Mountain View City Council
June 13, 2023

North Bayshore Master Plan 169 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
what was originally projected in the 2020 UWMP (see Table 3.5-1). Refer to Appendix J for details about the projected supply and demand (with and without the project’s net increase in demand).

Table 3.5-1: Mountain View Potable Water Demand, Normal Year (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable Demand 11,610 12,100 12,616 13,159 13,715
Project Demand
Over 2017 EIR
Assumptions
197 197 197 197 197
Total Potable
Demand
11,807 12,297 12,813 13,356 13,912
Source: Schaaf & Wheeler. WSA for the North Bayshore Master Plan. December 2022. Page. 17.

As discussed in Section 3.5.1.2, a 2017 agreement with the SFPUC allocates a maximum guarantee of

12.46 mgd (13,957 AFY) in water supply to the City. The analysis in the WSA determined that the City would maintain sufficient supply to accommodate the increase in demand that would result from implementation of the project (under either option) during normal year s. The City could face supply shortfalls of up to 20 percent during single and multiple dry years, and as a result, would need to implement conservation measures to reduce demand.

The measures include limiting outdoor water use, encouraging further conse rvation through outreach programs, and requiring the rapid repair of leaks. These measures are described in the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan that was included in the 2020 UWMP, and could mitigate shortfalls of over 50 percent. Therefore, the 20 percent demand shortfall projected during single and multiple dry years would be mitigated by the conservation and water use restrictions described in the Contingency Plan.

The entire City, including the proposed project (under either option) , would be subj ect to these measures during dry and multiple dry years.

In addition, the project would meet the LEED Platinum standard for new office buildings and a minimum 120 -point GreenPoint -rated standard for residential buildings which would involve incorporating landscaping featuring native and low -water use plant species and an irrigation system that is mostly drip irrigation. Additional water efficiency would also be achieved through the use of low water consuming WaterSense labeled fixtures and fittings. These conservation measures would further reduce the actual on-site water demand compared to what is projected in the WSA.

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])

North Bayshore Master Plan 170 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact UTL-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not 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 . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The 2017 EIR concluded the City had sufficien t treatment capacity at the PARWQCP to treat flows from the Precise Plan area and no expansion of the treatment plant would be necessary. 104 The 2017 EIR also disclosed that implementation of the PARWQCP Long Range Facilities Plan would address aging equipment, new regulatory requirements, and sustainability.

Project
As discussed in Section 3.5.1.2, the PARWQCP has an average annual treatment capacity of 40 mgd,

15.1 mgd of which is allocated to the City. In 2020, the City sent approximately 6.9 mgd of wastewater to the PARWQCP for treatment.105 This results in an available capacity of approximately 8.2 mgd for the City for treatment at the PARWQCP. As discussed in Impact UTL-1, the project would generate a net increase of approximately 848,470 gpd (or 0.85 mgd) compared to the existing sewer flow on-site.

The incremental increase in sewage sent to the PARWQCP as a result of project implementation would result in a remaining treatment capacity for the City of 7.35 mgd. Based on this information, the PARWQCP would continue to have adequate capacity to treat the existing demand in addition to the increase in wastewater resulting from the proposed project. The project, 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
The project (under either option) would generate approximately 1,005,376 gpd of sewage. The WRF proposed as part of the project with District Utilities System Option would treat an average of approximately 435,748 gpd of wastewater. The remaining 569,628 g pd (or 0.57 mgd) would need to be treated at the PARWQCP. Compared to existing conditions (where approximately 156,906 gpd is being generated on-site and treated at the PARWQCP) the project with District Utilities System Option would result in a net increa se of 412,722 gpd (or 0.41 mgd) compared to existing conditions. As discussed above, there is an available capacity of approximately 8.2 mgd for treatment at the PARWQCP based on the City’s average annual treatment allocation and the 2020 average daily flow.

With implementation of the project with District Utilities System Option, the City would have a remaining treatment capacity of 7.79 mgd available at the PARWQCP. That is, the PARWQCP would continue to have adequate capacity to treat the existing demand in addition to the increase in wastewater resulting from the project with District Utilities System Option. The project with District Utilities System 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])

104 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequen t Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 559 to 561. 105 Ibid. Page 31.

North Bayshore Master Plan 171 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact UTL-4: Both Project Options: The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructur e, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The 2017 EIR determined that future development under the Precise Plan would comply with state and local regulations including AB 939, CalGreen, General Plan policies, and Precise Plan standards and guidelines to reduce the solid waste impacts to a less than significant level and not result in a substantial increase in waste landfilled at local facilities.106

Project
The project (under either option) would not generate solid waste in excess of standards or impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals by:

• Recycling and/or salvaging for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris resulting from construction activities; • Diverting and disposing of waste during operation in accordance with the state requirements and General Plan Policies INC-11.1 to INC11.4;
• Providing on-site recycling collection (as required by AB 341 and Precise Plan Chapter 4.5 standards); and
• Providing on-site composting collection (as required by SB 1383 and the City’s Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance).

Construction and demolition waste generated by the project and hauled using Recology debris boxes would be recycled at Z anker Material Processing Facility in San Jose. Solid waste generated by the project would be sorted at the SMaRT Station® in Sunnyvale, and any non-recyclable waste would be transported to Kirby Canyon Landfill, which has an estimated remaining capacity o f approximately

14.6 million tons and a closing date of approximately January 1, 2071 .107 Based on the remaining capacity at Kirby Canyon Landfill, the landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the project.

The project, 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
The project with District Utilities System Option would comply with the same requirements for recycling and solid waste reductions identified in the 2017 EIR and described above. Under the District Utilities System Option, the WRF would treat wastewater on-site which would produce residuals that would be processed at the AD facility. The digestate resulting from the AD process (either dewatered or wet) would be regularly hauled to either an off-site facility for beneficial reuse or to Kirby Canyon Landfill for disposal. It is estimated the AD facility could gen erate 10,800 cy of dry residuals a year

106 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 563.
107 Azevedo, Becky. Waste Management Technical Manager. Personal communications. December 27, 2021.

North Bayshore Master Plan 172 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
that could be disposed of at Kirby Canyon Landfill or transported to Fairfield or Merced for beneficial uses. Despite this additional waste, Kirby Canyon Landfill would still maintain sufficient capacity after the implementation of the project. Therefore, the project with District Utilities System Option would not result in a new or more substantially severe impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact UTL-5: Both Project Options: The project would not be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

See the discussion under Impact UTL -4 for details regarding the project’s compliance (under either option) with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Waste generated from the operation of the DC P would be managed and disposed of in accordance with the RCRA, as discussed under Impact HAZ -1. Therefore, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or more substantially severe impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

3.5.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact UTL-C: The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant utilities and service systems impact . (New Impact [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Project
Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Utilities Water System

The geographic area for cumulative water system impacts is the City boundaries because the City is responsible for providing water service citywide. Cumulative plus project conditions include buildout of the General Plan (including the Precise Plan CIPs) a nd the project’s proposed development that exceeds the development assumed in the 2017 EIR. The only difference between the cumulative conditions with and without the project (under either option) is that the cumulative conditions with the project (under e ither option) includes the proposed additional 325 hotel rooms, 199,206 additional square feet of retail space, or 66,957 square feet of institutional/recreational space that were not studied in the 2017 EIR.

• Water Storage - The citywide total for eight hours of MDD plus fire flow storage would increase from 13. 87 to 13. 97 mg under cumulative plus project conditions (under either option). As described in Section 3.5.1.2, the City has an operational active storage capacity of

14.3 mg (which exceeds the current DDW requirement of 13.87 mg) with the capacity to store up to approximately 17 mg if needed. The City would maintain adequate storage capacity with the slight increase in post-project DDW requirement of 0.1 mg. Therefore, the project (under either opt ion) would have a less than significant cumulative impact on water storage infrastructure. The project (under either option) would not result in a new or more substantially

North Bayshore Master Plan 173 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
severe impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

• Hydraulic Conveyance - Under cumulative conditions without the project, the analysis in the UIS found that the system would operate at an adequate pressure level with the exception of several nodes by Shoreline Golf Links that are under the PHD performance criteria of 40 psi.

These deficiencies would remain, and no new deficiencies would result from the project under peak-hour conditions. Based on this analysis, the project (under either option) would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on pressure levels within the system because the project would not result in any new hydraulic performance deficiencies. The project (under either option) would not result in a new or more substantially severe impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

• Fire Flow - Under cumulative conditions without the project, the fire flow rate required for the project site would be 3,500 gpm. All of the twelve existing fire flow nodes servicing the site would meet the required fire flow rate; however, there would be several off-site nodes within Pressure Zone 1 with deficiencies. With the project (under either option), the fire flow rates required for the project site would increase to accommodate the proposed development density and would range from 2,750 to 4,000 gp m. After implementation of the project (under either option), a single node on-site would be just under the required flow rate of 4,000 gpm with an available flow rate of 3,936 gpm. This fire -flow deficiency could be addressed by replacing the northern section of pipe from Charleston Avenue to the deficient node with 12-inch main; however, since the shortfall in required fire -flow rate is minor, the deficiency would not warrant additional improvements beyond the previously identified CIPs. In addition, a 50 percent reduction in fire flow rate requirements could be allowed upon approval of an automatic sprinkler system, per California Fire Code Section B105. Development of the project (under either option) would not contribute to any off-site deficiencies. Based on this analysis, the project (under either option) would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on required fire flow rates at the project site. The project (under either option) would not result in a new or more substantially severe impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

• Recycled Water System - The cumulative condition is based on several assumptions regarding the expansion of r ecycled water infrastructure in the vicinity of the project site. In the cumulative condition, there would be two pressure zones for recycled water, North Bayshore and East Whisman. The project site would be located within the North Bayshore pressure zone, which is assumed to have a dedicated storage reservoir and booster pump station under cumulative conditions, which would result in the operational storage within the pressure zone being able to meet PHD. Under cumulative conditions, the analysis in the UIS determined that the system hydraulics would meet PHD performance criteria system-wide with and without the project (under either option).

North Bayshore Master Plan 174 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Under cumulative conditions, it is assumed that the PARWQCP would increase its supply of recycled water to 8.64 mgd and the demand for recycled water on -site would be 272,450 gpd (or 0.27 mgd) without the project. With the project (under either option), the demand for recycled water would increase at the project site by 374,744 gpd for a total of 647,224 gpd (or

0.65 mgd). In the North Bayshore pressure zone, the cumulative MDD would be 3.7 mgd and the cumulative with project MDD would be 4.72 mgd. The cumulative PHD would be 8.5 mgd and the cumulative with project PHD would be 10.7 1 mgd. Operational storage in the Nor th Bayshore pressure zone is assumed to make up the difference between the source supply and the PHD. Because the maximum supply from the PARWQCP would increase to 8.64 mgd under cumulative conditions and adequate storage would be constructed, the PARWQCP would have sufficient supply capacity to meet maximum daily demands and PHD under cumulative conditions with the project (under either option). The project, 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])

Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure

In the cumulative condition, it is assumed all CIPs recommended in the GPPUUIS and the 2017 EIR UIS are constructed. Under cumulative conditions without the project , there are two segments of the sewer system along the project flow path that exceed the applicable maximum d/D performance criteria of 0.50 with d/D performance criteria of 0.585 and 0.535. The estimated sewer flow for the project is 1,005,376 gpd (approximately 367 million gallons per year), and the sewer system would not meet d/D performance criteria downstream of the project site under cumulative plus project conditions.

The increase in sewer demand from the project under either option would result in additional segments of the sewer system that exceed their respective d/D performance criteria . In addition to the two existing segments exceeding their performance criteria pre-project, six new segments would exceed the acceptable d/D performance criteria. The project would require the realignment of a 15 -inch pipe in Inigo Way and the upsizing of three pipe segments in Huff Avenue fr om eight- to 12-inches, one pipe segment along Charleston Road would need to be upsized from 12- to 15-inches, one pipe segment along Joaquin Road would need to be upsized from 12 - to 15-inches, two pipe segments in North Shoreline Boulevard would need to be upsized from eight - to 12-inches, and one pipe segment in Shorebird Way would need to be upsized from eight- to 15-inches. The proposed project under either option would pay the impact fee towards these planned improvements and its fair -share towards the six additionally identified pipes. The environmental impacts associated with CIPs identified in the GPUUIS and the UIS for the 2017 EIR were disclosed in the General Plan EIR and the 2017 EIR. The additional identified improvements would be built in exis ting 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 new 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 o r 2017 EIR. Thus, this would be considered a new impact. (New Impact [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 175 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure

The 2017 EIR concluded that future development in the City and surrounding communities must comply with NPDES MRP requirements and stormwater infrastructure would be sized appropriately for each development. As a result, the 2017 EIR concluded implementation of the Precise Plan would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to the stormwater infrastructure.108

The cumulative stormwater drainage infrastructure conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR. As discussed under Impact HYD-1 and Impact HYD-3, the project (under either option) would comply with the General Construction Permit and current MRP. Consistent with the findings of the 2017 EIR, as discussed under Impact UTL-1 the project (under either option) would comply with the MRP and City policy requirements and would pay impact fees to fund stormwater drainage CIPs identified in the North Bayshore Storm Drain Master Plan. The project (under either option) would also result in a decrease in impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions.

Therefore, the project (under either option) would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on stormwater drainage infrastructure. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Electric Power and Telecommunications Facilities

The 2017 EIR determined that while utilities are generally provided or delivered on a local level, they often originate from sources outside of the City and/or as a part of a regional distribution system.

Development associated with the Precise Plan could contribut e to City -wide or regional impacts associated with the provision of utilities.

The cumulative e lectric power and telecommunications conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR except that the project (under either opt ion) includes more development within the Precise Plan and on Subarea AM1. As discussed under Impact UTL -1, the project (under either option) would connect to existing telecommunications lines and be 100 percent electric. Therefore, the project would not r equire or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunications or natural gas facilities.

In addition, as discussed under Impact EN-3, this incremental increase in development would not result in a substantial increase in demand upon energy resources in relation to projected supplies. Electricity for the project site would be distributed from the Ames Substation operated by PG&E, which could require improvements such as new breaker configurations, inbound and outbound connections , and distribution lines to provide adequate service to the project. Therefore, the project (under either option) would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on electric power and telecommunications facilities. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

108 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 565.

North Bayshore Master Plan 176 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Water Supply and Demand
The 2017 EIR disclosed that, per the 2015 UWMP, the City’s available water supply would be sufficient to meet demands of existing uses and future growth (including the Precise Plan) under a normal year scenario through 2035. During single dry and multiple dry years, the City would implement the water conservation measures identified in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan to ensure sufficient water supplies are maintained. The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not make a significant cumulative contribution to impacts on water supply, and cumulative water supply impacts would be less than significant.109

As discussed under Impa ct UTL-2, the updated 2020 UWMP and project -specific WSA determined that 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. The City would maintain sufficient supply during normal years with the incremental increase in demand. The WSA also concluded that the City would maintain sufficient supply through single dry and multiple dry year scenarios with the implementati on of conservation measures identified in the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which were previously identified in the 2017 EIR as being required to meet water demand for single and multiple dry years. 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])

Wastewater Treatment Capacity
The 2017 EIR estimated cumulative wastewater generated by the City would be 14.3 mgd, which is more than 80 percent of the City’s allocated 15.1 mgd capacity at the PARWQCP. The City is required to conduct an engineering study to define the future needs of the treatment plant (per the RWQCP Basic Agreement with the City of Mountain View and consistent with the PARWQCP Facility Plan) when its service area reaches 80 percent of its contractual capacity rights. The 2017 EIR concluded that preparation of the en gineering study and implementation of improvements as part of the PARWQCP Facility Plan would reduce cumulative wastewater impacts to a less than significant level.110

The UIS prepared for the project calculated the City would generate 14.28 mgd of wastewa ter under cumulative plus project (under either option) conditions. This is consistent with the 2017 EIR estimate of 14.3 and would also exceed 80 percent of the City’s allotted treatment capacity at the PA RWQCP.

Thus, the City would be required to prepare an engineering study, consistent with the PA RWQCP Basic Agreement with the City of Mountain View and consistent with the PA RWQCP Facility Plan.

Any recommendations regarding physical improvements to the PARWQCP resulting from this engineering study would be subject to separate environmental review. 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 Sign ificant Cumulative Impact])

109 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 564.
110 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Repor t. State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 564.

North Bayshore Master Plan 177 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Solid Waste Landfill Capacity and Waste Reduction
The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan, together with the General Plan buildout, would represent an approximately 3.5 percent increase in permitted dail y throughput at the Kirby Canyon Landfill. Kirby Canyon Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the surrounding communities’ and the City’s solid waste disposal needs.111

The cumulative solid waste conditions have not substantially changed since th e certification of the 2017 EIR. As discussed under Impact UTL -4 and UTL-5, the proposed project (under either option) would comply with the same requirements for recycling and solid waste reductions identified in the 2017 EIR, would not adversely affect t he City’s compliance with the waste diversion requirements, and would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity. 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])

Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations
The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in a significant cumulative co ntribution to impacts on solid waste management. 112 The cumulative solid waste regulatory conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR. As discussed previously, while the project includes more development within the Prec ise Plan and on Subarea AM1, that development would comply with state and local regulations including AB 939, AB 341, SB 1383, CalGreen, General Plan policies (Policies INC -11.1 to INC11.4) , and Precise Plan (Chapter 4.5 Materials Management) standards and guidelines to reduce the solid waste impacts .

Cumulative projects in the City would be subject to the same state and General Plan policies, therefore, 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 [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Project with District Utilities System Option
Relocation or Construction of New or Expanded Utilities Water System

• Water Storage – The project with District Utilities System Option would result in the same cumulative water storage impact discussed above under the project heading. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

• Hydraulic Conveyance – The project with District Utilities System Option would result in the same cumulative hydraulic conveyance impact discussed above under the project head ing. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

111 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 565.
112 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Prec ise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 565.

North Bayshore Master Plan 178 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
• Fire Flow – The project with District Utilities System Option would result in the same cumulative fire flow impact discussed above under the project heading. (Same Impact a s Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

• Recycled Water System – As discussed previously, the demand for recycled water on -site would be 272,450 gpd without the project . With implementation of the project with District Utilities Sys tem Option, the assumed demand for recycled water at the project site could decrease compared to pre-project demand by 60,974 gpd due to the operation of the WRF on- site, and would result in an average daily demand of 211,476 gpd. Because the demand from the project site would decrease due to the operation of the WRF under cumulative plus project with District Utility System Option conditions compared to what is assumed under cumulative plus project without district utilities systems, the project with District Utilities System Option is also concluded to have a less than significant cumulative impact on recycled water supply.

The project with District Utilities System 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])

Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
As discussed in Impact UTL -1, under the District Utilities System Option, the DCP would be fully 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 project site. Based on the number of buildings anticipated to be connected to the DCP, the project -specific UIS assumes that 435,748 gallons of wastewater per day would be treated and recycled at the DCP . This would reduce the overall sewer flow generated by the project to 569,628 gpd.

Despite the decrease in sewer flow from the site with the District Utilities System Option (compared to the site without the district utilities system), additional segments of the sewer system would exceed their respective d/D performance criteria compared to cumulative conditions without the project with District Utility System Option because the increase in development intensity distributed within the project site would put further strain on those pipe segments th at are not connected to the DCP. In addition to the two pipe segments that exceed their performance criteria under cumulative conditions without the project with District Utility System Option, five new pipe segments would exceed the acceptable d/D perform ance criteria with implementation of the project with District Utility System Option.113 Of the five additionally identified pipe segments, three pipe segments in Huff Avenue would need to be upsized from eight - to 12-inches, one segment along Charleston Ro ad would need to be upsized from 12- to 15-inches, one segment along Joaquin Road would need to be upsized from 12- to 15-inches, and two pipe segments in Charleston Road would need to be upsized from 10- to 12-inches.

In addition, the proposed project would realign a 15-inch pipe in the new Inigo Way road and upsize the deficient pipes as part of the project. The proposed project would pay the impact fee towards these planned improvements and its fair -share towards the five additionally identified pipes. The environmental impacts associated with CIPs identified for the two known pipe segment deficiencies

113 Pipe segments 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.

North Bayshore Master Plan 179 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
were disclosed in the General Plan EIR and the 2017 EIR. The additional identified 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 impact s to unknown buried cultural resources) that would be subject to the previously identified City policies, COAs, mitigation measures, and BMPs ; thus, the upsizing and alignment of these pipe segments would not cause significant environmental effects.

With these improvements, there would be suffic ient wastewater capacity to support the project with District Utilities System Option. 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 Cumulative Impact])

Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure

The project (under either option) would implement the measures required by the General Construction Permit and current MRP, result in a decrease in impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions, and pay impact fees to fund stormwater drainage CIPs. Therefore, the cumulative stormwater drainage impact of the project with District Utilities System Option is the same as described above for the project (without District Utilities System Option). (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Electric Power and Telecommunications Facilities

The project (under either option) would not result in a substantial increase in demand upon energy resources in relation to projected supplies , therefore, the cumulative electric power an d telecommunications facility impact of the project with District Utilities System Option is the same as described above for the project (without District Utilities System Option). (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Water Supply and Demand
As discussed previously, 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. The project-specific WSA concluded that the City would maintain sufficient water supply to meet this increase in demand under either project option, therefore, the cumulative impact of the project with District Utilities System Option on the City’s water supply is the same as described above for the project (without District Utilities System Option). (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Under both project options, the City would be required to conduct an engineering study to define the future needs of the RWQCP when its service area reaches 80 percent of its contractual capacity rights.

Preparing this study and implementing the identified recommendations would reduce cumulative wastewater impacts to a less than significant level , therefore, t he cumulative wastewater treatment capacity impact of the project with District Utilities System Option is the same as described above for

North Bayshore Master Plan 180 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
the project (without District Utilities System Option). (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Solid Waste Landfill Capacity and Waste Reduction
Despite the slight potential in crease in solid waste generated under the project with District Utilities System Option due to the AD facility, Kirby Canyon Landfill would still maintain sufficient capacity.

As discussed previously, the project (under either option) would comply with the same requirements for recycling and solid waste reductions identified in the 2017 EIR and would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity, therefore, the cumulative impact of the project with District Utilities System Option on solid waste landfill capacity is the same as described above for the project (without District Utilities System Option). (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations
As discussed previously, the project (under either option) would comply with state and local regulations including AB 939, AB 341, SB 1383, CalGreen, General Plan policies (Policies INC-11.1 to INC11.4) , and Precise Plan (Chapter 4.5 Materials Management) standards and guidelines .

Therefore, the cumulative impact of the project with District Utilities System Option is the same as described above for the project (without District Utilities System Option). (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

3.5.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
UTL-1: Both Project Options: 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
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could
cause significant
environmental effects.

Yes LTS None N/A

North Bayshore Master Plan 181 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
UTL-2: Both Project Options: The
project would not have
insufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable
future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry
years.

Yes LTS None N/A
UTL-3: Both Project Options: The
project would not 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.

Yes LTS None N/A
UTL-4: Both Project Options: The
project would not generate
solid waste in excess of state
or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste
reduction goals.

Yes LTS None N/A
UTL-5: Both Project Options: The
project would not be
noncompliant with federal,
state, or local management
and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste.

Yes LTS None N/A
UTL-C: Both Project Options: The
project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively significant
utilities and service systems
impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 182 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
SECTION 4.0 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED EFFECTS
The City of Mountain View as the CEQA Lead Agency has determined that, based on the analysis in this section, the impacts of the proposed project on the following environmental factors were adequately addressed in the 2017 EIR and the General Plan EIR. That is, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts for the environmental factors listed below than disclosed in the 2017 EIR and General Plan EIR. The following discussion of the below environmental factors includes the same environmental setting and impact discussion subsections as provided in Section 4.0 for air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, transportation, and utilities and service systems.

5.1 Aesthetics

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

5.3 Cultural Resources

5.4 Energy

5.5 Geology and Soils

5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality

5.8 Land Use and Planning

5.9 Mineral Resources

5.10 Noise

5.11 Population and Housing

5.12 Public Services

5.13 Recreation

5.14 Tribal Cultural Resources

5.15 Wildfire

North Bayshore Master Plan 183 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.1 AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 and re quires lead agencies to use alternatives to level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts, specifically VMT. SB 743 also included changes to CEQA that apply to transit -oriented developments, as related to aesthetics and parking impacts.

Under SB 743, a project’s aesthetic impacts will no longer be considered significant impacts on the environment if:

• The project is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project, and • The project is located on an infill site within a Transit Priority Area (TPA).114

SB 743 also clarifies that local governments retain their ability to regulate a project’s aesthetics impacts outside of the CEQA process.

Streets and Highway Code Sections 260 through 263
The California Scenic Highway Program (Streets and Highway Code, Sections 260 through 263 ) is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The program is intended to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment.

114 An “infill site” is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of- way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.” A “transit priority area” is defined as “an area within

0.5 mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” A “major transit stop” means “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Source: Public Resources Code Section 21009. Acces sed December 7, 2021. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public- resources-code/prc-sect-21099.html.

North Bayshore Master Plan 184 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant aes thetic impacts. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Land Use Mix, Distribution and Intensity
LUD 6.1 Neighborhood character. Ensure that new development in or near residential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character.

LUD 6.3 Street presence. Encourage building facades and frontages that create a presence at the street and along interior pedestrian paseos or pathways.

