that were identified by the City based on a Tribal Consultation list developed by the Native American Heritage Commission on May 11, 2022. No

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-26 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
tribes have responded to the tribal consultation efforts within 90 days and no responses have been received as of July 22, 2022, the filing date of the DEIR.

In addition, the proposed HEU and associated General Plan includes policies and implementation programs designed to identify and protect archaeological resources and human remains that could also be tribal cultural resources and could be adversely affected by development activities. For example, Policy LU-11.5 requires that new development meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological deposits. In coordination with the General Plan policies, the City’s Standard Conditions establish protocol in the event of the discovery of cultural materials during construction.

While the aforementioned regulations and policies proposed under the HEU and established through the General Plan and the City’s Standard Conditions are protective of archaeological resources, that may also be tribal cultural resources, if identified during project construction, they specifically only ‘recommend’ that a 100-foot buffer be established to halt work around an archaeological materials find and do not provide for avoidance of significant cultural resources.

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

Mitigation Measure CUL-2a: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Cultural Resources Study Requirements Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Measures CUL-2a and CUL-2b would establish protocol to identify, evaluate, and address any potential impacts to previously unknown tribal cultural resources. With implementation of these mitigation measures, any potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
_________________________

4.4.6 Cumulative Impacts
This section presents an analysis of the cumulative effects of the HEU in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could cause cumulatively considerable impacts. Significant cumulative impacts related to cultural resources could occur if the incremental impacts of the HEU combined with the incremental impacts of one or more cumulative projects.

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-27 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Impact CUL-1.CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on historic architectural resources. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Despite City policies and regulations, future development projects within the City of Mountain View could potentially impact architectural historic resources that may be present. The cumulative effect of this future development would be the continued loss of significant architectural historic resources. Potential future development increases the likelihood that additional architectural historic resources could be lost. It is therefore possible that cumulative development could result in the demolition or destruction of significant architectural historic resources. The loss of these resources would result in a significant impact, and potential impacts associated with the HEU would be considered cumulatively considerable, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1a which would require previously unevaluated historic-age resources be evaluated, Mitigation Measure CUL-1b would require demolition avoidance for historic architectural resources, and City Standard Condition of Approval (Secretary of the Interior Standards) which would require Secretary of the Interior’s Standards compliance review for significant alterations of historic resources, would reduce the severity of impacts associated with the HEU. Combined with General Plan Policies LUD 11.1 – 11.4 and the procedures for identification and alteration of historic resources in Division 15 of the Mountain View Zoning Code, the impacts associated with implementation of the HEU would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The General Plan Policies and Zoning Code also apply to all projects identified in the cumulative project list. As a result, the HEU’s contribution to the potentially significant cumulative impact on historic architectural resources would not be considerable, and the cumulative impact of the HEU combined with cumulative development would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure: Implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1a and CUL-1b.

Significance After Mitigation: Combined with General Plan Policies LUD 11-1 – 11.4 and the regulations for historic resource identification and alteration in the Mountain View Zoning Code, Mitigation Measures CUL-1a and CUL-1b would mitigate impacts to historic architectural resources to a less-than-significant level. _________________________
Impact CUL-2.CU: Implementation of the HEU, in combination with other cumulative development, would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 or could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation)
Future development in the City could include excavation and grading that could potentially impact archaeological resources and human remains that may be present. The cumulative effect of this future development is the continued loss of cultural remains. Potential future development increases the likelihood that additional archaeological resources could be uncovered. It is

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-28 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
therefore possible that cumulative development could result in the demolition or destruction of unique archaeological resources, which could contribute to the erosion of the pre-contact record of the City. The loss of these resources would result in a potentially significant cumulative impact, and the Project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable prior to mitigation.

Though archaeological resources can sometimes be preserved when discovered during excavation, there is no guarantee that these resources can be protected and preserved. The HEU would contribute a negligible less than significant impact after the implementation of Measures CUL-2a and CUL-2b, which would require a SOIS qualified archaeologist to conduct a review of discretionary projects, or projects near known cultural resources, or within archaeological sensitivity areas, prior to construction, the cessation of activities in the vicinity of finds, and tribal consultation when indigenous resources are inadvertently identified during project construction. As a result, the less-than-significant incremental impact would not be cumulatively considerable and thus would not combine with the incremental impact of other projects to cause a significant cumulative effect.
_________________________
Impact TCR-1.CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, could contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The geographic scope for cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources comprises the entire city of Mountain View. This geographic scope of analysis is appropriate because the archaeological and tribal cultural resources within this radius are expected to be similar to those that occur on the HEU multifamily housing sites because their proximity, similar environments, landforms, and hydrology are expected to have resulted in similar land-uses over time. Based on the professional experience of the EIR preparers, research, and the pre-contact context, the area within this area of analysis may contain tribal cultural resources that have not been documented or recorded.

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

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-29 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.4.7 Summary of Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Impact
Significance
Before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
After Mitigation
Impact CUL-1: Implementation of the HEU
would not cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
CUL-1a: Historic
Resource Evaluation
Mitigation Measure
CUL-1b: Historic
Resource Avoidance
Less than
Significant
Impact CUL-2: Implementation of the HEU
may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
CUL-2a: Inadvertent
Discovery of Cultural
Resources
Mitigation Measure
CUL-2b: Cultural
Resources Study
Requirements
Less than
Significant
Impact CUL-3: Implementation of the HEU
may disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Less than
Significant
None required -
Impact TCR-1: Implementation of the HEU
may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined
in Public Resources Code Section 21074.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
CUL-2a: Inadvertent
Discovery of Cultural
Resources
Mitigation Measure
CUL-2b: Cultural
Resources Study
Requirements
Less than
Significant
Impact CUL-1.CU: Implementation of the HEU,
when combined with other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable projects, would not
contribute considerably to cumulative impacts
on historic architectural resources.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
CUL-1a: Historic
Resource Evaluation
Mitigation Measure
CUL-1b: Historic
Resource Avoidance
Less than
Significant
Impact CUL-2.CU: Implementation of the HEU,
in combination with other cumulative
development, would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5 or could disturb
human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
CUL-2a: Inadvertent
Discovery of Cultural
Resources
Mitigation Measure
CUL-2b: Cultural
Resources Study
Requirements
Less than
Significant
Impact TCR-1.CU: Implementation of the HEU,
when combined with other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable projects, could
contribute considerably to cumulative impacts
on tribal cultural resources.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
CUL-2a: Inadvertent
Discovery of Cultural
Resources
Mitigation Measure
CUL-2b: Cultural
Resources Study
Requirements
Less than
Significant
_______
__________________

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-30 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.4.8 References
Archives & Architecture, Heritage Resource Inventory Update, County of Santa Clara (2012), p.21, 27.

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation, “The California Mission Trail,” parks.ca.gov/?page_id-22722. Accessed April 14, 2022.

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

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

Computer History Museum (CHM), “Spinoff: Fairchild and the Family Tree of Silicon Valley,” Computer History Museum, computerhistory.org/ stories/spinoff-fairchild/. Accessed March 1, 2022.

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

Drummer, G.W.A and J. Mackinzie Robertson, American Microelectronics Data Annual 1964–

65. Netherlands, Elsevier Science, 2014, p.11. www.google.com/books/edition/ American_Microelectronics_Data_Annual_19/tdCjBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=amel co+mountain+view&pg=PA11&printsec=frontcover. Accessed March 2, 2022 Holman & Associates, “Appendix E Cultural Resources Report,” East Whisman Precise Plan EIR, 2017, p4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-31 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Mazurek, Jan, Making Microchips: Policy, Globalization, and Economic Restructuring in the Semiconductor Industry, MIT Press, 1998, pp. 54-55, books.google.com/books?id= Tdssnlxu8g8C&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=intel+365+east+middlefield&source=bl&ots= 8X_VXSURMU&sig=ACfU3U1_6M99YNWBtqqDRJrYiMaxKYzUTA&hl=en&sa= X&ved=2ahUKEwjF7_DNlaj2AhVjJ0QIHeMgDT0Q6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q= intel%20365%20east%20middlefield&f=false. Accessed March 2, 2022.

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

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

Milliken, Randall, Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer, David G.

Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, and David A. Fredrickson, “Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area”, In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 99-124, AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD, 2007.
“Mountain View History Timeline,” Mountain View Historical Association, mountainviewhistorical.org/. Accessed April 14, 2022; Archives & Architecture, p.22. “The ‘Rusty Bucket,’ 464 Ellis Street,” California Revealed, californiarevealed.org/islandora/ object/cavpp%3A29926. Accessed March 2, 2022.

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.4 Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.4-32 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

This page intentionally left blank

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-1 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.5 Energy

4.5.1 Introduction
This section assesses the potential for the Project to result in significant adverse impacts on energy use and conservation. This section first includes a description of the existing environmental setting as it relates to energy, and provides a regulatory framework that discusses applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This section also includes an evaluation of potential significant impacts of the Project on energy resources.

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

The information in this section has been prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21100(b)(3), CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b), and CEQA Guidelines Appendix F. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) and Appendix F provide that an EIR should evaluate potential impacts of a proposed project as a result of the demand for energy during the project’s construction and operational phases and encourage measures to avoid or reduce inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

4.5.2 Environmental Setting
State Energy Profile
In 2019, total energy usage in California was 7,802 trillion British thermal units (Btu) (the most recent year for which these specific data are available), which equates to an average of 198 million Btu per capita per year. These figures place California second among the 50 states in total energy use and 50th in per-capita consumption. Of California’s total energy usage, the breakdown by sector is roughly 39.4 percent transportation, 23.1 percent industrial, 18.8 percent commercial, and

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-2 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Regional Setting
Electricity
Electricity, as a consumptive utility, is a man-made resource. The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of resources—including water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear resources—into useable energy. The delivery of electricity involves several system components for distribution and use. Electricity is distributed through a network of transmission and distribution lines commonly called a power grid.

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

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

Refer to Table 4.5-1 for a summary of electricity use in the state and PG&E service area.

TABLE 4.5-1

EXISTING ANNUAL STATE AND REGIONAL ENERGY USE
Source Amount
Electricity (State/PG&E)a 279,510 GWh / 78,519 GWh
Natural Gas (State/PG&E)a 1,232,858,394 MMBtu / 450,746,500 MMBtu Gasoline (Statewide/Santa Clara County)b 12,572 million gallons / 511 million gallons Diesel (Statewide/ Santa Clara County)b 4,254 million gallons / 71 million gallons NOTES:

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

SOURCES: a CEC, 2022b; b CEC, 2020

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

PG&E provides natural gas transportation services to “core” customers and to “non-core” customers (industrial, large commercial, and natural gas–fired electric generation facilities) that

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-3 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
are connected to its gas system in its service territory. Core customers can purchase natural gas procurement service (natural gas supply) from either PG&E or non-utility third-party gas procurement service providers (referred to as “core transport agents”). When core customers purchase gas supply from a core transport agent, PG&E still provides gas delivery, metering, and billing services to those customers. When PG&E provides both transportation and procurement services, PG&E refers to the combined service as “bundled” natural gas service.

PG&E does not provide procurement service to non-core customers, who must purchase their gas supplies from third-party suppliers. PG&E offers backbone gas transmission, gas delivery (local transmission and distribution), and gas storage services as separate and distinct services to its non-core customers. Access to PG&E’s backbone gas transmission system is available for all natural gas marketers and shippers, as well as non-core customers. PG&E also delivers gas to off-system customers (i.e., outside of PG&E’s service territory) and to third-party natural gas storage customers. 2020 natural gas usage for the state and the PG&E service region are also shown in Table 4.5-1.

Transportation Energy
In 2021, 11.5 billion gallons of gasoline and 2.6 billion gallons of diesel fuel were consumed in California (CDTFA, 2022a, 2022b). Petroleum-based fuels currently account for more than 85 percent of ground transportation fuel use in California (USEIA, 2022).

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

Accordingly, total gasoline consumption in California has declined According to fuel sales data from the California Energy Commission (CEC), fuel consumption in Santa Clara County was approximately 511 million gallons of gasoline and 71 million gallons of diesel fuel in 2020 (CEC, 2020). Refer to Table 4.5-1 for a summary of statewide fossil fuel consumption in 2020.

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-4 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

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

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

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

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

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-5 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards. In August 2012, standards were adopted for model years 2017 through 2025 for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. According to U.S. EPA, a model year 2025 vehicle would emit half the GHG emissions of a model year 2010 vehicle (USEPA, 2012). Notably, the State of California harmonized its vehicle efficiency standards through 2025 with the federal standards at this time (see Advanced Clean Cars Program below).

In August 2018, U.S. EPA and the NHTSA proposed maintaining the 2020 corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) and CO
2 standards for model years 2021 through 2026. The estimated CAFE and CO2 standards for model year 2020 are 43.7 miles per gallon (mpg) and 204 grams of CO2 per mile for passenger cars and 31.3 mpg and 284 grams of CO2 per mile for light trucks, projecting an overall industry average of 37 mpg, as compared to 46.7 mpg under the standards issued in 2012. In September 2019, U.S. EPA finalized the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program and announced its decision to withdraw the Clean Air Act preemption waiver granted to the State of California in 2013 (USEPA & NHTSA, 2019). However, on March 9, 2022, U.S. EPA reinstated California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to implement its own GHG emission standards and zero emission vehicle (ZEV) sales mandate (USEPA, 2022).

State
California Public Utilities Commission
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is a state agency created by a constitutional amendment to regulate privately owned utilities providing telecommunications, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation services, and in-state moving companies. The CPUC is responsible for assuring that California utility customers have safe, reliable utility services at reasonable rates, while protecting utility customers from fraud. The CPUC regulates the planning and approval for the physical construction of electric generation, transmission, and distribution facilities, and the local distribution pipelines for natural gas.

California Energy Commission
The CEC is the primary energy policy and planning agency in California. Created by the California Legislature in 1974, the CEC has five major responsibilities: (1) forecast future energy needs and keep historical energy data; (2) license thermal power plants 50 MW or larger; (3) promote energy efficiency through appliance and building standards; (4) develop energy technologies and support renewable energy; and (5) plan for and direct the state response to energy emergencies.

Senate Bill 1389
Senate Bill (SB) 1389 (PRC Sections 25300–25323) requires the CEC to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing the electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors in California, and to provide policy recommendations

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-6 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the state economy; and protect public health and safety (PRC Section 25301(a)).

The 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of CEC assessments on a variety of energy issues facing California:
• Energy efficiency;
• Strategies related to data for improved decisions in the Existing Buildings Energy Efficiency Action Plan;
• Building energy efficiency standards;
• The impact of drought on California’s energy system;
• Achieving 50 percent renewables by 2030;
• The California Energy Demand Forecast;
• The Natural Gas Outlook;
• The Transportation Energy Demand Forecast;
• Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program benefits updates; • An update on electricity infrastructure in Southern California; • An update on trends in California sources of crude oil; • An update on California nuclear plants; and
• Other energy issues.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (codified in the California Health and Safety Code, Division 25.5), which focused on reducing GHG emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020.

Under Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has the primary responsibility for reducing GHG emissions in California; however, AB 32 also tasked the CEC and CPUC with providing information, analysis, and recommendations to CARB regarding strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the energy sector.

In 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 32 and its companion bill, AB 197. SB 32 and AB 197 amended Health and Safety Code Division 25.5 and established a new climate pollution reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, with provisions to ensure that the benefits of state climate policies reach into disadvantaged communities. Refer to Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for additional details regarding these statutes.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-7 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Senate Bills 1078, 107, and 100, and Executive Order S-14-08 The State of California adopted standards to increase the percentage of electricity that retail sellers, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, must provide from renewable resources. The standards are referred to as the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS).

The reduces use of non-renewable energy sources, thereby reducing GHG emissions and other negative impacts that are associated with use of non-renewable, finite energy sources. The legislation requires utilities to increase the percentage of electricity obtained from renewable sources to 33 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030.

On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, which further increased the California RPS and requires retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities to procure eligible renewable electricity for 44 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2024; 52 percent by December 31, 2027; and 60 percent by December 31, 2030. SB 100 also specifies that CARB should plan for 100 percent eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045.

CPUC and the CEC jointly implement the RPS program. The responsibilities of the CPUC are to:
(1) determine annual procurement targets and enforce compliance; (2) review and approve the renewable energy procurement plan of each investor-owned utility; (3) review contracts for RPS- eligible energy; and (4) establish the standard terms and conditions used in contracts for eligible renewable energy (CPUC, 2022).

Assembly Bill 117 and Senate Bill 790
In 2002, the State of California passed AB 117, enabling public agencies and joint power authorities to form a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). SB 790 strengthened it by creating a “code of conduct” that the incumbent utilities must adhere to in their activities relative to CCAs.

CCAs allow a city, county, or group of cities and counties to pool electricity demand and purchase/generate power on behalf of customers within their jurisdictions in order to provide local choice. CCAs work with PG&E to deliver power to its service area. The CCA is responsible for the electric generation (procure or develop power) while PG&E is responsible for electric delivery, power line maintenance, and monthly billing.

California Building Standards Code (Title 24, Parts 6 and 11) The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 6) were adopted to ensure that building construction and system design and installation achieve energy efficiency and preserve outdoor and indoor environmental quality. The current California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 standards) are the 2019 Title 24 standards, which became effective on January 1, 2020. These standards include requirements for solar photovoltaic systems in all new homes, requirements for newly constructed healthcare facilities that were previously not included, the encouragement of demand response and light-emitting diode (LED) technology for both residential and nonresidential buildings, and the use of more efficient air filters to trap hazardous particulates (CEC, 2018a).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-8 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
The current (2019) version of the California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11) is commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code. The 2019 CALGreen Code includes mandatory measures for non-residential development related to site development, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality (California Buildings Standards Commission, 2019). The 2019 Energy Code includes provisions for smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements. The 2019 Energy Code aims to reduce energy use in new homes by requiring that all new homes include individual or community solar photovoltaic systems or community shared battery storage systems that achieve equivalent time-dependent value energy use reduction.

On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code. In December, it was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code.

Assembly Bill 1493
In 2019, the transportation sector accounted for approximately 40 percent of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2e) emissions in California (CARB, 2021a). AB 1493 (commonly referred to as the Pavley regulations), enacted on July 22, 2002, requires CARB to set GHG emissions standards for new passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles manufactured in and after 2009 whose primary use is non-commercial personal transportation. Phase I of the legislation established standards for model years 2009–2016 and Phase II established standards for model years 2017–2025 (CARB, 2013; USEPA, 2012). Refer to Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for additional details regarding this regulation.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
In 2004, CARB adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter emissions (13 CCR Section 2485). The measure applies to diesel-fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds that are licensed to operate on highways, regardless of where they are registered. This measure prohibits diesel-fueled commercial vehicles from idling for more than 5 minutes at any given location. While the goal of this measure is primarily to reduce public health impacts from diesel emissions, compliance with the regulation also results in energy savings in the form of reduced fuel consumption from unnecessary idling.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines In 2004, CARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to reduce public exposure to emissions of diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutants from stationary diesel-fueled compression ignition engines (17 CCR Section 93115). The measure applies to any person who

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-9 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
owns or operates a stationary compression ignition engine in California with a rated brake horsepower greater than 50, or to anyone who either sells, offers for sale, leases, or purchases a stationary compression ignition engine. This measure outlines fuel and fuel additive requirements; emissions standards; recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring requirements; and compliance schedules for compression ignition engines.

Truck and Bus Regulation
In addition to limiting exhaust from idling trucks, in 2008 CARB approved the Truck and Bus Regulation to reduce the emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter from existing diesel vehicles operating in California (13 CCR Section 2025). The phased regulation aims to reduce emissions by requiring installation of diesel soot filters and encouraging the retirement, replacement, or retrofit of older engines with newer emission-controlled models. This regulation will be implemented in phases, with full implementation by 2023.

CARB also promulgated emissions standards for off-road diesel construction equipment of greater than 25 horsepower such as bulldozers, loaders, backhoes, and forklifts, as well as many other self- propelled off-road diesel vehicles. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation adopted by CARB on July 26, 2007, aims to reduce emissions by installing diesel soot filters and encouraging the retirement, replacement, or repowering of older, dirtier engines with newer emissions-controlled models (13 CCR Section 2449). The compliance schedule requires full implementation by 2023 in all equipment for large and medium fleets and by 2028 for small fleets.

California Air Resources Board Advanced Clean Trucks Program On June 25, 2020, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel vehicles to electric zero-emission vehicles beginning in 2024, with the goal of reaching 100 percent zero-emission vehicles by 2045. The goal of the legislation is to help California meet its climate targets of a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions and a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by 2030, and an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050.

Truck manufacturers will be required to sell zero-emission vehicles as an increasing percentage of their annual sales from 2024 through 2035. Companies with large distribution fleets (50 or more trucks) will be required to report information about their existing fleet operations in an effort to identify future strategies for increasing zero-emission fleets statewide (CARB, 2021b).

Zero-emission vehicles are two to five times more energy efficient than diesel vehicles, and the Advanced Clean Trucks rule will reduce GHG emissions with the co-benefit of reducing dependence on petroleum fuels.

California Air Resources Board Advanced Clean Car Program The Advanced Clean Cars emissions-control program, approved by CARB in 2012, is closely associated with the Pavley regulations (CARB, 2013). The program requires a greater number of zero-emissions vehicle models for years 2015 through 2025, to control smog, soot, and GHG emissions. This program includes the Low-Emissions Vehicle regulations to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and GHGs from light- and medium-duty vehicles; and the Zero-Emissions

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-10 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Vehicle regulations, which require manufacturers to produce an increasing number of pure zero- emissions vehicles (battery and fuel cell electric vehicles) and include the provision to produce plug-in hybrid electric vehicles between 2018 and 2025. The increase in low- and zero-emissions vehicles will result in a decrease in the consumption of non-renewable fuels such as gasoline and diesel.

California Environmental Quality Act
Under CEQA (PRC Section 21100(b)(3)), EIRs are required to discuss the potential significant energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. If the analysis of a proposed project shows that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, then the EIR must identify mitigation measures to address that energy use. This analysis should include the project’s energy use for all project phases and components, including transportation-related energy, during construction and operation. In addition to building code compliance, other relevant considerations may include project size, location, orientation, equipment use, and any renewable energy features that could be incorporated into the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b)).

CEQA Guidelines Appendix F lists the energy-related topics that should be analyzed in the EIR, and more specifically identifies the following topics for consideration in the evaluation of energy impacts in an EIR, to the extent the topics are applicable or relevant to the proposed project:
• The project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project, including construction, operation, maintenance, and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. • The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
• The effects of the project on peak and base-period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
• The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards. • The effects of the project on energy resources.
• The project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.
1 The effects of the project relevant to each of these issues are addressed in this section.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan is the guiding document for the City's physical development and preservation. It includes goals, policies and graphics that convey a long-term vision and guide local decision-making to achieve that vision. The Infrastructure and

1 CEQA Guidelines Appendix F(II)(C).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-11 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Conservation Element of the General Plan includes the following policies related to energy (City of Mountain View, 2021).

Goal INC-13: Increase energy efficiency and conservation throughout the city.

Policy INC-13.1: Energy Efficiency and Generation. Increase energy efficiency and conservation in public buildings and infrastructure.

Policy INC-13.2: Alternatives to gasoline. Promote and increase the use of new technologies as alternatives and supplements to gasoline in vehicles throughout the community.

Policy INC-13.3: Coordinating efforts. Support regional and local efforts and programs to reduce energy use.

Policy INC-13.4: Education. Educate the public about energy conservation and efficiency best practices.

Policy INC-13.5: Smart utility meters. Encourage utility meter technologies that provide feedback about energy usage to customers.

Goal INC-14: Sufficient renewable sources of energy to meet current and future demand.

Policy INC-14.1: Renewable energy. Promote the deployment of renewable energy technologies throughout the city.

Policy INC-14.2: Solar energy. Encourage active and passive solar energy use.

