ATT 1 - Resolution to Certify the Subsequent EIR — Mountain View City Council, June 13, 2023 (part 2 of 4)

abscission onto bus stops, transit lanes, roadways, sidewalks, and bicycle paths, and the maintenance needed to prevent buildup of vegetation debris that can lead to localized flooding. • Modifications to VTA bus stops may require a Construction Access Permit from VTA; more information is available at https://www.vta.org/business-center/construction-access-permits. • VTA encourages Google and the City to consider the transportation needs of school-age children in the new Master Plan residential development, as well as the impact of school location decisions.

Without new K-12 schools, transportation of the area's new school-age children between home and school will be a challenge. VTA provides school-oriented service when and where possible, but this service can only do so much and is often less than ideal, given resource constraints.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations and Access to Transit VTA appreciates the designation of Shoreline and Charleston as Transit Boulevards in the North Bayshore Master Plan. We encourage the City to work with the applicant to make sure that new buildings along Shoreline and Charleston and at the "Key Corners" shown in Plan 4.3.1 are oriented towards transit. The pedestrian-only Social Spine proposed parallel to Shoreline is concerning to VTA if the buildings along it are oriented towards the Social Spine and away from Shoreline. Transit succeeds only on corridors that are designed for a variety of users, most particularly pedestrians, with adjacent active uses that are oriented to it. If it is necessary to place active uses on a Social Spine parallel to Shoreline, frequent mid-block paseos should be created between Shoreline and the Social Spine to ensure that the development is permeable, and buildings should be designed to have true, usable entrances fronting both Shoreline and the Social Spine (i.e., the entrances along Shoreline should not be emergency-exit-only and should not direct pedestrians to walk to the other side of the building.) Furthermore, VTA recommends adding active uses or at least an "Engaging Office Edge" to the proposed office buildings facing the south side of Charleston between Shoreline and Huff Avenue, to improve the experience of pedestrians walking to transit.

For the "Key Corners" along Shoreline Boulevard shown in Plan 4.3.1, VTA notes that it will be critical for these locations to be designed for safe and comfortable crossings of Shoreline by pedestrians and bicyclists; otherwise, Shoreline will continue to pose a barrier to non-motorized travel and will deter people from taking transit. VTA supports the statement in Section 6.1 of the Master Plan that "Intersections will be designed with attention to Vision Zero pedestrian safety goals and principles." The intersection of Shoreline and La Avenida will be one of the most challenging locations for pedestrian and bicycle crossings, requiring special attention by the City and the applicant and design treatments to calm motor vehicle traffic to/from US101.

Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Considerations
• VTA commends the applicant for continuing to build out the Green Loop concept; at 1.7 miles, this will be a great amenity for the neighborhood (p. 54 ). • The Master Plan states that "Bike share services will be integrated into transit stations to support last-leg connections" (p. 54). VTA recommends expanding this to include scooter share, City of Mountain View
North Bayshore Master Plan and DSEIR

Page 5 of 7 ends

as data on micromobility programs already in place suggests that scooters have better use rates than bikes. VTA also notes that we have not been able to accommodate bike share or scooter share vehicles on light rail station platforms due to limited space, ADA requirements, and system safety concerns. When new transit stops in and around the Master Plan area are designed to integrate bike/scooter share nearby, VTA requests that the applicant and the City consult with VTA regarding the design. Bike and scooter share vehicles should be given their own space for parking, and geofencing should be used to prevent parking within a transit stop. • Loading & servicing network - In addition to accommodating motor vehicle loading, VTA recommends that the servicing plan accommodate bicycle utility vehicles (p. 55). • VTA strongly supports the proposed connections to the Stevens Creek Trail (p. 57). • Complete Streets discussion (p. 56) and Block Circulation figure (p. 68) - The new streets and mid-block breaks will improve connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, the Master Plan does not show pedestrian crossings across major existing or proposed roads. VTA's Community Design & Transportation (CDT) Manual recommends midblock crossings for blocks larger than 200 feet. VTA recommends adding mid-block crossings along Huff Avenue, Joaquin Road, Inigo Way, Monarch Street (west of Shoreline), Plymouth Street/Space Park Way, and Shoreline Boulevard (as feasible given the planned transit lane). This is particularly important where mid-block breaks in the Master Plan continue across these roads. • Roundabout at Charleston Road/ Inigo Way Extension (Figure 6.1.6, p. 81) - It is unclear from this conceptual plan how pedestrians would navigate through the intersection. Please modify to show pedestrian access, crosswalks, yield lines, and curb ramps. There is also no narrative discussing the role of this roundabout and what ty~es of vehicles it is intended to accommodate; suggest adding a brief narrative in the Master Plan.

Comments on the North Bayshore Master Plan DSEIR
VTA has the following comments on the DSEIR, for the CEQA review process:

Project Effects on Transit
The DSEIR concludes that "Implementation of the proposed project (under either option) would not result in modifications to the transit network that would disrupt existing transit service" (DSEIR p. 143) and that "the project (under either option) would not conflict with a transit program, plan, ordinance or policy, and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant transit impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR" (DSEIR p. 144). While VTA generally agrees with this conclusion, we note that care must be taken during the Master Plan buildout and the implementation of related transportation projects to ensure that transit facilities are not disrupted .

As noted in Section 6.3 of the Master Plan, the City's North Bayshore Precise Plan identified several required Priority Transportation Projects to support the planned growth and development within the North Bays ho re area, and the Master Plan assumes timely implementation of these projects. Two of City of Mountain View
North Bayshore Master Plan and DSEIR

Page 6 ends

these projects, the US101/Shoreline off-ramp realignment, and the Shoreline reversible transit lane project, may affect bus operations to and from VT A's North Yard facility. Any loss or restriction of the use of this yard would strain VT A's service as it is the main base for buses serving the El Camino Real corridor and other area routes. Close coordination with VTA will be required to ensure that access to North Yard is not impeded during construction of buildings or street improvements in the Master Plan area. VTA requests that the City provide VTA staff an opportunity to review designs for any roadways with VTA service that will be modified by the buildout of the Master Plan and Priority Transportation Projects, including the Shoreline reversible transit lane. Any street/lane closures should be communicated with VTA and other transportation providers for route detours and implementation of temporary bus stops.

Air Quality Impacts - Role of Transportation Technology in Mitigation The DSEIR discloses that the Project would have a Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated in the area of Air Quality, including operational period ROG, NO, and PM10 emissions (Impact AQ-1, DSEIR p. 55). The DSEIR notes that "the greatest source for operational NOx and PM10 emissions is project traffic " and that "This is a new, project-specific impact that was not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR" (DSEIR p. 65). The DSEIR also states that "The project 's mobile NOx and PM10 emissions from proposed land uses would be reduced to the maximum extent feasible through the stringent TDM measures proposed by the project ... Given the comprehensive and aggressive TDM measures proposed, there are no feasible additional measures available to reduce the project's mobile emissions further" (DSEIR p. 66).

VTA appreciates the efforts by the applicant to incorporate stringent TDM measures and improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians within the Master Plan area, and efforts by the City to implement transit improvements along Shoreline Boulevard and Charleston Road. These measures will help reduce VMT generated by the Project and resulting operational period emissions. However, VTA believes that there are other feasible mitigation measures available, including investment in newer transportation technologies.

The implementation of newer traffic signal controllers, including supporting communication infrastructure, could be used to provide transit signal priority, adaptive timing for non-motorized modes of travel, and improved performance monitoring plus enhanced real-time response to incidents and congestion on the roadways within the Master Plan area. VTA encourages the City to work with the project applicant to make improvements in the transportation technology infrastructure to benefit transit operations, pedestrians, and bicycles, and further reduce operational period air quality impacts.

Air Quality and Transportation Effects - TDM Mitigation Given the project's Significant and Unavailable Air Quality impact noted above, and the fact that its Transportation effects in the area of VMT are heavily dependent on TDM measures and a very aggressive non-SOV mode share target, VTA recommends that the City require the applicant to fund monitoring of trip generation , VMT, and parking utilization in the Master Plan area on an ongoing basis.

City of Mountain View
North Bayshore Master Plan and DSEIR

Page 7 of 7 ends

Monitoring should consist of a combination of surveys of residents and employees , and collection of emp irical data by third parties. This monitoring will be especially important as residential development is introduced to the North Bayshore area, to confirm the transportat ion effects of balancing jobs and housing in close proxim ity to each other.

Although VTA recognizes that the list of Master Plan TDM strategies in the DSEIR (Section 2.3.10, p. 37) is not exhaustive, we recommend that the City work with the applicant to add partnering with VTA on transportation solutions to the project's TDM strategies. Partnerships between the applicant and VTA could include t ransit service funding partnerships, and the applicant providing free or deeply discounted transit passes to employees and residents of the new development.

Description of Existing Transit Facilities and VTA Bus Service In the VTA Bus Service writeup within the Existing Transit Facilities section (DSEIR p. 135), VTA suggests making the following corrections :
• Changing "Orange Line" to "the ACE Orange Shuttle "; using "Orange Line" in this section could confuse the ACE shuttle service with VTA's Orange light rail line • Changing the second sentence to read: "Route 40 also stops at the Mountain View Transit Center, approximately 1.5 miles south of ff8-ffi-the project site, and the San Antonio Transit Center, approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the project site" • Changing the third sentence to note that the Mountain View Transit Centre is served by four VTA bus routes (21, 40, g, and 52)
• Adding a fourth sentence to this section: "The San Antonio Transit Center also provides connections to several VTA bus routes (21, 22, 40, 522)" Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on these documents. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 408-321-5949 or [email protected] to discuss any questions you may have on this letter.

Sincerely,
Robert Swierk, AICP
Principal Transportation Planner
1 CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

From: Shree Dharasker <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 11:02 AM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Cc: John Schwarz <[email protected]>; Vanessa De La Piedra <[email protected]>; Michael Martin <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: North Bayshore Master Plan
Dear Ms. Pancholi,
Thank you for your consideration of comments after the deadline. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan (Plan) and has the following comments:
1) Table 2.6-1 Required Approvals (page 46): The section notes Valley Water review and approval “may be required if wells are required or if abandoned wells are proposed to be destroyed…” Please note Valley Water review and approval would be required in either case (via well permit), and any abandoned well discovered during construction must be properly destroyed. 2) Project with District Utilities System Option (DEIR page 262): Given the presence of contaminated shallow groundwater under portions of the project site and the huge number of deep geothermal bores needed for the potential geothermal system (6,500), Valley Water is concerned with the possibility of inter-aquifer transfer of contaminants. If this option is pursued, Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program should be consulted early in the process to ensure construction methods and materials will adequately protect groundwater quality.
3) 4.7.2.1 Hydrology and Water Quality, Project Impacts (various, including pages 279, 280, 283):

Several sections note that Valley Water pumps groundwater from the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin.

As the Groundwater Sustainability Agency, Valley Water manages local groundwater basins to ensure sustainable supplies for all beneficial uses. However, groundwater is pumped by well users, including water retailers, other municipal/industrial users, and private well owners. It is these users, collectively, 2 *** This email originated from outside of Valley Water. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. ***
that pumped about 75,000 AFY from the northern Santa Clara Basin, not Valley Water. Please correct all related references.
4) Encroachment Permit: As noted in previous comments, Valley Water has no right of way within the project area. Any development located adjacent to a creek and not within a Valley Water fee title property or easement (which is Valley Water’s jurisdiction), should comply with Valley Water’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doing- businesses-with-the-district/permits-working-district-land-or-easement/guidelines-and-standards-land- use-near-streams). The Guidelines and Standards were adopted by the Water Resources Protection Collaborative (which includes the City of Mountain View) through resolutions in 2007.

I apologize for the delay in submitting comments. Valley Water has several CEQA documents to review during this period. Please provide a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) when available.

Please contact me if there are any questions,
Sincerely,
Shree Dharasker
Associate Engineer Civil
Community Projects Review Unit
(408)630-3037
From: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 10:27 AM
To: Shree Dharasker <[email protected]>
Cc: John Schwarz <[email protected]>; Vanessa De La Piedra <[email protected]> Subject: RE: North Bayshore Master Plan
Good Morning,
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately, the project has a tight schedule, and I am unable to move the official DEIR public commenting deadline. We will try to accommodate comments received after the deadline to the extent feasible.

From: Anish Morakhia < >
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 6:23 PM
T
o: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Subject: Question about Elementary School for North Bayshore draft EIP CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi D
iana,
I a
m a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood. It recently came to my attention that the North Bayshore Master Plan doesn't include an elementary school for the new development and the plan is to enroll the kids from North Bayshore at Monta Loma Elementary.

B
ased on a reading of the North Bayshore Master Plan draft Environmental Impact Report (Dec 2022), I didn't understand how the report claims that around 1500 new elementary and middle schoolers will be accommodated in Monta Loma Elementary and Crittenden Middle School. Shown below is a snapshot from the draft EIP that shows that Monta Loma Elementary can accommodate additional 189 students and Crittenden Middle school can accommodate additional 476 students I
s it correct to assume that 5/8th of the 1500 new students will be elementary school going age? That would be around 900 new elementary school students which grossly exceeds the current capacity. The report mentions there is no need for expanding either of these schools and doesn't mention any other schools as alternatives.

I
see on Google's website for North Bayshore that they are allocating 4 acres to be potentially used as a school site as shown in the image below. But there doesn't seem to be any plans to build a new school.

Letter G
M
aybe I am missing something here. But the calculations for the schools in the report don't add up.

Could you please help clarify?
Tha
nk you,
Anish Morakhia

From: Laura Blakely >
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 12:58 PM
T
o: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council <[email protected]>; McCarthy, Kimbra <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on Draft Subsequent EIR (North Bayshore Master Plan) CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
[email protected]
Dear Ms. Pancholi:

This email is being submitted as written comments concerning the environmental review contained in the Amended North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.

I am writing to urge you to defer approval of the Amended EIR until it can be amended to address the concerns raised below. Please use whatever means you have available for the benefit of our Mountain View community as a whole to mitigate the impacts of an estimated 1,471 new elementary and middle school students and 700 new high school students on our school systems. While our community welcomes these new students, we need to make sure we have adequate school facilities for them. Developer fees at the rate of $0.66 per square foot for commercial development and $4.79 per square foot for residential development (divided between the two school districts) are woefully inadequate; those formulas will barely generate enough money to cover the expense of leasing portables and crowding them onto the school fields, which is a totally unacceptable solution. Despite the fact that the EIR claims that there is sufficient classroom space in MVWSD schools, the EIR does not take into account all of the new students who will reside in all of the other construction projects that are already underway. When completed, the new North Bayshore housing units will cause the MVWSD population to increase by at least one-third of the size it is today—even without taking into account all the other new students. And while the proposed 3-4 acre site dedication will theoretically provide space for construction of one new elementary school, 1,471 elementary students cannot be jammed into a single 3 or 4 acre site. Additional new school sites and funding will be needed to provide sufficient classroom space across MVWSD. Our high school district will have similar needs.

I understand that the state legislature long ago bowed to the will of the all-powerful Building Industry Association lobby and deemed that the statutory developer impact fees will mitigate all impacts, but reality tells us this is simply not the case. In today’s economy, declaring that revenues generated by charging $0.66 to $4.79 per square foot of development are the panacea can best be characterized as magical thinking. There will be tremendous negative impacts on our community and environment if means to fill the “school funding gap” (per the language of the City’s School Strategy Policy K-26) are not identified. Finding the solution must be a collaborative effort. Please defer approval of the draft EIR until true mitigations can be identified and put forth with active participation from all stakeholders. We Letter H
must establish a way for our community to grow in a sustainable manner so that our children can be educated in schools that are not exploding with too many students.

Best regards,
Laura Blakely
View Street
From: Reyburn, Peggy >
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 11:44 AM
T
o: Penollar, Krisha <[email protected]>
Cc: Monlux, Merry <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NextRequest #23-257} Responses to Comments Received on the North Bayshore Precise Plan and the Final EIR.

I am Looking for the responses to comments received on the North Bayshore Precise Plan and the Final EIR.

Comments on the North Bayshore Master Plan December 2022 SCH No.:
2022020712 are due Monday, and I would like to see the response to previous comments.

Letter I

sierraclub.org/loma-prieta ~ 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204, Palo Alto, CA 94303

SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES
January 25, 2023
Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Via email to: [email protected]
Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, North Bayshore Master Plan, File No. 202020712
Dear Ms. Pancholi,
The staff and volunteers of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter request a two-week extension to the comment period for response to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the North Bayshore Master Plan released in December 2022. This would move the comment deadline from February 6, 2023 to February 20, 2023. Many of our staff and volunteers have been adversely impacted by power and internet outages due to the historic storms inundating the Bay Area in addition to dealing with flooding and wind damage. As you know, this has been a very difficult period for many residents of the Bay Area. In addition, the SDEIR comment period occurs over a holiday period where many people have family and community obligations.

We appreciate your consideration of this request.

Respectfully,
Susan DesJardin
Bay Alive Committee Chair
Jennifer Chang Hetterly
Bay Alive Coordinator
• §t~~~t CLUB CHAPTER
• SIERRA
CLUB

BAY ALIVE
Letter J
Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
[email protected]
February 6, 2023
Re: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project Dear Ms. Pancholi,
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Green Foothills are local environmental organizations with inherent interest in biodiversity, native plants and wildlife, ecosystems and natural resources in open spaces and in urban landscapes. We have engaged in planning and conservation efforts in North Bayshore and Shoreline Park for many years. We continue to have a strong interest in the way the community develops and the impacts of the development on the natural environment and the species that share it with us. We have reviewed the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project (NBMPP, Project) and submit the following comments.
1) Project Description
In our Scoping Comments on the NOP, we asked for the Vision for North Bayshore (described on page 5 of the North Bayshore Precise Plan1, NBPP) to be expressed fully to include “innovation and sustainability” as well as “the protection of habitat.” We ask again for all elements of the North Bayshore vision to be reflected in the Project Description section.
2) Approval by Responsible Agencies
The project is immediately adjacent to areas that provide habitat for special-status species (including but not limited to San Francisco Common Yellowthroat at the Charleston Retention Basin and Burrowing owls and Congdon’s tarplant at Shoreline Park). The project also contains the largest heron/egret rookery in the south bay (at Shorebird Way). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a Trustee Agency responsible for protecting migratory and nesting birds under California Fish and Game Cod e and their mandate includes projects and activities that may cause abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts through disturbance. Is permitting by CDFW required for project elements in the vicinity of the Charleston Retention Basin, the rookery of Shorebird Way, and Amphitheater Parkway / Shoreline Park? ● Please add the California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to Table 2.6-1: Required Approval. 3) Utilities
Several new 12 kilovolt (kV) distribution lines are expected to extend from the PG&E’s Ames Substation 1 North Bayshore Precise Plan https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29702 Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
green
-i~oothills
Letter K

to the NBMPP area (Section 2.3.5 ). Bird collision with power lines is a recognized threat to colonial nesting colonies and bird populations 2, and the r isk is greater in the vicinity of water features (such as Stevens Creek) and for larger birds (such as herons and egrets). ● Can construction of new distribution lines that cross Stevens Creek be placed underground and under bridges?
● If undergrounding is found infeasible, please request that PG&E use markers to make the wires more visible to flying birds. A variety of line marking devices, including hanging markers, coils, and aviation marker balls, are commercially available.
● The Project utility upgrades, including distribution lines and supporting facilities, should not create electrocution hazards to raptors3.

4) Private District Utilities System Option; District Central Plant (DCP) The DCP is proposed East of 1201 Charleston and potentially could integrate into the building (2.3.5.2).

The DCP includes chillers, heat pumps, distribution pumps, cooling towers and air blowers as well as independent backups.
● We are concerned with noise and lighting that this infrastructure and its operations may introduce to the area between Stevens Creek and the heron/egret rookery. Light is especially concerning due to state requirements for industrial facilities. Please des cribe potential noise and lighting to be used at the DCP, and provide mitigation, including:
● Use of fixtures with Correlated Color Temperature no more than 2700 Kelvin ● Use of manual switch for work that is performed at night so that all -night lighting can be minimized.
● Please consider Section 10, Artificial Light at Night, below. ● The Water Reuse Facility is expected to meet disinfected tertiary recycled water standards as described under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The recycled water would be used for non-potable water demands on-site including toilet flushing, cooling, and irrigation. ● Can recycled water uses include sustaining permanent and seasonal wetlands at the Charleston Retention Basin and the Eco Gem during dry spells?.

5) Green Building and Emissions Reduction Features (Section 2.3.7) The groundwater level at North Bayshore, especially in the Shorebird area, is high enough to sustain the wetlands of the Charleston Retention Basin and vegetation around the basin with no irr igation at all. In areas of high water level, native vegetation which is not drought tolerant should be permitted because it allows a more biodiverse ecosystem to thrive with minor, if any, irrigation needs after establishment.

Planting drought tolerant ve getation to satisfy Green Building Standards in locations where implementation of the standards is not needed should not be required or encouraged. ● Are there areas within the NBMPP area where the groundwater level is high enough to support vegetation that is not drought tolerant, for example, the eco-gem area? ● On page 29, under Energy Efficient Design, promises “Energy modeling in early design phases to optimize wall-to-wall ratios , thermal performance, and exterior shading.” Is the intention to model window-to-wall ratios?

6) Parking Structures

2 https://www.aplic.org/Collisions.php. For guidance, download APLIC’s “Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: State of the Art in 2012.”
3 https://www.aplic.org/APPs

In our NOP scoping comments, we asked “Please include one alternative scenario with reduced parking… This alternative should also analyze the impact of mitigation strategies that increase the pedestrian, micro-mobility and bicycle capacity, including using Green Streets potentially within the e ntire North Bayshore Precise Plan area.”
The NBMPP does not offer a Reduced Parking Alternative. Instead, five parking structures are planned to accommodate ±7,274 cars (Table 2.3-5). This adds to existing and planned parking under future buildings, parking structures currently under construction, and existing parking structures. While all new parking structures are of concern, we are especially concerned with the parking structure at Subarea AM1 (Amphitheater).

The NBPP envisioned the vast parking space s of North Bayshore becoming open space and the area becoming less car-centric. But with so many cars accommodated at North Bayshore, this vision may not be implemented as intently and purposely as we hoped.
● Please provide the footprint of 1) existing and 2) planned parking structures in North Bayshore, in acres.
● Please consider using feasible strategies like parking cash -out4 which Stanford, Lockheed, and Genentech5 used to avoid building additional parking lots and to reduce automobile use. Stanford may be the best example because it operates under a traffic cap 6. Traffic caps work if enforced (for example, using pavement sensors that count vehicles throughput) and controlled (via pricing7) and feedback systems, such as increasing pricing and fines for exceeding the cap). ● Prior to building each parking structure, please study overall parking demand to evaluate how multi-modal behaviors evolve, and ensure that the added parking is indeed needed.

At the Alta/Huff Parking Structure, Google created a dynamic structure that can accommodate change of use in the future - from parking cars to housing people. This flexibility of re-purpose should be the model for all parking structures:
● New parking structures should be built to allow future re-purposing such as housing. ● New parking structures should be built so as to be able to respond immediately to crisis needs (shelter during major weather events, shelter post earthquake).

6.1. Amphitheater Parking Structure (AM1)
The Amphitheater Parking Structure (AM1) has not been studied in the North Bayshore Precise Plan. It has been previously required to accommodate parking needs for the Charleston East project, but since that time the Alta/Huff Parking Structure has been built, and parking at the Google Landings project is under construction.
● Please consider removing the AM1 structure from the NBMPP or provide an alternative location(s) for parking in North Bayshore. As suggested above, putting a price on parking and a vehicle cap can go a long way towards reducing the need for parking. Such measures should be considered as an alternative to building this structure, especially at this scope and at this location. 4http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/transportation/supplemental-documents/ca_parking_cash- out_program_an_informational_guide_for_employers_2021.pdf?sfvrsn=6 5 https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-genentech-used-parking-lot-fund-its-employee-commuter-shuttle 6 https://transportation.stanford.edu/about/stanford-and-general-use-permit-faq 7 https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/driving-congestion-environment/parking-curb-management Significant Impacts on Burrowing Owls
We are greatly concerned that the parking structure at AM1 will have a significant impact on Burrowing owls locally and regionally. A comment letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (April 6, 2022) also highlights the potential of impacts to Burrowing owls.

The Burrowing owl population in the south Bay Area has suffered a significant decline and the breeding population is at a risk of extirpation. In the past four years, the county’s Burrowing owl population h as been sustained by deliberate conservation actions implemented primarily by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency in an effort to accomplish the requirements of this adopted Valley Habitat Plan.8 The City of Mountain View has been engaged in conservation and monitoring efforts at Shoreline Park for decades and has been implementing a Burrowing Owl Conservation Plan since 1998. This plan was updated in 2012 with the adoption of the Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan 9 (BOPP). The BOPP incorporated histor ical mitigation areas, stipulated Population and Habitat Goals, and designated additional areas (preserves) where owl habitat (for foraging and for breeding) is to be maintained to support wintering and nesting owls. The historical mitigations (Figure 1, from BOPP page 80) involve legal commitments to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and must be retained in perpetuity. Vista slope includes mitigation areas, including a mitigation site on the south -west corner of AM1. Vista slope has consistently been used by wintering and by nesting Burrowing owls over the years10.

The City of Mountain View is an active participant in the Conservation Actions that are funded in part by the Habitat Agency. Shoreline Park has been one of only two locations where intervention actions by the Habitat Agency, including overwintering of fledglings and supplemental feeding, have been successful (Figure 2). Impacts to the success of Burrowing owls of Shoreline Park can potentially hamper recovery efforts in the south Bay Area and conflict with the adopted Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Communities Conservation Plan.
8 https://scv-habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/1691/06 9http://www.elkhornsloughctp.org/uploads/files/1408724962Mountain%20View%20Burrowing%20owl%20manag ement%20plan.pdf
10 Shoreline Burrowing owls Annual Monitoring reports, 1998-2021.

Figure 1. Burrowing owl
Mitigation Areas

FIGURE 2. Burrowing
owl population trends
at Shoreline Park 11,
showing the success
and importance of
recent intervention
actions (2018-2021)

The BOPP (2012) provides:, “Under the California Endangered Species Act, the Burrowing owl is a State Species of Special Concern based on both localized and State -wide population declines as well as losses

11 https://scv-habitatagency.org/DocumentCenter/View/1691/06 BURROWI G OWL MJTIGATIO AREAS - 2012 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

HABITAT AGENCY
"'•"•
°""-"" c.r,ors.nmt
"""'"'""'°"' S.C.~V.,W.atffDl\bd
s.....o..iv.-,
l'ftPOl'IMO!Auttwlrll'J
FD. I, IOll
Shoreline in Mountain View
6 Annual Burrow ing Owl Survey Results 1998 - 2022
60 JO
10 ,,,,,,,,,1,1,11141,,~,,4,
Blff'dmp: ~son (yar)
159

of suitable habitat (CDFG, 1995). Under California Fish and Game Code, Section 1802, the CDFG is the agency manager and trustee of fish and wildlife resources and their habitat.” The BOPP states, “this document also provides procedures for meeting wildlife laws and regulations without the City having to consult CDFG on every action taken at the Park that has the potential to harm Burrowing owls.” The Plan describes 10 Owl Management Actions, including “Action 9. Employ a full -time biologist with owl expertise.”

● Have the procedures for meeting wildlife laws and regulations been followed? ● Has the city’s Burrowing owl biologist been given the opportunity to participate in the design and mitigations of the parking structure at AM1? Has the biologist approved the proposed mitigations to ensure that procedures for meeting wildlife laws and regulations are met without the City having to consult CDFG?
● If the biologist has issued an opinion or a report pertaining to the design and mitigation of parking at AM1, please include these documents in the Final EIR for public and agency review.

To protect the Burrowing owls of Shoreline Park, the North Bayshore Precise Plan designated a buffer (Burrowing Owls Habitat Overlay Zone, HOZ) where buildings are not permitted within 250-ft of Burrowing owl habitat, and no net increase in impervious surf ace can occur. No buildings taller than 55 feet can be constructed within 100 feet of any HOZ boundary. There are additional stipulations regarding lighting, perching, pesticide use etc..

The 2017 NBPP EIR did not evaluate the construction of a parking garage outside of the Precise Plan area on Subarea AM1. The NBMPP proposes that the Parking Structure at AM1 will maintain the same 250 -ft buffer that is required for development in the Precise Plan area, and comply with the measures listed in Chapter 5.1 Habitat Overlay Zone, Standard 2 of the Precise Plan regarding outdoor lighting, constructing perch deterrents, avoidance during construction, and the limitation of rodenticide use. We appreciate these measures, but maintain that these measures do not suffic e to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

As we understand it, the SDEIR makes two assumptions that lead to the findings that the impact is “Same Impact as Approved Project; Less than Significant Impact”:
1) Assumption 1: The edge of the potentia lly suitable Burrowing owl habitat is analogous to the baseline of the Burrowing Owl HOZ, and so mitigation can be similar. 2) Assumption 2: The developed/landscaped habitat in AM1 is of relatively low value to wildlife (including Burrowing owls).

We disagree with both assumptions.

There is a wide road (Amphitheater Parkway) that separates Burrowing owl habitat from the areas studied in the NBPP. It also provides, as we show below, Burrowing owl habitat. In contrast with the NBPP Study Area, AM1 is immediately adjacent to Vista slope and a designated mitigation site. The development and operations could therefore have impacts beyond those that were studied in 2017, including loss of habitat onsite, increased recreational activity on Vista Slope, hazards related to the anticipated increase in vehicle traffic, potential introduction of dogs and cats, and lighting in and around the structure. In the precarious situation of the owl population of the south bay, a loss of one nest, even one owl, during the nesting season can lead to the extirpation of the species in the South Bay Area.

Subarea AM1 is described in footnote 54 “ The developed/landscaped habitat in AM1 is of relatively low value to wildlife, but provides nesting and foraging opportunities for some urba n-adapted species of birds.” This description neglects to mention that Burrowing owls may also forage at the site. The footnote shows that the parking lot supports Burrowing owl prey species such as mice, lizards, and small birds.

Burrowing owls are known to forage and even nest in parking lots. In “Studies of Western Birds 1:218 – 226, 2008, Species Accounts (pages 218 -226) (attached), the description of this California Species of Special Status includes, “developed environments pose a substantial risk to Burrowing owls from mortality caused by traffic (Klute et al. 2003, D. K. Rosenberg et al. unpubl. data). Owls nesting along roadsides or parking lots are at greatest risk, although owls foraged along roads over 1 km from the nest burrow (Gervais et al. 2003).” Burrowing owls have also been observed foraging in parking lots in North Bayshore7.

The observation in the DSEIR footnote 54 that “California ground squirrels and their burrows are common in the ruderal grassland margins of the parcel, as well as on the adjacent grasslands at Shoreline Park” further substantiates the value of this site for burrowing owls. Overwintering or breeding Burrowing owls likely forage here, and potentially use ground squirrel burrows. The AM1 site is important to the preservation of Burrowing owls, and building here should be recognized as a significant impact and avoided, or adequately mitigated.
● Please discuss the impacts to Burrowing owls, including loss of habitat onsite, lighting, increased recreational activity on Vista slope, hazards related to the anticipated increase in vehicle traffic, potential introduction of dogs and cats, and construction-related activities. ● Please consider a regional context for the discussion of impacts to Burrowing owls and include:
○ Cumulative impacts on Burrowing owls. Please include the Moffett Park Specific Plan in Sunnyvale and development and maintenance activities in Moffett Park. ○ The role of Shoreline Park in the recovery efforts by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency.

We believe that avoidance of the impacts by not building this structure is the best alternative. It was not part of the MPSP, and can be e liminated from the NBMPP. If avoidance is not feasible, the following mitigations should be added to the mitigations and standards offered in the DSEIR in order to reduce significant impacts to owls at Shoreline Park and regionally, and to the success of t he Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan.
● Plant grasses and shrubs in the 250-ft buffer to provide foraging for Burrowing owls. ● Ensure there is no-net-loss of impervious area/habitat. ● Install a green roof, seeded to provide grassy foraging habitat. ● Avoid any lighting or spillover light into the 250 -ft HOZ. Lighting in the parking structure should not be visible from Vista slope.
● Fencing is needed to stop people from creating social trails to access Vista slope. Design and fencing should direct people to the official trails that provide signs and guidance (such as no dogs, day-use only).
● Additional Mitigation measures should craft best management guidance and requirements based upon the following:
○ Mountain View’s BOPP in consultation with the City’s Burrowing Owl Biologist, ○ CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) and consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game,
○ Mitigation measures for Burrowing Owls from the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan.12 12 https://www.scv-habitatagency.org/178/Santa-Clara-Valley-Habitat-Plan

7) Egret Rookery, Shorebirds Wilds and Eco -gem Area

The terminus of Charleston Rd./Shorebird Way is home to the largest egret and h eron rookery in the South Bay. The rookery is recognized in the NBPP which states, “This rookery is regionally significant as one of the largest egret colonies in the South Bay and is an important natural resource.” In recent years, nesting birds in this area included Snowy Egrets, Great Egrets, Black-crowned night herons, White-tailed kites, Western bluebirds, Red -shouldered hawks and Red -tailed hawks (Matthew Dodder, SCVAS, personal Communications).

The use of 1201 Charleston for meeting/event space a nd outdoor activities in the Shorebirds Wilds and Eco-gem Area could introduce disturbance to nesting birds. The NBPP describes “passive” uses without defining what activities may or may not be permitted, or how these activities may accommodate nesting birds without disruption.

Mitigation measures to protect nesting birds from operations -related activities and disturbance should be specified for the lifetime of the project.

● Please develop Standards, Guidelines and Protocols to ensure that noisy or light -generating events, events that attract predators and/or other potential disturbances (especially outdoor activities) are evaluated by the City’s Biologist if they are scheduled to occur during the nesting season.
● In the letter from CDFW, the agency requests that the SEIR include building height and location alternatives that reduce environmental impacts such as not locating tall buildings near biologically sensitive areas. We ask that any facade that faces the egre t rookery/Shorebirds wilds, the eco - gem and the retention basin implement bird-safety measures (including glazing above 60-ft). ● Please develop a Tree Preservation Plan for the trees in the Egret rookery HOZ. ○ This plan should identify important trees to preserve. This should specifically include the London plane trees that are traditionally used by the egrets and the redwoods across Shorebird Way (including the redwood in which a White-tailed kite has been nesting). ○ The plan should specify maintenance requirements, importantly including irrigation with water with no salt content.

These mitigations aim to reduce the aesthetic impacts of loss of trees and canopy, and the risk that the London Plane trees die due to ove r-fertilization and high salt content by recycled water augmenting the bird excrement, or that the redwood trees die due to high salt content in recycled water). Both of these outcomes are known to occur if these trees are irrigated with high salt content water. If protective measures are not taken to ensure that the trees thrive, the trees of the egret colony may perish - a potentially significant impact to the largest heron/egret rookery in the South Bay area.

8) Potential Loss of Trees
The loss of trees and canopy, and mitigations for such loss, are of great public interest in Mountain View.

In 2022, the City has prioritized Biodiversity as a strategic goal, and within this goal, a new Urban Forest Master Plan is being developed. The new Plan, with as sociated code changes, is likely to be completed within two years and change the existing, inadequate regulations for the protection of trees.

COA BIO-2.1, “Tree Mitigation and Preservation Plan” defers the preparation of a Tree Mitigation Plan and at the same time grandfathers in existing tree mitigation requirements for decades to come.

However, in light of the ecological sensitivity of North Bayshore, note the following.

● It is important that future projects implement the new policies and ordinances that are developed to protect biodiversity and the environment, including requirements for mitigation for the loss of trees. The existing code regarding trees should not be static and grandfathered in. An update to the NBMPP should be required when the tree ordinance is updated. ● Identification of locations where replacement trees will be planted (so the city does not end up with in -lieu funds but no viable planting locations) is important, including potential planting locations outside the boundary of North Bayshore.
● Please identify redwood trees/groves to preserve similar to Landings projects. ● In addition, please see our previous comment regarding the development of a Tree Preservation Plan for the trees in the Egret rookery HOZ (Section 7). This plan should be incorporated into the Tree Mitigation and Preservation Plan and include directions fo r maintenance and preservation of the London Plane and redwood trees that comprise the rookery so the trees are retained and maintained in good health. Trimming guidelines are also needed, and a plan to continue supplying water of low-salt content. This is because irrigation of redwoods in North Bayshore with recycled water of high salt content has led to a rapid decline in the health of the trees. London Plane trees are more resistant to salinity, but fertilization by egret droppings augmented by irrigatio n with water of high salinity may impact the health of these trees adversely.

9) Cumulative Impacts Analysis

Why has the cumulative Impact analysis not addressed Google’s Bayview Campus, Caribbean campus and the City of Sunnyvale’s Moffett Park Specific Plan? These projects are located in close proximity to the NBMPP (a biking/walking distance) along the Bay. These projects and plans introduce millions of square feet of office space and thousands of hotel rooms and housing units. The implementation of the Moffett Park Specific Plan is expected to coincide with the development of the NBMPP. All these projects have a Google nexus, and all may have cumulative impacts on Biological Resources, air quality, traffic and other environmental resources. We encourage the City to analyze the cumulative impacts of these additional projects.

10) Artificial Light at Night

In the time since the NBPP was adopted, scientific evidence and understanding of the devastating impacts of Artificial Light At Night (ALAN), espec ially in the blue band of the spectrum, has grown substantially.

We now know much more about impacts of ALAN to the environment and to human health, and we have a better understanding of how to mitigate the impacts13. The Artificial Light at Night Research Literature Database includes many recent (2018-2023) scientific studies14 that focus on the harmful impacts of LED lighting to species, ecosystems and human health, impacts that were not known, and could not have been discovered, when the NBPP was approved in 2017. The primary lesson that emerges from these studies is that ALAN must be minimized.

This upcoming update to City code, and the proliferation of new scientific evidence, justifies a re- evaluation of the NBPP standards and strengthening the existing requirements by the following.

● Eliminating minimum requirements for lighting from the NBPP and the NBMPP. Lighting for all

13 https://www.darksky.org/artificial-light-at-night-state-of-the-science-2022-report/; Artificial Light at Night: State of the Science 2022 International Dark-Sky Association DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6903500 (attached) 14 https://www.zotero.org/groups/2913367/alan_db
human needs can be achieved without setting minimums.
● Turning off all outdoor lights at 10PM.
● Ensuring that Correlated Color Temperature should not exceed 2700 Kelvin (with potential exception to vibrant social activity centers).
● Including as Standards and Guidelines the best practices that the International Dark-sky Association (IDA) provides in its Board Policy on the Application of the Lighting Principles document15 (June 24, 2021). This policy provides guidance for implementing the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting16 that are offered as mitigation for the significant impacts of ALAN on the environment. These guidelines include the following among other recommendations.
○ The spectral content, or color, of light should be limited to only what is necessary for the task. Because of the disproportionate impact on the nighttime environment, particu lar attention should be paid to reducing the total emissions of short -wavelength or “blue” light (defined for the purposes of this resolution between the wavelengths of 380 nm and 520 nm) through light source spectrum management17.
○ To minimize negative environmental impacts, IDA recommends using lamps rated at 2200K CCT18 , Phosphor-Converted Amber LED, or some filtered LED. ○ When higher than 2200K CCT is necessary to meet lighting objectives, keep the total emission of blue light in to the environment as low as reasonably possible through low intensities, careful targeting, and reduced operating times. ○ Near sensitive sites, such as conservation areas, sensitive wildlife habitat, ecological reserves, parks, astronomical observatories , or stargazing sites, IDA recommends that lighting installations use 0% blue light and a narrower spectrum of emission. ○ Critically sensitive environments should be kept naturally dark. ● Tall buildings that emit internal light at night can divert bird migration patterns and increase bird collisions.19 Any buildings that face ecologically sensitive areas should include window coverings that can be drawn at night to reduce visibility of light from surrounding areas. We are especially concerned with the lighting of parking garages, particularly the proposed garage on Amphitheater Parkway.
11) Hydrology
Have impacts of the Project to the hydrology of the Charleston Retention Basin been analyzed? Please ensure that the wetland is not deprived of water.

We thank you for the opportunity to provide comments,
15https://www.darksky.org/wp-content/uploads/bsk-pdf-manager/2021/08/BOARD-policy-application-of-light- FINAL-June-24-2021.docx.pdf
16 https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/lighting-principles/ 17 Outdoor light emission in the ultraviolet portion of the spectrum (below 380 nm) should also be avoided as it often has deleterious consequences for wildlife while providing no benefit or human utility. https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/values-centered-outdoor-lighting/ 18 There is no widespread agreement on a more relevant metric than CCT for spectrum evaluation until one is developed. In the interim, CCT may be used as a placeholder, although it should be verified that the source emits no more than 8% blue light emissions
19 https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/fee.2029?af=R and https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2101666118
Susan DesJardin
Bay Alive Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
Matthew Dodder
Executive Director
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Alice Kaufman
Policy and Advocacy Director
Green Foothills
TO: City of Mountain View, Community Development Department ATTN: Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner
500 Castro Street, PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
Febr
uary 6, 2023
D
ear Mrs. Pancholi,
I
’m writing today to comment on the Amended North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). In particular, I’d like to comment on the indirect impact on Mountain View schools – both the Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) and the Mountain View Los Altos (MVLA) High School District – responsible for educating the future children coming from this large, new proposed community. As a former MVWSD board member (2016-2020), I see this as a wonderful opportunity for the City of Mountain View, the Developer, and the 2 school districts to work together to serve the future students generated from the proposed development while also considering the broader picture factoring in all future growth in the school impact analysis and school site needs. I realize the City cannot impose school related fees on developers, but the current school impacts are grossly underestimated and the findings are not aligned with real world facts. There are numerous other projects, both approved and in process, that will also bring additional pupils to our schools well ahead of the NBPP development. These numbers do not appear to be factored into the school site impacts. Neither MVWSD nor MVLA has the monetary resources to purchase new land to house the sheer magnitude of all future growth in the city, when all existing and approved developments are factored in. Land costs were roughly $15 million and acre over 3 years ago and even with the State of California paying for ½ of the land costs, our districts simply cannot afford the remaining costs for both land and construction with their current revenue streams.

O
ne potential and logical avenue to explore, to alleviate the pressure and of either new land and/or facilities from Mountain View’s school districts, would be to faithfully, fairly, Letter L
and more equitably renegotiate the Shoreline Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment set to expire in June 2023. The current allocation to MVWSD alone is a mere 38% of what the normal tax base would be in any other part of the city. Renegotiating to a more representative rate could allow both districts to set aside funds for school site modifications, facilities expansion, potential lease lapses (as income would no longer be needed) and possibly the purchase of additional land before the NBPP students arrive, as well as help both district’s serve these students once they populate classrooms.

Without such revenue, existing student services would decline for all Mountain View students. Ideally, with a development of this size, a walkable elementary school within the NBPP community is what is needed, as all of MVWSD’s kids can currently walk and bike to nearby schools, an opportunity all Mountain View residents should be afforded.

Schools within communities foster relationships, build healthy connections, improve mental health, and serve as focal gathering spaces for after-hours events and open space use.

Thank
you for your time and consideration of my comments on the DEIR. I respectfully request a more adequate representation of the full impact on Mountain View’s schools of a development of this size, and encourage the thoughtful consideration of all possible, creative, and collaborative solutions to the vision of creating an entirely new neighborhood in our beautiful city while also supporting schools to equitably educate our children near where they live.

R
espectfully,
Tam
ara Wilson

1 City of Mountain View
Diana Pancholi, Project Manager
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
F
ebruary 6, 2023
D
ear Ms. Pancholi,
T
his document serves as the response by The Friends of Mountain View Parks to the Amended North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). I have reviewed the report and provide the following comments concerning the adequacy of the findings relating to the direct and indirect impacts to parks, open space, the Shoreline Regional Wildlife Area, and the overall quality of life in the proposed North Bayshore development.

Th
e proposed project including up to 7,000 residential units is estimated to generate approximately 12,250 new residents resulting in a parkland requirement of 36.8 acres to meet the City’s target of three (3) acres per 1,000 residents. DEIR at page 324-325.

The project Master Plan proposes a total of 30.5 acres of parks and open space with 18.9 acres of unimproved land dedicated to the City of Mountain View and 11.7 areas provided as POPA open space which would be improved and maintained by the applicant in perpetuity.

DEIR at Section 2.3.2.

Th
e applicant would pay in lieu fees for the remaining 6.2 acres. DEIR at page 331.

Section 41.5 of the City Code states that “The public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that three (3) acres of property for each one thousand (1,000) persons residing in the city be devoted to public parks and recreational facilities. Section 41.3(c) of the City Code further provides that “[i]f there is no public park or recreation facility designated or required in whole or in part within the proposed residential development, which meets the requirements set forth herein, the owner and/or developer shall be required to pay a fee in lieu of land dedication equal to the value of the land as determined by Secs. 41.5 through 41.9 of this chapter.”. “The fees collected pursuant to this chapter are to be used only for the purpose of providing park or recreational facilities to serve the residential development from which fees are collected in accordance with the service area requirement in Table 41.3 of this chapter.” Section

41.3(e).

However, a plan for how the in lieu fees based on the value of the 6.2 acres of land will be used to mitigate the impact of the approximately 12,250 new residents in the proposed North Bayshore development has not been set forth in the DEIR. The DEIR fails to provide any plan for how the in lieu fees will be spent or articulate a nexus between the use of the funds and mitigating the impact of the residential development. “[T]o be adequate the payment of fees must be tied to a functioning mitigation program.” (California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1026, 1055); “To be adequate, these mitigation fees ... must be part of a reasonable plan of actual mitigation that the relevant agency commits itself to implementing.” (Id., quoting Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1173, 1188.) “For an in-lieu fee system to satisfy the duty to mitigate, either that Letter M
2 system must be evaluated by CEQA (two tier approval for later, more specific, projects) or the in-lieu fees or other mitigation must be evaluated on a project-specific basis.” (Id.)

In addition to the 7,000 resi dential dwelling units, the proposed North Bayshore development further includes 3.1 million square feet of office space of which 1.3 million square feet is new office space and 1.8 million square feet is existing office space to be developed, 224,000 of retail space, and 525 hotel rooms. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Impact Report for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project, City of Mountain View dated February 28, 2022.

The employees, the shoppers, and the visitors to the office buildings, stores, restaurants, and hotels will use the parks and open space. But the DEIR makes no provision for the impacts of these non-residential developments on parks and open space. The cumulative impact of not only those living in the proposed NBBS development but also the employees and visitors to the area should be taken into consideration when determining the appropriate acreage of parks and open space and in developing mitigation strategies that accomplish the objectives of fostering a vibrant neighborhood and community in North Bayshore.

General Plan Policy POS 1.2 is to “Require new development to provide park and recreation facilities”. This policy is not limited to residential development. The new commercial and office developments should be required to provide park and recreation facilities in addition to the parks being created for the new residential development.

Furthermore, it is critical that adequate park and recreational facilities be provided for all those who live, work, and visit the development to ensure that the viability of the Shoreline Regional Wildlife Area as a wildlife habitat is preserved. If adequate park and recreational facilities are not provided for these new visitors and residents, they will inevitably make their way to more sensitive wildlife habitat areas as they seek out the open space not otherwise adequately provided by the project.

For at least these reasons, I recommend that the City and the proponents of the proposed North Bayshore project provide additional park and open space as part of their project, and that the City delay the approval of the North Bayshore Master Plan and the DEIR to address the concerns raised in this letter.