LUD 9.1 Height and setback transitions. Ensure that new development includes sensitive height and setback transitions to adjacent structures and surrounding neighborhoods.

LUD 9.3 Enhanced public space. Ensure that development enhances public spaces:
• Encourage strong pedestrian-oriented design with visible, accessible entrances and pathways from the street.
• Encourage pedestrian-scaled design elements such as stoops, canopies and porches. • Encourages connections to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Locate buildings near the edge of the sidewalk.
• Encourage design compatibility with surrounding uses. • Locate parking lots to the rear or side of buildings. • Encourage articulation and use of special materials to provide visual interest. • Promote and regulate high -quality si gn materials, colors and design that are compatible with site and building design.
• Encourage attractive water-efficient landscaping on the ground level.

LUD 9.5 View preservation. Preserve significant views throughout the community.

LUD 9.6 Light and glare. Minimize light and glare from new development.

LUD 16.5 Protected views. Protect views by including open areas between tall buildings.

North Bayshore Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains standards and guidelines to avoid significant aesthetic impacts. Chapter 3:

Land Use and Design of the Precise Plan includes development standards and guidelines regarding physical character, form, building height, frontage requirements, and othe r topics that regulate the visual quality of projects in the area. The following standards and guidelines from Chapter 3 are applicable to the proposed project.

Standard Description

3.3.5 Building Height and Massing
5 High-rise residential building forms. Building masses greater than 95 feet in height shall meet the following requirements to preserve views and exposure to light and air:

North Bayshore Master Plan 185 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description
• No facades shall be greater than 190 feet in length.
• No floor plate shall be greater than 16,000 square feet in area 6 High-rise residential building spacing. High-rise residential building masses greater than 95’ in height shall be spaced no less than 175 feet apart to minimize shadowing of streets, open space, and other residential units. This distance shall be measured by a 175 feet circular offset from the building perimeter at its outermost points on the building form, as shown on Figure 12 (of the Precise Plan).
7 View and shadow study. Proposed projects with building elements greater than 95’ in height shall submit a view and shadow study. This study shall include information, including but not limited to, 3D massing models, digital simulations, or other methods, that evaluate both building shadows and impacts to views of mountain ranges surrounding the City. The view study shall provide views from several public locations in North Bayshore, including, but not limited to, Shoreline Park, Charleston Park, Charleston Retention Basin, Stevens Creek trail, Vista Slope, and the North Shoreline Boulevard corridor.

4.6 Outdoor Lighting
1 Light pollution. Illumination levels for all new construction shall meet the standards outlined by Title 24 and / or the “Light Pollution” credit as defined by the current LEED for BD+C rating system, whichever is more stringent.
2 Outdoor Lighting. For all new construction and additions, outdoor luminaires shall be energy efficient fixtures controlled by motion sensors and incorporate cut -off controls and outdoor lighting controls.

Guideline Description

3.3.5 Building Height and Massing
4 Preserving views. Upper stories should be designed to preserve significant views to surrounding mountains and the bay as viewed from public streets.

4.6 Outdoor Lighting
1 Inward Lighting. For new construction and additions, all lighting adjacent to Shoreline Park, Permanente Creek, Stevens Creek, the Coast Casey Forebay, and the Charleston Retention Basin should be designed and oriented so lighting projects inward toward the Precise Plan area, minimizing light trespass into adjacent natural areas.

City of Mountain View Municipal Code
The City Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code) sets forth specific design guidelines, building design and landscaping standards, architectural features, sign regulations, and open space and setback requirements. The Zoning Ordinance also outlines the development review process that both residential and non -residential projects must go through to ensure consistency and compliance with City regulations. The Zoning Administrator makes recommendations to the City Council for large r development projects and makes final decisions for permits and variances, and the Development Review Committee reviews the architecture and site design of new development and improvements and provides project applicants with appropriate design comments. This design review process allows the City to provide feedback and guidance to limit aesthetic impacts from development projects and

North Bayshore Master Plan 186 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
ensure that the architecture and urban design of new developments would maintain the City’s visual environment and quality.

4.1.1.2 Existing Conditions
Scenic Highways
There are no state-designated scenic highways in Mountain View. There is only one state -designated scenic highway in Santa Clara County: SR 9 from the Santa Cruz County line to the Los Gatos City limit. Eligible state scenic highways (not officially designated) include: SR 17 from the Santa Cruz County line to SR 9, SR 35 from Santa Cruz County line to SR 9, Interstate 280 (I-280) from the San Mateo County line to SR 17, and the entire length of SR 152 within the County. The nearest officially designated scenic highway is the segment of I-280 beginning at the San Mateo County line, which is approximately 6.15 miles east of the project site.115

Project Site
The project site is not within a TPA, pursuant to SB 743. The approximately 151-acre project site is located within the larger approximately 650-acre Precise Plan area. As described in Section 3.0 Project Information and shown in Figure 3.2-2, the project site is not all contiguous and is primarily located in the southeast portion of the Precise Plan area. Most of the project area is bordered by Charleston Road to the north, Stevens Creek and a mobile home park to the east, Pear Avenue and US 101 to the south, and Huff Avenue to t he west. North Shoreline Boulevard runs in a north -south direction through the center of the core area of the project site. The proposed district parking sites are located to the north and northwest of the core project area. The two district parking sites in the northwest corner of the Precise Plan are bordered by San Antonio Road and US 101 to the west, Casey Avenue to the north, Marine Way to the East and office buildings to the south. The third proposed district parking site is located outside of the Precise Plan area and is bordered by Shoreline Amphitheatre to the north, North Shoreline Boulevard to the east, Amphitheatre Parkway to the south, and Shoreline Park to the west.

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. Most of the existing buildings in the core project area are a mix of older and more modern one- to five-story office buildings surrounded by landscaping and surface parking lot s. The older buildings are typically one- to two -stories tall with primarily stucco or concrete facades. The n ewer office buildings are more contemporary in style (with glass expanses and metal details) and a re up to five stories tall. The buildings typically have large front and side setbacks that consist of surface parking and landscaped areas. Landscaping is found along the perimeter of the buildings, within the parking lots, and along the footpaths that provide pedestrian access between the buildings. Views of the project site are shown in Figure 4.1-1 below.

115 Caltrans. “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” Accessed February 10, 2022. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

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
Permanente Creek
Mountain View Slough
Adobe Creek
Permanente 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
7 6
5 4
3 1
2 8
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
Approximate Photo Location
PHOTOS OF THE PROJECT SITE FIGURE 4.1-1
Photo 1: View from the northeast corner of the San Antonio Road and Bayshore Parkway intersection looking east towards the project site.

Photo 2: View from the eastern boundary of Subarea MW-PP-2 looking north.

PHOTOS 1 & 2
Photo 3: View from Joaquin Road looking east at the existing Green Loop segment that runs through the project site.

Photo 4: View from the southwest portion of the project site on Plymouth Avenue looking north.

PHOTOS 3 & 4
Photo 5: View from the northern boundary of Subarea SA-P-1 looking southwest.

Photo 6: View from the northeast corner of the North Shoreline Boulevard and Charleston Road intersection looking east.

PHOTOS 5 & 6
Photo 7: View looking northeast at the Shorebird Egret Rookery located on Shorebird Way.

Photo 8: View from Space Park Way looking south towards Subarea PE-PR-2.

PHOTOS 7 & 8

North Bayshore Master Plan 192 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
The project site contains 4,021 trees, including 1,812 Heritage trees as defined in the City’s Municipal Code.116 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 condition. 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.

The district parking site that is outside of the Precise Plan area , Subarea AM1 is currently a surface parking lot for the Shoreline Amphitheatre. The surface parking area is bordered on three sides by landscaped embankments, and there are streetlights and landscapi ng throughout the parking lot. The two district parking sites in the northwest portion of the Precise Plan area currently contain one - to two-story office buildings with surface parking and landscaping . Existing sources of light within and adjacent to the project site include streetlights, indoor lighting, and outdoor security lighting, as well as lighting from vehicles traveling on roadways.

4.1.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on aesthetics, except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?117 If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

116 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. 117 Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.

North Bayshore Master Plan 193 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.1.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact AES-1: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of General Plan Policy LUD 9.5 and 16.5 would ensure that there would be less than significant impacts on significant viewsheds in the Precise Plan area.118 These policies require the preservation of significant views in the community and the inclusion of open areas between tall buildings in the North Bayshore area to protect views. Additionally, the 2017 EIR found that these General Plan policies coupled with Chapter 3: Land Use and Design of the Precise Plan provided adequate development standards to reduce any impacts to scenic vistas and resources to a less than significant level.119

The topography and location of the project site limits the number of expansive views of scenic resources that are visible from the project area. The primary scenic resource visible from the project site is the Santa Cruz Mountain Range which is partially visible to the south and west from certain locations in the project site. Views of the Santa Cruz Mountains are obstructed by existing landscaping and development throughout most of the project site.

Implementation of the Master Plan (under either option) would result in an increase in the height and intensity of development in the area. Any future development under the Master Plan (under either option) would be required to adhere to the same City policies identified in the 2017 EIR, which are General Plan Policies LUD 9.5 and 16.5, which protect scenic views in the community by requiring the preservation of significant views and the inclusion of open areas between tall buildings in the North Bayshore area. The Master Plan (under either option) would also be required to adhere to the design standard requirements in Chapter 3 of the Precise Plan including Development Standard 7, which requires a view and shadow study for any buildings greater than 95 feet in height in order to assess the impact that those buildings would have on scenic views from public spaces or properties. The project (under either option) would construct 36 buildings that meet this threshold, and detailed studies would be required when specific development is proposed to ensure that buildings would not have significant impacts on scenic vistas. Design Guideline 4 of the Precise Plan would require the upper stories of new structures to be designed to preserve significant views of the surrounding mountains from public streets.

The development of the district parking garage at Subarea AM1 is located outside of the Precise plan area and would be up to 90 feet tall, or approximately 67 feet tall measured from street level (Subarea AM1 is lower than the street level). The Santa Cruz Mountain Range is not visible from the vicinity of Subarea AM1. Subarea AM1 is slightly lower than surrounding parcels, therefore, development of the proposed district parking garage would not substantially obstruct the view of the Santa Cruz Mountain Range from sites located north of Subarea AM1 such as the Amphitheatre or Golf Course. Therefore, development of the parking garage at AM1 would not significantly impact a scenic vista.

118 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 135 to 136. 119 Ibid.

North Bayshore Master Plan 194 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Future development under the Master Plan (under either option) would comply with the above General Plan and Precise Plan policies; therefore, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact on scenic vistas than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact AES-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that since there are no state-designated scenic highways in the Precise Plan area and no portions of the Precise Plan area encompass the viewshed of a state scenic highway, there would be no adverse impacts to any scenic resources within a state scenic highway.120

As discussed in Section 4.1.1.2, there are no state-designated scenic highways in Mountain View and the nearest designated scenic highway is the segment of I-280 beginning at the San Mateo County line, which is approximately 6.15 miles west of the project site.

The project site, including Subarea AM1 that is located outside of the Precise Plan area, is not visible from that segment of state -designated scenic highway, so there would be no adverse impact on the viewshed from the highway. The project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact AES-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option ) would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not substantially degrade the existing visual quality of the site and its surroundings because the Precise Plan is in an urbanized area and future development would comply with all applicable General Plan policies (specifically General Plan Policies LUD 6.3, LUD 9.1, LUD 9.3, LUD 9.5, LUD 9.6, and LUD 16.5) and Chapter 3 of the Precise Plan (including Section 3.3.5 Building Height and Massing) . Additionally, the City’s development review process would ensure that the architecture and urban design of future development would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

All future development proposed under the Master Plan (including the development of the parking structure on Subarea AM1) would comply with the same General Plan policies and be subject to the City’s design review process. In addition, future development within the Precise Plan boundaries would comply with Chapter 3 of the Precise Plan. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or more substantially severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

120 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 135.

North Bayshore Master Plan 195 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact AES-4: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that adherence to General Plan Policy LUD 9.6, outdoor lighting standards and guidelines in Precise Plan Section 4.6 Outdoor Lighting, and the standards and guidelines in Precise Plan Section 5.2 Bird Safe Design would result in a less than significant level of light and glare resulting from future developments. The development standards and guidelines for outdoor lighting in Section 4.6 of the Precise Plan require developments to adhere to the more stringent illumination level standards of the LEED BD+C rating system or California Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, comply with outdoor lighting standards, and utilize lighting that is oriented away from sensitive natural areas within and adjacent to the Precise Plan area.121 The 2017 EIR also found that compliance with the Bird Safe Design Standards and Guidelines found in Chapter 5 of the Precise Plan would reduce impacts associated with light and glare by requiring window coverings and faça de treatments that would reduce light pollution.

The project, including development on Subarea AM1, would adhere to the same policies, standards, and guidelines discussed above would reduce light pollution and limit the amount of light and glare which could affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project (under either option) would not result in a new or more substantially severe significant impact regarding light and glare than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

4.1.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact AES-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumul ative aesthetics impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

The 2017 EIR determined that cumulative projects within Mountain View or nearby cities would be subject to the design guidelines, lighting standards, and signage regulations of their respective jurisdictions and implementation of these measures and requirements would minimize or reduce cumulative visual impacts associated with community or urban design to a less than significant level.122 The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

While the Master Plan includes more development within the Precise Plan and on Subarea AM1, that development would:

• Be urban infill and would be consistent with the surrounding urban environment; • Not substantially alter views from local scenic ridgeways;

121 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Building Design and Construction 122 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 139.

North Bayshore Master Plan 196 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
• Not obstruct views of scenic resources such as scenic waterways, Santa Cruz Mountains, and scenic ridgeways; and
• Comply with the same regulations ( e.g., design guidelines, and lighting standards) identified in the 2017 EIR to reduce cumulative aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level.

Therefore, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative aesthetics impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

4.1.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
AES-1: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista.

Yes LTS None N/A
AES-2: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not substantially damage
scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway.

Yes LTS None N/A
AES-3: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality.

Yes LTS None N/A
AES-4: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not create a new source
of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the
area.

Yes LTS None N/A
AES-C: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant
cumulative aesthetics impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 197 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.2.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) assesses the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural land and conversion of these lands over time.

Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The best quality land is identified as Prime Farmland. In CEQA analyses, the FMMP classifications and published county maps are used, in part, to identify whether agricultural resources that could be affected are present on- site or in the project area.

California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses.

In return, landowners receive lower property tax assessments. In CEQA analyses, identification of properties that are under a Williamson Act contract is used t o also identify sites that may contain agricultural resources or are zoned for agricultural uses.

Fire and Resource Assessment Program
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ( CAL FIRE ) identifies forest land, timberland, and lands zoned for timberland production that can (or do) support forestry resources. 123 Programs such as CAL FIRE ’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program and are used to identify whether forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas that could be affected are located on or adjacent to a project site.124

123 Forest Land is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover and allows for management of forest resources (California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); Timberland is land not owned by the federal government or designated as experimental forest land that is available for, and capable of, growing trees to produce lumber and other products, including Christmas trees (California Public Resources Code Section 4526); and Timberland Production is land used for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (Government Code Section 51104(g)). 124 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resour ce Assessment Program.” Accessed December 7, 2021. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

North Bayshore Master Plan 198 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.2.1.2 Existing Conditions
According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2018 map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land, meaning the land contains a building density of at least six units per ten - acre parcel or is used for industrial or commercial purposes, golf courses, landfills, airports, or other utilities.125 The project site is not currently used for agricultural or forestry uses and has General Plan land use designations of North Bayshore Mixed-Use, Mixed-Use Center (North Bayshore), and High Intensity Office. Most of t he project site is zoned North Bayshore Precise Plan (P-39), with the exception of Subarea AM1 which is zoned PF: Public Facility. The project site is currently developed primarily with commercial and office buildings, surface parking, and landscaping. Adjacent surrounding sites to the Master Plan subareas are generally developed with urban uses with the exception of a site (APN: 116 -11-031) located east of SB -PCUP. This site is designated as Other Land126 in the Santa Clara County Important Farmland map, Regional Park in the General Plan, and zoned A: Agriculture. The site is currently owned by PG&E and used as a temporary nursery site and storage area for vehicles.

4.2.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on agriculture and forestry resources, would the project:

1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 3) Conflict wi th existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Sectio n 51104(g))?
4) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use?

125 California Department of Conservation. “California Important Farmland Finder.” Accessed December 7, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
126 Other land is defined as land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; st rip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

North Bayshore Master Plan 199 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.2.2.1 Project Impacts
The 2017 EIR did not include an analysis of potential agriculture and forestry resources impacts, as the implementation of the Precise Plan would not impact those resources. This is exemplified in t he discussion below.

Impact AG-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non -agricultural use. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

As discussed in Section 4.2.1.2, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land in the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2018 map. None of the parcels within the project site are designated as farmland pursuant to FMMP maps. Therefore, implementation of the project (under either option) would not convert farmland to non -agricultural uses. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

Impact AG-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

The project site is not used or zoned for agricultural use, nor is the project site subject to a Williamson Act contract. For these reasons, implementation of the project (under either option) would not conflict with zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract . (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

Impact AG-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

As discussed in Section 4.2.1.2 above, the project site is zoned North Bayshore Precise Plan (P -39) and PF: Public Facility. The Master Plan proposes future development consistent with the existing zoning. Therefore, implementation of the project (under either option) would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 200 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact AG-4: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

The project site is not used as forest land or located adjacent to forest land . The project (under either option) would, therefore, not result in a loss of forest land or a conversion of forest land to non -forest use. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

Impact AG-5: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use . (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

As discussed under Impact AG-1 through Impact AG-4, the project site and most of the surrounding sites are developed and designated and zoned for urban uses. There is one site adjacent to the east of SB-PCUP that is zoned A: Agriculture and is partially used as a tree nursery. It is currently isolated and surrounded by urban development and the project would not change this existing circumstance .

For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to a non-agricultural or non-forest use. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

4.2.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact AG-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant agricultural and forestry resources impact. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Cumulative Impact])

The implementation of the project (under either option) would not impact agricultural, forestry, and/or timberland; therefore, implementation of the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact to those resources (see discussions under Impact AG-1 through Impact AG-5 above). (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Cumulative Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 201 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.2.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
AG-1: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide
Importance, as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use.

Yes NI None N/A
AG-2: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract.

Yes NI None N/A
AG-3: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land, timberland, or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production.

Yes NI None N/A
AG-4: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not result in a loss of
forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use.

Yes NI None N/A
AG-5: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not involve other changes
in the existing environment
which, due to their location or
nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use.

Yes NI None N/A

North Bayshore Master Plan 202 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
AG-C: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulatively
significant agricultural and
forestry resources impact.

Yes NI None N/A
Abbreviations: NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 203 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
The discussion in this section is based in part on a Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by TreanorHL in March 2022 , attached to this document as Appendix G, and a Cultural Resources Literature Review prepared by Archaeological/Historical Consultants in November 2022.

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

Impacts to properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria.127

Historical resources el igible for listing in the CRHR must meet the significance criteria described previously and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

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

127 California Office of Historic Preservation. “CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6.” Accessed April 25, 2022. http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%20update.pdf.

North Bayshore Master Plan 204 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Hi storical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity must cease, and the county coroner be notified.

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

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

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts to cultural resources. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 11.1 Historical preservation. Support the preservation and restoration of structures and cultural resources listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the California Register of Historic Places or National Register of Historic Places.

LUD 11.5 Archaeological and paleontological site protection. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits.

LUD 11.6 Human remains. Require all new development to meet sta te codes regarding the identification and protection of human remains.

North Bayshore Master Plan 205 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance is in Chapter 36, Article 16 of the City Code and consists of land use regulations, based on policies of the General Plan, that have been enacted in order to promote the public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare throughout the City of Mountain View.

Division 15, Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources of the City’s Zoning Ordinance includes a process for recognizing, preserving, and protecting historical resources. Division 15, Section

36.54.55 establishes the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources as the City’s official list of historically significant buildings, structures, and sites that are considered during the development review process. The Mountain View Register has similar criteria for l isting as the State of California Register and consists of historic resources that meet one or more of the following criterion (refer to Division 15, Section 36.54.65):

1. Is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization which, significantly contributed to the culture, history or development of the City of Mountain View;

2. Is the site of a significant historic event in the City’s past;

3. Embodies distinctive characteristics significant to the City in terms of a type, period, region, or method of construction or representative of the work of a master or possession of high artistic value;

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the City’s prehistory or history.

4.3.1.2 Existing Conditions
Historic Resources
According to the 2017 EIR, there are no known historic resources within the Precise Plan area.128 None of the historic resources identified in the 2017 EIR were located within the boundaries of the project site, including Subarea AM1 which is located outside of the Precise Plan area. The 2017 EIR identified the Henry A. Rengstorff House as the nearest historic residence that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register, and City Register of Historic Resources . It is located within Shoreline Park at 3070 North Shoreline Boulevard, approximately 0.75 mile north of the project site.

The 2017 EIR stated that the Rengstorff House was originally located at 1737 Stierlin Court, which is adjacent to the project site, but it was relocated to the Shoreline Park in the 1980’s. A more recent record search completed at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) determined that the Rengstorff House was not originally located at 1737 Stierlin Court, but was instead originally located on the east side of North Bayshore Boulevard between Space Park Way and Shorebird Way, which is inside the project area. The 2017 EIR determined that the vicinit ies of houses constructed in the late 19th and early 20th century , including the Rengstorff House, have a moderate to high potential to contain historic-era subsurface archaeological deposits.

128 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 232.

North Bayshore Master Plan 206 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
The project site is currently developed with 69 office, light industrial, and retail buildings. These on- site structures were constructed between the mid-1940s and the early 2000s. Of the 69 buildings on- site, the following 16 are 45 years or older129 (refer to Figure 4.3-1) for the location of these buildings).

1 2672-2680 Bayshore Parkway (1972) 9 1161 San Antonio Road (1974) 2 2751 Marine Way (1969) 10 1400 N Shoreline Boulevard (1973) 3 2761 Marine Way (1974) 11 1599 N Shoreline Boulevard (1962) 4 1220 Pear Avenue (1977) 12 1601 N Shoreline Boulevard (1962) 5 1230 Pear Avenue (1976) 13 1675 N Shoreline Boulevard (1958) 6 1431 Plymouth Drive (1945) 14 1250 Space Park Way (1959) 7 1477 Plymouth Street (1975) 15 1300 Space Park Way (1970) 8 1157 San Antonio Road (1969) 16 1340 Space Park Way (1958)

According to a Historic Resource Evaluation completed for the 16 buildings, none of the evaluated structures within the project site are eligible for listing on the City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the CRHR, or the NRHP. 130 Most of the evaluated buildings were construc ted in the 1960s and 1970s and are reminiscent of the Midcentury Modern and Modern architectural style, which was typical for suburban office parks of that era. Despite the construction of these buildings occurring during the period of time where the regio n became known as Silicon Valley, the buildings do not possess any greater historical significance that would set them apart from other suburban office parks in the area.

As discussed in Section 4.3.1.1, the CRHR and NRHP have similar sets of criteria for determining the potential historical significance for a property. The evaluated buildings were not found to have been associated with historically significant events or persons, therefore, the buildings are not considered eligible for listing on the NRHP , CRHR, and Mountain View Registers under Criterion 1 or 2. As stated previously, most of the buildings are examples of the Midcentury Modern and Modern architectural style, and they were not the works of a master architect nor do they demonstrate high artistic values. T herefore, the buildings are not considered eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, and Mountain View Registers under Criterion 3. The buildings have not and are unlikely to yield any important historical information, therefore, the buildings are not considered eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, and Mountain View Registers under Criterion 4. Based on this discussion, there are no structures on-site that could be eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, and Mountain View Registers and no integrity analysis is required.

129 Per the National Historic Preservation Act, properties 50 years or older meet the minimum age requirement for potential eligibility as historic resources. Due to the duration of project construction, structures that are 45 years old when this EIR was prepared were included because they could meet the minimum age requirement for potential eligibility during the up-to 30-year buildout of the project. 130 TreanorHL. North Bayshore Framework Master Plan, Mountain View, CA – Historic Resource Evaluation. March 2022.

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
Permanente Creek
Mountain View Slough
Adobe Creek
Permanente 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
7 10
6 4
1 11
8 9
2 3
12 13 141516
5 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

1. 2672-2680 Bayshore Parkway (1972)

2. 2751 Marine Way (1969)

3. 2761 Marine Way (1974)

4. 1220 Pear Avenue (1977)

5. 1230 Pear Avenue (1976)

6. 1431 Plymouth Street (1945)

7. 1477 Plymouth Street (1975)

8. 1157 San Antonio Road (1969)

9. 1161 San Antonio Road (1974)

10. 1400 N Shoreline Boulevard (1973)

11. 1599 N Shoreline Boulevard (1962)

12. 1601 N Shoreline Boulevard (1962)

13. 1675 N Shoreline Boulevard (1958)

14. 1250 Space Park Way (1959)

15. 1300 Space Park Way (1970)

16. 1340 Space Park Way (1958)
LOCATION OF BUILDINGS 45 YEARS OR OLDER FIGURE 4.3-1

North Bayshore Master Plan 208 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological resources that have been identified in the Precise Plan area, including the project site. 131 One Native American (pre -historic period) archaeological deposit was located in 1978 to the east of the Precise Plan area, directly adjacent to the North Rengstorff Avenue/Amphitheater Parkway US 101 interchange ramp. Th is deposit consisted of the remains of clam and oyster shells. Subsequent inspections and testing in 2007 and 2008 resulted in the finding of no additional archaeological resources.