Policy INC-14.3: Regional renewable energy. Participate in regional initiatives to encourage and develop renewable energy sources.

Policy INC-14.4: Renewable energy advocacy. Support legislation to facilitate and increase renewable energy choices for community residents such as green utility power options or distributed generation.
2019 Mountain View Green Building and Reach Codes
On November 12, 2019, the City Council adopted the Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC; City of Mountain View, 2019) amendments, which include the Reach Code efforts. The MVGBC amends the State-mandated California Green Building Code (CALGreen) to include local green building standards and requirements for private development. The MVGBC applies green building requirements per building type and threshold to new construction, residential additions and commercial/industrial tenant improvements and includes energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

All new structures in the City of Mountain View must comply with the mandatory measures of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code as adopted by the state in addition to local amendments included in this code. This includes all residential new construction projects regardless of height or number of stories.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-12 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Section 8.20.9 of the MVGBC amends Subsection 101.10.1.1.3 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code as follows:

All multifamily residential new construction with three units or more must comply with the following:
a. The mandatory measures of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code and any Mountain View amendments;
b. Demonstrate energy compliance to meet or exceed Title 24, Part 6; c. 15 percent of the parking spaces shall be equipped with EV2 chargers installed and one Level 3/DC Fast Charger shall be provided for every 100 spaces’ d. Installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels on 50 percent of roof area (a project may submit for an exception by providing documentation that the required percentage of PV installation will over-generate the kWh required to operate the proposed structure on an annual basis);
e. Space-conditioning equipment shall be electric, not be fueled by natural gas; f. Water-heating systems and equipment shall be electric or solar, not be fueled by natural gas;
g. Clothes dryers shall be electric, not be fueled by natural gas; and h. Cooking appliances and fireplaces shall be electric, not fueled by natural gas.

Mountain View Standard Conditions of Approval
As part of discretionary review, the City has standard conditions for different types of approvals (updated as of October 25, 2021). The City has standard conditions relating to energy, as summarized below.

Green Building – Residential New Construction
The project is required to meet the mandatory measures of the California Green Building Standards Code and meet the intent of the applicable GreenPoint Rated points. All mandatory prerequisite points and minimum point totals per category to attain GreenPoint Rated status must be achieved, unless specific point substitutions or exceptions are approved by the Community Development Department. Formal project registration and certification through Build It Green is not required for compliance with the Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC). The project is also required to comply with Title 24, Part 6.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
The property owner, property manager(s), and homeowners association (HOA) or their representative(s) (collectively, “the owners”) are required to maintain a TDM program which provides commute and transportation alternatives to employees/residents of the project for the life of the project. The TDM program measures shall be formally accepted by the property owners prior to building permit issuance through a legal agreement or recorded document, as determined by the City Attorney, with contents to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. The mandatory TDM measures for the project include:

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-13 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
a. Join and maintain ongoing membership in the MVTMA for the life of the project. b. Provide and maintain maximum vehicle parking and minimum bike parking as approved in the project. Also must provide and/or maintain access to shared bicycles for residents/employees, if a bike-share service is not nearby. c. Provide conveniently located ride-share drop-off and waiting areas on-site. d. Provide and maintain shared, common, collaborative workspaces with WiFi for residents and their guests. This amenity can be offered in partnership with nearby residents and businesses. e. Provide monetary incentives for alternative mode of travel, such as subsidized transit passes or bike-share for residents and/or unbundled parking.
f. Provide and maintain accessible and secure storage spaces for package delivery on-site. g. Provide local transportation information to all residents through a website, leasing office, and/or initial sale information.
h. Support Safe Routes to Schools programs, including facilitating parent gatherings and coordination of walking, school buses, and/or bike trains. j. Other TDM measures as directed by the Planning Department.

4.5.4 Significance Criteria
The thresholds used to determine the significance of impacts related to energy are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project could have a significant impact on the environment if it would:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. • Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Approach to Analysis
This analysis considers the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds, as described above, in determining whether the HEU’s implementation would result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy. The evaluation is based on a review of regulations and determining their applicability to the HEU. As discussed earlier, there are several plans and policies at the federal, state and local levels to increase energy conservation and the use of renewable energy.

Consistency of the HEU with these regulations would also ensure that the HEU would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-14 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.5.5 Impacts of the Project
Impact ENE-1: Implementation of the HEU would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant) The project consists of updating the City’s HEU, and no actual development is proposed at this point that would produce environmental impacts. Implementation of the HEU would result in the development of housing required to meet the City’s RHNA allocation. Construction and operation of the housing facilitated by the HEU’s implementation and the rezoning of parcels to allow for greater densities than currently allowed would increase energy consumption within the City. Future development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to project-level environmental review and approval of permits prior to construction and operation of new housing.

Development of housing proposed under the HEU would consume energy during both construction and operation. Operational energy use would primarily include building energy use and transportation use, with a smaller contribution from area sources.

Construction Equipment and Vehicles
Energy use during future housing construction would primarily occur in association with fuel use in construction equipment and vehicles. Energy use would vary throughout the construction period of projects based on the construction activities being performed and would cease upon completion of construction. Fuels used for construction would typically include diesel and gasoline; use of natural gas and electricity would be minimal.

Heavy-duty equipment associated with construction during development allowed for by the HEU would rely on diesel fuel, as would vendor trucks involved in delivery of materials to the individual construction sites and haul trucks exporting demolition material or other materials off site. Construction workers would travel to and from each of the parcels within the rezoning program throughout the duration of construction. Construction worker trips in light-duty vehicles would primarily be gasoline-powered.

All development proposed under the HEU would be subject to CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation that applies to certain off-road diesel engines, vehicles, or equipment greater than 25 horsepower. The regulation (1) imposes limits on idling, requires a written idling policy, and requires a disclosure when selling vehicles; (2) requires all vehicles to be reported to CARB (using the Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting System) and labeled; (3) restricts the adding of older vehicles into fleets starting on January 1, 2014; and (4) requires fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies (i.e., exhaust retrofits). The fleet must either show that its fleet average index was less than or equal to the calculated fleet average target rate, or that the fleet has met the Best Achievable Control Technology requirements.

Construction activities would use fuel-efficient equipment consistent with federal and state regulations, such as fuel efficiency regulations in CARB’s Pavley Phase II standards; the anti-

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-15 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
idling regulation in 13 CCR Section 2485; and fuel requirements for stationary equipment in 17 CCR Section 93115 (concerning the Airborne Toxic Control Measures). In accordance with 13 CCR Sections 2485 and 2449, idling by commercial vehicles over 10,000 pounds and off-road equipment over 25 horsepower would be limited to a maximum of five minutes. The intent of these regulations is to reduce construction emissions; however, compliance with the anti-idling and emission reduction regulations discussed above would also result in fuel savings from the more efficient use of equipment.

The diesel and gasoline use for construction activities would be temporary and constitute a small fraction of the regional usage; therefore, the construction energy demand of the HEU would be within the supply and infrastructure service capabilities of PG&E and SVCE and would not require additional local or regional capacity.

Overall, construction activities that would be required as part of implementation of the HEU would not be unusual as compared to overall local and regional demand for energy resources and would not involve characteristics that require equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state. Therefore, the HEU would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Operational Building Efficiency
Future housing development would require electricity for building operation (e.g., appliances, lighting, air conditioning, space and water heating). Consistent with the City’s Reach Codes, all development under the HEU would be required to be all-electric with no natural gas infrastructure, which eliminates natural gas usage onsite. While this would increase the electricity use associated with the development as compared to development with both electricity and natural gas usage, the increasing percentage of electricity from renewable sources provided by PG&E and SVCE in response to RPS standards would result in a transition from the use of non- renewable energy to cleaner, renewable energy sources (see RPS program described above in Section 4.5.3, Regulatory Setting). Provision of EV charging infrastructure as required by the City’s Reach Codes and Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would also increase electricity use. The Reach Codes also include onsite photovoltaic requirements for residential developments which would offset part of this increase, encourage use of renewable solar energy and reduce reliance on the grid.

Prior to development at individual parcel sites, applicants would be required to ensure that proposed development would meet Title 24 requirements applicable at that time, as required by state regulations through their plan review process. Title 24 reduces energy use in residential and commercial buildings through progressive updates to both the Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) and the Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6). Title 24 standards are updated periodically (every 3 years). Provisions added to Title 24 over the years include consideration and incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods for building features such as space conditioning, water heating, and lighting, as well as construction waste diversion goals. Additionally, some standards focus on larger energy-saving concepts such as

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-16 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
reducing loads at peak periods and seasons, improving the quality of energy-saving installations, and performing energy system inspections.

Past updates to the Title 24 standards have proven very effective in reducing building energy use; the 2013 update to the energy efficiency standards was estimated to reduce energy consumption in residential buildings by 25 percent relative to the 2008 standards (CEC, 2012). The current 2019 Title 24 standards further reduce energy use compared to the 2016 standards, with single-family residential savings of 79 percent for electricity and 9 percent for natural gas. For low-rise multi- family buildings, savings are 79 percent for electricity and 5 percent for natural gas by requiring photovoltaic (PV) systems for new low-rise residential buildings under three stories (CEC, 2018b).

Implementation of housing proposed under the HEU would occur between 2023 and 2040. Thus, further energy use reductions beyond the current 2019 standards can be anticipated from future Title 24 code revision cycles, as building permits are issued at future dates corresponding to those code updates. Goals and policies encouraged by the City, including those set forth in the City’s General Plan also support increased energy conservation in new development, such as that which would occur under the HEU. These requirements would decrease the amount of energy required for building operation and ensure that building energy use related to development facilitated by the HEU would not be inefficient or wasteful.

In addition, as part of the RPS program detailed earlier, electric utilities including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators are required to increase the percentage of electricity provided from renewable resources. Though the RPS program does not necessarily increase energy efficiency, implementation of this program reduces use of non-renewable energy sources.

The legislation requires utilities to increase the percentage of electricity obtained from renewable sources to 33 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030. SB 100 furthered these standards to require electric utilities to procure eligible renewable electricity for 44 percent of retail sales by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by December 2030. SB 100 also specifies that CARB should plan for 100 percent eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by December 31, 2045. CPUC and the CEC jointly implement the RPS program and PG&E and SVCE, electric utility providers to Mountain View are required to adhere to these standards and deadlines. Therefore, housing developed as part of the HEU would be consistent with these regulations.

Transportation
Vehicle trips generated by housing developed pursuant to the HEU would increase use of transportation fuels, primarily gasoline and diesel. Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions such as increasingly stringent CAFE/Pavley standards for vehicle fuel efficiency, and transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT.

Additionally, the location of the parcels identified for development by the HEU within priority development areas proximate to existing development served by urban services reduces VMT within the region, acting to also reduce regional vehicle energy demands. Furthermore, approval of the HEU itself, as a policy document update, would not change these regulations and would

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-17 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
not provide any goals, policies, or programs that would result in transportation energy consumption. Therefore, transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary and the HEU would be consistent with regulations to reduce transportation energy use.

Considering these requirements, energy use associated with the construction and operation of housing facilitated by the HEU would not be considered unnecessary and wasteful and would be consistent with all applicable plans, policies and regulations developed to encourage energy conservation and renewable energy use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, Mitigation Measure AIR-1b, presented in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of this EIR requires the use of cleaner construction equipment meeting the U.S. EPA’s Tier 4 Final standards if subsequent projects proposed as part of the HEU are found to generate construction emissions in excess of the BAAQMD’s project-level construction thresholds. Newer equipment meeting the Tier 4 Final standards would also be energy efficient when compared to older equipment, which would further reduce energy use during construction.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________

4.5.6 Cumulative Impacts
This section presents an analysis of the cumulative effects of the HEU in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could cause cumulatively considerable impacts. Significant cumulative impacts related to energy could occur if the incremental impacts of the HEU combined with the incremental impacts of one or more cumulative projects.

Cumulative impacts of the HEU related to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction and operation and the potential to conflict with or obstruct adopted energy conservation plans or violate energy efficiency standards would be the same as discussed under Impact ENE-1. Energy consumption effects related to individual projects are localized and would not combine with similar effects in other locations. However, continued growth in the City of Mountain View and throughout PG&E and SVCE’s service areas could contribute to ongoing increases in demand for electricity and natural gas.

Impact ENE-1.CU: Implementation of the HEU would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction and operation or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant)
The HEU, in conjunction with cumulative development in the City, would increase housing in an already developed area and result in increased energy consumption. Potential impacts to energy resources from future housing development that is facilitated by the HEU would be site-specific and would require applications for development permits that would be evaluated on a case-by- case basis. Each cumulative project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-18 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
under CEQA, which would address potential energy consumption impacts, if any, and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. Additionally, any future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6), the CALGreen Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11), and SB 743. Consequently, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in significant environmental impacts from the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation; and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the HEU’s contribution to the cumulative energy impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________

4.5.7 Summary of Energy Impacts
Impact
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance After
Mitigation
Impact ENE-1: Implementation of the HEU
would not result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction
or operation or conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency.

Less than Significant None required -
Impact ENE-1.CU: Implementation of the HEU
would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources
during project construction and operation or
conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Less than Significant None required -

_________________________

4.5.8 References
California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2013. Clean Car Standards - Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493, last reviewed on May 6, 2013. Available at: https://www.gsweventcenter.com/ GSW_RTC_References/2015_0915_CleanAirStandards_Pavley.pdf. Accessed June 2022.

CARB, 2021a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, July 28, 2021. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/ files/classic/cc/ca_ghg_inventory_trends_2000-2019.pdf. Accessed June 2022.

CARB, 2021b. Advanced Clean Trucks Fact Sheet – Accelerating Zero-Emissions Truck Markets, last updated August 20, 2021. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/2021-08/200625factsheet_ADA.pdf. Accessed June 2022.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-19 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), 2022a. MVF 10 Year Report.

Available at: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed on January 27, 2022.

CDTFA, 2022b. Taxable Diesel Gallons 10 Year Report. Available at:
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed on January 27, 2022.

California Energy Commission (CEC), 2012. Energy Commission Approves More Efficient Buildings for California's Future. Available at: https://planning.lacity.org/eir/ CrossroadsHwd/deir/files/references/C17.pdf. Accessed June 2022.

CEC, 2018a. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-400- 2018-020-CMF_0.pdf. Accessed June 2022.

CEC, 2018b. 2019 Title 24 Impact Analysis, Update to the California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings, June 29, 2018. Available at:
https://s3-us-west-

1.amazonaws.com/waterfrontballparkdistrict.com/13_ReferencesintheDraftEIR-Section4- 5Energy/2018-06-29-cec-2019title24impactanalysis.pdf. Accessed June 2022.

CEC, 2020. 2020 California Annual Retail Fuel Outlet Report Results (CEC-A15), August 31, 2020. Available at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/media/3874. Accessed June 2022.

CEC, 2022a. 2020 Total System Electric Generation. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020- total-system-electric-generation. Accessed on May 2022.

CEC, 2022b. California Energy Consumption Database. Available at:
https://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/. Accessed May 2022.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), 2022. RPS Program Overview. Available at:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/RPS_Overview/#:~:text=The%20CPUC's%20responsibilities%20 include%3A,contracts%20for%20RPS%2Deligible%20energy. Accessed June 2022.

City of Mountain View, 2019. Mountain View Green Building Code, 2019. Available online:
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/2019_mountain_view _green_building_and_reach_codes.asp. Accessed June 2022.

City of Mountain View, 2021. Mountain View 2030 General Plan, adopted July 10, 2012, as amended through April 13, 2021. Available at:
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10702. Accessed June 2022.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), 2022a. Company Profile. Available at:
https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/profile/profile.page.

Accessed June 2022.

PG&E, 2022b. PG&E 2020 Power Content label. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/3882. Accessed on June 2022.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.5 Energy
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.5-20 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2022. California State Profile and Energy Estimates – Profile Analysis, last updated March 17, 2022. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=CA. Accessed June 2022.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012. EPA and NHTSA Set Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Model Years 2017–2025 Cars and Light Trucks. August 2012. Available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100EZ7C.PDF?Dockey=P100EZ7C.PDF. Accessed May 2022.

USEPA, 2022. EPA Restores California’s Authority to Enforce Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Cars and Light Trucks, March 9, 2022. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-restores-californias-authority-enforce-greenhouse- gas-emission-standards-cars-and. Accessed June 2022.

USEPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 2019. One National Program Rule on Federal Preemption of State Fuel Economy Standards. Available at:
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100XI4W.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2022.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-1 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

4.6.1 Introduction
This section assesses the potential for the Project to result in significant adverse impacts on geology, soils, and paleontological resources. This section first includes a description of the existing environmental setting as it relates to geology, soils, and paleontological resources, and provides a regulatory framework that discusses applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

This section also includes an evaluation of potential significant impacts of the Project on geology, soil, and paleontological resources.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on February 4, 2022 and a scoping meeting was held on February 24, 2022. The NOP and the comments received during the public comment period can be found in Appendix A of this EIR. No comments relating to geology, soils, or paleontological resources were received during the NOP comment period.

4.6.2 Environmental Setting
Regional and Local Geology
Geologic mapping by Dibblee and Minch (2007) indicates that the geologic deposits that occur within the City of Mountain View (City) are entirely various types of Holocene-age alluvial deposits (Dibblee & Minch, 2007).

Soils
Expansive Soil
Expansive soils are soils that possess a “shrink-swell” characteristic, also referred to as linear extensibility. Shrink-swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying; the volume change is reported as a percent change for the whole soil. Changes in soil moisture can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, and/or perched groundwater. 1 This cyclical
change in soil volume is measured using the coefficient of linear extensibility (COLE) (NRCS, 2017). The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) relies on linear extensibility measurements to determine the shrink-swell potential of soils. If the linear extensibility percent is more than 3 percent (COLE=0.03), shrinking and swelling may cause damage to building, roads, and other structures (NRCS, 2017). Structural damage may occur incrementally over a long period of time, usually as a result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils.

Soil expansion generally occurs in fine-grained clayey sediments, which could be present within the City. The NRCS Web Soil Survey data is generally useful at a large scale (meaning when evaluating an area in more detail). As such, Web Soil Survey expansive soil data is not available at a regional scale. The varying geology of the area is indicative of varying soil conditions across

1 Perched groundwater is a local saturated zone above the water table that typically exists above an impervious layer (such as clay) of limited extent.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-2 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
the City. As discussed above, expansive soils generally occur in fine-grained clayey sediments, which could be present throughout the City. Although, according to geologic mapping, the North Bayshore neighborhood area is very likely to contained these types of sediments (Dibblee & Minch, 2007).

Geologic Hazards
Faulting
There are there are no Holocene-active2 faults within the City of Mountain View (City). There are four pre-Holocene3 faults that occur within the City: the Cascade, Palo Alto, San Jose, and Stanford faults. While there are no Holocene-active faults within the City, the Monte Vista- Shannon and the San Andreas fault zones are in proximity to the City—approximately 1 mile and 5 miles southeast of the City, respectively. The Monte Vista-Shannon and San Andreas fault zones have had recent movement and are likely sources of future ground shaking.

Surface Fault Rupture
The State Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) prohibits the development of structures for human occupancy across active fault traces. Under this Act, the California Geological Survey (CGS) has established “Zones of Required Investigation” on either side of an active fault that delimits areas susceptible to surface fault rupture. The zones are referred to as Earthquake Fault Zones (EFZs) and are shown on official maps published by the CGS. Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to a fault movement during an earthquake; typically, these types of hazards occur within 50 feet of an active fault.

As discussed above, there are no Holocene-active faults within the City, and therefore, there are no EFZs within the City (CGS, 2022).

Seismic Ground Shaking
Ground shaking occurs due to a seismic event and can cause extensive damage to life and property and may affect areas hundreds of miles away from the earthquake’s epicenter. The extent of the damage varies by event and is determined by several factors, including (but not limited to) magnitude and depth of the earthquake, distance from epicenter, duration and intensity of the shaking, underlying soil and rock types, and integrity of structures.

The entire San Francisco Bay Area, including the City, could be subject to strong groundshaking during earthquakes. The 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) 4 concluded that there is a 72 percent probability that a magnitude (MW) 6.7 earthquake or higher could occur in the San Francisco Bay Area over the next 30 years (WGCEP, 2015).

2 Holocene- active faults show evidence of displacement within the Holocene Epoch, or the last 11,700 years are considered active (CGS 2008).
3 Pre-Holocene faults have not shown evidence of displacement in the last 11,700 years (CGS 2008). 4 Also referred to as WGCEP 2014, this is a working group comprised of seismologists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), California Geological Survey (CGS), Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), and California Earthquake Authority (CEA).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-3 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which unconsolidated, water saturated sediments become unstable due to the effects of strong seismic shaking. During an earthquake, these sediments can behave like a liquid, potentially causing severe damage to overlying structures. Lateral spreading is a variety of minor landslide that occurs when unconsolidated liquefiable material breaks and spreads due to the effects of gravity, usually down gentle slopes. Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading is defined as the finite, lateral displacement of gently sloping ground as a result of pore-pressure buildup or liquefaction in a shallow underlying deposit during an earthquake. The occurrence of this phenomenon is dependent on many complex factors, including the intensity and duration of ground shaking, particle-size distribution, and density of the soil.

The potential damaging effects of liquefaction include differential settlement, loss of ground support for foundations, ground cracking, heaving and cracking of structure slabs due to sand boiling, and buckling of deep foundations due to ground settlement. Dynamic settlement (i.e., pronounced consolidation and settlement from seismic shaking) may also occur in loose, dry sands above the water table, resulting in settlement of and possible damage to overlying structures.

In general, a relatively high potential for liquefaction exists in loose, sandy soils that are within 50 feet of the ground surface and are saturated (below the groundwater table). Lateral spreading can move blocks of soil, placing strain on buried pipelines that can lead to leaks or pipe failure.

According to the EQ Zapp, the City is almost entirely within an established liquefaction zone (CGS, 2022).

Landslides
Landslides are one of the various types of downslope movements in which rock, soil, and other debris are displaced due to the effects of gravity. The potential for material to detach and move down slope depends on multiple factors including the type of material, water content, and steepness of terrain. Generally, earthquake-induced landslides occur within deposits of a moderate to high landslide potential when ground shaking triggers slope failures during or as a result of a nearby earthquake.

The urbanized, developed areas of the City have a very low landslide potential due to the relatively flat topography and lack of slopes and hills. According to the EQ Zapp, the City is not within any established earthquake-induced landslide zones (CGS, 2022). Additionally, there are no historic landslides mapped within the City (Dibblee & Minch, 2007).

Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources are the mineralized (fossilized) remains of prehistoric plants and animals, including body fossils, such as bones, bark or wood, and shell, as well as trace fossils, such as shell, leaf, skin, or feather impressions, footprints, burrows, or other evidence of an organism’s life or activity. These resources are located within sedimentary rocks or alluvium and are considered to be nonrenewable.

The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has established standard guidelines that outline professional protocols and practices for conducting paleontological resource assessments and

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-4 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
surveys; monitoring and mitigation; data and fossil recovery; sampling procedures; and specimen preparation, identification, analysis, and curation (SVP, 2010). Most practicing professional vertebrate paleontologists adhere closely to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as provided in its standard guidelines.

The SVP (SVP, 2010: 11) defines a significant fossil resource as:
fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years).

Based on the significance definitions of SVP (2010), all identifiable vertebrate fossils are considered to have significant scientific value. This position is adhered to because vertebrate fossils are relatively uncommon, and only rarely would a fossil locality yield a statistically significant number of specimens of the same genus. Therefore, every vertebrate fossil found has the potential to provide significant new information on the taxon it represents, its paleoenvironment,5 and/or its distribution. Furthermore, all geologic units in which vertebrate fossils have previously been found are considered to have high sensitivity. Identifiable plant and invertebrate fossils are considered significant if found in association with vertebrate fossils or if defined as significant by project paleontologists, specialists, or local government agencies.