Sincerely,

/William R. Lambert/

The Friends of Mountain View Parks
William R. Lambert, Officer

cc: Mountain View City Council
Kimbra McCarthy, Manager, City of Mountain View

Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
North Bayshore Master Plan
December 2022
SCH No.: 2022020712
In Consultation with
Prepared by

North Bayshore Master Plan i Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………… v
Section 1.0 .....Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ........................................................................ 1

1.2 EIR Process ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Final EIR/Responses to Comments ........................................................................................ 4 Section 2.0 .....Project Information ......................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Project Site Location ............................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 12

2.4 Consistency with General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation ..................................... 38

2.5 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................. 42

2.6 Uses of the EIR ..................................................................................................................... 44 Section 3.0 .....New Significant Environmental Effects ....................................................................... 47

3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 50

3.2 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 90

3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 114

3.4 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 124

3.5 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................. 150 Section 4.0 .....Previously Identified Effects ....................................................................................... 182

4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 183

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................... 197

4.3 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 203

4.4 Energy ................................................................................................................................. 213

4.5 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................... 223

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 235

4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 269

4.8 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................... 287

4.9 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................. 294

4.10 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 297

4.11 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................... 313

4.12 Public Services.................................................................................................................... 317

4.13 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 329

4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 334

North Bayshore Master Plan ii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.15 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................... 338 Section 5.0 .....Growth-Inducing Impacts ........................................................................................... 340 Section 6.0 .....Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ................................................. 342

6.1 Irreversible Use and Irretrievable Commitments of Nonrenewable Resources.................. 342

6.2 Commitment of Future Generations to Similar Uses ......................................................... 343

6.3 Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents ......................................................... 343 Section 7.0 .....Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ......................................................................... 344 Section 8.0 .....Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 345

8.1 Factors in Selecting and Evaluating Alternatives ............................................................... 345

8.2 Project Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 349 Section 9.0 .....References ................................................................................................................... 359 Section 10.0 ...Lead Agency and Consultants ..................................................................................... 366

10.1 Lead Agency ....................................................................................................................... 366

10.2 Consultants ......................................................................................................................... 366 Section 11.0 ...Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... 368

Figures
Figure 2.2-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2.2-2: Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2.2-3: Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Area ...................................................................... 10 Figure 2.2-4: Master Plan Parcels (with APNs) ................................................................................... 11 Figure 2.3-1: Proposed Land Use Plan ................................................................................................ 13 Figure 2.3-2: Master Plan Subareas ..................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2.3-3: Proposed Park and Open Space Areas ........................................................................... 21 Figure 2.3-4: Proposed Street Network................................................................................................ 32 Figure 2.3-5: Proposed Pedestrian Network ........................................................................................ 34 Figure 2.3-6: Proposed Bicycle Network ............................................................................................. 35 Figure 2.4-1: North Bayshore Precise Plan Character Areas ............................................................... 40 Figure 2.4-2: North Bayshore Precise Plan Complete Neighborhoods ............................................... 41 Figure 3.1-1: Locations of Off-Site Sensitive Receptors and Modeled Project Traffic ....................... 73 Figure 3.4-1: Location of Existing Transit Facilities ......................................................................... 136 Figure 3.4-2: Location of Existing Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................ 137 Figure 4.1-1: Photos of the Project Site ............................................................................................. 187 Figure 4.3-1: Location of Buildings 45 Years or Older ..................................................................... 207 Figure 4.6-1: Groundwater Plumes in the Project Vicinity ............................................................... 245

North Bayshore Master Plan iii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Figure 4.6-2: Moffett Federal Airfield FAR Part 77 Surfaces ........................................................... 247 Figure 4.10-1: Moffett Federal Airfield 2022 Noise Contours .......................................................... 303

Photos
Photos 1 & 2………………………………………………………………………………………... 188
Photos 3 & 4………………………………………………………………………………………... 189
Photos 5 & 6………………………………………………………………………………………... 190
Photos 7 & 8………………………………………………………………………………………... 191

Tables
Table 2.1-1: Summary of Development Evaluated in the 2017 SEIR, Approved and Developed, and Proposed Master Plan ............................................................................................................................ 6 Table 2.3-1: Master Plan Development by Subareas ........................................................................... 16 Table 2.3-2: Square Footage of Master Plan Uses ............................................................................... 19 Table 2.3-3: Park and Open Space Locations and Size ....................................................................... 19 Table 2.3-4: Construction Phasing ....................................................................................................... 31 Table 2.3-5: Summary of Proposed District Parking Facilities ........................................................... 36 Table 2.3-6: Precise Plan Bicycle Parking Requirements .................................................................... 36 Table 2.4-1: Precise Plan Combined Comple te Neighborhood Development Targets and Master Plan Development ....................................................................................................................................... 39 Table 2.6-1: Required Approvals ......................................................................................................... 44 Table 3.0-1: Cumulative Projects List ................................................................................................. 48 Table 3.1-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants ...................................................................................... 50 Table 3.1-2: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ............................................................ 55 Table 3.1 -3: Project with District Utilities System Option Daily Unmitigated Construction Period Emissions (Pounds Per Day) ................................................................................................................ 60 Table 3.1 -4: Project with District Utilities System Option Daily Mitigated Construction Period Emissions (Pounds Per Day) ................................................................................................................ 63 Table 3.1-5: Project with District Utilities System Option Operational Period Emissions ................. 65 Table 3.1-6: Comparison of Project Emissions to Air Basin ROG Emissions (tons/day) ................... 69 Table 3.1-7: Project with District Utilities System Option Construction and Operational Community Risk Impacts at the Off-Site Receptors ................................................................................................ 74 Table 3.1-8: Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures ........................................ 77 Table 3.1-9: Cumulative Health Risk Impacts at the Off-Site MEI ..................................................... 84 Table 3.1-10: Impacts from Cumulative TAC Sources at the Project Site .......................................... 87 Table 3.4-1: North Bayshore Gateway Trip Cap Policy Evaluation .................................................. 141

North Bayshore Master Plan iv Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 3.4-2: North Bayshore Master Plan Vehicle Trip Generation Comparison ............................. 142 Table 3.4-3: Total Project-Generated VMT ....................................................................................... 145 Table 3.4-4: Boundary VMT Assessment .......................................................................................... 148 Table 3.5-1: Mountain View Potable Water Demand, Normal Year (AFY) ..................................... 169 Table 4.4-1: 2017 EIR Precise Plan Energy Demand ........................................................................ 220 Table 4.4-2: Project Net Increase in Energy Use ............................................................................... 220 Table 4.6-1: Known or Suspected Contaminants by APN ................................................................. 242 Table 4.6-2: Identification of 2017 EIR Mitigation Measures by APN ............................................. 259 Table 4.10-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria ...................................................................... 298 Table 4.10-2: General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ...................................................... 299 Table 4.10-3: Projected Daily and Peak Hour Trips Compared to 2017 EIR .................................... 306 Table 4.12-1: 2021 to 2022 School Enrollment and Capacity ........................................................... 321 Table 8.2-1: Summary of Development Assumptions for the Project and Project Alternatives ....... 351 Table 8.2 -2: Approximate Percent Reduction in Development Required to Avoid Significant and Unavoidable Construction and Operational Air Quality Impacts ...................................................... 353 Table 8.2-3: Comparison of Impacts Between the Project and Project Alternatives ......................... 357

Appendices
Appendix A: Draft North Bayshore Master Plan
Appendix B: NOP and Comments Received
Appendix C: Air Quality Report
Appendix D: Transportation Analysis
Appendix E: Biological Confirmation Report and Peer Review Appendix F: Arborist Report
Appendix G: Historic Resources Evaluation
Appendix H: Geotechnical Reports
Appendix I: Hazardous Materials Reports
Appendix J: Utility Impact Study
Appendix K: Water Supply Assessment

North Bayshore Master Plan v Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

SUMMARY

The City of Mountain View, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

As the CEQA Lead Agency for this project, the City of Mountain View is required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to approve the project. The basic requirements for an EIR include discussions of the environmental setting, significant environmental impacts (including growth -inducing impacts and cumulative impacts), mitigation measures, and alternatives. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend either approval or denial of a project.

This EIR tiers from the certified 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan Final Subsequent EIR (2017 EIR, SCH #2013082088) and Mountain View 2030 General Plan EIR (SCH #2011012069), both of which are specifically incorporated by reference into this EIR.

Summary of the Project
The approximately 151 -acre project site is generally located to the north of U.S. Highway 101 (US 101), west of Stevens Creek, south of Charleston Road, and east of Alta Avenue, within the Shorebird, Joaquin, and Pear Complete Neighborhood Character Areas of the Precise Plan. The project site is currently developed with 6 9 office, light industrial , and retail buildings totaling approximately 1,853,703 square feet, as well as landscaping and surface parking lots . The project proposes to demolish 68 of the existing 6 9 buildings and construct u p to 7,000 residential dwelling units, up to 3,145,897 million square feet of office space (including 1,303,250 square feet of net new office space and 1,842,647 square feet of existing office space to be redeveloped), up to 244,000 square feet of retail uses, up to of 55,000 square feet of community facilities, up to 525 hotel rooms, up to six above- ground parking structures, and a 2,000 square foot Police Operations Station. The project would also dedicate 18.9 acres of public open space and construct 11.7 acres of Privately Owned Publicly Accessible (POPA) open space. The project would also include new vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation. As a project option, the applicant could develop a private district utility systems with an approximately 130,000 square -foot District Central Plant (DCP) and system of underground distribution/collection lines to serve the buildings wi thin the Master Plan with wastewater, recycled water, thermal energy (heating and cooling), electric power via a microgrid, and/or pneumatic waste collection. A more detailed project description is provided in Section 2.3 Project Description.

North Bayshore Master Plan vi Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section summarizes (1) new significant impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project, which were not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR (identified as MM), and (2) impacts and mitigation measures previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR that are applicable to the project (identified as 2017 EIR MM). The impacts and mitigation measures refer to the project (which assumes standard municipal utilities), the project with District Utilities System Option (which assumes a private district utility system would be constructed as a project design option), or Both Options.

A detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation measures is provided in Sections 3.0 New Significant Environmental Effects and 4.0 Previously Identified Effects of this EIR.

Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
Impact AQ-1: Both Project Options:

The project (under either option)
would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan by resulting in
construction NOx emissions,
operational ROG, NOx, and PM10
emissions, and health risks (primarily
due to construction emissions) in
excess of BAAQMD thresholds. (New
Impact [Significant and Unavoidable
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated])

Impact AQ-2: Both Project Options:

The project (under either option)
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. (New Impact
[Significant and Unavoidable Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated])

Impact AQ-3: Both Project Options:

The project (under either option)
would expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
(New Impact [Significant and
Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation
2017 EIR MM AQ-2.11: Both Project Options: Measures to
reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM 10 from
construction shall be implemented to ensure that short -term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided. The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures
recommended by BAAQ MD to reduce fugitive dust
emissions. There shall be a designated on-site coordinator and monitor to ensure implementation of the below dust control measures. Emission reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the following measures:
• When the air qua lity index forecast exceeds 100 for
particulates for the project area and the reading
exceeds 100 for particulates by 10:00 a.m. for the
project area, prohibit grading activities for that day. • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access
roads) shall be watered at a frequency of no less than
two times per day in order to maintain adequate soil
moisture for dust control. Dewatering effluent
extracted from the site may be utilized for watering all exposed surfaces, if found to meet VOC and Fuel
General Permit NPDES permit requirements pursuant
to the Site Management Plan required per Precise Plan
EIR MM HAZ -3.1 in Section 5.8 Hazards and
Hazardous Materials.
• Minimize the amount of excavated material o r waste
materials stored at the site or cover them with
tarpaulin.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered and loaded material

1 This mitigation measure has been revised to reflect the updated BAAQMD best management practices identified in the updated 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and additional recommendations from BAAQMD.

North Bayshore Master Plan vii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
Incorporated])

Impact AQ-4: Project with District
Utilities Systems Option: The project
with District Utilities Systems Option
would not result in other emissions
(such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people. (New Impact [Less
than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated])

Impact AQ-C: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a
cumulatively significant air quality
impact. (New Impact [Significant
and Unavoidable Cumulative
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated])
shall not extend above the walls or back of the truck
bed.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited
to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved
shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads
shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
• Prohibit off -road diesel -powered equipment from
being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per
day.
• 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 measure Title
13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations
[CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points.
• 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.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Mountain View
and the on -site coordinator/monitor regarding dust
complaints. The on -site coordi nator/monitor shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

BAAQMD’s phone number will also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed
20 mph and visible dust extends beyond site
boundaries.
• Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of
construction adjacent to sensitive receptors. Wind
breaks should have at maximum 50 percent porosity.
• Where applicable, vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast- germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in

North Bayshore Master Plan viii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered
appropriately until vegetation is established.

2017 EIR MM AQ -2.2: Both Project Options: The
following additional me asures to reduce exhaust emissions from large construction projects shall be implemented:
• The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for
approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that
the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to
be used in the construction project, including owned,
leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a
project wide fleet -average 20 percent NO x reduction
and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the
most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011.
• Clear signage at all construction sites will be posted indicating that diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would
include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil,
aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum
concrete trucks could keep their engines running
continuously as long as they were onsite or adjacent to the construction site.
• The contractor shall install temporary electrical
service whenever possible to avoid the need for

North Bayshore Master Plan ix Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
independently powered equipmen t (e.g.,
compressors).
• Properly tune and maintain equipment for low
emissions.

2017 EIR MM AQ-3.1: Both Project Options: Construction
health risk assessments shall be required on a project -by- project basis, either through screening or refined modeling, to identify impacts and, if necessary, include effective mitigation measures to reduce exposure and significant risks to health, based upon BAAQMD -recommended thresholds for TACs
(e.g., 10 in one million cancer cases). Reduction in health risk can be accompl ished through, though is not limited to, the following measures:
• Construction equipment selection;
• Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices;
• Modify construction schedule; and
• Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or
Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for
control of fugitive dust.

2017 EIR MM AQ -4.1: Both Project Options: The
following measures shall be utilized in site planning and building designs to reduce TAC and PM 2.5 exposure where new sensitive receptors are located within 650 feet of US 101:
• Future development under the Precise Plan that
includes sensitive receptors (such as residences,
schools, hospitals, daycare centers, or retirement
homes) located within 650 feet of US 101, local
roadways, and stat ionary sources shall require site -
specific analysis to quantify the level of TAC and
PM2.5 exposure. This analysis shall be conducted
following procedures outlined by BAAQMD. If the
site-specific analysis reveals significant exposures,
such as cancer risk greater than 10 in one million acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than

1.0, or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.3 µg/m3,
or a significant cumulative health risk in terms of
excess cancer risk greater than 100 in one million,
acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater
than 10.0, or annual PM 2.5 exposures greater than 0.8
µg/m3, additional measures such as those detailed
below shall be employed to reduce the risk to below

North Bayshore Master Plan x Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
the threshold. If this is not possible, the sensitive
receptors shall be relocated.
• Future developments that would include TAC sources
would be evaluated through the CEQA process or
BAAQMD permit process to ensure that they do not
cause a significant health risk in terms of excess
cancer risk greater than 10 i n one million, acute or
chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 1.0,
or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.3 µg/m3, or a
significant cumulative health risk in terms of excess
cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, acute or
chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 10.0,
or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.8 µg/m3
• For significant cancer risk exposure, as defined by
BAAQMD, indoor air filtration systems shall be
installed to effectively reduce particulate levels to a less than si gnificant level. Project sponsors shall
submit performance specifications and design details
to demonstrate that lifetime residential exposures
would result in less than significant cancer risks (less than 10 in one million chances or 100 in one million
for cumulative sources), Hazard Index or PM 2.5
concentration.
• Air filtration systems installed shall be rated MERV - 13 or higher and a maintenance plan for the air
filtration system shall be implemented.
• Trees and/or vegetation shall be planted between
sensitive receptors and pollution sources, if feasible.

Tree species that are best suited to trapping particulate matter shall be planted, including the following: Pine
(Pinus nigra var. maritime), Cypress (X
Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid poplar (Populus
deltoids X trichocarpa), and Redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens).
• Sites shall be designed to locate sensitive receptors as far as feasible from any freeways, roadways,
refineries, diesel generators, distribution centers, and rail lines.
• Operable windows, balconies, and building air intakes shall be located as far away from these sources as
feasible. If near a distribution center, residents shall not be located immediately adjacent to a loading dock
or where trucks concentrate to deliver goods.

North Bayshore Master Plan xi Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
MM AQ -1.1: Both Pro ject Options: The project (under
either option) shall implement the following measures during all phases of construction:
• On-road heavy-duty trucks used for construction shall be zero emissions or meet the current most stringent
emissions standard, if feas ible and commercially
available.
• All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower
used at the site for more than two continuous days or
20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission
standards for NO x and PM (PM 10 and PM 2.5), if
feasible, otherwise,
o If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available,
alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA
emission standards for Tier 2 or 3 engines and
include particulate matter emissions control
equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel
emission control devices that altogether achieve
an 85 -percent reduction in particulate matter
exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment;
alternatively (or in combination). The project
applicant shall provide to the City for review and
approval documentation showing that engines that
comply with Tier 4 Final off -road emission
standards are not commercially available for the
specific off -road equipment necessary during
construction. For purposes of this mitigation
measure, “commercially available” shall take into
consideration the following factors: (i) potential
significant delays to critical -path timing of
construction and (ii) the geographic proximity to
the project site of Tier 4 Final equipment.
o Use of alternatively fueled equipment with lower
NOx emissions that meet the NO x and PM
reduction requirements above.
• Use electric portable equipment such as aerial lifts, air compressors, cement mortar mixers,
concrete/industrial saws, cranes, and welders. Portable equipment shall be powered by grid electri city or
alternative fuels (i.e., not diesel) instead of by diesel generators.
• Provide line power to the site during the early phases of construction to minimize the use of diesel - or gas- powered equipment.
• Diesel engines, whether for off road equipment or on
road vehicles, shall not be left idling for more than two minutes, except as provided in exceptions to the

North Bayshore Master Plan xii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
applicable state regulations (e.g., traffic conditions, safe operating conditions). The construction sites shall have posted legible and visible s igns in designated
queuing areas and at the construction site to clearly
notify operators of idling limit.
• Use low volatile organic compound or VOC (i.e.,
ROG) coatings, that are below current BAAQMD
requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings), for at least 80 percent of all residential and nonresidential interior paints and 80 percent of
exterior paints. This includes all architectural coatings applied during both construction and reapplications
throughout the project’s operational li fetime. At least 80 percent of coatings applied must meet a “super -
compliant" VOC standard of less than 10 grams of
VOC per liter of paint. For reapplication of coatings
during the project’s operational lifetime, the
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, a nd
Restrictions shall contain a stipulation for low VOC
coatings to be used. Examples of “super -compliant”
coatings are contained in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s website.2
• The City shall review the above measures every two
years to en sure these measures incorporate the latest
guidance and tools available to mitigate the identified impacts as recommended by BAAQMD project
construction and introduction of new land uses would
occur over 14 years or further into the future where
newer measures and measures that are not considered
feasible now would be available to further reduce
emissions. These could include greater use of zero -
emission construction and stationary equipment and
more incentives to support zero emission vehicles.

New updated mitigations if identified as part of the
two year assessment would be implemented with
every new building construction approved as part of
the Master Plan project from that point onwards

2 South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Super-Compliant Architectural Coatings.” Accessed December 7, 2022. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/super-compliant- coatings.

North Bayshore Master Plan xiii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
MM AQ-1.2: Both Project Options: Permanent stationary
emergency generators installed on-site shall have engines that meet or exceed U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards for NO x and
particulate matter emissions.

MM AQ-4.1: Project with District Utilities System Option:

The project applicant shall develop and implement an odor control plan that addresses plant design issues to control odors, identifies operating and maintenance procedures to prevent odors, and includes a corrective action plan to respond to upset conditions and odor complaints. The odor control plan shall describe the design elements and best management practices built into the facility, including the following:

• Ventilation of the system using carbon absorption,
biofiltration, ammonia scrubbers, or other effective
means to treat exhausted air from the enclosed facility; • Odor proofing of refuse containers used to store and
transport grit and screenings or biosolids; and
• Injection of chemicals to control hydrogen sulfide.

In the event the facility receives confirmed complaints related to five separate incidents per year averaged over a three -year period, pursuant to BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the plant
shall revise the odor control plan and resubmit it to the City for review and approval. If implementation of additional measures to control odors described in the plan does not lessen the complaints to less than five per year, the plant shall cease operations. All wastewater generated by the project shall be directed to the municipal wastewater system, and subsequent environmental review shall be required to assess the impacts of continued operations of the facility.

Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding odor complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air

North Bayshore Master Plan xiv Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. A log of odor
complaints and procedures implemented to respond to
complaints shall be maintained by the operator and provided to the City upon request.

Impact BIO-1: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would not 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. [New Impact (Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)]

Impact BIO-C: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution
to a cumulatively significant biological
resources impact. [New Cumulative
Impact (Less than Significant
Cumulative Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)]
MM BIO-1.1: Both Project Options: Within two years prior to disturbance of ruderal habitat for construction of the Shoreline Amphitheatre parking structure, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for Congdon’s tarplant du ring the appropriate season (e.g., late summer and fall), at a time when the species is detectable at nearby reference sites. The survey shall cover all areas within, and within 50 feet of, the construction area for the parking structure. If Congdon’s tarplant is found in the survey area, the applicant shall comply with North Bayshore Precise Plan Landscape Design Standard 4 to protect and manage Congdon’s tarplant. Management
measures would be developed in coordination with the
California Department of Fis h and Wildlife, and may include establishment of a new population or enhancement of existing populations at Shoreline Park (in coordination with the City of Mountain View).

MM BIO-1.2: Both Project Options: Nonnative milkweeds
shall not be included in Mas ter Plan landscaping. Although native milkweeds are encouraged in landscaping, they shall not be irrigated after August to allow those plants to senesce so that monarchs do not lay eggs on those plants too late in fall, and so that no suitable hostplants a re present in late fall that might encourage monarchs to attempt winter breeding instead of migrating to coastal aggregation sites.

MM BIO-1.3: Both Project Options: Within two weeks prior to any clearing, construction, or maintenance in landscaped areas that provide milkweeds that have not completely
senesced, a qualified biologist shall survey those milkweed plants for monarch butterfly eggs, larvae, or pupae. If the plants do not support monarch eggs, larvae, or pupae, the qualified biologist shall remo ve those plants immediately (during the survey) to prevent monarchs from laying eggs between the time of the survey and initiation of impacts. If any eggs, larvae, or pupae are detected within the survey area, then impacts to the plants supporting those in dividuals shall be delayed until the emergence of those individual butterflies as adults. If such a delay is infeasible, the applicant shall coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding recommendations. For example, larvae could be

North Bayshore Master Plan xv Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
relocated to milkweeds outside the impact area, if those milkweeds are not already occupied by monarch eggs or
larvae. Alternatively, monarch butterflies could be raised in captivity and released (with USFWS approval).

Impact GHG-2: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs. (New Impact
[Significant and Unavoidable
Impact])
Same mitigation measures as discussed above for Impact AQ- 1 through AQ-C.

Impact GHG-C: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a
cumulatively significant GHG
emissions impact. (New Impact
[Significant and Unavoidable
Cumulative Impact])
Same mitigation measures as discussed above for Impact AQ- 1 through AQ-C.

Impact HAZ-2: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment. (Same Impact as
Approved Project [Less than
Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated])
2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.1: Both Project Options: If a future project is located in an area for which an overseeing regulatory agency (e.g., US EPA, California Department of Toxic
Substances Control [DTSC], San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board [Water Board ] or DEH) has
determined that mitigation or other site management measures are required prior to future development, the project applicant shall coordinate development activities with the overseeing regulatory agency and adhere to the project -specific
development requirements.

2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.3:3 Both Project Options: Prior to the start of any construction activity on properties with known contaminants of concern (COC) exceeding the lower of the then-current DTSC, Water Board or US EPA residential vapor intrusion screening levels, the project applicant shall submit a Vapor Intrusion Control Evaluation to the City and the
designated regulatory oversight agency for review and
approval which consists of the following:
• An Air Monitoring Plan, which would assess the
exposure of fu ture on -site construction workers and
neighboring occupants adjoining the site to COCs; this

3 This mitigation measure has been revised from the 2017 EIR to provide clarity on the requirements.

North Bayshore Master Plan xvi Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
plan shall specify measures to be implemented if COC
concentrations exceed threshold values.
• A determination as to whether or not vapor intrusion
controls are required to be designed and implemented
into the project’s construction. If vapor intrusion
controls are required, the Vapor Intrusion Controls
Evaluation shall detail the specific proposed controls, which shall comprise of project components designed
specifically for vapor intrusion control (e.g., a sub - slab vapor barrier and/or ventilation system) and/or
project components designed primarily for other
purposes, which may also mitigate potential vapor
intrusion (e.g., waterproofing systems or parking level ventilation). The Vapor Intrusion Controls Evaluation
shall also summarize any anticipated operations and
maintenance requirements for the planned vapor
intrusion controls, if applicable, as well as a summary of planned activities to evaluate the performance of
the planned vapor intrusion controls, such as post -
construction indoor air sampling.
• If required by the regulatory agency, specific
evaluation documents, including but not limited to the
following, shall be submitted to the City and the
oversight agency for review and approval:
o Vapor Intrusion Control Completion Report
documenting installation of the vapor control
measures identified in the Vapor Intrusion Control
Evaluation, including plans and specifications,
and shall include results of post -construction
indoor air sampling and system commissioning,
where applicable.
o Long-Term Operations, Maintenance, and
Monitoring Plan, which shall describe actions to
be taken following construction to maintain and
monitor selected remedial measures.

2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.4: Both Project Options: Prior to the start of any construction activity on properties with known COC exceeding the lower of the then -current DTSC, Water Board or US EPA residential screening levels, the project applicant shall coordinate work act ivities with the oversight agency and Responsible Parties (as designated by the oversight agency), including identifying conditions that could affect the implementation and monitoring of the approved remedy.

North Bayshore Master Plan xvii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.5: Both Project Options: 4 At future project sites identified as being impacted or potentially impacted during the property -specific Phase I ESA or
subsequent studies, a Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared prior to development activities to establish
management practices for handling contaminated soil, soil vapor, or other materials during construction. The SMP shall be prepared by an Environmental Professional and be
submitted to the overseeing regulatory agency for review and approval prior to construction. The project appl icant shall provide the oversight agency’s written approval of the SMP to the City or confirmation from the oversight agency that their review is not required. The SMP for the property shall include the following activities:
• Property control procedures to control the flow of
personnel, vehicles and materials in and out of the
property.
• Monitoring of vapors (if VOCs are determined to be a
COC) during the removal of the underground utilities
as well as any other underground features. An
Environmental Profes sional shall be present to
observe soil conditions, monitor vapors with a hand
held meter and low level VOC detector, as
appropriate, and determine if additional soil, soil gas, and air sampling should be performed. Protocols and
procedures shall be presen ted for determining when
soil sampling and analytical testing will be performed.

If additional sampling is performed, a report
documenting sampling activities (with site plans and
analytical data) shall be provided to the oversight
agency.
• Minimization of dust generation, storm water runoff
and off-property tracking of soil.
• Minimization of airborne dust during demolition
activities.
• Management of property risks during earthwork
activities in areas where impacted soil, soil vapor
and/or ground water are present or suspected. Worker
training requirements, health and safety measures and
soil handling procedures shall be described.
• Decontamination to be implemented by the Contractor
to reduce the potential for construction equipment and

4 This mitigation measure has been revised from the 2017 EIR to provide clarity on the requirements.

North Bayshore Master Plan xviii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
vehicles to release contaminated soil onto public
roadways or other off-property transfer.
• Perimeter air monitoring at the property during any
activity that substantially disturbs the property soil
(e.g., mass grading, foundation construction,
excavation or utility trenching). This monitoring shall be used to document the effectiveness of required dust
and vapor control measures.
• Contingency measures for previously unidentified
buried structures, wells, debris, or areas of impacted
soil that could be encountered during prope rty
development activities.
• Characterization and profiling of soil suspected of
being contaminated so that appropriate disposal or
reuse alternatives can be implemented. All soil
excavated and transported from the property shall be
appropriated disposed at a permitted facility.
• Segregation of “clean” and “impacted” soil stockpiles. • Evaluation and documentation of the quality of soil
imported to the property.
• Soil containing chemicals exceeding the lower of the
then-current DTSC, Water Board or US EPA
residential screening levels or typical background
concentrations of metals shall not be accepted.
• Monitoring of excavations and trenches for the
potential presence of VOC vapors (if a COC).
• Evaluation of the on -property soil conditions to
determine if they will adversely affect the integrity of below ground utility lines and/or structures (e.g., the potential for corrosion).
• Measures to reduce potential soil vapor and ground
water migration through trench backfill and utility
conduits (if soil and/or grou nd water are
contaminated). Such measures shall include
placement of low -permeability backfill “plugs” at
specified intervals on -property and at all locations
where utility trenches extend off-property. In addition, utility conduits that are placed below g round water
shall be installed with watertight fittings to reduce the potential for ground water to migrate into conduits.
• If the property is known to have COCs with the
potential for mobilization, a Civil Engineer shall
design the bottom and sides of veg etated swales and

North Bayshore Master Plan xix Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
water retention ponds to be lined with a minimum 30
mil5 heavy duty plastic to help prevent infiltration.
• If deep foundation systems are proposed, the
foundations shall incorporate measures to help reduce
the potential for the downward migration of
contaminated ground water (if present).
• Methods to mitigate the potential for vapor intrusion of VOC vapors (if present) into the planned structures. • For construction activity that involves below ground
work (e.g., mass grading, foundation construction,
excavating or utility trenching), information regarding property risk management procedures (e.g., a copy of
the SMP) shall be provided to the contractors for their review, and each contractor should provide such
information to its subcontractors.
• If excavation dewatering is required, protocols shall be prepared to evaluate water quality and
discharge/disposal alter natives; the pumped water
shall not be used for on -property dust control or any
other on property use if contaminated. If long -term
dewatering is required, the means and methods to
extract, treat and dispose ground water also shall be
presented and shall i nclude treating/discharging
ground water to the sanitary sewer under a Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW) permit or treating
/discharging ground water to the storm drain system
pursuant to a California Regional Water Quality
Control Board - San Francisc o Bay Region (Water
Board) NPDES permit. If dewatering activities may
impact known ground water contaminant plumes in
the vicinity of the property, the oversight agency
responsible for the remediation of these contaminant
releases shall be notified of planned activities.
• The project applicant’s Environmental Professional
shall assist in the implementation of the SMP for the
property and shall, at a minimum, perform part -time
observation services during demolition, excavation,
grading and trenching activiti es. Upon completion of
construction activities that significantly disturb the
soil, the Environmental Professional shall prepare a
report documenting compliance with the SMP; this
report shall be submitted to the City and to the
oversight agency (if the pr operty is under regulatory
oversight - which would require the Project Applicant

5 A mil is a measurement that equals one-thousandth of an inch, or 0.001 inch. One mil also equals 0.0254 millimeter.

North Bayshore Master Plan xx Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
to provide the oversight agency’s written approval of
the SMP Completion Report to the City or
confirmation that the oversight agency’s review is not
required).

2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.6: Both Project Options: Leaving
contaminated soil with COC above residential screening levels in place or re - using it on future project sites shall require an oversight agency’s written approval; the written approval shall be provided to the City. At a minimum, if contaminated soil is left in-place, a deed restriction or land use covenant shall detail the location of these soils. This document shall include a surveyed map of these impacted soils; shall restrict future excavation in these areas; and shall require future excavation be conducted in these areas only upon written approval by an oversight agency.

2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.7: Both Project Options: Any soil,
soil vapor and/or ground water remediation of a future project site during development act ivities shall require written approval by an oversight agency and shall meet all applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and requirements.

2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.8:6 Both Project Option: Due to the
North Bayshore Precise Plan area’s proximity to US-101, soil sampling and analytical testing on a future site adjacent to US- 101 for lead shall be performed (due to historical leaded gasoline use). If lead is detected above the lower of the then - current DTSC, Water Board or US EPA residential screenin g levels, it shall be appropriately managed under regulatory agency oversight.

2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.9: Both Project Options: Unless the
Phase I ESA documents that a specific project site was
historically not used for agricultural purposes, soil sampling and laboratory analyses shall be performed to evaluate the residual pesticide concentrations, if any, and potential health risks to future occupants and construction workers.

2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.10: Both Project Options: Soil
exported from future project sites within the Precise Plan area shall be analyzed for COCs amongst other chemicals as
required by the receiving facility.

6 This mitigation measure has been revised from the 2017 EIR to provide clarity on the requirements.

North Bayshore Master Plan xxi Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.11: Both Project Options: The
project applicant shall require the construction General Contractor to prepare a Healt h and Safety Plan (HSP)
establishing appropriate protocols for working at the property.

Workers conducting property earthwork activities in
contaminated areas shall complete 40 -hour HAZWOPER
training course (29 CFR 1910.120). The General Contractor shall b e responsible for the health and safety of their employees as well as for compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and guidelines.

2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.12: Both Project Options:

Groundwater monitoring wells and remediation system
components located on future project sites within the Precise Plan area shall be protected during construction. Upon written approval from the overseeing regulatory agency, the wells could be destroyed under permit from the Santa Clara Water District prior to ma ss grading activities. Relocation of the wells may be required. The locations of future ground water monitoring wells and other remediation infrastructure, if any, shall be incorporated into the development plans.

2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.13: Both Project Optio ns: If future project sites are under active regulatory agency oversight, the project applicant and subsequent owners and occupants shall provide access to the sites, including ongoing access to monitoring wells for monitoring and sampling purposes, and cooperate with the oversight agency and Responsible Parties during implementation of any subsequent investigation or remediation, if required. In addition, if vapor intrusion poses a human health risk, the project applicant and subsequent property owners and occupants shall provide access for future indoor air vapor monitoring activities and shall not interfere with the implementation of remedies required by the oversight agency.

2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.14: Both Project Options: For future
sites that are subject to activity and use limitations (AULs), such as institutional (legal or regulatory restrictions on a property’s use such as deed restrictions) and engineering (physical mechanisms that restrict property access or use) controls, compliance will be maintained.

North Bayshore Master Plan xxii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.15: Both Project Options: At future
sites where hazardous materials are used or stored, a permit may be required for facility closure (i.e., demolition, removal, or abandonment) of any facility or portion of a facility. The project applicant shall contact the Mountain View Fire
Department and County Department of Environmental Health to determine facility closure requirements prior to building demolition or change in property use.

Impact NOI-2: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would not result in generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. (Same
Impact as Approved Project [Less
than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated])
2017 EIR MM NOI-4.1: Both Project Options: Avoid
impact pile driving where possible. Drilled piles cause lower vibration levels where geological conditions permit their use.

2017 EIR MM NOI-4.2: Both Project Options: Avoid using
vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas.

2017 EIR MM NOI -4.3: Both Project Options: In areas
where project construction is anticipated to include vibration - generating activities, such as pile driving, in close proximity to existing structures, site -specific vibration studies shall be conducted to determine the area of impact and to presen t appropriate mitigation measures that may include the
following:

• Identification of sites that would include vibration
compaction activities such as pile driving and have the potential to generate ground -borne vibration, and the
sensitivity of nearby str uctures to ground -borne
vibration. Vibration limits shall be applied to all
vibration-sensitive structures located within 200 feet
of the project. A qualified structural engineer shall
conduct this task.
• Development of a vibration monitoring and
construction contingency plan to identify structures
where monitoring would be conducted, set up a
vibration monitoring schedule, define structure -
specific vibration limits, and address the need to
conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to
document before and after construction conditions.
• Construction contingencies shall be identified for
when vibration levels approached the limits.
• At a minimum, vibration monitoring shall be
conducted during initial demolition activities and
during pile driving activities. Mo nitoring results may

North Bayshore Master Plan xxiii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
indicate the need for more or less intensive
measurements.
• When vibration levels approach limits, suspend
construction and implement contingencies to either
lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures. • Conduct post -survey on structures where either
monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of
damage has been made. Make appropriate repairs or
compensation where damage has occurred as a result
of construction activities.

Summary of Project Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to a project as it is proposed. The CEQA Guidelines specify that the EIR should identify alternatives which “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any o f the significant effects of the project.” The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to determine whether there are alternatives of design, scope, or location which would substantially lessen the significant impacts, even if those alternatives “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives” or are more expensive (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6).

While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of meeting all of the project objectives, their ability to meet most of the objectives is considered relevant to their consideration. The project objectives are identified in Section 2.5 Project Objectives of this EIR. The EIR considered four alternatives but rejected them for further analysis. A summary of the three project alternative s considered and evaluated in this EIR is provided below. Refer to Section 8.0 Alternatives for the full discussion of each alternative.

No Project, No New Development Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines specifically require consideration of a “No Project” Alternative. The purpose of including a No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project. The CEQA Guidelines specifically advise that the No Project Alternative shall address both the existing conditions and “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable f uture if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (Section 15126.6(e)(2).

Under the No Project, No New Development Alternative, the project site would remain as it is today.

Under existing conditions, the site is developed with 69 buildings totaling approximately 1,853,703 square feet of office, light industrial, and retail uses. The No Project, No New Development Alternative would avoid the project’s impacts (under either option) but would not meet any of the project objectives or Precise Plan guiding principles.

North Bayshore Master Plan xxiv Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Mitigated 11 Percent Reduced Development Alternative
The purpose of the Mitigated 11 Percent Reduced Development Alternative is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable construction NOx emissions impact with the incorporation of the air quality mitigation measures identified for the project (under either option). The Mitigated 11 Percent Reduced Development Alternative assu mes approximately 2.8 million square feet of office uses, 6,230 residential units, 217,000 square feet of retail uses, 49,000 square feet of community uses , and 27.4 acres of park land. This alternative would reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable construction NOx impact (Impact AQ-1) to a less than significant level (for year 2024 only) with mitigation, and result in the same or similar (though lesser) impacts to all other environm ental resource areas as the project under either option. This alternative partially meets all of the project objectives but to a lesser extent and meets only some of the Precise Plan principles.

Mitigated 39 Percent Reduced Development Alternative
The purpose of the Mitigated 39 Percent Reduced Development Alternative is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable construction NOx emissions impact, health risk (cancer and annual PM2.5) impact, and operational NOx and PM10 emissions impact with the incorporation of the air quality mitigation measures identified for the project (under either option). The Mitigated 39 Percent Reduced Development Alternative assumes approximately 1.9 million square feet of office uses, 4,270 residential units, 148,840 square feet of gro und floor retail space, 33,500 square feet of community uses, and 1 8.6 acres of park land . This alternative would reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable construction NO x impact (Impact AQ -1), health risk impact (Impact AQ -1), and operational NOx and PM10 impact (Impact AQ-1) to a less than significant level with mitigation, and result in the same or similar (though lesser) impacts regarding operational ROG (Impact AQ-1) and all other environmental resource areas as the project under either option. This alternative would not meet project objectives 4 or 5. It could meet project objectives 3 and 7 but to a lesser extent than the project under either option, and it could meet project objectives 6 and 8. This option would not meet the majority of the Precise Plan principles.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. As described in Section 8.0 Alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project is the No Project, No New Development Alternative because all of the project’s significant environmental impacts would be avoided. In addition to the No Project, No New Development Alternative, the Mitigated 39 Percent Reduced Development Alternative would be environmentally superior alternative.

North Bayshore Master Plan xxv Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Areas of Concern
Environmental concerns expressed thus far from local residents, property owners, organizations, and/or agencies about the project include the following:

• Biological impacts (nesting birds, egrets, trees, wetland habitat) • Lighting impacts on local wildlife
• Energy efficiency
• Recreational impacts
• Impacts to groundwater resulting from construction dewatering • Project-generated traffic on roadway and freeway capacity • Bicycle/Pedestrian as it pertains to transportation impacts • Required connections to existing utilities infrastructure and needed improvements • Sea-level rise

North Bayshore Master Plan 1 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City of Mountain View, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is an informational document that assesses potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, as well as identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines 15121(a)) . As the CEQA Le ad Agency for this project, the City of Mountain View is required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to approve the p roject. The basic requirements for an EIR include discussions of the environmental setting, significant environmental impacts including growth -inducing impacts , cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend either approval or denial of a project.

This EIR is a Subsequent EIR to the certified 2014 North Bayshore Precise Plan Final EIR (2014 EIR, State Clearinghouse [SCH] # 2013082088) and 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan Final Subsequent EIR (2017 EIR, SCH #2013082088). The primary purpose of the North Bayshore Precise Plan (Precise Plan) was to increase the density of development and incorporate a more balanced mix of land uses within the North Bayshore area. The Precise Plan allows for up to 10.4 million square feet o f office and R&D development uses, 198,538 square feet of retail/restaurant uses, 26,138 square feet of service uses, and 9,854 residential units.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase i n the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe th an shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the

North Bayshore Master Plan 2 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Based on the analysis contained in this EIR, the proposed project’s significant air quality impact requires a subsequent EIR.

1.1.1 Tiering of the Environmental Review
This document is a Subsequent EIR to the 2017 EIR and tiers from the 2017 EIR and Mountain View 2030 General Plan EIR (SCH #2011012069) (General Plan EIR). The CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 contains the following information on tiering an environmental document:

(a) “Tiering” refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project.

(b) Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analysis which they prepare for separate but related projects inc luding general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy or program of lesser scope, or to a site -specific EIR or negative declaration. Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant effects of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed.

North Bayshore Master Plan 3 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

1.1.2 Focus of the Subsequent EIR
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d), this Subsequent EIR focuses on the new effects which had not been considered before in the 2017 EIR and General Plan EIR . The City of Mountain View determined that the project’s effects on the following environmental resources were previously addressed and adequately covered in the 2017 EIR and General Plan EIR:

• Aesthetics • Mineral Resources
• Agriculture and Forest Resources • Noise
• Cultural Resources • Population and Housing
• Energy • Public Services
• Geology and Soils • Recreation
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Tribal Cultural Resources • Hydrology and Water Quality • Wildfire
• Land Use and Planning

That is, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to those resources listed above when compared to those disclosed in the 2017 EIR or General Plan EIR .

However, the City of Mountain View found that the project would result in a new significant effect on air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and utilities and service systems which w ere not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR. A discussion of the project’s new significant and unavoidable air quality impact, and new less than significant with mitigation biological resources, transportation, and utilities and service systems impacts is included in Section 3.0 New Significant Environmental Effects and a discussion of the project’s previously disclosed environmental effects is included in Section 4.0 Previously Identified Effects of this EIR.

1.1.3 Incorporation by Reference
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, Section 15130(d) and (e), and Section 15168(d)(2), this EIR incorporates by reference the 2017 EIR and General Plan EIR. These documents are available for public review at the Community Development Department at City Hall, located at 500 Castro Street in Mountain View, and at the Public Library, located at 585 Franklin Street in Mountain View.

1.2 EIR PROCESS

1.2.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Mountain View prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR. The NOP was circulated to local, state, and federal agencies on February 28, 2022. The standard 30-day comment period concluded on March 30, 2022. The NOP provided a general description of the proposed project and identified possible environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the project . The City of Mountain View also held a public scoping meeting on March 14, 2022 to discuss the project and solicit public input as to the scope and contents of this EIR . The meeting was held virtually. Appendix B of this EIR includes the NOP and comments received on the NOP.

North Bayshore Master Plan 4 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

1.2.2 Draft EIR Public Review and Comment Period
Publication of this Draft EIR will mark the beginning of a 45 -day public review period. During this period, the Draft EIR will be available to the public and local, state, and federal agencies for review and comment. Notice of the availability and completion of this Draft EIR will be sent directly to every agency, person, and organization that commented on the NOP and posted on the City’s website at www.mountainview.gov/CEQA. Additionally, consistent wi th Assembly Bill (AB) 819 , which requires all CEQA environmental documents to be submitted electronically to the Office of Planning and Research’s CEQAnet database, a copy of this Draft EIR will be sent to and available on the CEQAnet Webportal (https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2022020712). Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Draft EIR during the 45 -day public review period should be sent to:

Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
[email protected]

1.3 FINAL EIR/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Following the conclusion of the 45-day public review period, the City of Mountain View will prepare a Final EIR in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. The Final EIR will consist of:

• Revisions to the Draft EIR text, as necessary;
• List of individuals and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • Responses to comments received on the D raft EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15088);
• Copies of letters received on the Draft EIR.

Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings. If the lead agency approves a project despite it resulting in significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing .

This Statement of Overriding Considerations must be included in the record of project approval.

1.3.1 Notice of Determination
If the project is approved, the City of Mountain View will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hou rs of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office and available for public inspection for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094(g)).

North Bayshore Master Plan 5 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 BACKGROUND
The 2014 EIR and 2017 EIR evaluated the environmental impacts of the North Bayshore Precise Plan.

The Precise Plan area is also identified in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) as a change area where increased development is planned to occur.

The Precise Plan was adopted in 2014 and amended in 2017, 2018, 2019 , 2020, and 2021. The 2017 Precise Plan consisted of City -initiated revisions to the General Plan and P(39) Precise Plan zoning district to allow residential uses, in addition to office and commercial uses. The Precise Plan was designed to provide a vision and guiding principles, development standards, and design guidelines for the properties in this area, in conformance with the General Plan vision for North Bayshore.

Specifically, the 2017 EIR studied up to 10.4 million square feet of office and R&D development uses, 198,538 square feet of retail/restaurant uses, 26,138 square feet of service uses, and 9,854 residential units. The Precise Plan includes a goal of a minimum of 20 percent affordable housing units within the area. The Precise Plan also includes new and e nhanced parks, biological restoration, trail corridors, pedestrian/bicycle connections, and public streets. Infrastructure and transportation improvements are also included as part of the Precise Plan. The Precise Plan identifies four character areas, each with distinct building scale, form, and character. The Precise Plan also includes the development of “Complete Neighborhoods,” which are envisioned to include a mix of land uses, amenities, and services. The City of Mountain View City Council certified the 2017 EIR and approved the amended Precise Plan project in December 2017. The Precise Plan was further amended in 2018 and 2019 to include amendments related to cannabis businesses. In 2020 the Precise Plan was amended to remain consistent with the City’s adopted citywide school strategies, and in 2021, it was further amended to revise the bonus FAR guidelines and update the master plan provisions included in the Precise Plan.

Compared to existing conditions and the approved Precise Plan at that time, the 2017 EIR evaluated a net increase in:

● Approximately 3.7 million square feet of non -residential development (i.e., office, R&D, industrial, services, restaurant, retail, and institutional/recreational uses); ● 9,850 multi-family units; and
● 400 hotel rooms.

North Bayshore Master Plan 6 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Since the certification of the 2017 EIR, the City has approved approximately 2.2 million square feet of non-residential development, 2,157 multi -family units, and 200 hotel rooms. A summary of the net new development evaluated in the 2017 EIR and the net new approved development since the certification of the 2017 EIR is provided in Table 2.1-1.

Table 2.1-1: Summary of Development Evaluated in the 2017 SEIR, Approved and Developed, and Proposed Master Plan

A B C D E

Net New
Development
Evaluated in
the 2017 EIR
Net New
Approved/
Developed
Projects
Since 2017
EIR*
Delta
between
Columns
A and B
Net New
Development
by Proposed
Master Plan
Delta
between
Columns
D and C
Non-Residential Square Footage
• Office/R&D/
• Industrial/Services 3,505,042 1,964,608 1,540,434 1,303,250 237,184 • Restaurant/Retail 129,238 95,500 33,738 232,944 -199,206 • Institutional/
Recreational 86,500 98,457 -11,957 55,000 -66,957
Multi-Family Units 9,850 2,517 7,333 7,000 333
Hotel Rooms 400 200 200 525 -325
Note: Net development amounts reflect deductions in square footage for existing uses that would be demolished as a result of redevelopment.
* The amount of net new approved/developed projects do not include the amount of approved development on property within the proposed Master Plan. Those amounts of development are included in Column D.

North Bayshore Master Plan 7 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

2.2 PROJECT SITE LOCATION
The proposed North Bayshore Master Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Master Plan” or “project”) area is generally located to the north of U.S. Highway 101 (US 101), west of Stevens Creek, south of Charleston Road, and east of Alta Avenue. The Master Plan is within the Shorebird, Joaquin, and Pear Complete Neighborhood Character Areas of the Precise Plan. The project site totals approximately 151acres and consists of 42 parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs]: 116 -10-108, 116-10-107, 116-10-105, 116-10-104, 116-10-102, 116-10-101, 116-10-111, 116-10-095, 116-10-089, 116-10-088, 116-10-109, 116-10-084, 116-10-080, 116-02-088, 116-10-079, 116-10-078, 116-10-077, 116-14-072, 116-02-084, 116-02-083, 116-02-054, 116-14-070, 116-02-081, 116-14-066, 116-14-058, 116-13-038, 116-11-039, 116-13-037, 116-11-038, 116-13-034, 116-11-030, 116-13-027, 116-11-028, 116-02-037, 116-11-025, 116-11-024, 116-11-022, 116-11-021, 116-11-012, 116-14-028, 116-14-095, and 116-20- 043). APN 116-20-043 is located outside of the Precise Plan boundary.

The project site is currently developed with 6 9 office, light industrial, and retail buildings totaling approximately 1,853,703 square feet, as well as landscaping and surface parking lots. 7 Most of the project site is bordered by the Stevens Creek Trail to the east, office uses and Shoreline Amphitheatre to the north, office uses to the west, US 101 to the south, and a mobile home park to the southeast.

The project includes three locations for district parking that are not within the core area of the project site. One of them is bordered by Shoreline Amphitheatre to the north, open space to the west, and office uses to the south and east. The other two district parking garages on Marine Way are bordered by office and commercial uses i n all directions. Regional and vicinity maps of the project site are shown on Figure 2.2-1 and Figure 2.2-2, and an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 2.2-3. Figure 2.2-4 shows the parcels in the Master Plan.