Areas that are near natural water sources (e.g., riparian corridors and tidal marshland) would generally be considered highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological deposits and human remains. Most of the project site is within approximately two miles of the San Francisco Bay, approximately 0.2 mile east of Permanente Creek, and approximately 0.06 mile west of Stevens Creek. The 2017 EIR concluded that there is a low potential for the discovery of prehistoric archaeological resources in the developed areas of the Precise Plan, including the project site.

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

1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
3) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

4.3.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact CUL-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As discussed in Section 4.3.1.2, there are no historic resources in the Precise Plan area listed in the NRHP, CRHR, or City Register of Historic Resources . There are 16 buildings on-site that are a minimum of 45 years old and have the potential to be considered a historic resource during buildout of the project. These structures were evaluated and none of the evaluated structures met the criteria to be listed on the NRHP, CRHR , or City Register of Historic Resources. The nearest historic structure to the project site is the Henry A. Rengstorff House, located approximately 0.75 mile north at 3070 North Shoreline Boulevard. The project (under either option) does not have the potential to impact this off-site historic resource. Based on this discussion, the project (under either option) would not result in a significant impact on historic resources. This is the same impact disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

131 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 232.

North Bayshore Master Plan 209 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact CUL-2: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As discussed in Section 4.3.1.2, it is unlikely that buried historic or prehistoric buried archaeological and paleontological resources are present on t he site given its location and state of existing development on-site. However, the 2017 EIR acknowledged that these resources could be encountered during excavation, construction, or infrastructure improvements for the project given the site’s proximity to freshwater sources and the previous discovery of an archaeological resource near the US 101 and North Rengstorff Avenue interchange.

In compliance with General Plan Policies LU-11.5 and LU-11.6, and consistent with the 2017 EIR, the project (under either option) would implement the City’s standard condition of approval related to the discovery of pre-historic or historic period archaeological resources and human remains, should they be encountered on-site.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA CUL-2.1: Both Project Options: Cult ural Sensitivity Training . As requested during the Tribal Consultation process for the project, Cultural Sensitivity Training shall be provided to the construction crews at the beginning of the project to aid those involved in the project to become more fa miliar with the indigenous history of peoples in the vicinity of the project site.

Both Project Options: Native American Archaeological Monitor. A Native American archaeological monitor shall be present for all ground -disturbing activities throughout the project construction process.

Both Project Options: Discovery of Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources. If indigenous or historic-era archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities, all activity within 100 feet of the find shall cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance. The City and a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and a Native American representative shall be immediately informed of the discovery. The qualified archaeologist and the Native American representative sha ll inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of their initial assessment. Indigenous archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert -flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; cult urally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, w ill

North Bayshore Master Plan 210 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.

Both Project Options: Discovery of Human Remains . In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction or demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50-foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether th e remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his/her authority, he/she shall notify the NAHC, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation programs and its results, including a description of the monitoring and test ing resources analysis methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City's Community Development Director.

Compliance with the above condition of approval would reduce impacts to archaeological and human remains to a less than significant level by establishing protocol to implement in the event that cultural resources are discovered, including a work stoppage , the develop ment of a treatment pla n, and coordination with representatives from the relevant Native American tribe(s). The 2017 EIR concluded that future development in compliance with the above condition of approval would result in less than significant impacts to a rchaeological resources. The project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact CUL-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

See discussion under Impact CUL-2. The project (under either option) would implement the standard condition of approval COA CUL-2.1 and result in the same less than significant impact to human remains as disclosed in the 2017 EIR . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

North Bayshore Master Plan 211 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.3.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact CUL-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant cultural resources impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

The cumulative cultural resources conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR. Subarea AM1 is not part of the Precise Plan area; however, it was review ed as part of the archaeological literature review for the 2017 EIR and it is not listed on any historic registries. It is currently developed as a surface parking lot.

Historic Resources
The 2017 EIR concluded that since there were no historic resources in the Precise Plan area, implementation of the Precise Plan would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to historic resources. As discussed under Impact CUL-1, the project site does not include historic resources. For this reason, the project (under either option) would result in the same cumulative impact t o historic resources as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

Archaeological Resources and Human Remains
The 2017 EIR concluded that all cumulative projects within Mountain View or neighbori ng cities would be required to implement conditions of approval or mitigation measures that would avoid impacts to prehistoric resources or reduce them to a less than significant level. As discussed under Impact CUL-2, the City’s standard condition of appr oval include measures to limit impacts to these resources should any previously undiscovered archaeological resources or human remains be discovered on -site. For this reason, the project (under either option) would result in the same cumulative impact to archaeological resources and human remains as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

North Bayshore Master Plan 212 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.3.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
CUL-1: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not cause a
substantial adverse change
in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5.

Yes LTS None N/A
CUL-2: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not cause a
substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Yes LTS None N/A
CUL-3: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not disturb any
human remains, including
those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries.

Yes LTS None N/A
CUL-C: Both Project Options: The
project (under either option)
would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively significant
cultural resources impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 213 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.4 ENERGY

4.4.1 Environmental Setting

4.4.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Energy Star and Fuel Efficiency
At the federal level, energy standards set by the EPA apply to numerous consumer products and appliances (e.g., the EnergyStar ™ program). The EPA also sets fuel ef ficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation.

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2010.

Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S -3-05, requiring statewide emissions reductions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2008, EO S-14-08 was signed into law , requiring retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy goals.

A key provision of SB 350 requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. SB 100, passed in 2018, requires 100 percent of electricity in California to be provided by 100 percent renewable and carbon-free sources by 2045.

Executive Order B-55-18 To Achieve Carbon Neutrality
In September 2018, Governor Brown issued an executive order, EO -B-55-18 To Achieve Carbon Neutrality, setting a statewide goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” The executive order requires CARB to “ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve t he carbon neutrality goal.” EO-B-55-18 supplements EO S-3-05 by requiring not only emissions reductions, but also that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of CO 2 from the atmosphere through sequestration.

California Building Standards Code
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandat e to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years.132 Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.133

132 California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed July 1, 2022 . https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.
133 California Energy Commission (CEC). “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed July 1, 2022 . https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building- energy-efficiency.

North Bayshore Master Plan 214 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen establishes mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was developed to reduce GHG emissions from buildings, promote environmentally responsible and healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consump tion, and respond to state environmental directives. CALGreen covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.

Advanced Clean Cars and Advanced Clean Cars II Program
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars program in 2012 in coordination with the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for vehicle model years 2015 through 2025. The program promotes development of environmentally superior passenger cars and other vehicles, as well as saving the consumer money through fuel savings. 134 On November 30, 2022, the Advanced Clean Cars II program was approved and filed with the Secretary of State . This update to the program requires that all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California be zero emissions by 2035.135

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to energy impacts. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD-10.5 Building energy efficiency. Incorporate energy-efficient design features and materials into new and remodeled buildings.

LUD 15.2 Sustainable development focus. Require sustainable site planning, building and design strategies.

North Bayshore Precise Plan
Development in the Precise Plan area can qualify for bonus FAR through the North Bayshore Density Bonus Program by meeting certain minimum green building performance standards such as installing Energy Star Appliances, installing energy submet ers, and reducing energy use compared to existing structures. Appendix B of the Precise Plan outlines these standards for residential buildings and Appendix C of the Precise Plan outlines these standards for non-residential buildings. The Precise Plan contains standards and guidelines to avoid significant energy impacts. The following standards and guidelines are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

134 California Air Resources Board. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed July 1, 2022. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm.
135 California Air Resources Board. “Advanced Clean Cars II.” Accessed December 6 , 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-ii.

North Bayshore Master Plan 215 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Description

4.1 Green Building Design
1 Non-residential green building standard. All new non -residential construction shall meet the intent of LEEDBD+C Gold or an alternative green building standard, the mandatory CALGreen requirements, and other standards outlined in the Precise Plan. 4 Residential green 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 NBPP).

4.2 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1 Non-residential energy performance. New non -residential construction shall meet the minimum energy performance standards as defined by LEED BD+C prerequisites and mandatory CALGreen requirements.
2 Non-residential energy monitoring. To support energy management and identify opportunities for energy savings, new non-residential construction shall provide submeters or equivalent combinations of sensors to record energy use data (electricity, natural gas, etc.) for each major energy system in the building
3 Solar ready building s. All new construction shall be designed to be solar ready, which includes provision of a solar zone and infrastructure such as solar panel standoffs and conduit

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 GGRP in July 2012. The GGRP is a separate but complementary document to the General Plan that implements the long -range GHG emissions reduction goals of the Gene ral Plan. The GGRP includes goals, policies, performance standards, and implementation measures for achieving GHG emissions reductions, 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.

Mountain View Green Building Code
The Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC) amends the state-mandated CalGreen standards to include local green building standards and requirements for private development. The MVGBC does not require formal certification from a third-party organization but requires projects to be designed and constructed to meet the intent of a third-party rating system.136 For residential projects proposing over five units, the MVGBC requires those buildings meet the intent of 70 GreenPoint Rated points from the Build it Green certification program, as well as compliance with mandatory CalGreen requirements. For non-residential projects proposing buildings between 5,000 and 25,000 square feet,

136 City of Mountain View. Mountain View Green Building Co de. 2019. Accessed September 19, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/2019_mountain_view_green_building_and_rea ch_codes.asp

North Bayshore Master Plan 216 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
the MVGBC requires those buildings meet the intent of LEED Certified and mandato ry CalGreen requirements. For buildings over 25,000 square feet, the MVGBC requires those buildings meet the intent of LEED Silver and mandatory CalGreen requirements. Additionally, development projects subject to CalGreen requirements are required to divert at least 65 percent of construction debris from landfills.

In 2019, the Mountain View City Council approved amendments to Chapters 8, 14, and 24 of the MVGBC, 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 with an exception for commercial spaces with specialized equipment that cannot operate with electric service if approved by the City.

4.4.1.2 Existing Conditions
Total energy usage in California was approximately 6,956 trillion British thermal units (Btu) in the year 2020, the most recent year for which this data was available.137 Out of the 50 states, California is ranked second in total energy consumption and 49th in energy consumption per capita. The breakdown by sector was approximately 21 percent (1,507.7 trillion Btu) for residential uses, 19.6 percent (1,358.3 trillion Btu) for commercial uses, 24.6 percent (1,701.2 trillion Btu) for industrial uses, and 34 percent (2,355.5 trillion Btu) for transportation.138 This energy is primarily supplied in the form of natural gas, petroleum, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power.

Electricity
Electricity in Santa Clar a County in 2019 was consumed primarily by the commercial sector (76 percent), followed by the residential sector consuming 24 percent. In 2019, a total of approximately 16,664 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity was consumed in Santa Clara County

The community-owned Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the electricity provider for the City of Mountain View.139 SVCE sources the electricity and PG&E delivers it to customers over their existing utility lines. Customers are automatically enrolled in the Green Start plan and can upgrade to the GreenPrime plan. Both options are considered 100 percent GHG -emission free. The existing development on-site uses approximately 26.8 GWh of electricity annually.

137 United States Energy Information Administration. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2020.” Accessed June 30, 2022. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
138 Ibid.
139 Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed June 30, 2022. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.

North Bayshore Master Plan 217 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Natural Gas
PG&E provides natural gas services within the City of Mountain View. In 2020, approximately two percent of California’s natural gas supply came from in -state production, while the remaining supply was imported from other western states and Canada. 140 In 2020, California used 2,144 trillion Btu of natural gas.141 In 2020, Santa Clara County used less than one percent of the state’s total consumption of natural gas.142 The existing development on-site uses approximately 27 million kBtu of natural gas annually.

Fuel for Motor Vehicles
In 2019, 15.4 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California.143 The average fuel economy for light- duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles) in the United States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles per gallon (mpg) in the mid -1970s to 25.4 mpg in 2021.144 Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007. That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020, was updated in March 2020 to require all cars and light duty trucks achieve an overall industry average fuel economy of 40.4 mpg by model year 2026. 145,146 The existing land uses on-site consume approximately 1.3 million gallons of fuel annually.

4.4.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on energy, would the project:

1) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 2) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? 3) Result in a substantial increase in demand upon energy resources in relation to projected supplies?

140 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2021 Supplemental California Gas Report. Accessed June 30, 2022. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf. 141 United States Energy Information Administration. “Natural Gas Consumptions Estimates, 2020.” Accessed June 30, 2022.
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_ng.html&sid=US&sid=CA. 142 California Energy Commission. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed July 1, 2022. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.
143 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed July 1, 2022. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist. 144 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report.” November 2021. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013L1O.pdf. 145 United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed July 1, 2022. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.
146 Public Law 110–140—December 19, 2007. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed July 1, 2022. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf.

North Bayshore Master Plan 218 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.4.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact EN-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that construction and operation of development under the Precise Plan would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or wasteful use of energy resources because:

• Construction processes are generally designed to be efficient to avoid excess monetary costs, • Development would occur in an urbanized area with access to major roa dways, construction supplies, and workers,
• Standard BAAQMD BMPs (such as those identified in Section 4.1 Air Quality) would be implemented to restrict construction equipment idling times and prohibit unnecessary idling, • The project would comply with Precise Plan Section 4.5 Standard 2 (Construction Waste Reduction) and Guidelines 2, 3, and 4 (Material Selection, Regional Materials, and Reused Materials) which require that projects recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, use regionally sourced materials, use reused materials, and use construction materials that are certified by third-parties and selected based on a lifecycle assessment of their embodied energy.147

The 2017 EIR explained that operation of uses in the Precise Plan area would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources because projects would meet:

• MVGBC requirements
• CalGreen and LEED requirements
• Precise Plan green building regulations outlined in Chapter 4 • Precise Plan Density Bonus Program green building requirements in Appendices B and C of the Precise Plan

Projects that comply with the above regulations would meet or exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards.148 In addition, the Precise Plan and the City’s GGRP require projects to implement TDM plans to reduce trips (thereby reducing energy used for vehicle trips).

While the project (under either option) includes more development th an evaluated in the 2017 EIR (i.e., a parking garage on subarea AM1, 325 additional hotel rooms, 199,206 additional square feet of retail space, and 66,957 additional square feet of institutional/recreational space), the construction and

147 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan: Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2013082088. March 2017. Page 247.
148 Ibid. Page 248.

North Bayshore Master Plan 219 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
operation of the proposed uses would be consistent with the assumptions above from the 2017 EIR to not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The project (under either option), therefore, would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact regarding the consumption of energy resources than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact EN-2: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The 2017 EIR concluded compliance with the City’s standard conditions of approval and Precise Plan standards and guidelines promoted renewable energy and energy efficiency. 149 The project (under either option) would be consistent with state and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency by:

• Obtaining 100 percent GHG-emission free electricity from SVCE (consistent with the state’s RPS program and SB 350);
• Constructing in accordance with Title 24, CALGreen, and MVGBC; • Having the office buildings meet LEED Platinum green building standards (consistent with the requirements in Precise Plan Appendix C and General Plan Policies LUD 10.5 and 15.2); • Having residential buildings achieve the equivalent of a GreenPoint rating of 120 points or better (consistent with Standard 5 in Chapter 4.1 of the Precise Plan, Appendix B of the Precise Plan, and General Plan Policies LUD 10.5 and 15.2);
• Having all new buildings be 100 percent electric (consistent with the City’s Reach Code amendments); and
• Implementing a TDM plan (consistent with Chapter 6.14 of the Precise Plan).

In addition, the project (under either option) would comply with the mandatory measures identified in the City’s GGRP, as discussed in detail in Section 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Based on the above discussion, the proposed project (under either option) would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy e fficiency. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

149 Ibid. Page 249.

North Bayshore Master Plan 220 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact EN-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a substantial increase in demand upon energy resources in relation to projected supplies. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Table 4.4-1 summarizes the estimated energy demand disclosed in the 2017 EIR from buildout of the Precise Plan. The 2017 EIR concluded the Precise Plan’s energy demand was not a substantial increase relative to the County’s, state’s, and/or nation’s overall demand and projected supplies.150

Table 4.4-1: 2017 EIR Precise Plan Energy Demand
Electricity (kWh) Natural Gas (kBtu) Gasoline (gallons) 88,423,197 157,516,649 69,723

Most of the development proposed by the project (under either option) was evaluated in the 2017 EIR.

The project (under either option) includes additional development not previously accounted for in the 2017 EIR (i.e., a parking garage on subarea AM1, 325 additional hotel rooms, 199,206 additional square feet of retail space, and 66,957 additional square feet of institutional/recreational space). The project’s estimated energy use is summarized in Table 4.4-2.

Table 4.4-2: Project Net Increase in Energy Use
Electricity (kWh) Natural Gas (kBtu) Gasoline (gallons)1 Project (without District Utility Systems Option)
A. Proposed Uses 162,234,620 0 24,986
B. Existing Uses 26,816,750 27,016,450 1,295,234
Net Increase (A-B) 135,417,870 -27,016,450 -1,270,248
Project with District Utilities Systems Option
A. Proposed Uses 166,077,420 0 24,986
B. Existing Uses 26,816,750 27,016,450 1,295,234
Net Increase (A-B) 139,260,670 -27,016,450 -1,270,248
1 The estimated gasoline demand is based on the estimated annual VMT. The annual VMT for the existing conditions is 32,898,956 miles and 634,710 miles for the project. An average fuel economy of 25.4 miles per gallon was assumed.

The project includes a District Utilit ies System O ption, which furthers the applicant’s corporate sustainability goals. Energy demand from construction and operation of the proposed buildings would remain the same under either project option. The operation of the DCP would be in ad dition to continued operation of the City’s existing utilities systems, as there is no assumed reduction of municipal utility capacity due to the addition of the DCP. Because the City must ensure the existing utilities systems can accommodate the proposed development on the site in the event the DCP is offline,

150 Ibid. Page 245 and 246.

North Bayshore Master Plan 221 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
the City must be prepared to service this site if needed. Therefore, this analysis evaluates the proposed DCP facilities as “additive” on the existing municipal utility operations.

As shown in Table 4.4-2, on-site electricity demand would increase and natural gas and gasoline demand would decrease compared to existing conditions with implementation of the project (under either option). This is due to the replacement of existing electric/natural gas -powered buildings with new all electric buildings designed consistent with the City’s Reach Code standards, improvements in fuel efficiency for vehicles in 2040, and implementation of the project’s proposed TDM program (see Section 2.5.10).151

The energy demand of just the additional development not previously accounted for in the 20 17 EIR (i.e., a parking garage on subarea AM1, 325 additional hotel rooms, 199,206 additional square feet of retail space, and 66,957 additional square feet of institutional/recreational space) would result in an incremental increase compared to the estimated energy demand from the buildout of the Precise Plan disclosed in the 2017 EIR and energy supplies would not result in a substantial increase in demand upon energy resources in relation to projected supplies discussed in Section 4.4.1.2. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

4.4.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact EN-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant energy impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
Energy is a cumulative resource. The geographic area for cumulative energy impacts is the state. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the state’s energy impacts. If the project is determined to have a significant energy impact, it is concluded that the impact is a cumulative impact.

As discussed in more detail under Impact EN -1, Impact EN -2, and Impact EN -3, the project (under either option would not result in a significant energy impact because:

• The construction processes are designed to be efficient; • The project site is located in an urban area proximate to roadways, construction supplies, and construction workers;
• The project shall comply with City standard conditions of approval that would reduce equipment idling;
• A minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolitio n waste would be recycled and/or salvaged;
• The project would be constructed in accordance with the MVGBC, Title 24, and CALGreen; • The project would implement a TDM program ( consistent with Chapter 6.14 of the Precise Plan);
• The project site is served by existing transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; • The office buildings would be constructed to LEED Platinum green building standards; and

151 Per City Code Chapters 8, 14, and 24, all new construction buildings are required to be electric. Natural gas may be used for commercial spaces with specialized equipment that cannot operate with electric service (e.g., a restaurant with a pizza oven) subject to City approval.

North Bayshore Master Plan 222 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
• The residential buildings would be constructed to achieve the equivalent of a GreenPoint rating of 120 points.

Based on the above discussion, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative energy impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

4.4.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
EN-1: Both Project Options: The project
would not result in a potentially
significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation.

Yes LTS None N/A
EN-2: Both Project Options: The project
would not conflict with or obstruct
a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency.

Yes LTS None N/A
EN-3: Both Project Options: The project
would not result in a substantial
increase in demand upon energy
resources in relation to projected
supplies.

Yes LTS None N/A
EN-C: Both Project Options: The project
would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a
cumulatively significant energy
impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 223 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following discussion is based, in part, on geotechnical investigations performed by ENGEO Incorporated, Cornerstone Earth Group , and ENGEOTECH, Inc . These reports are attached as Appendix H.

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.5.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The act regulates development in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. Alquist-Priolo maps are distributed to affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new construction. Areas within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone require special studies to evaluate the potential for surface rupture to ensure that no structures intended for human occupancy are constructed across an active fault.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was passed in 1990 following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The SHMA directs the California Geological Survey (CGS) to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake -induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. CGS has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, landslides, and ground shak ing, including the central San Francisco Bay Area. The SHMA requires that agencies only approve projects in seismic hazard zones following site -specific geotechnical investigations to determine if the seismic hazard is present and identify measures to reduce earthquake- related hazards.

California Building Standards Code
The California Building Standards Code (CBC) prescribes standards for constructing safe buildings.

The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, soil and rock profile, ground strength, and distance to seismic sources. The CBC requires that a site-specific geotechnical investigation report be prepared for most development projects to evaluate seismic and geologic conditions such as surface fault ruptures, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and slope stability. The CBC is updated every three years.

North Bayshore Master Plan 224 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations Excavation, shoring, and trenching activities during construction are subject to occupational safety standards for stabilization by the Ca lifornia Department of Industrial Relations , Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Excavation Rules. These regulations minimize the potential for instability and collapse that could injure construction workers on the site.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. They range from mammoth and dinosaur bones to impressions of ancient animals and plants, trace remains, and microfossils. These materials are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies that unauthorized removal of a paleontological resource is a misdemeanor. Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to geology and soils impacts. The following policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Public Safety
PSA 4.2 Natural disasters. Minimize impacts of natural disasters.

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

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

PSA 5.4 Utility design. Ensure new underground facilities, particularly water and natural gas lines, are designed to meet current seismic standards.

Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 2.3 Emergency-prepared infrastructure design. Require the use of available technologies and earthquake-resistant materials in the design and construction of all infrastructure projects, whether constructed by the City or others.

Mountain View Municipal Code
The City of Mountain View has adopted the CBC, with amendments, as the reference building code for all projects in the City under Chapter 8 of the City’s Code of Ordinances. The City's Building Inspection Division, which is part of the Community Development Department, is responsible for reviewing plans, issuing building permits, and conducting field inspections. Geotechnical investigation reports, as required by the CBC, would be reviewed by the City’s Building Insp ection Division prior

North Bayshore Master Plan 225 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance. Based on the CBC, Mountain View requires geotechnical reports as conditions of approval for projects in the City.

4.5.1.2 Existing Conditions
Regional Geology
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, an alluvial basin bounded by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, the Diablo Range to the east, and the San Francisco Bay to the north. The Valley was formed when sediments derived from both mountain ranges were exposed by tectonic uplift and regression of the inland sea which previously inundated the area. The Upper Quaternary sediments that comprise most of this basin consist of up to 1,000 feet of poorly sorted gravel, sand, and clay which were deposited in alluvial fan and deltaic deposit.

On-Site Geology
Soils
The project site is generally underlain by stiff to hard clays closest to the surface, with various layers of medium dense clayey sands and stiff clay composing the sub-surface layers. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes. These changes can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on- grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. The surficial soils present in the area had plasticity index scores ranging from 12 to 41, in dicating a moderate to very high expansion potential throughout the project site.152, 153, 154

Site Topography
The project site is relatively flat with some areas graded slightly for draining, and as a result, the risk of erosion or landslide is low. There are no hillsides or steep embankments within the project site that require consideration for development. The elevation on the project site ranges from 13 to 21 feet above mean sea level.

Groundwater
The City of Mountain View overlies the Santa Clara Sub basin (DWR Basin 2 -9.02), a groundwater subbasin that is 297 square miles in area. Approximately three percent of Mountain View’s drinking water comes from local groundwater supply, while the rest is supplemented by water purchases from Valley Water and the SFPUC. Valley Water conducts an artificial groundwater recharge program that involves releasing locally conserved or imported water to in -stream and off -stream facilities to augment groundwater supplies in the Santa Clara groundwater basin.

152 Cornerstone Earth Group. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Shorebird Way Corporate Campus. August 11, 2017.
153 Cornerstone Earth Group. Geotechnical Investigation: 1400 North Shoreline Campus. March 28, 2014. 154 ENGEO. Preliminary Geotechnical Report: Google North Bayshore. November 27, 2019.

North Bayshore Master Plan 226 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Soil borings were performed at depths ranging from 30 feet bgs to 108 feet bgs in select areas of the project site (specifically those areas within the Shorebird and Joaquin Complete Neighborhoods) .

Based on the soil borings and other subsurface investigation, g roundwater levels on-site have been measured between three and 1 4 feet below ground surface , which is indicative of a relatively high water table in the area (see Appendix H for additional details regarding the depth and location of the soil borings on -site). Groundwater levels on -site may vary depending on seasonal precipitation, irrigation practices, and other climate conditions.