Paleontological sensitivity is defined as the potential for a geologic formation to produce scientifically significant fossils. This is determined by rock type, past history of the geologic unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities recorded from that unit. Paleontological sensitivity is derived from the known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just from a specific survey. In its Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Non-renewable Paleontologic Resources, the SVP (2010:1–2) defines four categories of paleontological sensitivity (potential) for rock units: high, low, undetermined, and no potential:
• High Potential: Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing additional significant paleontological resources.
• Low Potential: Rock units that are poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections, or based on general scientific consensus only preserve fossils in rare circumstances and the presence of fossils is the exception not the rule. • Undetermined Potential: Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment. • No Potential: Rock units like high-grade metamorphic rocks (such as gneisses and schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (such as granites and diorites) that will not preserve fossil resources.

5 A paleoenvironment is the past environment of an area during a given time period in the past.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-5 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
As indicated by geologic mapping, the surficial geology within the planning area is composed of Holocene-age alluvial deposits (Dibblee & Minch, 2007)
As discussed, in general, Holocene-age alluvial deposits are considered to have a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources, based on the relatively recent age of the deposits (SVP, 2010); the youngest Holocene-age deposits (i.e., younger than 5,000 radiocarbon years) have a particularly low potential. Deposits that date to the middle Holocene (i.e., older than 5,000 radiocarbon years) have a potential that increases as the depth into the deposits increases.

A record search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online fossil locality database indicates that there have been no previously recorded vertebrate fossil localities within Holocene-age sediments (UCMP, 2022). There are records of 5 localities from Holocene- age deposits from Santa Clara County; there are 2 invertebrate localities, one locality with plant fossils and microfossils, and 2 others that are unlabeled (UCMP, 2022).

In summary, the surficial Holocene-age alluvial deposits are considered to have a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources, with the potential increasing to high within the deeper layers of the unit. The more urban areas of the City are underlain by highly disturbed fill; the surficial materials would have a very low potential for paleontological resources.

4.6.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and subsequent amendments, under the enforcement authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), was enacted “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” The purpose of the CWA is to protect and maintain the quality and integrity of the nation’s waters by requiring states to develop and implement state water plans and policies. The CWA gave the USEPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry. In California, implementation and enforcement of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is conducted through the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The CWA also sets water quality standards for surface waters and established the NPDES program to protect water quality through various sections of the CWA, including Sections 401 through 404 and 303(d) that are implemented and regulated by the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs. Section 402 of the CWA would apply to the Project because construction at the housing sites would be required to control discharges of pollutants from point sources, as discussed below.

State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to protect structures for human occupancy from the hazard of surface faulting. In accordance with the act, the State

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-6 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Geologist has established regulatory zones—called earthquake fault zones—around the surface traces of active faults and has published maps showing these zones. Buildings for human occupancy cannot be constructed across surface traces of faults that are determined to be active.

Because many active faults are complex and consist of more than one branch that may experience ground surface rupture, earthquake fault zones extend approximately 200 to 500 feet on either side of the mapped fault trace.

California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), which is codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 2, was promulgated to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum standards related to structural strength, means of egress to facilities (entering and exiting), and general stability of buildings. The purpose of the CBC is to regulate and control the design, construction, quality of materials, use/occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, location, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California.

The 2019 edition of the CBC is based on the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) published by the International Code Council, which replaced the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The code is updated triennially, and the 2019 edition of the CBC was published by the California Building Standards Commission on July 1, 2019, and took effect starting January 1, 2020. The 2019 CBC contains California amendments based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads as well as other loads (such as wind loads) for inclusion into building codes. Seismic design provisions of the building code generally prescribe minimum lateral forces applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of the dead and live loads of the structure, which the structure then must be designed to withstand. The prescribed lateral forces are generally smaller than the actual peak forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Consequently, structures should be able to (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some nonstructural damage; and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. Conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake; however, it is reasonable to expect that a structure designed in accordance with the seismic requirements of the CBC should not collapse in a major earthquake.

The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients, all of which are used to determine a seismic design category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site; SDC ranges from A (very small seismic vulnerability) to E/F (very high seismic vulnerability and near a major

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-7 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
fault). Seismic design specifications are determined according to the SDC in accordance with CBC Chapter 16. CBC Chapter 18 covers the requirements of geotechnical investigations (Section 1803), excavation, grading, and fills (Section 1804), load-bearing of soils (Section 1806), as well as foundations (Section 1808), shallow foundations (Section 1809), and deep foundations (Section 1810). For Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F, Chapter 18 requires analysis of slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture attributable to faulting or lateral spreading, plus an evaluation of lateral pressures on basement and retaining walls, liquefaction and soil strength loss, and lateral movement or reduction in foundation soil-bearing capacity. It also addresses measures to be considered in structural design, which may include ground stabilization, selecting appropriate foundation type and depths, selecting appropriate structural systems to accommodate anticipated displacements, or any combination of these measures. The potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss must be evaluated for site-specific peak ground acceleration magnitudes and source characteristics consistent with the design earthquake ground motions.

Requirements for geotechnical investigations are included in Appendix J, CBC Section J104, Engineered Grading Requirements. As outlined in Section J104, applications for a grading permit are required to be accompanied by plans, specifications, and supporting data consisting of a soils engineering report and engineering geology report. Additional requirements for subdivisions requiring tentative and final maps and for other specified types of structures are in California Health and Safety Code Sections 17953 to 17955 and in 2013 CBC Section 1802. Testing of samples from subsurface investigations is required, such as from borings or test pits. Studies must be done as needed to evaluate slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on load-bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, differential settlement, and expansiveness.

The design of the proposed homes and associated infrastructure would be required to comply with CBC requirements, which would make the Project consistent with the CBC.

Municipal Separate Stormwater System (MS4s)
As discussed, the Clean Water Act mandates controls on discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Acting under the Federal mandate and the California Water Code, California Water Boards require cities, towns, and counties to regulate activities that may result in pollutants entering storm drains. All municipalities prohibit non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and require residents and businesses to use BMPs to minimize the amount of pollutants in runoff. To enforce prohibitions and to promote the use of BMPs, the municipalities inspect businesses and construction sites, conduct public education and outreach, sweep streets, and clean storm drains. In addition, municipalities actively support projects to assess, monitor, and restore local creeks and wetlands.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit
Construction associated with the Project would disturb more than one acre of land surface affecting the quality of stormwater discharges into waters of the U.S. The Project would, therefore, be subject to the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-8 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No.

CAS000002; as amended by Orders 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ). The Construction General Permit regulates discharges of pollutants in stormwater associated with construction activity to waters of the U.S. from construction sites that disturb one acre or more of land surface, or that are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs more than one acre of land surface. The permit regulates stormwater discharges associated with construction or demolition activities, such as clearing and excavation; construction of buildings; and linear underground projects, including installation of water pipelines and other utility lines.

The Construction General Permit requires that construction sites be assigned a Risk Level of 1 (low), 2 (medium), or 3 (high), based both on the sediment transport risk at the site and the receiving waters risk during periods of soil exposure (e.g., grading and site stabilization). The sediment risk level reflects the relative amount of sediment that could potentially be discharged to receiving water bodies and is based on the nature of the construction activities and the location of the site relative to receiving water bodies. The receiving waters risk level reflects the risk to the receiving waters from the sediment discharge. Depending on the risk level, the construction projects could be subject to the following requirements:
• Effluent standards;
• Good site management “housekeeping;”
• Non-stormwater management;
• Erosion and sediment controls;
• Run-on and runoff controls;
• Inspection, maintenance, and repair; or
• Monitoring and reporting requirements.

The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes specific best management practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment and pollutants from contacting stormwater moving off site into receiving waters. The BMPs fall into several categories, including erosion control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping, and are intended to protect surface water quality by preventing the off-site migration of eroded soil and construction-related pollutants from the construction area. Routine inspection of all BMPs is required under the provisions of the Construction General Permit. In addition, the SWPPP is required to contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for non-visible pollutants, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.

The SWPPP must be prepared before the construction begins. The SWPPP must contain a site map(s) that delineates the construction work area, existing and proposed buildings, parcel boundaries, roadways, stormwater collection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns across the project area. The SWPPP must list BMPs and the placement of those BMPs that the applicant would use to protect stormwater runoff. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-9 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Examples of typical construction BMPs include scheduling or limiting certain activities to dry periods, installing sediment barriers such as silt fence and fiber rolls, and maintaining equipment and vehicles used for construction. Non-stormwater management measures include installing specific discharge controls during certain activities, such as paving operations, vehicle and equipment washing and fueling. The Construction General Permit also sets post-construction standards (i.e., implementation of BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges from the site following construction).

In the Project area, the Construction General Permit is implemented and enforced by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which administers the stormwater permitting program. Dischargers must electronically submit a notice of intent and permit registration documents to obtain coverage under this Construction General Permit. Dischargers are to notify the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board of violations or incidents of non-compliance, and submit annual reports identifying deficiencies in the BMPs and explaining how the deficiencies were corrected. The risk assessment and SWPPP must be prepared by a State Qualified SWPPP Developer, and implementation of the SWPPP must be overseen by a State Qualified SWPPP Practitioner. A legally responsible person, who is legally authorized to sign and certify permit registration documents, is responsible for obtaining coverage under the permit.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and Section 30244
State requirements for management of paleontological resources are included in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5 and Section 30244. These statutes prohibit the removal of any paleontological site or feature from public lands without permission of the jurisdictional agency, define the removal of paleontological sites or features as a misdemeanor, and require reasonable mitigation of adverse impacts on paleontological resources from developments on public (state, county, city, district) lands.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards 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 earthquakes. This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones, and cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. For projects that would locate structures for human occupancy within designated Zones of Required Investigation, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires project applicants to perform a site-specific geotechnical investigation to identify the potential site- specific seismic hazards and corrective measures, as appropriate, prior to receiving building permits. The CGS Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards (Special Publication 117A) provides guidance for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards (CGS 2008).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-10 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan is the guiding document for the City's physical development and preservation. It includes goals, policies and graphics that convey a long-term vision and guide local decision-making to achieve that vision. The Land Use and Design and Public Safety Elements of the General Plan includes the following policies related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources (City of Mountain View, 2021).

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

Policy LUD-11.5: Archeological and paleontological site protection. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archeological and paleontological sites.

Goal PSA-5: The Protection of life and property from seismic hazards.

Policy PSA-5.1: New development. Ensure new development addresses seismically induced geologic hazards.

Policy PSA-5.2: Alquist-Priolo zones. Development shall comply with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

Policy PSA-5.4: Utility Design. Ensure new underground utilities, particularly water and natural gas lines, are designed to meet current seismic standards.

Ordinances
Chapter 8 of the City Code of Ordinances requires adherence to the CBC, 2019 edition, which incorporates, by adoption, the 2015 edition of the IBC of the International Code Council, with California amendments. This code specifies designs for structural integrity, including in a seismically active area.

Mountain View Standard Conditions for Approval
As part of discretionary review, the City has standard conditions for different types of approvals (as of October 25, 2021). For all construction activities, the City has standard conditions relating to geology, soils, and paleontological resources, as summarized below.

State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit A “Notice of Intent” (NOI) and “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” (SWPPP) shall be prepared for construction projects disturbing one (1) acre or more of land. Proof of coverage under the State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit shall be attached to the building plans.

Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan
The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls that will be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan should include installation of the following items where appropriate: (a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter fabric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-11 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
points of egress from the site; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high-erosion areas. The plan should also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning.

Geotechnical Report
The applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report will be submitted to the City during building plan check, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report will be implemented as part of the project and included in building permit drawings and civil drawings as needed. Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below-grade walls to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures causes by seismic activity, and traffic loads; method for backdraining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure; considerations for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design.

Discovery of Paleontological Resources
In the event that a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50’ of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

Soils Report
As required by the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, a project site-specific geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a registered soils/geologist identifying any seismic hazards and recommending mitigation measures to be taken by the project. The applicant, through the applicant’s registered soils engineer/geologist, shall certify the project complies with the requirements of the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Indicate the location (page number) within the geotechnical report of where this certification is located, or provide a separate letter stating such.

4.6.4 Significance Criteria
The thresholds used to determine the significance of impacts related to geology, soil, and paleontological resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project could have a significant impact on the environment if it would:
• 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. Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42;

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-12 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking;
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or iv) Landslides.
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
• 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. • 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. • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Approach to Analysis
This environmental analysis of the potential impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontological and mineral resources is based on a review of the results of the review of literature and database research (geologic, seismic, and soils, and paleontological resources reports and maps), and the Mountain View 2030 General Plan.

The Project would be regulated by the various laws, regulations, and policies summarized above in Section 4.7.3, Regulatory Setting. Compliance by the Project with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations is assumed in this analysis and local and state agencies would be expected to continue to enforce applicable requirements to the extent that they do so now. Note that compliance with many of the regulations is a condition of permit approval.

After considering the implementation of the Project described in Chapter 3, Project Description, and compliance with the required regulatory requirements, the environmental analysis below identifies if the defined significance thresholds are exceeded and, therefore, a significant impact would occur. For those impacts considered to be significant, mitigation measures are proposed to the extent feasible to reduce the identified impacts.

The structural elements of the Project would undergo appropriate design-level geotechnical evaluations prior to final design and construction. Implementing the regulatory requirements in the CBC and City ordinances and ensuring that all buildings and structures constructed in compliance with the law is the responsibility of the Project engineers and building officials. The geotechnical engineer, as a registered professional with the State of California, is required to comply with the CBC and local codes while applying standard engineering practice and the appropriate standard of care for the particular region in California, which, in the case of the

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-13 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Project, is Santa Clara County.6 The California Professional Engineers Act (Building and Professions Code Sections 6700-6799), and the Codes of Professional Conduct, as administered by the California Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, provides the basis for regulating and enforcing engineering practice in California. The local Building Officials are typically with the local jurisdiction and are responsible for inspections and ensuring CBC compliance prior to approval of the building permit.

Topics Considered and No Impact Determined
The Project would have no impact to the following topics based on the Project characteristics, its geographical location, and underlying site conditions. Therefore, these topics are not addressed further in this document for the following reasons:
• Location on an active fault. As discussed in Section 4.7.2, Environmental Setting, Faulting, none of the proposed housing sites are located on an active fault. Therefore, this significance criterion is not applicable to the project and is not discussed further. • Septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. As discussed in Section 3.5.2, Housing Sites Inventory, all sites must have access to existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities with sufficient capacity available to support housing development.

Therefore, this significance criterion is not applicable to the project and is not discussed further.

4.6.5 Impacts of the Project
Impact GEO-1: Implementation of the HEU would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking. (Less than Significant) There are no Holocene-active faults within the City; however, there are three pre-Holocene faults within the City. Additionally, the Holocene-active Monte Vista-Shannon and San Andreas fault zones are in proximity to the City, and are likely sources for strong seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake from either of these fault zones. Due to the proximity to the Monte Vista- Shannon and San Andreas fault zones, new developments proposed under the HEU would be subject to strong seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake originating from one of the previously mentioned fault zones. The intensity of such an event would depend on the causative fault and the distance to the epicenter, the magnitude, the duration of shaking, and the nature of the geologic materials on which the Project components would be constructed. Intense groundshaking and high ground accelerations would affect the entire City, including the proposed houses, foundations, and associated utilities. The primary and secondary effects of groundshaking and seismically induced ground failures such as landslides could damage structural foundations, distort or break pipelines, and place people at risk of injury or death. Strong seismic ground shaking has historically caused damage, injury, and loss of life; these hazards could potentially result in damage to new developments, resulting in loss, injury, or death.

6 A geotechnical engineer (GE) specializes in structural behavior of soil and rocks. GEs conduct soil investigations, determine soil and rock characteristics, provide input to structural engineers, and provide recommendations to address problematic soils.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-14 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
As required by California law and the City's Standard Condition of Approval for a Geotechnical Report, any new developments would be subject to the seismic design criteria of the California Building Code (CBC) , which require that all improvements be constructed to withstand anticipated ground shaking from regional fault sources. Each new development would be required to obtain a site-specific geotechnical report prior to the issuance of individual grading permits; each new development would be required to retain a licensed geotechnical engineer to design new structures to withstand probable seismically induced ground shaking. The CBC standards and City codes require all new developments to be designed consistent with a site-specific, design- level geotechnical report, which would be fully compliant with the seismic recommendations of a California-registered professional geotechnical engineer. Adherence to Standard Condition of Approval (Geotechnical Report) the applicable CBC requirements and City codes would ensure that the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________
Impact GEO-2: Implementation of the HEU would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction. (Less than Significant) Based on the available data (i.e., geologic mapping and liquefaction susceptibility mapping), any new development under the HEU could be subject to moderate soil liquefaction, depending on the soil conditions at the particular site. New developments under the proposed Project could be subjected to the damaging effects of liquefaction in the event of an earthquake in the region.

As required by California law and the Standard Conditions of Approval for a Geotechnical Report and a Soils Report, any new developments would be subject to the seismic design criteria of the CBC and City building codes, which require that all improvements be constructed to withstand any anticipated seismic-related ground failures, including liquefaction and lateral spreading, due to ground shaking from an earthquake. Each new development would be required to obtain a site- specific geotechnical report prior to the issuance of individual grading permits; each new development would be required to retain a licensed geotechnical engineer to investigate and evaluate each new development site and design new structures to withstand probable seismic- related ground failures, such as liquefaction and lateral spreading. The CBC standards and City codes require all new developments to be designed consistent with a site-specific, design-level geotechnical report, which would be fully compliant with the seismic recommendations of a California-registered professional geotechnical engineer. Liquefaction hazards can generally be addressed through site preparation measures or foundation design measures such as removal and replacement of liquefiable soils, densification of these soils, or specific foundation design recommendations. Implementation of these measures in accordance with building code requirements can effectively reduce the hazard to minimize any potential for substantive damage.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-15 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Compliance with Standard Condition of Approval (Geotechnical Report) and Standard Condition of Approval (Soils Report), and all applicable CBC and City Code requirements would ensure that the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________
Impact GEO-3: Implementation of the HEU would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. (Less than Significant)
As discussed, the City is mostly urbanized and developed, the area is relatively flat with minimal slopes and hillsides. While the landslide potential is low, Standard Condition of Approval (Geotechnical Report) and Standard Condition of Approval (Soils Report) would still be required.

Each specific final, design-level geotechnical report would include specific design requirements that would inform the structural and geotechnical engineering as it related to slope stability, as required by the CBC and City codes. Implementation of these geotechnical design requirements can effectively reduce any potential hazard associated with earthquake-induced landslides.

Compliance with Standard Condition of Approval (Geotechnical Report) and Standard Condition of Approval (Soils Report), the CBC, and City code requirements, including implementation of recommendations provided in site-specific geotechnical reports would reduce or avoid impacts related to landslides. Project construction would not directly or indirectly result in adverse effects related to landslides, and the impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________
Impact GEO-4: Implementation of the HEU would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Less than Significant)
New developments under the HEU would include ground disturbance activities, such as grading, grubbing, or mass excavation that could contribute to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Any new development that would require the disturbance of one or more acres during construction would be subject to the requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), discussed in Section 4.7.3, Regulatory Setting, Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, which would include BMPs designed to control and reduce soil erosion. The BMPs may include dewatering procedures, storm water runoff quality control measures, watering for dust control, and the construction of silt fences, as needed. Additionally, Standard Conditions of Approval for the State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit and Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan would also be required. These standard conditions of approval would

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-16 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
include specific measures to reduce the amount of soil erosion as a result of construction activities.

Once constructed and as discussed above in Section 4.7.3, Regulatory Setting, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), the MS4 permit and City codes would require that the design of Projects include recommendations for managing runoff from completed projects to reduce the potential for erosion that could result in ground failures.

Compliance with applicable City standard conditions of approval and the independently enforceable existing requirement to control runoff would ensure that impacts related to erosion and soil loss would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________
Impact GEO-5: Implementation of the HEU would not 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)
As discussed above, areas within the City could be subject to the potential effects of unstable soils. Any new developments that are proposed in areas determined to be susceptible to unstable geologic or soil conditions would be subject to the damaging effects of these hazards.

As previously discussed above in Impacts GEO-1, GEO-2, and GEO-3, all new developments would be subject to the requirements of applicable City standard conditions of approval, the CBC, and City building codes, which would include conducting geotechnical investigations to analyze potential unstable soil conditions at a site. If unstable soil conditions are determined to be present at a given site, the geotechnical report specific to that site would include site-specific design requirements to implement to reduce or avoid adverse effects associated with unstable soils.

Compliance with applicable City standard conditions of approval, the CBC, and City code requirements, including implementation of recommendations provided in site-specific geotechnical reports would reduce or avoid impacts related to unstable soils to less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________
Impact GEO-6: Implementation of the HEU would not be located on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. (Less than Significant) As discussed, soil expansion generally occurs in fine-grained clayey sediments, which could be present in the City—particularly in the North Bayshore neighborhood area. Analysis of expansive soils is standard during geotechnical investigations, as the CBC outlines specific soil engineering

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-17 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
parameters to identify and mitigate for expansive soils. If expansive soils are detected during the geotechnical investigation, further laboratory testing would be required to determine the nature and extent of the affected soils, followed by recommendations to remove, or treat the expansive soils.

Compliance with Standard Condition of Approval (Geotechnical Report) and Standard Condition of Approval (Soils Report), the CBC, and City codes requirement to determine the potential for expansive soils for each individual new development under the proposed Project would ensure that all problematic soils are identified, and soil engineering requirements are implemented. Soil engineering is used to adjust the existing problematic properties of certain soils so that they are suitable for new developments. Adherence to the requirements of the applicable City standard conditions of approval, the CBC, and City codes, and geotechnical investigation would avoid impacts resulting from potentially expansive soils. Compliance with CBC and City code requirements, including implementation of recommendations provided in site-specific geotechnical reports would reduce or avoid impacts related to expansive soils and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________
Impact GEO-7: Implementation of the HEU would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Geologic mapping indicates that the surficial deposits within the City are composed of Holocene- age alluvial deposits. The Holocene-age alluvium has a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources near the surface, but the potential increases in the deeper, older layers of these deposits. A review of the UCMP online fossil localities database indicates that there are no recorded vertebrate fossil localities within Holocene-age sediments from Santa Clara County.

Although, there are records of invertebrates, plant, and microfossils from Santa Clara County.

The addition of new developments under the HEU would require grading and excavation during the construction phases of housing projects. While Holocene-age alluvial deposits are considered to have a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources near the surface, paleontological resources may be encountered in deeper excavations (generally, approximately 6 or more feet bgs, depending on site-specific information) into previously undisturbed Holocene- age alluvium. If significant paleontological resources are encountered and inadvertently destroyed during construction of new developments, that would constitute a potentially significant impact.

To ensure potential impacts to significant paleontological resources are less than significant, the Standard Condition of Approval for Discovery of Paleontological Resources would be required in the event of a fossil discovery during construction to ensure that construction is halted, and a qualified paleontologist assesses the find to determine its significance. Implementation of this Standard Condition of Approval (Discovery of Paleontological Resources) would reduce the

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-18 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
potential impacts to significant planetological resources if they are encountered during construction. The impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________

4.6.6 Cumulative Impacts
This section presents an analysis of the cumulative effects of the HEU in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could cause cumulatively considerable impacts. Significant cumulative impacts related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources could occur if the incremental impacts of the HEU combined with the incremental impacts of one or more cumulative projects.

The geographic scope for cumulative effects on geology, soils, and paleontological resources is Citywide.

Impact GEO-1.CU: Implementation of the HEU, when combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts on geology, soils, or paleontological resources. (Less than Significant) Seismically induced groundshaking, liquefaction and lateral spreading, and expansive soils could cause structural damage or pipeline leaks or ruptures. Inadequate design of stormwater control features could result in erosion.