7 The realignment of Plymouth Street is proposed under a separate project which has undergone a separate environmental review. This realignment would require the demolition of two buildings which are outside of the project area at 1600 and 1616 North Shoreline Boulevard. The allowable floor area for these two parcels would be transferred by the property owner and used as bonus FAR for the proposed Master Plan project. The purchased and transferred square footage is included in the totals utilized as part of this analysis. 101
101
82 82
35 84
85 237
280
280
280
Foothill Expressway
Central Expressway
Woodside Road
San
Francisco
Bay
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Mountain View
Menlo Park
Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
Woodside
Stanford
Project Site
FIGURE 2.2-1REGIONAL MAP
San Francisco Bay
Pacific Ocean
Monterey Bay
01 2 3 4.5 5 Miles
San José
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Morgan Hill
San José
Fremont
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Morgan Hill
Project SiteProject Site
Charleston Road
Garcia Avenue
Amphitheatre Parkway
North Shoreline Boulevard
Stierlin Court
Rengstorff Avenue
West Middlefield Road
San Antonio Road
Old Middlefield Way
Middlefield Road
Charleston Road
GarciaAvenue
Amphitheatre Parkway
North
Shoreline
Boulevard
Stierlin Court
Rengstorff A
venue
West Middlefield Road
San
AntonioRoad
Old Middlefield Way
MiddlefieldRoad
Stevens Creek
M
ountain
View
Slough
Permanente Creek
Adobe Creek
San Francisco Bay
Central Expressway
Central Expressway
Alma StreetAlma Street
North Shoreline BoulevardNorth S
horeline Boulevard
8582
101
101
Barron Creek
Matadero Canal
East
Ch
arleston Road
East Meadow Drive
East
Ch
arlestonRoad
EastMeadowDrive
Fabian Way
Loma Verde Avenue
Fabian Way
Loma Verde Avenue
Pear AvePear Ave
Huff AvenueHuff Avenue
San Anto
nio R
d
San
Anton
io R
d
Casey AveCasey Ave
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 500 2,000 3,000 5,000 Feet
Master Plan Site
North Bayshore Precise
Plan Boundary
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.2-2
Residential
Residential
Commercial
& Office
Commercial
Industrial
& Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Church
Charleston
Park
Shoreline
Park
Ames
Distribution
Substation
Parking Lot
Fire Station
Office
Office
Office/
Auto Yard
Office
Office
Permanente Creek TrailPermanente Creek Trail
Permanente Creek TrailPermanente Creek Trail
Huff AvenueHuff AvenueJoaquin Road
Space Park Way
Pear Avenue
North Shoreline Boulevard
North Shoreline Boulevard
La Avenida Street
El Centro Avenue
Stierlin CourtAmphitheatre Parkway
Rengstorff Avenue
Old Middlefield Way
West Middlefield Road
Thompson Avenue
Central Expressway
San Antonio Road
Charleston Road
Charleston Road
Leghorn Street
Marine Way
Garcia Avenue
Alta Avenue
M
offett Boulevard
RT Jones Road
De France Avenue
Zook Road
Joaquin Road
Space Park Way
Pear Avenue
North Shoreline Boulevard
NorthShoreline
Boulevard
La Avenida Street
El Centro Avenue
Stierlin CourtAmphitheatre Parkway
Rengstorff Avenue
Old Middlefield Way
West Middlefield Road
Thompson Avenue
Central Expressway
San
Antonio
Road
Charleston Road
Charleston Road
Leghorn Street
Marine Way
Casey AveCasey AveCasey AveCasey Ave
Garcia Avenue
Alta Avenue
M
offettBoulevard
RTJonesRoad
De France Avenue
Zook Road
Mountain View Slough
Adobe Creek
Permanente CreekPermanente Creek
Mountain View Slough
Adobe Creek
85 101
101
101
Stevens C
reek Trail
StevensC
reekTrail
Stevens C
reek
StevensC
reek
San Antonio RdSan Antonio Rd
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Nov. 19, 2021. Photo Date: Sep. 2021 0 400 1,600 2,400 4,000 Feet
Master Plan Site
North Bayshore Precise Plan
Boundary
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING AREA FIGURE 2.2-3
Source: Google, December 2022.

OFF-SITE PARKING SUBAREAS

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD
MACON

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

PLYMOUTH ST

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD
MACON

CASEY AVENUE

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

PLYMOUTH ST

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAYSPACE PARK WAY

MARINE WAY

BAYSHORE PARKWAY

SAN ANTONIO ROAD

AMPHITHEATRE PARKWAY

SHORELINE BOULEVARD
0 250 500 1,000 Feet
0 250 500 Feet
0 250 500 Feet

MASTER PLAN SITE
MASTER PLAN PARCELS (WITH APNS) FIGURE 2.2-4

North Bayshore Master Plan 12 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the proposed Master Plan is to implement the General Plan and Precise Plan vision for North Bayshore as a vibrant mixed-use district with new residential neighborhoods, open spaces, and mobility options. The intent of the Master Plan is to identify the framework of new development, including general building locations , uses, and forms, transportation improvements (including parking), utilities, and public spaces, with phased implementation for a period of up to 30 years as part of a Development Agreement.

The proposed Master Plan is largely consistent with the development assumptions in the Precise Plan and certified 2017 EIR and would allow for the demolition of 68 of the existing 69 buildings8 (as well as removal of related surface parking lots and landscaping) to construct:

• Up to 7,000 residential dwelling units (including 20 percent affordable residential units); • Up to 3,145,897 million square feet of office space (including 1,303,250 square feet of net new office space and 1,842,647 square feet of existing office space to be redeveloped); • 18.9 acres of public open space and 11.7 acres of Privately Owned Publicly Accessible (POPA) open space;
• Up to 244,000 square feet of retail uses;
• Up to of 55,000 square feet of community facilities;
• Up to 525 hotel rooms;
• A 2,000 square foot Police Operations Station;
• Up to six above-ground parking structures; and
• As an option, a private district utility systems with an approximately 130,000 square -foot District Central Plant (DCP) and underground distribution/collection lines to serve the buildings within the Master Plan with wastewater, recycled water, thermal energy (heating and cooling), electric power via a microgrid, and/or pneumatic waste collection.9

The proposed land use plan is shown on Figure 2.3-1.

8 The building at 1201 Charleston Road would remain under the proposed Master Plan. 9 If the private utility systems are not developed, the Master Plan development would include conventi onal utility network connections to the City’s wastewater and recycled water systems and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) electricity distribution system. The conventional utility option and private district utility system option are both studied throughout this EIR.

Source: Google, December 2022.

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INDIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

STIERLIN CT

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEKSTEVENS CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INDIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

STIERLIN CT

CRITTENDEN LNCRITTENDEN LN

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAYSPACE PARK WAY

AMPHITHEATRE PKWYAMPHITHEATRE PKWY
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet

MASTER PLAN SITE

NORTH BAYSHORE PRECISE

PLAN BOUNDARY
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN FIGURE 2.3-1

North Bayshore Master Plan 14 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
The amount of net new development proposed in the Master Plan is summarized in Table 2.1-1 above.

Compared to the amount of development evaluated in the 2017 EIR and approved and developed projects since the certification of the 2017 EIR, the Master Plan includes 199,206 square feet (154 percent) more of restaurant/retail uses, 66,957 square feet (77 percent) more of institutional/recreational square footage, and 325 (80 percent) more hotel rooms than evaluated in the 2017 EIR (refer to Table 2.1-1).

The Master Plan includes a Vesting Tentative Map and a Development Agreement to vest the Master Plan’s development rights over a 30-year period. The primary components of the Master Plan include the following, which are described further in the sections that follow:

• Master Plan Subareas
• Parks and Open Space
• Utilities (including an option for private district utility systems) • Emergency Generators
• Green Building and Emissions Reduction Features
• Construction Activities and Phasing
• Site Access, Circulation, and Parking
• Transportation Demand Management
• Heritage Trees and Landscaping

Aspects of the proposed Master Plan that are not included within the adopted Precise Plan and/or studied in the 2017 EIR are construction and operation of:

• One above ground parking garage outside of the Precise Plan area (APN: 116-20-043) • 325 additional hotel rooms
• 199,206 additional square feet of retail space
• 66,957 additional square feet of institutional/recreational space

2.3.1 Master Plan Subareas
The project site consists of 37 subareas (refer to Figure 2.3-2). A summary of the proposed uses, square footage/units, and associated parking for each Master Plan subarea is included in Table 2.3-1. The maximum building heights would range from approximately 33 to 160 feet (wi th certain building elements to exceed the maximum specified height in the Precise Plan, per a variance application). A summary of the total square footage for each use is provided in Table 2.3-1.

Source: Google, December 2022.

OFF-SITE PARKING SUBAREAS

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

WILLOW ST

BLACK ST

WILLOW ST

BLACK ST

STEVENS CREEK

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEK

PERMANENTE CREEK

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD
MACON

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

PLYMOUTH ST

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD
MACON

CASEY AVENUE

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

PLYMOUTH ST

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

MONARCH ST

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST MONARCH ST

MONARCH ST

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST SOCIAL SPINESOCIAL SPINE

SPACE PARK WAYSPACE PARK WAY

MARINE WAY

BAYSHORE PARKWAY

SAN ANTONIO ROAD

AMPHITHEATRE PARKWAY

SHORELINE BOULEVARD
0 250 500 1,000 Feet
0 250 500 Feet
0 250 500 Feet

MASTER PLAN SITE

BAYSHORE FWY

BAYSHORE FWY
JN-BO-1 JN-BO-2
JN-BR-4
JN-BR-1
JN-BR-3 JN-BR-7
JN-BR-6
JS-BR-2
PE-BR-1 PE-BR-2
SB-BR-2
SB-BR-1
SB-BO-1
SB-BH
SB-BR-3
SB-BR-4
SB-BR-5
SB-BR-7 SB-BR-8
SB-BO-3

SB-FLEX
SB-DCP
SB-BR-6SB-BP
JS-BR-1
JS-BO-1
JS-BR-3MW2
MW1
AM1

JOAQUIN

TERRACE EAST

JOAQUIN

TERRACE WEST

JOAQUIN
GROVE

JOAQUIN

COMMONS

JOAQUIN
PORTAL

SHORELINE
SQUARE

GATEWAY
PLAZA

GREENWAY PARK WEST

GREENWAY

PARK EAST

SHOREBIRD
WILDS

SHOREBIRD
YARDS

SHOREBIRD
SQUARE

ECO GEM
MASTER PLAN SUBAREAS FIGURE 2.3-2

North Bayshore Master Plan 16 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 2.3-1: Master Plan Development by Subareas
Subareas Proposed
Use(s)
Square
Feet Units
Maximum
Building
Height
(feet)
Vehicle Parking
Provided Maximum
Excavation
Depth (feet) Stalls Square
Feet
SB-PO-1
Office 511,259
0 110
118
111,714 8
Retail 33,711 136
SB-PO-2 Office 738,156 0 95 139 65,176 8
Greenway
Park West Retail 2,000 0 95 0 0 8
SB-PO-3 Office 390,179 0 80 73 32,483 8
Greenway
Park East Retail 1,000 0 80 0 0 8
SB-PH
Hotel 160,000
0 110 0 0 8
Retail 16,731
SB-PR-1
Residential 360,342
366 160
257
139,000 8
Retail 27,192 80
SB-PR-2
Residential 486,000
428 160 233 98,000 8
Retail 39,707
SB-PR-3
Residential 202,000
211 160 0 0 8
Retail 18,552
SB-PR-4
Residential 296,000
297 160 224 77,000 8
Retail 12,825
SB-PR-5
Residential 183,000
176 95 162 68,000 8
Retail 16,732
SB-PR-6 Residential 223,000 220 95 155 34,000 8
SB-PR-7 Residential 161,000 172 95 73 15,000 8
SB-PR-8 Residential 241,000 215 55 280 117,000 8

SB-FLEX
Community 55,000
0 45 0 0 8
District
Systems,
Ancillary
Retail
35,000
SB-DCP District
Systems 95,000 0 45 5 0 8

North Bayshore Master Plan 17 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 2.3-1: Master Plan Development by Subareas
Subareas Proposed
Use(s)
Square
Feet Units
Maximum
Building
Height
(feet)
Vehicle Parking
Provided Maximum
Excavation
Depth (feet) Stalls Square
Feet
SB-PP
Retail 4,550
0 95
495
151,000 8 Hotel
Parking 0 105
JS-PO-1
Office 250,000
0 140 50 25,000 8
Retail 3,990
JS-PR-1 Residential 426,000 409 160 220 54,000 8
JS-PR-2
Residential 284,000
283 160 201 84,000 8
Retail 10,010
JS-PR-3
Residential 327,000
318 160 241 107,000 8
Retail 7,000

JS-FLEX
Hotel 180,000
0 140
250
332,579 8 Retail 4,000
Office 0 450
JN-PO-1 Office 770,023 0 95 171 72,478 8
JN-PO-2 Office 486,280 0 110 112 46,497 8
JN-PR-1 Residential 970,000 922 160 688 186,000 8
JN-PR-3 Residential,
Parking 953,000 881 160 1,059 404,215 8
JN-PR-4
Residential 367,000
375 160 220 74,000 8
Retail 7,748
The Portal Retail 1,000 0 110 0 0 8
JN-PR-6
Residential 280,000
391 160 182 76,000 8
Retail 20,655
JN-PR-7
Residential 809,000
764 160 520 173,000 8
Retail 6,597
PE-PR-1
Residential 287,000
341 160 184 77,000 8
Retail 10,000

North Bayshore Master Plan 18 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 2.3-1: Master Plan Development by Subareas
Subareas Proposed
Use(s)
Square
Feet Units
Maximum
Building
Height
(feet)
Vehicle Parking
Provided Maximum
Excavation
Depth (feet) Stalls Square
Feet
PE-PR-2 Residential 232,000 231 95 151 63,000 8
MW1 Parking 0 0 80 416 477,411 8
MW2 Parking 0 0 80 474 362,120 8
AM1
Police
Operations
Station
2,000
0 90 4,584 1,516,800 8
Parking 0
Basement
(SB-PH,
SB-PO-1,
SB-PO-2,
SB-PR-1)1
Office,
Residential,
Hotel, Retail
0 0 160 800 653,483 30
Basement
(SB-PR-2)1
Residential,
Retail 0 0 160 327 117,008 30
Basement
(SB-PR-3,
SB-PR-4)1
Residential,
Retail 0 0 160 331 82,400 30
Basement
(SB-PR-5)1
Residential,
Retail 0 0 95 115 54,416 30
Basement
(SB-PR-7)1 Residential 0 0 95 112 39,624 30
Basement
(SB-PR-8)1 Residential 0 0 55 140 94,020 30
1 Basement parking is not proposed at this time; however, if basement is pursued an equivalent amount of podium parking would be removed in order to maintain a proposed total number of 12,708 parking spaces (see Table 3.3- 2 below)

North Bayshore Master Plan 19 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 2.3-2: Square Footage of Master Plan Uses
Master Plan Uses Square Feet
Office 3,145,897
Residential (7,000 units) 7,187,342
Hotel (525 rooms) 340,000
District Central Plant 130,000
Retail 244,000
Community 55,000
Parking (12,708 stalls) 5,377,066

2.3.2 Parks and Open Space
The Master Plan proposes a network of dedicated public space, POPA open space subject to an access covenant, and private open space. Approximately 18.9 acres of unimproved land is proposed to be dedicated to the City. 10 In addition, approximately 11.7 acres of parks and open space would be provided as POPA open space which would be improved and maintained by the applicant (Google) in perpetuity. In total, approximately 20 percent of the project site (i.e., 30.5 of the 151 acres) would be dedicated parkland or POPA. Additional publicly accessible spaces include streets, paths, and other areas that do not qualify as parks. Parkland and open space locations and sizes are detailed in Table

2.3-3 and shown in Figure 2.3-3 below.

Table 2.3-3: Park and Open Space Locations and Size
Park Neighborhood Area (acres) Type Ownership
Greenway Parks Shorebird ±2.5 POPA Google
Eco Gem Shorebird ±10.8 Dedicated City
Shorebird Wilds Shorebird ±4.6 POPA Google
Shorebird Yard Shorebird ±4.1 Dedicated City
Shorebird Square Shorebird ±0.3 Dedicated City
The Portal Joaquin ±0.8 POPA Google
Joaquin Grove Joaquin ±1.4 POPA Google

10 Subsequent environmental review may be required when the City proposes to develop this dedicated land.

North Bayshore Master Plan 20 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 2.3-3: Park and Open Space Locations and Size
Park Neighborhood Area (acres) Type Ownership
Joaquin Commons Joaquin ±2.6 Dedicated City
Joaquin Terrace Joaquin ±2.2 POPA Google
Gateway Plaza Joaquin ±0.9 Dedicated City
Shoreline Square Joaquin ±0.3 Dedicated City
Total acreage ±30.5

The Precise Plan calls for converting surface parking lots to natural areas and ensuring development limits impacts to wildlife through the implementation of a number of habitat overlay zones (HOZ).

With its proximity to the South Bay salt ponds to the nor theast, Stevens Creek to the east, and the Charleston Retention Basin on its northern edge, the Master Plan proposes to connect these features while reestablishing natural areas. Accordingly, and in keeping with the Precise Plan, the Egret Rookery HOZ would be integrated into the Master Plan’s open space strategy and the Eco Gem and Shorebird Wilds (see Table 2.3-3 and Figure 2.3-3) would provide passive open space and native gardens to support the egret rookery and enhance the natural quality of the surrounding HOZ.

In addition to parks and open space, a network of p edestrian paths and bike trails, expanding on the existing Green Loop, would provide internal connectivity, as well as connections to the broader area, including to the Permanente and Stevens Creek Trails, the Bay Trail, Shoreline Regional Park, Charleston Park, and Santiago Villa. The Master Plan also includes private open space around the office buildings. The private open space areas would consist of required setbacks and landscaping.

2.3.3 Community Facilities
Community facilities would be located at 1201 Ch arleston Road, an existing building that is being retained as part of the Master Plan. During business hou rs, the applicant (Google) will utilize the community space area as meeting/event space that could be used for meetings, all day workshops, presentations, or other business events. The space is not intended to be used for large-scale conferences and events (e.g., media events). During certain times outside of business hours (e.g., Monday - Friday, 6:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m. and weekends from 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m., excluding holidays), the community space could be utilized as community assembly or community center space by local organizations.

Source: Google, December 2022.

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEKSTEVENS CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

MONARCH STMONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAYSPACE PARK WAY
0 250 500 1,000 Feet

MASTER PLAN SITE

BAYSHORE FWYBAYSHORE FWY
PROPOSED PARK AND OPEN SPACE AREAS FIGURE 2.3-3

North Bayshore Master Plan 22 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

2.3.4 Police Operations Station
The parking garage proposed in Subarea AM1 would contain a Police Operations Station, which would include up to 2,000 square feet of workspace and 10 parking stalls that would be reserved for the Mountain View Police Department (MVPD). This Police Operations Station would not be accessible to the public, and would contain:

• Areas for officers to work between calls with access to computers and the City’s network; • A conference room that would hold up to 10 employees for special event planning and preparation;
• A break room with a small kitchenette (refrigerator, microwave, and sink); and • One gender-neutral restroom.

2.3.5 Utilities
The project proposes to connect to existing utility systems, as described below under the Conventional Utilities heading. As a project option, the applicant is considering development of private district utility systems which would work in tandem with the existing and improved conventional utilities to serve the proposed Master Plan. Under both options, electrical service would be carbon free from 100 percent renewable resources. The project with the conventional utilities is the preferred project option.

It is estimated that the Master Plan area would use a total of approximately 193 million kWh of electricity per year. Approximately 20 percent (or 38.6 million kWh) of the electricity demand within the Master Plan area would be generated on -site by rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panels located on all new buildings within the Master Plan area. The remaining approximately 80 percent of the Master Plan’s electricity demand would be served by the existing electricity distribution network. Solar energy generated on site that is not used at the moment it is generated would be stored within on-site battery storage units. The battery units would be located centrally at the DCP and/or adjacent to buildings within the Master Plan area and would be pad -mounted and seismically restrained on the finished grade/floor per manufacturer recommendations and include proper catchment systems designed for protection from coolant leakage and fire. Secondary containment and fire suppression systems would also be installed in compliance with local and state regulations.

Electricity for the Master Plan would be distributed from PG&E’s Ames Substation (located east of the Master Plan area across Stevens Creek) at 1800 Wright Avenue. Possible modifications to Ames Substation could be required in order to create a 6 -Breaker Ring Configuration and add additional connections into and out of the substation. Construction of the 6-Breaker Ring Configuration (and any other substation modifications) would occur wit hin the Ames Substation property. However, if additional land is needed for the substation modifications, it would likely be on property immediately to the south and west of the existing substation property. Subject to PG&E’s final design approval, several new 12 kilovolt (kV) distribution lines would extend to the Master Plan area from the substation. Exact routing and arrangement of overhead and/or underground lines would be determined by PG&E. Distribution lines could be co -located with existing transmission line facilities, depending on feasibility. Distribution lines and supporting facilities would entirely avoid the bed, bank, and channel of Stevens Creek.

North Bayshore Master Plan 23 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Pursuant to Article XII, Section 5, of the California Constitution, the California Public Utilit ies Commission (CPUC) has exclusive power and authority with respect to “all matters cognate and germane to the regulation of public utilities.” The Constitution, moreover, prohibits municipalities from regulating “matters over which the Legislature grants regulating power to the Commission.” (Cal.

Const., art. XII, § 8.) PG&E’s electric facilities are designed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the CPUC’s General Order No. 131 -D (GO 131 -D), which explicitly provides: “Local jurisdictions acting p ursuant to local authority are preempted from regulating electric power line projects, distribution lines, substations, or electric facilities constructed by public utilities subject to the CPUC’s jurisdiction.” (GO 131-D, § XIV.B.) Although local governments do not have the power to regulate activities related to public utilities’ electric facilities, the CPUC encourages, and PG&E participates in, cooperative discussions with affected local governments regarding locating such facilities and to address local concerns where feasible. The possible PG&E modifications to the Ames substation are not covered in this EIR and would undergo separate environmental review per GO 131- D.

The two utility options (conventional and private district utility system option) are described in detail below and analyzed throughout this EIR.

2.3.5.1 Conventional Utilities
As proposed, utility services to the Master Plan would be provided through a combination of City municipal services (for water, firewater, sanitary sewer, stormwater, a nd recycled water), PG&E (for electrical infrastructure), and either PG&E or Silicon Valley Clean Energy (for electricity).

Development under the project would connect to the City’s existing water system, which would provide water for both domestic potable and fire uses. All of the existing sanitary sewer systems within existing roadways would be maintained. The Master Plan would result in a reduction of existing hardscape by approximately eight acres, thereby decreasing stormwater runoff to the existing st orm drain network compared to existing conditions. Portions of the existing water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain mains are proposed to be relocated, upsized, and/or realigned between Charleston Road and Shorebird Way to accommodate the new development. Connections to City/public utility services for water, recycled water, stormwater and wastewater would occur at the nearest utility main located in the surrounding streets. Utilities services laterals may need to extend in the new streets to serve the development. Utility mains such as storm drainage, potable water, recycled water, and sanitary sewer would be placed in new public streets constructed as part of the project.

2.3.5.2 Private District Utilities System Option
As an option, the project could construct and operate private district utilities systems with underground distribution/collection lines to serve the buildings within the Master Plan with wastewater, recycled water, thermal energy (heating and cooling), pneumatic waste collection, and a potential microgrid controller. The district utilities systems would include two primary components: 1) a DCP and 2) district collection / distribution systems and building connections.

Operation of the DCP would be in addition to continued operation of t he City’s existing utilities systems because the City must ensure the existing utilities systems can accommodate the proposed development in the event the district utilities system is offline and to plan for citywide service-capacity

North Bayshore Master Plan 24 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
needs. Therefore, this EIR evaluates the proposed district utilities system facilities as “additive” to existing planned utility operations, rather than as a replacement for such existing utilities.

These private district utilities system components are described in detail below.

District Central Plant
An approximately 130,000 square-foot DCP may include some or all of the following:

● Water Reuse Facility (WRF) for wastewater treatment and recycled water production ● District heating and cooling system
● Microgrid Controller
● Automatic Waste Collection System (AWCS)

These listed components of the DCP are described below. The DCP would be located on the adjoining site to the east of the retained 1201 Charleston Road building (130,000 square feet) with the possibility to integrate it partially within the retained 1201 Charleston Road building. All chillers, heat pumps, distribution pumps, and cooling towers at the DCP would have an independent backup component to ensure continued operations in the event that one piece of equipment is offline for planned or unplanned maintenance, replacement, or repair.

Water Reuse Facility
The DCP would include a WRF that would have the capacity to treat a maximum daily flow of up to approximately 900,000 gallons of wastewater per day to produce non-potable recycled water.

Wastewater generated by the buildings within the project site would be discharged by pump stations within each building and conveyed via a series of low-pressure sanitary sewer lines within the project site to the proposed WRF. The WRF would only receive wastewater from the development within the Shorebird Complete Neighborhood area of the project site. The proposed sanitary sewer network would rely on a low-pressure sewer system independent from the stormwater and rainwater collection systems to minimize infiltration and inflow issues.

Recycled water produced by the WRF would meet disinfected tertiary recycled water standards as described under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations by undergoing a multi -step treatment process including screening, primary settling and/or filtration, secondary biological treatment, tertiary filtration, and disinfection to remove solids, pollutants, and harmful pathogens. Recycled water would be used for non-potable water demands on-site including toilet flushing, cooling, and irrigation.

The WRF has the potential to produce more recycled water than needed by the buildings within the project site. Excess recycled water generated at the WRF would be stored in multiple tanks (with a total combined capacity of up to one million gallons).

The WRF would have a backup/makeup supply connection(s) from the City’s potable water and/or recycled water systems. The WRF would also have a wastewater discharge connection to the City’s sanitary sewer network. During times of lower demand for recycled water or if the district systems were offline for any reason, wastewater generated by the project would be discharged to the City’s

North Bayshore Master Plan 25 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
municipal sanitary sewer system and treated at the Palo Alt o Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP).11

Residuals produced during on -site wastewater treatment would be managed at the WRF with an Anaerobic Digester (AD) Facility12, and hauled off-site to a processing facility, as described below.

• Residuals Processed at an AD Facility – Residuals generated from the WRF process would be conveyed to an AD Facility located within the DCP. Once in the AD Facility, bacteria decompose organic materials in the absence of air and release methane and carbon dioxide, which are captured to create biogas. Biogas is extracted from the AD Facility and stored in a gas holding tank (with the storage capacity of up to 7,200 cubic feet) prior to pretreatment for use in a microturbine to generate electricity. It is est imated that 50,000 to 100,000 cubic feet per day (or up to 33 million cubic feet per year) of biogas would be generated. The AD Facility would include two 65 kW microturbines that would utilize the biogas to produce 25 to 50 million British thermal unit (B tu) per day (or 7,500 to 15,000 kilowatt hours [kWh] per day) of electricity. Biogas pretreatment typically uses an “iron sponge” to scrub sulfurs and purify the biogas. The waste heat from the microturbine would also be recovered for beneficial reuse in a cogeneration process. The resulting electricity and heat generated would be used on -site.

Biogas would be flared only when biogas production is in excess of the capacity of the biogas purification system and /or during the maintenance of the biogas purific ation or utilization system.

After the digestion phase is complete (15 to 35 days), the leftover material (digestate) that remains is a nutrient-rich wet mixture, which is typically separated into a solid and a liquid. If separated, the digestate would immediately be dewatered using a centrifuge, belt filter press, screw press, or other similar separation technology. The dewatered digestate would then be loaded into sealed storage containers with odor controls located in the DCP and periodically hauled off-site for use as a fertilizer. The remaining liquid would be returned to the head of the WRF and blended with incoming wastewater for treatment. Alternatively, the digestate can be directly sealed in storage containers (without separating the solids and li quids) and hauled off-site for reuse.

11 A collaborative utility system for on-site wastewater treatment and recycled water generation is a potential option in the future, if desired by the applicant and the City. A collaborative utility system is not proposed at this time and, therefore, not ex plicitly evaluated in this EIR. A collaborative utility system would utilize the proposed WRF and public infrastructure for wastewater collection and recycled water distribution, extending the City’s existing sanitary sewer and recycled water networks to s erve the full project area. The collaborative utility system would require a sewer mining station (pump station and forcemain), which would allow the WRF to scalp wastewater from the City’s sanitary sewer network for treatment, and a recycled water pipeline (in addition to the recycled water storage tank and pump station located at the WRF), which would support the blending of treated water into the City’s recycled water network for distribution. If a collaborative utility system is proposed in the future, subsequent environmental review would be required.
12 Biodrying and/or pyrolysis processes could be utilized instead of anaerobic digestion. These processes are not proposed at this time and, therefore, not explicitly evaluated in this EIR. Biodrying is a process that dries biosolids in order to produce Class A organic material, which can be used as a fertilizer or soil amendment, or processed further via pyrolysis to produce biochar (a high-quality, soil amendment that acts as a carbon-sink). Pyrolysis is a process by which organic material decomposes through a thermochemical reaction, with the addition of heat but without any additional oxygen, producing biochar. If biodrying and/or pyrolysis is proposed in the future, subsequent environmental review would be required.

North Bayshore Master Plan 26 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
The AD Facility would have the capacity to handle a dry mass loading between 12,000 to 20,000 pounds per day on average. The AD Facility design would allow for continuous operation either by using multiple digesters under an alternating loading (batch) arrangement or via a plug flow reactor regime. The facility is estimated to be 120 x 50 feet with a clear height requirement of 20 feet.

• Residuals Hauled Off -Site – As described above, digestate resulting from the AD p rocess (either dewatered or wet) would be stored in sealed containers inside the DCP. The sealed containers would be loaded into dump trucks and regularly hauled to an off -site facility for beneficial reuse or to a landfill for disposal.13 If residuals from the on-site wastewater treatment do not get processed at the AD Facility, the residuals would be conveyed in an enclosed system directly into septic tanker trucks and hauled daily to an off -site facility for beneficial reuse or to a landfill for disposal.

Appropriate measures and technology solutions would be designed and implemented to ensure objectionable odors generated by the WRF are within regulatory compliance limits and do not impact the public. Odor controls would be designed using the Best Avail able Control Technology (BACT) and consistent with regulatory requirements. The most odorous processes (resulting in the production of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia) would be enclosed and critically controlled. The project would also include regular monitor ing of complaints and reporting on the effectiveness of odor controls to regulatory agencies. Specific BACT solutions may include:

• Active ventilation (foul air blowers) to odor control units (e.g., carbon absorption, biofiltration, or ammonia scrubbers)
• House odorous processes in a ventilated enclosure
• Screenings and grit washed, dewatered, and compacted before being stored in enclosed, odor- proof refuse containers
• Haul any stored residuals off-site at regular intervals • Ferrous chloride injection for hydrogen sulfide removal

The purpose of BACT measures is to reduce specific pollutant emissions (e.g., precursor organic compounds [POCs], nitrogen oxide [NO x], sulfur dioxide [SO x], and carbon monoxide [CO]) during the AD process. In addition to reducing pollutant emissions resulting from the AD process, select BACT measures would also treat the sludge and biogas to remove odorous compounds such as hydrogen sulfide, thereby reducing odors that are released into the atmosphere.

Buildings on-site would be served by the on -site WRF. Plant capacity would be brought online in phases as wastewater production and non-potable water demands increase.

13 For the purposes of this EIR, it is assumed the residuals would be hauled 80 -120 miles to Fairfield or Merced for beneficial reuse (e.g., to the Lystek facility in Fairfield where the residuals would be processed to create fertilizer for agriculture, or to the Synagro wastewater treatment plant in Merced County where the residuals would be composted for land application) or hauled 30 miles to Kirby Canyon Landfill in Morgan Hill for disposal.

North Bayshore Master Plan 27 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
District Heating and Cooling System
Heating and cooling for all Master Plan buildings would be provided from the DCP through all-electric generation using a combination of ground source heating and cooling, heat recovery chillers, air source heat pumps, water -cooled chillers, cooling towers, biogas, and thermal energy storage. This mechanical equipment would be located inside the DCP. The equipment required to generate hot and chilled water (heat recovery chillers, water cooled chillers, cooling towers, and air source heat pumps) would be located at the DCP. All equipment would meet or exceed the requirements of California’s Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 2+4, Part 6) regulations and minimum efficiency requirements set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 14 Thermal storage may also be located at the DCP or combined with fire water storage tanks at individual buildings.

The hot and chilled water produced at the DCP would be distributed to Master Plan buildings via piping that is buried and/or routed through the basements of the Master Plan buildings. This distribution piping would also connect to the ground source system, located within dedicated bores or combined with structural piles under buildings. The proposed geobore system would act as a passive heating and cooling source and provide a means to maximize heat recovery between various building uses, taking advantage of non-coincidental demands.

This combination of production and distribution solutions consolidates the heating and cooling production assets and reduces the total installed production capacity of heating and cooling equipment when compared to a conventional utilities systems scenario. It also increases the reliability of the system through an improved redundancy at the DCP while providing energy efficiency of the heating and cooling systems.

Construction of the geothermal sys tem would include drilling and installation of vertical bores and connection of the manifolds to the distribution system. It is estimated that approximately 6,500 vertical bores would be drilled on -site. Each bore would be six-inches in diameter, spaced 20 feet apart, and drilled approximately 85 to 100 feet below ground surface (bgs). Cooling towers may also be used for heat rejection and located at the DCP. Cooling towers may either be installed on the roof of the DCP building to a height of 45 feet above grade or on the ground to a height of 30 feet above grade.

In addition, the WRF’s wastewater treatment equipment and storage tanks would be co -located with the above-described heating and cooling equipment and systems. To increase the performa nce of district thermal systems, the Master Plan may incorporate heat exchange from the private wastewater treatment processes. Wastewater heat exchange would allow the thermal plant to capture heat present in the wastewater flows or extract heat from stor ed water after tertiary treatment. In addition, the wastewater treatment process tanks could benefit from the rejection of excess heat from the thermal facilities. The integration of wastewater heat recovery or rejection is intended to improve the Master Plan’s overall energy efficiency. Sewer heat recovery could also be implemented in individual buildings, particularly the residential buildings, helping to reduce energy demands at the building - level. Sewer heat recovery preheats incoming water by extractin g heat from the higher temperature wastewater flows, before the heat dissipates in the wastewater collection network. If the WRF

14 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1 provides the minimum energy-efficient design and construction requirements for most buildings, except low-rise residential buildings. Source: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. “Standard 90.1”.

Accessed 7/8/2022. https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standard-90-1.

North Bayshore Master Plan 28 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
wastewater treatment employs biogas reuse via a microturbine, heat generated from the microturbine not required for the WRF ope ration could be utilized in the district heating network to provide space heating for buildings.

Microgrid System
A microgrid is proposed to serve some or all of the properties within the Master Plan area, utilizing PG&E's new Community Microgrid Enablement Tariff (CMET). In the event of a local grid outage, the CMET allows for the sharing of on-site distributed energy resources (e.g., solar PV and energy storage systems), to energize facilities within the CMET’s prescribed boundaries, using PG&E’s standar d distribution infrastructure to deliver power. A Microgrid Controller—likely to be located at the DCP— would distribute power during the local grid outage under predetermined protocols that are documented in a Microgrid Operating Agreement with PG&E. Irres pective as to whether or not there would be a CMET Microgrid, electric service would be provided by standard PG&E distribution-level service.

Automatic Waste Collection System
Solid waste generated on-site would be collected via an AWCS located within the DCP. The AWCS consists of a main pressurized pneumatic pipe that runs below grade, with cleanouts spaced at regular intervals. Individual buildings would be connected to the main AWCS trunk via below-grade laterals.

The computer-controlled pneumatic system would allow for the collection of a variety of solid waste streams via waste inlets distributed within the buildings and at select exterior locations with controlled access. The waste is then transferred through a single pipe that pneumatically pulls the waste to one or more central terminal facilities where each waste stream is deposited into the appropriate container. A roll-off waste collection truck would then arrive at the terminal facility to haul away a full container, while delivering an empty replacement container. These terminal facilities, collectively sized at approximately 7,000 square feet, would be located at ground level in each building served by the system with direct access for waste collection vehicles.

The proposed automate d or pneumatic waste collection system must align with the City’s existing trash, recycling and organics collection programs. The system’s residential buildings would support four primary waste streams: garbage, paper recycling, container recycling, and organics. The system’s commercial buildings would support three primary waste streams: garbage, mixed recycling, and organics. The waste streams would remain separate via the automated process that evacuates one stream at a time. The AWCS would not support all types of waste, such as: bulky items, cardboard, e- waste, kitchen grease, and hazardous materials. Therefore, each building would contain residual waste rooms hauled using traditional waste management techniques. The collection system must comply with the City’s different requirements for residential and commercial programs including whether the various material streams may be collected in bags or not and acceptable types of bags for each sector.

The project will incorporate into the design back-up infrastructure should the AWCS temporarily fail or become permanently inoperable. In addition to the residual waste rooms, each building utilizing the AWCS will have adequate areas to store traditional waste management collection containers for trash, recycling, and compost.

North Bayshore Master Plan 29 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
District Distribution Systems and Building Connections
The Shorebird and Joaquin Complete Neighborhood areas would be served by a consolidated backbone utility corridor that would run underneath the Green Loop and connect laterally to of fice and residential/mixed use development parcels. This proposed private utility corridor located under privately-owned land would minimize public right-of-way crossings and could include electric power, recycled water, sanitary sewer, waste collection systems, and thermal hydronics.

In order to transport wastewater, recycled water, hot and chilled water, electricity and solid waste to and from each of the buildings and parks on-site, these utility corridors would consist of underground cabling and a ser ies of below ground pipes ranging from eight to 32 inches in diameter that connect and provide service between the buildings and the DCP. Additionally, each building would be fitted with a connection room including the necessary pumping assets (i.e., boost er pump), energy transfer equipment for the thermal network (plate heat exchangers providing hydraulic separation between the primary and secondary in -building system), as well as a break tank and backflow preventer for the recycled water supply. Each conn ection room would also include the relevant metering and control equipment to track overall consumption, perform efficiency monitoring, and enable integrated control.

Where required, existing electrical utilities may be relocated or upgraded as deemed necessary by the utility or to accommodate construction or connection to new buildings.

2.3.6 Emergency Generators
The project would include a total of approximately 60 emergency back-up power systems to serve fire and life safety loads. Each building would include a diesel-powered emergency back-up generator. The generators located within the proposed residential buildings would have a power rating of approximately 600 kilowatts (kW) and the generators within the proposed office buildings would have a power rating of approximately 700 kW. For the private District Utility Systems Option only, a n additional 1,500 kW generator would be installed for emergency use for the DCP. Diesel fuel for these generators would be stored in double-walled aboveground storage tanks with each generator screened from visibility. It is estimated that up to approximately 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel would be stored for these generators throughout the project site.

2.3.7 Green Building and Emissions Reduction Features Consistent with the Development Standards and Bonus Floor -Area-Ratio (FAR) Standards for non - residential development projects within the Precise Plan area, the project would meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum standard fo r new office buildings and minimum 120-point GreenPoint-rated or equivalent standard for residential buildings. In addition to the Green Building standards required by the Precise Plan, the Master Plan would also include the following features:

• Photovoltaic System: Approximately 20 percent of the project’s electricity demand would be provided by solar power generated on -site from rooftop photovoltaic panels covering 50 percent of roofs as required in the Mountain View Reach Code. • All Electric Buildings: No use of natural gas.
• Water Efficient Landscaping: Water efficient irrigation systems would support native, drought tolerant plants compatible with recycled water.

North Bayshore Master Plan 30 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
• Passive Design: The project would be designed to : 1) achieve carbon reduction, 2 ) provide high-quality interior environments with daylight, glare control, and thermal comfort, and 3) prepare for future climate conditions where buildings are anticipated to adapt to operating in more extreme heat days by maximizing the LEED Optimize Energy points, which are measured through energy modeling against an ASHRAE 90.1 baseline.15 • Energy Efficient Design: Energy modeling in early design phases to optimize wall -to-wall ratios, thermal performance, and exterior shading.

If the private District Utilities System Option is implemented, the project would also include the following green building measures:

• Ground Source Heating/Cooling System: The project site would include a district thermal system which would provide heating and cooling to the proposed buildings via a closed loop system to optimize efficiency.
• Water Efficient Building Systems: Buildings would have efficient fixtures and systems.

Additionally, all buildings would be dual -plumbed and be served by recycled water supplies for mechanical operations, irrigation, and toilet flushing. • On-Site Wastewater Collection and Water Reuse Facility: The project would include an on-site WRF, which would collect and treat wastewater generated in the project area and supply recycled water to on-site developments.
• Energy Efficient Management: Smart load management an d energy storage through use of batteries and geothermal resources.

2.3.8 Construction Activities and Phasing
Construction activities associated with the buildout of the Master Plan would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, building co nstruction, architectural coatings, paving, and installation of landscaping. The buildout of the Master Plan would occur over eight phases and take a total of approximately 14 years to complete. If the District Utilities System option is implemented, the DCP would be built in the first phase with a phased deployment of capacity and associated distribution networks as appropriate. The WRF capacity would be brought online in phases as wastewater production and non-potable water demands increase.

As noted in Table 2.3-1, the maximum depth of excavation required would range from eight to 30 feet bgs for the proposed buildings and 85 to 100 feet bgs for the geothermal bores under the Private District Utilities Systems Option. Approximately 1.03 million cubic yards of soil would be exported from the site to accommodate the proposed below ground parking, building foundations and footings, and utilities. Excess soil would be exported to receiving sites for which the soil meets receiving site acceptance criteria. Receiving sites may include landfills and reuse sites (e.g., other redevelopment or restoration/reclamation projects). A summary of the proposed phasing is detailed in Table 2.3-4 below.

15 In order to earn LEED Opti mize Energy points, the project would run two simulation models showing the energy use of the project. The first simulation would utilize all design and construction requirements listed in ASHRAE 90.1 (Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low -Rise Residential Buildings) to establish an energy use baseline for the proposed buildings. The second simulation would implement improved design techniques to determine how much energy efficiency could be improved. A higher percentage of improvement compared to the baseline design conditions would result in more LEED Optimize Energy points being awarded to the project design.

North Bayshore Master Plan 31 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 2.3-4: Construction Phasing
Phase Subareas to be Constructed Estimated Start
Date
Estimated
Completion Date
1 Shorebird North - SB-PH; SB-PR-1; SB-PO-
1; SB-PO-2 (partial); JS-PR-2; PE-PR-1; PE-
PR-2; SB-FLEX, SB-DCP; AM1
2024 2027
2 Shorebird South - SB-PR-2; SB-PR-3; SB-
PR-4; SB-PR-5; SB-PR-6; SB-PR-7; SB-PR-
8; SB-PP
2027 2031
3 Willow - SB-PO-2 (partial) 2027 2030
4 Inigo - SB-PO-3 2030 2033
5 Plymouth - JN-PR-5; JN-PR-6 2030 2033
6 Joaquin East - JN-PO-2; JN-PR-4; JN-PR-7
Marine Way - MW1; MW2 2032 2035
7 Joaquin West -JN-PO-1; JN-PR-1; JN-PR-2;
JN-PR-3 2033 2036
8 Shoreline - JS-PR-1; JS-PR-3; JS-PO-1; JS-
FLEX 2034 2037

2.3.9 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking
The Master Plan assumes completion of the City’s North Bayshore Precise Plan Priority Transportation Projects, including improvements at the US 101/Rengstorff Avenue and US 101/Shoreline Boulevard interchanges and operational improvements along Shoreline Boulevard.

The Master Plan also acknowledges a current City Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project that reconfigures part of Plymouth Street to align with the intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and Space Park Way. Vehicle access to the project site would be provided via North Shoreline Boulevard, Charleston Road, and Amphitheatre Parkway. Overall, the Master Plan assumes buildout of the conceptual Precise Plan roadway network (see Figure 2.3-4) with minor modifications, including a proposed one-way section of Shorebird Avenue east of Shoreline and proposed private streets including Grove Street, Willow Street, Monarch Street between Grove Street and Manzanita Street, and Manzanita Street between Charleston Avenue and Shorebird Avenue. In addition, a series of new neighborhood and service streets would distribute traffic and facilitate circulation throughout the project site. Additional on-site operational and safety improvements would be completed, per the City’s Multimodal Transportation Analysis (MTA) for the project. Focused, site-specific assessments (MTAs) may be needed when specific development proposals are submitted. Figure 2.3-4 shows the proposed street network for the project.

Source: Google, December 2022.

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEKSTEVENS CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

MONARCH STMONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAYSPACE PARK WAY
0 250 500 1,000 Feet

MASTER PLAN SITE

BAYSHORE FWYBAYSHORE FWY
PROPOSED STREET NETWORK FIGURE 2.3-4

North Bayshore Master Plan 33 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Bicycle and pedestrian access to the project site would be provided via a network of new bicycle paths, trails, and pedestrian ways. A pedestrian priority zone through the Shorebird Complete Neighborhood adjacent to North Shoreline Boulevard would connect Charleston Road to Space Park Way, and ultimately to Shoreline Commons. An off - and on-street bicycle network totaling approximately 3.7 miles is proposed, including 1.7 miles of which would be added to the existing Green Loop (multi-use trail that includes two-way bicycle lanes and a separated pedestrian way). This proposed extension of the Green Loop would connect existing and new trails, paths, and bicycle routes (including the Stevens and Permanente Creek Trails) and would complete the contiguous off -street bicycle and pedestrian route north and south of Charleston Road, and between Ste vens Creek and Permanente Creek. The Master Plan also includes two new connections to the Stevens Creek Trail. Figure 2.3-5 and Figure

2.3-6 show the proposed pedestrian and bicycle network, respectively.

Further, as a Community Benefit pursuant to the allocation of 1.3 million square feet of Bonus FAR, the Master Plan would contribute funds toward the completion of the Charleston Transit Corridor (Phases 2 and 3). The Charleston Transit Corridor would turn Charleston Road into a transit corridor that would give priority to bus transit and would provide dedicated cycle tracks along its entire length in order to encourage non -vehicular transportation. The Charleston Transit Corridor is a City project subject to separate CEQA review and permitting.

As part of the goal to reduce vehicle trips into North Bayshore, the proposed office uses would be parked at 2.0 stalls per 1,000 square feet (compared to a maximum allowed parking ratio of 2.7 stalls per 1,000 squa re feet identified in the Precise Plan) and residential uses would be parked at approximately 0.65 stalls per dwelling unit at full buildout (consistent with the allowable parking maximums per unit in the Precise Plan).

On-site parking would be provided t hrough a combination of on -site and district parking facilities.

Limited on-site parking would be provided via surface, podium, and/or basement parking (refer to Table 3.3-1 for breakdown of parking by subarea). District parking would be provided in consolidated structures. The proposed district parking facilities are summarized in Table 2.3-5 below and their locations shown on Figure 2.3-1.

The AM1 parking garage (also referred to as “Amphitheatre parking garage”) would include 240 parking stalls under the control of the City in addition to the 10 stalls that would be reserved for MVPD.

This garage would also include a mobility hub to facilitate transfers between travel modes and accommodate mobility options for the “last leg” connection between the garages and ultimate destination in the form of shuttle circulators and active transportation (e.g., shared bikes, scooters, etc.) for those who choose not to walk. The MW1, MW2 parking garages (also referred to as Marine Way parking garages) would also include mobility hubs (or a single shared mobility hub).

Source: Google, December 2022.

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEKSTEVENS CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

MONARCH STMONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAYSPACE PARK WAY
0 250 500 1,000 Feet

MASTER PLAN SITE

BAYSHORE FWYBAYSHORE FWY
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN NETWORK FIGURE 2.3-5
Source: Google, December 2022.

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEKSTEVENS CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

MONARCH STMONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAYSPACE PARK WAY
0 250 500 1,000 Feet

MASTER PLAN SITE

BAYSHORE FWYBAYSHORE FWY
PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK FIGURE 2.3-6

North Bayshore Master Plan 36 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 2.3-5: Summary of Proposed District Parking Facilities Parking Garage Subarea Location Use Served Approximate Number of Parking Stalls
SB-P-1 SB-PP Hotel, Retail,
residential visitor ±600
JN-P-1 JN-PR-3 Hotel, Retail,
residential visitor ±500
JS-P-1 JS-Flex Office, Hotel, Retail,
residential visitor ±700
AM1 AM1 Office, public ±4,584
MW1 & MW2 MW1 & MW2 Office ±890
Total ±7,274

Several bike and pedestrian network and safety improvements are being installed (including those along Joaquin Road and Shoreline Boulevard as part of the Charleston East project improvements), as well as the Charleston Corridor Transit Improvements, which all would provide improved connections between the proposed district parking facilities and office uses. New short - and long -term bicycle parking facilities would be located throughout the project site, with short-term bike racks designated for visitors and long -term secured bike parking for employees and residents. Short and long -term bicycle parking would be provided within or adjacent to the entrances of each office and residential building and meet or exceed the requirements of the Precise Plan, as detailed in Table 2.3-6 below.