Seismic and Seismic-Related Hazards
Earthquake Faults
The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay region and within the general vicinity of three known major active faults. These faults are the San Andreas Fault, eight miles to the west; Calaveras Fault, 14 miles to the east; and Hayward Fault, 10 miles to the northeast. The project site is not located within a designated Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Santa Clara County Fault Hazard Zone.155, 156

Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction can be defined as ground failure or loss of strength that causes otherwise solid soil to take on the characteristics of a liquid. This phenomenon is triggered by earthquake or ground shaking that causes saturated or partially saturated so ils to lose strength, potentially resulting in the soil’s inability to support structures. The project site is located within a State of California liquefaction hazard zone, as well as a County Liquefaction Hazard Zone.157

Other Geologic Hazards
The project site is not located within a Santa Clara County G eologic Hazard Zone for compressible soil, landslides, or fault rupture.158

Paleontological Resources
Geologic units of Holocene age are generally not considered sensitive for paleontological resourc es, because biological remains younger than 10,000 years are not usually considered fossils . These sediments have low potential to yield fossil resources or to contain significant nonrenewa ble paleontological resources. 159 These recent sediments, however, m ay overlie older Pleistocene sediments with high potential to contain paleontological resources. Pleistocene sediments, often found at depths of greater than 10 feet below the ground surface, have yielded the fossil remains of plants and extinct terrestrial vertebrates.

155 CA Department of Conservation. California Earthquake Hazards Zone. Webmap. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
156 Santa Clara County. Geologic Hazards Zones. Maps 2 and 10. October 2012. 157 California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Map. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/ 158 Ibid.
159 United States Department of the Interior. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System. July 2016. Accessed November 24, 2021. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/IM2016-124_att1.pdf

North Bayshore Master Plan 227 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
There have been no recorded fossils discovered within the City of Mountain View ; however, two fossils have been discovered within two miles of the City’s sphere of influence. Geologic formations within Mountain View indicate that the project site could have moderate paleontological sensitivity.160

4.5.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on geology and soils, would the project:

1) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effect s, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
- Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)?
- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? - Landslides?
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 6) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

160 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 232.

North Bayshore Master Plan 228 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.5.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact GEO-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As disclosed in the 2017 EIR, the project site is located in a seismically active region, and as such, strong to severe ground shaking would be expected during the lifetime of the proposed project. The project site is not located within the Alquist -Priolo special study zone on the California Geological Survey fault zone map. The nearest active fault zones in the project vicinity are the San Andreas Fault, Calaveras Fault , and Hayward Fault. While no active faults are known to cross the project site (therefore fault rupture is not anticipated to occur ), ground shaking on -site could damage structures and threaten future occupants of the proposed development. Additionally, consistent with the conclusions of the 2017 EIR , the project site is located in a liquef action hazard area. Due to the relatively flat topography of the site and the lack of steep grades in the surrounding areas, the project would not be subject to substantial slope instability or landslide related hazards.

The 2017 EIR concluded that futur e development would not result in significant seismic or seismic - related hazards (including strong seismic ground shaking and liquefaction) by being designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements and General Plan policies PSA 4.2, PSA 5.1, PS A

5.2, PSA 5.3, PSA 5.4, and INC 2.3 , as well as complying with the following standard condition of approval.161

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA GEO-1.1: Both Project Options: Geotechnical Report: The applicant shall have a design level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey Special Publication 117, Guidelines fo r Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report shall be impl emented as part of the project. Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below -grade walls to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures caused by seismic activity, and traffic loads; method for back draining walls t o prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure; considerations for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design. Additionally, recommendations shall include measures (e.g.,

161 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Pre cise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 257.

North Bayshore Master Plan 229 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
shoring walls, waterproofing, and below grade hydr aulic barriers162) to minimize the amount of dewatering required during construction and prevent substantial impacts to aquifers or existing wells. Specific recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared for the project shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Mountain View Building Inspection Division.

The project (under either option and the district parking garage proposed on Subarea AM1 outside the Precise Plan area) would comply with the same CBC requirements, General Plan policies, and condition of approval identified above. The project’s compliance with these requirements would ensure proper design, engineering, and construction to minimize impacts from seismic and seismic -related hazards (including liquefaction and later spreading) to acceptable 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)]

Impact GEO-2: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Consistent with the 2017 EIR’s conclusions, due to the site and surrounding area’s flat topography, the project (under either option) would not be subject to substantial erosion. Therefore, the project (under either option) would not expose people or structures to significant erosion-related hazards. In addition, the project (under either option) would be required to implement standard conditions of approval to ensure erosion would not occur during construction and operation of the project, as described in detail in Section 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality . For these r easons the proposed project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant soil erosion impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact GEO-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Given the proximity of seismically active faults, seismic ground shaking could result in liquefaction and liquefaction-induced lateral spreading or differential settlement at the project site. Specifically in regard to the eastern side of the project site in proximity to the Charleston Retention Basin on the north side of Charleston Road and Stevens Creek along the eastern side of the project site, there is a low to moderate potential for seismically induced later al spreading.163 Implementation of the standard condition of approval discussed under Impact GEO -1 would reduce the impacts of seismic-related hazards (including liquefaction and later spreading) to a less than significant level.

162 Below-grade hydraulic barriers, once inserted, restrict groundwater intrusion from elsewhere into the project site, thereby, limiting the amount of groundwater that needs to be removed to only that groundwater that existed on-site at the time the hydraulic barrier was inserted.
163 Cornerstone Earth Group. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Shorebird Way Corporate Campus. Page 7 and

8. August 11, 2017.

North Bayshore Master Plan 230 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Valley Water actively monitors for land subsidence through surveying, groundwater elevation monitoring, and data from compaction wells. Valley Water reduces the potential for land subsidence throughout the Santa Clara Valley by recharging groundwater basins with local and imported surface water. The project would develo p urban uses connected to the City’s water system and would not require permanent groundwater extraction wells on-site. As noted in Section 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would require temporary groundwater dewatering during construction. Based on similar projects with basements in the Precise Plan area and scaled to the size of the proposed project, it is estimated that groundwater would be extracted at a maximum rate of approximately 2,000 to 2,900 gallons per minute, or 2.88 to 4.18 million gallons per day , during construction until building foundations are completed. This rate, however, would be anticipated to decrease following initial drawdown (i.e., following the first several weeks of dewatering) of the groundwater table to a lower, equilibrium dewatering rate. This lower equilibrium dewa tering rate is anticipated to be one -third to one-half of the maximum rate between 650 and 1,450 gallons per minute, or 0. 94 to 2.09 million gallons per day . Post-construction dewatering is not anticipated. 164,165 The standard condition of approval above (CO A GEO-1.1) includes evaluation and implementation of measures to minimize dewatering during construction, which would prevent subsidence from the temporary construction dewatering. No permanent dewatering is required for the project. For these reasons, the project (under either option) is expected to have a less than significant impact on subsidence.

Furthermore, consistent with the 2017 EIR, the project site does not contain steep slopes subject to landslide potential.

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 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact GEO-4: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code ; however, it would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that adherence to the CBC, General Plan Policies PSA 4.2, PSA 5.1, PSA

5.2, PSA 5.3, PSA 5.4, INC 2.3 , and standard conditions of approval (i.e., COA GEO -1.1) would reduce impacts from expansive soils to a less than significant level.

Soils on -site have moderate to very high expansion potential. The project (under either option) , including the proposed district parking garage on Subarea AM1 outside of the Precise Plan area, would conform to the same regulations identified in the 2017 EIR to minimize impacts from expansive soil through proper design, engineering, and construction practices . T he project (under either option), therefore, would not result in a new or substantially mor e severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

164 Google. North Bayshore Master Plan Dewatering Memo. February 25, 2022. 165 Google. North Bayshore Master Plan: Additional Dewatering Information. October 19, 2022.

North Bayshore Master Plan 231 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact GEO-5: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Project
The project site is located within an ur banized area of Mountain View where sewers are available to dispose of wastewater from the project site. The project would connect to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system and would not need to support septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal sy stems.

This is the same impact disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Project with District Utilities System Option
The project with District Utilities System Option includes a DCP, which includes a WRF that would have the capacity to treat a maximum daily flow of approximately 900,000 gallons of wastewater a day. The WRF is intended to treat all of the proposed project’s wa stewater. The design -level geotechnical report for the project required as a condition of approval (see COA GEO-1.1 under Impact GEO-1), would evaluate the DCP and identify recommendations to ensure on-site soils conditions are adequate to support the development. No leach pits or percolation fields are proposed. Therefore, the project with District Utilities System Option would not result in soils impacts due to the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. 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])

Impact GEO-6: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

No paleontological resources have been identified in the City of Mountain View; however, construction and excavation could result in the disturbance of unknown resources. The 2017 EIR included the following standard condition of approval to reduce impacts to unknown p aleontological resources to a less than significant level.

North Bayshore Master Plan 232 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Condition of Approval:

COA GEO-6.1: Both Project Options: Discovery Of Paleontological Resources: In the event a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

The project (under either option) would implement the above standard condition . The project would result in less than significant impacts to paleontological resources by ensuring any unburied paleontological resources are properly recovered and minimizing disturbance during excavation and construction. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

4.5.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact GEO-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant geology and soils impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that cumulative projects would implement the same conditions of approval, mitigation measures, and consistency with State Building Code that would avoid impacts from geology and soils hazards, and reduce them to a less than significant level. These projects would also be subject to federal, state, city, or county laws for building and construction in seismic hazard areas. The cumulative geology and soil geographic area, conditions, and impacts analyzed in the 2017 EIR do not change with the proposed project (under either option). For this reason, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative geology and soils impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approve d Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

North Bayshore Master Plan 233 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.5.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
GEO-1: Both Project Options: The
project would not directly or
indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving
rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known
fault; strong seismic ground
shaking; seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction;
or landslides.

Yes LTS None N/A
GEO-2: Both Project Options: The
project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil.

Yes LTS None N/A
GEO-3: Both Project Options: The
project would not be located on
a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse.

Yes LTS None N/A
GEO-4: Both Project Options: The
project would not be located on
expansive soil, as defined in the
current California Building
Code, creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or
property.

Yes LTS None N/A

North Bayshore Master Plan 234 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
GEO-5: Project only: The project
would not have soils incapable
of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater.

Yes LTS None N/A
Project with District Utilities
System Option: The project
would not have soils incapable
of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater.

Yes LTS None N/A
GEO-6: Both Project Options: The
project would not directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site
or unique geological feature.

Yes LTS None N/A
GEO-C: Both Project Options: The
project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulatively
significant geology and soils
impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 235 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following discussion is based, in part, on hazards and hazardous materials reports completed by Elevate Environmental dated December 10, 2021 and Farallon Consulting, LLC dated April 21, 2022.

These reports are included in Appendix I.

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.6.1.1 Regulatory Framework
The s torage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste are highly regulated under federal and state laws. In California, the EPA has granted most enforcement authority over federal hazardous materials regulations to the Californi a Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). In turn, local agencies have been granted responsibility for implementation and enforcement of many hazardous materials regulations under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program.

Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials.

Proper handling and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction.

Cal/OSHA enforces state worker health and safety regulations rela ted to construction activities.

Regulations include exposure limits, requirements for protective clothing, and training requirements to prevent exposure to hazardous materials. Cal/OSHA also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and asbestos investigations and abatement.

Federal and State
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures an d minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require that the FAA be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above the ground.

North Bayshore Master Plan 236 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA accomplished the following objectives:

• Established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites;
• Provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and
• Established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.

The law authorizes two kinds of response actions:

• Short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response; and
• Long-term remedial response actions that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life-threatening. These actions can be completed only at sites listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List.

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorit ies List.

CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.166

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976, is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste. RCRA gives the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the “cradle to the grave.” This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes.

The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that focused on waste minimization , phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste , and corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for

166 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Superfund : CERCLA Overview.” Accessed May 26, 202 2. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.

North Bayshore Master Plan 237 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
the EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.167

Government Code Section 65962.5
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires CalEPA to develop and up date a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).168

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. The TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon , and lead-based paint.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program aims to prevent accidental releases of regulated hazardous materials that represent a potential hazard beyond the boundaries of a property.

Facilities that are required to participate in the CalARP Program use or stor e specified quantities of toxic and flammable substances (hazardous materials) that can have off -site consequences if accidentally released. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health reviews CalARP risk management plans as the CUPA.

Asbestos-Containing Materials
Friable asbestos is any asbestos-containing material (ACM) that, when dry, can easily be crumbled or pulverized to a powder by hand, allowing the asbestos particles to become airborne. Common examples of products that have been fou nd to contain friable asbestos include acoustical ceilings, plaster, wallboard, and thermal insulation for water heaters and pipes. Common examples of non-friable ACMs are asphalt roofing shingles, vinyl floor tiles, and transite siding made with cement. T he EPA phased out use of friable asbestos products between 1973 and 1978. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require that potentially friable ACMs be removed prior to building demolition or remodeling that may disturb the ACMs.

CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead-based paint in 1978.

Removal of older structures with lead-based paint is subject to requirements outlined by the Cal/OSHA

167 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “ Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed May 26, 2022 https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act. 168 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed May 2 6, 202 2. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

North Bayshore Master Plan 238 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Lead in Construction Standard, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 during demoliti on activities.

Requirements include employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. If lead -based paint is peeling, flaking, or blistered, it is required to be removed prior to demolition.

Regional and Local
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
PCBs were produced in the United States between 1955 and 1978 and used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications, including building and structure materials such as plasticizers, paints, sealants, caulk, and wood floor finishes. In 1979, the EPA banned the production and use of PCBs due to their potential harmful health effects and persistence in the environment. PCBs can still be released to the environment today during demolition of buildings that contain legacy caulks, sealants, o r other PCB-containing materials.

With the adoption of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on November 19, 2015, Provision C.12.f requires that permittees develop an assessment m ethodology for applicable structures planned for demolition to ensure PCBs do not enter municipal storm drain systems.169 As of July 2019, all applicants proposing full demolition of a building are required to submit a PCB Screening Assessment Applicant Pac kage prior to obtaining a demolition permit. Buildings constructed or remodeled between 1950 and 1980 may contain PCBs in building materials. Implementation of this requirement is required in the San Francisco Bay Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order No. r2- 2015-0049, Permit No. CAS612008).170

The RWQCB has drafted a renewed MRP for the San Francisco Bay Region, which was adopted by the Water Board on May 11, 2022. Any new development submitted to the City after its effective date will be subject to the regulations under the renewed MRP.171

Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The project site is approximately 0.78 mile west of the Moffett Federal Airfield , which is the closest airport to the site. The Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport, as well as aircraft occupants. 172 The CLUP is also intended to ensure that surrounding new land uses do not affect airfield operations. The CLUP identifies the Airfield’s Airport Influence Area (AIA). The AIA is a composite of areas surrounding the Airfield that are affected by noise, height, and safety considera tions. Within the AIA, the CLUP establishes a (1) noise restriction area, (2) height restriction area, and (3) safety restriction area.

169 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.
170 City of Mountain View. “Environmental Pro tection.” Accessed November 18, 2021. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fire/environment/protection.asp 171 California Water Boards, San Francisco Bay, Stormwater Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Reissuance: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/. Accessed on April 8, 2022.
172 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

November 2, 2016.

North Bayshore Master Plan 239 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan The City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, an annex to Santa Clara County’s Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017), performs a full risk assessment on the nine hazards that present the greatest concern in Santa Clara County. The nine hazards focused on for this mitigation plan are climate change/sea-level rise, dam and levee failure, drought, earthquakes, floods, landslides, severe weather, tsunamis, and wildfires.

The City’s annex, Chapter 11 of the document, provides a detailed overview of the City’s response capabilities, the organizational structure of local authorities, risk rating scores that determine which hazards present the greatest risk to Mountain View, and a priority schedule for mitigation measures planned by local and regional agencies.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Public Safety
PSA 3.1 Minimized losses. Minimize property damage, injuries and loss of life from fire.

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

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

PSA 3.4 Oversight agencies. Work with local, state and federal oversight agenc ies to encourage remediation of contamination and protection of public and environmental health and safety.

PSA 4.1 Emergency response plan. Maintain and update the City’s emergency response plans.

Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 2.1 Emergency preparedness. Ensure that the City is well -prepared for natural and human - induced disasters and emergencies.

INC 18.1 Contamination prevention. Protect human and environmental health from environmental contamination.

INC 18.2 Contamination clean -up. Cooperate with local, state, and federal agencies that oversee environmental contamination and clean-up activities.

Land Use and Design
LUD 2.5 Moffett Federal Airfield. Encourage compatible land uses within the Airport Influence Area for Moffett Federal Airfield as part of Santa Clara County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

North Bayshore Master Plan 240 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Policy Description
LUD 3.10 Zoning standards for sensitive uses. Allow sensitive uses su ch as childcare in the North Bayshore and East Whisman Change Areas with measures to protect those uses from hazardous materials used by surrounding businesses.

Mobility
MOB 10.1 Efficient automobile infrastructure. Strive to maximize the efficiency of existing automobile infrastructure and manage major streets to discourage cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets.

MOB 10.2 Reduced travel demand. Promote effective TDM programs for existing and new development.

MOB 10.4 Emergency response. Monitor emergency response times and review emergency response time standards.

North Bayshore Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains standards and guidelines to avoid significant hazard and hazardous materials impacts. The following guidelines and standards are applicable to the proposed project.

Standard Description

3.3.2 Land Uses
4 Prohibited uses. Extremely hazardous material users as defined in the City Code are prohibited, except for exempt permitted materials.

3.3.5 Building Height and Massing
4 Moffett Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan Height Limits. All new buildings shall conform to the he ight limits established by the Moffett Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

Specifically, maximum building heights shall not exceed 182 feet AMSL (Above Mean Sea Level). Proposed projects must also obtain a No Hazard determination from the FAA (Federal Aviation Agency).

4.6.1.2 Existing Conditions
The 2017 EIR identified several hazardous conditions in the Precise Plan area including a history of agricultural uses that may have involved the use of pesticides, historical spills and leaks of hazardous materials from companies working in the area, the presence of ACMs and lead-based paint in older buildings, proximity to contaminated groundwater plumes, and proximity to Moffett Federal Airfield.

On-Site Sources of Contamination
Prior to being developed with office, commercial, and industrial buildings throughout the mid-1900’s, the project area (and many surrounding areas throughout the region) was used for agricultural purposes.

Table 4.6-1 identifies known or suspected contaminants by each parcel that comprises the site based on site investigations. As shown in Table 4.6-1, 40 of the 42 tax parcels that comprise the project area either have residual pesticides exceeding the environmental screening levels (ESL) present in the soil

North Bayshore Master Plan 241 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
or have a history on-site of agricultural uses which indicates the likely presence of residual pesticides on-site.

Table 4.6-1 also shows several parcels within the project site have a history of tenants storing, using, and disposing of hazardous materials as part of industrial uses on-site. These hazardous materials range from solvents, halogenated organic compounds, compressed gasses, corrosive liquids, combustible liquids, laboratory waste, flammable liquids, acids, bases, flammable solvents, and lubricants among other materials. As part of on -site investigations included in Appendix I, soil, groundwater, and soil vapor sampling was performed at select locations. Levels of contaminants detected above ESLs are notated in Table 4.6-1.

Off-Site Sources of Contamination
As discussed in the 2017 EIR, there are seven Superfund sites within one mile of the Precise Plan area.

Contaminated groundwater plumes are present within the Precise Plan area including the following two groundwater plumes. A third plume, the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Plume is located east of the site and is not within the Precise Plan area. See Figure 4.6-1 for the estimated extent of nearby contaminated groundwater plumes. The potential for contaminants from these plumes to impact parcels within the project site are indicated in Table 4.6-1:.

Teledyne and Spectra-Physics (TSP) Sites
The Teledyne semiconductor manufacturing facility, located approximately 500 feet south of the project site at 1300 Terra Bella Avenue, has been in operation since 1962. In 1982, Teledyne reported an underground solvent storage tank had been leaking solvents into the soil and groundwater. The Spectra-Physics electronics and gas laser manufacturing facility, located approximately 0.32 mile south of the project site at 1250 West Middlefield Road, has been in operation since 1961. Their operational activities led to VOCs being released into the soil and groundwater near the facility. The Teledyne and Spectra-Physics Plume was created when those sources of contamination combined in the groundwater and migrated north of the original contamination sites. This plume has spread into the Precise Plan area and is estimated to have contaminated the soil and groundwater under the western half of the project site.

Montwood Site
Similar to the TSP sites described above, the Montwood Plume originated south of US 101 and spread north under the Precise Plan area. Contaminants in the plume consist primarily of Trichloroethylene (TCE), which is a VOC. The estimated extent of the plume does not reach the project site; however, it does extend to parcels adjacent to the project site.

1625 North Shoreline Boulevard Site
In 2016, an array of VOCs were found in groundwater samples that exceeded the established ESLs in the area around 1625 North Shoreline Boulevard, which is within the Precise Plan area. The contaminated groundwater plume has since spread under multiple Master Plan parcels along North Shoreline Boulevard.

North Bayshore Master Plan 242 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 4.6-1: Known or Suspected Contaminants by APN

APN
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos Containing
Materials
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Contaminants in
Groundwater
Contaminants in
Soil Vapor
Freon 113
Generation of
Hazardous Waste
Lead
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrite
Pesticides
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Selenium
Vanadium
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)1
116-02-037 X X X X X X X
-054 * X X * / X X
-081 * X X H * / X X X
-083 * * X X X * / X X
-084 * * X H * / * X
-088 * * X X * X X X
116-10-077 * X X / C * / * X
-078 X / / X
-079 X X / C / X
-080 X / / X
-084 X / X
-085 * * X C * / * X
-088 X X
-089 * * X * / * X
-095 * X X / * X
-097 * X X / H C * X * X
-101 * X / * X
-102 * * X X H * * / * X
-104 * X X H / * X
-105 * X X / * X
-107 * X * / * X
-108 * * X X H * / * X
116-11-012 * X X X H C X * X

North Bayshore Master Plan 243 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 4.6-1: Known or Suspected Contaminants by APN

APN
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos Containing
Materials
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Contaminants in
Groundwater
Contaminants in
Soil Vapor
Freon 113
Generation of
Hazardous Waste
Lead
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrite
Pesticides
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Selenium
Vanadium
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)1
-021 * X X H * / * X
-022 * X H / * X
-024 X H / X X
-025 * X X C * / X * X
-028 * X X H * / X * X
-030 * X X H / * X
-038 * * X X H * / X * * X
-039 * X X * / X * X
116-13-027 X X H / X
-034 X X H C X X
-037 X / X
-038 X / X
116-14-028 * X X H X * X
-058 * X X H * / * X
-066 * X X / X * X
-070 * X X H / * X
-072 * X X H / X * X
-095 * X X X H * / X * X
116-20-043 X X / X X X

North Bayshore Master Plan 244 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 4.6-1: Known or Suspected Contaminants by APN

APN
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos Containing
Materials
Barium
Chromium
Cobalt
Contaminants in
Groundwater
Contaminants in
Soil Vapor
Freon 113
Generation of
Hazardous Waste
Lead
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrite
Pesticides
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
Selenium
Vanadium
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)1

1. Volatile Organic Compounds detected may include: T-1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE), Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene (DCE), Trichloroethylene (TCE), Chloroform, Benzene, Perchloroethylene (PCE), Vinyl Chloride, Ethylbenzene, 1,1-Dichloroethane (DCA) 1,2-Dichloroethane (DCA), Chloromethane, Freon 11, 1,1-Trichloroethane (TCA), Phenol, and/or Bromodichloromethane X = Contaminant or condition has been recorded on-site
/ = Potential contamination based on site use history or the measured presence of contaminants on nearby properties H = Historic tenant on-site generated and/or disposed of hazardous waste.

C = Current tenant generates and/or disposes hazardous waste * = Concentrations exceed ESLs, but are within the estimated range of regional background concentrations in the soil Source: Farallon Consulting, April 19, 2022.

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,
IGN, and the GIS User Community
NOTES:

1. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.

2. FIGURES WERE PRODUCED IN COLOR. GRAYSCALE COPIES MAY NOT REPRODUCE ALL ORIGINAL INFORMATION.

3. GROUNDWATER PLUME EXTENTS ARE ESTIMATED BASED ON DATA PRESENTED BY VARIOUS CONSULTANTS AND MAY NOT REFLECT THE MOST CURRENT DATA AVAILABLE.
= MICROGRAMS PER LITER
= TRICHLOROETHENE
= VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND
UG/L
TCE
VOC
LEGEND

PLAN AREA PROPERTY BOUNDARY
MIDDLEFIELD-ELLIS-WHISMAN (MEW) PLUME - ESTIMATED TCE IN GROUNDWATER > 5 UG/L MONTWOOD PLUME - ESTIMATED TCE IN GROUNDWATER >50 UG/L
1625 NORTH SHORELINE BOULEVARD PLUME - ESTIMATED VOCs IN GROUNDWATER > 5 UG/L TELEDYNE-SPECTRA PHYSICS PLUME - ESTIMATED TCE IN GROUNDWATER > 5 UG/L 0 550 1,100 Feet
101
101
Amphitheatre Parkway
North Shoreline Boulevard
De France Avenue
Stevens Creek
Amphitheatre Parkway
North
Shoreline
Boulevard
De France Avenue
Stevens Creek
Terminal BlvdTerminal Blvd
GROUNDWATER PLUMES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY FIGURE 4.6-1

North Bayshore Master Plan 246 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Other Hazards
Asbestos-Containing Materials
As discussed in the 2017 EIR, buildings constructed prior to 1978 may have ACMs and lead-based paint present in the building materials. The asbestos containing materials could include materials such as roofs, tiling, and insulation. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessments conducted for the project site identified several parcels where those types of building materials were identified. Table 4.6-1 identifies which parcels within the project site could contain ACMs.