Standard Conditions of Approval for the State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit and Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan would be required. The state Construction General Permit would require each project to prepare and implement a SWPPP. The SWPPPs would describe BMPs to control runoff and prevent erosion for each project. Through compliance with this requirement, the potential for erosion impacts would be reduced. The Construction General Permit has been developed to address cumulative conditions arising from construction throughout the state, and is intended to maintain cumulative effects of projects subject to this requirement below levels that would be considered significant. For example, two adjacent construction sites would be required to implement BMPs to reduce and control the release of sediment and/or other pollutants in any runoff leaving their respective sites. The runoff water from both sites would be required to achieve the same action levels, measured as a maximum amount of sediment or pollutant allowed per unit volume of runoff water. Thus, even if the runoff waters were to combine after leaving the sites, the sediments and/or pollutants in the combined runoff would still be at concentrations (amount of sediment or pollutants per volume of runoff water) below action levels and would not be cumulatively considerable (less than significant).

Standard Conditions of Approval Geotechnical Report and Soils Report would be required. State and local building regulations and standards, described in the Section 4.7.3, Regulatory Setting, have been established to address seismic and unstable geologic unit and soils conditions. The Project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-19 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
CBC and City codes. Through compliance with these requirements, the potential for impacts would be reduced. As explained in the Regulatory Framework, the purpose of the CBC and City codes is to regulate and control the design, construction, quality of materials, use/occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction; by design, it is intended to reduce the cumulative risks from buildings and structures. Therefore, based on compliance with these requirements, the incremental impacts of the Project combined with impacts of other projects in the area would not cause a significant cumulative impact related to seismically induced groundshaking, liquefaction and lateral spreading, expansive soils, or erosion, and the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects would not be cumulatively considerable and this impact would be less than significant.

Standard Condition of Approval Discovery of Paleontological Resources would be required.

Additionally, as other cumulative project would also undergo a CEQA analysis, it would be determined at the time of analysis if an area has the potential to contain significant paleontological resources. As such, other cumulative projects would be subject to the same SCA as the Project and/or project-specific mitigation measures. As the HEU and other projects happening simultaneously would be subject to project-specific mitigation measures designed to protect significant paleontological resources, the Project would not cause or contribute to a cumulative considerable impact and would be less than significant.

Mitigation: None required.
_________________________

4.6.7 Summary of Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Impacts
Impact
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance After
Mitigation
Impact GEO-1: Implementation of the HEU
would not directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a
known earthquake fault or strong seismic
ground shaking.

Less than Significant None required -
Impact GEO-2: Implementation of the HEU
would not directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction.

Less than Significant None required -
Impact GEO-3: Implementation of the HEU
would not directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving landslides.

Less than Significant None required -
Impact GEO-4: Implementation of the HEU
would not result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil.

Less than Significant None required -

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.6-20 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Impact
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance After
Mitigation
Impact GEO-5: Implementation of the HEU
would not 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 None required -
Impact GEO-6: Implementation of the HEU
would not be located on expansive soil,
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property.

Less than Significant None required -
Impact GEO-7: Implementation of the HEU
would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature.

Less than Significant None required -
Impact GEO-1.CU: Implementation of the
HEU, when combined with other past, present,
or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not
contribute considerably to cumulative impacts
on geology, soils, or paleontological resources.

Less than Significant None required -

_________________________

4.6.8 References
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008. Special Publication 117A - Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.

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

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2017. Title - National Soil Survey Handbook.

Part 618 – Soil Properties and Qualities. Section 618.41, Linear Extensibility Percent.

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), 2010. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Prepared by: SVP Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.

University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP), 2022a. UC Museum of Paleontology Localities database. Fossil localities within Santa Clara County.

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2015a. UCERF3: A new earthquake forecast for California’s complex fault system: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2015–3009, March

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-1 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.7.1 Introduction
This section assesses the potential for the Project to result in significant adverse impacts on greenhouse gases (GHGs). This section first includes a description of the existing environmental setting as it relates to GHGs and climate change, and provides a regulatory framework that discusses applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This section also includes an evaluation of potential significant impacts of the Project’s GHG emissions on the environment.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on February 4, 2022 and a scoping meeting was held on February 24, 2022. The NOP and the comments received during the public comment period can be found in Appendix A of this EIR. No comments relating to GHG emissions were received during the NOP comment period.

4.7.2 Environmental Setting
Climate Science
“Global warming” and “climate change” are common terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century. Natural processes and human actions have been identified as affecting the climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that variations in natural phenomena such as solar radiation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.

However, increasing GHG concentrations resulting from human activity since the 19th century, such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and other activities, are believed to be a major factor in climate change. GHGs in the atmosphere naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that has hit the earth and is reflected back into space—a phenomenon referred to as the “greenhouse effect.” Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the Earth’s surface habitable. However, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have trapped solar radiation and decreased the amount that is reflected into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect, and resulting in the increase of global average temperature.

Carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are the principal GHGs. When concentrations of these gases exceed historical concentrations in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is intensified. CO 2, methane, and nitrous
oxide occur naturally and are also generated through human activity. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing, natural gas leaks from pipelines and industrial processes, and incomplete combustion associated with agricultural practices, landfills, energy providers, and other industrial facilities. Nitrous oxide emissions are also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO 2 sinks include vegetation and
the ocean, which absorb CO2 through sequestration and dissolution, and are two of the largest reservoirs of CO2 sequestration. Other human-generated GHGs include fluorinated gases such as

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-2 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, which have much higher heat- absorption potential than CO2 and are byproducts of certain industrial processes.

CO2 is the reference gas for climate change, as it is the GHG emitted in the highest volume. The effect that each of the GHGs have on global warming is the product of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential (GWP). GWP indicates how much a gas is predicted to contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be predicted to be caused by the same mass of CO

2. For example, methane and nitrous oxide are substantially more potent GHGs than CO2, with GWPs of 25 and 298 times that of CO2 respectively, which has a GWP of 1 (CARB, 2022).

In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported as metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e). CO2e is calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific GWP. While methane and nitrous oxide have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in higher quantities and it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e, both from commercial developments and human activity in general.

Effects of Global Climate Change
The scientific community’s understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has improved over the past decade, and its predictive capabilities are advancing.

However, there remain scientific uncertainties in, for example, predictions of local effects of climate change, occurrence, frequency, and magnitude of extreme weather events, effects of aerosols, changes in clouds, shifts in the intensity and distribution of precipitation, and changes in oceanic circulation. Due to the complexity of and inability to accurately model the Earth’s climate system, the uncertainty surrounding climate change may never be eliminated completely.

Nonetheless, the IPCC’s AR5 states that it is extremely likely that the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century is the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations (IPCC, 2014). The National Academies of Science from 80 countries have issued statements endorsing the consensus position that humans are the dominant cause for global warming since the mid-20th century (Cook et al., 2016).

The Fourth California Climate Change Assessment (Fourth Assessment), published in 2018, found that the potential impacts in California due to global climate change include: loss in snow pack; sea-level rise; more extreme heat days per year; more high ozone days; more extreme forest fires; more severe droughts punctuated by extreme precipitation events; increased erosion of California’s coastlines and sea water intrusion into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Deltas and associated levee systems; and increased pest infestation (California Office of Planning and Research [OPR], California Energy Commission [CEC] & California Natural Resources Agency [CNRA], 2018). The Fourth Assessment’s findings are consistent with climate change studies published by the CNRA since 2009, starting with the California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CNRA, 2009) as a response to the Governor’s Executive Order S-13-2008. In 2014, the CNRA rebranded the first update of the 2009 adaptation strategy as the Safeguarding California Plan (CNRA, 2014). The 2018 update to Safeguarding California Plan identifies hundreds of ongoing actions and next steps state agencies are taking to safeguard Californians from climate impacts within a framework of 81 policy principles and recommendations (CNRA, 2018).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-3 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
In 2016, the CNRA released Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans in accordance with Executive Order B-30-15, identifying a lead agency to lead adaptation efforts in each sector (CNRA, 2016). In accordance with the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, the CEC was directed to develop a website on climate change scenarios and impacts that would be beneficial for local decision makers. The website, known as Cal-Adapt, became operational in 2011. The information provided on the Cal-Adapt website represents a projection of potential future climate scenarios comprised of local average values for temperature, sea-level rise, snowpack and other data representative of a variety of models and scenarios, including potential social and economic factors. Below is a summary of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of global warming and climate change.

Temperature Increase
The primary effect of adding GHGs to the atmosphere has been a rise in the average global temperature. The impact of human activities on global temperature is readily apparent in the observational record. Since 1895, the contiguous US has observed an average temperature increase of 1.5°F per century (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association [NOAA], 2019).

The 5-year period from 2014–2018 was the warmest on record for the contiguous U.S. (NOAA, 2019); of the top 10 hottest years on record in the U.S., seven have occurred since the year 2000, with the top six years all occurring since 2012 (Climate Central, 2022). The Fourth Assessment indicates that average temperatures in California cold rise 5.6°F to 8.8°F by the end of the century, depending on the global trajectory of GHG emissions (OPR, CEC & CNRA, 2018). According to the Cal-Adapt website, the portion of the state in which the City of Mountain View is located could experience an increase in annual average maximum temperature of approximately 4.4° to

7.1°F by 2070–2090, compared to the baseline period of 1961–1990 (Cal Adapt, 2022).

With climate change, extreme heat conditions and heat waves are predicted to impact larger areas, last longer, and have higher temperatures. Heat waves, defined as three or more days with temperatures above 90°F, are projected to occur more frequently by the end of the century.

Extreme heat days and heat waves can negatively impact human health. Heat-related illnesses include a spectrum of illnesses ranging from heat cramps to severe heat exhaustion and life- threatening heat stroke (Red Cross Red Climate Crescent Center [RCCC], 2019).

Wildfires
The hotter and dryer conditions expected with climate change will make forests more susceptible to extreme wildfires. The Fourth Assessment found that if GHG emissions continue to rise, the frequency of extreme wildfires burning over approximately 25,000 acres would increase by nearly 50 percent, and the average area burned statewide each year would increase by 77 percent, by the year 2100. In the areas that have the highest fire risk, wildfire insurance is estimated to see costs rise by 18 percent by 2055 and the fraction of property insured would decrease (Westerling, 2018).

Air Quality
Higher temperatures, conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality in California and make it more difficult for the state to achieve air quality standards. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, which can cause breathing problems, aggravate

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-4 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore, its indirect effects, are uncertain. Emissions from wildfires can lead to excessive levels of particulate matter, ozone, and volatile organic compounds (NOAA, 2022). Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state (RCCC, 2019).

Precipitation and Water Supply
There is a high degree of uncertainty with respect to the overall impact of global climate change on future water supplies in California. Studies indicate considerable variability in predicting precise impacts of climate change on California’s hydrology and water resources. Increasing uncertainty in the timing and intensity of precipitation will challenge the operational flexibility of California’s water management systems. Warmer and wetter winters would increase the amount of runoff available for groundwater recharge; however, this additional runoff would occur at a time when some basins are either being recharged at their maximum capacity or are already full.

Conversely, reductions in spring runoff and higher evapotranspiration because of higher temperatures could reduce the amount of water available for recharge (CNRA, 2018).

Hydrology and Sea-Level Rise
As discussed above, climate changes could potentially affect: the amount of snowfall, rainfall and snowpack; the intensity and frequency of storms; flood hydrographs (flash floods, rain or snow events, coincidental high tide and high runoff events); sea-level rise and coastal flooding; coastal erosion; and the potential for saltwater intrusion. Sea-level rise can be a product of global warming through two main processes: expansion of seawater as the oceans warm and melting of ice over land. A rise in sea levels could result in coastal flooding and erosion and could jeopardize California’s water supply. Sea level has risen eight to nine inches (21–24 centimeters) since 1880. In 2020, global sea level set a new record high of 91.3 mm (3.6 inches) above 1993 levels. The rate of sea level rise is accelerating; it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006–2015. In many locations along the U.S. coastline, high-tide flooding is now 300 percent to more than 900 percent more frequent than it was 50 years ago. Sea level could rise as much as 8.2 feet (2.5 meters) above 2000 levels by 2100 (NOAA, 2021). Rising seas could impact transportation infrastructure, utilities, and regional industries. The San Francisco Bay Area is one of the top hotspots for sea-level rise in the nation. According to the Shoreline Sea Level Rise Study, the San Francisco Bay could rise between 8 and 31 inches by 2067, potentially flooding a large portion of northern Mountain View (City of Mountain View, 2013).

Agriculture
California has a massive agricultural industry that represents over 13 percent of total U.S. agricultural revenue (California Department of Food and Agriculture [CDFA], 2020). Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, a changing climate presents significant risks to agriculture due to changes in maximum and minimum temperatures, reduction of winter chill hours, extreme heat leading to additional costs

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-5 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
for livestock cooling and losses in production, and declines in water quality, groundwater security, soil health, and pollinator species, and increased pest pressures (CNRA, 2018).

Ecosystems and Wildlife
Increases in global temperatures and the potential resulting changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. Increased concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. As stated in the Safeguarding California Plan, “species and ecosystems in California are valued both for their intrinsic worth and for the services they provide to society. Air purification, water filtration, flood attenuation, food provision, recreational opportunities such as fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, and more are all services provided by ecosystems. These services can only be maintained if ecosystems are healthy and robust, and continue to function properly under the impacts of climate change. A recent study examined the vulnerability of all vegetation communities statewide in California and found that 16 of 29 were highly or nearly highly vulnerable to climate change, including Western North American freshwater marsh, Rocky Mountain subalpine and high montane conifer forest, North American Pacific coastal salt marsh, and more.”
Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. With climate change, ecosystems and wildlife will be challenged by the spread of invasive species, barriers to species migration or movement in response to changing climatic conditions, direct impacts to species health, and mismatches in timing between seasonal life-cycle events such as species migration and food availability (CNRA, 2018).

GHG Emissions Inventories
U.S. GHG Emissions
In 2019, the United States emitted about 6,558 million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e), with 76 percent of those emissions coming from fossil fuel combustion for electricity, heat and transportation. Of the major sectors nationwide, transportation accounts for the highest volume of GHG emissions (approximately 29 percent), followed by electricity (25 percent), industry (23 percent), commercial and residential (13 percent), and agriculture (10 percent). Between 1990 and 2019, total U.S. GHG emissions have increased by 1.8 percent, but emissions have generally decreased since peaking in 2007 (U.S. EPA, 2021).

State of California GHG Emissions
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) compiles GHG inventories for the state. Based on the 2019 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available from CARB), emissions from GHG emitting activities statewide were 418.1 MMTCO 2e (CARB, 2021a).

Between 1990 and 2021, the population of California grew by approximately 10 million from 29.6 to 39.5 million (California Department of Finance [CDF], 2022a). This represents an increase of approximately 34 percent from 1990 population levels. In addition, the California economy, measured as gross state product, grew from $773 billion in 1990 to $3.14 trillion in 2019, representing an increase of approximately 306 percent (more than three times the 1990 gross state product) in today’s dollars (CDF, 2022b).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-6 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Despite the population and economic growth, CARB’s 2019 statewide inventory indicated that California’s net GHG emissions in 2019 were 13 MMTCO2e below 1990 levels, which is the 2020 GHG reduction target codified in California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32). Table 4.7-1 identifies and quantifies statewide anthropogenic GHG emissions and sinks (e.g., carbon sequestration due to forest growth) in 1990 and 2019. As shown in the table, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to statewide GHG emissions at approximately 39.7 percent in 2019.

TABLE 4.7-1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Category
Total 1990 Emissions
using IPCC SAR
(MMTCO2e)
Percent of Total
1990 Emissionse
SAR/AR4
Total 2019 Emissions
using IPCC AR4
(MMTCO2e)
Percent of
Total 2019
Emissions
Transportation 150.7 35%/35% 166.1 39.7%
Electric Power 110.6 26%/26% 58.8 14.1%
Commercial & Residential
Fuel Use 44.1 10%/10% 43.8 10.5%
Industrial 103.0 24%/24% 88.2 21.1%
Recycling and Wastea – – 8.9 2.1%
High GWP/Non-Specifiedb 1.3 <1%/<1% 20.6 4.9%
Agriculture/Forestry 23.6 6%/5% 31.8 7.6%
Forestry Sinks -6.7 -- c --
Net Total (IPCC SAR) 426.6 100%e -- --
Net Total (IPCC AR4)d 431 100% 418.2 100%
NOTES: IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; SAR = Second Assessment Report; AR4 = Fourth Assessment Report. a Included in other categories for the 1990 emissions inventory. b High global warming potential (GWP) gases are not specifically called out in the 1990 emissions inventory. c Revised methodology under development (not reported for 2019). d CARB revised the State’s 1990 level GHG emissions using GWPs from the IPCC AR4. e Values may not total to 100% due to rounding
SOURCES: CARB, 2007; CARB, 2021a.

Bay Area GHG Emissions
Based on 2015 data, in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, GHG emissions from the transportation sector represented the largest source of GHG emissions at 41 percent, followed by the stationary industrial sources at 26 percent, electricity generation and co-generation at 14 percent, and fuel use (primarily natural gas) by buildings at 10 percent. The remaining 8 percent of emissions is composed of fluorinated gas emissions and emissions from solid waste and agriculture. According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), of the total transportation emissions in 2015, on-road sources accounted for approximately 87 percent, while off-road sources accounted for the remainder (BAAQMD, 2017a).

City of Mountain View GHG Emissions
The City conducts a GHG inventory to measure GHG emissions generated community-wide and by municipal operations. While emissions from municipal operations make up less than two percent of all emissions generated community-wide, the City strives to provide services to the

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-7 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
public more efficiently and reduce its environmental impact. The City reduced emissions from municipal operations by 51 percent between 2005 and 2018. On the other hand, community-wide emissions which are not under the direct control of the City reduced by 14 percent between 2005 and 2019. As of 2019, community-wide GHG emissions totaled 606,614 MTCO 2e (Table 4.7-2).

TABLE 4.7-2

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Category
2005 Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2018 Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2019 Emissions
(MTCO2e) Percent of
Energy
Residential - Electricity 36,307 801 175 <0.1
Residential – Natural Gas 64,065 57,449 57,610 9.5
Non-Residential - Electricity 138,119 42,833 37,812 6.2 Non-Residential – Natural Gas 57,071 57,098 58,182 9.6
Energy Subtotal 295,562 158,181 153,780 25.4
Transportation
Passenger/Light-Duty 309,162 341,939 307,891 50.8
Medium/Heavy-Duty 64,915 53,737 84,597 13.9
Transportation Subtotal 374,077 395,676 392,488 64.7
Waste
Solid Waste 12,248 17,093 18,932 3.1
Alternate Daily Cover 77 0.5 0 <0.1
Waste Subtotal 12,325 17,094 18,932 3.1
Water
Water Demand 4,384 84 2 <0.1
Wastewater Treatment 11,144 2,957 1,302 0.2
Water Subtotal 15,528 3,040 1,304 0.2
Off-Road Mobile
Construction 4,793 3,786 9,871 1.6
Lawn/Garden 1,767 -- -- --
Commercial Equipment -- 10,948 11,071 1.8
Industrial Equipment -- 18,994 19,169 3.2
Off-Road Mobile Subtotal 6,560 333,727 40,111 6.6
Total a 704,052 607,718 606,614 100
NOTES: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a Values may not total to 100% due to rounding
SOURCE: City of Mountain View, 2022.

4.7.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Vehicle Emissions Standards
In 1975, Congress enacted the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are responsible for I I
I I
I I
I I
I I

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-8 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
establishing additional vehicle standards. In August 2012, standards were adopted for model years 2017 through 2025 for passenger cars and light-duty trucks. According to EPA, a model year 2025 vehicle would emit half the GHG emissions of a model year 2010 vehicle (USEPA and NHTSA, 2010). Notably, the State of California harmonized its vehicle efficiency standards through 2025 with the federal standards at this time (see Advanced Clean Cars Program below).

In August 2018, EPA and the NHTSA proposed maintaining the 2020 corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) and CO
2 standards for model years 2021 through 2026. The estimated CAFE and CO2 standards for model year 2020 are 43.7 miles per gallon (mpg) and 204 grams of CO2 per mile for passenger cars and 31.3 mpg and 284 grams of CO2 per mile for light trucks, projecting an overall industry average of 37 mpg, as compared to 46.7 mpg under the standards issued in 2012. In September 2019, EPA finalized the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program and announced its decision to withdraw the Clean Air Act preemption waiver granted to the State of California in 2013 (USEPA & NHTSA, 2019).

State
California has promulgated a series of executive orders, laws, and regulations aimed at reducing both the level of GHGs in the atmosphere and emissions of GHGs within the State. The major components of California’s climate protection initiative are reviewed below.

CARB is the agency with regulatory authority over air quality issues in California. CARB adopts regulations designed to reduce criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and GHG emissions; and establishes vehicle emission standards. As discussed earlier, CARB is responsible for preparing, adopting, and updating California’s GHG inventory. Additional responsibilities of CARB with respect to specific State mandates are discussed below.

CEQA Guidelines
The CEQA Guidelines are embodied in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, beginning with Section 15000. The current CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 states that “a lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project.” Section 15064.4 further states:

A lead agency should consider the following factors, when determining the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:
(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;
(2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (see e.g., section 15183.5(b)).

The CEQA Guidelines also state that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program (including plans or regulations for the reduction of GHG

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-9 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
emissions) that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)).

The CEQA Guidelines do not require or recommend a specific analytical method or provide quantitative criteria for determining the significance of GHG emissions, nor do they set a numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions. Section 15064.7(c) clarifies that “when adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” When GHG emissions are found to be significant, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c) includes the following direction on measures to mitigate GHG emissions:

Consistent with Section 15126.4(a), lead agencies shall consider feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Measures to mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions may include, among others:
(1) Measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency’s decision. (2) Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures.
(3) Off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project’s emissions.
(4) Measures that sequester greenhouse gases.
(5) In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long range development plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on a project-by project basis. Mitigation may also include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in an adopted ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions.

State of California Executive Orders
Executive Order B-16-12
In March 2012, then-Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order establishing a goal of

1.5 million zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on California roads by 2025. In addition to the ZEV goal, Executive Order B-16-12 stipulated that by 2015 all major cities in California will have adequate infrastructure and be “zero-emission vehicle ready”; that by 2020 the state will have established adequate infrastructure to support 1 million ZEVs; that by 2050, virtually all personal transportation in the state will be based on ZEVs; and that GHG emissions from the transportation sector will be reduced by 80 percent below 1990 levels.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-10 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Executive Order B-30-15
Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-30-15 on April 29, 2015, which:
• Established a new interim statewide reduction target to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030;
• Ordered all state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 reduction targets; and
• Directed CARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) to express the 2030 target in terms of MMTCO
2e.

Executive Order B-48-18
On January 26, 2018, Governor Brown issued an executive order establishing a goal of 5 million ZEVs on California roads by 2030.

Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed Executive Order B-55-18, committing California to total, economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Executive Order B-55-18 directs CARB to work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework to implement and accounting to track progress toward this goal.

Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20, which sets new statewide goals for phasing out gasoline-powered cars and trucks in California. EO N-79-20 requires that 100 percent of in-state sales of new passenger cars and trucks are to be zero- emission by 2035; 100 percent of in-state sales of medium- and heavy-duty trucks and busses are to be zero-emission by 2045 where feasible; and 100 percent of off-road vehicles and equipment sales are to be zero-emission by 2035 where feasible.

State of California Policy and Legislation
Assembly Bill 117 and Senate Bill 790
In 2002, the State of California passed AB 117, enabling public agencies and joint power authorities to form a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA). SB 790 strengthened it by creating a “code of conduct” that the incumbent utilities must adhere to in their activities relative to CCAs.