Table 2.3-6: Precise Plan Bicycle Parking Requirements
Land Use Short-Term Parking Long-Term Parking
Office/Research
and Development
1 per 10,000 square feet or minimum
of 4 spaces, whichever is greater
1 per 2,000 square feet or minimum
of 4 spaces, whichever is greater
Retail/Commercial 1 per 5,000 square feet or minimum
of 2 spaces, whichever is greater
1 per 5,000 square feet or minimum
of 2 spaces, whichever is greater
Residential 1 per 10 units 1 per unit
Source: City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan. October 13, 2020. Page181.

North Bayshore Master Plan 37 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

2.3.10 Transportation Demand Management
The proposed Master Plan would implement various Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, consistent with the commercial and residential TDM guidelines in Chapter 6 of the Precise Plan, to shift travel mode and time of day to take advantage of available capacity and reduce congestion. The Master Plan would comply with the district-wide and site-specific trip cap policies .

The Master Plan is setting a Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) rate goal of 35 percent at buildout for new and existing Google office uses to comply with the gateway trip cap policy. The Master Plan TDM strategies include, but are not limited to:

• Limiting parking supply and/or reducing parking ratios • Unbundled residential parking and Parking Cash-out
• Expansion of Google’s existing TDM program
• Partnering with the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (TMA); • Providing dedicated parking for commuter shuttle and car-share programs; and • Bike sharing, bike storage, amenities, and repair stations.

2.3.11 Heritage Trees and Landscaping
The project site16 contains approximately 3,969 trees17, 1,806 of which are Heritage trees as defined in the City’s Municipal Code. 18 Implementation of the Master Plan would result in the removal of approximately 3,330 existing trees (including 1,509 Heritage trees). The project would plant new trees throughout the site as required by City policies or as otherwise agreed to with the City. Tree species to be planted would be native and include oak and sycamore trees. In addition to new trees, the Master Plan proposes new landscaping consisting of native and/or drought -tolerant plants. The landscaping (including trees) within the project site to the greatest degree possible would be irrigated using recycled water (not potable water) to the extent feasible at full buildout.

16 The tree strategy described in this document reflects the NBS Master Plan Tree Implementation Plan as submitted to the City of Mountain View on October 11, 2022. As described in the Tree Implementation Plan, tree planting density and species composition of dedicated park land, with potentially the exception of the Eco Gem, is at the City’s discretion. For this reason, the “Study Area” described in the Tree Implementation Plan excludes dedicated park land but includes the Eco Gem (see Figure 1 in NBS Master Plan Tree Implementation Plan). Therefore, while there are more trees within the master plan area, there are only 3,969 trees in the Study Area as described in the Tree Implementation Plan.
17 This total excludes the trees on land that would be dedicated as parkland as part of the proposed project. 18 Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 32, Article II defines a “Heritage Tree” as a tree with any of the following characteristics: a tree trunk with a circumference of forty -eight inches or more, measured at fifty -four inches above natural grade. Multi-trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork. Any of the following three species of trees with a circumference of twelve inches or more, measured at fifty -four inches above natural grade: Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), Cedrus (cedar), and groves of trees designated as “heritage” by the City Council. Source:

City of Mountain View. Municipal Code Chapter 32 Article II. May 24, 2021.

North Bayshore Master Plan 38 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

2.4 CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING

DESIGNATION

2.4.1 General Plan
Most of the parcels within the project site are within the Precise Plan area and have General Plan land use designations of North Bayshore Mixed -Use Center, North Bayshore Mixed -Use, High-Intensity Office, and Institutional. The North Bayshore Mixed-Use General Plan land use designation allows for office, commercial, lodging, entertainment, and residential uses. The North Bayshore Mixed -Use Center land use designation allows for office, retail and personal services, multi -family residential, lodging, entertainment, parks and plazas. The High-Intensity Office designation allows for office and ancillary commercial, light industrial, light manufacturing, start-up businesses, and other commercial and industrial uses. The Institutional land use designation allows for civic, public/quasi -public, park and open space uses. A small portion of the Master Plan, located outside of the Precise Plan area (APN:
116-20-043), has a General Plan land use designation of Institutional.

The proposed Master Plan land uses would be consistent with the General P lan land use designations and include a mix of office and residential uses in the appropriately designated areas.

2.4.2 Zoning
Most of the project site is zoned P (39) North Bayshore Precise Plan. A small portion of the Master Plan located outside of the Preci se Plan area (APN: 116 -20-043) is zoned Public Facility (PF). The Precise Plan is organized into four character areas, each with distinct building scale, form, and character. The Precise Plan also identifies Complete Neighborhood areas where residential us es are allowed. Within the Precise Plan, the project site is within the Core, Gateway, General, and Edge Character Areas and within the Shorebird, Joaquin, and Pear Complete Neighborhood Areas. Figure

2.4-1 and Figure 2.4-2 show the relationship between the project site and the Precise Plan boundary, Character Areas, and Complete Neighborhood areas.

The Core Character Area is defined as a mixed -use urban center supporting a broad range of office, residential, retail, restaurant, service, and hotel uses. The Gateway Character Area is similar to the Core Character Area, but it allows more dense non-residential uses. The General Character Area would support mixed -use developments focused on office, R&D, and residential buildings. The Edge Character Area would allow lower-intensity office, R&D, and residential uses that are setback farther from the edges of the Precise Plan to provide more landscaping next to sensit ive existing habitat. All Character Areas would allow for district -supporting infrastructure and district systems. The Precise Plan establishes a “base” FAR allowance per Character Area for residential/mixed -use and nonresidential uses, in addition to a ma ximum FAR. The “base” FAR for the project site varies from

0.45 for nonresidential development to 1.0 for residential/mixed-use development. The maximum FAR allowed ranges from 0.65 to 2.35 for nonresidential development and 1.85 to 4.5 for residential/mixed- use development. Any FAR above the “base” is considered “bonus” FAR and subject to community benefit and green building requirements outlined in the Precise Plan.

The Shorebird Complete Neighborhood envisions a mix of high- to moderate-intensity residential and office buildings with a “campus -like” character. The Joaquin Complete Neighborhood envisions a Gateway area with a mix of retail, entertainment, recreational, office, hotel, and residential uses. The

North Bayshore Master Plan 39 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Pear Complete Neighborhood envisions a cultura l hub with art, theater, and institutional uses and a mix of high- to moderate-intensity residential and office buildings. Table 2.4-1 below summarizes the Precise Plan targets and proposed Master Plan development within the Shorebird, Joaquin, and Pear Complete Neighborhoods.

Table 2.4-1: Precise Plan Combined Complete Neighborhood Development Targets and Master Plan Development
Precise Plan Combined
Neighborhood Targets Master Plan
Master Plan
Percentage of
Precise Plan Target
Residential Units 9,850 7,000 71%
Affordable Housing 1,970 1,400 71%
Employment 5,000,000 sf 3,145,897 sf 63%
Retail/Entertainment 290,000 sf 244,000 sf 83%
Hotel 400 rooms 525 rooms 131%
Public Open Space
(minimum)
1 Community Park, 3
Neighborhood Parks
1 Community Park, 10
Neighborhood Parks --

While the Master Plan would exceed the target amounts of hotel development for the Complete Neighborhoods (as shown in Table 2.4-1 above), the Master Plan proposes th e type and scale of development envisioned in the Precise Plan for the three Complete Neighborhoods and would comply with the applicable standards and guidelines in the Precise Plan. In addition, the City has approved development projects within the Comple te Neighborhoods including the following, which contribute to the neighborhood targets identified in Table 2.4-1:

• 2600 Marine Way (Intuit Phase 1 and 2, application no. 436-12-R; 330,500 net new square feet of office space)
• 1625 North Shoreline Boulevard (Shashi Hotel, application no. 502-14-PCZA; 200 room hotel) • 1625 Plymouth Street (application no. 204 -15-PCZA; 224,508 net new square feet of office space)
• 2000 North Shoreline Boulevard (Charleston East, application no. 173-16-PCZA; 595,000 net new square feet of office space and 10,000 net new square feet of restaurant and retail space • 1045-1085 La Avenida (Microsoft, application no. 313-16-PCZA; 127,980 net new square feet of office space)
• 1255 Pear Avenue (application no. PL-2017-380; 149,270 net new square feet of office space, 10,557 net new square feet of institutional and recreational space, and 635 new multi -family housing units)
• Google Landings (application nos. PL-2018-345 & PL-2018-346; 550,258 net new square feet of office space and 10,500 net new square feet of restaurant and retail space • 1100 La Avenida Street (application no. PL -2021-071; 100 new affordable multi -family housing units)

These approved developments are reflected in column B in Table 2.1-1.

Source: Google, December 2022.

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

PLYMOUTH ST

STIERLIN CT

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEKSTEVENS CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

PLYMOUTH ST

STIERLIN CT

CRITTENDEN LNCRITTENDEN LN

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAYSPACE PARK WAY

AMPHITHEATRE PKWYAMPHITHEATRE PKWY
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet

MASTER PLAN SITE

NORTH BAYSHORE PRECISE PLAN

COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARY
NORTH BAYSHORE PRECISE PLAN CHARACTER AREAS FIGURE 2.4-1 Source: Google, December 2022.

NORTH BAYSHORE

PRECISE PLAN BOUNDARY

NORTH BAYSHORE PRECISE PLAN

COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS
NORTH BAYSHORE PRECISE PLAN COMPLETE NEIGHBORHOODS FIGURE 2.4-2

North Bayshore Master Plan 42 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the EIR must include a statement of the objectives of the project. The applicant’s objectives for the Master Plan are as follows:

1. Support the North Bayshore area’s transition into an innovative, sustainable, and complete mixed-use district that protects and stewards natural areas and open space.

2. Provide development/redevelopment that continues to promote the North Bayshore area’s role as a major high-technology employment center for start-ups and small businesses, along with larger established companies.

3. Develop the project area with residential uses and office space at an increased density and FAR (consistent with the character area development targets in the North Bayshore Precise Plan) close to major roadways that provide a more efficient use of available land to support transit opportunities.

4. Redevelop the project site with up to approximately 7,000 new residential units to better balance the North Bayshore area’s jobs/housing ratio and the City’s overall jobs/housing ratio.

5. Provide approximately 3.0 million square feet of office uses consistent with the North Bayshore Precise Plan and 2030 General Plan Policies, including: LUD 3.8: Preserved land use districts. Promote and preserve commercial and industrial districts that support a diversified economic base; LUD 3.1: Land use and transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a half-mile of public transit service, and along major commute corridors; LUD 9.2: Compatible transit-oriented development. Encourage transit-oriented development that is compatible with surrounding uses and accessible to transit stations; and LUD 14.3: Business attraction. Attract innovative and emerging technology businesses.

6. Implement a robust TDM plan with trip-reduction measures and on-site amenities that promote walking, bicycling, use of shuttles and transit, and other transportation alternatives, consistent with the requirements of the North Bayshore Precise Plan.

7. Provide new open space and public park areas.

8. Support the transformation of North Bayshore into a sustainable community that recaptures and reuses energy, water, and waste resources to the greatest extent possible.

The City’s vision for North Bayshore is implemented through the guiding principles in the Precise Plan, listed below. These principles provide a framework for the City’s objectives for future development.

1. Create Complete Neighborhoods. The Precise Plan will encourage blending residential, commercial, and office uses to create Complete Neighborhoods with services, open space and transportation options for residents and area employees. These Complete Neighborhoods will help improve the jobs-housing balance of the area and City. Each neighborhood includes land use ‘target numbers’ to help guide their transformation to Complete Neighborhoods.

Residential uses should be carefully integrated with existing offices to create active pedestrian neighborhoods.

2. Create Distinct Areas within North Bayshore. The vision for North Bayshore includes developing distinct areas, each with their own character and identity. These areas differ in their physical character, form, interfaces with habitat and open space, development intensity and scale, and building massing.

North Bayshore Master Plan 43 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3. Promote Housing Affordability. The Precise Plan includes a goal that 20% of new housing units in North Bayshore are affordable. The Precise Plan provides FAR incentives for projects that include affordable housing units. The Precise Plan also encourages smaller units and requires residential units to unbundle parking costs from housing unit costs.

4. Enhance Ecosystems and Habitat. Future North Bayshore area development will be designed to respond to the natural environment. The Precise Plan will enhance and protect habitat areas within and adjacent to North Bayshore. Strategies include a Habitat Overlay Zone, bird safe design of buildings, habitat enhancements throughout the area, and incentives to transfer office development from the Edge Area to the Core Area.

5. Improve Transportation Connections to North Bayshore. Creating more effective and efficient connections to North Bayshore from Downtown, other areas in Mountain View, NASA Ames, and Highway 101 will be an important Precise Plan outcome. To achieve this goal, the Plan identifies key infrastructure improvements, including new bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Shoreline Boulevard, a reconfigured Charleston Road with transit- only lanes, a transit, bicycle and pedestrian bridge to NASA Ames, and northbound Highway 101 off-ramp onto Shoreline Boulevard. Precise Plan action items also include feasibility studies for a Stevens Creek bridge at Charleston and a Charleston/Highway 101 underpass. These improvements, along with better internal connectivity and expanded programs to reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles, will allow continued North Bayshore economic growth.

6. Expand and Improve Public Spaces. The Precise Plan includes the creation of a diverse network of public and private open spaces. These will likely include plazas and paseos, neighborhood public spaces, linear parks, and a multi-use trail network to allow bicycling and walking throughout the Precise Plan area to natural areas. The Precise Plan promotes a signature, central public open space area to provide a community gathering space for the district.

7. Create Walkable, Human-Scale Blocks. To promote bike and pedestrian transportation, the Precise Plan encourages the subdivision of large blocks into a fine-grained network of pedestrian-oriented streets, providing convenient and pleasant walking and biking routes, connecting homes and businesses to transit and services, and generating valuable new addresses for diverse businesses and residences. Furthermore, every street should include safe and attractive sidewalks, enabling pedestrians to walk comfortably throughout North Bayshore.

8. Concentrate Growth to Support Transit. Future development will be concentrated in the Gateway and Core Areas since these locations will be within walking distance of the primary public and private transit routes. Focused growth near public transportation will increase ridership, reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, and optimize opportunities for highly sustainable development. Focused development will also support new retail and commercial services.

9. Make the Area Highly Sustainable. The General Plan established the North Bayshore area as a model for highly sustainable and innovative development. Environmental sustainability will be implemented by building-, site-, and district-scale improvements. Building and site- level measures will enhance the design and construction of new buildings, while district-level projects will focus on capital improvements and management plans impacting all or portions of North Bayshore. These strategies will also enable the City and North Bayshore to proactively address climate change, sea level rise, and water demand reduction strategies, among other topics.

North Bayshore Master Plan 44 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

10. Promote Transit, Biking and Walking. The Precise Plan includes a drive-alone rate standard of 45% for office development projects by 2030 in addition to a residential vehicle trip performance standard. Together these standards will help reduce vehicle trips from office and residential development in the area. To support these goals, the Precise Plan also promotes the use of transit, carpools, walking, and biking in the area. From priority pedestrian and bicycle networks to TDM programs, the Precise Plan will make it easier, more comfortable, and more efficient for employees and residents to walk, bike, carpool, or use transit. Businesses should continue to lead the way with innovative vehicle trip reduction strategies.

11. Construct Buildings that Support Public Areas. New buildings and building renovations will be carefully designed to shape and define community open space, supporting pedestrian safety and comfort, and connecting to the transportation network. Design strategies will vary by character area but should include creating open areas between buildings and streets that are attractive and usable, locating buildings at or near the sidewalk, enlivening ground floor frontages with welcoming entries and views of interior spaces, reducing vehicular access in favor of pedestrian access, and limiting surface parking between streets and buildings.

12. Minimize the Potential Consequences of Sea Level Rise. Sea levels are expected to rise between 8 and 37 inches within the next 50 years. Strategies such as improving levees, upgrading stormwater facilities, and elevating new buildings should be pursued to make North Bayshore more resilient to climate change and associated impacts.

13. Promote Economic Diversity. The Precise Plan should encourage and support a diverse economic base to ensure the long-term fiscal health of the area and the City. This should include a mix of large, established high-tech companies, smaller spaces for start-ups, and a range of retail, services, hotels, entertainment, museums, and theaters.

14. Promote Retail, Entertainment and the Arts. New and expanded retail, lodging, arts, and entertainment uses should be encouraged in areas near the highest concentrations of housing and jobs and along transit routes. In addition, new buildings should be flexibly designed so ground floor spaces may be used for retail or small start-up businesses.

2.6 USES OF THE EIR
This EIR provides decision makers in the City of Mountain View and the general public with environmental information to use in considering the proposed project . It is intended that this EIR be used for the discretionary approvals necessary to implement the project, as proposed. These discretionary actions may include, but are not limited to, the list below. This list also includes ministerial permits and approvals.

Table 2.6-1: Required Approvals
Agency Permit/Review Required
City of Mountain View Discretionary Approvals of:
• A Master Plan
• A Development Agreement
• A Vesting Tentative Map
• Planned Community Permits

North Bayshore Master Plan 45 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 2.6-1: Required Approvals
Agency Permit/Review Required
• Development Review Permits
• Heritage Tree Removal Permits
• Recycled Water Permits
• Site and Architectural Plan Reviews
• Provisional Use Permits
• Purchase and Sale Agreement Amendment
Ministerial Approvals
• Demolition Permits
• Grading Permits
• Building Permits
• Public Works Approval for Work within the Right of Way (Excavation Permits)
• Fire/Environmental Protection Permits
• Dual Plumbing Permit
• Offsite Improvement Plans (including work within the right-of- way, Excavation and Encroachment Permits or Agreements) • Industrial discharge permits for discharge of residuals from the on-site water reuse facility
• Discharge Permits for discharge of municipal wastewater from the on-site water reuse facility
• Sanitary sewer discharge permits for discharge of dewatering water
• Closure permits if underground storage tank (UST) removal is required
• Approvals of Hazardous Materials Business Plan
BAAQMD • Permit to construct and authority to operate backup diesel generators, district water reuse facilities, and any other stationary sources of emissions
• Job Number (J#) for Asbestos for Demolition/Renovation California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)
Encroachment Permit if within Caltrans right-of-way
California Public Utilities
Commission
Potential approval of elements of proposed microgrid distribution network and on-site generation and storage facilities
California Department of
Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle)
Potential approval of AWCS terminal as a waste transfer station Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)
Determination of No Hazard and/or execution of a navigation easement as deemed necessary.

Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission
Potential approval of elements of proposed microgr id distribution network and on-site generation and storage facilities

North Bayshore Master Plan 46 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 2.6-1: Required Approvals
Agency Permit/Review Required
PG&E Agreement for the Community Microgrid Program (Project with District Utilities System Option only)
San Francisco Regional
Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
• Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. Notice of Intent for construction activities Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for on-site stormwater management and pollution prevention.
• Lead on the permitting process for the on-site water reuse facility and will approve the Title 22 Engineering Report for Recycled Water, including Waste Discharge Requirements.
• NPDES VOC and Fuel General Permit for discharge of treated dewatering water, if needed
• Potentially required review and approval of planned management of site risks in areas where impacted soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater are present or suspected
Santa Clara County
Department of
Environmental Health
Potentially required review and approval of planned management of Site risks in areas where impacted soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater are present or suspected related to contamination where RWQCB and USEPA do not take oversight.

State Water Resources
Control Board - Division
of Drinking Water
• Approval for dual plumbed buildings for indoor recycled water use.
• Review of Title 22 Engineering Report for Recycled Water treatment stages (filtration and disinfection) for technical compliance
Valley Water Approvals of proposed geobores. Review and approval may be required if wells are required or if abandoned wells are proposed to be destroyed during construction of the project. Review and issue well construction, relocation, and destruction permits, including soil borings greater than 45 feet in depth.

North Bayshore Master Plan 47 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
SECTION 3.0 NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The proposed project would implement a large portion of the Precise Plan analyzed in the 2017 EIR.

Per Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, where an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines that substantial changes are proposed in the project which will involve new or more severe impacts; new circumstances involve new or more severe impacts; or new information of substantial importance is available, requiring new analysis or verification.

This section includes a discussion of the additional significant effects of the project on air quality , biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation, and utilities and service systems which were not previously disclos ed in the 2017 EIR. The discussion for air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emission, transportation, and utilities and service systems includes t he following subsections:

Environmental Setting – This subsection 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project and 2) describes the existing, physical environmental conditions at the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant.

Impact Discussion – This subsection includes the recommended checklist questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to assess impacts. The impact discussions apply to both the project with and without the District Utilities System Option, unless expressly stated otherwise.

• Project Impacts – This subsection summarizes the impact conclusions from the 2017 EIR and discusses the project’s impact on the environmental subject as related to the checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified. “Mit igation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Each impact is numbered to correspond to the checklist question being answered. For example, Impact AIR -1 answers the first checkli st question in the Air Quality section. Mitigation measures are also numbered to correspond to the impact they address. For example, MM AIR-1.3 refers to the third mitigation measure for the first impact in the Air Quality section.
• Cumulative Impacts – This subsection discusses the project’s cumulative impacts. “Cumulative impacts,” as defined by CEQA, refer to two or more individual effects, which when combined, compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor, but collectively significant, effects taking place over a period of time. CEQA Guideline Section 15130 states an EIR should discuss cumulative impacts “when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” The discussion does not need to be in as great detail as is necessary for project impacts, but is to be “guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.” The purpose of the cumulative analysis is to allow decision makers to better understand the impacts that might result from approval of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, in conjunction with the proposed project addressed in this EIR.

The CEQA Guidelines advise that a discussion of cumulative impacts should reflect both their severity and the likelihood of their occurrence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 [b]). To

North Bayshore Master Plan 48 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
accomplish these two objectives, the analysis should include either a list of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projec tions from an adopted general plan or similar document (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 [b][1]). This EIR uses both approaches. For example, for cumulative air quality impacts, a list of past, present and future projects was used to assess the potential for new cumulative impacts and the project’s contribution to existing cumulative air quality impacts. For cumulative transportation impacts, projections from the adopted Precise Plan are used. In addition, the cumulative analysis tiers from the 2017 EIR where applicable.

The analysis must determine whether the project’s contribution to any cumulatively significant impact is cumulatively considerable, as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15065(a)(3). The cumulative impacts discussion for each environmental issue accordingly addresses the following issues: 1) would the effects of all of past, present, and probable future (pending) development result in a significant cumulative impact on the resource in question; and, if that cumulative impact is likely to be significant, and 2) would the contribution from the proposed project to that significant cumulative impact be cumulatively considerable. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(d) and (e), this EIR incorporates by reference the cumulative analysis in the 2017 EIR.

Table 3.0-1 identifies the pending and approved (but not yet constructed or occupied) projects within 1,000 feet of the project site that were included in the cumulative air quality analysis.

Table 3.0-1: Cumulative Projects List
Name and
Location Description Distance to
Project Site Status
Gateway Master
Plan (Non-
Google)
Up to 100,000 square feet of recreational
space, 1,786 residential units, and 75,000
square feet of restaurant space.

0.0 miles Approved
Intuit (Bayshore
Parkway) – 2624
Bayshore
Parkway
178,600 square feet of office space 1.0 miles Approved
Microsoft – 1045
La Avenida Street
643,680 square feet of office 0.2 miles Approved
Charleston East –
2000 North
Shoreline
Boulevard
595,000 square feet of office and 10,000
square feet of retail space

0.0 miles Approved
Sobrato – 1255
Pear Avenue
785 residential units and 231,210 square
feet of office space

0.0 miles Approved
1100 La Avenida
Affordable
Housing
100 residential units 0.1 miles Approved

North Bayshore Master Plan 49 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 3.0-1: Cumulative Projects List
Name and
Location Description Distance to
Project Site Status
Google Landings
– 2051-2059
Landings Drive
799,482 square feet of office and 10,096
square feet of retail space

0.2 miles Approved
1001 Shoreline
Gateway
203-unit apartment building and 3,000
square feet
of ground-floor commercial space, a
seven-story, and a 100-condominium-unit
residential building, and a six-level office
parking structure

0.4 miles Approved and
Under
Construction

The impact discussions for all other environmental resources are included in Section 5.0 Previously Identified Effects because no new or substantially more severe impacts associated with those environmental resources were identified beyond those previously analyzed in the 2017 EIR.

North Bayshore Master Plan 50 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.1 AIR QUALITY
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Air Quality Assessment completed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated December 6, 2022. This report is attached to this EIR as Appendix C.

3.1.1 Environmental Setting
The existing air quality setting, including regulatory framework and existing site conditions , has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR with the exception of the adoption of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and 2017 Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (which are described below).

3.1.1.1 Background Information
Criteria Pollutants
Air quality in the Bay Area is assessed related to six common air pollutants (referred to as criteria pollutants), including ground-level ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO x), and lead.19 Criteria pollutants are regulated because they result in health effects. An overview of the sources of criteria pollutants and their associated health are summarized in Table 3.1-1. The most commonly regulated criteria pollutants in the Bay Area are discussed further below.

Table 3.1-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Ozone (O3) Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
with nitrogen oxides in sunlight
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases
• Irritation of eyes
• Cardiopulmonary function
impairment
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Motor vehicle exhaust, high temperature
stationary combus tion, atmospheric
reactions
• Aggravation of respiratory illness
• Reduced visibility

19 The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. The project does not include substantial new emissions of sulfur dioxide or lead. For these reasons, these criteria pollutants are not discussed further.

North Bayshore Master Plan 51 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 3.1-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM 2.5)
and Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Stationary combustion of solid fuels,
construction activities, industrial
processes, atmospheric chemical
reactions
• Reduced lung function, especially in
children
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiorespiratory diseases
• Increased cough and chest discomfort
• Reduced visibility
Toxic Air
Contaminants
(TACs)
Cars and trucks, especially diesel-fueled;
industrial sources, such as chrome
platers; dry cleaners and service stations;
building materials and products
• Cancer
• Chronic eye, lung, or skin irritation
• Neurological and reproductive
disorders

High O 3 levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NO X.

These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high O 3 levels.

Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce O3 levels. The highest O3 levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources.

PM is a problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. PM is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide emissions and localized emissions.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are a broad class of compounds known to have health effects. They inc lude but are not limited to criteria pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, diesel fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low conc entrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway).

Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-quarters of the cancer risk from TACs. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles.

Medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways.

The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled into the lungs. Most inhaled particles are subsequently exhaled, but some deposit on the lung surface or are deposited in the deepest regions of the lungs (most susceptible to injury). 20 Chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

20 California Air Resources Board. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed December 13 , 2021. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

North Bayshore Master Plan 52 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Sensitive Receptors
Some groups of people are more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and p eople with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, e lder care facilities, and elementary schools.

3.1.1.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Clean Air Act
At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Clean Air Act and its subs equent amendments. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for the six common criteria pollutants (discussed previously), including PM, O3, CO, SOx, NOx, and lead.

CARB is the state agency that regulates mo bile sources throughout the state and oversees implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act.

The EPA and the CARB have adopted ambient air quality standards establishing permissible levels of these pollutants to protect public health and the climate. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are determined for each air pollutant. Attainment status for a pollutant means that a given air district meets the standard set by the EPA and/or CARB.

Risk Reduction Plan
To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel -Fueled Engines and Vehicles. In addition to requiring more stringent emission standards for new on -road and off -road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment to reduce DPM (in additional to other pollutants). Implementation of this plan, in conjunction with stringent federal and CARB-adopted emission limits for diesel fueled vehicles and equipment (including off -road equipment), will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX.

Regional
2017 Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San F rancisco Bay Area. Regional air quality management districts, such as BAAQMD, must prepare air quality plans specifying how state and federal air quality standards will be met. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 C AP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the 2017 CAP describes how BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining state and federal air

North Bayshore Master Plan 53 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super -greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are potent cl imate pollutants in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.21

Jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the th resholds and methodology for assessing air quality impacts developed by BAAQMD within their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts to air quality including, but not limited to, the following goals and policies , which are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Infrastructure and Conservation Element
INC 20.1 Pollution-reduction. Discourage mobile and stationary sources of air pollution.

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

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.

NC 20.6 Air quality standards. Protect the public and construction workers from construction exhaust and particulate emissions.

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

INC 20.8 Offensive odors. Protect residents from offensive odors.

Mobility
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.

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

21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District . Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans.

North Bayshore Master Plan 54 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
North Bayshore Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains guidelines to avoid significant air quality impacts. The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed project.

Guideline Description

7.1 Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure
7 Alternative fuels for construction equipment. Infrastructure projects are encouraged to use construction equipment powered by alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas rather than conventional petroleum or diesel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 8 Electric and hybrid construction equipment. Infrastructure projects are encouraged to use electric or hybrid-electric construction equipment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

3.1.1.3 Existing Conditions
The project site is located in Santa Clara County, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

The Bay Area, as a whole, does not meet state or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level O3, and PM2.5, nor does it meet state standards for PM10. The Bay Area is considered in attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.22

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the residences at the Santiago Villa mobile home park, located directly southeast of the project site. Additional residences are located approximately 400 feet southwest of the project site, across U.S. 101. The future residents of the approved (but not yet constructed) 1100 La Avenida and 1255 Pear Avenue residential projects, directly south of the project site, would be considered sensitive receptors when those developments are occupied.

3.1.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on air quality, would the project:

1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2) 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? 3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for judgement on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Mountain View has considered the air quality thresholds updated by BAAQMD in May 2017 and regards these thresholds to be the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with O3 precursors (i.e., ROG and NOx), particulate matter, and

22 “Attainment” status for a pollutant means a given air district meets the standard set by the EPA and/or CARB.

North Bayshore Master Plan 55 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
TACs. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality thresholds used in this analysis are identified in Table 3.1-2 below.

Table 3.1-2: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds Operation Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Annual Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
Criteria Pollutants
ROG, NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 40
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (eight-hour) or 20.0 ppm (one-hour) Fugitive Dust
Dust Control
Measures/Best
Management Practices
Not Applicable
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources (within a 1,000-foot Zone of Influence) Health Hazard Single Source Combined Cumulative Sources Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 100 per million
Incremental Annual
PM2.5 0.3µg*/m3 0.8 µg/m3 (average)
Note: µg = micrograms

3.1.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact AQ-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality pla n by resulting in construction NOx emissions, operational ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions, and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions) in excess of BAAQMD thresholds. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Based on BAAQMD’s criteria for determining if a land use plan is consistent with an applicable clean air plan, The 2017 EIR concluded that the Precise Plan would not conflict with the 2010 CAP or interfere with its implementation because the Precise Pla n includes implementing polic ies and measures consistent with the 2010 CAP and would not increase vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) at a rate faster than population growth.23

23 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 152-157.

North Bayshore Master Plan 56 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines set forth separate criteria for determining project-level consistency with a clean air plan. In general, a project is considered consistent with a clean air plan if the project:

a) Supports the primary goals of the clean air plan;
b) Includes relevant control measures; and
c) Does not interfere with implementation of the clean air plan control measures.

The project’s consistency with the 2017 CAP based on these three criteria is discussed below.

Support of Primary 2017 CAP Goals
As discussed in Section 3.1.1.2, the goals of the 2017 CAP include 1) protecting public health by progressing towards attaining air quality standards and eliminating health risk and 2) protecting the climate. If a project exceeds the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, its emissions are considered to result in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Similarly, if the project exceeds the BAAQMD community health risk threshold of significance, the projec t would result in a community health risk. A project exceeding either of these BAAQMD thresholds is considered to be inconsistent with the 2017 CAP, even if the project meets the CAP goals. An analysis of the project’s construction and operational air poll utant emissions is provided below, as well as a discussion of the project’s community health risk.

Construction Period Emissions
The 2017 EIR disclosed that future development under the Precise Plan would result in short -term emissions from construction activities.24 During construction, fugitive dust (the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions) is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those in the vicinity. Off- road construction equipment is often diesel-powered and can be a substantial source of NOx emissions, in addition to PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions. Worker commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of ROG emissions.

Fugitive Dust

The 2017 EIR concluded that construction of future development projects under the Precise Plan would result in less than significant impacts from fugitive dust with the implementation mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1.25

24 Ibid. Pages 157-159.
25 Ibid.

North Bayshore Master Plan 57 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
North Bayshore 2017 EIR Mitigation Measure:

2017 EIR MM AQ-2.126: Both Project Options: Measures to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM10 from construction shall be implemented to ensure that short -term health impacts to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided. The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement th e basic construction mitigation measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust emissions. There shall be a designated on-site coordinator and monitor to ensure implementation of the below dust control measures. Emission reduction measures shall inc lude, at a minimum, the following measures:

• When the air quality index forecast exceeds 100 for particulates for the project area and the reading exceeds 100 for particulates by 10:00 a.m. for the project area, prohibit grading activities for that day.
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered at a frequency of no less than two times per day in order to maintain adequate soil moisture for dust control .

Dewatering effluent extracted from the site may be utilized for watering all exposed surfaces, if found to meet VOC and Fuel General Permit NPDES permit requirements pursuant to the Site Management Plan required per Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1 in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. • Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site or cover them with tarpaulin.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered and loaded material shall not extend above the walls or back of the truck bed.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpave d roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Prohibit off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• 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 measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tun ed in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked

26 This mitigation measure has been revised to reflect the updated BAAQMD best management practices identified in the updated 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and additional recommendations from BAAQMD.

North Bayshore Master Plan 58 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Mountain View and the on-site coordinator/monitor regarding dust complaints. The on-site coordinator/monitor shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph and visible dust extends beyond site boundaries.
• Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction adjacent to sensitive receptors. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent porosity.
• Where applicable, vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. Dewatering effluent extracted from the site may be utilized for watering all exposed surfaces, if found to meet VOC and Fuel General Permit NPDES permit requirements pursuant to the Site Management Plan required per Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ -3.1 in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
• Excavation, grading, and ground -disturbing construction activities shall be phased in accordance with the phasing plan to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
• Avoid tracking of visible soil material on the public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from public paved roads shall be treated with 6 to 12 -inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment of soil prior to leaving the site.
• Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

The project (under either option) would implement the above mitigation measure and, therefore, result in the same less than significant impact for construction fugitive dust as disclosed in the 2017 EIR.

Criteria Air Pollutants

The 2017 EIR concluded construction of future projects under the Precise Plan c ould exceed BAAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants and result in a significant impact. 27 In addition to mitigation measure MM AQ -2.1, the 2017 EIR identified mit igation measure MM AQ-2.2 to reduce diesel exhaust emissions to a less than significant level.

27 Ibid.

North Bayshore Master Plan 59 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
North Bayshore 2017 EIR Mitigation Measure:

2017 EIR MM AQ-2.2: The following additional measures to reduce exhaust emissions from large construction projects shall be implemented:

• The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy -duty (>50 horsepower) off -road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, l eased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet -average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011.
• Clear signage at all construction sites will be pos ted indicating that diesel equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines runn ing continuously as long as they were onsite or adjacent to the construction site. • The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g., compressors). • Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.

While the 2017 EIR concluded that construction criteria air pollutants would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of MM AQ-2.1 and MM AQ-2.2, the analysis was based on plan level review. To further evaluate the air quality impacts of the proposed project, a project-specific air quality analysis was prepared (refer to Appendix C). The following discussion summarizes the findings and conclusions of this project-specific air quality analysis.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 and CARB’s Emission Factor 2021 (EMFAC2021) model were used to estimate annual emissions from construction activities.

Construction emissions were modeled based on equipment list and schedule information provided by the applicant for the project with District Utilities System Option. The construction schedule assumes the project (under either option) would be built over a period of approximately 14 years, or an estimated 3,658 construction workdays. Details about the equipment list, construction schedule, modeling, data inputs, and assumptions are included in Appendix C. Table 3.1-3 shows the estimated daily air emissions from construction of the project with District Utilities System Option. The emissions for the project without the district uti lities system are less than shown in Table 3.1-3 since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system includes addi tional construction of the DCP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system.

North Bayshore Master Plan 60 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 3.1-3: Project with District Utilities System Option Daily Unmitigated Construction Period Emissions (Pounds Per Day)
Year ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
2024 (262 workdays) 20.56 166.70 8.52 6.61
2025 (261 workdays) 60.64 112.22 5.97 4.22
2026 (261 workdays) 118.60 55.79 3.65 2.07
2027 (261 workdays) 82.93 118.22 7.35 4.98
2028 (262 workdays) 36.32 70.43 3.60 2.80
2029 (261 workdays) 32.56 41.86 2.39 1.68
2030 (261 workdays) 35.20 29.91 1.68 0.91
2031 (261 workdays) 56.11 16.69 1.35 0.60
2032 (262 workdays) 56.79 28.55 1.53 0.96
2033 (261 workdays) 52.02 36.81 2.28 1.29
2034 (261 workdays) 136.26 60.83 2.81 1.65
2035 (261 workdays) 50.13 20.47 1.79 0.72
2036 (262 workdays) 2.56 10.04 1.12 0.43
2037 (261 workdays) 0.86 3.56 0.44 0.17
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceed Thresholds? Yes Yes No No
Notes: Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. The emissions for the project without the district utilities system are less than shown above since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system includes the construction of the DCP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system. While the emissions of the project without the district utilities system would be less than shown above, the emissions would be similar and also exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx. Assumes 3,658 construction workdays.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Google North Bayshore Master Plan Air Quality Assessment, Mountain View, California. December 6, 2022.

As shown in Table 3.1-3 above, project construction would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG in construction years 2025-2027, 2031-2032, and 2034, and for NOx emissions in construction years 2024-2028, and 2034. The project (under either option) would implement 2017 EIR mitigation measure MM AQ -2.1 (as revised) and new project mitigation m easure MM AQ -1.1 to reduce its construction criteria air pollutant emissions of ROG and NO x. The project (under either option) shall implement new mitigation measure MM AQ -1.1 instead of the previously identified 2017 EIR mitigation measure MM AQ-2.2 because it is project-specific and more stringent.

North Bayshore Master Plan 61 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
New Project Mitigation Measure:

MM AQ-1.1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) shall implement the following measures during all phases of construction:

• On-road heavy-duty trucks used for construction shall be zero emissions or meet the current most stringent emissions standard, if feasible and commercially available.
• All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final emission standards for NOx and PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise:
o If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 2 or 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that a ltogether achieve an 85-percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in combination). The project applicant shall provide to the City for review and approval documentation showing that engines that comply with Tier 4 Final off- road emission standards are not commercially available for the specific off-road equipment necessary during construction. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall take into consideration the f ollowing factors: (i) potential significant delays to critical-path timing of construction and (ii) the geographic proximity to the project site of Tier 4 Final equipment.
o Use of alternatively fueled equipment with lower NO x emissions that meet the NOx and PM reduction requirements above.
• Use electric portable equipment such as aerial lifts, air compressors, cement mortar mixers, concrete/industrial saws, cranes, and welders. Portable equipment shall be powered by grid electr icity or alternative fuels (i.e., not diesel) instead of by diesel generators.
• Provide line power to the site during the early phases of construction to minimize the use of diesel- or gas-powered equipment.
• Diesel engines, whether for off road equipment or on road vehicles, shall not be left idling for more than two minutes, except as provided in exceptions to the applicable state regulations (e.g., traffic conditions, safe operating conditions). The construction sites shall have posted legible and visible signs in designated queuing areas and at the construction site to clearly notify operators of idling limit.
• Use low volatile organic compound or VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings, that are below current BAAQMD requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3:

Architectural Coatings), for at least 80 percent of all residential and nonresidential interior paints and 80 percent of exterior paints. This includes all architectural coatings applied during both construction and reapplications throughout the project’s operational l ifetime. At least 80 percent of coatings

North Bayshore Master Plan 62 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
applied must meet a “super-compliant" VOC standard of less than 10 grams of VOC per liter of paint. For reapplication of coatings during the project’s operational lifetime, the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall contain a stipulation for low VOC coatings to be used.

Examples of “super-compliant” coatings are contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website.28
• The City shall review the above measures every two years to ensure these measures incorporate the latest guidance and tools available to mitigate the identified impacts as recommended by BAAQMD . The intent is that project will be required to incorporate the most current and stringent requirements adopted by BAAQMD as they evolve over time. Project construction and introduction of new land uses would occur over 14 years or further into the future, and it is possible that newer measures and measures , which are not considered feasible now, would be available to further reduce emissions. These could include greater use of zero -emission construction and stationary equipment and more incentives to support zero emission vehicles. New updated mitigations if identified as part of the two year assessment would be implemented with every new building construction approved as part of the Master Plan project from that point onwards.

With implementation of the 2017 EIR mitigation measure MM AQ -1.1 and new project mitigation measure MM AQ-1.1, modeling indicates that on-site construction ROG emissions would be reduced by 80 percent and NO x emissions would be reduced by 72 percent, resulting in less than significant impacts for ROG emissions as shown on Table 3.1-4. NO x emissions, however, would continue to exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 54 pounds per day in the year 2024. For this reason, construction NOx emissions only in year 2024 from the project (under either option) would be significant and unavoidable. [New Impact (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

28 South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Super-Compliant Architectural Coatings.” Accessed December 7, 2022. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/super-compliant- coatings.

North Bayshore Master Plan 63 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 3.1-4: Project with District Utilities System Option Daily Mitigated Construction Period Emissions (Pounds Per Day)
Year ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
2024 (262 workdays) 10.36 60.98 2.98 1.45
2025 (261 workdays) 17.88 47.98 2.83 1.30
2026 (261 workdays) 28.80 33.86 2.64 1.11
2027 (261 workdays) 24.88 49.88 3.85 1.71
2028 (262 workdays) 9.56 25.81 1.25 0.61
2029 (261 workdays) 8.60 17.56 1.13 0.51
2030 (261 workdays) 9.28 17.75 1.36 0.60
2031 (261 workdays) 13.18 11.56 1.27 0.51
2032 (262 workdays) 12.97 13.07 1.08 0.51
2033 (261 workdays) 13.32 19.25 1.76 0.77
2034 (261 workdays) 30.73 31.66 2.10 0.94
2035 (261 workdays) 12.78 15.32 1.76 0.68
2036 (262 workdays) 2.36 8.64 1.11 0.42
2037 (261 workdays) 0.84 3.42 0.44 0.17
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceed Thresholds? No Yes No No
Notes: Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. The emissions for the project without the district utilities system are less than shown above since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system includes the construction of the DCP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system. While the emissions of the project without the district utilities system would be less than shown above, the emissions would be similar and exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx. Assumes 3,658 construction workdays.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Google North Bayshore Master Plan Air Quality Assessment, Mountain View, California. December 6, 2022.

North Bayshore Master Plan 64 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Operational Period Emissions
The 2017 EIR disclosed the implementation of the Precise Plan would result in long -term pollutant emissions from building operations (including operation of stationary sources like emergency backup diesel generators) and vehicl e use. 29 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not have numeric thresholds related to direct and indirect regional criterial air pollutant emissions resulting from plan implementation; rather, BAAQMD only requires emission computations for project -level analysis. For this reason, the 2017 EIR stated future projects under the Precise Plan would be reviewed against BAAQMD project-level operational criteria pollutant thresholds when proposed.

A project is now proposed; therefore, the operational emission s of the project were modeled and compared to BAAQMD thresholds. Operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with the project (under either option) would be generated primarily from vehicles driven by future employees, residents, customers, and vendors to and from the project site and from consumer products. The project (under either option) proposes 61 emergency diesel generators (including 44 600 kW generators for the residential and mixed-use buildings, 16 700 kW generators for office buildings, and one 1,500 kW generators for the DCP). The generators would be tested periodically and would power the buildings in the event of a power failure. It is assumed the generators would operate primarily for testing and maintenance purposes. The project also proposes a DCP with an anaerobic digestor to generate biogas.

Details about the modeling assumptions for the DCP are included in Appendix C.

CalEEMod and EMFAC2021 were used to estimate emissions from the project with District Utilities System Option operation assuming full build out of the proposed project. The estimated net annual and daily operational period emissions from the project with District Utilities System Option compared to BAAQMD thresholds of significance are summarized in Table 3.1-5. Existing uses on the project site currently generate operational emissions. These emissions are subtracted from the project’s emissions at the earliest date in which the project (under either option) would be constructed and operational (2038) to arrive at the project’s net emissions. Any emissions associated with build out later than 2038 would be lower than current emissions due to assumed efficiencies from improved vehicle fuel efficiency, energy efficient appliances, and mechanical systems over time. The emissions for the project without the district utilities system are less than shown in Table 3.1-5 for NOx, PM2.5 and PM10 emissions since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system includes the operation of the DCP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system. ROG emissions would be the same as shown in Table 3.1-5 because ROG emissions are primarily from area and mobile sources. The modeling assumptions, data inputs, and results are described further in Appendix C of this EIR.

29 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 159.

North Bayshore Master Plan 65 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 3.1-5: Project with District Utilities System Option Operational Period Emissions Scenario ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust
Tons Per Year
A. 2038 Project Emissions 88.6 41.68 28.16 8.40
B. 2022 Existing Use Emissions 11.30 10.81 7.04 1.93
Net Unmitigated Annual Emissions
(A-B) 77.3 30.87 21.13 6.47
Net Mitigated Annual Emissions** 56.43 15.03 20.91 6.27 BAAQMD Thresholds 10 10 15 10
Exceed Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No
Pounds Per Day
2038 Daily Unmitigated Net
Operational Emissions* 423.84 169.17 115.76 35.46
2038 Daily Mitigated Net
Operational Emissions* 381.58 122.15 114.25 33.96
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No
Notes: *Assumes 365-day operations
** Assumes implementation of new project mitigation measure MM AQ-1.1.

Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. The emissions for the project without the district utilities system are less than shown above since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system includes the operation of the DCP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system. While the emissions of the project without the district utilities system would be less than shown above for NOx PM10, and PM2.5 and the same as shown above, for ROG emissions.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Google North Bayshore Master Plan Air Quality Assessment, Mountain View, California. December 6, 2022.

As shown in Table 3.1-5 above, operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project (under either option) would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG , NOx, and PM10. The greatest sources for operational ROG emissions are area emissions (e.g., architectural coatings and consumer product use) and the greatest source for operational NOx and PM10 emissions is project traffic. This is a new, project-specific impact that was not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR.

To reduce the impact from are a ROG emissions from architectural coatings , the project would be required to use super compliant VOC coatings pursuant to new project mitigation measure MM AQ-

1.1 above. While it is feasible and enforceable for the City to require super compliant VOC coatings be applied initially, the City cannot ensure that future occupants or tenants would use super compliant VOC coatings during reapplication for the lifetime of the project. In ad dition, there is no feasible mitigation measure to ensure consumer products (such as inks, coatings, and adhesives) used by future

North Bayshore Master Plan 66 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
residents and tenants would be low in VOCs. The project’s mobile NOx and PM10 emissions from proposed land uses wou ld be redu ced to the maximum extent feasible through the stringent TDM measures proposed by the project as described in Section 3.3.10 Transportation Demand Management.

The reduction in mobile NOx and PM10 emissions from implementation of the project’s TDM measures is already reflected in the project emissions in Table 3.1-5. Given the comprehensive and aggressive TDM measures proposed, there are no feasible additional measures available to reduce the project’s mobile emissions further. A minor source of NOx and PM emissions are from the project’s emergency generators. The project would be required to implement the following new mitigation measure to reduce emissions from this minor source.

New Project Mitigation Measure:

MM AQ-1.2: Both Project Options: Permanent stationary emergency generators installed on -site shall have engines that meet or exceed U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final standards for NO x and particulate matter emissions.

Implementation of MM AQ -1.2 would reduce NOx emissions from generators by about 90 percent compared to Tier 2 engines that could be allowed, however, the benefit is minor and ROG, NOx and PM10. emissions would still exceed BAAQMD thresholds. For these reasons, operational ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions from the project (under either option) are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Health Effects Associated with Significant Operational ROG, NOx and PM10 Emissions Emissions of ROG and NO x from individual sources (such as the project under either option) throughout the Bay Area contribute to high O3 levels in the region and as stated in Section 3.1.1.3, the project region is in nonattainment for O 3. O 3 is an oxidant that is harmful to public health at high concentrations. O 3, at high levels, can damage the tissues of the lungs and respiratory tract. High concentrations of O3 irritate the nose, throat, and respiratory system and constrict the airways. O3 also can aggravate other respiratory conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, causing increased hospital admissions. Repeated exposure to high O3 levels can make people more susceptible to respiratory infection and lung inflammation and permanently damage lung tissue. O3 can also have negative cardiovascular impacts, including chronic hardening of the arteries and triggering of heart attacks. Children are most at risk, as they tend to be active and outdoors in the summer, when O3 levels are highest. Seniors and people with respiratory illnesses are also especially sensitive to O 3’s effects.