Moffett Federal Airfield
The project site is approximately 0.78 mile west of the Moffett Federal Airfield , which is the closest airport to the site. Most of the project site is within the AIA, except for the Marine Way district parking sites which are outside of the AIA. The central portion of the project site is within the mapped Part 77 182-foot above mean sea level (amsl) horizontal surface for Moffett Federal Airfield. The Marine Way district parking sites are between the Part 77 332- and 382 -foot amsl horizontal surface s.173 The elevation of the project site ranges from zero- to 26-feet amsl. The site is not within any of the Airfield’s Safety Zones or Noise Contours. See Figure 4.6-2 for additional details.

Wildfire Hazards
As discussed in Section 4.15 Wildfire, the project site is not located in any local or state responsibility fire hazard areas and is not classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone.174

173 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. November 18, 2016. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Moffett Federal Airfield. Accessed November 16, 2021.
https://plandev.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb941/files/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf 174 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
Source: Santa Clara County Planning Office.
182
182
32 32
57 57
82 107
82 132157
107
132
632
157
282
307
607
332
357
382
407
432
457
482
507
582
532
557
532
32 57
732
832
6321232
932
82 107
1032
132
1132
157182
182
207
232282
257307
332
357
382
Los
Altos
Santa
Clara
Sunnyvale
Mountain
View
Palo
Alto
San
Jose

CENTRAL EXPY

EL CAMINO REAL

EL C AMINO REAL
LAW
RENCE
EXPY

FOOTHILL EXPY

CENTRAL E XPY
tu101
·|}þ237
·|}þ85
·|}þ85
§¨¦
280
Maximum Structure Height (feet above MSL)
Runway
32 57
82 107
132
157
182
207
232
257
282
307
332
357
382
407
432
457
482
507
532
557
582
607
632
732
832
932
1032
1132
1232
±0 4,000 8,0002,000
Feet
This map created by Santa Clara County Planning Office. The GIS data was compiled from various sources. While deemed reliable, the Planning Office assumes no liability. 1/15/2010 - Y:\Matt\ALUC\projects\Moffett\NUQ_figure6v2_part77.mxd 0 2,000 4,000 8,000 Feet
Master Plan Site
City Limit Boundaries
MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD FAR PART 77 SURFACES FIGURE 4.6-2

North Bayshore Master Plan 248 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.6.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on hazards and hazardous materials, would the project:

1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2) 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?
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard t o the public or the environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? 6) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
7) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

4.6.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact HAZ-1: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Project
The 2017 EIR concluded that, with compliance with federal, state, local requirements, General Plan Policies PSA 3.2 and PSA 3.3 , and Precise Plan Standard 4 , future development would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.175 The conditions in and around the project site have not changed substantially since the certification of the 2017 EIR and the project proposes land uses consistent with those identified for the site and previously analyzed in the 2017 EIR. The proposed uses would have limited quantities of commercial cleaning and maintenance chemicals. The proposed residential, office, restaurant/retail, hotel, recreational, and institutional uses would not routinely tran sport, use, or dispose of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. No extremely hazardous material use rs as defined by the City Code are proposed, consistent with Precise Plan Standard 4.

175 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 297-298.

North Bayshore Master Plan 249 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
The project would include a diesel-powered emergency back-up generator at each building. The project would include a total of 60 emergency back-up power systems to serve fire and life safety loads in the case of emergency power loss . These would include 43 generators with a power rating of approximately 600 kW in the residential and mixed -use buildings, and 17 generators with a power rating of approximately 700 kW in the office buildings throughout the project area. It is estimated that up to approximately 30,000 gallons of diesel fuel would be stored for these generators throughout the project area.176 Diesel fuel for these generators would be stored in double-walled aboveground storage tanks.

For these reasons, the project ’s proposed residential, restaurant/retail, hotel, institutional, and recreational uses would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR . Hazardous materials impacts from redeveloping the project site are discussed under Impact HAZ -2. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Project with District Utilities System Option
The project with District Utilities System Option would result in the same impact as described above for the project without a district utilities system, as the district utility systems option would include the equipment and hazardous materials identified above, with the addition of a DCP including an on-site WRF that would use, store, and generate hazardous materials.

Water Reuse Facility
The WRF would treat wastewater using a multi-step process outlined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations that utilizes mechanical, biological, and ch emical treatments to generate disinfected tertiary recycled water. Operation of the WRF would require the transport, use, storage and disposal of chemicals to treat the wastewater, control offensive odors, and clean the necessary equipment. These could include citric acid, sodium hypochlorite, methanol, sodium bicarbonate, polymers, and ferric chloride. These chemicals would be stored in 10- to 55-gallon drums within the DCP.177

Ozone (O3) is often used in water disinfection processes for recycled water as O3 molecules combine with other materials in water, making it easier to extract the unwanted materials from the water. 178 Because O3 is highly reactive and short-lived, O3 must be generated close to where it is intended to be used. Thus, O3 generation equipment and the associated chemicals may be required to ensure that O 3 is available for use at the proposed wastewater treatment plant. 179 O3 generated on -site would be injected into the water, creating bubbles and off -gasses. Any remaining O 3 in off-gasses should be destroyed before it is released into the atmosphere. If O 3 is used in the on -site wastewater treatment facility, any unused O 3 off-gasses would be required to be sent to an integrated O 3 destruction unit within the WRF to be recycled.180

176 Elevate Environmental Consulting. Chemical Use Summary for the North Bayshore Master Plan District Systems in Mountain View, California. December 10, 2021.
177 Ibid.
178 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, Ozone Disinfection.

September 1999. https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ozon.pdf 179 Elevate Environmental Consulting. Chemical Use Summary for the North Bayshore Master Plan District Systems in Mountain View, California. December 10, 2021.
180 Ibid.

North Bayshore Master Plan 250 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Any residual solids that would be produced at the WRF would be sent to the anaerobic digester at the DCP to be broken down by bacteria. This process would release methane and carbon dioxide which would be captured to create biogas. The leftover digestate would be dewatered, and the remaining solid material would be sealed and transported off-site to be used as fertilizer or disposed of appropriately.

The separated liquid would be returned to the WRF to be mixed with incoming wastewater for treatment.

Emergency Generator
In addition to the emergency generators that would be located at each building, under the project with District Utilities System Option, the DCP would contain one emergency generator with a power rating of approximately 1,500 kW. Diesel fuel for this generator would be stored in double -walled aboveground storage tanks and it is estimated that up to approximately 30,000 gallons of diesel would be stored on-site for all generators within the project site.

District Heating and Cooling System
The project with the District Utilities System Option would utilize a centralized heating and cooling system that would be located at the DCP. The DCP would house all chillers, heat pumps, distribution pumps, and cooling towers. As discussed in Section 2.3.5, the cooling towers would either be installed on the roof of the DCP building or on the ground level adjacent to the building. The district heating and cooling system would take the heated and chilled water and route it throughout the project site via underground piping. This geothermal system would involve the drilling of grids of geothermal piles under each building footprint to depths of approximately 85- to 100-feet bgs. A total of approximately 6,500 vertical bores would be required to service the project site.

Operation of this system would require the transportation, storage, use, and disposal of water treatment chemicals that would be used to inhibit the formation of scale and corrosion, and to inhibit the growth of microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, and algae. These chemicals could include a microbiocide containing dibromocyanoacetamide, a biocide of liquid bromine and sodium bromosulfamate, a liquid scale and corrosion inhibitor containing etidronic acid and phosphonic acid, and a liquid isothiazole based biocide. 181 These chemicals would be stored in accordance with all relevant state and local regulations in drums ranging from 10 to 55 gallons in size.

Microgrid
As discussed in Section 2.3.5, a portion of the energy demand for the project would be generated by rooftop photovoltaic panels that would be located on all buildings within the project site. The solar energy generated on-site by these panels would be stored in on-site battery storage units that would either be located centrally at the DCP or adjacent to individual buildings within the project site. These batteries would be pad -mounted and seismical ly restrained on the finished grade/floor and would include proper catchment systems designed for protection from coolant leakage and fire.

Approximately 26 battery storage units would be installed as part of this microgrid.

Each battery would contain approximately 145 gallons of a coolant that would be comprised of a half ethylene glycol and half water solution. It is estimated that approximately 3,770 gallons of coolant

181 Ibid.

North Bayshore Master Plan 251 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
solution would be stored on -site for the batteries. Eac h battery would also contain 16.8 pounds of a refrigerant (1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane or another appropriate refrigerant) that would be sealed within a closed-loop refrigeration subsystem with a compressor and pressure release valve. It is estimated that a total of 437 pounds of refrigerant would be stored on -site. Each battery would require electrolyte fluid that would consist of a volatile hydrocarbon -based liquid and a dissolved lithium salt, such as lithium hexafluorophosphate, that would be stored within the individual battery cells.182

These battery storage units would be equipped with systems that identify internal leaks or overheating and automatically shut down the units to prevent potential environmental contamination. The battery systems would be stored in secure IP66 waterproof cabinet enclosures that would provide protection against environmental, chemical, and physical exposures. Secondary containment and fire suppression systems would also be installed in compliance with local and state regulat ions and plans for these measures would be reviewed by the Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) prior to the issuance of building permits.

The transport, storage, use and disposal of these chemicals would be conducted in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations including Cal/OSHA regulations for construction activities, RCRA requirements for disposal of solid waste and hazardous materials, and TSCA requirements for reporting, record-keeping, and testing related to chemical substances and/or mixtures.

Operation in accordance with local, state, and federal laws would ensure that the transport, storage, use and disposal of chemicals associated with the District Utilities System Option would not create a significant hazard to the public o r environment. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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])

The 2017 EIR found that several sites within the Pr ecise Plan area were on hazardous materials lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, had a history of groundwater and soil contamination with solvents/VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, metals, and other materials related to the industrial and agricultural activities, and could contain hazardous materials in the building materials. Based on that discussion, the 2017 EIR found that construction workers, future residents and employees, and the general public could be exposed to hazar dous materials which would result in a potentially significant impact. The 2017 EIR concluded that adherence to General Plan Policies INC

18.1, INC 18.2, PSA 3.4, City standard conditions of approval, and 15 mitigation measures (see 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.1 to MM HAZ-3.15) would reduce that risk to a less than significant level.

182 Ibid.

North Bayshore Master Plan 252 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Project
On-Site Soil and Groundwater Contamination
As discussed in Section 4.6.1.2 and summarized in Table 4.6-1, there are a range of contaminants present or potentially present within the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor throughout the project area.

These site conditions are consistent with the condi tions disclosed in the 2017 EIR. Some of these contaminants were measured at concentrations exceeding their respective residential ESL, and others are within the regional background concentrations.183 The below City standard condition of approval and 2017 E IR mitigation measures would be implemented by the proposed project (under either option).184

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA HAZ-1.1: Both Project Options: Discovery of Contaminated Soils. If contaminated soils are discovered, the applicant will ensure the contractor employs engineering controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize human exposure to potential contaminants. Engineering controls and construction BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) contractor employees working on-site will be certified in OSHA’s 40 -hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training; (b) the contractor will stockpile soil during redevelopment activitie s to allow for proper characterization and evaluation of disposal options; (c) the contractor will monitor area around construction site for fugitive vapor emissions with appropriate field screening instrumentation; (d) the contractor will water/mist soil as it is being excavated and loaded onto transportation trucks; (e) the contractor will place any stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds and/or cover stockpiles with appropriate sheeting; and (f) the contractor will cover the bottom of excavated areas with sheeting when work is not being performed.

Both Project Options: Toxic Assessment. A toxic assessment report shall be prepared and submitted as part of the building permit submittal. The applicant must demonstrate that hazardous material s do not exist on the site or that construction activities and the proposed use of this site are approved by environmental oversight agency(ies) with jurisdiction (e.g., the City Fire Department [Fire and Environmental Protection Division ], State Departmen t of Health Services , California Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC], San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board [Water Board], Santa Clara County Department of Environmental, and any Federal agency such as US EPA) . No building permit s will be issued until each agency and/or department with

183 Due to the widespread presence of certain contaminants in soils throughou t the region, sampling results found to be consistent with regional background conditions indicate contaminant concentrations are not unique to the site and cannot be attributed to a specific release.
184 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.2 only applies to sites that are not within an area covered by 2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.1. All portions of the project site are covered by 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.1, therefore 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.2 would not apply to any of the parcels on-site and it was omitted from this list.

North Bayshore Master Plan 253 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
jurisdiction has approved of the site activities or confirmed they have no requirements.

Both Project Options: Site Management Plan. Prepare a Site Management Plan (SMP) for soil, soil vapor, and groundwater for review and approval by the City as well as the overseeing environmental oversight agency (e.g., State Department of Health Services, California Department of Toxic Substances Control [DTSC], San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board [Water Board], Santa Clara County Department of Environmental, and any Federal agency such as US EPA) or obtain concurrence from the environmental oversight agency that no review is required. Proof of approval or actions for site work required by the environmental oversight agency must be provided to the Building Inspection Division prior to issuance of any demolition or building permits.

North Bayshore 2017 EIR Mitigation Measures:

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-3.3:185 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 future on-site construction workers and neighb oring occupants adjoining the site to COCs; this 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 th e 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 s ub- 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 Ev aluation shall also summarize any anticipated operations and maintenance requirements for the planned vapor

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

North Bayshore Master Plan 254 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
intrusion controls, if applicable, as well as a summary of planned activities to evaluate the performance of the planned vapor intrusion controls, s uch 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 activities with the oversight agency and Responsible Parties (as designated by the oversight age ncy), including identifying conditions that could affect the implementation and monitoring of the approved remedy.

2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.5: Both Project Options: 186 At future project sites identified as being impacted or potentially impacted during the proper ty-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 applicant shall provide the oversight agency’s written approval of the SMP to the City or confirm ation 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 Professional 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 presented for determining when soil sampling and analytical testing will be performed. If additiona l sampling is performed, a report documenting

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

North Bayshore Master Plan 255 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
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 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 property development activities.
• Characterization and profiling of soil susp ected 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 ground 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 ground 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 vegetated swales and

North Bayshore Master Plan 256 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
water retention ponds to be lined with a minimum 30 mi l187 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 mitigat e 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 alternatives; 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 include 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 Californ ia Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco 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 o f 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 activities. 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 property is under regulatory oversight - which would require the Project Applicant 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

187 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 257 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
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 activities 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 -3.8:188 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 screening 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.

2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.11: Both Project Options: The project applicant shall require the construction General Contractor to prepare a Health 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 be responsible for the health and safety of their employees as wells 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 mass 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.

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

North Bayshore Master Plan 258 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.13: Both Project Options: 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 mo nitoring 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 ris k, 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.

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.

There are 42 parcels that comprise the project site (see Figure 2.2-4), and the 2017 EIR mitigation measures required vary from parcel to parcel. For parcel-specific mitigation measures, see Table 4.6-2 below.

The project (under either option) would implement the same mitigation measures (as applicable) identified in the 2017 EIR. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, the project would be consistent with General Plan Policies INC 18.1, INC 18.2, and PSA 3.4 and impacts associated with hazardous m aterials would be less than significant because contaminated soil, groundwater, and soil vapor would be identified, characterized, managed, monitored, remediated, and mitigated (as appropriate) under regulatory oversight (as applicable). (Same Impact as Ap proved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

North Bayshore Master Plan 259 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 4.6-2: Identification of 2017 EIR Mitigation Measures by APN APN
2017 EIR MM HAZ-

3.1 3.2

3.3 3.4

3.5 3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9 3.10

3.11 3.12

3.13 3.14

3.15 116-02-037 * * * * # * * * * *
-054 * * * * * * * * *
-081 * * * * * * * * *
-083 * * * * # * * * *
-084 * # * * # * * *
-088 * * * * * * * * *
116-10-077 * * * * * * * * * * *
-078 * * * * * * * # * * * *
-079 * * * * * * * * * * *
-080 * * * * * * * * * * *
-084 * * * * * * * * * *
-085 * * * * * * * * * * *
-088 * * * * * * * * * *
-089 * * * * * * * * * *
-095 * * * * * * * * * * * *
-097 * * * * * * * * * * * *
-101 * * * * * * * * * *
-102 * * * * * * * * * * *
-104 * * * * * * * * * * * *
-105 * * * * * * * * * * *
-107 * * * * * * * * * *
-108 * * * * * * * * * * *
116-11-012 * * * * * * * * * *
-021 * * * * * * * * * *
-022 * * * * * * * * * * *
-024 * * * * * * * * * * * *
-025 * * * * * * * * * * *
-028 * * * * * * * * * *
-030 * * * * * * * * * * * *
-038 * * * * * * * * * * *
-039 * * * * * * * * * *
116-13-027 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
-034 * * * * * * * * * * * *

North Bayshore Master Plan 260 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 4.6-2: Identification of 2017 EIR Mitigation Measures by APN APN
2017 EIR MM HAZ-

3.1 3.2

3.3 3.4

3.5 3.6

3.7 3.8

3.9 3.10

3.11 3.12

3.13 3.14

3.15 -037 * * * * * * * * * * *
-038 * * * * * * * * * * *
116-14-028 * * * * * * * * * *
-058 * * * * * * * * * * *
-066 * * * * * * * * * * *
-070 * * * * * * * * * *
-072 * * * * * * * * * * *
-095 * * * * * * * * * * *
116-20-043 * * * * * * * * * * *
* = Mitigation Measure Likely Applies
# = Could Not Determine if Mitigation Measure Applies
APN = Santa Clara County Assessor Parcel Number
Blank Cell = Mitigation Measure Does Not Apply

Polychlorinated Biphenyls
In accordance with MRP requirements, a screening assessment must be completed prior to the demolition of any buildings constructed before 1981. Implementation of the City standard condition of approval below would ensure compliance with this requirement and reduce the risk of PCB contamination to a less than significant level.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA HAZ-1.2: Both Project Options: Building Demolition PCB Control. Nonwood-frame buildings constructed before 1981 that will be completely demolished are required to conduct representative sampling of priority building materials that may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If sample results of one or more p riority building materials show PCBs concentrations ≥50 ppm, the applicant is required to follow applicable Federal and State notification and abatement requirements prior to demolition of the building. Submit a completed “Polychlorinated Biphenyls Screening Assessment Applicant Package” with the building demolition plans for the project. A demolition permit will not be issued until the completed “PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package” is submitted and approved by the City Fire and Environmental Prote ction Division (FEPD). Applicants are required to comply with applicable Federal and State regulations regarding notification and abatement of PCBs -containing materials. Contact the City’s FEPD at 650 -903- 6378 to obtain a copy of the “PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package” and related guidance and information.

North Bayshore Master Plan 261 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Asbestos Containing Materials
The 2017 EIR identified a less than significant impact from development and redevelopment of sites with existing buildings which may contain ACMs and lead -based paint with compliance with local, state, and federal laws including Cal/OSHA regulations for testing and abatement of ACMs and lead- based paint, and NESHAP requirements for removal of these materials.

As shown in Table 4.6-1:, several existing buildings within the project area contain ACMs or have lead- based paint present on-site. The project (under either option) would comply with the same regulations identified in the 2017 EIR (including Cal/OSHA regulations and NESHAP requirements) through implementation of the below City standard condition of approval (COA HAZ-1.3).

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA HAZ-1.3: Both Project Options: Hazardous Materials Contamination. To reduce the potential for construction workers and adjacent uses to encounter hazard ous materials contamination from asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint, the following measures are to be included in the project:

a. In conformance with local, State, and Federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs and/or lead -based paint on the structures proposed for demolition . The surveys shall be completed prior to demolition work beginning on the structures.
b. A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable ACMs, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, prior to building demolition that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than 1% asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations.

During demolition activities, all building materials containi ng lead -based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead -based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.

The project (under either option), with the implementation of standard condition of approval COA HAZ-1.3, would reduce the impacts from ACMs and lead -based paints by determining the extent of asbestos contamination prior to building demolition and site grading , and handling and disposing of those materials in a manner that minimizes human exposure. For these reasons, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact from ACMs and lead-based paint than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 262 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Project with District Utilities System Option
The project with the District Utilities System Op tion would result in the same less than significant impacts with the implementation of the applicable 2017 EIR mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval , as described above for the project without District Utilities System Option.

Unlike the project, the project with District Utilities System Option would also include construction of a DCP, district heating and cooling system, and geothermal system. Gradi ng and excavation for the proposed DCP and district heating and cooling system would result in the same potential hazards to the public and the environment related to impacted soil, groundwater, and soil vapor on -site as discussed above for the project. Co nstruction of the geothermal system would require drilling up to 6,500 bores approximately 80 to 100 feet bgs.

As discussed in Section 4.7 Hydrology and Water Quality , the project area is underlain by an upper aquifer that extends approximately 80 feet bgs, then an aquitard that extends another 70 feet bgs, and finally an artesian aquifer that begins at approximately 150 feet bgs.189 As discussed in Section 4.6.1.2, there are several contaminated groundwater plumes that have spread throughout the shallow water- bearing zone within the project area. Therefore, drilling for the geothermal bores would extend through the near surface aquifer and into a portion of the deeper aquifer. The geothermal bores would be drilled using techniques and materials, such as in stalling permanent conductor casing, that would prevent cross-contamination of aquifers as approved under permit issued by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. For this reason, the District Utilities System Option would not result in any significant hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions.

Therefore, the project with District Utilities System Option 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 with Mitigation Incorporated])

Impact HAZ-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The nearest school to the Precise Plan area is Crittenden Middle School , which is locate d approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the project site. The 2017 EIR concluded that, compliance with federal, state, and local requirements, General Plan Policies PSA 3.2 and PSA 3.3, and adherence to City standard conditions of approva l would reduce the potential for risks to existing or proposed schools to a less than significant level. The conditions in and around the project site have not changed substantially since the certification of the 2017 EIR and the project proposes land uses consistent with those identified for the site and previously analyzed in the 2017 EIR.

As discussed in Impact HAZ -1, the project (under either option) in compliance with existing regulations would not significantly impact the public or environment (includi ng occupants of Crittenden Middle School). The project with District Utilities System Option would store and handle all hazardous materials in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations . Based on this discussion, the project (under either option) would reduce the potential for hazardous materials impacts

189 Elevate Environmental Consultants, Inc. Geothermal Pile Environmental Memo for the North Bayshore Master Plan Development. December 10, 2021.

North Bayshore Master Plan 263 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
to nearby schools to a less than significant level, consistent with the findings of the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact HAZ-4: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; however, with implementation of mitigation measures, standard conditions of approval, and compliance with existing regulations, it would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

As noted in Impact HAZ-2, the project site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As discussed under Impact HAZ -2, the proposed project (under either option) would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment with implementation of the 2017 EIR mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval COA HAZ-

1.1, HAZ -1.2, and HAZ-1.3. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2017 EIR.190 (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Impact HAZ-5: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. However, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The 2017 EIR found that implementation of the Precise Plan may result in new development exceeding the height restrictions of FAR Part 77 for Moffett Federal Airfield . The 2017 EIR concluded that compliance with FAA requirements (primarily preparation of an aeronautical study by the FAA for new development or redevelopment projects that exceed the height limits), and adherence to General Plan Policy LUD-2.5 (which requires the City to evaluate land uses and development for consistency with safety, height, noise, and related policies of the CLUP for Moffett Federal Airfield), would minimize the potential for new development to create significant hazards to navigable airspace.191

Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan
As discussed in Section 4.6.1.2, Moffett Federal Airfield is located approximately 0.78 mile east of the project site boundary . Most of the project area is within Moffett Federal Airfield’s AIA, with the exception of the Marine Way district parking sites.

190 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 299 to 308 . 191 Ibid. Page 308.

North Bayshore Master Plan 264 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
The portions of the project site within the AIA would be subject to review by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The CLUP focuses on the three areas of ALUC’s responsibility: (1) aircraft noise, (2) the safety of persons on the ground and in aircraft, and (3) the control of objects in navigable airspace. The project’s relationship (under either option) to these three areas are described below.

• Aircraft Noise – The project site is not located within the Airfield’s 65 dBA noise contour.

The noise and land use compatibility of the project is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.10 Noise.
• Safety of Persons on the Ground and in Aircraft – The CLUP has safety restriction areas categorized in six safety restriction zones to minimize the number of people exposed to potential aircraft accidents in the vicinity of the Airfield by imposing density and use limitations within these zones. These zones include the (1) Runway Protection Zone, (2) Inner Safety Zone, (3) Turning Safety Zone, (4) Outer Safety Zone, (5) Sideline Safety Zone, and (6) Traffic Safety Zone. The project site is not located within any of the safety restriction zones identified by the CLUP.
• Objects in Navigable Airspace – Maximum structure heights in the vicinity of the Airfield are identified in the CLUP to protect the public safety, health, and welfare by ensur ing that aircraft can safely fly in the airspace around an airport. The CLUP uses the FAR Part 77 Surfaces to enforce height limitations. The project’s consistency with FAR Part 77 is discussed below.

Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
The central portion of the project site is within the mapped Part 77 182 -foot amsl horizontal surface for Moffett Federal Airfield. The Marine Way district parking Subareas are between the Part 77 332- and 382-foot amsl horizontal surfaces. The elevation from across the project site ranges from zero to 26 feet amsl, and the proposed project (under either option) would result in buildings with a maximum height that would range from 45 to 160 feet above grade . Future development under the proposed project (under either option) could introduce potential sources of hazards to airfield operations with equipment or structures that exceed FAR Part 77 surfaces. The project (under either option) would be designed to comply with the 182-foot amsl height threshold and, depending on the amsl of the building location, may be required to consult with the FAA and obtain a “Determination of No Hazard ” or “Determination of a No Hazard with Conditions.” Future development could also require tall construction equipment, such as cranes that exceed the Part 77 horizontal surfaces . This construction equipment would be subject to the same regulations, and consultation with the FAA to obtain a “Determination of No Hazard” or “Determina tion of No Hazard with Conditions” would be required for construction equipment that exceeds the Part 77 horizontal surfaces.

The proposed project (under either option) would comply with FAA notification requirements, the Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP, an d applicable General Plan policies and actions identified for development within the Precise Plan. Additionally, as discussed in detail in Section 4.10 Noise, the noise levels generated by the proposed land uses on-site (under either option) would be acceptable for the uses proposed in relation to the Moffett CLUP. Based on this discussion, the proposed development (under either option) would not expose people to safety hazards or excessive noise from Airfield operations. Therefore, the project (under either option) 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 265 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact HAZ-6: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not impair or interfere with an adopted Mountain View emergency response or evacuation plan due to the project’s implementation of a TDM program that would reduce the level of congestion on the surrounding roads, and consistency with General Plan Policies MOB 10.1, MOB 10.2, and MOB 10.4.192

The project (under either option and including the development of Subarea AM1 located outside of the Precise Plan are a) would implement a TDM plan that exceeds the Precise Plan requirements.

Specifically, the project (under either option) proposes to have a lower SOV rate than required by the Precise Plan (i.e., the project propo ses 35 percent of project trips be single -occupancy vehicle trips compared to the Precise Plan requirement of a 45 percent SOV rate). In addition, the project (under either option) includes a police operations station as part of the district parking garage located on Subarea AM1. This police operations station would help improve emergency response times to the project area. In addition, construction and operation of the proposed project would not interfere with planned evacuation routes out of the project area. As such, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City’s adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe signifi cant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact HAZ-7: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The 2017 EIR concluded there are no Fire Hazard Severity Zones for State responsibility areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones for local responsibility areas within or adjacent to the City of Mountain View, therefore, implementation of the Precise Plan would result in less than significant impact regarding wildland fire hazards.193

As discussed in Section 4.15 Wildfire, on-site conditions have not changed. The site is not located in a fire hazard zone. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

192 Ibid. Pages 308 to 309.
193 Ibid. Page 309.

North Bayshore Master Plan 266 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.6.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact HAZ-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant hazards and hazardous materials impact. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

The 2017 EIR described cumulative projects possibly being located on properties where hazardous materials may have been stored, used, and/or transported. These hazardous materials (such as gasoline, oil, propane, and various chemicals in manufacturing) may have been stored on t hese sites in aboveground or underground tanks. Storage tanks can leak, often resulting in soil and/or groundwater contamination. If groundwater is affected, it can impact properties downgradient of the spill.

Cumulative projects could also be located on sites that were used for agricultural purposes in the past and chemicals such as pesticides and fertilizers may have been used. The use of these chemicals on agricultural properties can result in widespread residual soil contamination. In addition, developm ent of some of the sites would require demolition of existing buildings that may contain ACMs and/or lead-based paint. Demolition of these structures could expose construction workers or other persons in the vicinity to harmful levels of asbestos or lead.

Based on the above described conditions, which are present on most cumulative project sites to varying degrees, the 2017 EIR concluded that cumulative projects would result in a less than significant cumulative impact because future development would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations controlling the handling and disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, cumulative projects would be subject to mitigation measures similar to those identified in the 2017 EIR and City standard conditions of approval related to hazardous materials.

The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of 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:

• Contaminated soils would be excavated and transported to appropriate landfills or treated on - site if chemical releases have occurred in the cumulative scenario; • Remediation and ongoing groundwater sampling would be conducted both on the site and on surrounding downgradient properties if groundwater is affected; and • Surveys would be conducted to determine the extent of asbestos and lead paint contamination prior to building demolition and site grading and, if present, such substances would be handled and disposed of in a manner that minimizes human exposure.

For these reasons, the proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative hazardous materials impact. (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 267 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.6.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Simil
ar Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
HAZ-1: Both Project Options:

The project would not
create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials.

Yes LTS None N/A
HAZ-2: Both Project Options:

The project 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.

Yes S 2017 EIR

MM HAZ-

3.1, 3.3, 3.4,

3.5, 3.6, 3.7,

3.8, 3.9, 3.10,

3.11, 3.12,

3.13, 3.14,

3.15 LTS
HAZ-3: Both Project Options:

The project would not emit
hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or
proposed school.

Yes LTS None N/A
HAZ-4: Both Project Options:

The project would not be
located on a site which is
included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result,
create a significant hazard
to the public or the
environment.

Yes S 2017 EIR

MM HAZ-

3.1, 3.3, 3.4,

3.5, 3.6, 3.7,

3.8, 3.9, 3.10,

3.11, 3.12,

3.13, 3.14,

3.15 LTS

North Bayshore Master Plan 268 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact
Same/Simil
ar Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
HAZ-5: Both Project Options:

The project would not be
located within an airport
land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or
public use airport. The
project would not result in
a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people
residing or working in the
project area.

Yes LTS None N/A
HAZ-6: Both Project Options:

The project would not
impair implementation of
or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan.

Yes LTS None N/A
HAZ-7: Both Project Options:

The project would not
expose people or
structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving
wildland fires.

Yes LTS None N/A
HAZ-C: Both Project Options:

The project would not
result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution
to a cumulatively
significant hazards and
hazardous materials
impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, S = Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 269 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.7.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality in California. Regulations set forth by the EPA and the SWRCB have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. EPA regulations include the NPDES permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project site i s within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, the SWRCB and RWQCBs are required to identify impaired surface water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for contaminants of concern. The list of the state’s identified impaired surface water bodies, known as the “303(d) list” can be found on the on the SWRCB’s website.194

National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce impacts of flooding on private and public properties. The program provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regu lations protecting development in floodplains. As part of the program, FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). An SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the one-percent annual chance flood, which is also referred to as the base flood or 100 - year flood.

Statewide Construction General Permit
The SWRCB has implemented an NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California (Construction General Permit). For projects disturbing one acre o r more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor, and a SWPPP must be prepared by a qualified professional prior to commencement of construction and filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor. The Construction G eneral Permit includes requirements for training, inspections, record keeping, and, for projects of certain risk levels, monitoring. The general purpose of the requirements is to minimize the discharge of pollutants and to protect beneficial uses and recei ving waters from the adverse effects of construction-related storm water discharges.

194 California State Water Resources Control Board. “2020 -2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report).” May 11, 2022. Accessed September 2, 2022. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020_2022_integrated_report.ht ml.

North Bayshore Master Plan 270 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Regional and Local
San Francisco Bay Basin Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates water quality in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that mu st be met to protect these uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements, including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. The Basin Plan also describes watershed management programs and water quality attainment strategies.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB re -issued the MRP in 2015 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies (co -permittees) in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo. 195 Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, new and redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID)-based stormwater treatment controls to treat post -construction stormwater runoff. LID -based treatment controls are intended to mainta in or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions, maximizing opportunities for infiltration and evapotranspiration, and using stormwater as a resource (e.g., rainwater harvesting for non -potable uses). The MRP also requires that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained.

In addition to water quality controls, the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface to manage development-related increases in peak runoff flow, volume, and duration, where such hydromodification is likely to cause increased erosion, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to local rivers, streams, and creeks. Projects may be deemed exempt from these requirements if the y do not meet the minimized size threshold, increase impervious surface over pre-project conditions, drain into tidally influenced areas or directly into the Bay, or drain into hardened channels, or if they are infill projects in subwatersheds or catchment areas that are greater than or equal to 65 percent impervious.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Provision C.12.f of the MRP requires co-permittee agencies to implement a control program for PCBs that reduces PCB loads by a specified amount during the term of the permit, thereby making substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff PCBs wasteload allocation in the Basin Plan by March 2030.196 Programs must include focused implementation of PCB control measures, such as source control, treatment control, and pollution prevention strategies. Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are updating their demolition permit processes to incorporate the management of PCBs in demolition building materials to ensure PCBs are not discharged to storm dr ains during demolition. Buildings

195 MRP Number CAS612008
196 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Provision C.12.

November 19, 2015.

North Bayshore Master Plan 271 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
constructed between 1955 and 1978 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance Valley Water operates as the flood protection agency for Santa Clara County. Valley Water also provides stream stewardship and is the wholesale water supplier throughout the county, which includes the groundwater recharge program. Permits for well construc tion and destruction, including borings 45 feet or deeper, are required under Valley Water’s Well Ordinance 90-1. Under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, projects within Valley Water property or easements are required to obtain encroachment permits.

2021 Groundwater Management Plan
The 2021 Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) describes the Valley Water’s comprehensive groundwater management framework, including existing and potential actions to achieve basin sustainability goals and ensur e continued sustainable groundwater management. The GWMP covers the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins, which are located entirely in Santa Clara County. Valley Water manages a diverse water supply portfolio, with sources including groundwater, local surface water, imported water, and recycled water. About half of the county’s water supply comes from local sources and the other half comes from imported sources. Imported water includes the District’s State Water Project and Central Valley contract supplies and supplies delivered by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to cities in northern Santa Clara County. Local sources include natural groundwater recharge and surface water supplies. A small portion of the county’s water supply is recycled water.

Local groundwater resources make up the foundation of the county’s water supply, but they need to be augmented by Valley Water’s comprehensive water supply management activities to reliably meet the county’s needs. These include the managed recharge of imported and local surface water and in‐lieu groundwater recharge through the provision of treated surface water and raw water, acquisition of supplemental water supplies, and water conservation and recycling.197

Construction Dewatering Waste Discharge Requirements
Each of the RWQCBs regulate construction dewatering discharges to storm drains or surface waters within its Region under the NPDES program and Waste Discharge Requirements.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to hydrology and water quality impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

197 Valley Water. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasin. November 2021.

North Bayshore Master Plan 272 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Policy Description
Infrastructure and Conservation Element
INC 8.1 Citywide stormwater system. Maintain the stormwater system in good condition.

INC 8.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Comply with requirements in the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.

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

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

INC 17.2 Natural hydrology in watersheds. Promote an ecologically sensitive approach to flood protection, encouraging natural hydrology and preserving habitat and ecology within watercourses.

INC 17.3 Floodway preservation. Preserve floodways as a natural flood control mechanism.

Land Use and Design
LUD 8.7 Sustainable streets. Encourage sustainable streets that include drought tolerant landscaping, natural stormwater treatment areas and other sustainable features.

North Bayshore Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains standards and guidelines to avoid significant hydrology and water impacts.

The following guidelines and standards are applicable to the proposed project.

Standard Description

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 Vehicle washing . For businesses that conduct vehicle washing services, including fleet b us washing, wash water shall be collected and shall not be allowed to enter the storm drain system.

North Bayshore Master Plan 273 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Guideline Description

3.2 Complete Neighborhoods
3 Sustainability. New public open spaces should be designed to incorporate best practices in sustainability, including water use and conservation, stormwater management, landscaping, and planting.

3.3.11 Parking Access and Design
3 Storm water management. Parking areas should manage rainwater on-site with designs such as swales that encourage infiltration.

4.3 Water Efficiency and Conservation
1 Rainwater harvesting. To reduce the volume and peak flows of stormwater entering the stormwater system and reduce the amount of potable water used for non -potable uses, all buildings are encouraged to collect and use rainwater.

4.4 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.

6.4 Streetscape Design
4 Stormwater features. Rainwater and stormwater features can be designed as amenities and remain highly visible within public areas. The City Engineer will have final authorization to allow any stormwater features in public areas.

Shoreline Regional Park Community Sea Level Rise Study: Feasibility Report and Capital Improvement Program,
The City of Mountain View completed the Shoreline Regional Park Community Sea Level Rise Study:

Feasibility Report and Capital Improvement Program in December 2012. The study provides an overview of the vulnerability of the Shoreline area (including the Precise Plan) to sea level rise, proposed projects to provide long -term flood protection, and estimates of future funding needed to implement these projects. The two scenarios evaluated in the Study were eight inches of sea level rise between 2000 and 2067 and 31 inches of sea level rise between 2000 and 2067.

Mountain View Municipal Code
Chapter 8, Article VIII of the City Code outlines construction standards for development in special flood hazard zones. These standards require the lowest floor, including basements, in new construction to be elevated to the base flood elevation, be flood-proofed by making walls below the base flood level watertight, and have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. The applicable requirements of the City Code for construction in a flood zone will be required of projects as conditions of project approval.

North Bayshore Master Plan 274 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
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.

4.7.1.2 Existing Conditions
Stormwater Drainage
Most of the project site is located between Stevens Creek and Permanente Cree k. Stevens Creek is located approximately 320 feet east of the project site and Permanente Creek is located approximately

0.20 mile west of the core project area. Both Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek flow into the San Francisco Bay estuary, which is approximately one mile north of the project site.

Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces within the project site is collected by a municipal storm drain system consisting of storm drain inlets, conveyance pipes, culverts, channels and retention basins operated by the City of Mountain View Public Works Department. Drainage into the City system generally flows south to north towards San Francisco Bay. Stormwater runoff from the project site is primarily conveyed to Permanente Creek, Stevens Creek, or the Palo Alto Flood Basin by gravity flow or by pumping.

The Precise Plan area, which most of the project site is a part of , contains an average of 85 percent impervious surfaces.198 Subarea AM1, which is outside of the Precise Plan area, is currently developed as surface parking for Shoreline Amphitheatre. Most of Subarea AM1 is covered in impervious surfaces with impervious landscaped areas around the perimeter of the Subarea and through the center of the site. The project site is approximately 85 percent (or 128 acres) impervious.

Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as nonpoint source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal fec es, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.

While there are no streams, creeks, ponds, or other surface water bodies located directly within the project site, Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek are proximate. Stevens Creek is on the 2022 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list due to impairment from toxicity, trash, and pesticide (Diazinon) pollution from unknown sources. Permanente Creek is also on the list due to impairment from toxicity, trash, metallic (Selenium), and pesticide (Diazinon) pollution. The California Water Board is in the process of examining the current status of impairment for the 2024 California Integrated report.

198 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 318.

North Bayshore Master Plan 275 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Groundwater
The Precise Plan area (which includes most of the project site) and Subarea AM1 overlay the Santa Clara subbasin, a 2 97 square-mile groundwater subbasin which extends from the northern border of Santa Clara County to the groundwater divide near the town of Morgan Hill. The Santa Clara groundwater basin provides municipal, domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply to the area.

Valley Water conducts an artificial groundwater recharge program th at entails releasing locally conserved or imported water to in -stream and off -stream infiltration facilities. As a result of the recharge programs, as well a reduced reliance on groundwater pumping and the importation of surface water from the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct and South Bay Aqueduct, groundwater levels have reached historically high levels in recent years. Groundwater recharge and conservation is recognized as being critically important to water resource sustainability in Santa Clara County, as future water shortages can reduce reliability of external sources and challenge the ability of Valley Water to supply water for the varied interests within its jurisdiction.

Valley Water’s GWMP for the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins (recently updated in 2021), describes its comprehensive groundwater management framework including objectives and strategies, programs and activities to support those objectives, and outcome measures to gauge performance. The GWMP is the guiding document for how Valley Water will en sure groundwater basins within its jurisdiction are managed sustainably. The Santa Clara subbasin has not been identified as a groundwater basin in a state of overdraft.

Groundwater levels on the project site have been measured between three and 1 4 feet below ground surface which is indicative of a relatively high-water table in the area. Groundwater levels on-site may vary depending on seasonal precipitation, irrigation practices, and other climate conditions as discussed in Section 4.5.1.2 Geology and Soils.

Flooding
The project site is located within several different flood zones as identified by the FEMA FIRM. Most of the project site located east of North Shoreline Boulevard within the Shorebird and Pear Neighborhoods is located in Zone X and noted as an area with reduced flood risk due to the presence of a levee and a one percent annual chance of flood disch arge contained in structure. The portion of the project site west of North Shoreline Boulevard within the Joaquin Neighborhood is located in Zone X and noted as an area with 0.2 percent chance of flood hazard or a one percent chance of flooding with an average depth of less than one foot. The northern portion of the Eco Gem parcel and Subareas MW-PP1 and MW2 are in Zone AE, which is a Special Flood Hazard Area and noted as being subject to base flood elevations of 11 feet. Subarea AM1 is located in Zone A, which is defined as areas with a one percent annual chance of flooding and 26 percent chance of flooding over the life of a 30 -year mortgage. Subarea AM1 is noted as an area without a mapped base flood elevation.199

199 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Community Panel Nos. 06085C0037H & 06085C0036H. Effective Date May 18, 2009.

North Bayshore Master Plan 276 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Seiches and Tsunamis
As discussed in the 2017 EIR, the Precise Plan area is not located in an area subject to tsunamis or seiches.200 Subarea AM1 is located outside of the Precise Plan area; however, it is not subject to tsunamis or seiches as a damaging seiche has not been recorded in the San Francisco Bay Area as far as records indicate. 201 Subarea AM1 and the rest of the project site are not within a tsunami hazard area, however; the proximity of the site to San Francisco Bay and both Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek means that inundation areas would be proximate.202

Sea Level Rise
The elevation throughout the project site ranges from 13 to 21 feet above mean sea level. Based on the elevation and proximi ty to San Francisco Bay, portions of the project site north of Shorebird Way would be at risk of inundation without implementation of any identified CIPs from the 2017 EIR.

4.7.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on hydrology and water quality, would the project:

1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
2) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere su bstantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or riv er or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
- result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; - substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
- create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
- impede or redirect flood flows?
4) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? 5) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

200 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 325.
201 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR. September 2012.
202 California Department of Conservation. 2021 California Tsunami Maps and Data. Accessed January 10, 2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.

North Bayshore Master Plan 277 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.7.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact HYD-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR determined that compliance with City conditions of approval based on RWQCB requirements, General Construction Permit, Precise Plan standards and guidelines, and the MRP would ensure future project construction and post-construction runoff would not result in substantial sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant.203

Consistent with the 2017 EIR, the project ( under either option and including development of AM1 outside the Precise Plan area) would comply with the aforementioned requirements, which include the below standard condition of approval.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA HYD-1.1: Both Project Options: Stormwater Treatment (C.3): This project will create or replace more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of impervious surface; therefore, stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the City’s guidance document entitled, “Stormwat er Quality Guidelines for Development Projects.” The City’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select Low -Impact Development (LID) types of stormwater treatment controls; the types of projects that are exempt from this requirement; and the Infeasibility and Special Projects exemptions from the LID requirement.

The “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects” document requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing calculations of the treatment controls that will be installed. Include three stamped and signed copies of the Final Stormwater Management Plan with the building plan submittal. The Stormwater Management Plan must include a stamped and signed certification by a qualified Engineer, stating that the Stormwater Management Plan complies with the City’s guidelines and the State NPDES Permit. Stormwater treatment controls required under this condition

Both Project Options: Hydromodification Management: Postconstruction stormwater runoff shall drain to approved permanent Hydromodification Management (HM) controls to mitigate increases in peak runoff flow and increased runoff volume. Projects that will decrease impervious surface area in comparison to the pre -project condition are not subject to the HM requirement. Information related to this requirement, including the exemption criteria, is included in the City’s document entitled, “Hydromodification Management Plan Guidelines for Development Projects,” and the Sant a Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution

203 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 325-330.

North Bayshore Master Plan 278 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Prevention Program’s manual entitled, “C.3 Stormwater Handbook: Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Requirements for New and Redevelopment Projects.” The City’s “Hydromodification Management Plan Guidelines for Develo pment Projects” manual requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing requirements of the controls that will be installed. Include the Stormwater Management Plan with the building pl an submittal. Property owners of projects that include stormwater controls constructed in accordance with this condition are required to enter into a formal recorded self-inspection and maintenance agreement with the City.

Both Project Options: Stormwater Management Plan —Third-Party Engineer’s Certification: The Final Stormwater Management Plan must be certified by a qualified third-party engineer that the proposed stormwater treatment controls comply with the City’s Guidelines and Provision C.3 of the Mu nicipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). A list of qualified engineers is available at the following link: http://www.scvurppp-
w2k.com/consultants_list.shtml

Both Project Options: Landscape Design: Landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. Examples include: (a) no steep slopes exceeding 10%; (b) using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; (c) installing plants with low water require ments; and (d) installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones. Identify which practices will be used in the building plan submittal.

Both Project Options: Efficient Irrigation: Common areas shall employ efficient irrigation to avoid excess irrigation runoff. Examples include: (a) setting irrigation timers to avoid runoff by splitting irrigations into several short cycles; (b) employing multi-programmable irrigation controllers; (c) employing rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after significant precipitation; (d) use of drip irrigation for all planter areas which have a shrub density that will cause excessive spray interference of an overhead system; and (e) use of flow reducers to mitigate broken heads next to sidewalks, streets, and driveways. Identify which practices will be used in the building plan submittal.

Both Project Options : Outdoor Storage Areas (Including Garbage Enclosures): Outdoor storage areas (for storage of equipment or materials which could decompose, disintegrate, leak, or otherwise contaminate stormwater runoff), including garbage enclosures, shall be designed to prevent the run-on of stormwater and runoff of spills by all of the following: (a) paving the area with concrete or other nonpermeable surface; (b) covering the area; and (c) sloping the area inward (negative slope) or installing a berm or curb around its perimeter. There shall be no storm drains in the outdoor storage area.

Both Project Options: Parking Garages: For multiple -level parking garages, interior levels shall be connected to an approved wastewater treatment system discharging to the sanitary sewer.

North Bayshore Master Plan 279 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

Both Project Options: Private Storm Drain Inlet Stenciling: For residential subdivisions with private streets, storm drain inlets shall be labeled in accordance with the City’s storm drain inlet label program (“No Dumping, Flows to Bay”).

The project’s compliance (under either option) with the General Construction Permit , MRP, Precise Plan standards and guidelines, and above standard condition of approval would reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level by limiting stormwater runoff and implementing control measures to reduce pollutants in any stormwater discharged from the project site. Therefore, the project (under either option) 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)]

Impact HYD-2: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR determined that new development under the Precise Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies because new land uses would not extract groundwater for irrigation or other purposes . The 2017 EIR also concluded temporary dewatering during cons truction activities would not result in the extraction of quantities that would deplete groundwater aquifers.204 In addition, development of the Precise Plan would likely reduce the overall amount of impervious surfaces in the Precise Plan area, as the Prec ise Plan requires a 25 percent minimum open areas or landscaping for new residential development, which is greater than the amount of pervious surfaces currently in the area.205 The implementation of the Precise Plan, therefore, would facilitate greater per colation of stormwater compared to existing conditions.

The City of Mountain View, including the entire project site, lies entirely within the confined zone of the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin and is not located within a designated groundwater recharge area.206 The principal aquifer zone that Valley Water pumps drinking water from generally occurs at depths below 150 feet bgs, and shallow groundwater within 150 feet of the ground surface is not typically used for the region’s water su pply.207 Between 2010 and 2019, Valley Water pumped an average of 24.4 billion gallons of groundwater per year (75,000 AFY).208

As discussed in Section 4.7.1.2, groundwater levels on-site have been measured between three to 14 feet bgs. The project (under either option) would require excavation to a maximum depth of 50 feet bgs for building foundations and utility connections. Additionally, the project with the District Utilities System Option would drill down approximately 110 feet bgs for installation of g eobores, passing through two layers of underground aquifers. Construction activities, particularly for structures with

204 Ibid. Page 336.
205 Ibid. Page 331
206 Valley Water. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2021. Page 2-

1. 207 Ibid. Page 2-3.
208 Ibid. Page 4-9.

North Bayshore Master Plan 280 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
below grade parking levels, would require temporary construction dewatering. Based on similar projects with basements in the Precise Plan area and scaled to the size of the proposed project, i t is estimated that groundwater would be extracted at a maximum rate of approximately 2,000 to 2,900 gallons per minute, or 2.88 to 4.18 million gallons per day , during construction until building foundations are completed. This rate, however, would be anticipated to decrease following initial drawdown (i.e., following the first several weeks of dewatering) of the groundwater table to a lower, equilibrium dewatering rate. This lower equilibrium dewateri ng rate is anticipated to be one -third to one-half of the maximum rate between 650 and 1,450 gallons per minute, or 0. 94 to 2.09 million gallons per day. The project would implement COA GEO-1.1 to minimize the volume of groundwater removed during project c onstruction and ensure construction dewatering does not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. The project, (under either option) would not require permanent dewatering.209,210

The dewatering that would occur on -site during construction activities would be limited to depths of 50 feet bgs, which is within the shallow groundwater zone that is not typically used for groundwater supply by Valley Water. In addition, the amount of wat er estimated to be pumped during dewatering activities would comprise a minor percentage of the total amount of water pumped each year by Valley Water from principal aquifer zones. Consistent with the findings of the 2017 EIR, this dewatering would be temporary and would not deplete groundwater aquifers.