CCAs allow a city, county, or group of cities and counties to pool electricity demand and purchase/generate power on behalf of customers within their jurisdictions in order to provide local choice. CCAs work with PG&E to deliver power to its service area. The CCA is responsible for the electric generation (procure or develop power) while PG&E is responsible for electric delivery, power line maintenance, and monthly billing.

Senate Bills 1078 and 107
SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) required retail sellers of electricity, including investor- owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-11 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010.

Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32
As discussed in the DTPP Final EIR, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) required that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction was to be accomplished by enforcing a statewide cap on GHG emissions that would be phased in starting in 2012.

In 2016, SB 32 and its companion bill AB 197 amended Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, establishing a new climate pollution reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and included provisions to ensure that the benefits of state climate policies reach disadvantaged communities.

Climate Change Scoping Plan
A specific requirement of AB 32 was to prepare a Climate Change Scoping Plan for achieving the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reduction by 2020. CARB developed and approved the initial scoping plan in 2008, outlining the regulations, market-based approaches, voluntary measures, policies, and other emission reduction programs that would be needed to meet the 2020 statewide GHG emission limit and initiate the transformations needed to achieve the state’s long-range climate objectives (CARB, 2008).

CARB approved the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2017 Scoping Plan Update) in December 2017. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update outlines the proposed framework of action for achieving the 2030 GHG target of 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions relative to 1990 levels (CARB, 2017). Through a combination of data synthesis and modeling, CARB determined that the target statewide 2030 emissions limit is 260 MMTCO
2e, and that further commitments will
need to be made to achieve an additional reduction of 50 MMTCO2e beyond current policies and programs. The cornerstone of the 2017 Scoping Plan Update is an expansion of the cap-and-trade program to meet the aggressive 2030 GHG emissions goal and ensure achievement of the 2030 limit set forth by Executive Order B-30-15.

In the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, CARB recommends statewide targets of no more than 6 MTCO 2e
per capita by 2030 and no more than 2 MTCO2e per capita by 2050. CARB acknowledges that because the statewide per-capita targets are based on the statewide GHG emissions inventory that includes all emissions sectors in the state, it is appropriate for local jurisdictions to derive evidence- based local per-capita goals based on local emissions sectors and growth projections.

To demonstrate how a local jurisdiction can achieve its long-term GHG goals at the community plan level, CARB recommends developing a geographically specific GHG reduction plan (i.e., climate action plan) consistent with the requirements of CEQA Section 15183.5(b). A so-called “CEQA-qualified” GHG reduction plan, once adopted, can provide local governments with a streamlining tool for project-level environmental review of GHG emissions, provided there are adequate performance metrics for determining project consistency with the plan. Absent conformity with such a plan, CARB recommends “that projects incorporate design features and

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-12 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
GHG reduction measures, to the degree feasible, to minimize GHG emissions. Achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate overall objective for new development.” While acknowledging that recent land use development projects in California have demonstrated the feasibility to achieve zero net additional GHG emissions (e.g., Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan), the 2017 Scoping Plan Update states that:

Achieving net zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, however, and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA. Lead agencies have the discretion to develop evidence-based numeric thresholds (mass emissions, per capita, or per service population) consistent with this Scoping Plan, the State’s long-term GHG goals, and climate change science…To the degree a project relies on GHG mitigation measures, CARB recommends that lead agencies prioritize on-site design features that reduce emissions, especially from VMT [vehicle miles traveled], and direct investments in GHG reductions within the project’s region that contribute potential air quality, health, and economic co-benefits locally.

Cap-and-Trade Program
Initially authorized by AB 32 and extended through the year 2030 with the passage of AB 398 (2017), the California Cap-and-Trade Program is a core strategy that the state is using to meet its GHG reduction targets for 2020 and 2030, and ultimately achieve an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. CARB designed and adopted the California Cap-and-Trade Program to reduce GHG emissions from “covered entities”1 (e.g., electricity generation, petroleum refining, cement production, and large industrial facilities that emit more than 25,000 MTCO2e per year), setting a firm cap on statewide GHG emissions and employing market mechanisms to achieve reductions.2 Under the Cap-and-Trade Program, an overall limit is established for GHG emissions from capped sectors. The statewide cap for GHG emissions from the capped sectors commenced in 2013. The cap declines over time. Facilities subject to the cap can trade offsets and allowances to emit GHGs.3 Senate Bill 375
Signed into law on October 1, 2008, SB 375 supplements GHG reductions from new vehicle technology and fuel standards with reductions from more efficient land use patterns and improved transportation. Under the law, CARB approved GHG reduction targets in February 2011 for California’s 18 federally designated regional planning bodies, known as Metropolitan Planning Organizations. The target reductions for the Bay Area are a regional reduction of per-capita GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks by 7 percent by 2020 and by 15 percent by 2035, compared to a 2005 baseline.

1 “Covered e ntity” means an entity in California that has one or more of the processes or operations and has a compliance obligation as specified in Sub article 7 of the Cap-and-Trade Regulation; and that has emitted, produced, imported, manufactured, or delivered in 2008 or any subsequent year more than the applicable threshold level specified in section 95812(a) of the Regulation.
2 17 CCR 95800–96023.
3 See generally 17 CCR 95811 and 95812.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-13 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) address these goals in Plan Bay Area 2040, which identifies Priority Development Areas (PDAs) near transit options to reduce the use of on-road vehicles. By focusing and incentivizing future growth in PDAs, Plan Bay Area 2040 demonstrates how the nine-county Bay Area can reduce per-capita CO2 emissions by 16 percent by 2035 (MTC & ABAG, 2017). In a March 2018 hearing, CARB approved revised targets: to reduce per-capita emissions 10 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 (CARB, 2018a). MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 in October 2021, but CARB has not made a determination yet on whether the plan achieves the required targets. As such, the currently applicable plan is still Plan Bay Area 2040.

California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)
Senate Bills 1078 and 107
SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) required retail sellers of electricity, including investor- owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. SB 107 (Chapter 464, Statutes of 2006) changed the target date to 2010.

Senate Bill X 1-2
SB X 1-2, signed by Governor Brown in April 2011, enacted the California Renewable Energy Resources Act. The law obligated all California electricity providers, including investor-owned and publicly owned utilities, to obtain at least 33 percent of their energy from renewable resources by the year 2020.

Senate Bill 350
SB 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (Chapter 547, Statutes of 2015), was approved by Governor Brown on October 7, 2015. SB 350 increased the standards of the California RPS program by requiring that the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources be increased from 33 percent to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. The act requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in existing electricity and natural gas final end uses of retail customers by January 1, 2030.

Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, establishing that 100 percent of all electricity in California must be obtained from renewable and zero-carbon energy resources by December 31, 2045. SB 100 also creates new standards for the RPS goals that were established by SB 350 in 2015. Specifically, the law increases the percentage of energy that both investor- owned utilities and publicly owned utilities must obtain from renewable sources from 50 percent to 60 percent by 2030. Incrementally, these energy providers must also have a renewable energy supply of 33 percent by 2020, 44 percent by 2024, and 52 percent by 2027. The updated RPS goals are considered achievable, because many California energy providers are already meeting or exceeding the RPS goals established by SB 350.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-14 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Advanced Clean Cars Program
In January 2012, pursuant to Recommended Measures T-1 and T-4 of the Scoping Plan, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars Program, a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHGs with requirements for greater numbers of ZEVs. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, the new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.

In response to a midterm review of the standards in March 2017, CARB directed staff to begin working on post-2025 model year vehicle regulations (Advanced Clean Cars II) to research additional measures to reduce air pollution from light-duty and medium-duty vehicles.

Additionally, as described earlier, in September 2020, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-79-20 that established a goal that 100 percent of California sales of new passenger car and trucks be zero-emission by 2035 and directed CARB to develop and propose regulations toward this goal. The primary mechanism for achieving these targets for passenger cars and light trucks is the Advanced Clean Cars II Program.

Mobile Source Strategy
In May 2016, CARB released the updated Mobile Source Strategy that demonstrates how the state can simultaneously meet air quality standards, achieve GHG emission reduction targets, decrease health risk from transportation emissions, and reduce petroleum consumption over the next 15 years. The strategy promotes a transition to zero-emission and low-emission vehicles, cleaner transit systems and reduction of VMT. The Mobile Source Strategy calls for 1.5 million ZEVs (including plug-in hybrid electric, battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) by 2025 and 4.2 million ZEVs by 2030. The strategy also calls for more-stringent GHG requirements for light-duty vehicles beyond 2025 as well as GHG reductions from medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and increased deployment of zero emission trucks primarily for class 3–7 “last mile” delivery trucks in California. Statewide, the Mobile Source Strategy would result in a 45 percent reduction in GHG emissions from mobile sources and a 50 percent reduction in the consumption of petroleum-based fuels (CARB, 2016).

Similar to the 2016 Mobile Source Strategy, the 2020 Strategy is a framework that identifies the levels of cleaner technologies necessary to meet the many goals and high-level regulatory concepts that would allow the State to achieve the levels of cleaner technology. The 2020 Strategy will inform the development of other planning efforts including the State Implementation Plan (SIP) which will translate the concepts included into concrete measures and commitments for specific levels of emissions reductions, the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2022 Scoping Plan Update), and Community Emissions Reduction Plans (CERPs) required for communities selected as a part of CARB’s Community Air Protection Program. Central to all of these planning efforts, and CARB actions on mobile sources going forward, will be environmental justice as CARB strives to address longstanding environmental and health inequities from elevated levels of toxics, criteria pollutants, and secondary impacts of climate change (CARB, 2021b). The 2020 Mobile Source Strategy illustrates that an aggressive deployment of ZEVs will be needed for the State to meet federal air quality requirements and the State’s climate change targets.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-15 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling
In 2004, CARB adopted the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter emissions (13 CCR Section 2485). The measure applies to diesel-fueled commercial vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than 10,000 pounds that are licensed to operate on highways, regardless of where they are registered. This measure prohibits diesel-fueled commercial vehicles from idling for more than 5 minutes at any given location. While the goal of this measure is primarily to reduce public health impacts from diesel emissions, compliance with the regulation also results in GHG reduction and energy savings in the form of reduced fuel consumption from unnecessary idling.

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines In 2004, CARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure to reduce public exposure to emissions of diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutants from stationary diesel-fueled compression ignition engines (17 CCR Section 93115). The measure applies to any person who owns or operates a stationary compression ignition engine in California with a rated brake horsepower greater than 50, or to anyone who either sells, offers for sale, leases, or purchases a stationary compression ignition engine. This measure outlines fuel and fuel additive requirements; emissions standards; recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring requirements; and compliance schedules for compression ignition engines.

Truck and Bus Regulation
In addition to limiting exhaust from idling trucks, in 2008 CARB approved the Truck and Bus Regulation to reduce the emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter from existing diesel vehicles operating in California (13 CCR Section 2025). The phased regulation aims to reduce emissions by requiring installation of diesel soot filters and encouraging the retirement, replacement, or retrofit of older engines with newer emission-controlled models. This regulation will be implemented in phases, with full implementation by 2023.

CARB also promulgated emissions standards for off-road diesel construction equipment of greater than 25 horsepower such as bulldozers, loaders, backhoes, and forklifts, as well as many other self- propelled off-road diesel vehicles. The In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation adopted by CARB on July 26, 2007, aims to reduce emissions by installing diesel soot filters and encouraging the retirement, replacement, or repowering of older, dirtier engines with newer emissions-controlled models (13 CCR Section 2449). The compliance schedule requires full implementation by 2023 in all equipment for large and medium fleets and by 2028 for small fleets.

Advanced Clean Trucks Program
On June 25, 2020, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel vehicles to electric ZEVs beginning in 2024, with the goal of reaching 100 percent ZEVs by 2045. The goal of the legislation is to help California meet its climate targets of a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions and a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by 2030, and an 80 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2050.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-16 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Truck manufacturers will be required to sell ZEVs as an increasing percentage of their annual sales from 2024 through 2035. Companies with large distribution fleets (50 or more trucks) will be required to report information about their existing fleet operations in an effort to identify future strategies for increasing zero-emission fleets statewide (CARB, 2021b).

ZEVs are two to five times more energy efficient than diesel vehicles, and the Advanced Clean Trucks rule will reduce GHG emissions with the co-benefit of reducing dependence on petroleum fuels.

Senate Bill 743
In 2013, Governor Brown signed SB 743, which added Public Resources Code Section 21099 to CEQA. SB 743 changed the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA, better aligning local environmental review with statewide objectives to reduce GHG emissions, encourage infill mixed-use development in designated priority development areas, reduce regional sprawl development, and reduce VMT in California.

As required under SB 743, OPR developed potential metrics to measure transportation impacts that may include, but are not limited to, VMT, VMT per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. The new VMT metric is intended to replace the use of automobile delay and level of service as the metric to analyze transportation impacts under CEQA.

In its 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, OPR recommends different thresholds of significance for projects depending on land use types (OPR, 2018).

Senate Bill 1383 (Short-Lived Climate Pollutants)
SB 1383, enacted in 2016, requires statewide reductions in short-lived climate pollutants across various industry sectors. The climate pollutants covered under SB 1383 include methane, fluorinated gases, and black carbon—all GHGs with a much higher warming impact than CO2 and with the potential to have detrimental effects on human health. SB 1383 requires CARB to adopt a strategy to reduce methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The methane emissions reduction goals include a 75 percent reduction in the level of statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2025.

Assembly Bill 341
AB 341, which became law in 2011, established a new statewide goal of 75 percent recycling through source reduction, recycling, and composting by 2020. The new law changed the way that the state measures progress toward the 75 percent recycling goal, focusing on source reduction, recycling, and composting. AB 341 also requires all businesses and public entities that generate 4 cubic yards or more of waste per week and multifamily residential dwellings with five units or more to have a recycling program in place (California Legislative Information, 2011). The purpose of the law is to reduce GHG emissions by diverting commercial solid waste to recycling efforts and expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-17 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Assembly Bill 1826
AB 1826, known as the Commercial Organic Waste Recycling Law, became effective on January 1, 2016, and requires businesses and multi-family complexes (with five units or more) that generate specified amounts of organic waste (compost) to arrange for organics collection services. The law phases in the requirements on businesses with full implementation realized in 2019:
• First Tier: Commenced in April 2016, the first tier of affected businesses included those that generate 8 or more cubic yards of organic materials per week. • Second Tier: In January 2017, the affected businesses expanded to include those that generate 4 or more cubic yards of organic materials per week. • Third Tier: In January 2019, the affected businesses expanded further to include those that generate 4 or more cubic yards of commercial solid waste per week.

State of California Building Codes
California Building and Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24) The CEC first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (CCR Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although the standards were not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, increased energy efficiency and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and non-residential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically (typically every three years) to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The current Title 24, Part 6 standards (2019 standards; CEC, 2018) were made effective on January 1, 2020.

On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code and was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code (CEC, 2021). The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. Buildings whose permit applications are applied for or after January 1, 2023, must comply with the 2022 Energy Code. The 2022 Update includes measures that will reduce energy use in single family, multifamily, and nonresidential buildings. These measures will affect newly constructed buildings and:
• Add new prescriptive and performance standards for electric heat pumps for space conditioning and water heating, as appropriate for the various climate zones in California; • Require photovoltaic and battery storage systems for newly constructed multifamily and selected nonresidential buildings;
• Establish efficiency measures for lighting, building envelope, HVAC, and ventilation for indoor air quality; and
• Make improvements to reduce the energy loads of certain equipment covered by (i.e., subject to the requirements of) the Energy Code that perform a commercial process that is not related to the occupant needs in the building (such as refrigeration equipment in refrigerated warehouses, or air conditioning for computer equipment in data processing centers).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-18 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
California Green Building Standards Code
Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The CALGreen Code is intended to encourage more sustainable and environmentally friendly building practices, require low-pollution-emitting substances that cause less harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote the use of energy-efficient materials and equipment. CALGreen covers a number of fields, with regulations encompassing energy efficiency, water conservation, sustainable building materials, site design, and air quality.

Since 2011, the CALGreen Code has been mandatory for all new residential and non-residential buildings constructed in the state. Such mandatory measures include energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, planning and design, and overall environmental quality. The CALGreen Code is reviewed and updated on a three-year cycle.

The CALGreen Code was most recently updated in 2019 to include new mandatory measures for residential and non-residential uses; the new measures took effect on January 1, 2020 (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC], 2019). The 2019 standards prescribe EV charging requirements for residential and non-residential buildings.

The 2022 CALGreen update simplifies the code and its application in several ways. It offers new voluntary prerequisites for builders to choose from, such as battery storage system controls and heat pump space, and water heating, to encourage building electrification. While the 2019 CALGreen Code only requires provision of EV Capable spaces with no requirement for chargers to be installed at multifamily dwellings, the 2022 CALGreen code mandates chargers (California Housing and Community Development, n.d).

Regional
The BAAQMD is the regional government agency that regulates stationary sources of air pollution in the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. BAAQMD regulates GHG emissions through the following plans, programs, and guidelines.

BAAQMD Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD and other air districts prepare clean air plans in accordance with the federal and state Clean Air Acts. On April 19, 2017, the BAAQMD Board of Directors adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate, an update to the 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD, 2017a). The 2017 Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan that focuses on the closely related goals of protecting public health and protecting the climate. Consistent with the State’s GHG reduction targets, the 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.

BAAQMD Climate Protection Program
BAAQMD established a climate protection program (Program) to reduce pollutants that contribute to global climate change and affect air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Program is focused on meeting the 2050 target, as the 2017 Clean Air Plan discussed

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-19 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
above is focused on the interim 2030 target. The Program includes measures that promote energy efficiency, reduce VMT, and develop alternative sources of energy, all of which assist in reducing GHG emissions and reducing air pollutants that affect the health of residents. BAAQMD also seeks to support other climate protection programs in the region and to stimulate additional efforts through public education and outreach, technical assistance to local governments and other interested parties, and promotion of collaborative efforts among stakeholders.

BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. The guidelines also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and GHG emissions. In June 2010, BAAQMD’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of significance and an update of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, which included significance thresholds for GHG emissions based on the emission reduction goals for 2020 articulated by the California Legislature in AB 32. The first threshold, 1,100 MTCO
2e per year, is a numeric emissions level below which a project’s contribution to global climate change would be less than cumulatively considerable. For larger and mixed-use projects, the guidelines state that emissions would be less than cumulatively significant if the project as a whole would result in an efficiency of 4.6 MTCO 2e per service
population or better. Because these thresholds are based on a 2020 GHG target they are no longer relevant for current and future projects. Under the current BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines, a local government may prepare a qualified GHG reduction strategy that is consistent with AB 32 goals. If a project is consistent with an adopted qualified GHG reduction strategy and general plan that addresses the project's GHG emissions, it can be presumed that the project will not have significant GHG emissions under CEQA (BAAQMD, 2017b).

In February, 2022, in response to SB 32 and 2017 Scoping Plan Update targets for 2030 and EO B-15 target for carbon neutrality no later than 2045, the BAAQMD adopted updated CEQA significance thresholds for GHGs in its Justification Report (BAAQMD, 2022).

Plan Bay Area
The MTC is the federally recognized Metropolitan Planning Organization for the nine-county Bay Area, which includes Santa Clara County and the city of Mountain View. On July 18, 2013, Plan Bay Area was jointly approved by ABAG’s Executive Board and the MTC. The plan includes the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, as required under SB 375, and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan. The Sustainable Communities Strategy lays out how the region will meet GHG reduction targets set by CARB. CARB’s current targets call for the region to reduce per-capita vehicular GHG emissions 10 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 from a 2005 baseline (CARB, 2018b).

A central GHG reduction strategy of Plan Bay Area is the concentration of future growth in PDAs and Transit Priority Areas (TPAs). To be eligible for PDA designation, an area must be within an existing community, near existing or planned fixed transit or served by comparable bus service and planned for more housing. A TPA is an area within 0.5 miles of an existing or planned major transit stop such as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by transit, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes (MTC, 2013).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-20 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
On July 26, 2017, MTC adopted Plan Bay Area 2040, a focused update that builds upon the growth pattern and strategies developed in the original Plan Bay Area but with updated planning assumptions that incorporate key economic, demographic, and financial trends since the original plan was adopted (MTC & ABAG, 2017).

On October 21, 2021, the MTC and the Executive Board of the ABAG jointly adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 and its related supplemental reports. Plan Bay Area 2050 connects the elements of housing, the economy, transportation and the environment through 35 strategies that will make the Bay Area more equitable for all residents and more resilient in the face of unexpected challenges. In the short-term, the plan’s Implementation Plan identifies more than 80 specific actions for MTC, ABAG and partner organizations to take over the next five years to make headway on each of the 35 strategies (MTC & ABAG, 2021). Many of the HEU sites are located within a PDA and/or a TPA. It will be several years before the regional transportation model and county transportation models are updated to reflect Plan Bay Area 2050 (the models currently incorporate data from Plan Bay Area 2040).

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan is the guiding document for the City's physical development and preservation. It includes goals, policies and graphics that convey a long-term vision and guide local decision-making to achieve that vision. The Infrastructure and Conservation Element of the General Plan includes the following policies related to Climate Change (City of Mountain View, 2021a).

Goal INC-12: Environmental stewardship that recognizes the importance of addressing climate change and community commitment to sustainability.

Policy INC-12.1: Emissions reduction target. Maintain a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.

Policy INC-12.2: Emissions reduction strategies. Develop cost-effective strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Policy INC-12.3: Adaptation strategies. Develop strategies for adapting to climate change in partnership with local and regional agencies.

In addition, the following goals and policies that address water conservation, recycled water, solid waste and recycling, energy production and consumption, and green building would also help reduce GHGs.

Water Conservation Water conservation policies focus on City-led programs and outreach and reducing per capita water use.

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

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-21 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Policy INC-5.1:Community awareness. Raise community awareness about water use efficiency and water conservation.

Policy INC-5.2: Citywide water conservation. Reduce water waste and implement water conservation and efficiency measures throughout the city.

Policy INC-5.3: Water reuse. Remove barriers and provide guidance for the use of rainwater and graywater as alternative water supplies.

Policy INC-5.4: Smart water meters. Encourage water meter technologies that provide water usage feedback to customers.

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

Policy INC-5.6: Indoor efficiency. Promote the use of water-efficient fixtures and appliances.

Policy INC-5.7: Leadership in City facilities. Provide leadership by promoting water use efficiency, water conservation and the use of recycled water at City-owned facilities.

Recycled water policies guide the expansion and continued use of recycled water throughout Mountain View, contributing to the City’s water conservation and environmental sustainability efforts.

Goal INC-7: A reliable, safe and extensive recycled water infrastructure system.

Policy INC-7.1: Citywide recycled water use. Promote, require or offer incentives for using recycled water as an alternative to potable water.

Policy INC-7.2: Recycled water system. Expand the use and availability of recycled water throughout the city.

Policy INC-7.3: Recycled water in parks. Promote the use of recycled water at City parks and open spaces or where available.

Policy INC-7.4: Recycled water and trees. Promote appropriate tree and landscape species irrigated by recycled water.

Policy INC-7.5: Rights-of-way and infrastructure. Design public rights-of-way to accommodate recycled water infrastructure.

Solid waste and recycling policies encourage efficient use of natural resources and continue the City’s leadership in environmental sustainability, with a focus on supply-chain management and advocacy as well as high-quality services and programs.

Goal INC-10: Reduced waste through supply-chain management, advocacy and outreach to reduce waste.

Policy INC-10.1: Zero waste. Pursue a citywide goal of zero waste.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-22 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Policy INC-10.2: Producer responsibility. Support extended producer responsibility to reduce waste and toxicity at the manufacturing level.

Policy INC-10.3: Source reduction. Encourage and promote source reduction behavior such as utilizing reusable, returnable and repairable goods.

Policy INC-10.4: Construction waste reuse. Encourage building deconstruction and reuse and construction waste recycling.

Policy INC-10.5: Reuse. Encourage product reuse through venues such as garage sales, lending libraries and Internet-based sharing and reuse forums.