Healthy adults working or exercising outdoors during high O3 levels can be affected.

Because emissions in one part of the region can impact air quality miles downwind, efforts to reduce O3 levels focus on reducing emissions of ROG and NO x throughout the region. The relationship between ROG and NO x in O 3 formation is complex; the ratio between the precursor pollutants influences how O3 forms. Modeling suggests that large reductions in ROG and NOx emissions will be needed to achieve the O 3 reductions required to attain the current health -based ozone standards. A certain amount of O 3 formation occurs naturally, even in the absence of anthropogenic emissions of ROG and NOx.

North Bayshore Master Plan 67 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
CARB reports statistics for O3 monitoring in the San Francisco Bay Area. Over the last three years in San José, 30 maximum one -hour average O 3 levels are 0.106 parts per million (ppm). 31 Eight-hour maximum O3 levels over this same period were 0.085 ppm. Both levels exceed the ambient air quality standards of 0.09 ppm for the one -hour standard and 0.070 ppm for the eight -hour period. For measuring compliance with the O3 NAAQS, CARB reports a 2020 Design Value of 0.060 ppm for the 8-hour standard and 0.086 ppm for the 1-hour standard, which are both below the NAAQS. Throughout the Bay Area, the eight -hour standard was exceeded somewhere within the Air Ba sin on six days in 2018, nine days in 2019, and nine days in 2020. The eight-hour design value for the standard is reported by CARB as 0.069 ppm. The less restrictive one -hour standard was exceeded on two to six days per year and a state standard designation of 0.10 ppm was assigned to the basin.32

Airborne particulate matter concentrations found in the Bay Area are not a single pollutant, but rather is a mixture of many chemical species. It is a complex mixture of solids and aerosols composed of small droplets of liquid, dry solid fragments, and solid cores with liquid coatings. Those with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM 10) are inhalable into the lungs and can induce adverse health effects like coughing, wheezing, asthma attacks, heart attack, and mo re. These impacts are most likely to affect the elderly and the very young. Emissions of particulate matter in the Bay Area contribute to these effects both in the Bay Area and for miles downwind. While emissions of particulate matter have been reduced in the Bay Area in recent decades, further reduction is necessary to continue the improvements seen in the public health benefits in the Bay Area.

No development project by itself would be sufficient in size to result in regional nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulative adverse air quality impacts and, while its emissions may be individually limited, it could be cumulatively considerable when taken in combination with past, pre sent, and future development projects.33 The thresholds for criteria air pollutants are based on levels at which new sources are not anticipated to contribute to an air quality violation or result in a considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants. Therefore, if a project leads to a significant impact individually, the project would also be considered to contribute significantly to the cumulative impact.

A project-level air quality analysis of criteria air pollutants is based on significance thresho lds that were set at emission levels tied to the region’s attainment status.34 Locally, the significance thresholds applied in this EIR are emission levels above which stationary air pollutant sources permitted by the BAAQMD (typically, industrial facilities, refineries, and the like) must offset their emissions through

30 San Jose station is the closes monitoring station to the project site. Source: BAAQMD. 2021 Air Monitoring Network Plan. July 1, 2021. Page 17. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/technical-services/2020-network-plan-draft- 202100526-pdf.pdf?la=en
31 California Air Resources Board. “iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics (2018 -2020), Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area.” Accessed December 7, 2022. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php/. 32 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Spare the Air Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 2017. 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
33 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. 34 San Joaquin Valley Air Protection Control District. 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.

North Bayshore Master Plan 68 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
purchase of emissions “offsets” from other facilities that have reduced emissions, either through installation of emissions controls or removal of an emissions source. Such offset levels allow for regional development while keeping the cumulative effects of new source s at a level that will not impede attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, a CEQA air quality analysis of criteria air pollutants is essentially an analysis of regional, cumulative air quality impacts and a given project’s contribution to those impacts.

The ambient air quality standards are expressed in terms of the concentrations of individual pollutants within the air. Compliance with the ambient air quality standards indicates that regional air quality can be considered protective of public health, with certain exceptions, it is not readily feasible to calculate an individual project’s effect on ambient O 3 concentrations given current environmental science modeling tools. Some pollutants are directly emitted from projects and their effects on ambient air quality can be modeled. An example is carbon monoxide, or CO, which is emitted directly as vehicle exhaust.

O3, however, is a regional pollutant for which project -specific concentration modeling is not reliable given current air quality modeling limitations. Because of the complexity of ozone formation and given the state of modeling available, it is infeasible to reliably convert specific mass emissions levels (i.e., weight) of NO x or ROG emitted in a particular area (or by a particular project) to a particu lar concentration of ozone in that area in a manner that yields meaningful results. 35 Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, seasonal impacts, and other complex chemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and location of ozone. 36,37 Furthermore, available models are designed to determine regional, population -wide health impacts and cannot accurately quantify ozone -related health impacts caused by NO x or ROG emissions at the local level or individual project level.

Consequently, there is not a reliable way to connect the proposed project’s exceedances of NO x and ROG emissions to increases in ozone concentrations and, thus, meaningfully determine specific human health impacts related to those increases in ozone concentrations.

Project-level mass (weight) emission thresholds have been established for ozone precursors (NOx and ROG) and other criteria pollutants precisely because it is not possible to readily convert mass emissions at the project-level to pollutant concentrations. As expl ained by BAAQMD, the CEQA significance thresholds established for the ozone precursors ROG and NO x were tied to BAAQMD’s offset requirements for ozone precursors based on the Bay Area being in non -attainment with the federal ozone standard; this approach is considered appropriate “to prevent further deterioration of ambient air quality and thus has nexus and proportionality to prevention of a regionally cumulative significant impact (e.g. worsened status of non-attainment).”38 Therefore, attainment can be considered protective of public health, thus providing a strong link between a mass emission threshold and avoidance of health effects. For PM10 and PM2.5, BAAQMD established CEQA significance thresholds based on the

35 Ibid.
36 South Coast Air Quality Management District. 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 37 Ibid.
38 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report: California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance, October 2009 . Accessed December 7, 2022. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/revised-draft-ceqa-thresholds-justification-report- oct-2009.pdf?la=en.

North Bayshore Master Plan 69 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
federal New Source Review program for ne w stationary sources of pollution, which contains stricter thresholds than does BAAQMD’s offset program for these pollutants. “These thresholds represent the emission levels above which a project’s individual emissions would result in a considerable advers e contribution to the [San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin]’s existing air quality conditions.” 39 As with ROG and NO x discussed above, these thresholds likewise provide a connection between a mass emission threshold and avoidance of health effects.

Nevertheless, the proposed project’s ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions (under either option) that exceed significance thresholds were evaluated to determine whether these emissions would contribute to new or exacerbated air quality violations in the air basin by contributing to more days of ozone exceedance or result in air quality index values that are unhealthy for sensitive groups and other populations. To evaluate the project’s effects on O3 levels in the region, the project’s operational ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions (under either option) were compared to regional emissions that lead to elevated concentrations of O3 (refer to Table 3.1-6 below).

Table 3.1-6: Comparison of Project Emissions to Air Basin ROG Emissions (tons/day) Scenario ROG NOx PM10
Bay Area Air Basin in 2020 203 187 88
Bay Area Air Basin in 20351 200 157 96
Mitigated Project Operation 0.22
(80.94 tons/year)

0.09 (33.10 tons/year)

0.08 (27.89 tons/year)
Percent of Basin in 2035 0.11% 0.046% 0.08%
1 Closest year of analysis to project operational year of 2038 under either option Sources: 1) California Air Resources Board . “2016 SIP Emission Projection Data ”. Accessed October 13, 2022. https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2017/emssumcat.php?_ga=2.50848289.940452654.1638212311- 106250637.1504031780 and 2) Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Google North Bayshore Master Plan Air Quality Assessment, Mountain View, California. December 6, 2022.

As shown from the data in Table 3.1-5, operational emissions from the project (under either option) in 2038 (the soonest year the project would be fully operational) exceed the ROG and NOx, and P M10 single-source thresholds of 54 pounds per day and 82 pounds per day, respectively. As shown in Table

3.1-6, the project’s total ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions represent 0.1 percent, 0.04 percent, and 0.08 percent of the regional inventory, respectively.40 This is a conservative estimate because the estimated emissions do not reflect the reduction in emissions from future occupants or tenants using super compliant VOC coatings during reapplication for the lifetime of the project (see second to last bullet in new project mitigation measure MM AQ-1.1 above). Therefore, although the project may increase O3 levels, the increase would be minimal given the scale of the project’s ozone precursor emissions, and the health impacts caused by the project’s ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions (under either option) are also likely minimal. Further, given available modeling tools, it is not possible to accurately

39 Ibid.
40 0.19 tons per day (project emissions) / 200 tons per day (air basin emissions in 2035) = 0.00095 or 0.1 percent. 0.06 tons per day (project emissions) / 157 tons per day (air basin emissions in 2035) = 0.00038 or 0.04 percent. 0.09 tons per day (project emissions) / 96 tons per day (air basin emissions in 2035) = 0.00093 or 0.09 percent.

North Bayshore Master Plan 70 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
delineate a direct link between the project’s O3 precursor emissions and health effects predicted for the region by BAAQMD resulting from elevated O3 levels caused by the project.

To further convey the potential community-wide health impacts from the project’s ROG and NOx, and PM10 emissions exceeding the BAAQMD thresholds, a comparative example from another project EIR in the South Bay is provided. The Downtown West Mixed-Use master plan development with up to

7.3 million square feet of office uses, 5,900 residential units, 500,000 square feet of commercial uses, 300 hotel rooms, 800 rooms of limited term corporate acco mmodations, 100,000 square feet of event/conference space, a 130,000 square foot DCP, 100,000 square feet of logistics center uses, 15 acres of parkland/open space, and transportation and parking improvements is estimated to result in a total of 69 tons per year of net new construction and operational ROG emissions, 31 tons per year of NOx emissions, and 37 tons per year of PM10 emissions in 2032 (the soonest year the project would be fully operational).41 In terms of geographical context, the proposed proj ect is within 11 miles of the Downtown West Mixed -Use Plan project in a location with similar dispersion conditions that are characteristic of the southern Bay Area. The Downtown West Mixed-Use Plan project would generate similar ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions compared to the project (under either option) evaluated in this EIR. That EIR attempted to model the health effects from ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions and found approximately 0.03 additional respiratory-related hospital admissions, 0.05 additional mortalities, and less than 0.36 additional asthma -related emergency room visits in the region could be attributed to project-related increases in ambient air concentrations.42 Due to this nominal increase in incidence of health effects from the increase in emiss ions from the Downtown West Mixed -Use Plan project, the Downtown West Mixed -Use Plan EIR concluded that project would have a very small impact on community-wide health effects.43

The proposed project with District Utilities System Option in this EIR incl udes approximately 42 percent of the office uses, 119 percent of the residential uses, 49 percent of the commercial/retail uses, 200 percent of the parks/open space uses, 100 percent of the DCP space, 175 percent of the hotel rooms, and none of the corpora te accommodations, entertainment, or logistics uses included in the Downtown West Mixed -Use Plan project. Therefore, the proposed project (under either option) operational emissions would result in similar or lesser health effects than the health effects d isclosed for the Downtown West Mixed-Use Plan project.

Based on the discussion above, the project (under either option) would not cause measurable increases to regional (ozone) air pollutant levels or health effects associated with the project’s ROG, NOx, or PM10 emissions to materially change. The emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10 are, however, considered significant and unavoidable.

41 City of San Jos é. Downtown West Mixed -Use Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2019080493).

October 2020. P. 3.1-114.
42 Ibid. P. 3.1-117.
43 Ibid. P. 3.1-120.

North Bayshore Master Plan 71 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Community Health Risk
Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity or by significantly exacerbating existing cumulative TAC impacts. The project (under either option) would introduce new sources of TACs during construction and operation.

As noted in Section 2.3 Project Description, the project (under either option) would be constructed over approximately 14 years in eight overlapping p hases. For this reason, the health risk impacts of overlapping project construction and operational emissions are analyzed to represent air quality impacts during earlier phases of construction and during phases of construction when some buildings would be occupied while others are being constructed. The operational emissions are also analyzed separately to represent health risk from the project after construction has been completed.

The 2017 EIR concluded that the health risks to off-site receptors would be mitigated to less than significant levels with implementation of the following mitigation measure.44

North Bayshore 2017 EIR Mitigation Measure:

• Construction equipment selection;
• Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices; • Modify construction schedule; and
• Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust.

Overlapping Project Construction and Operation Emissions Construction equipment and associated heavy -duty truck traffic gen erates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC, and would pose a health risk to nearby receptors. The primary health risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM 2.5. The greatest TAC of concern generated during construction that could lead to cancer risk is DPM, which is used as a surrogate measure of exposure for the mixture of chemicals that make up diesel exhaust as a whole.

The project (under either option) would include operation of stand -by generators pow ered by diesel engines, microturbines and flare powered by biogas, cooling towers, and would generate traffic consisting of light-duty vehicles, all of which would produce TAC and criteria air pollutant emissions during project operations. Operational emis sions of DPM, TACs, PM 2.5 and PM 10 from project -

44 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 160-161.

North Bayshore Master Plan 72 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
generated traffic on local roadways and operation of the project were modeled using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model.

Pursuant to 2017 EIR mitigation measure MM AQ -3.1, a project -specific TAC/health risk quantification was completed (refer to Appendix C). The following discussion summarizes the findings and conclusions of the health risk assessment. The assessm ent evaluated potential health effects to nearby receptors (within 1,000 feet of the project site) from overlapping construction and operational emissions of DPM and PM 2.5. For purposes of this analysis, receptors are locations where sensitive populations would be present for extended periods of time including the existing residences at the Santiago Villa mobile home park, located directly southeast of the project site, existing residences southwest of the project site across U.S. 101, and the future residents of the recently approved 1100 La Avenida and 1255 Pear Avenue residential projects, directly south of the project site. A health risk assessment of future residents on the project site is included in Section 3.1.3.

Consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the CalEEMod, U.S. EPA AERMOD, and EMFAC2021 models were used to calculate health risk from the project with District Utilities System Option construction and operational activities (refer to Appendix C for details about model and modeling assumptions). Community health risk impacts are addressed by predicting increased cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentrations, and Hazard Index (HI) for non -cancer-health risks. The maximum modeled annual DPM and PM 2.5 concentrations were identified at nearby sensitive receptors to find the maximally exposed individual (MEI), or the sensitive receptor that is most im pacted by the project’s overlapping construction and operation al TAC emissions . Results of this assessment indicated that there are two MEIs located in the Santiago Villa mobile home park. Figure 3.1-1 shows the location of off-site receptors, including the MEIs and modeled project traffic. The estimated cancer risks and annual PM 2.5 concentrations due to construction and operation of the pr oject with District Utilities System Option are summarized in Table 3.1-7 below.

The unmitigated cancer risk and annual PM 2.5 concentration from overlapping construction and operation of the project without the district utilities system are less than shown in Table 3.1-7 since all aspects of the two project options a re the same except the option with district utilities system , which includes the construction and operation of the DCP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system. While the unmitigated cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations of the project without the district utilities system would be less than shown in Table 3.1-7, the unmitigated cancer risk and annual PM 2.5 concentrations would be similar and still exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., December 6, 2022.

Legend
1000-ft Influence
Area
Phase 8
Phase 7
Phase 6
Phase 5
Phase 4
Phase 3
Phase 2
Phase 1
Microturbines
Flare
Dewatering
Pumps
Generators
Cooling Tower
Mitigated
Cancer Risk
MEI
Unmitigated
Cancer Risk
MEI
Annual PM

2.5 MEI
Receptor Grid
Modeled
Roadway
Segments
LOCATIONS OF OFF-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND MODELED PROJECT TRAFFIC FIGURE 3.1-1

North Bayshore Master Plan 74 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

Table 3.1-7: Project with District Utilities System Option Construction and Operational Community Risk Impacts at the Off-Site Receptors
Source
Maximum
Excess Cancer
Risk
(per million)1
Annual
Average PM2.5
Concentrations
(µg/m3)2
Hazard
Index2
Project Construction
Unmitigated
Mitigated3

96.55 9.80

1.69 0.49

0.06 0.01
Project Operations
Unmitigated
Mitigated

2.61 3.06

0.08 0.05

<0.01
<0.01
Total Combined Construction and Operational
Community Risk
Unmitigated
Mitigated

99.16 12.87

1.69 0.49

0.06 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 1.0
Exceeds Threshold?
Unmitigated
Mitigated*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Notes: Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. The health risk for the project without the district utilities system is less than shown above since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system includes the construction and operation of the DCP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system. While the health risk due to the project without the district utilities system would be less than shown above, the emissions would be similar and still exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for increased cancer risk. 1 Maximum assuming third-trimester fetus, infant, child exposure for construction and child/adult exposure during operation for 30-year exposure.
2 Maximum annual average concentration for any year.
3 Assumes use of Tier 4 Final equipment pursuant to new project mitigation measure MM AQ -1.1, and implementation of 2017 EIR mitigation measure MM AQ-3.1.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Google North Bayshore Master Plan Air Quality Assessment, Mountain View, California. December 6, 2022.

As shown in Table 3.1-7, the unmitigated cancer risk and annual PM 2.5 concentrations from overlapping construction and operation of the project with District Utilities System Option at the MEI locations would exceed the single -source thresholds. I mplementation of the 2017 EIR mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 and MM AQ-3.1, and the new project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2 identified above would reduce the project’s off-site cancer risk levels by 87 percent to 12.87 excess cancer cases per million at the MEI. The project’s annual average PM2.5 concentrations would be reduced by 68 percent to 0.49 μg/m3 at the MEI. Thus, the project’s mitigated risk impacts (under either option) would still exceed the BAAQMD single-source significance thresholds of 10 per million

North Bayshore Master Plan 75 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
for cancer risk and 0. 3 μg/m3 for PM2.5 concentrations at the following MEIs and sensitive receptors located off-site:

• Santiago Villa mobile home park:
o Single-family homes north of Palomas Way and west of Armand Avenue, and along Space Park Way down to the second row of homes south of Space Park Way; o Four single -family homes along the western edge of the Santiago Villa property between El Centro Avenue and Flores Way; and,
• Future dwelling units along the northern boundary of the nearby 1255 Pear Avenue residential development.

The modeling shows the cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations at all other sensitive receptors would be reduced below the single-source threshold (refer to Appendix C) with the implementation of the 2017 EIR mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1 and MM AQ-3.1, and new project mitigation measures MM AQ -1.1 and MM AQ -1.2. Since no additional mitigation is feasible to reduce the health risk associated with construction emissions (the primary sourc e of the project’s significant health risk impact), the following condition is required that would reduce the health risk associated with interior finishes containing formaldehyde.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA AQ -1.2: Both Project Options: Indoor Formaldehyde Reduction s. If the project utilizes composite wood materials (e.g., hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for interior finishes, then only composite wood materials tha t are made with CARB ap proved, no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, or ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins shall be utilized (CARB, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products, 17 CCR Section 93120, et seq., 2009-2013).

The above discussed community health risk represents the outdoor air at the sensitive receptor locations. The approved 1255 Pear Avenue project would be constructed to meet the current 2019 Title 24 Building Standards , which require air filtration in mecha nical ventilation systems for residential buildings use MERV 13 filters or greater ; however, the existing single -family homes within the Santiago Villa mobile home park are not required to install MERV 13 filters . It is also possible that there would be additional sensitive receptors exposed to similar health risk from project construction and operation (under either option) due to the length of the Development Agreement for the project (under either option) 45 and the fact the Precise Plan envisions additional residential land uses in the project vicinity at distances less than 1,000 feet to the project site. A properly installed and operated ventilation system with MERV 13 filters achieve s an 80 -percent reduction of ambient PM 2.5 concentrations at indoor areas.46 U.S. EPA studies indicate most people spend 90 percent of their time

45 As noted in Section 2.3 Project Description, the proposed project under either option would include a Development Agreement to grant implementation of entitlements over a 30-year period. 46 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Planning Healthy Places A Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources of Air P ollutants in Community Planning. 2016. P p. 38. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/planning-healthy-places/php_may20_2016-pdf.pdf?la=en

North Bayshore Master Plan 76 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
indoors.47 Assuming exposure to 21 hours of indoor filtered air and three hours of outdoor air, the filtration in the ventilation systems would reduce overall exposure by 70 percent. Taking into account the required MERV 13 filters and their proper installation, operation, and maintenance, as well as the EPA’s documented time people spend indoors vs. outdoors, the mitigated cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations would be reduced below the significance threshold for sensitive receptors future 1255 Pear Avenue residential project. This less than significant health risk also assumes residents keep their windows closed during construction of the proposed project (under eit her option). However, neither the applicant nor the City can feasibly implement, require, or guarantee these assumptions through mitigation measures.

In summary, the project (under either option) would result in exposure of sensitive receptors near or on the project site to health risk impacts (primarily due to construction emissions) exceeding BAAQMD thresholds for excess cancer cases and annual PM 2.5 concentrations. Implementation of 2017 EIR mitigation measures MM AQ -2.1 and MM AQ -3.1, and new project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2 identified under Impact AQ -1 would reduce the health risk (primarily due to construction emissions) but not to a less than significant level. Additional reductions could be achieved with properly installed, opera ted, and maintained ventilation systems at off-site receptors; however, neither the City nor applicant can feasibly implement, require, or guarantee these through mitigation. For these reasons, the health risk impact (primarily due to construction emission s) is concluded to be significant and unavoidable. This is a new impact not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Project Operations Only
Once construction of the project (under either option) is complete, sensitive receptors would no longer be subject to the health risk from overlapping project construction and operational emissions. As shown in Table 3.1-7, the maximum cancer risk, annual PM 2.5 concentrations, and HI from operation of the project (under either option) only would not exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds at the nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, operation of the project (under either option) would result in the same less than significant health risk impact as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Consistency with 2017 CAP Control Measures
The 2017 CAP includes control measures to reduce GHG emissions. As shown in Table 3.1-8 below, the project would be consistent with the 2017 CAP measure s intended to reduce GHG emission by reducing automobile trips, energy and water usage, and waste.

47 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Report on the Environment, Indoor Air Quality, What are the trends in indoor air quality and their effects on human health?” Accessed December 8, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/indoor-air-quality

North Bayshore Master Plan 77 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 3.1-8: Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control
Measures
Description Project Consistency
Transportation Measures
Trip
Reduction
Program
Encourage trip reduction policies
and programs in local plans, e.g.,
general and specific plans.

Encourage local governments to
require mitigation of vehicle travel
as part of new development
approval, to develop innovative
ways to encourage rideshare,
transit, cycling, and walking for
work trips.

The project site is proximate to VTA bus and the
Mountain View Transportation Management
Association shuttle service. The project (under
either option) would include new on-street and off-
street bicycle and pedestrian improvements and
bicycle parking consistent with City requirements.

Additionally, the project (under either option)
includes a TDM program (refer to Section 2.3.10
Transportation Demand Management for details)
consistent with the Precise Plan TDM requirements
to reduce vehicle trips and promote alternative
modes of travel to single-occupancy vehicle trips.

Therefore, the project is consistent with this
measure.

Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Access
Facilities
Encourage planning for bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in local
plans, e.g., general and specific
plans, fund bike lanes, routes,
paths, and bicycle parking
facilities.

As noted above, the project (under either option)
would include bicycle parking consistent with the
City’s bicycle parking requirements. The project
area has adequate sidewalks, crosswalks, and
pedestrian sig nal heads and the project proposes
five new midblock crossings to further enhance the
pedestrian environment. Therefore, the project is
consistent with this measure.

Land Use
Strategies
Support implementation of Plan
Bay Area, maintain and
disseminate information on current
climate action plans and other
local best practices.

As mentioned above, the project (under either
option) would be located in proximity to multiple
transit services and would increase the density and
diversity of land uses near tran sit; therefore, the
project is consistent with this measure (refer to
Section 3.3 Transportation for more information).

Building Measures
Green
Buildings
Identify barriers to effective local
implementation of CalGreen (Title
24) statewide building energy
code; develop solutions to improve
implementation/enforcement.

Engage with additional partners to
target reducing emissions from
specific types of buildings.

The project (under either option) would comply
with the C alGreen and City’s Reach Code
requirements, the proposed office buildings would
meet the intent of LEED Platinum standards and the
proposed residential buildings requesting a Bonus
FAR would achieve the equivalent of a GreenPoint
rating of 120 points or better, reducing emissions
from energy generation and use, and implement a
TDM plan to reduce emissions from transportation.

The project (under either option) is consistent
with this measure.

North Bayshore Master Plan 78 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 3.1-8: Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control
Measures
Description Project Consistency
Urban Heat
Island
Mitigation
Develop and urge adoption of a
model ordinance for “cool
parking” that promotes the use of
cool surface treatments for new
parking facilities, as well as
existing surface parking lots
undergoing resurfacing. Develop
and promote ad option of model
building code requirements for
new construction or
reroofing/roofing upgrades for
commercial and residential multi -
family housing.

No surface parking is proposed for the project
(under either option) , all parking would be located
in parking structures either below -grade, above -
grade, or within a building shell. This measure,
therefore, is not applicable. The project (under
either option) is consistent with the intent of this
measure by planting new landscaping and trees and
increasing pervious surfaces on -site compared to
existing conditions, which would reduce the urban
heat island effect. Hardscape materials would also
be chosen and designed to reduce heat island
effects. Therefore, the project is consistent with
this measure.

Natural and Working Lands Measure
Urban Tree
Planting
Develop or identify an existing
model municipal tree planting
ordinance and encourage local
governments to adopt such an
ordinance. Include tree planting
recommendations, the Air
District’s technical guid ance, best
management practices for local
plans, and CEQA review.

Any trees removed would be required to be replaced
in accordance with the City’s tree replacement
standards. Therefore, the project (under either
option) is consistent with this measure.

Waste Management Measures
Recycling
and Waste
Reduction
Develop or identify and promote
model ordinances on community -
wide zero waste goals and
recycling of construction and
demolition materials in
commercial and public
construction projects.

The project (under either option) would comply
with the City’s adopted Zero Waste Plan by
providing food waste composting facilities for
proposed residential and restaurant uses . In
addition, the project would comply with the City’s
Construction and Demolition Diversion Program by
recovering or diverting at least 65 percent of
construction waste generated by the project from
landfills. Therefore, the project is consistent with
this measure.

In conclusion, the project (under either option) would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 CAP control measures and goals; however, the project is found to be inconsistent with the 2017 CAP because the project (under either option) results in significant and unavoidable construction criteria air pollutant ( NOx emissions), operational criteria air pollutant (ROG, NOx, and P M10 emissions), and health risk impacts (primarily due to construction emissions). The significant and unavoidable impacts regarding construction criteria air pollutant (NOx emissions), operational criteria air pollutant (ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions), and health risk impacts (primarily due to construction

North Bayshore Master Plan 79 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
emissions) are new impacts not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Impact AQ-2: Both Project Options : The project (under eith er option) 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. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

As discussed in Section 3.1.1, the Bay Area does not meet state and/or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level O 3, PM2.5, or PM10. High O3 levels are caused by cumulative emissions of ROG and NOx. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants would reduce O3 levels.

Construction Period Emissions
As discussed in detail under Impact AQ -1 above, with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures (i.e., 2017 mitigation mea sure MM AQ -2.1 and new mitigation measure MM AQ -1.1), construction of the project (under either option) would result in significant and unavoidable NOx emissions. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Operational Period Emissions
As discussed in detail under Impact AQ -1 above, with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures (i.e., new project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2), operation of the project (under either option) would result in significant and unavoidable ROG, NO x, and PM10 emissions. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Impact AQ-3: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations . (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

As discussed under Impact AQ -1 above, with the implementation of all fe asible mitigation measures (i.e., 2017 EIR mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1 and MM AQ-3.1 and new project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2), the project (under either option) would result in significant health risk (excess cancer cases and annual PM2.5) to nearby sensitive receptors. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

North Bayshore Master Plan 80 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact AQ-4: Project: The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])
Project with District Utilities Systems Option: The project with District Utilities Systems Option would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people . (New Impact [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Project
Construction Odor Impacts
The 2017 EIR disclosed that future construction activities in the Precise Pla n area could result in odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with construction equipment and concluded that due to the temporary nature of the emissions and the highly diffuse nature of diesel exhaust, exposure of sensitive receptors to these emissions would be limited and less than significant.48 The odors resulting from construction activities (under either option) would be consistent with the assumptions in the 2017 EIR. For these reasons, implementation of the project (under either option) would result in same short- term odor impacts as disclosed in the 2017 EIR . (Same impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Operational Odor Impacts
The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in significant odor impacts with compliance of General Plan Policy INC 20.8, which requires the City to review development projects for potential odor impacts. Operation of the project (without district utilities) would involve operations of office, residential, retail, community, and open spaces uses, none of which generate odors resulting in adverse effects on a substantial number of people. For this r eason, the project (without district utilities) would result in the same operational odor impact as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Project with District Utilities System Option
Construction Odor Impacts
The project with District Utilities System Option, would result in the same construction odor impacts as discussed above for the project option. (Same impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

48 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environment al Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 169-170.

North Bayshore Master Plan 81 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Operational Odor Impacts
The project with District Utilities System Option would be the same as described above for the project except it also includes the operation of a WRF within the DCP, adjacent to 1201 Charleston Road.

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include screening distances for various odor sources to prevent potential land use conflicts . These screening distances identify two miles for wastewater treatment facilities , which is applied to traditional open municipal facilities that have exposed headworks, open-air ponds, and treat large volumes of wastewater. The screening distances would not apply to the proposed WRF as it is proposed to be small, modern, with enclosed systems where exhaust air is treated.49 Nonetheless, odor issues could occur if there are upset conditions or improper handling of odor-producing solids or wastewater, improper operations, or poor maintenance. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state that a significant odor impact would occur if an odor source receives five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over a three-year period.50

The WRF would generate odors from many phases of the treatment process including during anaerobic biological activity, which produces most of the hydrogen sulfide and ammonia type odors that are considered objectionable. Odors can be properly controlled through modern design, appropriate chemical and/or biological treatment, proper ventilation, and facility maintenance. The WRF would be designed to be a completely enclosed system within the DCP. As discussed in Section 2.3.5 Utilities, the proposed wastewater equipment would be equipped with modern technology that minimize s the release of odors and would not include any lagoons, exposed sewage/treatment water, or biosolid piles that would emit odors. The wastewater treatment odors wo uld also be regulated by BAAQMD in the event of odor complaints.

Processes that produce hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are t he most objectionably odorous. These processes would be enclosed in the DCP and controlled to minimize odors. Odor controls would be designed using the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and consistent with regulatory requirements. BACT solutions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Installing active ventilation (foul air blowers) to odor control units (e.g., carb on absorption, biofiltration, or ammonia scrubbers);
• Housing odorous processes in a ventilated enclosure;
• Wastewater s creenings and grit washed, dewatered, and compacted before being stored in enclosed, odor-proof refuse containers;
• Hauling sealed containers of residuals off-site at regular intervals; and • Injecting ferrous chloride to remove hydrogen sulfide as needed for odor control at specific wastewater treatment processes.

The project would also include regular monitoring of complaints and reporting on the success of odor controls to regulatory agencies. Proposed residences are located as close as 100 feet of the wastewater treatment plant. Given the proposed use and proximity of residences, the wastewater treatment plant

49 For reference, the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, which treats wastewater generated in Mountain View, has a treatment capacity of up to 80 million gallons per d ay. Treatment of this volume of wastewater requires specialized and large-scale equipment, which are not required or proposed for the project (under either option). 50 BAAQMD. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. P. 7-4.

North Bayshore Master Plan 82 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
has the potential t o cause odors and result in odor complaints. This is a new impact that was not previously identified in the 2017 EIR.

New Project Mitigation Measures:

MM AQ-4.1: Project with District Utilities System Option: The project applicant shall develop and implement an odor control plan that addresses plant design issues to control odors, identifies oper ating and maintenance procedures to prevent odors, and includes a corrective action plan to respond to upset conditions and odor complaints. The odor control pl an shall describe the design elements and best management practices built into the facility, including the following:

• Ventilation of the system using carbon absorption, biofiltration, ammonia scrubbers, or other effective means to treat exhausted air from the enclosed facility;
• Odor proofing of refuse containers used to store and transport grit and screenings or biosolids; and
• Injection of chemicals to control hydrogen sulfide.

The plan shall describe procedures to address upset conditions caused by equipment failures, power outages, flow control, or treatment issues , as well as odor complaints . Procedures would include investigating and identifying the source of the odor/odor complaint and corrective actions could include installing specific odor contro l technologies (e.g., odor control units) or adjusting plant operations (e.g., by adding ferrous chloride injections). The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director (or the Director’s Designee) and BAAQMD prior to issuance of buildin g permits for the District Central Plant. In the event the facility receives confirmed complaints related to five separate incidents per year averaged over a three-year period, pursuant to BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the plant shall revise the odor control plan and resubmit it to the City for review and approval. If implementation of additional measures to control odors described in the plan does not lessen the complaints to less than five per year, the plant shall cease operations. All wastewater generated by the project shall be directed to the municipal wastewater system, and subsequent environmental review shall be required to assess the impacts of continued operations of the facility.

Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to co ntact regarding odor complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. A log of odor complaints and procedures implemented to respond to complaints shall be maintained by the operator and provided to the City upon request.

North Bayshore Master Plan 83 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Through implementation of new project mitigation measure MM AQ -4.1 and compliance with BAAQMD regulations, the project with District Utilities System Option would limit the discharge of odorous substances and respond to upset conditions and odor complaints with corrective actions, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. This is a new impact not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (New Impact [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

3.1.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact AQ-C: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative air quality impact. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

The geographic area for cumulative air quality impacts is the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollution, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s air quality conditions. 51 That is, i f a project exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.52

Implementation of the 2017 CAP
As described above under Impact AQ-1, the project (under either option) would be consistent with the 2017 CAP goals, but would result in significant and unavoidable construction criteria air pollutant (NOx emissions), operational criteria air pollutant (ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions), and health risk impacts (primarily due to construction emissions). The project’s implementation of the 2017 EIR mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1 and MM AQ-3.1, and new project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2 would reduce these impacts but not to a less than significant level. The project (under either option), therefore, would result in a cumulatively considerable impact to the implementation of the 2017 CAP. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants
As discussed under Impact AQ -1, the project (under either option) would exceed the project -level thresholds for construction criteria air pollutants (NOx emissions) and operational criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions). Implementation of 2017 EIR mitigation measure MM AQ-2.1 and new project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2 would reduce these impacts; however, not to a less t han significant level. The project (under either option), therefore, would result in a cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant impact. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

51 BAAQMD. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. P. 2 -1. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en 52 Ibid.

North Bayshore Master Plan 84 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations The 2017 EIR concluded that cumulative exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with implementation of the Precise Plan would be less than significant with preparation of project -specific air quality assessments and implementation 2017 EIR mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1, MM AQ-2.2, MM AQ-3.1, and MM AQ -4.1 to reduce health risks to future sensitive receptors. A cumulative health risk assessment was conducted for the project with Dis trict Utilities System Option that evaluated all substantial sources of TACs affecting sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of a project site. These sources included rail lines, freeways or highways, busy surface roads, and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD. Table 3.1-9 below summarizes the cumulative health risk impacts at the project MEIs.

Table 3.1-9: Cumulative Health Risk Impacts at the Off-Site MEI Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)1
PM2.5
concentration
(μg/m3)2
Hazard
Index2
Project
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)

99.16 12.87

1.69 0.49

0.06 0.01
Traffic Sources 1.55 0.13 <0.01
Stationary Sources 3.05 0.16 0.01
Cumulative Total
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)

103.76

17.47 1.98

0.78 0.08

0.03 BAAQMD Cumulative-Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold?
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)

Yes
No

No
No
Notes: Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. * Mitigated assumes the implementation of 2017 EIR mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1 and MM AQ-3.1, and new project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2 under Impact AQ-1. 1 Maximum assuming third-trimester fetus, infant, child exposure for construction and child/adult exposure during operation for 30-year exposure.
2 Maximum annual concentration for any year,
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Google North Bayshore Master Plan Air Quality Assessment, Mountain View, California. December 6, 2022.

As shown in Table 3.1-9, the cumulative health risk (specifically excess cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration) is less than significant with the project’s implementation of 2017 EIR mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1 and MM AQ -3.1 and new project mitigation measures MM AQ -1.1 and MM AQ-1.2. The Hazard Index is below the cumulative threshold of significance. [New Impact (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

North Bayshore Master Plan 85 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Odor
The project would redevelop a site currently developed with light industrial, office, and retail uses into a mixed-use neighborhood including office, residential, retail, community uses, and open space/parks.

The project (under either option) would not result in odor impacts with the implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ-4.1 for the project with District Utilities Systems Option only. There are no other source s of substantial odors in the Precise Plan area that, when combined with the project (under either option), would result in significant cumulative odor impacts. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not result in significant cumulative odor impacts. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

3.1.3 Non-CEQA Effects
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD), effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts.

The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of Mountain View requires health risk assessments for new residential developments near sources of air pollution pursuant to General Plan Policies INC 20.6 and INC 20.7 , and the following 2017 EIR mitigation measure:

• Future development under the Precise Plan that includes sensitive recepto rs (such as residences, schools, hospitals, daycare centers, or retirement homes) located within 650 feet of US 101, local roadways, and stationary sources shall require site-specific analysis to quantify the level of TAC and PM2.5 exposure.

This analysis shall be conducted following procedures outlined by BAAQMD.

If the site -specific analysis reveals significant exposures, such as cancer risk greater than 10 in one million acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 1.0, or annual PM 2.5 exposures greater than 0.3 µg/m 3, or a significant cumulative health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than

10.0, or annual PM 2.5 exposures greater than 0.8 µg/m 3, additional measures such as those detailed below shall be employed to reduce the risk to below the threshold. If this is not possible, the sensitive receptors shall be relocated. • Future developments that would include TAC sources would be evaluated through the CEQA process or BAAQMD permit process to ensure that they do not cause a significant health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 10 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 1.0, or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.3 µg/m3, or a significant cumulative health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 100 in one million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 10.0, or annual PM 2.5 exposures greater than 0.8 µg/m3
• For significant cancer ris k exposure, as defined by BAAQMD, indoor air filtration systems shall be installed to effectively reduce particulate levels to a

North Bayshore Master Plan 86 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
less than significant level. Project sponsors shall submit performance specifications and design details to demonstrate that li fetime residential exposures would result in less than significant cancer risks (less than 10 in one million chances or 100 in one million for cumulative sources), Hazard Index or PM2.5 concentration.
• Air filtration systems installed shall be rated MERV -13 or higher and a maintenance plan for the air filtration system shall be implemented. • Trees and/or vegetation shall be planted between sensitive receptors and pollution sources, if feasible. Tree species that are best suited to trapping particulate matter shall be planted, including the following: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritime), Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid poplar (Populus deltoids X trichocarpa), and Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). • Sites shall be designed to locate sensitive receptors as far as feasible from any freeways, roadways, refineries, diesel generators, distribution centers, and rail lines.
• Operable windows, balconies, and building air intakes shall be located as far away from these sources as feasible. If near a distribution center, residents shall not be located immediately adjacent to a loading dock or where tr ucks concentrate to deliver goods.

The same TAC sources identified to evaluate project impacts under Impact AQ-1 above were used to assess on-site health risks. Details about the on-site health risk modeling, data inputs, and assumptions are included in Appendix C. Table 3.1-10 summarizes the results of the health risk assessment for on- site sensitive receptors and shows project construction and traffic would pose the highest health risks on-site. With the implementation of the 2017 EIR mitigation measure MM AQ -2.1 and new project mitigation measures MM AQ -1.1 and MM AQ -1.2 discussed under Impact AQ -1 above, and compliance with current 2019 Title 24 Building Standards, which require air filtration in mechanical ventilation systems for residential buildings use MERV 13 filters or greater , the on -site health risks would be below the BAAQMD thresholds.

North Bayshore Master Plan 87 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 3.1-10: Impacts from Cumulative TAC Sources at the Project Site Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)1
PM2.5
concentration
(μg/m3)2
Hazard Index2
Overlapping Project Construction and Operation
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)
With MERV13

36.71 10.37

3.11 0.67

0.60 0.18

0.02 0.01
<0.01
Cumulative Traffic
Without MERV13
With MERV13

9.84 2.95

0.96 0.29

0.01 <0.01
Cumulative Stationary
Without MERV13
With MERV13

3.24 0.97

0.20 0.06

<0.01
<0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold?
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)
With MERV13

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Cumulative Total
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)
With MERV13

49.79 23.45

7.03 1.83

1.76 0.53

0.04 0.03
<0.03
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold?
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)
With MERV13
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
* Mitigated assumes the implementation of the 2017 EIR mitigation measures MM AQ-2.1 and MM AQ-3.1, and new project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2 under Impact AQ-1. 1 Maximum assuming third-trimester fetus, infant, child exposure for construction and child/adult exposure during operation for 30-year exposure.
2 Maximum annual concentration for any year.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Google North Bayshore Master Plan Air Quality Assessment, Mountain View, California. December 6, 2022.

North Bayshore Master Plan 88 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.1.4 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
AIR-1:

Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan by resulting in
construction criteria air pollutants
(NOx emissions), operational
criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx,
and PM10 emissions), and health
risks (primarily due to
construction emissions) in excess
of BAAQMD thresholds.

No S
2017 EIR
MM AQ-2.1,
2017 EIR
MM AQ-3.1,
MM AQ-1.1,
MM AQ-1.2
SU
AIR-2:

Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
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.

No S
2017 EIR
MM AQ-2.1,
MM AQ-1.1,
MM AQ-1.2
SU
AIR-3:

Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations.

No S
2017 EIR
MM AQ-2.1,
2017 EIR
MM-3.1,
MM AQ-1.1,
MM AQ-1.2
SU
AIR-4:

Project: The project (under either
option) would not result in other
emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.

Yes LTS None LTS

Project with District Utilities
System Option: The project (with
District Utilities System Option)
would not result in other
emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.

No S MM AQ-4.1 LTS

North Bayshore Master Plan 89 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
AQ-C:

Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a
significant cumulative air quality
impact.

Yes S
2017 EIR
MM AQ-2.1,
2017 EIR
MM AQ-3.1,
2017 EIR
MM-4.1,
MM AQ-1.1,
MM AQ-1.2
SU
Abbreviations: S-Significant, LTS – Less than Significant, SU – Significant and Unavoidable

North Bayshore Master Plan 90 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The discussion in this section is based in part on a Biological Resources Confirmation Report prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates dated January 12, 2022 and subsequently revised on October 21, 2022 and November 22, 2022, a peer review of the B iological Resources Confirmation Report (and subsequently revised versions) by WRA Environmental Consultants dated March 25, 2022, November 2, 2022, and December 2, 2022, and a Tree Inventory Report prepared by HortScience|Bartlett Consulting dated January 17, 2022. These reports are attached to this EIR as Appendix E and Appendix F, respectively.

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR with the exceptions of the expansion of the egret rookery and the listing of the Monarch Butterfly as a candidate species under the federal Endangered Species Act. These changes are described below.

3.2.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Endangered Species Act
Individual plant and animal species listed as rare, threatened , or endangered under state and federal Endangered Species Acts are considered special -status species. Federal and state endangered species legislation has provided the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Permits may be required from both the USFWS and CDFW if activities associated with a proposed project wou ld result in the take of a species listed as threatened or endangered. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the State of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture , or kill” these species. Take is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include harm of a listed species.

In addition to species listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts, Section s 15380(b) and (c) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that all potential rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, must be considered as part of the environmental review process. These may include plant species listed by the California Native Plant Society and CDFW-listed Species of Special Concern.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, capture, possession, or trade of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

Hunting and poaching are also prohibited. The taking and killing of birds resulting from an activity is

North Bayshore Master Plan 91 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
not prohibited by the MBTA when the underlying purpose of that activity is not to take birds.53 Nesting birds are considered special-status species and are protected by the USFWS. The CDFW also protects migratory and nesting birds under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503. 5, and 3800.

The CDFW defines taking as causing abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts through disturbance.

Sensitive Habitat Regulations
Wetland and riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats under CEQA. They are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation by the U nited States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act (e.g., Sections 303, 304, 404) and State of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Fish and Game Code Section 1602
Streambeds and banks, as well as associated riparian habitat, are regulated by the CDFW per Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Work within the bed or banks of a stream or the adjacent riparian habitat requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.

California Native Plant Society
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a non-profit dedicated to conserving California native plants and their natural habitats. The CNPS maintains the California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPRs), which is a ranking system that defines and categorizes the rarity of California plants. The CRPRs assigns ratings to plants on a scale ranging from Rank 4, which contains plants with limited distribution throughout the state, to Rank 1A, which is assigned to plants that are presumed extinct as they have not been collected in the wild for an extended period of time. The rankings can also include a threat rank (0.1. 0.2, and 0.3) which illustrates the degree of threat the plant is facing, with 0.1 being the highest degree of threat.

Regional and Local
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Habitat Plan) covers approximately 520,000 acres, or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County. It was developed and adopted through a partnership between Santa Clara County, the Cities of San José, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), USFWS, and CDFW. The Habitat Plan is intended to promote the recovery of endangered species and enhance ecological diversity and function, while accommodating planned growth in southern Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency is responsible for implementing the plan.

53 United States Department of the Interior. “Memorandum M -37050. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take.” Accessed December 7, 2021. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m- 37050.pdf.

North Bayshore Master Plan 92 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan

The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts to biological resources. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Infrastructure and Conservation Element
INC 16.1 Natural areas. Work with regional agencies to protect and enhance natural areas.

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

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

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

Land Use and Design
LUD 10.2 Low-impact development. Encourage development to minimize or avoid disturbing natural resources and ecologically significant land features.

LUD 15.4 Wildlife friendly development. Implement wildlife friendly site planning, building and design strategies.

LUD 16.1 Protected open space. Protect and enhance open space and habitat in North Bayshore.

Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities Element
POS 12.1 Heritage trees. Protect trees as an ecological and biological resource.

POS 12.2 Urban tree canopy. Increase tree canopy coverage to expand shaded areas, enhance aesthetics and help reduce greenhouse gases.

POS 12.3 Planter strip. Require tree planter strips be wide enough to support healthy trees and well - maintained public infrastructure.

POS 12.4 Drought-tolerant landscaping. Increase water -efficient, drought -tolerant and native landscaping where appropriate on public and private property.

North Bayshore Master Plan 93 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
North Bayshore Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains standards and guidelines to avoid significant biological impacts. The following standards and guidelines are applicable to the proposed project.

Standard Description

5.1 Habitat Overlay Zone
1 Habitat Overlay Zone (HOZ). All new construction proposed within the HOZ shall comply with the overlay zone standards. Figure 21 (of the Precise Plan) shows the approximate boundaries of each HOZ. Project applicants shall work with the City to determine th e precise edge of habitat from which to measure the edge of the HOZ boundary 2 Burrowing owl HOZ. In Shoreline Park immediately north of the Plan Area, the City supports an ongoing burrowing owl monitoring and management program. The following are standards for new construction and renovations designed to protect and enhance the burrowing owl habitat adjacent to the North Bayshore area.
a. Overlay District Boundaries. Boundaries shall be 250 feet as measured from the edge of the burrowing owl habitat.
b. Building placement in the HOZ. Any new building construction shall not be placed inside the burrowing owl HOZ, except where allowed based on the exceptions described below.
c. Impervious surface. New impervious surface shall not be constructed closer to burrowing owl habitat than existing impervious surfaces, and no net increase in impervious surface shall occur within the HOZ.
d. Landscape design. To avoid perches for avian predators of burrowing owls and dense woody vegetation that could hide mammalian predato rs, new landscaping in the HOZ shall be recommended by a qualified biologist familiar with burrowing owl ecology and the City’s Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan, and should consist only of herbaceous plants or shrubs that will not exceed a height of 4’.

Additionally, the size, location and species of any new or replacement public street tree species within or adjacent to the Burrowing Owl HOZ area shall be recommended by a qualified biologist.
e. Low intensity outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting shall be low intensity (LZ 2) and shall utilize full cutoff fixtures to reduce the amount of light reaching these sensitive habitats.
f. Raptor perch deterrents adjacent to burrowing owl habitat. For any new construction in the HOZ, raptor perch deterrents shall be placed on the edges of building roofs or other structures (e.g., light poles or electrical towers) facing the burrowing owl habitat and with a clear view of burrowing owls. g. Construction near burrowing owl habitat. A preconstruction survey for burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the latest California Department of Fish and Wildlife protocol prior to any external construction or large-scale/intensive landscaping, involving heavy equipment or loud noise occurring within the HOZ. If n esting burrowing owls are detected, the HOZ should be free from any external construction or large-scale/intensive landscaping, involving heavy equipment or loud noise until the young have fledged and are independent of the adults, or until monitoring by a qualified biologist determines the nest is no longer active. During the non -breeding season, the HOZ should be

North Bayshore Master Plan 94 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
free from any external construction or large -scale/intensive landscaping, involving heavy equipment or loud noise around active burrows unless t he procedures for monitoring burrowing owls during construction, as described by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, are implemented.
h. Rodenticides. No rodenticides will be used within the burrowing owl HOZ.