Furthermore, as noted in Section 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials and disclosed in the 2017 EIR, there are a range of contaminants present or potentially present within the soil, groundwater, and soil vapor throughout the project site. Potentially polluted dewatered groundwater would be dealt with as part of the SMP required in Precise Plan MM HAZ -3.5. The SMP would be prepared by an Environmental Professional and submitted to the overseeing regulatory agency for review and approval prior to the beginning of construction on-site. Protocols established in the SMP would prevent the potentially polluted dewatered groundwater from being reused on -site as a dust control measure . If dewatering activities would impact known ground water contaminant plumes on-site, the oversight agency responsible for the remediation of these contaminant releases would be notified in advance.

Additionally, the project (under either option) would not permanently deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge because the project options would not directly use groundwater and the site does not contribute to recharge. Thus, the project (under either option) would not result in new or substantially increased impa cts than those described in the 2017 EIR . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

209 Google. North Bayshore Master Plan Dewatering Memo. February 25, 2022. 210 Google. North Bayshore Master Plan: Additional Dewatering Information. October 19, 2022.

North Bayshore Master Plan 281 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact HYD-3: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surfa ce runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. [Same Impact as Approved Project Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR determined that the implementation of the Precise Plan would not exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system. In addition, implementation of the Precise Plan would likely result in an increase in pervious surface area compared to existing conditions, further reducing any impacts on the drainage system. 211 Future development within the Precise Plan area would be reviewed for consistency with Precise Plan standards and guidelines, to minimize runoff to a less than significant level.

The project would not alter the course of a waterway. The project site is approximately 85 percent (or 128 acres) impervious. As discussed under Impact HYD-2, the project would dedicate approximately 20 percent of the site (i.e., 30.5 of the 151 acres) as parkland which would decrease impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions . With a decrease of surface runoff, the existing storm dr ain system would continue to accommodate flows from the site. As a result, the project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on - or off-site, create runoff that would exceed the capa city of existing or planned drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. In addition, as discussed under Impact HYD -1, the project would comply with applicable regulations, Precise Plan standards and guidelines, and conditions of approval to reduce erosion, siltation, and water quality impacts to less than significant.

Because the project would decrease impervious surface area and is not located in a susceptible area , the project site is not subject to a hydromodification management plan (HMP).212

By decreasing the amount of impervious surfaces on -site and complying with existing regulations, Precise Plan standards and guidelines, and conditions of approval identified in the 2017 EIR and under Impact HYD-1, the project (under either option) would have a less than significant impact, consistent with the findings of the 2017 EIR . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

211 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 330-333.
212 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. HMP Applicability Map: City of Mountain View.

November 2010.

Available at: https://scvurppp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Mountain_View_HMP_Map.pdf.

North Bayshore Master Plan 282 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact HYD-4: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As discussed in Section 4.7.1.2, the project site is not subject to inundation by seiches or tsunamis.

Select areas of the project site are subject to flooding. As discussed further in Section 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the battery systems that would be stored throughout the project site and would be stored in secure IP66 waterproof cabinet enclosures that would provide protection against environmental, chemical, and physical exposures. This would prevent any potential release of pollutants due to project inundation from flooding or sea level rise. The MVFD requires any facility storing large quantities of any hazardous materials to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan program (HMBP). The project with District Utilities System Option would be required to prepare and implement a HMBP approved by MVFD which includes a contingency plan that describes the facility’s response procedures in the event of a hazardous materials release. With implementation of the HMBP and compliance with City and FEMA regulations regarding development in special flood hazard areas, the project (under either option) would not result in a release of pollutants from flooding . Therefore, the project (under either option) 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)]

Impact HYD-5: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2021 GWMP by Valley Water establis hes recharge facilities, recycled water systems, and conservation strategies to proactively manage groundwater and surface water resources within its jurisdiction. Natural recharge of the groundwater basin occurs along the margins and southern portion of the subbasin where high lateral and vertical permeability allow surface water to infiltrate the aquifers. Percolation of pr ecipitation and other surface water within recharge areas replenishes groundwater and contributes to the recharge of principal aquifers. There are no recharge facilities, pump plants, or drinking water treatment plants in the project site.213

The San Francisco Basin Plan provides a framework for state and local governments to meet water quality objectives and criteria to protect the beneficial uses of local aquifers, streams, marshes, and San Francisco Bay. Consistent with the San Francisco Bas in Plan, the proposed project (under either option) would comply with the MRP requirement to install LID treatment controls to treat stormwater runoff.

As discussed under Impact HYD -2, the project would require temporary dewatering during construction activities. This dewatering would pump shallow groundwater on-site at depths of up to 50 feet bgs. As discussed previously, this dewatering would not pump groundwater from any principal aquifer zones that are typically used for drinking water supplies. In addition, the amount of dewatering

213 Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. November 2021. Page 2-1.

North Bayshore Master Plan 283 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
required for the project (under either option) is estimated to comprise a small percentage of the average amount of groundwater pumped by Valley Water each year. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not conflict with water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

4.7.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact HYD-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant hydrology and water quality impact . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

The cumulative conditions have n ot substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

While the Master Plan includes more development within the Precise Plan and on Subarea AM1, that development would:

• Result in an increase in pervious surfaces on -site which would reduce the volume of runoff generated on-site compared to existing conditions;
• Comply with the General Construction Permit and/or MRP requirements, Precise Plan standards and guidelines, and conditions of approval discussed under Impact HYD-1; • Prepare a HMBP that would be reviewed by the MVFD if large quantities of any hazardous materials would be stored on-site; and
• Not permanently deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.

Therefore, the project (under either option) would not res ult in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative hydrology and water quality impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

4.7.2.3 Non-CEQA Impacts
The 2017 EIR found that several portions of the Precise Plan area were within the 100-year flood zone and could be at risk of inundation due to flood hazards in the future. The 2017 EIR concluded that compliance with the City’s Flood Hazard Ordinance as described in Chapter 8 of the City Code, FEMA regulations, and standard conditions of approval would reduce flooding effects. Several portions of the Precise Plan were identified in the 2017 EIR as being at risk of inundation from sea level rise under existing conditions. The 2017 EIR determined that implementation of the identified CIPs and requiring that the building finish floor elevations be at least 11.3 feet above mean sea level would reduce the risk of inundation throughout the Precise Plan area.

As discussed in Section 4.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is located within several different flood zones as identified by the FEMA, including several areas that are within special flood hazard areas. In addition, several portions of the project site, particul arly the areas north of Shorebird Way , could be vulnerable to inundation from future sea level rise. Most of the project site is not located in an identified FEMA 100 -year flood hazard zone; however, a portion of the Eco Gem parcel and Subareas MW1 and MW2 are located in Zone AE, and Subarea AM1 is located in Zone A. Consistent

North Bayshore Master Plan 284 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
with the 2017 EIR, development within a 100 -year flood zone would comply with the City’s Flood Hazard Ordinance and FEMA requirements, which is ensured through the below standard condition of approval.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA HYD-6.1: Both Project Options: AE Flood Zone: The site is located within Special Flood Hazard Zone AE 11, and the building and site designs must comply with the drainage and flood control requirements of the City Code. The applicant shall obtain a Flood Development Permit from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a building permit, including founda tion work. It is recommended this permit be obtained before the design of the building plans is complete in order to avoid potential redesign of the building.

Grading Requirements: For sites located within a special flood hazard zone, the grading or site plan must show the elevation of the finished pad, lowest floor, highest adjacent grade for Flood Zone AO, and base flood elevation for Flood Zone AE. All elevations must be referenced to a City elevation benchmark. The benchmark number, description, elevat ion, and datum year shall be noted on the grading plan.

Substantial Improvement: The existing building is located within a Special Flood Hazard Zone . Prior to submitting plans to the Building Inspection Division to improve the existing building, the appli cant shall submit a completed substantial improvement worksheet to the Public Works Department for review and approval.

The substantial improvement worksheet is used to determine whether or not the value of the new improvements exceed 50% of the value of t he existing structure, where the value of the existing structure must be depreciated for the age of the structure. If the applicant’s building improvements exceed 50% of the value of the existing building, the applicant must elevate the existing and new bu ilding improvements above the base flood elevation and above the City’s minimum elevation requirements in accordance with the City’s drainage and flood control requirements in the City Code and with requirements of FEMA. The applicant must obtain a Flood D evelopment Permit before submitting any building plans to the Building Inspection Division. For more information on flood requirements, please see the City’s Drainage and Flood Control Ordinance and FEMA’s Technical Bulletin 1, Openings in Foundation Walls (2008), and Technical Bulletin 2, Flood- Resistant Material Requirements (2008).

North Bayshore Master Plan 285 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.7.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
HYD-1: Both Project Options: The
project would not violate any
water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality.

Yes LTS None N/A
HYD-2: Both Project Options: The
project would not substantially
decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin.

Yes LTS None N/A
HYD-3: Both Project Options: The
project would not substantially
alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river
or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site; substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding
on- or off-site; create or
contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or impede or
redirect flood flows.

Yes LTS None N/A
HYD-4: Both Project Options: The
project would not risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation in flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche zones.

Yes LTS None N/A

North Bayshore Master Plan 286 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
HYD-5: Both Project Options: The
project would not conflict with
or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan.

Yes LTS None N/A
HYD-C: Both Project Options: The
project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulatively
significant hydrology and water
quality impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 287 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for land use has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.8.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Regional and Local
Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP, adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport, as well as aircraft occupants.214 The CLUP is also intended to ensure that surrounding new land uses do not affect airfield operations. The CLUP identifies the Airfield’s AIA. The AIA is a composite of areas surrounding the Airfield that are affected by noise, height, and safety conside rations. Within the AIA, the CLUP establishes a (1) noise restriction area, (2) height restriction area, and (3) safety restriction area.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to land use and planning impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 2.5 Moffett Federal Airfield. Encourage compatible land uses within the Airport Influence Area for Moffett Federal Airfield as part of Santa Clara County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

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 3.2 Mix of land uses. Encourage a mix of land uses, housing types, retail and public amenities and public neighborhood open spaces accessible to the community.

LUD 3.4 Land use conflict. Minimize conflicts between different land uses LUD 3.8 Preserved land use districts. Promote and preserve commercial and industrial districts that support a diversified economic base.

LUD 15.2 Sustainable development focus. Require sustainable site planning, building, and design strategies.

LUD 15.3 Highly sustainable development. Encourage new and significantly rehabilitated development to include innovative measures for highly sustainable development.

214 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

November 2, 2016.

North Bayshore Master Plan 288 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Policy Description
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.

LUD 16.2 Mix of uses. Promote the North Bayshore Area as a vibrant mix of residential, commercial, service and entertainment uses through the North Bayshore Precise Plan.

LUD 16.3 Business-class hotel. Encourage the development of a business -class hotel and conference center.

LUD 16.6 Open space amenities. Encourage development to include open space amenities, plazas and parks that are accessible to the surrounding transit, bicycle, and pedestrian network.

LUD 16.7 Gateway development. Support the creation of a gateway development with a diverse mix of uses near Highway 101 and North Shoreline Boulevard.

North Bayshore Precise Plan
The Precise Plan encompasses an approximately 650-acre area in the City of Mountain View that is generally bounded by US 101 to the south, Mountain View Regional Park to the north, Stevens Creek to the east and Palo Alto to the west . 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. 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 Precise Plan includes development standards and design criteria that have been adopted to function along with the standards in the Municipal Code to limit land use conflicts and provide for compatibility with surrounding properties and neighborhoods. Standards are requirements that must be followed by project applicants, unless an exception to a standard is otherwise noted. Guidelines are the City’s expectations for how site, building, and infrastructure design and improvements should be designed.

Projects should demonstrate how they addres s each guideline, however there is flexibility in how projects meet each guideline depending on project specific design and location. The Precise Plan includes standards and design guidelines for the following Complete Neighborhood Areas and Character Areas:

Complete Neighborhood Areas Character Areas
• Joaquin • Gateway
• Shorebird • Core
• Pear • General
• Outside Area • Edge

Each character area supports a range of employment activities, residential uses and the principal components of the Environmental Sustainability Framework. The character areas differ in their physical character, interfaces with habitat and open space, and building intensity and scale. For

North Bayshore Master Plan 289 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
example, Edge Character Area provides a transition between the more intensive development in the Core and General Character Areas and nearby sensitive areas by allowing lower development intensities than the rest of North.

These Complete Neighborhoods overlay the Precise Plan’s four existing Character Areas, and include a mix of land uses and amenities. The Complete Neighborhood areas are planned around walkable access to transit, open space, and services. The Precise Plan’s standards and guidelines for uses in these areas help existing uses transition to complete, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods over time.

The Precise Plan contains standards and guidelines to avoid significant land use and planning impacts.

The following standards are applicable to the proposed project.

Standard Description

3.3.2 Land Uses
1 Allowable land uses. Allowable land uses for each character area are listed in Table 3 (of the Precise Plan).
2 Residential uses. Residential uses are only allowed within Complete Neighborhood areas as shown in Figure 4 (of the Precise Plan).
3 Prohibited residential forms and uses. Single-family residential, duplex, small -lot single- family, townhouse and rowhouse building types are prohibited in North Bayshore.

Townhouse/rowhouse unit types may be permitted if the building design includes units above these unit types.

4.8.1.2 Existing Conditions
Most of the project site is designated as High Intensity Office, Institutional, Mixed-Use Center (North Bayshore), and North Bayshore Mixed -Use in the City’s General Plan and zoned P(39) Planned Community/North Bayshore Precise Plan. Subarea AM1, located outside of the Precise Plan area, has a General Plan land use designation of Institutional and is zoned Public Facility (PF). The project site is currently developed with 6 9 office, light industrial , and retail buildings. Surrounding land uses include a bicycle and pedestrian trail (Stevens Creek Trail) to the east, Most of the project site is bordered by the Stevens Creek Trail to the east, office uses and an institutional use ( Shoreline Amphitheatre) to the north, office uses to the west, US 101 to the south, and a residential neighborhood to the southeast (see Figure 2.2-3). The project includes three locations for district parking that are not within the core area of the Master Plan. Subarea AM1 is bordered by an institutional use (Shoreline Amphitheatre to the north, open space to the west, and office uses to the south and east. The other two district parking garages (Subarea MW1 and MW2) are bordered by office and commercial uses in all directions.

North Bayshore Master Plan 290 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.8.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on land use and planning, would the project:

1) Physically divide an established community?
2) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

4.8.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact LU-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not physically divide an established community. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan consistent with the Character Area and Complete Neighborhood Area standards and guidelines would not physically divide an established community.

The project (under either option) is located in the Gateway, Core, General, and Edge Character Areas and the Joaquin, Shorebird, and Pear Complete Neighborhood Areas and would comply with applicable Precise Plan standards and guidelines for those Areas and neighborhoods. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the 2017 EIR.

Development of Subarea AM1 is outside of the Precise Plan area and would not divide an established community because this area is currently a surface parking lot and because it would be developed with a parking garage that would serve the existing and proposed land uses and would be designed to facilitate connectivity to the surrounding land uses.

The proposed street network (under either option) (see Figure 2.3-4) includes a combination of new public and private roadways that would provide connections to the surrounding neighborhoods.

Additionally, the project (under either option) would construct a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails throughout the site to complete the Green Loop trail, improve access along Permanente and Stevens Creek, and provide pathways for pedestrians throughout the Precise Plan area. The proposed roadways and bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be reviewed during the Planned Community Permit and Development Review Permit processes to ensure compliance with City circulation and design requirements. The proposed streets and bicycle and pedestrian facilities would create integrated and cohesive neighborhoods and facilitate community connectivity. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

North Bayshore Master Plan 291 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact LU-2: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that th e Precise Plan incorporates standards and guidelines to minimize environmental impacts and would be consistent with local and regional land use plans, policies, and regulations.215 The 2017 EIR concluded that the Precise Plan was also consistent with the Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP. The project’s consistency with these land use and development assumptions are discussed in detail below.

General Plan and North Bayshore Precise Plan
The project site is designated High Intensity Office, Institutional, Mixed-Use Center (North Bayshore), and North Bayshore Mixed -Use in the City’s General Plan. The General Plan High -Intensity Office designation supports major commercial operations, such as corporations, financial and administrative offices, high-technology industries, and other scientific facilities, as well as supporting retail and other service uses. The General Plan Mixed-Use Center (North Bayshore) designation supports office, retail, personal services, lodging, entertainment, and multi -family residential uses. The North B ayshore Mixed-Used designation promotes a mix of offices, retail, entertainment, multi-family residential, lodging, and small businesses along the North Bayshore Boulevard corridor . Subarea AM1 is designated as Institutional in the General Plan. The project (under either option) would redevelop the site with a mix of office, multi -family residential, retail, civic/community uses, and parkland/open space consistent with the General Plan land use designations.

Zoning Ordinance
As noted in Section 2.4 Consistency with General Plan Designation and Zoning District , the project site is zoned P(39) Planned Community/North Bayshore Precise Plan and Public Facilities (PF). Most of the proposed development would occur in the Edge, Gateway, Core, and General Character Areas of the Precise Plan. Each of these Character Area designations have different guidelines and standards for scale, form, and character that work in conjunction to create Complete Neighborhoods . The maximum base building height allowed on-site for non-residential development ranges from 80 to 140 feet and the maximum base building height for residential development ranges from 55 to 160 feet depending on the Character Area in which the building is located. The “base” FAR for the site varies from 0.4 5 for non -residential development to 1.0 for residential/mixed -use development. The maximum FAR allowed ranges from 0.65 to 2.35 for non-residential development and 1.85 to 4.5 for residential/mixed-use development.

The project (under either option) would redevelop the site with a mix of office, multi-family residential, retail, civic/community uses, and parkland/open space. The proposed land uses are consistent with the

215 The 2017 EIR acknowledged that the Precise Plan proposed amendments to both the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, which, by definition, made the Precise Plan inconsistent with those plans and ordinances until the amendments were adopted. Following the adoption of the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan in December 2017, the Precise Plan was made consistent with both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.

North Bayshore Master Plan 292 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
type of development envisioned in the Precise Plan for the Edge, Gatewa y, Core, and General Character Areas and would comply with applicable Precise Plan design standards. Any FAR above the “base” is considered “bonus” FAR and subject to community benefit, housing affordability, and green building requirements as outlined in the Precise Plan. The project (under either option) would be allocated 1.3 million square feet of “bonus” FAR in return for community benefits such as contributing to the funding of the Charleston Transit Corridor and dedicating 20 percent of the new residential units as affordable housing units. The project is proposing to use “bonus” FAR for both residential and non- residential development as permitted in the Precise Plan. Thus, the project (under either option) would be consistent with the development standards for the site under the North Bayshore Precise Plan zoning district.

Moffett Field CLUP
The 2017 EIR concluded that development allowed under the Precise Plan would not conflict with the Moffett Field CLUP. The project’s consistency (under either option) with the CLUP is discussed in Section 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Section 4.10 Noise. Those sections concluded the impact to be less than significant because the project (under either option) would comply with FAA notification requirements and applicable General Plan policies and actions. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not conflict with airport operations at Moffett Federal Airfield.

Based on this discussion, the project (under either option) would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflic t with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

4.8.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact LU-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant land use and planning impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

While the Master Plan includes more development within the Precise Plan and on Subarea AM1, that development would:

• Be a planned development that would not result in the physical division of established communities;
• Comply with General Plan goals, policies, and action statements that require appropriate buffers, edges, and transition areas between land uses, minimizing land use compatibility issues that might result in physical environmental impacts; and • Be consistent with Precise Plan standards and guidelines.

For these reasons, the proposed project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative land use and planning impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

North Bayshore Master Plan 293 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.8.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
LU-1: Both Project Options: The
proposed project would not
physically divide an existing
community.

Yes LTS None N/A
LU-2: Both Project Options: The
proposed project would not
cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use
plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating n
environmental effect.

Yes LTS None N/A
LU-C: Both Project Options: The
proposed project in
combination with other
cumulative projects would not
result in a significant
cumulative land use impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 294 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.9 MINERAL RESOURCES

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
An analysis of mineral resources impacts associated with implementation of the Precise Plan was included in the Geology and Soils Section of the 2017 EIR. The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for mineral resources has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.9.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted by the California legislature in 1975 to address t he need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. As mandated under SMARA, the State Geologist has designated mineral land classifications in order to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), after receiving classification information from the State Geologist, to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance.

4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions
Based on mapping by the California Division of Mines and Geology, as well as the Californ ia Department of Conservation, there have been no mineral or aggregate sources of statewide importance identified within the Mountain View city limits.216

4.9.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on mineral resources, w ould the project:

1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

216 Melvin C. Stinson, Michael W. Manson and John J. Plappert. Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco Monterey Bay Area: Classification of Aggregate Resource Areas: South San Francisco Bay Production – Consumption Region. 1987.

North Bayshore Master Plan 295 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.9.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact MIN-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state . [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2, there are no minerals or aggregate resources of statewide importance located within Mountain View (including the project site). Implementation of the project (under either option), therefore, would not result in an impact to mineral resources . This would be c onsistent with the findings of the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

Impact MIN-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that there are no minerals or aggregate resources of statewide importance located within Mountain View (including the project site).217 Implementation of the project (under either option) , therefore, would not result in an impact to mineral resources. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

4.9.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact MIN-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant mineral resources impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Cumulative Impact)]

Since there are no minerals or aggregate resources of statewide importance located in Mountain View, implementation of the project (under either option), combined with other cumulative projects , would not contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Cumulative Impact)]

217 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft S ubsequent Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 256.

North Bayshore Master Plan 296 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.9.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
MIN-1: Both Project Options: The
project would not result in the
loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be
of value to the region and
residents of the state.

Yes NI None N/A
MIN-2: Both Project Options: The
project would not result in the
loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan.

Yes NI None N/A
MIN-C: Both Project Options: The
project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulatively
significant mineral resources
impact.

Yes NI None N/A
Abbreviations: NI = No Impact, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 297 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.10 NOISE

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for noise and vibration has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.10.1.1 Background Information
Noise
Factors that influence sound as it is p erceived by the human ear, includ e the actual level of sound, period of exposure, frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a decibel scale , which serves as an index of loudness. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA.

Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects.

Noise guidelines are generally expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, including Leq, DNL, or CNEL. 218 These descriptors are used to measure a location’s overall noise exposure, given that there are times when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from an airport or when a leaf blower is operating) and times when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on freeways or in the middle of the night). Lmax is the maximum A -weighted noise level during a measurement period.

Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Vibration amplitude can be quantified usin g Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. PPV has been routinely used to measure and assess ground -borne construction vibration. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 inches/second (in/sec) PPV.

218 Leq is a measurement of average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time. Day-Night Level (DNL) is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) includes an additional five dB applied to noise occurring between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two dBA of the peak- hour Leq.

North Bayshore Master Plan 298 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.10.1.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Vibration Limits
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed vibration impact assessment criteria for evaluating vibration impacts associated with transit projects. The FTA has proposed vibration impact criteria based on maximum overall levels for a single event . The impact criteria for groundborne vibration are shown in Table 4.10-1 below. These criteria can be applied to development projects in jurisdictions that lack vibration impact standards.

Table 4.10-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria
Land Use Category
Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels
(VdB inch/sec)
Frequent
Event
Occasional
Events
Infrequent
Events
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere
with interior operations 65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people
normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use 75 78 83
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. September 2018.

State and Local
California Building Standards Code
The CBC establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings housing people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartments, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 Ldn/CNEL in any habitable room. Exterior windows must have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 40 or Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) of 30 when the property falls within the 65 dBA DNL noise contour for a freeway or expressway, railroad, or industrial source.

California Green Building Standards Code
For commercial uses, CalGreen (Section 5.507.4.1 and 5.507.4.2) requires that wall and roof -ceiling assemblies exposed to the adjacent roadways have a composite STC rating of at least 50 or a composite OITC rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 when the commercial property falls within the 65 dBA L dn or greater n oise contour for a freeway or expressway, railroad, or industrial or stationary noise source. The state requires interior noise levels to be maintained at 50 dBA Leq(1-hr) or less during hours of operation at a proposed commercial use.

North Bayshore Master Plan 299 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan includes noise compatibility guidelines for various land uses. For reference, these guidelines are provided in Table 4.10-2 below.

Table 4.10-2: General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines

North Bayshore Master Plan 300 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to noise impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Noise
NOI 1.1 Land use compatibility. Use the Outdoor Noise Environment Guidelines as a guide for planning and development decisions.

NOI 1.2 Noise-sensitive land uses. Require new development of noise -sensitive land uses to incorporate measures into the project design to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to the following acceptable levels:
• New single-family developments shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA Ldn for exterior noise in private outdoor active use areas.
• New multi-family residential developments shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA L dn for private and community outdoor recreation use areas. Noise standards do not apply to private decks and balconies in multi-family residential developments • Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dBA L dn in all new single-family and multi- family residential units.
• Where new single -family and multi -family residential units would be exposed to intermittent noise from major transportation sources such as train or airport operations, new construction shall achieve an interior noise level of 65 dBA through measures such as site design or special construction materials. This standard shall apply to areas exposed to four or more major transportation noise events such as passing trains or aircraft flyovers per day.