Policy INC-10.6: Recovered materials. Encourage uses for recovered materials that save energy, avoid releasing toxic substances and extend the useful life of recovered materials.

Policy INC-10.7: Recycled material demand. Promote increased demand for recycled materials.

Policy INC-10.9: Preferential purchasing. Give preference in City purchasing to products that minimize packaging, can be reused and are non-toxic.

Policy INC-10.10: Single-use products. Discourage the use of single-use products.

Goal INC-11: Services and programs that continue to reduce waste and promote environmental responsibility.

Policy INC-11.1: Waste diversion and reduction. Meet or exceed all federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning solid waste diversion and implementation of recycling and source reduction programs.

Policy INC-11.2: Recycling. Maintain and expand recycling programs.

Policy INC-11.3: Composting. Provide productive reuse or composting services or both for all discarded organic materials in the city, including all food and green waste.

Policy INC-11.4: Solid waste. Ensure all municipal solid waste generated within the city is collected, transported and disposed of in a manner that protects public health and safety.

Policy INC-11.5: Hazardous waste. Provide convenient household hazardous waste and e-waste disposal services.

Policy INC-11.6: Regional collaboration. Consider opportunities to provide more cost effective solid waste management by collaborating with surrounding cities and agencies.

Energy policies reduce the negative environmental impacts of energy use, focusing on sustainable consumption through efficiency, conservation and sustainable production through increased use of renewable energy.

Goal INC-13: Increased energy efficiency and conservation throughout the city.

Policy INC-13.1: Energy efficiency and conservation. Increase energy efficiency and conservation in public buildings and infrastructure.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-23 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Policy INC-13.2: Alternatives to gasoline. Promote and increase the use of new technologies as alternatives and supplements to gasoline in vehicles throughout the community.

Policy INC-13.3: Coordinating efforts. Support regional and local efforts and programs to reduce energy use.

Policy INC-13.4: Education. Educate the public about energy conservation and efficiency best practices.

Policy INC-13.5: Smart utility meters. Encourage utility meter technologies that provide feedback about energy usage to customers.

Goal INC-14: Sufficient renewable sources of energy to meet current and future demand.

Policy INC-14.1: Renewable energy. Promote the deployment of renewable energy technologies throughout the city.

Policy INC-14.2: Solar energy. Encourage active and passive solar energy use.

Policy INC-14.3: Regional renewable energy. Participate in regional initiatives to encourage and develop renewable energy sources.

Policy INC-14.4: Renewable energy advocacy. Support legislation to facilitate and increase renewable energy choices for community residents such as green utility power options or distributed generation.

Green Building Green building policies encourage green building approaches to reduce negative environmental impacts and improve human health.

Goal INC-15: A built environment that supports ecological and human health.

Policy INC-15.1: Green building program. Administer a forward-looking green building program that promotes best practices for green building in new and existing buildings.

Policy INC-15.2: Green building education. Raise community awareness regarding green building methods, incentives and benefits.

Policy INC-15.3: Citywide green building. Support green building technologies and innovations throughout the city.

Climate Action Planning in Mountain View
In November 2009, the City Council adopted the following voluntary, absolute community-wide GHG emission reduction targets:
• 5 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2012
• 10 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2015
• 15–20 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2020
• 80 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2050.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-24 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
These absolute targets called for a reduction in total community-wide greenhouse gas emission levels, and do not allow for increased emissions due to population growth.

Mountain View Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
In 2012, the City adopted a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP; City of Mountain View, 2012) to implement the 2030 General Plan policies relating to climate change and mitigate GHG emissions associated with development allowed in the 2030 Mountain View General Plan. At the time, BAAQMD guidelines required qualified GHG reduction plans to contain a target for 2020 and provide substantial evidence that the plan’s reduction actions would achieve the selected target. The BAAQMD guidelines allowed cities to use either an absolute or an efficiency-based target. During development of the GGRP, it became evident that it would be difficult to achieve the adopted community-wide 2020 emission reduction target and the City chose to use a BAAQMD-approved emissions efficiency target (i.e., a per-capita target) within the GGRP that would result in a community emissions efficiency of below 6.0 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per service population.
4 While the GGRP defines actions that will improve community GHG efficiency in 2020 and 2030, it does not contain actions strong enough to achieve the City’s adopted absolute targets.

Climate Protection Roadmap (CPR)
To address the inconsistency of the efficiency targets used within the GGRP with its previously adopted absolute targets, the City initiated the Climate Protection Roadmap (CPR; City of Mountain View, 2015) project to evaluate the feasibility of achieving the adopted targets.

Community-wide GHG emissions in Mountain View are anticipated to increase to 68 percent above 2005 levels by 2050. The CPR evaluates mechanisms through which the community could achieve the emission reduction target to reduce community emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 and identifies various roles the City might play in facilitating such reductions. The CPR evaluates a variety of technological, behavioral, and/or other system transitions that could reduce emissions within the community, identifies the most important transitions and actions (referred to as implementation mechanisms) within the City’s authority that could contribute to these transitions. The CPR is not a plan in and of itself, but an analysis that may be used by City officials to evaluate the potential for long-term communitywide emission reduction initiatives moving forward. Due to the high-level nature of the analysis, the CPR does not explicitly direct implementation of any specific city actions. However, it outlines viable options for future city programs, policies, and actions that could be pursued following additional feasibility analysis.

Moving toward achieving the community emission reduction targets, the CPR identifies interim community emission reduction targets for every five-year period between 2020 and 2050 to help keep the City on track to achieve its long-term 2050 reduction target. The CPR recommends the following interim targets:
• 26 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2025
• 37 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2030
• 48 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2035

4 Service population is defined as residents and employees.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-25 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
• 58 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2040
• 69 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2045.

Accelerated Community Emission Reduction Targets
On December 3, 2019, the City Council approved a proposal to change the existing community emission reduction targets, which declined along a relatively linear path, to decline based on a constant annual percentage. This change was consistent with the recommendations in the Special Report released by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in late 2018, which emphasized the necessity of significant, near-term reductions by 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate change impacts. Following are the current community emission reduction targets:
• 33 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2025
• 47 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2030
• 59 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2035
• 68 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2040
• 75 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2045.

Environmental Sustainability Action Plans (ESAPs)
To focus its sustainability efforts, the City has developed four, 3-year tactical Environmental Sustainability Action Plans (ESAPs) that specify policies, programs, and projects to implement across all sustainability areas within the community and municipal operations. Each ESAP is developed through an extensive stakeholder engagement process with the City Council, city staff, and the public. The City adopted its current Sustainability Action Plan 4 (2019-2022; City of Mountain View, 2019a) in October 2019, which identifies 27 goals across seven sectors (transportation, buildings and energy, land use, zero waste, water, park and eco systems, core sustainability programs and governance) and 81 new actions in addition to 79 actions that were already underway at the time of the plan’s adoption.
2019 Mountain View Green Building and Reach Codes
On November 12, 2019, the City Council adopted the Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC; City of Mountain View, 2019b) amendments, which include the Reach Code efforts. The MVGBC amends the State-mandated California Green Building Code (CalGreen) to include local green building standards and requirements for private development. The MVGBC applies green building requirements per building type and threshold to new construction, residential additions and commercial/industrial tenant improvements and includes energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

All new structures in the City of Mountain View must comply with the mandatory measures of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code as adopted by the state in addition to local amendments included in this code. This includes all residential new construction projects regardless of height or number of stories.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-26 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Section 8.20.9 of the MVGBC amends Subsection 101.10.1.1.3 of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code as follows:

All multifamily residential new construction with three units or more must comply with the following:
a. The mandatory measures of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code and any Mountain View amendments;
b. Demonstrate energy compliance to meet or exceed Title 24, Part 6; c. 15 percent of the parking spaces shall be equipped with EV2 chargers installed and one Level 3/DC Fast Charger shall be provided for every 100 spaces’ d. Installation of photovoltaic (PV) panels on 50 percent of roof area (a project may submit for an exception by providing documentation that the required percentage of PV installation will over-generate the kWh required to operate the proposed structure on an annual basis); e. Space-conditioning equipment shall be electric, not be fueled by natural gas; f. Water-heating systems and equipment shall be electric or solar, not be fueled by natural gas; g. Clothes dryers shall be electric, not be fueled by natural gas; and h. Cooking appliances and fireplaces shall be electric, not fueled by natural gas.

City of Mountain View Policies
Carbon Neutrality Resolution
In April 2020, the City Council passed a resolution for Mountain View to become a carbon neutral city by 2045. This means that in addition to achieving the adopted 2045 GHG reduction target of 75 percent below 2005 levels, Mountain View has committed to balancing any remaining GHG emissions with carbon sequestration projects (such as planting trees or restoring wetlands) and/or carbon offsets. In June 2022, the Council Sustainability Committee signaled support for investigating accelerating the carbon neutral target year from 2045 to 2035.

Electric Vehicle Action Plan
Finalized in December 2021, the Electric Vehicle Action Plan (EVAP; City of Mountain View, 2021b) is a high-level plan identifying strategies, policies, and programs to support electric vehicle adoption and deployment of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. Through a combination of policies, programs, and infrastructure, the EVAP aims to create a decarbonized system that supports equitable access to the benefits of clean transportation. The actions recommended within the EVAP will be integrated into future planning, programming, and outreach.

Green Building
In June 2020, the City Council approved a new green building policy for City facilities. This policy requires a minimum of LEED© Gold certification for new facilities, as well as a consideration of the incremental cost and benefits for achieving LEED© Platinum certification during the design phase. For existing facilities, the policy requires City staff to analyze opportunities for electrification when major building systems are upgraded or equipment is replaced. Additionally, it requires new City facilities to incorporate on-site renewable energy systems to the extent feasible, with consideration of energy storage opportunities.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-27 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
As discussed above, the MVGBC amends the State-mandated California Green Building Code (CALGreen) to include local green building standards and requirements for private development. The MVGBC is regularly updated to meet adopted CALGreen requirements as part of the tri-annual California Building Code updates.

Green Purchasing
In 2008, the City adopted the Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy (EPPP) that encourages City departments to purchase the most environmentally responsible products and services that meet performance needs, are competitively priced, and are readily available.

Zero Waste Plan 2019
In June 2018, the City Council adopted a Zero Waste Policy establishing a goal to divert 90 percent of waste from the landfill by 2030. In October 2019, the City Council approved a Zero Waste Plan in support of the Policy. This Zero Waste Plan 2019 (City of Mountain View, 2019c) describes actions the City can undertake to meet the goals adopted by the City to increase diversion of materials from landfill from the 2019 diversion rate of 78 percent to 80 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2030.

City of Mountain View Standard Conditions of Approval
As part of discretionary review, the City has standard conditions for different types of approvals (updated as of October 25, 2021). The City has standard conditions relating to GHG emissions, as summarized below.

Green Building – Residential New Construction
The project is required to meet the mandatory measures of the California Green Building Standards Code and meet the intent of the applicable GreenPoint Rated points. All mandatory prerequisite points and minimum point totals per category to attain GreenPoint Rated status must be achieved, unless specific point substitutions or exceptions are approved by the Community Development Department. Formal project registration and certification through Build It Green is not required for compliance with the Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC). The project is also required to comply with Title 24, Part 6.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
The property owner, property manager(s), and homeowners association (HOA) or their representative(s) (collectively, “the owners”) are required to maintain a TDM program which provides commute and transportation alternatives to employees/residents of the project for the life of the project. The TDM program measures shall be formally accepted by the property owners prior to building permit issuance through a legal agreement or recorded document, as determined by the City Attorney, with contents to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. The mandatory TDM measures for the project include:
a. Join and maintain ongoing membership in the MVTMA for the life of the project. b. Provide and maintain maximum vehicle parking and minimum bike parking as approved in the project. Also must provide and/or maintain access to shared bicycles for residents/employees, if a bike-share service is not nearby. c. Provide conveniently located ride-share drop-off and waiting areas on-site.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-28 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
d. Provide and maintain shared, common, collaborative workspaces with WiFi for residents and their guests. This amenity can be offered in partnership with nearby residents and businesses. e. Provide monetary incentives for alternative mode of travel, such as subsidized transit passes or bike-share for residents and/or unbundled parking.
f. Provide and maintain accessible and secure storage spaces for package delivery on-site. g. Provide local transportation information to all residents through a website, leasing office, and/or initial sale information.
h. Support Safe Routes to Schools programs, including facilitating parent gatherings and coordination of walking, school buses, and/or bike trains. j. Other TDM measures as directed by the Planning Department.

4.7.4 Significance Criteria
The thresholds used to determine the significance of impacts related to GHGs are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project could have a significant impact on the environment if it would:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Approach to Analysis
GHG emissions and global climate change represent cumulative impacts from human activities and development projects locally, regionally, statewide, nationally, and worldwide. GHG emissions from all of these sources cumulatively contribute to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change. No single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature; instead, the combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects around the world have contributed and will continue to contribute to global climate change and its associated environmental impacts. There are currently no established thresholds for assessing whether the GHG emissions of a project, would be considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change; however, all reasonable efforts should be made to minimize a project’s contribution to global climate change. In addition, while GHG impacts are recognized exclusively as cumulative impacts (CAPCOA, 2008), GHG emissions impacts must also be evaluated on a project-level under CEQA. The method for evaluating GHG impacts in this EIR uses a qualitative consistency determination of the proposed HEU with the BAAQMD’s recommended project-level GHG thresholds as discussed below. This evaluation is considered in a cumulative context, and because the analysis of GHG emissions is only relevant in a cumulative context, a project-specific impact assessment is not required.

The CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific methods for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures.

Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methods and thresholds of significance consistent with various factors prescribed by

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-29 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
CEQA Guideline 15064.4. The State of California has not adopted emission-based thresholds for GHG emissions under CEQA. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory, titled Discussion Draft CEQA and Climate Change Advisory (OPR, 2018), states that:
[N]either the CEQA statute nor the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or particular methodologies for perming an impact analysis. This is left to lead agency judgment and discretion, based upon factual data and guidance from regulatory agencies and other sources where available and applicable. Even in the absence of clearly defined thresholds for GHG emissions, such emissions must be disclosed and mitigated to the extent feasible whenever the lead agency determines that the project contributes to a significant, cumulative climate change impact.

Furthermore, the advisory document indicates that “in the absence of regulatory standards for GHG emissions or other scientific data to clearly define what constitutes a ‘significant impact,’ individual lead agencies may undertake a project-by-project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice.” Section 15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that “when adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” GHG Emissions
The City, as the lead agency, has discretion to choose thresholds of significance, including thresholds adopted or recommended by other agencies or recommended by experts, such as those recommended by the BAAQMD, provided the lead agency’s decision to use such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence (OPR, 2018). As discussed earlier, in April 2022, the BAAQMD adopted the following new significance thresholds that address the State’s SB 32 GHG reduction goals and carbon neutrality goal for 2045, as stipulated in Executive Order B- 55-18. BAAQMD also published a Justification Report that provides the substantial evidence that lead agencies will need to support their use of these thresholds (BAAQMD, 2022).

The recommended plan-level GHG thresholds proposed by the BAAQMD are as follows:

A. Meet State’s goals to achieve emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and carbon neutrality by 2045; OR
B. Be consistent with a local GHG Reduction Strategy that meets the criteria under CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b).

The recommended project-level GHG thresholds proposed by the BAAQMD are as follows:

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

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and non-residential development)
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-30 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

2. Transportation
a. Achieve compliance with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2
b. Achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent)
OR
Meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
OR
B. Be consistent with a local GHG Reduction Strategy that meets the criteria under the CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b).

The BAAQMD has developed these thresholds of significance based on typical residential and commercial land use projects and typical long-term communitywide planning documents such as general plans and similar long-range development plans and would be applicable to future projects proposed under the HEU.

The BAAQMD’s plan-level recommended thresholds consider planning documents to have a less-than-significant climate impact if they demonstrate that GHG emissions from the jurisdiction will decline in accordance with California’s GHG reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045 with the full i mplementation of the plan. However, this threshold merely reiterates the GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals adopted by the State and does not provide a mechanism or metrics for plans to evaluate consistency with these goals. The City of Mountain View does not have a qualified GHG reduction plan that meets the criteria under CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5(b) and addresses SB 32 GHG reduction goals. For these reasons, to ensure consistency with State goals, project - level thresholds have been used in this analysis. Specifically, option (A) of the proposed project- level thresholds is used as the significance threshold in this EIR. Applying the BAAQMD’s recommended project-level thresholds to the HEU in this analysis evaluates the capacity for all future projects proposed for development under the HEU to contribute their fair share GHG emission reductions to achieving the State’s goals to achieve emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045, as stipulated in BAAQMD’s recommended plan- level threshold (A). This is the same logic that the BAAQMD is employing to determine the significance of project-level GHG emissions. In other words, if all future projects proposed for development under the HEU consume no natural gas (1)(a), avoid wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage (1)(b), comply with EV requirements in CALGreen Tier 2 (2)(a), and achieve the SB 743 target of 15 perce nt reduction in VMT per capita below the regional

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-31 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
average (2)(b), then collectively all projects would a have less- than-significant impact on climate change and would be consistent with the statewide targets for 2030 and 2045. The BAAQMD has provided the r equired substantial evidence for this argument in their justification report (BAAQMD, 2022). To summarize,
If a project is designed and built to incorporate these design elements, then it will contribute its portion of what is necessary to achieve California’s long-term climate goals—its “fair share”—and an agency reviewing the project under CEQA can conclude that the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. If the project does not incorporate these design elements, then it should be found to make a significant climate impact because it will hinder California’s efforts to address climate change.

Thus, the HEU itself would a have less-than-significant impact on climate change.

In summary, for purposes of this analysis, a significant GHG impact would be identified if development allowed by the HEU does not incorporate the following performance standards proposed by the BAAQMD:
• No natural gas to all projects proposed for development within the planning area; • Avoid wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines;
• Compliance with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2; and
• Consistency with the SB 743 target of at least 15 percent reduction in VMT per capita below regional average. This amounts to 11.46 miles per resident, which is 85 percent of the 2020 Bay Area regional average of 13.49 miles per resident.

Consistency with Plans, Policies, and Regulations for GHG Reduction Further, the analysis also evaluates consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(2) by considering whether the HEU would conflict with plan, policies and regulations adopted at the state, regional and local levels, adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including but not limited to, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, SB 37 and E-3-05, Plan Bay Area 2040, the City of Mountain View General Plan, City of Mountain View ESAP 4, and the CALGreen Code and City’s Green Building Codes.

4.7.5 Impacts of the Project
Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the HEU would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
GHG emissions from development proposed as part of the HEU would result in both direct and indirect emissions from construction and operational activities. Direct GHG emissions would be generated du ring construction would include emissions from the combustion of fuel (e.g.,

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-32 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
gasoline and diesel) in construction equipment and vehicles. Upon completion of construction, development projects would generate direct GHG emissions from area sources (such as landscaping equipment) and on -road motor vehicle trips. No direct GHG emissions would be generated from energy use in buildings for space and water heating because the City’s Reach Code requires all new construction to be all -electric buildings with no natural gas infrastructure. Indirect operational GHG emissions would be generated from the increase in electricity use associated with building energy use along with water and wastewater treatment and conveyance.

For the evaluation of GHG impacts, the BAAQMD’s recommended GHG thresholds address the two main direct sources of GHG emissions in land use development projects: building energy use and motor vehicle trips.

Compliance with No Natural Gas Requirement
As detailed in the Regulatory Setting, the City of Mountain View has adopted Reach Codes that amend articles I through XIV, Chapter 8 of the Mountain View City Code, relating to the adoption of the 2019 California Building Codes. Reach Codes are amendments to the Energy and Green Building Standards Codes to reduce GHG emissions and include requirements beyond those required by the current Energy Code. Section 8.20.9, which amends Subsection 101.10.1.1.3 includes a requirement for all multi-family new construction to all-electric buildings with no natural gas infrastructure for space conditioning, water heating, cooking or other appliances. This goes beyond the requirements in the 2022 Update to the Title 24 standards that will go into effect on January 1, 2023 and establish electric-ready requirements in new homes, but do not explicitly prohibit natural gas. The City’s Reach Codes do not allow any exceptions to new residential structures. Therefore, development under the HEU would be required to meet the no natural gas requirement imposed by the City’s Reach Codes and the Project would comply with BAAQMD GHG threshold A(1)(a).

Avoid wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage As discussed under Impact ENE-1 in Section 4.5, Energy, development proposed as part of the HEU would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of electricity. Compliance with the all-electric requirement in the City’s Reach Codes and Tier 2 EV requirements in CALGreen discussed below would result in an increase in electricity use; however, as these requirements are in place to ensure that development proposed as part of the HEU and the region’s compliance with the State’s GHG reduction goals, the increase would not be considered wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary. In addition, the Reach Codes also include requirements for onsite photovoltaic systems, which would offset part of this increase. Compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency standards and the inherent location of the HEU sites in close proximity to transit facilities would also ensure that electricity usage associated with development under the HEU would not be wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary.

Future development proposed as part of the HEU would be served by SVCE, a CCA that provides electricity with at least 50 percent and up to 100 percent from renewable resources. Although using a CCA does not affect the amount of electricity used, the purpose of this requirement is to

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-33 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
reduce electricity-related GHG emissions, which a CCA would lessen or avoid independent of the amount of electricity consumed.

Compliance with Tier 2 EV Requirements in CALGreen
The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (“CALGreen”, Title 24, Part 11) requires that new construction and major alterations include “EV Capable” parking spaces which have electrical panel capacity, a dedicated branch circuit, and a raceway to the EV parking spot to support future installation of charging stations. All new construction and qualifying additions or alterations must comply with mandatory 2019 CALGreen requirements. Mandatory 2019 CALGreen requirements applicable to residential uses are as follows:
• All new residential (single-family, townhomes & duplexes) construction must be EV capable.

Each dwelling unit must have a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/40-volt branch circuit.
• Multifamily dwellings must provide at least 10 percent of the total parking spaces to be EV Capable.
• Accessory dwelling units without additional parking do not need to comply with EV charging requirements for new construction (e.g., guest houses). • If guest parking is available, at least one “EV Capable” space must be for guest parking.

In addition to the mandatory requirements, the 2019 CALGreen Code encourages local jurisdictions to raise the sustainable goals by publishing two “voluntary” tiers of additional requirements, referred to as Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 adds additional requirements beyond the mandatory measures. Tier 2 further increases the requirements. The CALGreen tiers are only mandatory where local ordinances have specifically adopted them. Tier 2 EV requirements for residential uses include the provision of at least 20 percent of the total parking spaces as “EV Capable.”
5 In October 2021, the CEC approved the 2022 CALGreen Building Standards Code which added to the 2019 CALGreen mandatory requirements. The 2022 CALGreen Code does not change the EV Capable percentages required for voluntary Tier 2 from the 2019 standards, bu t adds the requirement for chargers to be installed. For example, for multifamily buildings with 20 or more units, the 2022 CALGreen Code Tier 2 requires 15 percent of total parking spaces to have Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) (California Housi ng and Community Development, n.d).

As part of the Reach Codes, the City has adopted requirements beyond mandatory 2019 CALGreen requirements. Multifamily residential buildings with more than three dwelling units are required to have at least 15 percent of the parking spaces to be installed with Level 2 EV chargers and a Level 3/DV Fast charger for every 100 spaces. The remaining parking spaces are required to be EV Ready. These requirements in the City’s Reach Codes exceed the requirements set forth in the 2019 CALGreen Tier 2 standards which require the provision of at least 20

5 “EV Capable” refers to a parking space that is linked to a listed electrical panel with sufficient capacity to provide at least 110/120 volts and 20 amperes to the parking space.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-34 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
percent of the total parking spaces as “EV Capable.” The City’s EV charging infrastructure requirements in its Reach Codes also meet the 2022 CALGreen Tier 2 requirements which requires15 percent of total parking spaces in multifamily residential developments to have EVCS.