Elsewhere in the Precise Plan area, rodenticide use should be limited to that necessary to protect infrastructure and human health, but otherwise, non-chemical means of rodent management should be used to avoid secondary poisoning of burrowing owls and other raptors
3 Egret rookery HOZ. A rookery (or n esting area) of great egrets, snowy egrets, and black - crowned night-herons exists along Shorebird Way. This rookery is regionally significant as one of the largest egret colonies in the South Bay, and is an important natural resource. The following outlines standards for new construction and renovations to protect the rookery. The following standards shall apply unless the rookery has been inactive for a minimum of five years.
a. HOZ boundary. The boundary shall be measured from the edge of the rookery.

Buffer distances vary depending on the particular condition, as noted in (b) through (f) below.
b. Building placement in the HOZ. Any residential building shall not be placed within 300 feet of the rookery, and any new non -residential building shall not be placed within 200 feet of the rookery, except where allowed based on the exceptions described below.
c. 1201 Charleston Road. The western building façade and roof of 1201 Charleston Road may not be modified in such a way that would reduce suitability of the rookery site for egrets. This includes adding new entrances, façade improvements, or other similar actions. A qualified biologist shall review any proposed building or site modifications and recommend strategies to the City to ensure there will be no adverse impacts to the egret rookery habitat.
d. Landscape design. No vegetation other than turf, low -growing grasses, or other herbaceous plants may be planted within 100 feet of the rookery to minimize cover for mammalian predators and avoid entanglement in shrubs of young egrets that have fallen from nests.
e. Low intensity outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting within 200 feet of the rookery shall be low intensity (LZ 2) and shall utilize full cutoff fixtures to reduce the amount of light reaching these sensitive habitats.
f. Construction near the egret colony. No external construction or large - scale/intensive landscaping involving heavy equipment or loud noise shall occur within 200 feet of the rookery during the March 1 to August 31 period unless a survey by a qualified biologist has demonstrated that, after 1 June, egrets have either not nested that year or that all young have fledged and departed the rookery area.
4 Open water, creeks, and storm drain facilities HOZ. To protect habitat and preserve water quality, the following outlines standards for areas adjacent to the Coast Casey Forebay, Shoreline Lake, Stevens Creek, the Charleston Retention Basin, Permanente Creek, and the Coast Casey channel.
a. HOZ boundary. The buffer distances from each boundary are as follows:

North Bayshore Master Plan 95 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
i. Coast Casey Forebay. 250 feet as measured from the boundary edge. ii. Charleston Retention Basin. 200 feet for non -residential land uses, and 300 feet for residential uses, as measured from the boundary edge. iii. Stevens Creek. 200 feet as measured from the inner edge of the top of the bank.
iv. Permanente Creek and Coast Casey Channel. 150 feet as measured from the inner edge of the top of the bank
v. Shoreline Lake. 200 feet as measured from the lake edge. b. Building placement in the HOZ. Residential buildings shall not be placed within 300 feet of the Charleston Retention Basin, and new non -residential buildings shall not be placed within 200 feet of the Charleston Retention Basin, except where allowed based on the exceptions described below.
c. Impervious surface. No new impervious surface shall be constructed closer to open water or creek habitat than existing impervious surfaces, and no net increase in impervious surface can occur within the HOZ associated with these areas. d. Bioswales. Bioswales shall be constructed for any new or reconstructed impervious surface draining directly toward creek areas to treat runoff before it enters a creek or open water.
e. Landscape design. All woody vegetation planted in the HOZ shall consist of native species or non-natives that provide valuable resources (e.g., food, structure, or cover) for native wildlife.
f. Low intensity outdoor lighting. Within the HOZ, outdoor lighting shall be low intensity (LZ 2) and shall utilize full cutoff fixtures to reduce the amount of light reaching these sensitive habitats.
5 Overlapping HOZ zones. When HOZ overlay zones overlap, new construction shall meet the most restrictive standards
6 Conflicting provisions. The standards outlined in this Chapter apply to new construction in addition to all other applicable Precise Plan requirements. In the event of a conflict between the standards of this Chapter and other Precise Plan provisions, the City shall determine which standards apply.

5.2 Bird Safe Design
1 Bird Safe Design Requirements. All new construction, building additions, and/or building alterations shall adhere to the Bird Safe Design standards in this section. 2 Façade treatments. No more than 10% of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade shall have untreated glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground.35 Examples of bird-friendly glazing treatments include the use of opaque glass, the covering of clear glass surface with patterns, the use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and the use of external screens over non-reflective glass.
3 Occupancy sensors. For non -residential development, occupancy sensors or other switch control devices shall be installed on non-emergency lights. These lights should be programmed to shut off during non-work hours and between 10:00 pm and sunrise. 4 Funneling of flight paths. New construction shall avoid the funneling of flight pat hs along buildings or trees towards a building façade.

North Bayshore Master Plan 96 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
5 Skyways, walkways, or glass walls. New construction and building additions shall avoid building glass skyways or walkways, freestanding glass walls, and transparent building corners. New constructio n and building additions should reduce glass at tops of buildings, especially when incorporating a green roof into the design. 6 Exceptions to the bird safe design requirements. The City may waive or reduce any of this chapter’s bird safe design requireme nts based on analysis by a qualified biologist indicating that proposed construction will not pose a collision hazard to birds.

5.3 Nesting Bird Protection
1 Pre-activity surveys. If construction, building additions, building alterations, or removal of trees and shrubs occurs between February 1 and August 31, pre -activity surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. These surveys shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of these activities in any given area. During each survey, the biologist shall inspect all potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, and buildings) within the work area; within 300 feet of the work area for raptor nests; and within 100 feet of the work area for nests of non-raptors.
2 Nest buffers. If an active nest (i.e., a nest with eggs or young, or any completed raptor nest attended by adults) is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, the biologist, in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wi ldlife, shall determine the extent of a disturbance -free buffer zone to be established around the nest.

Typical buffer zones are 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for non -raptors. However, the biologist, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, may determine that a reduced buffer is appropriate in some instances. For example, topography, buildings, or vegetation that screen a nest from the work area, or very high existing levels of disturbance (indicating the birds’ tolerance to high levels of human activity), may indicate that a reduced buffer is appropriate. No new activities (i.e., work -related activities that were not ongoing when the nest was established) will occur within the buffer as long as the nest is active.

5.4 Landscape Design
4 Protect special-status plants. If special-status plants such as Congdon’s tarplant are found on-site, the project applicant shall work with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine the appropriate protocol to survey, protect, and/or manage special-status species.

Guideline Description

5.1 Habitat Overlay Zone
1 Minimize building height near sensitive areas. No buildings taller than 55 feet should be constructed within 100 feet of any HOZ boundary to provide additional buffer between sensitive resources and taller buildings. This guideline applies to both residential and non - residential development.

5.2 Bird Safe Design
1 Bird collision best management practices. The following are several voluntary best management practices (BMPs) to promote bird safety.
a. Collision monitoring. To reduce hazards in high -collision areas, building owners and tenants are encouraged to monitor locations of bird collisions (e.g., based on dead or injured birds or imprints of feathers on windows) and implement “retrofit”

North Bayshore Master Plan 97 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
measures, such as application of patterns to existing windows or use of internal blinds, where collisions occur.
b. Window coverings. Building owners and tenants are encouraged to install window coverings above the ground floor.
c. Work station lighting and window coverings. Businesses are encouraged to turn off lighting at employee work stations and draw office window coverings at the end of the day.
d. d. Daytime maintenance. Businesses are encouraged to schedule maintena nce during the day or to conclude before 10:00 pm.

5.3 Nesting Bird Protection
1 Avoidance of the nesting season. If construction, building additions, building alterations, or removal of trees and shrubs is scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, impacts to protected nesting birds would be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in the North Bayshore area extends from February 1 through August 31. Work activities performed during the September 1 to January 31 period would not be subject to the pre- activity surveys and nest buffers described above.

5.4 Landscape Design
2 Preserve native plants. New construction or landscape renovations should preserve portions of a lot largely occupied by native species.

Mountain View Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance
Section 32.25 of the City Code contains Heritage tree preservation standards that require maintenance and preservation of Heritage trees, tree removal permits for the removal of Heritage trees, and conditions for preservation during construction or grading activity. Mountain View City Code Chapter 32, Article II defines a “Heritage Tree” as a tree with any of the following characteristics:

• A tree which has a trunk with a circumference of forty -eight (48) inches or more measured at fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade;
• A multi-branched tree which has major branches below fifty-four (54) inches above the natural grade with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches measured just below the first major trunk fork.
• Any Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), or Cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of twelve (12) inches or more when measured at fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade; • A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit.

North Bayshore Master Plan 98 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.2.1.2 Existing Conditions
The below discussion focuses on the changes to existing conditions since the 2017 EIR. Refer to the 2017 EIR and Appendix E for additional details about the current habitat conditions within and adjacent to the Precise Plan and project site.

Habitat
Other than Subarea AM1, which is outside the Precise Plan area (see Figure 2.3-1), the current conditions at the project site are the same as those described in the 2017 EIR. The two primary habitat types on-site are developed/landscaped land uses and small artificial waterbodies. There is a section of Shorebird Way with a landscaped area that is an established egret rookery. The extent of the egret rookery has changed slightly since the certification of the 2017 EIR, otherwise habitat condi tions on- site have not changed substantially.

Subarea AM1 is currently developed as a parking lot associated with the Shoreline Amphitheatre.

Asphalt covers most of this subarea and scattered landscape trees are present throughout the parking lot. The grade of the parking surface is approximately 30 feet below that of the surrounding land surface. Conditions on Subarea AM1, as well as wildlife use, are generally the same as those described in the 2017 EIR for developed/landscaped habitats.54

The project site contains 4,021 trees, including 1,812 Heritage trees as defined in the City’s Municipal Code.55 Of the 4,021 trees on -site, approximately 12 percent are in poor condition, 42 percent are in fair condition, and 46 percent are in good condit ion. The most common tree species on -site are coast redwood, London plane, sweetgum, Canary island pine, and evergreen ash. The most common tree on- site is the coast redwood, which comprises approximately 21 percent of the trees on -site. The largest tree on-site is a coast redwood with a trunk diameter of 58 inches, it is located in the northeastern portion of the project site.

No sensitive or regulated habitats were present on -site in 2017, and none are currently present. The project site is not located within the adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plans.

54 The developed/landscaped habitat in AM1 is of relatively low value to wildlife, but provides nesting and foraging opportunities for some urban-adapted species of birds. Native bird species that were observed on or near this subarea during a site visit include the American crow, Anna’s hummingbird, and dark-eyed junco. These species may use the trees or landscape vegetation, or nearby buildings, for nesting. Common urban -adapted mammal species that may occur here include the native raccoon and non-native house mouse. The western fence lizard, a common native reptile, was also observed within landscaped areas. California ground squirrels and their burrows are common in the ruderal grassland margins of the parcel, as well as on the adjacent grasslands at Shoreline Park. 55 Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 32, Article II defines a “Heritage Tree” as a tree with any of the following characteristics: a tree trunk with a circumference of forty -eight inches or more, measured at fifty -four inches above natural grade. Multi-trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork. Any of the following three species of trees with a circumference of twelve inches or more, measured at fifty -four inches above natural grade: Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), Cedrus (cedar), and groves of trees designated as “heritage” by the City Council.

North Bayshore Master Plan 99 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Special-Status Species
There are several special-status species that have been documented or have the potential to be found in the surrounding habitat areas, including Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek, the Charleston Retention Basin, and Shoreline Park. The nearest wetland to the project site is the Charleston Retention Basin, located to the north of the project site (specifically north of the Eco Gem subarea). None of the special- status plants or animals considered in the 2017 EIR have undergone substantial changes in distribution or abundance within the Precise Plan area since 2017. A pair of white -tailed kites fledged young in 2019 from a nest in a landscaped area north of Charleston Road, between the north end of the egret rookery and the Charleston Retention Basin; this nest was within the project site boundaries.

Monarch Butterfly
Subsequent to the 2017 EIR, the monarch butterfly was identified as a candidate species under federal Endangered Species Act. The monarch butterfly has historically occurred in the Master Plan region primarily as a migrant, foraging for nectar on flowering plants. Although this species forms large nonbreeding aggregations (i.e., winter roosts) in locations with favorable climatic conditions, primarily along the coast, it has not been known to do so in Santa Clara County. Therefore, no large nonbreeding aggregations would occur in or near the project site. Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed plants, which then serve as the larval hostplant. Native milkweed occurs at scattered locations in the South Bay, and some monarchs in the region breed on native milkweed. Those milkweed plants typically senesce (i.e., become dried and die) by fall, so under natural conditions, monarchs do not breed in the South Bay in winter (due to the absence of suitable hostplants) or form overwintering aggregations here. However, landscape plantings within the project site have recently incorporated non -native tropical milkweed. That plant species’ life cycle, coupled with artificial irrigation of the plants, allows it to serve as a suitable larval hostplant even in winter. During the winter of 2020 to 2021, a breeding population of monarch butterflies was documented using tropical milkweed within the project site along Shorebird Way and Charleston Road. Breeding monarch butterflies of various life stages were also observed in the landscape vegetation along Charleston Way near Sh orebird Way during the November 2021, reconnaissance surveys. Therefore, the monarch butterfly is present as a breeder within the project site. No other species whose listing/legal status has changed since 2017 that were not already addressed in the 2017 EIR, occur in the Precise Plan or project site.

Egret Rookery
The egret rookery on Shorebird Way south of Charleston Road is still centered in the same area where it was present in 2017, but it has expanded slightly since then. The 2017 EIR maps the rookery along the east side of Shorebird Way, confined to the area r oughly adjacent to and congruent with the front façade of the 1201 Charleston building. At the time of the November 2021 reconnaissance survey, the rookery had expanded northward approximately 75 feet and southward approximately 50 feet into adjacent Londo n plane trees along the axis of the original rookery. Additionally, it had expanded westward into London plane trees on the opposite side of the Shorebird Way, along the corner formed where the street turns westward, with a number of nests now present in trees within approximately 75 feet of the southeast corner of the 1215 Charleston building.

North Bayshore Master Plan 100 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Congdon’s Tarplant
There are known occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant (a CNPS 1B.1 listed plant) in proximity to the Precise Plan area and the 2017 EIR disclosed th at the Precise Plan area includes suitable habitat for Congdon’s tarplant. This species has the potential to occur in ruderal grassland areas along the northern edge of the project site where it abuts ruderal/grassland habitat associated with Shoreline Park. Because subarea AM1 includes areas of ruderal grassland, and because it abuts Shoreline Park, Congdon’s tarplant could potentially occur on subarea AM1.

Burrowing Owls
An actively breeding population of burrowing owls is present in Shoreline Park, and habitats on Vista Slope, immediately west of subarea AM1, are managed to provide suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for this species. Marginally suitable burrowing owl foraging and roosting habitat, and possibly nesting habitat, is present on the north, east, and western margins of subarea AM1 in the form of ruderal grassland with abundant ground squirrel burrows. These areas do not provide high -quality owl habitat due to their narrow nature and frequent disturbance, but burrowing owls may occasionally be present on subarea AM1. Burrowing owls are more likely to occur (and more regularly) in the Vista Slope grasslands immediately to the west of AM1. It is possible that up to one pair of white-tailed kites and one pair of loggerhead shrikes cou ld nest in trees or shrubs within or immediately adjacent to subarea AM1.

3.2.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on biological resources, would the project:

1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either dire ctly 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)? 2) 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? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but n ot limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
4) 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?
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of a n adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

North Bayshore Master Plan 101 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.2.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact BIO-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not 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 regulat ions, or by the CDFW or USFWS . [New Impact (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

The 2017 EIR found that there are several candidate, sensitive, or special -status species that have habitats adjacent to the Precise Plan area. In ord er to limit the potential impacts to these species, the Precise Plan implemented Habitat Overlay Zones (HOZs) for burrowing owl habitat, o pen water, creeks, and storm drain facilities that could be used as potential habitat, and the egret rookery that is within the Precise Plan boundaries. These HOZs create buffers around habitat and potential habitat that implement development and design conditions meant to protect sensitive species and their habitat. In addition to the implementation of HOZs, the Precise Plan instituted Bird Safe Design standards and landscape design standards meant to protect wildlife during the buildout of the Precise Plan. The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of these policies and the mitigation measures outlined in the 2017 EIR would reduce potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species to a less than significant level.

Special-Status Plant Species
The only special-status plant species that was identified in the 2017 EIR was Congdon’s tarplant, which is a designated California Rare Plant. The potential impacts to this plant were not fully evaluated in the 2017 EIR, as the only suitable habitat for the plant was outside of the Precise Plan area near Shoreline Amphitheatre and Shoreline Park, or along the peri meter of the northern Precise Plan boundaries. The proposed project (under either option) would construct a district parking garage in the Shoreline Amphitheatre parking lot (Subarea AM1), located outside of the Precise Plan boundary (see Figure 2.3-1). Subarea AM1 contains ruderal grassland along its perimeter that could potentially serve as habitat for Congdon’s tarplant. In order to limit any potential impacts to Congdon’s tarplant during construction of the parking garage, the project shall implement the following new project mitigation measure.

New Project Mitigation Measure:

MM BIO-1.1: Within two years prior to disturbance of ruderal habitat for construction of the Shoreline Amphitheatre parking structure, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for Congdon’s tarplant during the appropriate season (e.g., late summer and fall), at a time when the species is detectable at nearby reference sites. The survey shall cover all areas within, and within 50 feet of, the construction area for the parking structure. If Congdon’s tarplant is found in the survey area, the applicant shall comply wi th North Bayshore Precise Plan Landscape Design Standard 4 to protect and manage Congdon’s tarplant. Management measures would be developed in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and may include establishment of a new populati on or enhancement of existing populations at Shoreline Park (in coordination with the City of Mountain View).

North Bayshore Master Plan 102 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, impacts to Congdon’s tarplant would be reduced to a less than significant level by conducting preconstruction surveys and implementing measures to protect and manage Congdon’s tarplant if found. [New Impact (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Special-Status Animal Species
Monarch Butterfly
At the time of the 2017 EIR, the monarch butterfly was not considered a special -status species and therefore was not discussed in the 2017 EIR; however, since then, the USFWS has classified the monarch butterfly as a candidate species.56 Monarch butterflies have been found on the project site in nonnative, tropical milkweeds that are irrigated year-round during portions of the year when the species is typically migrating for winter. The impact of this change in migratory behavior is complex and not fully understood, but could potentially disrupt migration patterns to coastal area s and result in higher winter mortality rates and parasite loads. 57 To reduce these potential impacts, the project shall implement the following new project mitigation measures.

New Project Mitigation Measures:

MM BIO-1.2: Nonnative milkweeds shall not be included in Master Plan landscaping. Although native milkweeds are encouraged in landscaping, they shall not be irrigated after August to allow those plants to senesce so that monarchs do not lay eggs on those plants too late in fall, and so that no suitable hostplants are present in late fall that might encourage monarchs to attempt winter breeding instead of migrating to coastal aggregation sites.

MM BIO-1.3: Within two weeks prior to any clearing, construction, or maintenance in landscaped areas that provide milkweeds that have not completely senesced, a qualified biologist shall survey those milkweed plants for monarch butterfly eggs, larvae, or pupae. If the plants do not support monarch eggs, larvae, or pupae, the qualified biologist shall remove those plants immediately (during the survey) to prevent monarchs from laying eggs between the time of the survey and initiation of impacts. If any eggs, larvae, or pupae are detected within the survey area, then impacts to the plants supporting those individuals shall be delayed until the emergence of those individual butterflies as adults. If such a delay is infeasible, the applicant shall coordinate with the U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding recommendations. For example, larvae could be relocated to milkweeds outside the impact area, if those milkweeds are not already occupied by monarch eggs or larvae. Alternatively, monarch butterflies could be raised in captivity and released (with USFWS approval).

56 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. “Danaus plexippus.” Accessed April 22, 2022. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/species/monarch-danaus-plexippus.
57 H.T. Harvey & Associates. North Bayshore Framework Master Plan Biological Resources Confirmation Report.

January 12, 2022. Pages 35 & 36.

North Bayshore Master Plan 103 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
With implementation of the above mitigation measures, impacts to monarch butterflies would be reduced to a less than significant level by limiting planting of nonnative milkweeds and conducting preconstruction surveys to ensure no mona rch butterfly eggs, larvae, or pupae are disturbed. [New Impact (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Burrowing Owls
The 2017 EIR included discussion of the HOZ boundaries for burrowing owl habitat north of the Precise Plan area; ho wever, it did not evaluate the construction of a parking garage outside of the Precise Plan area on Subarea AM1 that would result from implementation of the proposed project. As discussed previously, Subarea AM1 provides ruderal grassland along the perimeter of the site and east of Vista Slope, which is at least marginally suitable foraging, roosting, and possibly nesting habitat for burrowing owls. Although Subarea AM1 was not included in the original Precise Plan area that was evaluated in the 2017 EIR, the edge of this potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat is analogous to the baseline of the Burrowing Owl HOZ. The parking garage would be constructed at least 250 feet from the potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat on the perimeter of Subarea AM1, therefore, the building would not encroach within 250 feet of suitable burrowing owl habitat and would not impact the use of habitat on Vista Slope by burrowing owls that may be present in the area.

Although Subarea AM1 is not within the Precise Plan area, the project would comply with the measures listed in Chapter 5.1 Habitat Overlay Zone, Standard 2 of the Precise Plan regarding outdoor lighting, constructing perch deterrents, avoidance during construction, and the limitation of rodenticide use.

Compliance with this standard would reduce impacts to burrowing owls to a less than significant level by including low intensity outdoor lighting, avoiding disruptive construction activities if burrowing owls are nesting in the area, and limiting the use of rod enticide in the area that could result in the secondary poisoning of burrowing owls and other raptors. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Other Special-Status Species and Nesting Birds
As discussed previously in Section 3.2.1.2, up to one pair of white -tailed kites (a state -listed fully protected species) and one pair of loggerhead shrikes (a state -listed species of special concern) could nest within or immediately adjacent to Subarea AM1. The San Francisco common yellowthroat, a state-listed species of special concern, nests in the Charleston Retention Basin. Peregrine falcons (a state-listed fully protected species) have a low probability of nesting in the project site. The project site features buildings, mature trees, and vegetation that provide foraging and nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species including the aforementioned special-status bird species.

The proposed project would remove 3,330 existing on -site trees (including 1,509 heritage trees) and demolish most of the existing buildings.

The project’s impact, including the impacts of developing Subarea AM1 that was not previously evaluated in the 2017 EIR) to the white -tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, and peregrine falcon would be the same less than significant impact disclosed in the 2017 EIR because future development under the proposed project would comply with Precise Plan Nesting Bird Protection Standards (as described in Section 3.2.1.1). In addition, because no more than one pair of shrikes or kites could nest in the area

North Bayshore Master Plan 104 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
surrounding Subarea AM1, the proposed district parking garage structure would not result in substantial impacts to those species (e.g., a substantive reduction in regional populations).

Raptors (birds of prey) and nesting birds are protected by the MBTA and the CDFW code requirements.

Urban-adapted raptors or other avian nests present on or adjacent to the site could be disturbed by project construction activities and result in the loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a taking by the CDFW and would constitute a significant impact.

In compliance with the MBTA and CDFW code and consistent with the 2017 EIR and the standards and guidelines listed in Chapter 5.3 of the Precise Plan , the project (under either option) shall implement the following City standard condition of approval to reduce or avoid construction -related impacts to nesting birds (including raptors) and their nests.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA BIO-1.1: Both Project Options: Preconstruction Nesti ng 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 canno t be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys shall 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 th e project site and surrounding 500 feet for active nests - with particular emphasis on nests of migratory birds - if construction (including site preparation) begins during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31. If active nests are obs erved on either the project site or the surrounding area, the project biologist, in coordination with the appropriate City staff, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests (usually 100’ for perching birds and 300’ for raptors). The no-disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction ceases for two days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessar y to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present

With the implementation of the above standard condition of approval and compliance with the standards and guidelines listed in Chapter 5.3 of the Precise Plan, the project (under either option) would result in a less than significant impact to nesting birds. Preconstruction surveys would ensure no nesting birds or nests are located on-site during construction and if they are, then buffer zones would be established around nests during construction consistent with the standards and guidelines listed in Chapter 5.3 of the Precise Plan. The project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact to nesting birds than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 105 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Bird Strike Hazards
Bird Safe Design measures included in the Precise Plan are intended to help diminish the likelihood of building collision fatalities through façade treatments and light pollution reduction. All future development proposed under the Master Plan (including the development of the parking structure on Subarea AM1) would be required to incorporate the following Precise Plan design standards to reduce bird collision risk. Additional details regarding these standards can be found in Chapter 5 of the North Bayshore Precise Plan.

1. Bird Safe Design Requirements. All new construction, building additions, and/or building alterations shall adhere to the Bird Safe Design standards in this section.

2. Façade Treatments. No more than 10 percent of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade shall have bird -friendly glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground.

Examples of bird -friendly glazing treatments include opaque glass, covering of clear gla ss surface with patterns, use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and use of external screens over non-reflective glass.

3. Occupancy Sensors. For non -residential development, occupancy sensors or other switch control devices shall be installed on non-emergency lights. These lights should be programmed to shut off during non-work hours and between 10:00 p.m. and sunrise.

4. Funneling of Flight Pat hs. New construction shall avoid funneling of flight paths along buildings or trees towards a building façade.

5. Skyways, Walkways, or Glass Walls. New construction and building additions shall avoid building glass skyways or walkways, freestanding glass walls, transparent building corners, or landscaping behind glass (such as in atriums). New construction and building additions should minimize the use of glass at tops of buildings, especially when incorporating a green roof into the design.

6. Exceptions to the Bird Safe Design Requirements. The City may waive or reduce any of this chapter’s bird safe design requirements based on analysis by a qualified biologist indicating that proposed construction would not pose a collision hazard to birds.

With incorporation of the above standards for bird safe design, the proposed project (under either option) would have a less than significant impact regarding native and migratory bird collisions because the lighting plan for the buildings , including the parking garage structure on Subarea AM1, would minimize artificial night lighting (both on the exterior and interior) through use of occupancy sensors and timers that control the lighting. These features would be incorporated into the final development plans for the project, which would be reviewed by the Planning Division at the time of building permit to ensure proper implementation (consistent with the Precise Plan). The project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact regarding bird strike hazards than disclosed in the 2017 EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 106 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact BIO-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not 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 . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR discussed the potential impacts on the riparian habitat in and adjacent to the Precise Plan area, including Permanente Creek, Coast Casey Drainage Canal, Charleston Retention Basin, and Stevens Creek. The 2017 EIR concluded that adherence to the open water, cree ks, and storm drain facilities HOZ conditions in the Precise Plan would reduce the potential impacts on aquatic, open water, and creek habitats to a less than significant level.

The Charleston Retention Basin is adjacent to the northeast portion of the project site; however, a small portion of the riparian vegetation in the Charleston Retention Basin falls within the project site boundaries. Pursuant to the Precise Plan, future development near the Charleston Retention Basin must comply with the open water, creeks, and storm drain facilities HOZ standards established in the Chapter 5 of the Precise Plan, which requires that no new construction be placed inside the HOZ, which is 200 feet for non-residential land uses and 300 feet for residential uses, as measured from the edge of the basin. The project (under either option) would dedicate the parcel of land immediately adjacent to the Charleston Retention Basin to be developed as open space, which would enhance conditions in the basin compared to existing conditions, as the site is currently develo ped with various structures and impervious surfaces. While the project (under either option) includes office uses across Charleston Road, within 200 feet of the basin, the office development would occur in an area already developed with office uses; therefore, it would not constitute new construction. Since the proposed project (under either option) would comply with the open water, creeks, and storm drain facilities HOZ standards and create new open space adjacent to the Charleston Retention Basin, the pro ject (under either option) would not have an impact on state or federally protected riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, or wetlands. Therefore, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact to riparian habitat than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact BIO-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

See discussion under checklist question Impact BIO -2 above. The project’s adherence (under either option) to the open water, creeks, and storm drain facilities HOZ standards established in Chapter 5 of the Precise Plan would limit any potential impacts to the wetland habitat in the Charleston Retention Basin to a less than significant lev el. The project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact to state or federally protected wetlands than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

North Bayshore Master Plan 107 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact BIO-4: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) 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 . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

There are no waterways on-site; therefore, the project site does not support the movement of fish. The project site is currently developed and primarily surrounded by existing urban development. For that reason, the project site is not an important area for movement for non -flying wildlife, and it does not contain any high-quality corridors allowing dispersal of such animals through the Precise Plan area.

As discussed in Section 3.2.1.2 Existing Conditions above, the project site contains an egret rookery along Shorebird Way that has an established HOZ to protect the rookery from impacts related to future development. Since the 2017 EIR was certified, the size of that rookery has expanded, which has subsequently changed the location and extent of the egret rookery HOZ. Construction of any new residential development within 300 feet of the rookery is prohibited as part of the Habitat Overlay Zone Standards 3b established in Chapter 5 of the Precise Plan. The expansion of the rookery and extent of the HOZ residential boundary has resulted in an overlap with proposed residential buildings on Shorebird Way that would be constructed as part of the project. The proposed residential buildings would be within approximately 200 feet of the new egret rookery HOZ boundary. While the proposed residential buildings would conflict with Biological Resources Standards 3b and could disturb the egret rookery, given that these birds are already exposed to a high level of human activity and that the land around the rookery would be largely maintained as open space, and it is unlikely that residential activity would adversely affect the rookery. 58 In addition to those factors, any future development under the Master Plan would be required to adhere to all other Precise Plan standards and City regulations regarding construction near habitat areas.

As discussed under Impact BIO -1, the proposed project (under either option) would incorporate standard conditions of approval to protect nesting birds, in order to minimize adverse effects on native and migratory bird species and help diminish the likelihood of building collision fatalities. With incorporation of these standards, the proposed project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact on migratory bird movement than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

58 H.T. Harvey & Associates. North Bayshore Framework Master Plan Biological Resources Confirmation Memo .

January 2022. Page 40.

North Bayshore Master Plan 108 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact BIO-5: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance . [New Impact (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

General Plan Policies
The project (under either option) would integrate native and drought -tolerant landscaping (consistent with General Plan Policies INC 16.6 and POS 12.4) and would be required to follow standard conditions of approval to protect nesting birds d uring construction and comply with Habitat Overlay Zone Standard 2 in Chapter 5 of the Precise Plan to protect burrowing owls (consistent with General Plan Policies INC 16.3 and LUD 15.4). The project (under either option) would also implement new project mitigation measure MM BIO -1.1 to protect the Congdon’s tarplant (consistent with General Plan Policy LUD 10.2). In addition, the project (under either option) would locate a majority of its open space on the eastern portion of the project site, which would limit the level of development near Stevens Creek and the Charleston Retention Basin (consistent with General Plan Policies LUD 16.1 and INC 16.5). This would include reserving the Eco Gem Subarea adjacent to the Charleston Retention Basin as dedicated pa rkland. Consistent with General Plan Policy POS 12.2, the project (under either option) would plant 3,715 replacement trees.

Based on this discussion, the project (under either option) would comply with General Plan policies related to biological resource protection and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact to biological resources due to conflict with General Plan policies than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)].

Precise Plan Policies
The project (under either option) would plant native plants and tree species that support native wildlife and build biological diversity, consistent with Precise Plan requirements for biological resources. As discussed under Impact BIO-1 above, the project (under either option) would implement new project mitigation measure MM BIO -1.1 to reduce impacts to Congdon’s tarplant and apply Precise Plan burrowing owl HOZ standards to the proposed parking structure on Subarea AM1 to reduce impacts to burrowing owls, consistent with Precise Plan Landscape Design Standard 4 and Habitats and Biological Resources Standard 2 Burrowing Owl HOZ, respectively. As discussed under Impact BIO- 2, the project (under either option) would comply with the Precise Plan open water, creeks, and storm drain facilities HOZ requirements by placing open space next to the Charleston Retention Basin. As discussed under Impact BIO-4, while the project (under either option) would conflict with Biological Resources Standards 3b egret rookery HOZ, the proposed residential development would be at least 300 feet from the core of the egret rookery and the project (under either option) would result in a less than significant impact as the egrets are already exposed to a high level of human activity and the land around the rookery would be largely maintained as open space to provide a buffer between the rookery and new residential development. Based on these factors, it is unlikely that residential activity would adversely affect the rookery.

Subarea AM1 is not within the Precise Plan boundaries and is therefore not required to comply with the policies t hat were identified in the 2017 EIR. However, the proposed district parking garage

North Bayshore Master Plan 109 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
structure that would be located on Subarea AM1 would comply with all of the identified Precise Plan policies by incorporating bird-safe design features into the parking structure, constructing the structure outside of the burrowing owl HOZ on the western site of Subarea AM1, and complying with the measures outlined in Habitat Overlay Zone Standard 2 in Chapter 5 of the Precise Plan.

The project (under either option), theref ore, would comply with Precise Plan policies related to biological resource protection with the implementation of new project mitigation measure MM BIO -

1.1. (New Impact [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Tree Preservation Ordinance
The proposed project would remove 3,330 existing on-site trees, including 1,509 Heritage trees, from the project site. The project would plant 3,715 new trees. The City of Mountain View regulations require a permit to remove or move any tree over 48-inches in circumference or any Quercus, Sequoia, or Cedrus over 12-inches in circumference (measured at 54 -inch above grade). A City of Mountain View Heritage tree removal permit is required before any Heritage trees are removed. T he proposed project (under either option) would implement the following standard City condition of approval.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA BIO-2.1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) shall implement the following standard condition of approval:

• 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

North Bayshore Master Plan 110 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
activity to maintain tree health, shall be provided to the Planning Division at [email protected].
• Replacement. The applicant shall offset the loss of each Heritage tree with a minimum of two new trees. Each replacement tree sh all be no smaller than a 24-inch box and shall be noted on the landscape plans submitted for building permit review as Heritage replacement trees.
• Street Tree Protections. All designated City street trees to remain are to be protected throughout construction activity with protection measures shown on building permit plans.
• Tree Protection Measures. The tree protection measures listed in the project’s arborist 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, six - foot 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.
• Tree Mitigation and Preservation Plan . The applicant shall develop a tree mitigation and preservation plan to avoid impacts on regulated trees and mitigate for the loss of trees that cannot be avoided. The plan shall also outline measures to be taken to preserve off-site trees. Routine monitoring for the first five years and corrective actions for trees that consistently fail the performance standards shall be included in the tree mitigation and preservation plan. The tree mitigation and preservation pl an shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 32, Articles I and II, of the City Code, and subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to removal or disturbance of any Heritage trees resulting from project activities, including site preparation activities.

Consistent with the conclusion in the 2017 EIR, the project (under either option) would obtain Heritage Tree Removal permits as needed and implement the above tree replacement and protection measures to reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from a conflict with the City’s tree preservation policy to a less than significant level. The project (under either option) would not conflict with the City’s tree protection policies or result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact to trees compared to the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact BIO-6: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conse rvation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project site is not part of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conser vation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Habitat Plan is a conservation program to promote the recovery of endangered species in portions of Santa Clara County while accommodating planned development, infrastructure and maintenance activities. The project site, including Subarea AM1, is located outside the Habitat Plan area.

North Bayshore Master Plan 111 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Nitrogen deposition contribution estimates of impacts on serpentine habitat in Santa Clara County were made as a part of the development of the Habitat Plan. The 2017 EIR concluded that the nitrogen emissions (based on existing and future vehicle emissions) that would result from buildout of the Precise Plan were less than cumulatively considerable (given that buildout of the Precise Plan is a small portion of Santa Clara County’s overall emissions).59 The Habitat Plan accounts for the indirect impacts of nitrogen deposition (existing and future) and identifies measures to conserve and manage serpentine areas over the term of the Habitat Plan, such that cumulative impacts to this habitat and associated special-status species would not be significant and adverse. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

3.2.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact BIO-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant biological resources im pact. [New Cumulative Impact (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR with the exceptions of the expansion of the egret rooker y and the listing of the Monarch Butterfly as a candidate species under the federal Endangered Species Act. The geographic area for cumulative biological resources impacts includes the project site and its surrounding area because localized development wou ld affect the same group of biological resources. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(d) and (e), this EIR incorporates by reference the cumulative analysis in the 2017 EIR.

While the Master Plan includes more development within the Precise Plan and on Subarea AM1, that development would result in less than significant cumulative impacts with mitigation implemented because:

• The proposed project (under either option) and other development projects in the area would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations (including the MBTA, Fish and Game Code, and city Municipal Code) which avoid and/or minimize impacts to any spe cial-status species (such as Congdon’s tarplant, the Monarch butterfly, burrowing owls, and nesting birds). In addition, the project (under either option) would implement mitigation measures MM BIO-1.1 through MM BIO-1.3 to further reduce any potential impacts to special-status species; • Development projects in close proximity to the Charleston Retention Basin, including the project, would comply with the open water, creeks, and storm drain facilities HOZ standards established in the Chapter 5 of the Precise Plan to reduce impacts to the Charleston Retention Basin and other nearby riparian and wetland habitat;
• Future development projects, including the proposed project (under either option), would be required to adhere to Precise Plan standards and City regulations regarding construction near habitat areas. In addition, these proje cts would incorporate the City’s standard conditions of

59 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 222-223.

North Bayshore Master Plan 112 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
approval to protect nesting birds and help diminish the likelihood of building collision fatalities to minimize adverse effects on native and migratory bird species; • The project (under either option) would not conflict with the City’s General Plan policies or Precise Plan policies; and
• The project (under either option) would not conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance or an adopted habitat conservation plan.

For these reasons, the propos ed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impact to biological resources than disclosed in the 2017 EIR with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures . [New Cumulative Impact (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

3.2.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
BIO-1: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not 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.

Partially S MM BIO-

1.1, MM
BIO-1.2,
MM BIO-1.3
LTS
BIO-2: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not 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.

Yes LTS None N/A
BIO-3: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not have a substantial
adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or
other means.

Yes LTS None N/A

North Bayshore Master Plan 113 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
BIO-4: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
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.

Yes LTS None N/A
BIO-5: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance.

Partially S MM BIO-1.1 LTS
BIO-6: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.

Yes LTS None N/A
BIO-C: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulatively
significant biological resources
impact.

Partially S MM BIO-

1.1, MM
BIO-1.2,
MM BIO-1.3
LTS
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, S = Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 114 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

3.3.1 Environmental Setting
The existing greenhouse gas (GHG) setting, including regulatory framework and existing site conditions, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR . Subsequent to the certification of the 2017 EIR, Plan Bay Area 2050 was adopted, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted updated GHG thresholds (both of which are discussed below).

3.3.1.1 Background Information
Gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temper ature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its global warming potential ( GWP) and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), a nd sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities.

Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:

• CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion
• N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops • CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents, but their production has been stopped by international treaty • HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling • PFCs and SF6 emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing

An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently causing changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and it will incre asingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and deg radation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.

North Bayshore Master Plan 115 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.3.1.2 Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 32
Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32, CARB established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, adopted mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHGs, and adopted a comprehensive plan, known as the Climate Change Scoping Plan, identifying how emission reductions would be achieved from significant GHG sources.

In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law, amending the California Global Warming Solution Act. SB 32, and accompanying Executive Order B-30-15, require CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. CARB updated its Climate Change Scoping Plan in December of 2017 to express the 2030 statewide target in terms of million metric tons of CO2e (MMTCO2e). Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 203 0 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 MMTCO2e.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. SB 375 builds upon AB 32 by requiring CARB to deve lop regional GHG reduction targets for automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. The per capita GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.

Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) partnered with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), BAAQMD, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to prepare the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan process. The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area 2040. Plan Bay Area 2040 establishes a course for reducing per capita GHG emissions through the promotion of compac t, high -density, mixed-use neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs).

California Transportation Plan 2050
The California Transportation Plan 2050 (CTP 2050) defines performance -based goals, policies, and strategies to achieve the state’s collective vision for California’s future statewide, integrated, multimodal transportation system. The CTP 2050 includes goals for achieving statewide GHG emissions reduction targets, improving multimodal mobility and access to destinations, maintaining a high-quality transportation system, and expanding protection of natural resources.

North Bayshore Master Plan 116 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Regional and Local
2017 Clean Air Plan
To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP (prepared by BAAQMD) includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-GHGs that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area. The jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing G HG impacts developed by BAAQMD within the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. On April 20, 2022, BAAQMD adopted updated CEQA thresholds for evaluating the significance of GHG impacts from land use projects and plans.

Plan Bay Area 2040/2050
Plan Bay Area 2040 was a long-range transportation, land-use, and housing plan intended to support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce transportation-related pollution and GHG emissions in the Bay Area. Plan Bay A rea 2040 promoted compact, mixed -use residential and commercial neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified PDAs.

Plan Bay Area 2050 , which was adopted in October 2021 and supersedes Plan Bay Area 2040, is a long-range plan for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area that provides strategies that increase the availability of affordable housing, support a more equitable and efficient economy, improve the transportation network, and enhance the region’s environmental resilience. Plan Bay Area 2050 promotes the development of a variety of housing types and densities within identified PDAs , which are areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified for housing and job growth. 60

ABAG allocates regional housing needs to each city and county within the San Francisco Bay Area, based on statewide goals. These allocations are designed to lay the foundation for Plan Bay Area 2050’s long-term envisioned growth pattern for the region. ABA G also develops a series of forecasts and models to project the growth of population, housing units, and jobs in the Bay Area. ABAG, MTC, and local jurisdiction planning staff created the Forecasting and Modeling Report, which is a technical overview of the of the growth forecasts and land use models upon which Plan Bay Area 2050 is based.

60 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021. Page 20.

North Bayshore Master Plan 117 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to greenhouse gas emissions impacts. The following goals a nd policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

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

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.

Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 12.1 Emissions reduction target. Maintain a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.

INC 12.2 Emissions reduction strategies. Develop cost-effective strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

INC 12.3 Adaptation strategies. Develop strategies for adapting to climate change in partnership with local and regional agencies.

North Bayshore Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains standards and guidelines to avoid significant greenhouse gas emission impacts. The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed project.

Guideline Description

4.5 Materials Management
2 Material selection. Construction materials for all new projects should be certified by third - parties e.g., the Forest Stewardship Council, and selected based on a lifecycle assessment of their embodied energy and/or greenhouse gas emissions.

7.1 Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure
1 Materials lifecycle assessment. Infrastructure materials should be based on a lifecycle assessment of their embodied energy and / or greenhouse gas emissions. 7 Alternative fuels for construction equipment. Infrastructure projects are encouraged to use construction equipment powered by alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas rather than conventional petroleum or diesel to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 8 Electric and hybrid construction equipment. Infrastructure projects are encouraged to use electric or hybrid-electric construction equipment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

North Bayshore Master Plan 118 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
The City of Mountain View certified the General Plan Program EIR (SCH #2011012069) and adopted the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) in July 2012.

The GGRP is a separate but complementary document to the General Plan that implements the lon g- range GHG emissions reduction goals of the General Plan and serves as a programmatic GHG reduction strategy for CEQA tiering purposes. The GGRP includes goals, policies, performance standards, and implementation measures for achieving GHG emissions reduc tions, to meet the requirements of AB 32. The program includes a goal to improve communitywide emissions efficiency by 15 to 20 percent over 2005 levels by 2020 and by 30 percent over 2005 levels by 2030. Since adoption of the GGRP, the state passed SB 32 which updated GHG emissions targets to be 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030.

Climate Protection Roadmap
The City’s Climate Protection Roadmap (CPR), completed in 2015, presents a projection of GHG emissions through 2050 and several strategies that w ould help the City reduce absolute communitywide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Reach Building Code
In 2019, the Mountain View City Council approved amendments to Chapters 8, 14, and 24 of the City of Mountain View Green Building Code, referred to as Reach Code amendments. The Reach Code amendments are applicable to any project submitted after December 31, 2019. These Reach Code amendments require new buildings to be all-electric.

3.3.1.3 Existing Conditions
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have regional and local impacts, emissions of GHGs have a broader, global impact. Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the upper atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth and changes in weather patterns. The Precise Plan area, including most of the project site, is developed primarily with office, light industrial, and R&D uses. Subarea AM1, which is outside of the Precise Plan area, contains surface parking for the Shoreline Amphitheatre. These uses currently generate direct GHG emissions from vehicle trips of employees and visitors, natural gas used for cooking and building heating, operation of stationary equipment (such as back -up generators), and indirect GHG emissions from operational electricity, water use, and other sources. The project site is located within an identified PDA.61

61 Association of Bay Area Governments. Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050). July 27, 2020.

Accessed June 23, 2022. https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area- 2050/explore?location=37.388508%2C-122.092765%2C17.42.

North Bayshore Master Plan 119 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.3.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions, would the project:

1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?

3.3.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact GHG-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact o n the environment . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

The 2017 EIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would result in approximately 5.4 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year per service population, which would exceed the City’s established GGRP 2030 threshold of 4.5 MT CO 2e per year per service population and result in a significant and unavoidable operational GHG emissions impact. The 2017 EIR identified the following mitigation measure to reduce the significant, unavoidable GHG emissions resulting from the buildout of the Precise Plan:

North Bayshore 2017 EIR Mitigation Measure:

2017 EIR MM GHG-1.1: Both Project Options: Bonus FAR commercial projects shall prepare an analysis of feasible energy efficiency and renewable energy, materials management, and mobility measures to reduce GHG emissions resulting from the project. Feasible measures shall be incorpora ted in the building design and/or TDM program. The analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

Measures to be considered and analyzed by applicants shall include those in the amended North Bayshore Precise Plan, including, but not limited to, the following added measures:

Green Building and Design Materials Management
• Super-GHGs reduction.62 Use low-global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants in new building cooling systems and replacement in existing buildings when renovated.
• Zero-emission construction equipment (Resource Use). Existing grid power for electric energy shall be used rather than operating temporary gasoline/diesel powered generators where available. Construction projects shall also increase use

62 Super-GHGs are defined as compounds with very high global warming potential, such as methane, black carbon, and fluorinated gases.

North Bayshore Master Plan 120 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
of electric and renewable fuel powered construction equipment where commercially available.

2017 EIR MM GHG -1.2: Both Project Options: The City shall prepare a list of additional recommendations for effective GHG reductions in Transportation, Energ y, and Building Operations that will be based upon adopted recommendations of CARB, BAAQMD, and relevant City policy documents. The recommendations will apply to both residential and commercial projects and are intended to reduce project GHG emissions to the point where they meet the City’s adopted GGRP 2030 efficiency threshold. For residential uses in particular, potential GHG reductions relating to transportation will also include a vehicle trip reduction performance standard and/or reduced parking standard. The list of recommendations shall be updated regularly in conjunction with the review of the North Bayshore Precise Plan and/or with updates to the City’s GGRP.

The project (under either option) would comply with the above 2017 EIR mitigation measures by using alternative fuels to gasoline/diesel and/or zero emission construction equipment and trucks where feasible (see new project mitigation measure MM AQ -1.1 under Impact AQ -1 in Section 3.1 Air Quality) and implementing TDM strateg ies, consistent with the commercial and residential TDM guidelines in Chapter 6 of the Precise Plan.

In April 2022, subsequent to the certification of the 2017 EIR, BAAQMD updated its GHG thresholds of significance. Pursuant to the newly adopted BAAQMD th resholds of significance for GHG emissions, a plan must meet the state’s goals to reduce emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045 OR be consistent with a local, qualified GHG reduction strategy (i.e., the City’s GGRP). The Precise Plan, if evaluated under the updated plan -level BAAQMD GHG thresholds would generate in the same GHG emissions as disclosed in the 2017 EIR and be concluded to result in a significant and unavoidable impact because it is not consistent with the City’s GGRP and cannot demonstrate carbon neutrality by 2045. The significant and unavoidable conclusion would be the same as the conclusion in the 2017 EIR.

BAAQMD has different GHG thresholds when evaluating plans verses projects. In summary, if a land use project meets the following criteria, it would have a less than significant greenhouse gas impact;

• Projects must either not include natural gas appliances or plumbing; • Not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use; • Achieve a 15 percent reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average; and • Include off -street electric vehicle infrastructure consistent with California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Tier 2 requirements.

The project (under either option) would comply with the City’s Reach Code for all electric buildings and would be designed to achieve LEED Platinum standard for new office buildings and minimum 120 point GreenPoint-rated or equivalent standard for residential buildings by incorporating green building measures such as water efficient fixtures, drought tolerant landscaping, and solar panels on the rooftop on the new building. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure would be provided in proposed buildings and parking garages consistent with the City’s Reach Code requirements, which would exceed the

North Bayshore Master Plan 121 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
CALGreen Tier 2 requirements.63 As discussed under Impact EN-1 in Section 5.5 Energy, the project’s implementation of BAAQMD BMPs and compliance with existing regulations (CALGreen, Title 24, LEED, Precise Plan Chapter 4, and MVGBC) would result in energy efficiencies. In addition, t he project (under either option) would achieve a VMT rate of 15 percent below the regional average (see discussion under Impact TRN-2 in Section 3.3 Transportation). For these reasons, the project (under either option) on its own would meet current , project -level BAAQMD GHG thresholds for a less significant operational GHG emissions impact.

Because the project would result in the same amount of GHG emissi ons previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR, it would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant operational GHG impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Impact GHG-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would be consistent with the 2017 CAP, Plan Bay Area 20 50, and California Transportation Plan 2040 because the Precise Plan would increase development within a PDA identified in Plan Bay Area and include policies and requirements for existing and future development within the Precise Plan area to reduce GHG emissions from building operations and vehicle trips such as:

• A district-wide trip cap;
• A 45 percent single-occupancy vehicle target for commercial office uses; • TDM requirements for commercial and residential development; • Requirements for projects requesting Bonus FAR to exceed Title 24 requirements for energy efficiency by 10 percent.

Despite these policies and requirements, it was concluded in the 2017 EIR that implementation of the Precise Plan would exceed the emissions projections and associated carbon -efficiency targets identified in the GGRP. This exceedance represented a conflict with the assumptions in the GGRP and was considered a significant impact.

The proposed project (under either option) is consistent with the Precise Plan; therefore, it is consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 and California Transportation Plan 2040 for the same reasons disclosed in the 2017 EIR for the Precise Plan. As discussed under Impact AIR-1 in Section 3.1, the project (under either option) is inconsistent with the 2017 CAP with mitigation measures 2017 EIR MM AQ -2.1, 2017 EIR MM AQ-3.1, 2017 EIR MM-4.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2 incorporated. The proposed project (under either option) would comply with all Precise Plan, GGRP, and City Reach Code policies related to GHG emissions reductions , by developing all electric buildings that would achieve LEED Platinum standard for new office buildings and minimum 120-point GreenPoint-rated or e quivalent

63 CALGreen Tier 2 requires 20 percent of parking spaces to be electric vehicle charging ready. The City’s Reach Code requires every space without a physical electric vehicle charger to be electric vehicle charging ready.

North Bayshore Master Plan 122 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
standard for residential buildings. However, the proposed project (under either option) includes more development than evaluated in the 2017 EIR and General Plan EIR and, therefore, it would still exceed the carbon emissions targets identified in the GGRP.

While the impact conclusion is the same level of significance disclosed in the 2017 EIR (i.e., significant and unavoidable), the impact of the project (under either option) is not the same as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. The 2017 EIR concluded significant and unavoidable due to the Precise Plan’s inconsistency with the development and emissions assumptions in the GGRP. The proposed project (under either option) results in a significant and unavoidable impact due to its consistency with the development and emissions assumptions in the GGRP as well as its inconsistency with the 2017 CAP. Therefore, this impact is characterized as a new impact. [New Impact (Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

3.3.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact GHG-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG emissions impact. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact])

GHG emissions have a broader, global impact; therefore, if a project results in an individual significant GHG impact, its contribution to a significant cumulative impact would be qualify as considerable. As discussed in Impact GHG-1 and GHG-2 above, the project would result in significant GHG impacts .

Therefore, the project (under either option) would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative GHG emissions impact. While the impact conclusion is the same level of significance disclosed in the 2017 EIR (i.e., significant and unavoidable), the impact for the project (under either option) is based on the project’s inconsistency with development and emissions assumptions in the GGRP, as well as its inconsistency with the 2017 CAP. For this reason, this impact is characterized as a new impact. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 123 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.3.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
GHG-1: Both Project Options: The
project would generate GHG
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment.

Partially SU 2017 EIR

MM GHG-

1.1, 2017 EIR

MM GHG-

1.2, MM AQ-

1.1 SU
GHG-2: Both Project Options: The
project would conflict with
an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs.

Partially SU 2017 EIR
MM AQ-2.1,
2017 EIR
MM AQ-3.1,
MM AQ-1.1,
MM AQ-1.2
SU
GHG-C: Both Project Options: The
project would result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively significant
GHG emissions impact.

Partially SU 2017 EIR
MM AQ-2.1,
2017 EIR
MM AQ-3.1,

MM GHG-

1.1, 2017 EIR

MM GHG-

1.2, MM AQ-

1.1, MM AQ-

1.2 SU
Abbreviations: SU = Significant and Unavoidable, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 124 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.4 TRANSPORTATION
The discussion in this section is based in part on a Transportation Analysis for Environmental Review prepared by Fehr & Peers dated December 2022. This report is attached to this EIR as Appendix D.

3.4.1 Environmental Setting

3.4.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 743
SB 743 establishes criteria for deter mining the significance of transportation impacts using a VMT metric intended to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Specifically, SB 743 requires analysis of VMT in d etermining the significance of transportation impacts. In short, SB 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts to drivers to measuring the impact of driving. Local jurisdictions were required by Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to implement a VMT policy by July 1, 2020.

SB 743 did not authorize OPR to set specific VMT impact thresholds, but it did direct OPR to develop guidelines for jurisdictions to utilize. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) describes factors that might indicate whether a development project’s VMT may be significant. Notably, projects located within 0.50 mile of transit should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact based on OPR guidance.

Refer to Appendix D for additional background information and explanation on the shift from level of service (LOS) to VMT.

Regional and Local
Regional Transportation Plan
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area , including Santa Clara County . MTC is charged with regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive b lueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the region. Plan Bay Area 2050 is a joint regional planning document overseen by the MTC and ABA G.64 It serves as the region’s SCS, pursuant to SB 375 and the 2050 RTP (preceded by Plan Bay Area 2040) , and integrates four elements (Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Environment) and five guiding principles (affordable, connected, diverse, healthy, and vibrant) to manage GHG emissions a nd plan for future population growth. Major transit projects included in Plan Bay Area 2050 include a BART extension to San José/Santa Clara, Caltrain electrification, enhanced service along the Amtrak Capitol Corridor, and improvements to local and express bus services.

64 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050 . 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050 | Plan Bay Areahttp://2040.planbayarea.org/.

North Bayshore Master Plan 125 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority VTP 2040 Plan In October 2014, VTA adopted the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 that describes all major projects and initiatives expected to occur in the next 20 years. It prioritizes compl ete streets, express lanes, light rail effectiveness upgrades, bus rapid transit, and bicycle/pedestrian improvements. The VTA 2040 Plan includes a package of projects in the North Bayshore Precise Plan area including the electrification of Caltrain, express lane projects along US 101, SR 237 and SR 85, US 101 southbound improvements from San Antonio Road to Rengstorff Avenue, and Permanente Creek Trail grade separation at Charleston Road and extensions of Permanente Creek Trail to Middlefield Road. Refer to Appendix D for additional background on VTP 2040.

Santa Clara Countywide Bike Plan
The Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan’s primary goal is to make it easier and safer for people to bike when traveling from one city to the next in Santa Clara County. The plan establishes a network of Cross County Bikeway Corridors that will provide continuous, complete bike connections across the county. The plan also identifies locations where new and improved bicycle connections are needed across freeways, rail lines, and creeks. Lastly, the plan identifies ways to make it easier for people to use their bicycle with transit, including bicycle access to major transit stops, bicycle parking at stops, and bicycle accommodations on board.

Congestion Management Program
VTA oversees the Congestion Management Program (CMP), which is aimed at reducing regional traffic congestion. The relevant state legislation requires that urbanized counties in California prepare a CMP in order to obtain each county’s share of gas tax revenues. State legislation requires that each CMP define traffic LOS standards, transit service standards, a trip reduction and transportation demand management plan, a land use impact analysis program, and a capital improvement element. VTA has review responsibility for proposed development projects that are expected to affect CMP -designated intersections.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to transportation impacts.

The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 9.4 Enhanced pedestrian activity. Ensure commercial development enhances pedestrian activity through these strategies:
• Encourage the first level of the building to occupy a majority of the lot’s frontage, with exceptions for vehicle and pedestrian access • Allow for the development of plazas and dining areas
• Encourage the majority of a building’s ground floor frontage to provide visibility into the building by incorporating windows and doors • Require that ground floor uses be primarily pedestrian-oriented

North Bayshore Master Plan 126 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Policy Description
• Ensure pedestrian safety and access when designing parking areas and drive- through operations
• Minimize driveways
LUD 17.1 Connectivity. Improve connectivity and integrate transportation services between North Bayshore, Downtown, NASA Ames and other parts of the city.

LUD 17.2 Transportation Demand Management strategies. Require development to include and implement Transportation Demand Management strategies.

Mobility
MOB 1.4 Street design. Ensure street design standards allow a variety of public and private roadway widths.

MOB 1.5 Public accessibility. Provide traffic calming, especially in neighborhoods and around schools, parks, and gathering places.

MOB 1.6 Traffic calming. Provide traffic calming, especially in neighborhoods and around schools, parks, and gathering places.

MOB 2.1 Broad accessibility. Improve universal access within private developments and public and transit facilities, programs and services.

MOB 3.1 Pedestrian network. Provide a safe and comfortable pedestrian network.

MOB 3.2 Pedestrian connections. Increase connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, village centers, and other destinations.

MOB 3.3 Pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings at key locations across physical barriers.

MOB 3.4 Avoiding street widening. Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian connectivity by limiting street widening as a means of improving traffic.

MOB 4.1 Bicycle network. Improve facilities and eliminate gaps along the bicycle network to connect destinations across the City.

MOB 4.3 Public bicycle parking. Increase the amount of well-maintained, publicly accessible bicycle parking and storage throughout the City.

MOB 4.4 Bicycle parking standards. Maintain bicycle parking standards and guidelines for well-sited bicycle parking and storage in private developments to enhance the bicycle network.

MOB 5.5 Access to transit services. Support right-of-way design and amenities consistent with local transit goals to facilitate access to transit services and improve transit as a viable alternative to driving.

MOB 7.1 Parking codes. Maintain efficient parking standards that consider reduced demand due to development conditions such as transit accessibility.

MOB 7.2 Off-street parking. Ensure new off-street parking is properly designed and efficiently used.

MOB 7.3 Public parking management. Manage parking so that adequate parking is available for surrounding uses.

North Bayshore Master Plan 127 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Policy Description
MOB 8.3 Multimodal transportation monitoring. Monitor the effectiveness of policies to reduce VMT per service population by establishing transportation mode share targets and periodically comparing travel survey data to established targets.

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

MOB 10.3 Avoiding street widening. Limit widening of streets as a means of improving traffic and focus instead on operational improvements to preserve community character.

Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 3.4 Right-of-way regulations. Ensure that right-of-way regulations comply with relevant street and highway codes while still prioritizing multimodal transportation in all right- of-way design.

Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
POS 2.2 Connectivity and transit access. Improve connectivity and transit accessibility to parks.

POS 2.3 Pedestrian and bicycle access. Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, and create new connections to parks to minimize pedestrian and bicycle travel distances.

North Bayshore Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains principles, standards, and guidelines to avoid significant transportation impacts. The Mobility chapter specifies the design of the street system, parking approach, transportation demand management approach, and the role of the TMA. The Mobility chapter identifies the following key transportation policies and metrics:

• Setting a district wide single occupancy vehicle mode share target of 45 percent • Establishing a district-wide vehicle trip cap
• Implementation of TMA programs
• Eliminating minimum parking requirements and setting parking maximums • Development of new street typologies and design guidelines for each typology • Identification of key transportation infrastructure improvements t o support SOV target and mode shift
• Development of a complete bicycle network.

The following guidelines and standards from the Mobility Chapter are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

North Bayshore Master Plan 128 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

Standard Description

3.3.9 Blocks
6 Accessibility. The City shall determine if a new street is to be dedicated as a public street, include easements, or remain as a private street. Wherever possible, new Green Ways shall be publicly accessible.
7 Alignment. New streets and greenways shall to the extent possible align with other streets and greenways across existing rights-of-way. Offset alignments shall be avoided.

6.4 Streetscape Design
5 Continuous sidewalks. Continuous sidewalks or equivalent provisions for walking, such as a bicycle- and pedestrian-only path, shall be provided along all streets.

6.6 Bicycle Network
3 Bi-directional bicycle lanes. If space permits, bicycle lanes shall be provided in both directions.
4 Bicycle lane buffer. A buffer between the bicycle lane and vehicular traffic lane shall be provided.
5 On-street parking buffer. Where on-street parking is permitted, a buffer between the bicycle lane and parking lane shall be provided.
6 Placement of bicycle lane on streets with on -street parking. Where on-street parking is permitted, the bike lane should be placed between the parking lane and the travel lane. The recommended bike lane width in these locations is 6 feet. 7 Facility design on shared streets. On shared streets, signage and shared lane markings shall alert drivers to the presence of cyclists and the need to share the road.

6.8 Pedestrian Network
1 Standards for Gateway and Transit Boulevards.
a. Protected crossings. Protected crossings shall be provided no more than 1,800’ apart, and typically no more than 750’ apart.
b. Sidewalk on Gateway Boulevards. The pedestrian zone shall be designed per the standards in Table 14 (of the Precise Plan).
c. Sidewalk on Transit Boulevards. The pedestrian zone shall be designed per the standards in Table 15 (of the Precise Plan).
d. Sidewalk on Access Streets. The pedestrian zone shall be designed per the standards in Table 16 (of the Precise Plan).
e. Sidewalk on Neighborho od Streets. The pedestrian zone shall be designed per the standards in Table 17 (of the Precise Plan).
f. Sidewalk on Service Streets. The pedestrian zone shall be designed per the standards in Table 18 (of the Precise Plan).
g. Lighting. Continuous, pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided. 2 Standards for Green Ways.
a. Facility design. Facilities shall be designed per the standards in Table 19.

North Bayshore Master Plan 129 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
b. Prioritized crossings. At crossing points with major intersections, priority shall be given to bicyclists and pedestrians by providing leading pedestrian interval signals which allow pedestrians and bicyclists to enter the intersection before vehicles.
c. Curbside parking. Curbside parking shall be restricted within 9 to 15 feet of intersections to improve pedestrian and motorist sight lines. 3 Crosswalk design. All new crosswalks and other pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements shall follow the most recent design guidelines by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA -MUTCD), and other local guides as the design standards document for crosswalks. The City shall use the most conservative approach if any documents conflict.

6.9 Transit Network
1 Bus waiting areas and stop amenities. At bus stops on Charleston, an additional minimum 12’ in sidewalk width shall be included for waiting areas and bus stop amenities. High-quality transit amenities shall be provided at stops along Shoreline Boulevard and Charleston Road.

On other streets signage and waiting areas could be outside of the pedestrian through area in the landscape buffer zone. To ensure ADA compliance and ease of passenger access, a concrete bus pad shall be provided at all stops.
2 Improved bus facilities. New development projects shall improve bus facilities immediately outside of the property. Such improvements should include new bus shelters, benches, real - time information displays, secure bike parking, trash receptacles and similar improvements.

6.14 Transportation Demand Management – Commercial TDM
1 District-wide vehicle trip cap. New development shall be subject to the District -wide vehicle trip cap as described in Chapter 8, Section 8.3 (of the Precise Plan). 2 TDM requirements. All new development or building additions greater than 1,000 square feet shall be subject to the following:
a) Project-level vehicle trip cap. All new development or building additions greater than 1,000 square feet shall have an AM peak period vehicle trip cap which will be established assuming a 45% SOV mode share and 10% carpool mode share, unless the applicant can demonstrate their proposed TDM program will likely result in a higher carpool mode share.
b) TDM plan. The applicant and/or property owner shall prepare a TDM plan with programs and measures to achieve a 45% SOV employee mode share. c) TDM plan baseline requirements. The TDM plan shall in clude the following measures and describe how these services will be provided. Some of these programs could be offered by the TMA:
i. Priority parking for carpools and vanpool
ii. On-site employee transportation coordinator to serve as a liaison between the employer/property owner and the TMA and to oversee the TDM program
iii. Bicycle parking and shower and changing facilities as defined by this chapter

North Bayshore Master Plan 130 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
iv. Shared bicycles, if a bikeshare service is not available in North Bayshore
v. Telecommute/flexible work schedule program
vi. Guaranteed ride home program
vii. Membership in the TMA
viii. Carpool matching services
ix. Shuttle services to connect employees to local transit services x. Marketing of TDM programs to employees
d) Approval of TDM Plan. The applicant shall submit their TDM plan to the City for approval. The City may request additional program measures to ensure the proposed plan will achieve the 45% SOV employee mode share. The City may request an applicant hire a third party to review the TDM plan to determine its efficacy in achieving the mode share requirement.
e) Employee Transportation Coordinator. The applicant and/or property owner shall designate an Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC). The ETC will serve as the point of contact for the TMA and will provide the TMA and City with materials and data showing compliance with TDM and monitoring requirements. 3 Retail/Commercial TDM exemptions
a. Because retail and other non-office commercial uses generate most of their traffic in off -peak times or the reverse peak direction, they shall not be subject to a specific mode split requirement.
b. All new retail/commercial development less than 1,000 square feet or retail/commercial building additions less than 1,000 square feet shall not be required to prepare a TDM Plan.
4 Small business trip cap exemption. Any small business with 50 or fewer employees shall be exempt from trip cap standards for additions up to 2,500 square feet.

6.14 Transportation Demand Management – Residential TDM 1 TMA membership. New residential developments shall become TMA members. 2 Trip cap exception. Because of the regional traffic benefits provided by housing in the North Bayshore area, residential developments shall be exempt from the area -wide trip cap.

Residential developments are still subject to any transportation analysis required by CEQA. 3 Residential Vehicle Trip Generation. All new residential developments shall submit a Residential TDM Plan which shall include TDM measures consistent with the No rth Bayshore Residential TDM Guidelines.

6.15 Transportation Management Association
1 North Bayshore TMA. The TMA shall work with its members and the City to implement the North Bayshore Precise Plan requirements pertaining to trip reduction through transportation demand management strategies. Responsibilities of the TMA shall include, but are not limited to: creating and managing a coordinated, publicly accessible shuttle service for area businesses and residents; assisting TMA members in satisfying Transportation Demand Management (TDM) goals agreed to by its members in their separate agreements

North Bayshore Master Plan 131 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
with the City of Mountain View, including developing transportation system and demand management strategies.
2 Participation in the TMA. All new residential, office/research, and other development projects shall be required to join the TMA and shall ensure that all tenants are TMA members in perpetuity from the date of final inspection or certificate of occupancy. Projects with building additions that are greater than 1,000 square feet may be required by the Zoning Administrator to join the TMA depending on the scope of the project.

Guideline Description

6.6 Bicycle Network
1 Signal phases. At complex intersections and where separated bicycle facilities are present, cyclists should be provided with their own signal phase to reduce conflicts between cyclists and right-turning vehicles.
2 Bike facilities at intersections. Intersection-only bike lanes and ‘bike boxes’ at intersections with high volumes of cyclists, or at intersections where cyclist left turns may be expected, should be provided.
3 Bicycle detection mechanisms. A bicycle detection mechanism should be provid ed at all major intersections.
4 Freeway interchange improvements. The redesign of freeway interchange improvements should consider the movement and needs of cyclists.
5 Intersection design. Intersections should be designed to reduce the incidence and se verity of collisions between cyclists and other road users.
6 Pavement treatments. Colored paving, colored striping, or other treatments should be used to highlight on-street bicycle facilities.
7 Wayfinding. Wayfinding for bicyclists should be improved. This could include signage identifying bicycle routes and connections as well as directions to major destinations such as Shoreline Park.
8 Facility design on Transit Boulevards. Special design consideration should be given to bicycle facilities on transit boulevards to minimize conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians. 9 Location of driveways. Driveways should be minimized to the extent feasible on the primary bike network to minimize conflicts between cyclists and vehicles. 10 Dimensions of Green Ways. In areas with higher user volumes, particularly pedestrians, the width should be increased to a minimum of 11 feet and up to 16 feet, if feasible. 11 Separation of bicyclist from vehicular traffic. Pavement markings, raised barriers, or other barriers should be used to separate on-street cycle tracks from vehicular traffic.

6.8 Pedestrian Network
1 Crosswalk widths. Crosswalks should be designed to be at least as wide as the sidewalks they connect to, especially at busy intersections.
2 Sight lines. Sight lines for pedestrians and motorists should be maintained by ensuring that the approach to the crosswalk is free of obstructions, such as structures or landscaping.

North Bayshore Master Plan 132 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
3 Visibility of pedestrian crossings. The visibility of crosswalks should be enhanced through lighting and markings to help alert motorists to the most important crossings and points of potential conflict.
4 Raised crosswalks. On low-volume streets, raised crosswalks should be considered to calm traffic and prioritize pedestrian movement.
5 Pedestrian Amenities. Hydration stations should be provided along multi-use paths 6 Parking lot circulation. Consideration should be given to safe pedestrian circulation when designing parking lots.

6.9 Transit Network
1 Design guidelines. Refer to Table 13 (in the Precise Plan) for Transit Boulevard street design guidelines.

Comprehensive Modal Plan (AccessMV)
The City’s Comprehensive Modal Plan (AccessMV) was approved on May 25, 2021 and guide s the development of the City’s multimodal transportation network. The plan identifies pedestrian quality of service (PQOS) and Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) as metrics for assessing the existing and planned transportation network for all modes and identify needed improvements. Projects that increase the PQOS or BLTS score of a particular roadway would reduce the quality of service of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the area. PQOS is influenced by a number of factors such as proximity to a variety of destinations and amenities, street connectivity and directness of routes to destinations, presence of a continuous network of pedestrian facilities, motor vehicle traffic speeds, and street widths and intersection conditions. BLTS is influenced by the number of through lane s or street width, posted speed limit or prevailing vehicle speeds, presence or type of bicycle facilities, presence of traffic signals, and the presence of crossing islands.

Mountain View Vision Zero Policy
On December 10, 2019, Mountain View City Council unanimously adopted a Vision Zero Policy to eliminate fatal traffic collisions in Mountain View by 2030. Vision Zero is an integrated set of policies, plans, and programs based on the philosophy that fatal collisions are unacceptable and often preventable.

Mountain View’s Vision Zero approach is to eliminate fatal and severe injury traffic collisions among all road users, including those walking, biking, and driving. This approach is working to eliminate fatal traffic collisions by 2030, working to decrease traffic collisions involving fatalities or severe injuries by 50 percent by 2030 from a 2016 baseline of 15 collisions; and working to decrease the three -year annual average number of people killed or severely injured in collisions by 15 percent every three years from a current three-year annual average baseline of 19 people.

North Bayshore Master Plan 133 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
City of Mountain View Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy
Since certification of the 2017 EIR, the Mountain View City Council adopted a Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy on June 30, 2020, which replaces LOS with VMT as the metric for determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA consistent with SB 743 and outlines the VMT methods and procedures that apply to land use projects in the City. The City’s VMT methods and proce dures are outlined in the Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis Handbook. The Handbook includes direction to use the Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool web application, which allows an analyst to conduct baseline VMT screening and VMT reduction analy sis for small - to medium-size land use projects.

The proposed project (under either option) is a large project that would modify and increase the office and residential land use supply in North Bayshore, implement an extensive TDM program, and would have a widespread effect on the total VMT within the Precise Plan area and City of Mountain View.

This type of project is not an appropriate application for the SCC VMT Tool based on project size.

Further, it is anticipated that the new residential and increased employee densities associated with the project would reduce the VMT rates in North Bayshore . Under CEQA, the City has the discretion as to what constitutes a significant environmental impact and can adopt thresholds of significance. Based careful evalua tion of the OPR Technical Advisory relative to the North Bayshore setting and substantial evidence documented in Appendix D, the City has determined a large project (such as the project under either option) needs to complete a comprehensive VMT assessment that evaluates the project’s effect on total VMT and the pr oject’s cumulative effect on boundary VMT , utilizing a significance threshold for total VMT of 15 percent below the existing regional total VMT per service population and a significance threshold for boundary VMT of no change in the cumulative conditions boundary VMT per service population for the region with the region being defined as San Mateo County, Alameda County, and Santa Clara County.

3.4.1.2 Existing Conditions
Roadway Network
Regional access to the site is provided by US 101 and State Route (SR) 85. Lo cal access to the site is provided via Shoreline Boulevard, La Avenida, Rengstorff Avenue, San Antonio Road, and Bayshore Parkway. These roadways are briefly described below.

• US 101 is six lanes in each direction, with two high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lan e in each direction in the vicinity of the project site. US 101 provides access to the project site via full interchanges at Shoreline Boulevard, San Antonio Road, and Rengstorff Avenue. • SR 85 is a north-south highway extending between the US 101 interchange in San José to the south and the US 101 interchange in Mountain View to the north. The highway has two mixed- flow lanes plus one HOV lane per direction. Access to the project site from SR 85 is via its interchanges with US 101.
• Amphitheatre Parkway is a three-lane, east-west gateway boulevard65 that extends east from North Shoreline Boulevard/Stierlin Court in the east to Charleston Road/Garcia

65 Gateway Boulevards are the main automobile entry points and traffic arteries for North Bayshore. Regional auto traffic is accommodated here before being distributed to other streets.

North Bayshore Master Plan 134 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Avenue/Rengstorff Avenue in the west. Two lanes are continuously provided in the westbound direction; only one lane is provided eastbound east of the Permanente Creek Bridge.

Amphitheatre Parkway provides direct access to the project site. • Shoreline Boulevard is a four - to six -lane, north -south gateway boulevard with a raised median that extends from El Camino Rea l in the south to Shoreline Park in the north. Within the project site, North Shoreline Boulevard provides access to US 101. • San Antonio Road is a two - to six-lane, north-south gateway boulevard that extends from Foothill Expressway (within Los Altos) to T erminal Boulevard near Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park. San Antonio Road provides access to US 101. • Rengstorff Avenue is a four-lane, north-south gateway boulevard that extends from El Camino Real in the south to Charleston Road/Garcia Avenue in t he north where it becomes Amphitheatre Parkway. Rengstorff Avenue provides access to US 101 from the project site. • Charleston Road is a four -lane, east -west access street that extends from Amphitheatre Parkway in the west to Stevens Creek Trail in the east. Charleston Road is not a through street east of Charleston Road/Shorebird Way. Charleston Road becomes Garcia Avenue west of Garcia Avenue/Amphitheatre Parkway.
• Landings Drive is a two-lane, access street that connects on both ends to Charleston Road. • Bayshore Parkway is a two-lane, north-south access street that runs parallel to US 101 from San Antonio Road to Salado Drive.
• Alta Avenue is a two -lane, north -south access street that connects Plymouth Street to Charleston Avenue.
• Huff Avenue is a two-lane, north-south neighborhood street that connects Plymouth Street to Charleston Road.
• Joaquin Road is a two-lane, north-south neighborhood street that connects Plymouth Street to Charleston Road.
• Pear Avenue is a two -lane, east -west neighborhood street that extends from Shoreline Boulevard to El Centro Avenue.
• Shorebird Way is a two -lane, primarily east -west neighborhood street that connects North Bayshore Boulevard to Charleston Road.
• Plymouth Street is a two-lane, east-west neighborhood street that connects North Shoreline Boulevard to Alta Avenue.
• Space Park Way is a two -lane, east-west neighborhood street that extends from Shoreline Boulevard to Armand Drive.
• La Avenida is a two - to three-lane east-west neighborhood street that extends from North Bayshore Boulevard to Stevens Creek Trail. La Avenida is a one -way westbound street from North Bayshore Boulevard to Inigo Way and a two -way street from Inigo Way to Stevens Creek Trail.

North Bayshore Master Plan 135 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Existing Transit Facilities
Existing public transit services in the vicinity are provided by VTA and TMA. VTA operates bus services in Santa Clara County and TMA provides free MVgo shuttle service between the Mountain View Transit Center and corporate campuses in the Precise Plan area. The VTA bus routes and MVgo shuttle routes and stops near the project site are shown on Figure 3.4-1.

VTA Bus Service
VTA Route 40 and Orange Line serves the project vicinity with bus stops in each direction on Shoreline Boulevard and Charleston Road. Route 40 also stops at the Mountain View Transit Center, approximately 1.5 miles from the project site. The Mountain View Transit Center provides connections to Caltrain, VTA light rail transit, several VTA bus routes (21, 40, and 52), MV community shuttle, and MVgo shuttle routes.

Mountain View Community Shuttle
The Mountain View Community Shuttle is a free shuttle service with 50 stops within Mountain View operating during the weekdays from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and on weekends and holidays between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The closest community shuttle stop is located within the project site at the intersection of Shoreline Boulevard and Pear Avenue (weekends only).

Mountain View Transportation Management Association Shuttles TMA Shuttles operates the MVgo shuttle system. This shuttle system is provided through the collection of TMA member dues. MVgo operates four shuttle routes that provide service to employment areas from the Mountain View Transit Center. Three routes serve the North Bayshore area, and one route serves the East Whisman area. The shuttles are timed to meet Caltrain arrivals during the a.m. and departures during p.m. commute periods. MVgo shuttle Route B, C, and D provides service to the project area, with multiple stops within the project site.

Existing Bicycle Facilities
The existing bicycle facilities in the project area are shown in Figure 3.4-2. Stevens Creek Trail and Permanente Creek Trail are two north -south Class I bikeways that run through the project site and connect to the Bay Trail, which is an east-west Class I bikeway north of the project site.66 Within the project site, Class II Bike lanes exist along Shoreline Boulevard, La Avenida, Inigo Way, Charleston Road/Garcia Avenue, Crittenden Lane, Amphitheatre Parkway, Bayshore Parkway, and Rengstorff Avenue. Class IIIa Bike rou tes exist along the segment of Shoreline Boulevard north of Charleston Road.

66 Class I bikeways are shared between pedestrians and bicyclists and sepa rated from motor vehicle traffic. Class II bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Class IIIa bike routes are signed bike routes where bicyclists share a travel lane with motorists.

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

North Bayshore Precise Plan Boundary
City of Mountain View
Shoreline at
Mountain View Regional Park
Permanente Creek
Stevens Creek
k e e r C e t n e
n a m r e P

0.5 Miles
!40
!40
Bayshore Rd
ZĞŶŐƐƚŽƌīǀĞ
KůĚDŝĚĚůĞĮĞůĚtĂǇ
^ĂŶŶƚŽŶŝŽZĚ
'ĂƌĐŝĂǀĞ
ŵƉŚŝƚŚĞĂƚƌĞWŬǁǇŵƉŚŝƚŚĞĂƚƌĞĞ WŬǁǇĞWŬǁǇ
ZĞŶŐƐƚŽƌīǀĞ
DŝĚĚůĞĮĞůĚZĚ
^ŚŽƌĞůŝŶĞůǀĚ
Charleston Rd
ůŝŶĞ
^ŚŽƌĞůŝŶĞůǀĚ
ĞůŝŶĞ
Ě
ƌŝƩĞŶĚĞŶ>Ŷ
^ƟĞƌůŝŶƚ
^ƉĂĐĞWĂƌŬtǇƉ^ƉĂĐĞ WĂƌŬ tǇ^ƉĂĐĞWĂƌŬtǇ
WĞĂƌǀĞ
>ĂǀĞŶŝĚĂ
dĞƌƌĂĞůůĂǀĞ
Joaquin Rd
q
d
,ƵīǀĞůƚĂǀĞ
>ĞŐŚŽƌŶ^ƚ
ĂǇƐŚŽƌĞWŬǁǇ
WůǇŵŽƵƚŚ^ƚ
ƌŽĚĞƌŝĐŬtǇ
Salado Dr
DĂƌŝŶĞtǇ
ŽĂƐƚǀĞ
dĞƌŵŝŶĂůůǀĚ
ĂƐĞǇǀĞ
>ĂŶĚŝŶŐƐƌ
Charleston Rd
DĂĐŽŶǀĞ
/ŶŝŐŽtǇ
Shore Bird tyy
Charleston Rd
£[101
£[
101
|}85
MVGO Route B
MVGO Route C
MVGO Route D
ACE Orange Shuttle
North Bayshore Master Plan Boundary
North Bayshore Precise Plan Boundary
City of Mountain View
Local BusX
£[101
·|}ÿ85
Adobe Creek
Stevens Creek
jj g g

0.5 Miles
Master Plan Site
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
LOCATION OF EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES FIGURE 3.4-1

Source: Fehr & Peers, 2022.

North Bayshore Precise Plan Boundary
City of Mountain View
Shoreline at
Mountain View Regional Park
Permanente C
reek
Stevens Creek
k e e r C e t n e n a m r e P
_

0.5 Miles
PPPermanente CPermanente CP
rrrCCCC
eekeekerr
33JJ
33JJ
33JJ
33JJ
33JJ
33JJ
33JJ
33JJ
Bayshore Rd
ZĞŶŐƐƚŽƌīǀĞ
KůĚDŝĚĚůĞĮĞůĚtĂǇ
^ĂŶŶƚŽŶŝŽZĚ
'ĂƌĐŝĂǀĞ
ŚĞĂƚƌĞƚŚĞĂƚƌĞĞĞWŬǁǇWŬǁǇĞWŬǁǇŵƉŚŝƚŚĞĂƚƌĞĞŵƉŚŝƚŚĞĂƚƌĞŵƉŚŝƚŚĞĂƚƌĞ Ǉ ZĞŶŐƐƚŽƌīǀĞ
DŝĚĚůĞĮĞůĚZĚ
^ŚŽƌĞůŝŶĞůǀĚ
Charleston Rd
^ŚŽƌĞ^ŚŽƌĞ
ůŝŶĞůǀĚĞůŝŶĞ ůǀĚĞůŝŶĞůǀĚƌĞ
ƌŝƩĞŶĚĞŶ>Ŷ
^ƟĞƌůŝŶƚ
^ƉĂĐĞWĂƌŬtǇƉƉ^ƉĂĐĞ WĂƌŬ^ƉĂĐĞWĂƌŬtǇƉƉƉ
WĞĂƌǀĞ
>ĂǀĞŶŝĚĂ
dĞƌƌĂĞůůĂǀĞ
Joaquin Rd
q
JJo
,ƵīǀĞůƚĂǀĞ
>ĞŐŚŽƌŶ^ƚ
ĂǇƐŚŽƌĞWŬǁǇ
WůǇŵŽƵƚŚ^ƚ
ƌŽĚĞƌŝĐŬtǇ
Salado Dr
ŽĂƐƚǀĞ
dĞƌŵŝŶĂůůǀĚ
ĂƐĞǇǀĞ
>ĂŶĚŝŶŐƐƌ
Charleston Rd
DĂĐŽŶǀĞ
/ŶŝŐŽtǇ
hhoorree Bird tyyyy
Charleston Rd
£[101
£[101
|}85
DĂƌŝŶĞtǇ
33JJ
Bicycle Lane (Class II)
Bicycle Path (Class I)
Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing
Buffered Bicycle Lane (Class IIB)
Bicycle Route (Class IIIa)
Bicycle Boulevard (Class IIIb)
Bicycle Cycle Track/Separated Bikeway
San Francisco Bay Trail
Barrier to Bicycle/Pedestrian Travel
Miles

0.5 North Bayshore Master Plan Boundary
North Bayshore Precise Plan Boundary
City of Mountain View
Master Plan Site
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
LOCATION OF EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES FIGURE 3.4-2

North Bayshore Master Plan 138 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and off-street paths. Most streets in the project area have at least a four-foot-wide sidewalk on one or both sides except for Crittenden Lane, Stierlin Court, a segment of Shorebird Way, Macon Avenue, a segment of Pear Avenue, a segment of Landings Drive, and a segment of Bayshore Parkway, a segment of Alta Avenue, San Antonio Road, and a segment of Garcia Avenue. Within the pro ject site, meandering sidewalks buffered from the roadway by landscaping exist along Amphitheatre Parkway, North Shoreline Boulevard, and Charleston Road. Most intersections in the project site have crosswalks with pedestrian signals. The intersection of N orth Shoreline Boulevard and Space Park Way has no midblock crosswalk across North Shoreline Boulevard. There is a pedestrian bridge across US 101 via the Permanente Creek Trail, which terminates at West Middlefield Road.

Vehicle Miles Traveled
Based on current studies, there is evidence that VMT in California has been increasing rather than decreasing over the past several years prior to the COVID -19 pandemic. 67,68 While the pandemic caused significant reductions in VMT, VMT has continued to rise back to wards pre-pandemic levels.

This shows the challenge of reducing VMT when background macro-level conditions are contributing to higher VMT generation rates. In addition, transit ridership in Santa Clara County was shown to be declining in pre -pandemic condi tions, suggesting that supportive polic ies at all levels may not be effective at increasing transit ridership and decreasing VMT.69

While there are many VMT reduction actions that can influence VMT and emissions, the VMT reduction action’s effectiveness depends on its scale (how much VMT the reduction acts on) and its ability to reduce VMT in different VMT reduction programs. Individual site level VMT mitigation actions typically have the smallest effect on VMT reductions because they are applied to new V MT generated by new buildings, while regionwide levels have the greatest effect on VMT reduction. The biggest effects of VMT reduction actions (and resultant emissions reductions) derive from citywide, statewide, or regionwide policies that increase the cost, or reduce the convenience, of using vehicles.

This EIR evaluates the project’s impact on VMT pursuant to SB 743 and based on existing conditions.

Refer to Appendix D for additional details regarding VMT approach and analysis methods. Existing VMT was estimated using the City’s Travel Forecasting Model (Travel Model). Two metrics of VMT are estimated: total VMT and boundary VMT. Total VMT is the sum of the VMT associated with travel from, to, and within a project site. Boundary VMT is total vehicle travel within a defined geographic area or boundary (i.e., San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda counties). Under existing conditions, the City’s Travel Model indicates that average Total VMT per service population is 29.95 and the boundary VMT per service population is 17.22.

67 California Air Resources Board . 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 2019.
68 California Air Resources Board. Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update. May 2022. 69 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Annual Report 2019”. Accessed December 8, 2022. https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/AnnualReport2019_Accessible.pdf.

North Bayshore Master Plan 139 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.4.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on transportation, would the project:

1) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities? 2) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? 3) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 4) Result in inadequate emergency access?

3.4.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact TRN-1: Both Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, includ ing transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Roadway Network
The 2017 EIR found that implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes development of the proposed project) would result in LOS deficiencies under existing LOS policies, improvements to address select deficiencies would be implemented, and select defic iencies would be significant and unavoidable.70 Subsequent to the certification of the 2017 EIR, SB 743 was passed and vehicle congestion and delay (including LOS deficiencies) can no longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA. As such, the project’s consistency with the City’s LOS policy is not relevant under CEQA.

Therefore, s eparate from CEQA, the City of Mountain View evaluated the proposed project’s operational effec ts (under either option) on the roadway system in a Multimodal Transportation Analysis (MTA). The MTA analyzed non-CEQA transportation issues, including local transportation operations, intersection LOS, and parking. The MTA identified possible improvements to the following intersections to improve LOS and queuing deficiencies in the project area.

• San Antonio Rd/US 101Northbound Ramps
• Rengstorff Ave/US 101 Northbound Ramps
• Rengstorff Ave/ US 101 Southbound Ramps
• Rengstorff Ave/Leghorn St
• Huff Ave/Charleston Rd
• Shoreline Blvd/Charleston Rd
• Huff Ave/Plymouth St

70 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 404-540.

North Bayshore Master Plan 140 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
• Joaquin Rd/Plymouth St
• Shoreline Blvd/Space Park Wy
• Shoreline Blvd/Pear Ave
• Shoreline Blvd/La Avenida-US 101 Northbound Ramps
• Inigo Wy/La Avenida

The City has discretion whether to implement the impro vements at the above listed intersections and the relevant question under CEQA is whether those improvements would result in adverse physical changes to the environment. Several of these potential improvements would require additional right - of-way to construct, which could result in the removal of additional trees. Based on preliminary review, no other known environmental resources are present. If the City decides to pursue these improvements, it is assumed implementation of existing regulations and the Cit y’s standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures related to construction (such as those discussed throughout this EIR for air quality, nesting birds, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise) would reduce environmental impacts to a less than significant level.

At the time improvements are proposed and designed, separate environmental review may be required.

For the purposes of this EIR, to determine the project’s consistency w ith local roadway plans, significant impacts would occur if any part of the project directly or indirectly:

• Disrupts existing facilities;
• Interferes with the implementation of a planned vehicle facility; or • Creates physical or operational transportation outcomes that conflicts with applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy.

The project includes the construction of new service streets , modification of existing streets , and construction of new pedestrian/bicycle facilities, which is consistent with the vision, standards, and design requirements of the Precise Plan (Chapter 6 Mobility). Consistent with the Precise Plan, streets would not exceed two lanes of travel in each direction. The project’s proposed street improvements address operational condition s for vehicles, improve local circulation, and/or enhance active transportation. The improvements are detailed in Section 2.3.9 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking and include:

• Operational vehicle improvements (such as a vehicle turn lane or increased s torage pocket length) that improve vehicle flow.
• Transit-focused improvements that facilitate access to transit stops. • Local street circulation improvements that provide vehicle access to parking lots or other services (e.g., refuse pick -up, deliveries, emergency access, loading zones, and parking entrances).
• Active transportation improvements that enhance active travel b ut do not directly allow additional vehicle travel.

Overall, the project’s street system (under either option) is consistent with and connects to existing and planned streets that align with the overall goals and policies of the Precise Plan and AccessMV . The project is also consistent with RTP 2050 because it is modifying street facilities to be more pedestrian

North Bayshore Master Plan 141 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
and bicycle friendly, implementing a 35 percent SOV mode share target, and building residential land uses in the Precise Plan area to increase in ternalization of non-residential vehicle trips. The proposed roadway network improvements would also comply with Chapter 27 Streets and Sidewalks of the City Code, as well as meet fire turnaround access per the Fire Code.

In addition to the development o f the roadway network consistent with the design standards and guidelines in the Precise Plan, the roadway plan consistency includes an evaluation that compares the North Bayshore gateway volumes under cumulative plus project conditions to the North Bayshore Trip Cap Policy and the North Bayshore Precise Plan trip generation.

The Precise Plan established a North Bayshore District Trip Cap Policy (Trip Cap) (Chapter 6 Section

6.14 and Chapter 8 Section 8.3) that quantifies the physical vehicle capacity of the three main gateways (San Antonio Road, Rengstorff Avenue, and Shoreline Boulevard) and represents the number of vehicles that can be served during the peak morning and evening periods while maintaining reasonable freedom of vehicular movement (i.e., avo iding gridlock conditions on the local streets, gateway interchanges, and freeway system). The absolute number of vehicle standard in the Trip Cap Policy are 8,290 vehicle trips in the morning peak hour and 8,030 vehicle trips in the evening peak hour. Table

3.4-1 below shows the calculated numeric policy targets for each gateway and summarizes the results of the vehicle trip generation under cumulative plus project conditions (under either option) to the Trip Cap Policy during the morning and evening peak hours for each gateway and the three gateways combined. The North Bayshore gateway volumes exceed the North Bayshore Trip Cap Policy targets for the Rengstorff Avenue and Shoreline Boulevard in additi on to the total gateways during the morning and evening peak hours. The 2017 EIR disclosed that vehicle trips from buildout of the Precise Plan would exceed the gateway capacities and, therefore, the Trip Cap policy numbers.71

Table 3.4-1: North Bayshore Gateway Trip Cap Policy Evaluation Gateway
Two-Way Morning Peak Hour Two-Way Evening Peak Hour
Volume1,2 Trip
Target1,3
Remaining
Trip
Target
% of Trip
Target
Remaining
Volume1,2 Trip
Target1,3
Remaining
Trip
Target
% of Trip
Target
Remaining
San
Antonio Rd 1,490 1,890 400 21% 1,080 1,830 750 41%
Rengstorff
Avenue 4,280 3,290 -990 -30% 4,350 2,440 -1,910 -78%
Shoreline
Boulevard 5,040 3,110 -1,930 -62% 5,620 3,760 -1,890 -50% Total 10,810 8,290 -2,520 -30% 11,080 8,030 -3,050 -38% 1 Volumes rounded to the nearest 10.
2 Volume = The North Bayshore gateway volumes under Cumulative with Project Conditions (Cumulative Conditions with NBPP Growth and the North Bayshore Master Plan Achieving a Modified Site -Specific TDM Policy Goal with a Historical Vacancy Rate).
3 Target = 2017 NBPP vehicle trip target = two-way peak hour.

Source: Fehr & Peers. North Bayshore Master Plan: Transportation Analysis. December 2022.

71 Ibid. Pages 458-459.

North Bayshore Master Plan 142 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
As shown in Table 3.4-2 below, the cumulative plus project condition (under either option) would result in a similar trip generation to what was assumed in the 2017 EIR at full buildout of the Precise Plan. While th e cumulative plus project condition (under either option) is estimated to have 2 70 additional trips in the AM peak hour, the 2 70 trips are within the five percent day -to-day variation observed at the North Bayshore Gateways.72

Thus, the proposed project would not substantially increase the North Bayshore gateway volumes compared to what was studied in the 2017 EIR and would not result a new or substantially more severe conflict with City General Plan or Precise Plan policies related to the roadway system. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact, pursuant to SB 743])

Table 3.4-2: North Bayshore Master Plan Vehicle Trip Generation Comparison Trip Generation
Estimates
Daily
Vehicle
Trips1
AM Peak Hour1 PM Peak Hour1
In Out Total In Out Total
A. 2017 EIR 132,820 7,230 3,310 10,540 4,040 7,340 11,380 B. Cumulative plus
Project
Conditions
128,710 7,960 2,850 10,810 3,460 7,620 11,080
Net Difference (B-
A) -4,110 730 -460 270 -580 280 -300
1 Volumes rounded to the nearest 10.

Source: Fehr & Peers. North Bayshore Master Plan: Transportation Analysis. December 2022.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The 2017 EIR concluded that future development and transportation improvements consistent with the Precise Plan would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities because development under Precise Plan would improve and increase bicycle and pedestrian connectivity throughout the Precise Plan area .73 For the purposes of this EIR, the project (under either option) would create a significant impact related to the bicycle or pedestrian system if the any part of the proposed project directly or indirectly:

• Disrupts existing bicycle programs or facilities, or pedestrian facilities; • Interferes with planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities; or • Creates physical or operational transportation outcomes that conflict with applicable bicycle or pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

The project (under either option) would generate bicycle and pedestrian trips between the district garages, transit stops, and land uses. As described in Section 2.3 Project Description, the project (under

72 For several years, the North Bayshore District monitoring has conducted multiday vehicle observations twice a year.

The volumes reported in the monitoring report are an average of these multiday observations with two-way peak hour and peak period day-to-day variation of +/- five percent. 73 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 491-493.

North Bayshore Master Plan 143 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
either option) includes a network of new bicycle paths, trails, and pedestrian pathways. A pedestrian priority zone proposed through the Shorebird Complete Neighborhood adjacent to North Shoreline Boulevard would connect Charleston Road to Shorebird Way. An off- and on-street bicycle network totaling approximately 3.7 miles is proposed, and bike shares would be provided near transit stations and as part of multimodal hubs within district parking garages. This proposed network of new bicycle paths, trails, and pedestrian pathways would improve connectivity by providing connections to existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities inside and outside the Precise Plan area and closing gaps in the existing pedestrian and bicycle networks. The proposed improv ements would not disrupt any existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

The proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements would be consistent with the planned improvements, standards, and guidelines for pedestrian and bicycle facilities include d in the Precise Plan. For this reason, the project (under either option) would not conflict with a pedestrian or bicycle related program, plan, ordinance or policy, and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Transit Facilities
The 2017 EIR concluded the Precise Plan would not increase demand of public transit above existing or planned capacity or conflict with transit policies. The 2017 EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts to transit facilities (Impacts TRANS -4 and C-TRANS-3) due to the increase in transit vehicle delay at congested intersections. 74 The 2017 EIR concluded that additional roadway traffic congestion caused by the build-out of the Precise Plan would affect several transit corridors by increasing travel times and decreasing headway reliability. The Mountain View City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts disclosed in the 2017 EIR (including Impacts TRANS-4 and C-TRANS-3). Pursuant to SB 743, congestion and LOS effects are no longer impacts under CEQA. In addition, OPR has issued guidance that when evaluating impacts to multimodal transportation networks, lead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new transit users as an adverse impact. 75 For the purposes of this EIR, the project (under either option) would create a significant impact related to the transit facilities if the project is inconsistent with local transit plans. To determine the proposed project’s consistency with local transit plans, significant impacts would occur if any part of the proposed project directly or indirectly:

• Disrupts existing transit services or facilities;
• Interferes with the implementation of a planned transit facility; or • Creates physical or operational transportation outcomes that conflict with desired conditions expressed in transit policies adopted by Mountain View, Santa Clara County, or VTA for their respective facilities in the study area.