However, it cannot be ascertained that the City’s Reach Codes would ensure consistency with Tier 2 requirements in future CALGreen updates beyond 2022. According to the BAAQMD’s recommended GHG thresholds, subsequent projects in the HEU area would be required to show compliance with EV requirements in the version of CALGreen Tier 2 adopted at the time of project review. As discussed earlier, the CALGreen standards will continue to be updated on a triennial basis with evolving requirements for EV charging. Therefore, current compliance with requirements in the City’s Reach Codes would not ensure compliance with Tier 2 CALGreen requirements in future updates.

Consistency with SB 743 VMT Reduction Target of 15 percent below the regional average
As detailed earlier, with the adoption of SB 743, the State of California changed the method of traffic analysis required through CEQA for publicly - and privately-initiated projects. SB 743 requires project reviews under CEQA to evaluate the transportation impacts of new developments in terms of VMT, rather than on -road congestion and automobile delay. As described in Chapter 4.14, Transportation, and illustrated in Figure 4.14-4, most of the City and sites identified in the HEU housing sites inventory are located in low VMT areas, where the VMT per resident is 15 percent below the regional VMT per resident. Portions of the City and some housing inventory sites
6 are located within areas where the VMT per resident is below the regional average, but greater than 15 percent below the average. Mitigation Measure TRA -1, Implement VMT Reduction Measures, along with implementation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Standards in the North Bayshore Precise Plan and East Whisman Precise Plan for projects located within those precise plan areas would ensure that VMT per resident would meet the 15 percent VMT reduction requirement stipulated in the BAAQMD’s recommended GHG thresholds.

Because compliance with the City’s Reach Codes does not ensure compliance with future updates to the CALGreen Tier 2 EV requirements, the proposed HEU would not comply with BAAQMD’s recommended GHG threshold A(2)(a), and thus would result in a potentially significant impact, requiring mitigation.

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

Subsequent development projects proposed as part of the HEU shall comply with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2 at the time that a building permit application is filed.

Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Implement VMT Reduction Measures. (See Impact TRA-2 in Chapter 4.14, Transportation)

6 These sites are primarily located within the North Bayshore and East Whisman Precise Plan areas, south of US-101 in the vicinity of Rengstorff Avenue, and in a portion of Downtown Mountain View.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-35 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Significance after Mitigation: With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 and TRA-1, all future projects proposed for development pursuant to the HEU would be consistent with the BAAQMD’s recommended GHG significance thresholds.

Compliance with these thresholds would mean that these projects would not generate GHG emissions either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
_________________________
Impact GHG-2: Implementation of the HEU would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
CARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update, SB 32 and EO S-3-05
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update adopted by CARB establishes the framework for achieving the 2030 statewide GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update includes local actions that land use development projects and municipalities can implement to support the statewide goal. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update also illustrates in Figure 5 that achieving the 2030 target is consistent with progress toward achieving the 2050 level included in EO S-3-05 and that depending on the success in achieving the 2030 target, it may be possible to achieve the 2050 target earlier than EO S-3-05 (CARB, 2017). The BAAQMD’s draft recommended project- level GHG CEQA thresholds are designed to demonstrate consistency with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan Update and the statewide goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 pursuant to EO B-55-13 for new projects and plans. As described under Impact GHG-1, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed HEU would be consistent with all four design elements included in BAAQMD’s draft proposed GHG thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the HEU would also be consistent with the statewide emissions reduction goal for 2030 required by SB 32 and achieved through the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

The 2017 Scoping Plan Update incorporates a broad array of regulations, policies, and state plans designed to reduce GHG emissions. GHG reduction actions could be implemented by local governments and that are applicable to the construction and operation of development proposed under the HEU are listed in Table 4.7-3. Actions, plans, and programs that are not under the control or influence of local jurisdictions, such as the Cap-and-Trade program, are not included in the table.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-36 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.7-3
CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE GHG REDUCTION ACTIONS IN 2017 SCOPING PLAN UPDATE Sector / Source Category / Description Consistency Analysis Energy and Water
California
Renewables Portfolio
Standard (RPS) and
SB 100
SB 100 requires that the proportion of
electricity from renewable sources be
60 percent renewable power by 2030 and
100 percent renewable power by 2045.

Consistent. Electricity supplied to development
proposed under the HEU would be provided by
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Silicon
Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). PG&E and SVCE
are required to comply with SB 100 and the
RPS.

California
Renewables Portfolio
Standard and SB 350
SB 350 requires that the proportion of
electricity from renewable sources be
50 percent renewable power by 2030
(superseded by SB 100). It also requires the
state to double the energy efficiency savings
in existing final end uses of electricity and
natural gas by retail customers through
energy efficiency and conservation.

Consistent. Electricity to development proposed
as part of the HEU would be provided through
PG&E and SVCE. PG&E and SVCE are
required to comply with both the RPS and
SB 350 and will meet these standards.

California Building
Efficiency Standards
(CCR, Title 24, Part 6)
Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential
and Nonresidential Buildings
Consistent. Buildings constructed under the
proposed HEU would be designed to comply
with the most recent version of Title 24 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards at the time of
individual project review.

California Green
Building Standards
Code (CCR, Title 24,
Part 11 - CALGreen)
California’s Green Building Standards
(CALGreen) Code includes energy and
water efficiency requirements, as well as
waste management and other design
regulations that apply to residential and
nonresidential buildings.

Consistent. Buildings constructed as part of the
HEU would comply with mandatory CALGreen
measures. In addition, Mitigation Measure GHG-
1 would go beyond mandatory CALGreen
measures to require voluntary Tier 2 EV
charging requirements for all development
allowed under the HEU.

Senate Bill X7-7 The Water Conservation Act of 2009 sets an overall goal of reducing per capita urban
water use by 20 percent by December 31,
2020. Each urban retail water supplier shall
develop water use targets to meet this goal.

Consistent. Water to development as part of
the HEU would be supplied by the City’s Public
Services Division, which is required to comply
with SB X7-7 standards.

Advanced Clean Cars
Program (ACC) and
Mobile Source
Strategy (MSS)
In 2012, CARB adopted the ACC program to
reduce criteria pollutants and GHG
emissions for model year vehicles 2015
through 2025. ACC requires the reduction of
criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from
light- and medium-duty vehicles. ACC also
includes the ZEV regulation, which requires
manufacturers to produce an increasing
number of pure ZEVs (meaning battery
electric and fuel cell electric vehicles), with
provisions to also produce plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEV) in the 2018 through
2025 model years. The Mobile Source
Strategy (2016) calls for 1.5 million ZEVs
(including plug-in hybrid electric, battery-
electric, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) on
the road by 2025, and 4.2 million ZEVs by
2030.

Consistent. These standards would apply to all
vehicles used by future residents of
development within the HEU, and to
construction workers traveling to and from the
construction sites as required by CALGreen. In
addition, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would go
beyond mandatory CALGreen regulatory
requirements for EV charging infrastructure to
require voluntary Tier 2 requirements for all
development allowed under the HEU and would
therefore accommodate future EV charging
stations.

I I

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-37 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.7-3 (CONTINUED)
CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE GHG REDUCTION ACTIONS IN 2017 SCOPING PLAN UPDATE Sector / Source Category / Description Consistency Analysis Mobile Sources
SB 375 SB 375 establishes mechanisms for the
development of regional targets for reducing
passenger vehicle GHG emissions. Under
SB 375, CARB is required, in consultation
with the state’s Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, to set regional GHG
reduction targets for the passenger vehicle
and light-duty truck sector for 2020 and
2035. CARB’s current targets call for the Bay
Area to reduce per-capita vehicular GHG
emissions 10 percent by 2020 and
19 percent by 2035 from a 2005 baseline.

Consistent. Development under the proposed
HEU would be consistent with MTC and ABAG
Plan Bay Area 2040 goals and objectives under
SB 375 to implement “smart growth.” The HEU
identifies housing sites in infill locations with
access to public transportation which would
reduce reliance on automobiles, thereby
reducing VMT and associated GHG emissions.

The VMT generated per capita with the HEU is
projected to be less than 85 percent of the Bay
Area regional average. The 2020 Bay Area
region wide average is estimated to be 13.49
miles per resident. Based on the transportation
analysis for the HEU, development proposed
under the HEU would result in 9.37 miles per
resident. This would be less than 11.46 miles
per resident, which is 85 percent of the Bay Area
regional average.

Solid Waste
California Integrated
Waste Management
Act (IWMA) of 1989
and AB 341
IWMA requires all California cities to divert
50-percent of all solid waste from landfill
disposal through source reduction, recycling,
and composting activities. AB 341 directs
CalRecycle to develop and adopt regulations
for mandatory commercial recycling and sets
a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal
reduction by the year 2020.

Consistent. Recology Mountain View provides
solid waste and residential recycling services to
the city of Mountain View and is responsible for
recycling and solid waste management in the
City. Recology’s services yield waste diversion
results consistent with citywide recycling targets.

These services would be available to all future
development under the HEU.

As shown above, the HEU would implement all applicable actions identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update to reduce energy use, conserve water, reduce waste generation, promote EV use, and reduce vehicle travel consistent with statewide strategies and regulations. In addition, as detailed under Impact GHG-1, the HEU would be consistent with the BAAQMD’s updated GHG significance thresholds which in turn mean that the proposed HEU would be consistent with and contribute its fair share to the BAAQMD’s GHG reductions required to meet the statewide GHG reduction goal for 2030 pursuant to SB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update.

Although the HEU would not meet the EO B-55-13 target of carbon neutrality by 2045, carbon neutrality is not a significance threshold for the purposes of this SEIR because carbon neutrality is not an adopted plan, policy, or regulation of the State that is applicable to the City. In fact, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update explicitly acknowledges and states that the inability to achieve carbon neutrality or net zero GHG emissions does not imply that a project contributes to a significant impact under CEQA (CARB, 2017):

Achieving net zero increases in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, may not be feasible or appropriate for every project, however, and the inability of a project to mitigate its GHG emissions to net zero does not imply the project results in a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change under CEQA.

I I
I I

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-38 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
As illustrated above in Table 4.7-3, the development proposed under the HEU would align with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and would not conflict with achieving the SB 32 target or with making progress toward achieving the 2050 reductions included in EO S-3-05. The HEU makes progress towards carbon neutrality; however, its inability to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 does not conflict with the 2017 Scoping Plan, and thus does not render the impact significant under CEQA.

Plan Bay Area 2040
Pursuant to SB 375, ABAG and the MTC adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 to establish targets and strategies for meeting the region’s needs for housing at all income levels, while reducing GHG emissions by private passenger cars and light-duty truck traffic. The core strategy of Plan Bay Area 2040 is to encourage growth in existing communities along the existing transportation network, focusing new development in PDAs and TPAs in urbanized centers where more public transit and other mobility options are available to reduce the use of cars and light trucks.

In addition to encouraging focused growth through significant transit and roadway performance investments, Plan Bay Area 2040 directs funding to neighborhood active-transportation and complete-streets projects, climate initiatives, lifeline transportation and access initiatives, pedestrian and bicycle safety programs, and PDA planning.

The HEU would locate high density, transit-oriented housing in infill locations thereby reducing the number of vehicle trips and VMT. Many of the HEU housing sites are also located in a Priority Development Area and/or a Transit Priority Area. As discussed under Impact GHG-1, development in the HEU planning area would generate fewer miles per capita when compared to the regional average. The proposed HEU is therefore consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040.

City of Mountain View Climate Action Planning
As discussed under the Regulatory Setting, the City’s Climate Protection Roadmap is not a plan in and of itself, but an analysis that may be used by City officials to evaluate the potential for long- term communitywide emission reduction initiatives moving forward. Due to the high-level nature of the analysis, the CPR does not explicitly direct implementation of any specific city actions.

The City’s current Sustainability Action Plan (SAP-4) is a 3-year plan to ensure the City’s progress towards its ultimate goal of reducing the City’s GHG emissions by 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050. SAP-4 prioritizes actions in two major sectors: transportation and natural gas use, to achieve both immediate GHG reductions and also enable future reductions. Transportation is the largest source of GHG emissions in Mountain View and the SAP-4 includes actions that reduce vehicle miles traveled and promote EVs and EV charging infrastructure. The HEU would be consistent with these actions as it would generate VMT per capita 15 percent less than the Bay Area regional average as discussed under Impact GHG-1. The HEU would also exceed requirements for EV charging infrastructure in the both the current (2019) CALGreen codes and the City’s Reach Codes. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, all future development would be required to meet the CALGreen Tier 2 requirements in future updates to the code. In response to SAP-4, the City adopted the Reach Code requiring building electrification to reduce GHG emissions from natural gas combustion in buildings. Consistent with the Reach Code, all future development under the HEU would be required to be all-electric

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-39 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
and therefore be consistent with actions related to natural gas identified in the SAP-4. Therefore, the HEU would be consistent with actions identified in the current SAP-4.

CALGreen Code and City of Mountain View Reach Codes
Development proposed under the HEU would be required to comply with the most recent update to the CALGreen Code. All projects would also be required to comply with the City’s Reach Codes that aim to achieve energy savings and GHG reductions beyond the state’s minimum requirements. In addition, Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would require projects to comply with Tier 2 EV charging requirements in the CALGreen code applicable at the time of project review.

Conclusion
As described above, with adoption of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the HEU would not conflict with the GHG reduction targets established by Executive Order S-3-05, and SB 32, or the reduction measures identified in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. In addition, the HEU would not conflict with Plan Bay Area or the Mountain View Climate Protection Roadmap, and would be subject to measures in the CALGreen Code and the City’s Reach Codes.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Require Compliance with EV Requirements in CALGreen Tier 2. (See Impact GHG-1 above)
Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Implement VMT Reduction Measures. (See Impact TRA-2 in Chapter 4.14, Transportation)
Significance after Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure the HEU’s consistency with BAAQMD GHG threshold A(2)(a) by requiring future development under the HEU to comply with the EV charging infrastructure requirements in the version of CALGreen standards in place at the time of individual project review. The HEU would be consistent with the other three GHG thresholds recommended by the BAAQMD. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the HEU would be consistent with the updated GHG thresholds recommended by the BAAQMD to meet the state’s GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals in SB 32, EO B-55-13 and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
_________________________

4.7.6 Cumulative Impacts
This section presents an analysis of the cumulative effects of the HEU in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that could cause cumulatively considerable impacts. Significant cumulative impacts related to GHG could occur if the incremental impacts of the HEU combined with the incremental impacts of one or more cumulative projects.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-40 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
Impact GHG-1.CU: Implementation of the HEU, in combination with past, present, existing, approved, pending, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with applicable plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Global GHG emissions and global climate change are inherently a cumulative concern that is understood for CEQA purposes to be an existing significant and adverse condition. Accordingly, the significance of GHG emissions in this analysis is determined based on whether such emissions would have a cumulatively considerable impact on global climate change. Because the geographic scope of cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions (i.e., global climate change) is global, this analysis evaluates the HEU’s direct and indirect generation of GHG emissions which contribute to this cumulative impact. The California Air Pollution Control Officers’ Association (CAPCOA) considers GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts, in that no single project could, by itself, result in a substantial change in climate. Therefore, the evaluation of cumulative GHG impacts presented in this section considers whether the HEU would make a considerable contribution to cumulative emissions of GHG. As discussed under Impacts GHG-1 and GHG-2, implementation of the HEU would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 by ensuring consistency with all four GHG thresholds recommended by the BAAQMD which would in turn ensure consistency with the state’s GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals for 2030 and beyond. Therefore, the HEU would also be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update that was adopted by CARB to meet the state’s GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals, Further, development proposed under the HEU would also be consistent with the development assumptions of Plan Bay Area 2040 which is the Bay Area regional plan to meet the region’s needs for housing, while reducing GHG emissions from transportation sources. Given that GHG emission impacts are cumulative in nature, the HEU’s incremental contribution to significant cumulative GHG emissions would therefore not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact of GHG emissions generated by the HEU would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Require Compliance with EV Requirements in CALGreen Tier 2. (See Impact GHG-1 above)
Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Implement VMT Reduction Measures. (See Impact TRA-2 in Chapter 4.14, Transportation)
Significance After Mitigation: Less than Significant.
_________________________

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-41 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.7.7 Summary of GHG Impacts
Impact
Significance Before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance After
Mitigation
Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the HEU
would not generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
GHG-1: Require
Compliance with EV
Requirements in
CALGreen Tier 2
Mitigation Measure
TRA-1: Implement
VMT Reduction
Measures
Less than
Significant
Impact GHG-2: Implementation of the HEU
would not conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
GHG-1: Require
Compliance with EV
Requirements in
CALGreen Tier 2
Mitigation Measure
TRA-1: Implement
VMT Reduction
Measures
Less than
Significant
Impact GHG-1.CU: Implementation of the
HEU, in combination with past, present,
existing, approved, pending, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG
emissions that may have a significant impact
on the environment or conflict with applicable
plans, policies or regulations adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases.

Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Measure
GHG-1: Require
Compliance with EV
Requirements in
CALGreen Tier 2
Mitigation Measure
TRA-1: Implement
VMT Reduction
Measures
Less than
Significant

_________________________

4.7.8 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. 2017 Final Clean Air Plan, April 19, 2017. Available online: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en.

Accessed May 2022.

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

Available online: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed May 2022.

BAAQMD. 2022. Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Change Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans, April 2022. Available online:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-thresholds- 2022/justification-report-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed May 2022.

Cal Adapt. 2022. Annual Average. Available online: https://cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages.

Accessed May 2022.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-42 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change, January 2008. Available online: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory - By IPCC Category, last updated November 19, 2007. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/classic/cc/ghg_inventory_ipcc_all_90-04_AR4.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

CARB. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change, December 2008.

Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_ plan.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

CARB. 2016. Mobile Source Strategy, May 2016. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ planning/sip/2016sip/2016mobsrc.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

CARB. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target, November 2017. Available online:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

CARB. 2018a. Resolution 18-12: Proposed Update to Senate Bill 375 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets, March 22, 2018. Available online: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/board/res/ 2018/res18-12.pdf. Accessed May 2020.

CARB. 2018b. SB 375 Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Targets, March 2018.

Available online: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/finaltargets2018.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

CARB. 2021a. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000–2019 – Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators, July 28, 2021. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/ files/classic/cc/ca_ghg_inventory_trends_2000-2019.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

CARB. 2021b. 2020 Mobile Source Strategy, October 28, 2021. Available online:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/2020_Mobile_Source_Strategy.pdf.

Accessed on May 2022.

CARB. 2022. GHG Global Warming Potentials. Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg- gwps. Accessed May 2022.

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). 2019. 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. July 2019. Available online: https://calgreenenergyservices.com/wp/wp- content/uploads/2019_california_green_code.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

California Department of Finance (CDF). 2022a. E-4 Historical Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, 2022. Available online: https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/ Estimates/. Accessed May 2022.

CDF. 2022b. Gross State Product, 2022. Available online: https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/ Economics/Indicators/Gross_State_Product/. Accessed May 2022.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-43 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). 2020. California Agricultural Statistics Review, 2020. Available online: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2020_Ag_ Stats_Review.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

CEC. 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, December 2018. Available online: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/ default/files/2021-06/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF_0.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

CEC. 2021. 2022 Energy Code Update Rulemaking, November 22, 2021. Available online:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency- standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed May 2022.

California Housing and Community Development. n.d. 2022 CALGreen, no date. Available online: https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/ctc-meetings/2021/2021-04/tab-2- hcd-pres-a11y.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

California Legislative Information. 2011. Assembly Bill No. 341 – Chapter 476, October 6, 2011.

Available online:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120AB341.

Accessed June 2022.

California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy – A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008, 2009. Available online: https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

CNRA. 2014. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk, an Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, July 2014. Available online: https://resources.ca.gov/CNRA LegacyFiles/docs/climate/Final_Safeguarding_CA_Plan_July_31_2014.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

CNRA. 2016. Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans, March 2016. Available online: https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/safeguarding/ Safeguarding%20California-Implementation%20Action%20Plans.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

CNRA. 2018. Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, January 2018. Available online:
https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/docs/climate/safeguarding/update2018/safeguar ding-california-plan-2018-update.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

City of Mountain View. 2012. Mountain View Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, August 2012. Available online:
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10700. Accessed June 2022.

City of Mountain View. 2013. Shoreline Sea Level Rise Study, February 5, 2013. Available online: https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=19818.

Accessed May 2022.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-44 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
City of Mountain View. 2015. City of Mountain View Climate Protection Roadmap, September 2015. Available online:
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=19516. Accessed June 2022.

City of Mountain View. 2019a. Sustainability Action Plan 4, October 22, 2019. Available online:
https://collaborate.mountainview.gov/sustainability-action-plan-4-sap-4. Accessed June 2022.

City of Mountain View. 2019b. Mountain View Green Building Code, 2019. Available online:
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/2019_mountain_view _green_building_and_reach_codes.asp. Accessed June 2022.

City of Mountain View. 2019c. City of Mountain View Zero Waste Plan, October 2019.

Available online:
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30681. Accessed June 2022.

City of Mountain View. 2021a. Mountain View 2030 General Plan, adopted July 10, 2012, as amended through April 13, 2021.

City of Mountain View. 2021b. Electric Vehicle Action Plan, December 2021. Available online:
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=36813. Accessed June 2022.

City of Mountain View. 2022. Final 2019 and Preliminary 2020 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, Council Report, April 12, 2022.

Climate Central. 2022. U.S. Temperatures and Billion-Dollar Disasters, January 10, 2022.

Available online: https://medialibrary.climatecentral.org/resources/us-temps-billion-dollar- disasters. Accessed May 2022.

Cook et al. 2016. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, DOI:10.1088/1748- 9326/11/4/048002, April 13, 2016. Available online: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/

10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf. Accessed May 2022.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A.

Meyer (eds.), Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 151 pp, 2014. Available online:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

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

Available online: http://files.mtc.ca.gov/pdf/Plan_Bay_Area_FINAL/Plan_Bay_Area.pdf.

Accessed on May 2022.

MTC & ABAG. 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040. Adopted July 26, 2017. Available online:
https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/Final_Plan_Bay_Area_2040.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-45 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
MTC & ABAG. 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050, Adopted October 21, 2021. Available online:
https://planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021. pdf. Accessed May 2022.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). 2019. Assessing the US Climate in 2018, published February 6, 2019. Available online: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/ national-climate-201812. Accessed May 2022.

NOAA. 2021. Climate Change: Global Sea Level, Last updated December 21, 2021. Available online: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change- global-sea-level. Accessed May 2022.

NOAA. 2022. NOAA Wildfires/ FIREX Fact Sheet – The Impact of Wildfires on Climate and Air Quality, no date. Available online: https://csl.noaa.gov/factsheets/csdWildfires FIREX.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, December 2018. Available online: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

OPR, California Energy Commission (CEC), California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment: Statewide Summary Report, August 2018. Available online: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf.

Accessed May 2022.

Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre (RCCC). 2019. Heatwave Guide for Cities, July 2019.

Available online: https://www.climatecentre.org/downloads/files/IFRCGeneva/RCCC%20 Heatwave%20Guide%202019%20A4%20RR%20ONLINE%20copy.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2019, April 14, 2021. Available online:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2021-main- text.pdf?VersionId=uuA7i8WoMDBOc0M4ln8WVXMgn1GkujvD. Accessed May 2022.

USEPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2010. Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule, May 7, 2010. Available online: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ pkg/FR-2010-05-07/pdf/2010-8159.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

USEPA and NHTSA. 2019. One National Program Rule on Federal Preemption of State Fuel Economy Standards. Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey= P100XI4W.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

Westerling, Anthony LeRoy. 2018. Wildfire Simulations for the Fourth California Climate Assessment: Projecting Changes in Extreme Wildfire Events with a Warming Climate, Publication no. CCCA4-CEC-2018-014, August 2018. Available online:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Projections_CCCA4-CEC-2018- 014_ADA.pdf. Accessed May 2022.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.7-46 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

This page intentionally left blank

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.8-1 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.8.1 Introduction
This section assesses the potential for the Project to result in significant adverse impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials. This section first includes a description of the existing environmental setting as it relates to hazards and hazardous materials, and provides a regulatory framework that discusses applicable federal, state, and local regulations. This section also includes an evaluation of potential significant impacts of the Project relative to hazards and hazardous materials. The locations of each of the proposed HEU housing sites are shown on Figure 3-3.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the EIR was circulated on February 4, 2022, and a scoping meeting was held on February 24, 2022. The NOP and the comments received during the public comment period can be found in Appendix A of this EIR. Comments relating to hazards and hazardous materials received during the NOP comment period include concerns related to existing hazardous materials sites that have had releases and to any housing sites near a closed landfill north of Highway 101.

4.8.2 Environmental Setting
Hazardous Materials Sites
GeoTracker and EnviroStor Hazardous Materials Sites
Active and closed hazardous materials sites that have reported spills or releases are tracked on the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor websites, which can be viewed simultaneously. The types of GeoTracker cleanup sites include leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites (i.e., non- military UST sites that have had an unauthorized release [i.e. leak or spill] of a hazardous substance, usually gasoline, diesel, and/or motor oil), cleanup program sites (i.e., pesticide and fertilizer facilities, railyards, ports, equipment supply facilities, metals facilities, industrial manufacturing and maintenance sites, dry cleaners, bulk transfer facilities, refineries, mine sites, landfills, RCRA/CERCLA cleanups, and some brownfields), military cleanup sites (i.e., all cleanup sites located on existing or to-be-transferred military bases). The sites listed on the EnviroStor website are more focused on hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination, typically mostly focused on soil and soil vapor contamination. DTSC also typically regulates cleanups at leaking dry cleaner sites.

Figure 4.8-1, Hazardous Materials Cleanup Sites, overlays the cleanup sites as of April 27, 2022, on the proposed HEU housing site areas. Cleanup sites with an “x” through the symbol are sites that have been cleaned up and their case closed by the overseeing regulatory agency (i.e., the DTSC, or Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB], or the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health [SCDEH]). Case closure means that the regulatory agency has concluded that the particular cleanup site has been cleaned up to a level that no longer poses a risk to people or the environment. This also means that residual levels of contamination below regulatory action levels may remain at the given cleanup site.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.8-2 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
As shown, almost all of the areas identified for housing as part of the HEU have one or more cleanup sites within or near the housing site footprint. The sites identified as open sites are undergoing investigation and cleanup as of April 27, 2022. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, the timing of the construction of specific housing sites is unknown at this time.

Consequently, cleanup at the currently listed active cleanup sites may be completed by the time a particular HEU housing site is constructed. Alternately, new hazardous materials spill sites may be identified in the future that are at or near a proposed HEU housing site.

Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Study Area Groundwater Plume In the 1960s and 1970s, several industrial companies involved in the semiconductor, electronics, and other manufacturing and research in the Mountain View and Moffett Field area used volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily trichloroethene (TCE), as cleaning solvents (USEPA 2019). Leakage from storage containers and piping resulted in the contamination of groundwater with TCE and its degradation byproducts of cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), trans-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride.

The affected area is referred to as the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Superfund Study Area.

The MEW Superfund Study Area is named for the three streets that generally bound the source areas of this contamination: Middlefield Road, Ellis Street, and Whisman Road. It includes three separate Superfund sites: Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation; Raytheon Company; and Intel Corporation; and portions of the former Naval Air Station (NAS) Moffett Field Superfund Property. The companies responsible for the soil and groundwater contamination are investigating and cleaning up the MEW Superfund Site but no longer own or operate their former facilities. Figure 4.8-1 includes the footprints of two areas under investigation and cleanup that are located in Mountain View. These areas have TCE and other VOCs contamination in the shallowest aquifer. VOCs are volatilizing out of the groundwater in the aquifer into a gaseous state, which has resulted in potential vapor intrusion into breathing spaces of overlying structures. Portions of the areas identified for housing as part of the HEU sites would overlie the MEW Site Vapor Intrusion Study Area, shown in pink and the Operational Unit 3 (OU3) Vapor Intrusion Evaluation Area, shown in blue.

For the HEU areas that overlie the MEW Superfund site, the depth to groundwater in the shallowest aquifer is 18 to 24 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The cleanup level for TCE in groundwater is 5 micrograms per liter (µg/L). The concentration of TCE in groundwater is as high as 6,000 µg/L.

The cleanup level for TCE in soil gas is 5 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3) for commercial land
uses and 1 μg/m3 for residential land uses. In soil gas samples, the maximum concentration of TCE in soil gas is as high as 110,000 (μg/m3) and maximum TCE soil gas concentrations at 410,000 μg/m3 have been detected. Further discussion regarding cleanup levels is provided below in Section

4.8.3, Regulatory Setting, MEW Vapor Intrusion Study Area Requirements.

For buildings overlying shallow groundwater contamination, the vapor intrusion study area shown on Figure 4.8-1 was designated by the USEPA in 2010 to prevent site contamination from vapor intrusion into buildings. The USEPA determined that vapor intrusion response actions were necessary to protect the health of building occupants in the vapor intrusion study area from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment via the subsurface vapor intrusion pathway. The associated clean-up actions, which supplement already ongoing soil and groundwater clean-up work at MEW, represent one of the largest Superfund vapor intrusion clean-ups to date.
")
")
")
")
")
")
#*
")
")
")
")
")
#*#*
")
#*
#*
#*
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
#*
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
#*
")
")
")
#*
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
#*
")
")
")
")
#*
")
")
#*
")
")
#*
")
#*
")
")
")
#*
")
")
#*
")
")
#*
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
#*
")
#*
")
")
")
")
#*
")
")
")
")
")
")
#*
#*
")
")
")
")
#*
#*
")
")
#*
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
#*
")
")
#*
")")
#*")
")
#*
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
#*#*")#*
")
")
")
")
#*
")
#*
")
#*#*
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
#*
")")")")")
")
") #*
")
")
")
#*
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
#*#*")
#*
")")
")
")
#*
")
#* #*
")
")
#*
#*#*")
")
")
")
")
")
")
#*
")
") ")
")
#*
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
") ")
#*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X XXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
North Bayshore
East Whisman
San Antonio
Downtown
East Whisman
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
Whisman Station
Sylvan - Dale
El Camino Medical Park
Evandale
Mayfield
South Whisman
Villa Mariposa
Evelyn Avenue Corridor
San Antonio Station
Grant - Phyllis
El Camino Real
111 Ferry-Morse Way
1101 Grant Road
Mora - Ortega
San Ramon
California - Ortega
Sylvan - Dale
460 North Shoreline Boulevard
Grant - Phyllis Triangle
Castro - Miramonte Triangle
2100 California Street
Sylvan - Dale
£¤101
UV85
UV82
UV237
UV82
UV85
UV237
Cuesta Dr
Miramonte Ave
W Middlefield Rd
Easy St
California St
Levin Ave
Fairchild DrN Rengstorff Ave
Bryant Ave
Ellis St
N Shoreline Blvd
Charleston Rd
Sylvan Ave
Dale Ave
Calderon Ave
S Shoreline Blvd
Castro St
E Middlefield Rd
N Whisman Rd
Old Middlefield Way
Leong Dr
Walker Dr
Diericx Dr
Central Expy
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\2020xxx\D202000806_Mtn_View_Housing_Element\03_MXDs_Projects\EIR\Fig4.8-1_CleanupSites.mxd,  JNielsen  5/2/2022 SOURCE: XXX
City of Mountain View
Precise Plan
Superfund Site Plumes
MEW Vapor Intrusion Study Area
OU3 Vapor Intrusion Study Area
Cleanup Sites
") Lust Cleanup Site
") Cleanup Program Site
") Military Cleanup Site
") Military UST Site
#* DTSC Cleanup Site
X Completed
City of Mountain View
Figure 4.8-1
Hazardous Materials Cleanup Sites
N
0 2,000
Feet
D
-
r ESA
~

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.8-4 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
This page intentionally left blank

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.8-5 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
The USEPA’s selected remedy to address vapor intrusion and protect the health of building occupants in the vapor intrusion study area consists of the following:
• For Existing Buildings – The appropriate response action is determined by indoor air sampling and other lines of evidence for each building. If necessary, installation, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of an appropriate sub-slab/sub-membrane ventilation system. • Alternative for Existing Commercial Buildings – Use of building’s indoor air mechanical ventilation system if the property/building owner agrees to use, operate, and monitor the system to meet remedy performance criteria and the remedial action objectives. • For Future (New Construction) Buildings –
Installation of a vapor barrier and passive
subslab ventilation system (with the ability to be made active). • Implementation of institutional controls (ICS) and monitoring to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the remedy.

Hazardous Building Materials in Existing Structures
While some of the sites identified in the housing sites inventory are vacant, some locations may require the removal of existing structures. Older structures in the areas identified for housing as part of the HEU, if constructed prior to 1978, may include asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) in building materials such as roofs, tiling, and insulation. ACMs are of concern because exposure to ACMs has been linked to cancer.

Lead was widely used as a major ingredient in most interior and exterior oil-based paints prior to 1950 (lead-based paint [LBP]). In 1972, the Consumer Products Safety Commission limited lead content in new paint to 0.5 percent, and to 0.06 percent in 1978. Similar to ACMs in buildings, lead may be present in older buildings within the areas identified for housing as part of the HEU and exposure to LBP has been linked to cancer.

Agricultural Pesticides
Pesticides containing metals such as arsenic, mercury, copper, and lead were utilized in agriculture prior to 1950. Then, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) and chlordane pesticides were used from 1950 to the mid-1970’s. Many areas in the City were primarily agricultural from 1939 to 1968. Soils in the areas identified for housing as part of the HEU may contain residual pesticide contamination from previous agricultural activities.

Proximity to Schools
The following public schools are located in Mountain View:
• Stevenson Elementary School at 750 San Pierre Way
• Theuerkauf Elementary School at 1625 San Luis Avenue
• Waldorf School of the Peninsula at 180 North Rengstorff Avenue • Landels Elementary School at 115 West Dana Street
• Mariano Castro Elementary School at 500 Toft Street

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.8-6 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
• St. Joseph Mountain View at 1120 Miramonte Avenue
• Monta Loma Elementary at 460 Thompson Avenue
• Springer Elementary School at 1120 Rose Avenue
• Benjamin Bubb Elementary School at 525 Hans Avenue
• Amy Imai Elementary School (previously Huff) at 253 Martens Avenue Proximity to Airports
Moffett Federal Airfield is located just east of the HEU housing area in the North Bayshore neighborhood and north of the HEU housing areas in the Moffett/Whisman Road neighborhood (Windus 2016b). The Moffett Airport Protection Zone extends 2,500 feet south of the southern end of the airport but does not extend over any HEU housing area. However, Federal Regulation Title 14 Part 77 (FAR Part 77) establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace, including the height of structures within the navigable airspace. The FAR Part 77 Surface for Moffett Federal Airfield ranges from 182 feet to 382 feet over all of the HEU housing areas, except for some of the HEU housing areas west of Shoreline Boulevard, as shown on Figure 4.8-2, FAR Part 77 Surface. No buildings would be allowed in HEU housing areas higher than 182 to 382 feet above mean sea level without FAA approval.

The Airport Influence Area (AIA), also shown on Figure 4.8-2, is a composite of the areas surrounding the airport that are affected by noise, height, and safety considerations. Within the AIA, actions, regulations, and permits must be evaluated by local agencies to determine how Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) policies may impact the proposed development, including HEU housing.

The Palo Alto Airport is located about 1.8 miles northwest of the North Bayshore neighborhood (Windus 2016a). The Airport Protection Zone extends 1,000 feet southeast of the southeast end of the airport and does not extend over the any of the HEU housing areas. The FAR Part 77 Surface and AIA also do not extend to over any of the HEU housing areas.

Emergency Response or Evacuation Plans
The County of Santa Clara Office of Emergency Services (OES) adopted an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) in 2017 (County of Santa Clara 2017). The plan aligns with the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the California Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS). It facilitates multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional coordination during emergency operations, public information functions, and resource management.

The plan provides Emergency Operations Center (EOC) responders with procedures, documentation, and checklists to effectively manage emergencies, and it also provides detailed information of supplemental requirements such as public information, damage assessment, and recovery operations. The EOP does not identify specific emergency response or evacuation routes; the routes depend on the location and nature of the emergency. ·
¦
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
LOS
ALTOS

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
Elcamino Real
Central Expy
Foothill Expy
Elcamino Real
Central Expy
Foothill Expy
|}þ85
·|}þ85
§¨
280
101
101
182
532
732
832
632
1232
932
1032
1132
182
207
232282
257307
332
357
382
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update
Figure 4.8-2
FAR Part 77 Surface
SOURCE: Windus 20162020\D202000806.00 - City of Mountain View Housing Element (2023-2031)\05 Graphics-GIS-Modeling\Illustrator 0 4000
Fee
t
N
Precise Plan
Airport In/f_luence Area Boundary
Evandale
Evelyn Ave
Corridor
Downtown
Villa Mariposa
460 North
Shoreline Blvd
East
Whisman
Whisman
Station
111 Ferry-
Morse Way
Sylvan-Dale
Grant-Phyllis
Castro-Miramonte Triangle
El Camino Real
2100 California St
California-Ortega
San Antonio
Station
San
Antonio
Mayfield
Mora-Ortega
San Ramon
Grant
Martens
El Camino
Medical Park
Sylvan-Dale
El Camino Real
East Whisman
South
Whisman
North Bayshore
Evandale
Evelyn Ave
Corridor
Downtown
Villa Mariposa
460 North
Shoreline Blvd
East
Whisman
Whisman
Station
111 Ferry-
Morse W
ay
Sylvan-Dale
Grant-Phyllis
Castro-Miramonte Triangle
El Camino Real
2100 California St
California-Ortega
San Antonio
Station
San
Antonio
Mayfield
Mora-Ortega
San Ramon
1101 Grant Rd1101 Grant Rd
Grant
Martens
El Camino
Medical Park
Sylvan-Dale
El Camino Real
East Whisman
South
Whisman
North Bayshore
0 r ESA
~

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.8-8 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
In the City, the Mountain View Fire Department and OES are responsible for responding to disasters or other large-scale emergencies. The OES Emergency Plan includes emergency response protocols and procedures within Mountain View. In the areas identified for housing as part of the HEU, the commuter train (VTA Light Rail), US 101, and State Route 237 could be used as evacuation routes.

Wildland Fires
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Calfire) maps areas of significant fire hazard based on fuels, terrain, weather and other relevant factors. These zones, referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones, then determine the requirements for special building codes designed to reduce the ignition potential of buildings. The City of Mountain View is not located within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Calfire, 2007, 2008).

4.8.3 Regulatory Setting
Federal
The primary federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Fed/OSHA), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).

Federal laws, regulations, and responsible agencies are summarized in Table 4.8-1.

TABLE 4.8-1

F EDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Classification
Law or Responsible
Federal Agency Description
Hazardous Materials
Management
Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986 (also known as Title III of
the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA))
Imposes requirements to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of and to prevent or mitigate injury to human health or the
environment in the event that such materials are
accidentally released.

Hazardous Waste
Handling
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
Under RCRA, the USEPA regulates the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste from “cradle to grave.”
Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
Amended RCRA in 1984, affirming and extending the
“cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.

The amendments specifically prohibit the use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes.

Hazardous Materials
Transportation
USDOT
USDOT has the regulatory responsibility for the safe
transportation of hazardous materials. The USDOT
regulations govern all means of transportation except
packages shipped by mail (49 CFR).

U.S. Postal Service (USPS) USPS regulations govern the transportation of hazardous materials shipped by mail.

Occupational Safety Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970
Fed/OSHA sets standards for safe workplaces and work
practices, including the reporting of accidents and
occupational injuries (29 CFR 1910).

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.8-9 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.8-1 (CONTINUED)

F EDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Classification
Law or Responsible
Federal Agency Description
Fire Code 2000 Uniform Fire Code and
Standards
The Uniform Fire Code establishes standards for fire
department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler
systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, wine caves, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist first responders, industrial processes, and many other general and
specialized fire-safety elements for new and existing
buildings and premises.

Airports Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA)
Restrictions on the height of buildings, antennas, trees, and other objects near Moffett Federal Airfield and the Palo Alto Airport are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. The
FAR Part 77 map is used by the FAA and the Santa Clara
County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) to identify
potential obstructions and hazards to aviation traffic. A Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) has been prepared
by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC). The CLUP seeks to protect the public from the
adverse effects of aircraft noise, to ensure that people and facilities are not concentrated in areas susceptible to aircraft accidents, and to ensure that no structures or activities adversely affect navigable airspace.

State and local agencies often have either parallel or more stringent rules than federal agencies. In most cases, state law mirrors or overlaps federal law and enforcement of these laws is the responsibility of the state or of a local agency to which enforcement powers are delegated. For these reasons, the requirements of the law and its enforcement are discussed under either the State or local agency section.

State
The primary State agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management in the region include the DTSC and the RWQCB within the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), California Department of Health Services (CDHS), California Highway Patrol (CHP), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). State laws, regulations, and responsible agencies are summarized in Table 4.8-2.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.8-10 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.8-2

S TATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Classification
Law or Responsible
State Agency Description
Hazardous Materials
Management
Unified Hazardous Waste
and Hazardous Materials
Management Regulatory
Program (Unified
Program); CUPA (Health
and Safety Code Sections
25404 et seq)
In January 1996, Cal EPA adopted regulations, which implemented a Unified Program at the local level. The agency responsible for implementation of the Unified Program is called the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), which for Santa Clara County is the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD).

California Fire Code, Title
24, Chapter 9 of the
California Code of
Regulations
The California Fire Code regulates the storage and handling of hazardous materials, including the requirement for secondary containment, separation of incompatible materials, and preparation of spill response procedures.

Hazardous Waste
Handling
California Hazardous
Materials Release
Response Plan and
Inventory Law of 1985;
CUPA
The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act) requires that businesses that store hazardous materials onsite prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and submit it to the local CUPA, which in this case is the HMCD.

California Hazardous
Waste Control Act; DTSC
Under the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 2, Section 25100, et seq., DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste in California.

The hazardous waste regulations establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; dictate the
management of hazardous waste; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identify hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills. DTSC is also the administering agency for the California Hazardous Substance Account Act. California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8, Sections 25300 et seq., also known as the State Superfund law, providing for the investigation and remediation of hazardous substances pursuant to State law.

Hazardous Materials
Transportation
Titles 13, 22, and 26 of the
California Code of
Regulations
Regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating in and passing through the state, including requirements for shipping, containers, and labeling.

CHP and Caltrans These two state agencies are primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies.

Occupational Safety Cal/OSHA Cal/OSHA has primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in California. Because California has a federally approved OSHA program, it is required to adopt regulations that are at least as stringent as those found in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations.

Cal/OSHA regulations
(Title 8 CCR)
Concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace require employee safety training, safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation.

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.8-11 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
TABLE 4.8-2 (CONTINUED)

S TATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Classification
Law or Responsible
State Agency Description
Construction Storm
Water General
Permit (Construction
General Permit;
Order 2009-0009-
DWQ, NPDES No.

CAS000002; as
amended by Orders
2010-0014-DWQ
and 2012-006-DWQ)
RWQCB Dischargers whose project disturbs one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one of more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit; Order 2009- 0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002; as amended by Orders 2010- 0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, and other disturbances to the ground such as excavation and stockpiling, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of a facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment and pollutants from contacting stormwater from moving offsite into receiving waters. The BMPs fall into several categories, including erosion control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping, and are intended to protect surface water quality by preventing the off-site migration of eroded soil and construction- related pollutants from the construction area
Municipal Separate
Storm Sewer
System (MS4)
Permit NPDES No.

CAS612008 and
Order No. R2-2022-
0018
RWQCB The MS4 permit requires permittees of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Permit, including Mountain View, to reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using BMPs to the maximum extent practical. The MS4 permittee also has its own development standards, also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/post-construction standards that include a hydromodification element. The MS4 permit requires specific design concepts for LID/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process.

Underground
Infrastructure
California Code of
Regulations Section 4216-
4216.9
Section 4216-4216.9 “Protection of Underground Infrastructure” requires an excavator to contact a regional notification center (e.g., Underground Services Alert or Dig Alert) at least two days prior to excavation of any subsurface installations. Any utility provider seeking to begin a project that could damage underground infrastructure can call Underground Service Alert, the regional notification center for southern California. Underground Service Alert will notify the utilities that may have buried lines within 1,000 feet of the project.

Representatives of the utilities are then notified and are required to mark the specific location of their facilities within the work area prior to the start of project activities in the area.

Summary of Federal and State Hazardous Building Materials Regulations
As discussed in Section 4.8.2, Environmental Setting, existing structures that are removed as part of HEU housing projects may contain hazardous building materials. The above-listed federal and state regulations in Tables 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 list the overall regulations that regulate hazardous materials.

Within those regulations are the specific hazardous materials regulations cited below that are relevant to the demolition of structures that have hazardous building materials as part of their structures. • ACM: CCR Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1529 and 5208; BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.8-12 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
• LBP: CCR Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 1532.1 • PCBs: RCRA: 40 CFR 761; TSCA: 15 USC 2695; California: CCR Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 3, Section 66261.24
• Mercury and/or PCBs in light tubes and switches: CCR Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 12, Article 1, Sections 66262.11; 66273 et sec; and CCR Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 42, Sections 67426.1 through 67428.1
• Freon (chlorofluorocarbon and hydrochlorofluorocarbon refrigerants): California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Section 25143.2 and 25143.9 Regional
Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program), codified in California Health and Safety Code Sections 25404 et seq., requires the administrative consolidation of six hazardous materials and waste programs under one agency, a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The following programs are consolidated under the unified program:
• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans, and Inventory (also referred to as Hazardous Materials Business Plans)
• California Accidental Release Program
• Underground Storage Tanks
• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures • Hazardous Waste Generation and Onsite Treatment
• Uniform Fire Code Plans and Inventory Requirements
The State Secretary for Environmental Protection designated the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD) as the local CUPA. The CUPA is charged with the responsibility of conducting compliance inspections of over hazardous materials facilities in Santa Clara County. These facilities and businesses handle hazardous materials, generate or treat a hazardous waste, and/or operate underground storage tanks. The CUPA uses education and enforcement to minimize the risk of chemical exposure to human health and the environment.

The CUPA forwards important facility information to local fire prevention agencies that enables them to take appropriate protective action in the event of an emergency at regulated facilities. In order to legally store and use hazardous materials above the trigger quantities, users must apply for permits and demonstrate satisfactory compliance with regulations. The quantities that trigger disclosure are based on the maximum quantity on site at any time:
• 55 gallons, 500 pounds, or 200 cubic feet for 30 days or more at any time over one year • Any amount of hazardous waste
• Category I or II pesticides

4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
City of Mountain View Housing Element Update 4.8-13 ESA / 202000806 Draft Environmental Impact Report July 2022
• Explosives
• Extremely hazardous substances above the threshold planning quantity National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste Discharge Regulations Discharges of stormwater runoff from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are regulated by the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit, under Order No. R2-2022- 0018; NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, 2022). An MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances that:
• Is owned by a state, city, town, village, or other public entity that discharges to waters of the United States;
• Is designed or used to collect or convey stormwater (e.g., storm drains, pipes, ditches); • Is not a combined sewer; and
• Is not part of a sewage treatment plant or publicly owned treatment works.

Under CWA Section 402(p), stormwater permits are required for discharges from MS4s that serve populations of 100,000 or more. The Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) manages the Phase I Permit Program (serving municipalities of more than 100,000 people), the Phase II Permit Program (for municipalities of fewer than 100,000 people), and the Statewide Storm Water Permit for the California Department of Transportation.