Implementation of the proposed project (under either option) would not result in modifications to the transit network that would disrupt existing transit service. The project includes modification of streets that includes wider sidewalks and enhanced transit stops to accommodate increased transit riders to

74 Ibid. Pages 489-491.
75 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

December 2018. Page 19.

North Bayshore Master Plan 144 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
and from the project site. The project also would not interfere with the planned c onstruction of the Charleston Road transit corridor improvement and Shoreline Boulevard reversible transit lane (both City identified CIPs), both of which are intended to support transit use within the project site.

The VTA operates the bus system in the Precise Plan area and, in partnership with the City and other member agencies, will make service changes over time based on the equitable distribution of the performance measures (i.e., vehicle load, vehicle headways, on-time performance, service availability, and ridership productivity). Consistent with the VTP 2040 (2014), the existing transit circulation would be modified in the future and adjusted periodically based on VTA’s latest transit service plan. The proposed changes would not conflict with plan ned transit facilities and services or conflict with adopted transit plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Additionally, the proposed project is supportive of the transit use and standards and guidelines in the Mobility chapter of the Precise Plan.

For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not conflict with a transit program, plan, ordinance or policy , and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant transit impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as A pproved Project [ Significant and Unavoidable Impact])

Impact TRN-2: Both Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (New Impact [Less than Significant Impact])

At the time the 2017 EIR was prepared, SB 743 and the City’s VMT Policy were not adopted. The VMT generated from the buildout of the Precise Plan was calculated for the 2017 EIR and used as an input for the air quality, GHG, and energy analyses. The City’s VMT Policy states that projects approved prior to adoption of the City’s VMT Policy are considered exempt from the policy. However, because the project (under either option) includes more development than evaluated in the 2017 EIR for the approved Precise Plan project, it is subject to the City’s VMT Policy.

As discussed in Section 3.3.1.1, for a project of this size, the City considers a project to have a less than significant VMT impact if the project’s total VMT is 15 percent below the existing regional total VMT per service population. As discussed in Section 3.3.1.2, the existing regionwide total VMT per service population is 29.95. As the significance threshold is 15 percent below this average, the corresponding threshold is 25.46 VMT per service population. The project would result in a significant VMT impact if it exceeds this threshold.

The proposed project’s land use mix, TDM plan, and 35 percent SOV mode share target were entered into the City’s Travel Model to calculate total project-generated VMT. As shown in Table 3.4-3 below, the project’s total VMT per service population (under either option) of 25.13 would not exceed the significance threshold of 24.46; thus, the project would result in a less than significant VMT impact. (New Impact [Less than Significant Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 145 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 3.4-3: Total Project-Generated VMT
Total VMT Service Population VMT per Service
Population
Project (under either option) 634,710 25,260 25.13
Significance Threshold 25.46
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: Fehr & Peers. North Bayshore Master Plan: Transportation Analysis. December 2022.

Impact TRN-3: Both Options: The project (under either option) would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in increased hazards due to a geometric design or incompatible land uses because future development would comply with Precise Plan standards for street design.

Site access is described in detail in Section 2.3.9 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking and shown on Figure 2.3-4. Main vehicle access to the project site (under either option) would be provided via North Shoreline Boulevard, Charleston Road, and Amphitheatre Parkway. Overall, the project assumes buildout of the conceptual Precise Plan roadway network (see Figure 2.3-4) with minor modifications, including a proposed one-way section of Shorebird Avenue east of Shoreline and proposed private streets including Grove Street, Willow Street, Monarch Street between Grove Street and Manzanita Street, and Manzanita Street between Charleston Avenue and Shorebird Avenue. In addition, a series of new neighborhood and service streets would distribute traffic and facilitate circulation throughout the project site. The proposed driveways would be required to meet design and sight distance requirements identified in the City’s zoning ordinance. All proposed roads would be designed in accordance with Precise Plan and Fire Code requirements (which is also discussed under Impact TRN-1 above). The proposed driveways and roadways under either project option, therefore, would meet all required standards and not create design hazards.

The proposed project (under either option) would be required to implement the following City standard condition of approval to reduce any safety hazards from construction traffic and equipment on the roadway.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA TRN-3.1: Both Project Options: Construction Management Plan: Upon submittal of the initial building permit and all subsequent building permit submittals, the applicant shall provide a construction traffic and parking management plan with the building plans. The plan must be approved prior to the issuance of a buildi ng permit, including demolition. The plan must show the following:

North Bayshore Master Plan 146 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

1. Truck Route: Truck route (to and from project site) for construction and delivery trucks pursuant to City Code Sections 19.58 and 19.59 and which does not include neighborhood residential streets;

2. Construction Phasing, Equipment, Storage, and Parking: Sho w and identify construction vehicle and equipment parking area, material storage and lay - down area, sanitation facilities, and construction trailer location for each phase of construction. All construction vehicles, equipment, and trailer shall be located on-site or at a site nearby (not on a public street or public parking) arranged by the permittee/contractor. Construction equipment, materials, or vehicles shall not be stored or parked on public streets or public parking lots, unless approved by the Publi c Works Director due to special conditions.

Construction contractors/workers are required to park on -site or at a private property arranged by the permittee/contractor and shall not be allowed to use neighboring streets for parking/storage; and

3. Sidewalks: Sidewalk closure or narrowing is not allowed during any on -site construction activities.

4. Traffic Control and Detour Plans: Traffic control plans, including detour plans, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval and included with building permit plans to the Building Inspection Division for any on-site improvements and/or work related to any phase of the construction management plan that requires temporary roadway closure, lane closure, shoulder closure, and/or bike lane cl osure. Pedestrian detour plans shall be provided when necessary. Traffic control plans shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). A completed Traffic Control Checklist sha ll be included with each traffic control plan submittal. A separate Excavation Permit from the Public Works Department may be required prior to issuance of the building permit.

The implementation of the above standard condition of approval would reduce ha zards from construction vehicles and equipment by implementing a plan that would manage construction traffic on public roadways.

The project (under either option) proposes office, residential, retail, civic/community uses and open space consistent with th e mix of uses envisioned for the area in the Precise Plan. The project (under either option) does not propose a new use or a use that is incompatible with the existing mix of uses in the project vicinity and would implement the above condition of approval to reduce construction - related hazards. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 147 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact TRN-4: The project (under either option) would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in inadequate emergency acc ess because streets would be designed to meet MVFD and City zoning ordinance standards regarding emergency vehicles.

As shown in Figure 2.3-4, emergency vehicles would be able to access the project site from North Shoreline Boulevard, Charleston Road, or Amphitheatre Parkway, all project driveways and service roads, and an emergency fire lane/multi-use path at the east end of Charleston Road in the northeast corner of the project site. In addition, the final site design would be reviewed by the MVFD for consistency with applicable fire department and zoning ordinance standards regarding emergency vehicles. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not result in inadequate emergency access or a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

3.4.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact TRN-C: Both Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative transportation impact . (New Impact [ Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Consistency with Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Circulation System The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes development of the proposed project) would result in significant and unavoidable LOS deficiencies under cumulative conditions; however, as discussed under Impact TRN -1, vehicle congestion and delay can no longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA. As such, the project’s consistency with the City’s LOS policy is not relevant under CEQA.

The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

While the project (under either option) includes slightly more development than evaluated in the 2017 EIR, as discussed under Impact TRN -1, the project would result in the same consistency with programs, plans, ordinances, and/or policies related to the roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. For this reason, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project)

Vehicle Miles Traveled
As discussed in Section 3.3.1.1, for a project of t his size, the City considers a project to have a less than significant cumulative VMT impact if the project changes the boundary VMT per service population for the region. Therefore, the project would result in a significant cumulative VMT impact if it causes the cumulative regionwide daily boundary VMT per service population to be greater than

17.22 miles.

North Bayshore Master Plan 148 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

The change in boundary VMT between the cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions (under either option) shows the combined effect of shifts in VMT due to land use and transportation network changes in the region, shifts in existing traffic to alternate travel routes or modes, and new VMT from additional land use development in the region. As shown in Table 3.4-4 below, boundary VMT per service population under cumulative with project conditions (under either option) is the same as under cumulative conditions; therefore, the project (under either option) would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative VMT impact. (New Impact [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Table 3.4-4: Boundary VMT Assessment
Cumulative
Condition
Cumulative with Project
Condition
Boundary VMT 129,777,430 129,755,020
Service Population 7,535,570 7,535,390
Boundary VMT per Service Population 17.22 17.22
Significance Threshold 17.22
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: Fehr & Peers. North Bayshore Master Plan: Transportation Analysis. December 2022.

Hazards due to Geometric Design Feature or Incompatible Uses The 2017 EIR concluded the cumulative projects (including the Precise Plan) would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use.76

The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR. The project (under either option), as discussed under Impact TRN-3, would comply with Precise Plan and Fire Code standards and requirements consistent with the assumptions in the 2017 EIR for a less than significant impact. In addition, the project (under either option) would implement a standard condition of approval to reduce construction-related hazards. The project (under either option), therefore, would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Emergency Access
The 2017 EIR concluded the cumulative projects (inclu ding the Precise Plan) would not result in a significant cumulative impact due to inadequate emergency access. 77 because streets would be designed to meet MVFD and City zoning ordinance standards regarding emergency vehicles.

76 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 404-540.
77 Ibid.

North Bayshore Master Plan 149 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR, with the exception of the project (under either option) including slightly more development than evaluated in the 2017 EIR. As discussed under Impact TRN-4, the proposed project (under either option) would be designed to meet MVFD and City zoning ordinance standards regarding emergency vehicles, consistent with the assumptions in the 2017 EIR for a less than significant impact. Therefore, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impact in regard to emergency access than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

3.4.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
TRN-1:

Both Project Options: The
project would not result in a new
or substantially more severe
significant conflict with a
program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadways, bicycle lanes, and
pedestrian facilities than
disclosed in the 2017 EIR.

Yes
LTS
pursuant to
SB 743
None
required
pursuant to
SB 743
LTS pursuant
to SB 743
TRN-2:

Both Project Options: The
project would not conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b).

N/A LTS None N/A
TRN-3:

Both Project Options: The
project would not substantially
increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Yes LTS None N/A
TRN-4:

Both Project Options: The
project would not result in
inadequate emergency access.

Yes LTS None N/A
TRN-C:

Both Project Options: The
project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant
cumulative transportation
impact.

Yes
LTS
pursuant to
SB 743
None
required
pursuant to
SB 743
LTS pursuant
to SB 743
Abbreviations: SU = Significant and Unavoidable, LTS = Less than Significant Impact, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 150 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.5 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The following discussion is based on a Utility Impact Study (UIS) and a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) completed by Schaaf & Wheeler in December 2022. The UIS and WSA are included as Appendix J and Appendix K, respectively

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
The existing utilities and service systems setting, including regulatory framework and existing site conditions, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

3.5.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
State Water Code
Pursuant to the State Water Code, water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (approximately 980 million gallons) of water annually must prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and update it every five years. As part of a UWMP, water agencies are required to evaluate and describe their water resource supplies and projected needs over a 20 -year planning horizon, water conservation, water service reliability, water recycling, opportunities for water transfers, and contingency plans for drought events.

Subsequent to the certification of the 2017 EIR, t he City of Mountain View adopted its most recent UWMP in June 2021.

Assembly Bill 939
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or AB 939, established the Integrated Waste Management Board, required the implementation of integrated waste management plans, and mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated (from 1990 levels) beginning January 1, 2000, and divert at least 75 percent by 2010. Projects that would have an adverse effect on waste diversion goals are required to include waste diversion mitigation measures.

Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 sets forth the requirements of the statewide mandatory commercial recycling program .

Businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of garbage per week and multi -family dwellings with five or more units in California are required to recycle. AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.

Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 20 25. The bill grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that at least 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025.

North Bayshore Master Plan 151 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Senate Bill 966
SB 966 required that the state board adopt regulations for risk -based water quality standards for the on-site treatment and reuse of nonpotable water. These regulations allow local jurisdictions to electively establish a program for on-site treated nonpotable water systems that includes the risk-based water quality standards established by the state board. These standards include reduction targets for the removal of pathogens from the treated water, water quality monitoring requirement s, reporting requirements, notification and public information requirements, and cross -connection controls.

Installation of on-site treated nonpotable water systems is prohibited unless they are regulated under a program established by a local jurisdiction in compliance with the provisions outlined in SB 996.

Senate Bill 610
SB 610 amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 requires preparation of a WSA containing detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to the decision -makers prior to approval of specified large development projects that also require a General Plan Amendment. This WSA must be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. Under SB 610, WSAs must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects subject to CEQA. Pursuant to the California Water Code (Section 10912[a]), projects that require a WSA include any of the following:

• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space;
• A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
• A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; • A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects identified in this list; or • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.

North Bayshore Master Plan 152 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
California Green Building Standards Code
In January 2010, the State of California adopted CALGreen, establishing mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. These standards include the following mandatory set of measures, as well as more rigorous voluntary guidelines, for new construction projects to achieve specifi c green building performance levels:

• Reducing indoor water use by 20 percent;
• Reducing wastewater by 20 percent;
• Recycling and/or salvaging 50 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris; and
• Providing readily accessible areas for recycling by occupants.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts to utility and service systems.

The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 1.3 Utilities for new development. Ensure adequate utility service levels before approving new development.

INC 1.4 Existing capital facilities. Maintain and enhance existing capital facilities in conjunction with capital expansion.

INC 1.5 Utility service. Coordinate with all utility providers to ensure safe and adequate utility services.

INC 3.7 Recycled water separation. Ensure that expansion of recycled water infrastructure in the public right -of-way with other utilities adheres to separation criteria provided by the California Department of Drinking Water and complies with the City of Mountain View standards.

INC 4.1 Water supply. Maintain a reliable water supply.

INC 5.1 Community awareness. Raise community awareness about water use efficiency and water conservation.

INC 5.2 Citywide water conservation. Reduce water waste and implement water conservation and efficiency measures throughout the city.

INC 5.3 Water reuse. Remove barriers and provide guidance for the use of rainwater and graywater as alternative water supplies.

INC 5.4 Smart water meters. Encourage water meter technologies that provide water usage feedback to customers.

North Bayshore Master Plan 153 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Policy Description
INC 5.5 Landscape efficiency. Promote water-efficient landscaping including drought-tolerant and native plants, along with efficient irrigation techniques.

INC 5.6 Indoor efficiency. Promote the use of water-efficient fixtures and appliances.

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.

INC 7.2 Recycled water system. Expand the use and availability of recycled water throughout the city.

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.

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

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

INC 10.3 Source reduction. Encourage and promote source reduction behavior such as utilizing reusable, returnable and repairable goods.

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.

INC 11.2 Recycling. Maintain and expand recycling programs.

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.

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.

Public Safety
PSA 3.5 Peak water supply. Ensure sufficient peak-load water supply to address fire and emergency response needs when approving new development.

North Bayshore Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains standards and guidelines to avoid significant utility and service systems impacts. The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed project.

Standard Description

3.5.4 Access and Utilities Connections
2 Utility connections . New development shall coordinate and incorporate master utility connections.

4.1 Green Building Design

North Bayshore Master Plan 154 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
1 Non-residential green building standard. All new non-residential construction shall meet the intent of LEED BD+C Gold or an alternative green building standard,20 the mandatory CALGreen requirements, and other standards outlined in the Precise Plan. 2 Non-residential green building FAR bonuses. The City may permit green building FAR bonuses to new nonresidential construction projects that exceed the green building design requirements in the Land Use and Design Chapter.
3 Non-residential building additions or alterations. Non-residential building additions of 1,000 square feet or greater, and/or building alteration with a permit valuation of $200,000 or above, or the most current required permit valuation as determined by the City, shall meet the mandatory CALGreen requirements.
4 Residential gre en building standards. All new residential construction shall meet the City’s minimum green building requirements, mandatory CALGreen requirements, and other green building regulations outlined in the Precise Plan. 5 Residential green building standards for the North Bayshore Density Bonus Program.

All new residential construction participating in the North Bayshore Density Bonus Program shall implement the green building measures specified in Appendix B (of the Precise Plan). 6 Publicly-financed buildings. All new publicly-financed buildings and City -funded capital improvement projects over 10,000 square feet shall meet the intent of LEED BD+C Gold and the mandatory CALGreen requirements.

4.3 Water Efficiency and Conservation
1 Non-residential indoor water use performance. New non -residential construction shall meet the baseline indoor water performance standards defined by LEED BD+C prerequisites and mandatory CALGreen requirements. Indoor water us e performance standards may be achieved through plumbing fixtures and fixture fittings and/or appliances. 2 Non-residential outdoor water use performance. New non-residential construction shall meet the baseline outdoor water performance standards defined by LEED BD+C prerequisites and mandatory CALGreen requirements. Outdoor water use performance standards may be achieved using any combination of efficiency, alternative water sources, and smart scheduling techniques.
3 Non-residential metering. New non -residential construction shall meet the mandatory CALGreen requirements for indoor and outdoor water metering. 4 Irrigation design. All new construction shall install weather - or soil moisture -based irrigation controllers , per the Mountain View Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations.
5 Outdoor landscaping. All new construction shall comply with the City’s Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations. Habitat restoration projects may be exempt from this standard, following review by the Public Works Director. 6 Recycled Water Ordinance. All North Bayshore buildings connected to the recycled water system are required to use recycled water for landscape irrigation. Water features that provide habitat and specific hab itat enhancement components of landscaping projects may be exempt, following review by the Public Works Director.

North Bayshore Master Plan 155 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
7 Use of recycled water for construction. Where available and subject to City approval, recycled water shall be used during new construction for activities such as road and pad construction and dust control.
8 Connection to the recycled water system. When the recycled water system is adjacent to the property, all new construction shall install the infrastructure necessary to connect to the recycled water system. If recycled water is not available, all new construction is required to construct the on-site irrigation to be recycled water conversion ready per the City’s standards and to connect to the recycled water system once the system is complete. 9 Infiltration and inflow elimination. All new construction in known areas of groundwater infiltration shall provide upgraded pipes from the building to the sanitary sewer system main to help reduce groundwater infiltration and inflow.
10 Dual-plumbed buildings. All new construction shall install dual plumbing for potable and recycled water use, per the City’s most current codes. Dual -plumbed buildings shall be equipped with potable back-up systems in the event of recycled water outages. 78

4.4 Stormwater
1 Post-construction stormwater controls. Regulated new construction and redevelopment construction projects, residential and non -residential, shall meet or exceed the stormwater requirements contained under Provision C.3 of the Bay Area MRP. 2 Retrofitting existing streets to green streets. Any new development or redevelopment project shall retrofit existing streets with stormwater treatment in accordance with the MRP and the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan.
3 Trash capture. As determined by the City, all new construction shall include installation of partial and/or full trash capture systems within a portion of the storm drain system.

4.5 Materials Management
1 Areas for waste, compost, and recycling. All new construction shall provide dedicated areas accessible to waste haulers and building occupants for the collection and storage of recycling, compost, and general waste.
2 Construction waste reduction. All new construction, additions, and alterations shall recycle or salvage 65% of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris generated at the site. 3 Containers for recyclables, compostables, and waste. Separate containers for recyclables, compostables, and waste shall be placed in all indoor and outdoor areas for all uses, including all gathering areas, such as cafeterias and break rooms.

7.3 Sanitary Sewer
1 Upgrade timing. Sewer infrastructure upgrades should occur in advance of transportation and streetscape improvements and in conjunction with other utility upgrades. 2 Ongoing maintenance and system replacement. Maintenance and system replacement projects should occur in conjunction with future North Bayshore development.

78 The City Code has been revised since the certification of the 2017 EIR. Section 8.30.5. of the most current version of City Code states that dual plumbing is only required for commercial buildings larger than 25,000 square feet.

North Bayshore Master Plan 156 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description

7.4 Stormwater
1 Impervious surface. During site redevelopment, all new construction is encouraged to reduce the amount of impervious surface on a site.
2 Vegetated roofs. All new construction and additions are encouraged to install vegetative roofs to reduce and slow stormwater runoff and to filter pollutants from rainfall. 3 Design for sea level rise. Stormwater infrastructure should be designed to accommodate sea level rise and coastal flooding by incorporating system enhancements such as increased drainage system capacity and higher on-site stormwater capture.

7.6 District Energy
1 Coordination. Project developers should work with the City, utilities, and other partners as appropriate to ensure coordinated implementation of district energy that is timely, avoids duplication of infrastructure and services, and ensures adequate space for pipes. Energy generation siting should be included in plans as they are submitted for approval. The project developer is encouraged to begin these discussions in advance of specific development proposals to ensure timely delivery of services.
2 District energy system authorization. Projects may include proposals for the design, construction, installation, maintenance, operation, repair, and management of a district energy system in North Bayshore. Approval of energy system projects shall be at the discretion of the Mountain View City Council.
3 Ownership of district energy system. Unless otherwise determined by the City, ownership of the property containing a district energy system will remain with the project developer or property owner.
4 Utility lines and the public right-of-way. If the City supports approval of a district energy project, utility infrastructure may be installed to cross the public right -of-way or properties under the control of public utilities or other public agencies with consent of the City and / or other controlling agencies, such as PG&E and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, to connect buildings.

7.7 Other District-Scale Infrastructure Opportunities
1 Regulatory compliance. The City has numerous requirements pertaining to stormwater discharge quality, sewer system management plan concurrence, and water and recycled water operation. Any district-scale infrastructure proposals shall conform to existing permit requirements in the area.
2 Coordination. The project developer will work with the City, utilities, and other partners as appropriate to ensure the coordinated implementation of district -scale infrastructure that is timely, and ensures that a place for the physical siting of systems is accommodated in plans as they are submitted for approval. The project developer is encouraged to begin these discussions in advan ce of specific development proposals to ensure timely delivery of services.
3 District-scale infrastructure authorization. Projects may propose the design, construction, installation, maintenance, operation, repair, and management of a district -scale system in

North Bayshore Master Plan 157 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
North Bayshore. Approval of projects shall be at the discretion of the Mountain View City Council and compliant with all applicable regulations.
4 Ownership of district scale system. Unless otherwise determined by the City, ownership of the property containing the core components of a district -scale system will remain with the project developer or property owner.
5 Service lines and the public right -of-way. If the City supports approval of a district -scale project, the project developer may install infrastructure that crosses the public right -of-way or properties under the control of public utilities or other public agencies with consent of the City and / or other controlling agencies to connect buildings. 6 Peer review of supporting information. The City may require a peer review of the project by an independent third-party consultant.

North Bayshore Storm Drain Master Plan
The North Bayshore Storm Drain Master Plan was prepared in 2014 to evaluate the capacity of the storm drain system serving the entire North Bayshore area, which includes the Precise Plan area, and to identify a prioritized plan of capital improvements to reduce the risk of flood, improve system reliability, and reduce operations costs.

Recycled Water Feasibility Study
The City completed an update of the 2014 Recycled Water Feasibility Study in March 2022. The updated Study evaluates the existing recycled water infrastructure in the City, existing base of recycled water users, and the recommendations that were previousl y made regarding the expansion of the recycled water system. The Study also provides an analysis of potential project alternatives for expanding recycled water infrastructure and presents recommendations on those alternatives and financing opportunities.

3.5.1.2 Existing Conditions
Water Supply and Demand
The City of Mountain View provides water service to the project site. The City is the water retailer for the area and purchases water from two wholesale water suppliers, the SFPUC and Valley Water. Per a 2017 agreement with the SFPUC, the City is allocated a maximum guarantee of 12.46 mgd (13,957 AFY) in water supply. In 2020, the City’s water supply production was 84 percent SFPUC, 10 percent Valley Water, two percent groundwater, and four percent recycled water. As of 2020, the City’s water demand is 9,856 AFY and City has sufficient supply .79 When accounting for recent updates to the plumbing code, the UWMP has a projected citywide water demand of 12,058 AFY in 2025 and 14,163 AFY in 2045.80

79 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 34. 80 Ibid. Page 18.

North Bayshore Master Plan 158 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
The existing land uses on the project site have a potable water demand of approximately 238,900 gallons per day (gpd) or 268 AFY. 81 The project site is served by existing water mains along North Shoreline Boulevard, Charleston Road, Shorebird Way, Space Park Way, Plymouth Street, Pear Avenue, Joaquin Road, and Huff Avenue.

Recycled water for the project site is sourced from the PARWQCP and supplied to the City’s network via the Palo Alto Pump Station . Recycled water service in the vicinity of the project site is currently provided via existing mains in Huff Avenue, Joaquin Road, Plymouth Street, North Shoreline Boulevard, and Charleston Avenue. The City has a peak supply allocation of 3.0 million gallons per day (mgd) from the PARWQCP and the current demand for recycled water on-site is 70,550 gpd under existing conditions. 82 The existing Peak Hour Demand (PHD) for recycled water within the North Bayshore Pressure Zone is 4.4 mgd, which exceeds the City’s contract recycled water supply of 3.0 mgd.83 The project site is served by existing recycled water mains along North Shoreline Boulevard, Charleston Road, Plymouth Street, Pear Avenue, Joaquin Road, and Huff Avenue.

Water System
Water Storage
The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) recommends cities to store enough water to meet eight hours of Maximum Day Demand (MDD) in addition to fire flow volume. In order to meet DDW requirements, the City must have storage capacity for 13.97 million gallons (mg) of water. The City’s maximum water storage capacity is approximately 17 mg; however, the City currently operates with only the operational active storage of 14.3 mg which provides sufficient storage capacity for current needs.

Hydraulic Conveyance
The water system must meet a minimum allowable pressure level of 40 pound-force per square inch (psi) under the PHD scenario. Mountain View is split into three different pressure zones, and the project site is located in Pressure Zone 1. Under existing conditions, the pressure citywide (i.e., in all three pressure zones) under the PHD scenario meets the performance criteria of 40 psi.

Fire Flow
Based on existing conditions, the fire flow rate required for the fire flow nodes servicing the project site ranges from 1,500 to 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm). Of the 12 existing fire flow nodes in th e project area, two fire flow nodes do not meet their respective required fire flow rate and are considered deficient. Although these nodes do not meet their required fire flow rates, t he City has the ability to transfer water between pressure zones via pump stations and control valves . Therefore, deficient storage in one zone may be supplemented by excess storage in another zone if necessary. There are several other nodes outside of the project site in Pressure Zone 1 with existing deficiencies that do not meet the required flow rate. Refer to Appendix J for the location of deficient nodes.

81 Schaaf & Wheeler. North Bayshore Master Plan Utility Impact Study. December 16, 2022. Page. 2-7. 82 Ibid. Page 6-2
83 Ibid. Page 7-2

North Bayshore Master Plan 159 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Wastewater Treatment and Sanitary Sewer System
Wastewater Treatment
The City of Mountain View maintains its own wastewater collection system. Sanitary and storm drains in the City are operated and maintained by the Wastewater Section of the Public Works Department.

The City pumps its wastewater to the PARWQCP for treatment. The PARWQCP has an overall 40 mgd average annual treatment capacity. The City has an average annual flow treatment allocation of

15.1 mgd at the PARWQCP. In 2020, approximately 6.9 mgd of wastewater from Mountain View was collected and treated by the PARWQCP.84 Compared to the average wastewater flow of previous years (18.4 mgd in 2015 and 22.0 mgd in 2010), the average wastewater flow in 2020 was substantially lower.85,86

Sanitary Sewer System
The existing buildings on-site are estimated to generate approximately 57 mg of wastewater per year, or 156,906 gpd. The project site is served by existing sewer mains along North Shoreline Boulevard, Charleston Road, Shorebird Way, Space Park Way, Plymouth Street, Pear Avenue, Joaquin Road, and Huff Avenue.

The performance criteria of the sanitary sewer system is calculated by dividing the maximum flow depth of the sewage by the diameter of the pipe (d/D). Based on the City’s standard design guidelines, for pipes with a diameter equal to or less than 12 inche s, a d/D performance criteria ratio of 0.50 or less is considered adequate and any ratio higher than that would be considered deficient. Pipes with a diameter greater than 12 inches would have to meet a d/D performance criteria ratio of 0.75 or lower to be considered adequate, and any ratio higher than that would be considered deficient.

Under existing conditions, most of the sewer system along the project flow path meets the City’s d/D performance criteria with the exception for one segment which exceeds the d/D performance criteria of 0.50 with a d/D performance criteria of 0.5267 . Although this segment exceeds the performance criteria, the pipe is flowing slightly over half-full and is not close to surcharging.

Stormwater Drainage
The storm drainage system that serves the project site is owned and maintained by the City of Mountain View. As discussed in Section 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality, the Precise Plan area, which most of the project site is a par t of, contains an average of 85 percent impervious surfaces.87 The project site, including Subarea AM1 which is outside of the Precise Plan area, is currently developed and primarily covered in impervious surfaces.

Stormwater runoff from the project site is collected by a municipal storm drain system consisting of storm drain inlets, conveyance pipes (in North Shoreline Boulevard, Charleston Road, Shorebird Way, Space Park Way, Plymouth Street, Pear Avenue, Joaquin Road, and Huff Avenue), culverts, channels

84 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. P. 31. 85 City of Mountain View. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. P. 40. 86 City of Mountain View. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011. P. 5-10. 87 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 318.

North Bayshore Master Plan 160 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
and retention basins. Drainage into the City system generally flows north towards the San Francisco Bay.

Solid Waste
Solid waste, recycling, and composting collection services for residents and businesses in Mountain View are provided by Recology Mount ain View. Once collected, solid waste and residential recyclables are transported to the SMaRT Station® in Sunnyvale. Commercial recyclables are processed at GreenWaste Recovery in San Jose. C ommercial compostable s are transported to Recology’s Blossom Val ley Organics North composting facility in Vernalis and residential compostables to Recology’s South Valley Organics facility in Gilroy . Non-recyclable waste is transported from the SMaRT Station and landfilled at Kirby Canyon Sanitary Landfill in south San José. Kirby Canyon Landfill has an estimated remaining capacity of approximately 14.6 million tons and a closing date of approximately January 1, 2071.88

Electric Power and Telecommunication Systems
The project site is served by existing phone and electrical services. Phone service is provided to the site by AT&T, and electrical service is provided by PG&E and/or SVCE.

3.5.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on utilities and service systems, would the project:

1) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? 2) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? 3) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
4) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of loca l infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? 5) Be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

88 Azevedo, Becky. Waste Management Technical Manager. Personal communications. December 27, 2021.

North Bayshore Master Plan 161 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

3.5.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact UTL-1: Project and Project with District Utilities System Option: The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications f acilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects . [New Impact (Less than Significant Impact)]

The analysis in the 2017 EIR determined that the existing water delivery system could not maintain required system pressures and serve the increase in development resulting from implementation of the Precise Plan.89 In order to meet the minimum pressure criteria during peak hour demand conditions, one additional CIP, in conjunction with CIPs identified in the 2030 G eneral Plan Update UIS (GPUUIS), is required.90

Similarly, the analysis in the 2017 EIR determined the addition of flows from buildout of the Precise Plan would cause the existing sewer system to exceed the City’s d/D performance criteria. 91 In order to meet the d/D performance criteria, three additional CIPs in conjunction with the CIPs identified as part of the GPUUIS would be required.

In addition, the 2017 EIR found that implementation of the North Bayshore Storm Drain Master Plan and adherence to the identified Precise Plan stormwater management standards and guidelines would address any existing deficiencies in the storm drain system and reduce the potential impacts of future development to a less than significant level.92

The conclusions in the 2 017 EIR were based on plan level designs and general assumptions about future development patterns within the Precise Plan area. A project-specific UIS was prepared for the project (see Appendix J) that provided more refined modeling and identified additional deficiencies within the City’s utility system. The results of the project-specific UIS and additional deficiencies are summarized below.

Project
Water System
The water system is comprised of four components: water storage, hydraulic conveyance, fire flow, and the recycled water system. The project’s impacts on these components are discussed below.

89 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.

State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 556 to 558. 90 Ibid. Page 556.
91 Ibid. Pages 559 to 561.
92 Ibid. Pages 561 to 562.

North Bayshore Master Plan 162 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Water Storage

The DDW requires storage capacity equal to eight hours of maximum day demand plus fire flow storage in each pressure zone, which equates to a total required storage capacity of 13. 87 mg in the City under future conditions. With the proposed project (under either option) , this required storage capacity would increase to 13.97 mg. The existing maximum active water storage capacity in the City is 17 mg and the City operates with an operational storage of 14.3 mg. Thus, the City has the storage volume available to meet the DDW requirements under existing plus project conditions (under either option). The project (under either option), therefore, woul d not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Hydraulic Conveyance

Under project conditions, it is assumed that additional planned water mains have been installed in Monarch Street between North Shoreline Boulevard and Huff Avenue, in the southeastern area of the project site, and across US 101. It is assumed the new pipes are eight-inches in diameter except for the pipe along the new Pear Avenue and the piping in Monarch Street, which are assumed to be 12-inches in diameter. The analysis in the UIS concluded that under existing plus project (under either option) conditions, the pressure citywide (i.e., in all three pressure zones) under the PHD scenario would meet the performance criteria of 40 psi and would have a less than significant impact on pressure levels. The project (under either option), therefore, would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Fire Flow

As discussed in Section 4.5.1.2, the current fire flow rate required for the project site ranges from 1,500 to 3,500 gpm. Two out of the 12 existing fire flow nodes servicing the project site do not meet the required fire flow rate and are considered deficient. In addition, there are several other off-site nodes within Pressure Zone 1 with existing deficiencies. After project implementation, the fire flow rates required for the project sit e would increase up to 4,000 gpm to accommodate the increase in development density. In addition, after project implementation, one of the existing deficiencies on-site would be resolved, two new deficiencies would be created, and one existing deficiency would slightly worsen. These on -site deficiencies would all be corrected through implementation of the CIPs identified in the GPUUIS. Implementation of the project would also contribute to the existing off-site deficiencies within Pressure Zone 1. However, the project’s contribution to those existing off -site deficiencies would be less than two percent and, therefore, considered to have a minimal impact. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would have a less than significant impact on required fire flow rates at the project site and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 163 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Recycled Water System

As discussed in Section 3.5.1.2, the City has a peak recycled water supply allocation of 3.0 mgd from the PARWQCP and the current demand for recycled water on -site is 70,550 gpd under existing conditions.93 After project implementation, the demand for recycled water would increase at the project site by 576,674 gpd for a total of 647,224 gpd. In the North Bayshore pressure zone, the pre -project PHD would increase from 4.4 to 9.95 mgd. Based on the currently available maximum supply allocation of 3.0 mgd from the PARWQCP, the treatment plant does not provide sufficient supply allocation capacity to meet existing or existing plus project PHD. To address this issue, t he City identified the need for in-system operational storage reservoirs and an additional pump station in the City’s Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS) Update, which is currently funded and undergoing planning and design for implementation. Separate environmental review would be required once the reservoirs and pump station are designed.94 The project would pay the impact fee towards the cost of these planned improvements.

In evaluating the project’s impact on the hydraulic performance of the existing recycled water system, it was assumed that the PARWQCP and the City would be able to provide enough recycled water to meet the demand in the PHD scenario with a combination of increased supply and storage capacity and several new eight-inch recycled water mains proposed by the project would be installed to serve the project site.95 With the construction of these improvements, and other operational changes, the system hydraulics are expected to be able to meet performance criteria system-wide under existing plus project conditions. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
The existing buildings on -site generate a sewer flow of approximately 57 mg per year (or 156,906 gpd). Under existing conditions, there is only one segment of the sewer system along the project flow path that exceeds the applicable maximum d/D performance criteria of 0.50 with a d/D performance criteria of 0.5267. The estimated sewer flow for the project (under either option) is approximately 367 mg per year (or 1,005,376 gpd), which is an increase of 848,470 gpd compared to existing conditions.

The sewer system would not have sufficient capacity downstream of the project site after project implementation, consistent with the findings of the 2017 EIR.

The project’s increase in sewer demand would result in additional segments of the sewer system that exceed their respective d/D performance criteria. In addition to the one existing pipe segment that is currently exceeding its performance criteria, eight new pipe s egments would exceed the acceptable d/D performance criteria in the post -project scenario. All but three of the pipe segments exceeding their d/D performance criteria were previously recommended for upsizing in either the GPPUUIS or the UIS completed as part of the 2017 EIR. Of the three additionally identified pipes, two pipe segments along Huff Avenue would need to be upsized from eight -inches to 12-inches and one segment along Charleston Road would need to be upsized from 12 -inches to 15-inches. The proposed project would pay the impact fee towards these planned improvements and pay its fair -share towards the three additionally identified pipes.

93 Schaaf & Wheeler. North Bayshore Master Plan Utility Impact Study. December 16, 2022. Page 6-2 94 City of Mountain View. Recycled Water Feasibility Study. March 2022. Page 3-9. 95 Schaaf & Wheeler. North Bayshore Master Plan Utility Impact Study. December 16, 2022. Page 7-3

North Bayshore Master Plan 164 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
With these recommended improvements, there would be sufficient capacity to support the increased wastewater generated by the project. The environmental impacts associated with construction of the improvements identified in the GPUUIS and the UIS for the 2017 EIR were disclosed in the General Plan EIR and 2017 EIR.96 The additionally identified improvements are within the project area and would be built in existing roadways and utility rights -of-way in conjunction with the development of each area, and are not expected to impact sensitive habitat areas or result in other environmental impacts, aside from construction-related effects that would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of City standard conditions of approval (including temporary construction noise and air quality impacts and impacts to unknown buried cultural resources); thus, the upsizing of these pipe segments would not cause significant environmental effects. The project, however, would require upsizing of three additional pipes not previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR or 2017 EIR. Thus, this would be considered a new impact. (New Impact [Less than Significant Impact])

Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
As discussed in Section 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality, most of the project site is within the Precise Plan boundaries, which contains an average of 85 percent impervious surfaces. 97 The only portion of the project site outside of the Precise Plan area, Subarea AM1, is currently developed as surface parking and is primarily covered in impervious surfaces. The project (under eith er option) would dedicate approximately 18.9 acres of unimproved land to the City and construct approximately 11.7 acres of POPA open space. This would result in approximately 20 percent of the project site (i.e., 30.5 of the 151 acres) being dedicated parkland or POPA which would decrease the amount of impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions by approximately eight acres (or five percent) . The decrease in impervious surfaces would proportionally reduce the amount of runoff on -site compared to ex isting conditions. As a result, the existing storm drain system would continue to accommodate flows from the site (under either option).

The project (under either option) would comply with the Precise Plan stormwater management standards and guidelines by:

• Complying with the General Construction Permit and current MRP; • Retrofitting existing streets with stormwater treatments in accordance with the MRP and City policy; and
• Reducing the amount of impervious surface on-site.

The project (under either option) would pay impact fees to fund stormwater drainage CIPs identified in the North Bayshore Storm Drain Master Plan. 98 Based on the above discussion, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the General Plan EIR or 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

96 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR. September 2012. P. 528.
97 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 318.
98 As disclosed in the 2017 EIR, the CIPs will undergo separate environmental review when designed.

North Bayshore Master Plan 165 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Electric Power and Telecommunications Facilities
The project (under either option) would connect to existing telecommunications lines. The project would be 100 percent electric; no natural gas would be used. As such, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunications or natural gas facilities.

As discussed in Section 2.3.4.1, electricity for the project site would be distributed from the Ames Substation operated by PG&E and located on the east side of Stevens Creek (see Figure 2.2-3). Possible modifications could be required at the Ames Substation and could include new breaker configurations, inbound and outbound connections, and distribution lines. It is expected that these modifications would occur entirely on the Ames Substation property, except for the distribution lines which would extend to the project site. The routing and configuration of the new distribution lines would be determined at the Planned Community Permit (PCP) stage in coordination with PG&E and would be designed to entirely avoid the bed, bank, and channel of Stevens Creek. The modifications would primarily be constructed at the existing, developed Ames Substation site and the distribution lines would avoid ecologically sensitive areas. The impacts associated with the construction of the improvements when designed would be subject to separate environmental review and would be anticipated to result in less than significant impacts in conformance with existing regulations and implementation of similar measures as the City’s standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures discussed in this EIR.

The project (under either option), therefore, would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Project with District Utilities System Option
Water System
Water Storage

Implementation of the project with District Utilities System Option would not alter the amount of water storage infrastructure in the City compared to the project without District Utilities System Option, therefore, the project with District Utilities Syst em Option would result in the same water storage impact discussed above under the project heading. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Hydraulic Conveyance

Implementation of the project with District Utilities System Option w ould not alter the hydraulic pressure levels within the City’s water system compared to the project without District Utilities System Option, therefore, the project with District Utilities System Option would result in the same hydraulic conveyance impact discussed above under the project heading. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 166 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Fire Flow

Implementation of the project with District Utilities System Option would not alter the fire flow rates available at the project site compared to the project without District Utilities System Option, therefore, the project with District Utilities System Op tion would result in the same fire flow impact discussed above under the project heading. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Recycled Water System

As discussed above, the City has a peak recycled water supply allocation of 3.0 mgd from the PARWQCP and the current demand for recycled water on-site is 70,550 gpd under existing conditions.

The project with District Utilities System Option includes a WRF that has the capacity to produce up to approximately 435,748 gpd of recycle d water when fully operational. After implementation of the project with District Utilities System Option, the demand for recycled water from the PARWQCP would increase at the project site by 140,926 gpd for a total of 211,476 gpd. In the North Bayshore pressure zone, the PHD would increase from 4.4 mgd to 5.76 mgd with the project. Based on the currently available maximum supply allocation of 3.0 mgd from the PARWQCP, the treatment plant does not allocate sufficient supply to meet existing or existing plus project peak hour demands. As discussed above, to provide additional peak hour supply, the City is currently in the process of planning and designing an appropriate storage reservoir and pump station, consistent with the City’s RWFS Update. The project wo uld be required to pay the impact fee towards the cost of these planned improvements. In addition, the project proposes to install several new eight-inch recycled water mains to serve the project site. With the construction of these improvements and additi onal operational changes, the system hydraulics should be able to meet performance criteria system-wide under existing plus project conditions (under either option). (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
Under the District Utilities System Option, the DCP would be operational and would have the capacity to treat a maximum daily flow of up to approximately 900,000 gallons of wastewater per day to produce non-potable recycled water for the pro ject site. While fully operational, the project -specific UIS assumes that an average of approximately 435,748 gallons of wastewater per day would be treated and recycled at the DCP based on the areas of the project site that would have sanitary sewer connections to the DCP.99 This would result in a sewer flow of 569,628 gpd that would need to be conveyed through the City’s sanitary sewer system, which would be a 409,722 gpd increase compared to existing conditions. As a result, the sewer system would not have capacity downstream of the project site.

The increase in sewer demand from the project with District Utilities System Option would result in additional segments of the sewer system that exceed their respective d/D performance criteria compared to exis ting conditions. In addition to the one existing pipe segment that is currently exceeding its performance criteria, 10 new pipe segments would exceed the acceptable d/D

99 As discussed in the Project Description, only development in the Shorebird Complete Neighborhood area would have sanitary sewer connections to the DCP.

North Bayshore Master Plan 167 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
performance criteria.100 All but five of the pipe segments exceeding their d/D performance criteria were previously recommended for upsizing in either the GPPUUIS or the UIS completed as part of the 2017 EIR. Of the five additionally identified pipes, two pipe segments along Huff Avenue would need to be upsized from eight-inches to 12-inches, one segment along Charleston Road would need to be upsized from 12-inches to 15-inches, and two segments along Charleston Road would need to be upsized from eight-inches to 15 -inches. The proposed project would pay the impact fee towards these planned improvements and its fair-share towards the five additionally identified pipe segment improvements.

The environmental impacts associated with construction of the improvements identified in the GPUUIS and the UIS for the 2017 EIR were disclosed in the General Plan EIR and the 2017 EIR.101 The additional improvements would be built in existing roadways and utility rights-of-way and are not expected to impact sensitive habitat areas or result in other environmental impacts, aside from construction-related effects (including temporary construction noise and air quality impacts and impacts to unknown buried cultural resources); thus, the upsizing of these pipe segments would not cause significant environmental effects beyond what was studied in prior EIRs.

With these recommended improvements, there would be sufficient capacity to support the increased wastewater generated by the project with District Utilities System Option. The project, however, would require upsizing of three additional pipes not previously disclo sed in the General Plan EIR or 2017 EIR. Thus, this would be considered a new impact. (New Impact [Less than Significant Impact])

Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
The project’s impact to stormwater drainage infrastructure is the same under both options. Refer to the discussion above. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Electric Power and Telecommunications Facilities
The project with District Utilities System Option would include an AD Facility within the WRF with two 65 kW microturbines that would utilize biogas to generate electricity. The resulting electricity and heat generated through this process would be used on-site. The construction and operational impacts of this are discussed throughout the EIR. The project with District Utilities System Option would require the same modifications to the existing electric infrastructure serving the site as discussed above.

In addition to the modifications to the Ames Substation, the project with District Utilities System Option would likely include a Microgrid Controller at the DCP which would have the capability to distribute power during future local grid outages. The possible modifications to the Ames Substation, such as the construction of a new, 6-Breaker Ring Configuration and associated distribution lines, would be constructed within the existing, developed Ames Substation site and the distribution lines would avoid ecol ogically sensitive areas. The impacts associated with the potential construction of these improvements when designed would be subject to separate environmental review and would be anticipated to result in less than significant impacts in conformance with e xisting regulations and

100 Pipe segments 174, 181, 183, and 185 would only exceed their d/D performance criteria in the event that the DCP is offline (i.e. planned or unplanned maintenance, replacement, or repair). The implementation of the CIPs that would upsize the two pipe segments along Charleston Road from eight-inches to 15-inches would prevent these deficiencies from occurring in the event that the DCP is offline.
101 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR. September 2012. P. 528.

North Bayshore Master Plan 168 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
implementation of similar measures as the City’s standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures discussed in this EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact UTL-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The 2017 EIR disclosed that normal year water demands would be met by existing supplies, but water supply shortfalls ranging between three percent to 11 percent could be expected in single dry years and five percent to 13 percent in multiple dry years.102 The 2017 EIR concluded the implementation of the City's water shortage contingency plan would reduce demand to match available supply during years with shortfalls and that shortfalls were likely overestimated because use of recycled water by future development was not accounted for in the UWMP. In addition, the compliance with General Plan Policies INC 5.1 through INC 5.7 and Precise Plan standards and guidelines for water conservation and green building by future development in the Precise Plan would furt her reduce demand in dry years. For these reasons, the 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in significant water supply impacts.

Subsequent to the 2017 EIR, the City adopted an updated UWMP. The 2020 UWMP projects a steady increase in water demand between 2025 and 2045, as shown in Table 3.5-1 below. This current UWMP accounts for the water demand from build out of the Precise Pl an and determined that although the City had adequate water supplies to meet demand through 2045 in normal years, there could be potential shortfalls up to 20 percent due to cuts in supply from SFPUC in dry years. 103 To maintain adequate water supply during dry and multiple dry years where there may be shortfalls in supply, the City would institute a mix of voluntary and mandatory conservation measures, with escalating levels of conservation requirements as the shortages in water supply increase. The 2020 UWMP determined that compliance with mandatory conservation measures in the City would ensure that sufficient water supply is maintained in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years.

The project (under either option) would result in a net increase in water demand compared to what was analyzed in the 2017 EIR and 2020 UWMP for the Precise Plan due to the addition of 325 hotel rooms, 199,206 square feet of retail/restaurant space, and 66,957 square feet of institutional/recreational space beyond what was orig inally anticipated in the Precise Plan area. This additional development would have the equivalent water demand of 1,760 dwelling units, which exceeds the 500 dwelling units criteria in SB 610 for a WSA. Therefore, a WSA was completed for the project to ev aluate whether sufficient supply is available to service the increased level of development on-site.

The implementation of the project (under either option) would result in an additional demand of 197 AFY (or 176,020 gpd) compared to what was originally accounted for in the 2017 EIR and 2020 UWMP. This increase in development would result in a 1.4 to 1.7 percent increase in demand over

102 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. November 2017. Pages 159 and 160. 103 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page ES-7.

Mountain View City CouncilJune 13, 2023

Mountain View City Council
June 13, 2023