NOI 1.3 Exceeding acceptable noise thresholds. If noise levels in the area of a proposed project would exceed normally acceptable thresholds, the City shall require a detailed analysis of proposed noise reduction measures to determine whether the proposed use is compatible. As needed, noise insulation features shall be included in the design of such projects to reduce exterior noise levels to meet acceptable thresholds, or for uses with no active outdoor use areas, to ensure acceptable interior noise levels.

NOI 1.4 Site planning. Use site planning and project design strategies to achieve the noise level standards in NOI 1.1 (Land use compatibility) and in NOI 1.2 (Noise-sensitive land uses). The use of noise barriers shall be considered after all practical design-related noise measures have been integrated into the project design.

NOI 1.5 Major roadways. Reduce the noise impacts from major arterials and freeways.

NOI 1.6 Sensitive uses. Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, schools, hospitals and child-care facilities.

NOI 1.7 Stationary sources. Restrict noise levels from stationary sources through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance.

NOI 1.8 Moffett Federal Airfield. Support efforts to minimize noise impacts from Moffett Federal Airfield in coordination with Santa Clara County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

North Bayshore Master Plan 301 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Mountain View Municipal Code
The City of Mountain View addresses noise regulations and goals in the Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code. These regulations help protect the community from exposure to excessive noise and also specify how noise is measured and regulated. Noise is also regulated through project conditions of approval. The Mountain View Police Department and City Attorney’s office enforce noise violations.

Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities occur during noise -sensitive times of the d ay (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residences), and/or when construction duration lasts over an extended period of time. Section 8.70 of the Municipal Cod e restricts the hours of construction activity to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays without written approval from the City. Construction activities are defined to include any physical activity on the construction site or in the project’s staging area, including the delivery of materials.

The City of Mountain View also identifies limits on noise from stationary equipment (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning me chanical systems, delivery truck idling, loading/unloading activities, recreation activities, and parking lot operations) in Section 21.26 of the Code. The maximum allowable noise level is 55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) , unless it has been demonstrated that such operation will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of residents subjected to such noise, and the use has been granted a permit by the Zoning Administrator.

Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The project site is approximately 0.78 mile west of the Moffett Federal Airfield; which is the closest airport to the site. The Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP, adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport, as well as aircraft occupants. 219 The CLUP includes noise exposure maps and guidelines intended to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive no ise and safety hazards. The CLUP also identifies the AIA. The AIA is a composite of areas surrounding the Airfield that are affected by noise, height, and safety considerations. Within the AIA, the CLUP establishes a (1) noise restriction area, (2) height restriction area, and (3) safety restriction area. The Santa Clara County ALUC has jurisdiction over new land uses in the vicinity of airports, and establishes 65 dBA CNEL as the maximum allowable noise level considered compatible with residential uses. Re commendations made by the ALUC are advisory in nature to the local jurisdictions, not mandatory.

219 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

November 18, 2016.

North Bayshore Master Plan 302 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.10.1.3 Existing Conditions
The existing noise environment in the project area results primarily from vehicular traffic along freeway and roadways (including US 101 , North Shoreline Boulevard , Charleston Road , and Amphitheatre Parkway), and aircraft associated with Moffett Federal Airfield. The project site , including Subarea AM1 which is outside of the Precise Plan boundaries, is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL n oise contour for the Moffett Feder al Airfield (refer to Figure 4.10-1). The nea rest sensitive receptors are the Santiago Villa mobile home park (located south of subarea SB-PR-8 and the Shorebird Yards, and adjacent to the east of PE-PR-2), the Shashi Hotel at the corner of North Shoreline Boulevard and Spacepark Way (adjacent to the north of Subarea PE -PR-1), and a single -family residence at 1024 Alta Avenue, located approximately 725 feet west of the Joaquin Courts subarea of the Master Plan (refer to Figure 2.3-2).

4.10.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on noise, would the project result in:

1) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
2) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose peop le residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Source: Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission.

Los
Altos Santa
Clara
Sunnyvale
Mountain
View
Palo
Alto
San
Jose

EL CAMINO REAL

MIDDLEFIELD RD
LAW
RENCE
EXPY

CENTRAL EXPY

CENTRAL EXPY
£¤101
·|}þ237
·|}þ85
CNEL (dBs)
65 70 75 ±03 , 0 0 0 6 , 0 0 0
Feet2022 Aircraft Noise Contours
with AIA
0 1,000 3,000 6,000 Feet
Master Plan SiteAirport Influence Area
MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD 2022 NOISE CONTOURS FIGURE 4.10-1

North Bayshore Master Plan 304 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.10.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact NOI-1: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or app licable standards of other agencies . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

As described in the 2017 EIR, a significant noise impact would be identified if the project would generate a substantial temporary or permanent noise level increase over ambient noise levels at existing noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project site and that would exceed ambient noise standards presented in the General Plan or Municipal Code at existing noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project site. The following thresholds are used to determine if the project would result in a significant noise impact.

• A significant temporary noise impact would be identified if the hourly average noise levels exceed 60 dBA Leq, and the ambient by at least five dBA Leq, for a period of more than one year at adjacent residential land uses.
• A significant permanent noise level increase would occur if project-generated traffic would result in: a) a noise level increase of five dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of less than 60 dBA Ldn, or b) a noise level increase of three dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or greater.
• A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would expose persons to or generate noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards presented in the General Plan.

Construction Noise
The 2017 EIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would have a less than significant construction noise impact with adherence to City Code requirements and standard conditions of approval.220 Chapter 8 City Code requirements include:

• No construction activity shall commence prior to 7:00 a.m., nor continue later than 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, nor shall any work be permitted on Saturday or Sunday or holidays unless prior written approval is granted by the building official. The term “construction activity” shall include any physical activity on the construction site or in the staging area, including the delivery of materials. In approving modified hours, the building official may specifically designate and/or limit the activities permitted during the modified hours. • At any time before commencement of or during construction activity, the building official may modify the permitted hours of construction upon twenty -four (24) hours written notice to the contractor, applicant, developer or owner. The building off icial can reduce the hours of construction activity below the 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. time frame or increase the allowable hours.

220 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 368 through 371.

North Bayshore Master Plan 305 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
• If the hours of construction activity are modified, then the general contractor, applicant, developer or owner shall erect a sign at a prominent location on the construction site to advise subcontractors and material suppliers of the working hours. The contractor, owner or applicant shall immediately produce upon request any written order or permit from the building official pursuant to this section upon the request of any member of the public, the police or city staff.

In addition, projects within the Precise Plan area would be required to implement the following standard condition of approval, as identified in the 2017 EIR.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA NOI-1.1: Construction Noise Reduction: The following noise reduction measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby properties: (a) comply with manufacturer’s muffler requirements on all construction equipment engines; (b) turn off construction equipment when not in use, where applicable; (c) locate stationary equipment as far as pra ctical from receiving properties; (d) use temporary sound barriers or sound curtains around loud stationary equipment if the other noise reduction methods are not effective or possible; and (e) shroud or shield impact tools and use electric -powered rather than diesel -powered construction equipment.

Construction Practices Noticing - Disturbance Coordinator : The applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. T he coordinator (who may be an employee of the general contractor) will determine the cause of the complaint and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator s hall be conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. The sign must also list an emergency after -hours contact number for emergency personnel.

Pile Driving Noise Reduction: The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications if pile driving is proposed: (a) multiple pile drivers shall be considered to expedite construction. Although noise levels generated by multiple pile drivers would be higher than the noise generated by a single pile driver, the total duration of pile driving would be reduced; and (b) temporary noise control blanket barriers shall shroud pile drivers or be erected in a manner to shield the foundation pile holes as a standard construction noise control technique. Predrilling reduces the number of blows required to seat the pile.

In compliance with City Code requirements and the above standard condition or approval, the project (under either option) would have a less than significant construction noise impact on adjacent sensitive receptors. Therefore, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more

North Bayshore Master Plan 306 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Traffic Noise
The future traffic noise from buildout of the Precise Plan was modeled for the 2017 EIR. Traffic noise increases above existing levels from Precise Plan -generated traffic would be zero to one dBA Ldn or less at noise sensitive receptors within or outside the Precise Plan area and concluded to be less than significant.221

As shown in Table 4.10-3, the total average daily trips and peak hour trips for cumulative plus project conditions are similar to the amount of trips for the buildout of the Precise Plan studied in the 2017 EIR.

Table 4.10-3: Projected Daily and Peak Hour Trips Compared to 2017 EIR Average Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Total PM Peak Hour Total 2017 EIR
(Precise Plan Buildout) 132,820 10,540 11,380
Cumulative Plus Project
(under either option)
Conditions
128,710 10,810 11,080

The cumulative plus project trips are under the total average daily and PM peak hour trips studied in the 2017 EIR and slightly greater in the AM peak hour by 270. This slight difference in cumulative plus project trips would not result in a new or substan tially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Mechanical Equipment Noise
The 2017 EIR concluded that mechanical noise from future development would be less than significant in compliance with General Plan Policy NOI-1.7 and the below standard condition of approval which restricts noise levels from stationary sources through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance.222

Standard Conditions of Approval:

COA NOI-1.1: Mechanical Equipment: The noise emitted by any mechanical equipment shall not exceed a level of 55 dBA during the day (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) or 50 dBA during the night (between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) as measured at residential land uses.

221 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 366 and 367. 222 Ibid. Pages 367 and 368.

North Bayshore Master Plan 307 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
The proposed project (under either option) would include mechanical systems (i.e., HVAC, exhaust fans, intake ventilation, air source heat pumps, and cooling towers) on portions of the roof tops of the proposed buildings . Under the project with District Utility System Option only, most mechanical equipment would be located inside the DCP. The 2017 EIR includes the standard condition of approval listed above to reduce potential noise impacts from mechanical equipment.

The project (under either option) would comply with General Plan Policy NOI-1.7 and implement the above standard condition of approval. The project (under either option) would not result in a significant impact from mechanical equipment noise at residential land uses because mechanical equipment would be selected to meet the exterior noise level standards at nearby residential uses. Therefore, the project (under either option) 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])

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 Signif icant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

The 2017 EIR determined that construction activities associated with development allowed under the Precise Plan would generate vibration from operation of heavy equipment and impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) and identified a less than significant vibration no ise impact with implementation of mitigation measure MM NOI-4.1 through MM NOI-4.3.

North Bayshore 2017 EIR Mitigation Measure:

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 present 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 structures 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 moni toring would be conducted, set up a

North Bayshore Master Plan 308 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
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. Monitoring results may 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.

Project construction activities (under either option) would generate vibration from operation of heavy equipment and impact tools, like described in the 2017 EIR. The project (under either option) would implement 2017 EIR MM NOI-4.1 through MM NOI-4.3 to reduce construction vibration impacts to a less than significant level by avoiding pile driving, locat ing vibration compaction activities away from vibration sensitive structures, monitoring vibration effects, and making appropriate repairs or providing compensation if damage occurs. Based on this discussion, the project (under either option) 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 with Mitigation Incorporated])

Impact NOI-3: Both Project Options: The project site is not located within the vicinity of an airport land use plan or airport. The project (under either option) would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Th nearest airport to the project site is Moffett Federal Airfield. The 2017 EIR concluded that the Precise Plan area is located outside of the noise contours for the Moffett Federal Airfield and, therefore, future development allowed under the Precise Plan would not expose people residing or working in the Precise Plan area to excessive noise levels.223 The project site, including AM1 outside of the Precise Plan boundaries, is located outside of the noise contours of the Moffett Federal Airfield, therefore, the proposed project (under either option) would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

223 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 376.

North Bayshore Master Plan 309 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.10.2.1 Cumulative Impacts
Impact NOI-C: Both Project Options: The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant noise impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

Construction
The 2017 EIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would have a less than significant construction noise impact with adherence to City Code requirements and standard conditions of approval.224 The cumulative noise conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR. The geographic area for cumulative construction noise impacts includes sites within 500 feet of the project site. There are several projects located adjacent to the project site (see Table 3.0-1) that are approved, but not yet under construction. The buildout of the project (under either option) would occur over eight phases and take a total of approximately 14 years to complete. It is likely that construction of the proposed project and construction of adjacent cumulative projects would overlap.

Specifically, the Microsoft project (located at 1045 La Avenida Street), Sobrato pro ject (located at 1255 Pear Avenue), and the 1100 La Avenida Affordable Housing project are all located near the Santiago Villa mobile home park (located south of subarea SB -PR-8 and the Shorebird Yards, and adjacent to the east of PE -PR-2), a sensitive rec eptor. All these cumulative projects (including the project under either option) , would be required to adhere to City Code requirements and standard conditions of approval (which are discussed under Impact NOI -1). For these reasons, the cumulative projects would not result in a significant cumulative construction noise impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

Operational
The cumulative operational noise conditions have not substantially changed since the certifica tion of the 2017 EIR. The 2017 EIR concluded that the cumulative traffic noise increase from buildout of the Precise Plan would be zero to one dBA L dn or less at noise sensitive receptors within or outside the Precise Plan area and concluded the impact to be less than significant.225

As shown in Table 4.10-3 under Impact NOI -1, the total average daily trips and peak hour trips for cumulative plus project conditions are similar to the number of trips for the buildout of the Precise Plan studied in the 2017 EIR. As a result, the project (under either option) would result in a similar less than significant traffic noise increases as disclosed in the 2017 EIR . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

224 Ibid. Page 377.
225 Ibid. Pages 377

North Bayshore Master Plan 310 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.10.2.2 Non-CEQA impacts
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 informationa l purposes only because the City of Mountain View has policies (including General Plan Policies NOI 1.1 and NOI 1.2) that address existing noise conditions affecting a proposed project.

Future Exterior Noise Environment
As established by General Plan Policy NOI-1.2, exterior noise environments at private and community outdoor recreation use areas should be maintained at or below 65 dBA Ldn to be considered acceptable by the City of Mountain View. The noise standards do not apply to private decks and balc onies in multi-family residential developments such as those proposed by the project (under either option).

According to the 2017 EIR, noise produced by vehicular traffic along roadways in the Precise Plan area would expose future residential land uses to levels above the 65 dBA Ldn exterior compatibility threshold.226

Consistent with the 2017 EIR , as part of the City’s building permit review process, a qualified acoustical specialist shall prepare a detailed analysis of exterior noise levels at outdoor rec reational areas and construction drawings would confirm measures have been taken to achieve the City’s exterior noise standards for community outdoor recreation use areas.

Future Interior Noise Environment
Residential Uses
General Plan Policy NOI 1.2 and the CBC’s interior noise level standard of 45 dBA L dn apply to the residential portion of the project (under either option). Interior noise levels would vary depending upon the design of the buildings (relative window area to wall area) and the selected construction materials and methods. Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA L dn, forced -air mechanical ventilation systems are normally required. Where exterior noise levels exceed 70 dBA L dn, special sound rated construction systems are normally required.

According to the 2017 EIR, noise levels in the project vicinity would be approximately 65 to 75 dBA Ldn. Standard construction materials for commercial uses would provide at least 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces.

In order to ensure the interior noise standards are met on -site, the project (under either option) would implement the below standard condition of approval.

226 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 373.

North Bayshore Master Plan 311 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Standard Condition of Approval:

COA NOI-2.2: Both Project Options: Site Specific Building Acoustical Analysis. A qualified acoustical consultant will review final site plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to construction to calculate expected interior noise levels as required by State noise regulations. Project -specific acoustical analyses are required by the California Building Code to confirm that the design results in interior noise levels reduced to 45 dB(A)Ldn or lower. The specific determination of what noise insulation treatments are necessary will be completed on a unit -by-unit basis.

Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, will be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Building sound insulation requirements will include the provision of forced -air mechanical ventilation for all residential units as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant, so that windows can be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise. Special building techniques (e.g., sound -rated windows and building facade treatments) will be implemented as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant to maintain interior noise levels at or below acceptable levels. These treatments will include, but are not limited to, sound -rated windows and doors, sound -rated wall construction, acoustical caulking, protected ventilation openings, etc.

Commercial Uses
As mentioned under Impact NOI -3 above, the CalGreen Code requires that interior noise levels be maintained at 50 dBA L eq(1-hr) or less during hours of operation at the proposed commercial uses. As mentioned above, noise levels in the project vi cinity would be approximately 65 to 75 dBA L dn.

Standard construction materials for commercial uses would provide at least 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces. The inclusion of adequate forced -air mechanical ventilation systems is normally r equired so windows may be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion. The standard construction materials in combination with forced-air mechanical ventilation would satisfy the daytime threshold of 50 dBA Leq(1-hr).

North Bayshore Master Plan 312 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.10.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
NOI-1: Both Project Options: The
project (under either
option) would not result in
generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of
standards established in the
local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies.

Yes LTS None N/A
NOI-2: Both Project Options: The
project (under either
option) would not result in
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels.

Yes S 2017 EIR
MM NOI-4.1
through MM
NOI-4.3
LTS
NOI-3: Both Project Options: The
project (under either
option) would not expose
people residing or working
in the project area to
excessive noise levels.

Yes LTS None N/A
NOI-C: Both Project Options: The
project (under either
option) would not result in
cumulatively considerable
noise or vibration impacts.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, S = Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 313 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.11.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Housing-Element Law
State requirements mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as housing-element law. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is the state - mandated process to identify the total number of housing units (by affordability level) that each jurisdiction must accommodate in its housing element. California housing-element law requires cities to: 1) zone adequate lands to accommodate its RHNA; 2) produce an inventory of sites that can accommodate its share of the RHNA; 3) identify governmental and non -governmental constraints to residential development; 4) develop strategies and a work plan to mitigate or eliminate those constraints; and 5) adopt a housing element and update it on a regular basis. 227 The City of Mountain View Housing Element and related land use policies were last updated in 2014. The City is currently preparing an update to the Housing Element.

Regional and Local
Plan Bay Area 2050
In October 2021, subsequent to the certification of the 2017 EIR, Plan Bay Area 2050 was adopted.

Plan Bay Area 2050 supersedes Plan Bay Area 2040, which was in place at the time the 2017 EIR was prepared. Plan Bay Area 2050 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. PDAs are areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified for housing and job growth.228

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. ABAG 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

227 California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed September 24, 2021. https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing- needs-allocation.
228 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050 .

October 21, 2021. Page 20.

North Bayshore Master Plan 314 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
technical overview of the of the growth forecasts and land use models upon which Plan Bay Area 2050 is based.

4.11.1.2 Existing Conditions
There are no residential units on the project site. The Santiago Villa Mobile Home Park is not in the Precise Plan, but it is directly adjacent to th e eastern border of the Precise Plan area. There are approximately 362 dwelling units within the Santiago Villa Mobile Home Park.

4.11.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on population and housing, would the project:

1) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

4.11.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact POP-1: Both Project Options : The project (under eithe r option) would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Implementation of the Precise Plan would result in a total of 38,910 employees and 9,850 dwelling units at full buildout in 2030.229 This would exceed the growth projections for the area identified in the General Plan at the time the 2017 EIR was prepared; however, the 2017 EIR concluded that the growth would be located in an identified Change Area of the City and would be consistent with General Plan goals and policies related to providing housing in urban areas near employment centers.

The project (under either option) is consistent with the development and growth assumptions in the 2017 EIR for the Precise Plan except the project includes 325 additional hotel rooms, 199,206 square feet of additional restaurant/retail uses , and 66,957 square feet of additional institutional/recreational uses.

229 City of Mou ntain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 383 to 384.

North Bayshore Master Plan 315 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
These additional uses would result in 1,038 additional jobs that were not evaluated in the 2017 EIR.230 The 1,038 additional jobs represent a 7.4 percent increase in the total number of jobs anticipated from the buildout of the Precise Plan. These additional jobs would change the City’s projected in 2030 jobs/housing ratio from 1.57 (in 2030) to 1.61. Given the nominal percent increase in overall jobs from the buildout of the Precise Plan and the slight change to the City’s jobs/housing ratio, the project’s additional growth that was not previously evaluated in the 2017 EIR would not result in a new or substantially more sever e significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact POP-2: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project site does not contain housing ; therefore, the project (under either option) would no t displace existing residents or housing, and would have a less than significant impact, consistent with the findings of the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

4.11.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact POP-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant population and housing impact . [Same Impact as Approved Project ( Less than Significant Impact)]

The geographic area for cumulative population and housing impacts is the City boundaries, and can be extended further to Santa Clara County and the San Francisco Bay region. Past, present, and pending development projects contribute to the City’s, County’s, and region’s population and housing impact.

As discussed under Impact POP -1, although the resident population growth associated with the proposed project is accounted for in the growth projections of the Precise Plan, the employment growth is slightly higher than what was previously analyzed in the 2017 EIR due to the addition of commercial square footage that was beyond the previously studied total . While the project (under either option) includes more development within the Precise Plan, that development would be generally consistent with the intent, policies, and assumptions from the 2030 General Plan and result in a nominal percent increase in overall jobs compared to what was studied in the 2017 EIR.

In addition, a s the geographic area increases to the County and region, the project’s increase in residential units and jobs/employees would be even less. For these reasons, implementation of the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative population and housing impa ct. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

230 The number of employees was estimated assuming approximately 2.67 employees per 1,000 square feet of reta il uses, approximately 6.55 employees per 1,000 square feet of restaurant uses, and approximately 0.4 employees per room for hotel uses.

North Bayshore Master Plan 316 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.11.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
POP-1: Both Project Options: The
project would not induce
substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)
Yes LTS None N/A
POP-2: Both Project Options: The
project would not displace
substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.

Yes LTS None N/A
POP-C: Both Project Options: The
project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulatively
significant population and housing
impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 317 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES

4.12.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.12.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the impact s from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

Government Code Section 65995 through 65998
California Government Code Section 65996 specifies that an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities is the payment of a school impact fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. Government Code Sections 65995 through 65998 set forth provisions for the payment of school impact fees by new development by “mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur (as a result of the planning, use, or development of real pr operty” (Section 65996[a]). The legislation states that the payment of school impact fees “are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” under CEQA (Section 65996[b]).

Developers are required to pay a school impact fee to the school district to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed residential development project. The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.

California Education Code Section 17620(a)
Section 17620(a) of the California Education Code establishes that the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district in order to assist with the funding of the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. These fees can be levied against commercial, industrial, and residential development.

North Bayshore Master Plan 318 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 due to public services impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Public Safety
PSA 1.1 Adequate staffing. Maintain adequate police and fire staffing, performance levels and facilities to serve the needs for the community.

PSA 2.7 Police service levels and facilities. Ensure Mountain View Police Department service levels and facilities meet demands from new growth and development.

PSA 3.1 Minimized losses. Minimize property damage, injuries and loss of life from fire.

Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
POS 1.1 Additional parkland. Expand park and open space resources to meet current City standards for open acreage and population in each neighborhood.

POS 1.2 Recreation facilities in new residential developments. Require new development to provide park and recreation facilities.

POS 5.2 Schools and open space. Collaborate with the school district on new school development and intensification to accommodate population growth while preserving and protecting public parks and playgrounds.

MOB 10.4 Emergency response. Monitor emergency respon se times and where necessary consider appropriate measures to maintain emergency response time standards. Measures to ensure provisions of adequate response times may include the expanded use of emergency vehicle signal preemption, evacuation route modifications, or the construction of new facilities (e.g., fire stations).

North Bayshore Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains standards and guidelines to avoid significant public services impacts. The following guidelines and policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Guidelines Description
Public Open Space
1 Open space development. The Plan’s new open spaces should be coordinated with private development projects and planned infrastructure improvements 2 Connected open spaces. New public open spaces should be accessible from and located within a comfortable walking and biking distance of residents and workers. Open spaces should be located along bikeways or greenways

North Bayshore Master Plan 319 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Guidelines Description
3 Sustainability. New public open spaces should be designed to incorporate best practices in sustainability, including water use and conservation, stormwater management, landscaping, and planting.

Policies Description

3.4.5 Local School Policies
1 Open space development. The Plan’s new open spaces should be coordinated with private development projects and planned infrastructure improvements 2 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The City has previously authorized a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that allows the sale of development rights from a school site to property owners/developers for use at another property in the City. The TDR program seeks to allow new school sites in the City to transfer unused development rights to parcels within certain areas, and to allow the receiving sites to use TDR to apply for development projects that would otherwise exceed the maximum FAR. Repeating this process may provide additional resources by which a school district can acquire land. 3 Shared Facilities. The City may continue to provide Park Land Dedication In -Lieu Fee funding support for acquisition of school land and other partnerships with local school districts on sharing of open space at school sites.
4 Funding for Schools. The Shoreline Community shall work with the Mountain View Whisman School District and the Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District to allocate revenue related to the growth in assessed value due to new residential development within the Community pursuant to/in accordance with the annual tax allocation for each school district, through mutually agreed to and legally binding agreements.

Mountain View Municipal Code
Chapter 41 of the City Code contains a Park Land Dedication Ordinance, which sets requirements for parkland dedication or in -lieu fees. The City requires developers to dedicate at least three acres of parkland for each 1,000 persons who will live in a new housing project (owned or rented), or to pay an in-lieu fee that would be used to offset the increased demands on park facilities. The City also allows developers to propose, for City Council consideration , POPA open space within a residential development site for parkland credit, reducing the land or in -lieu fee obligation generated by the development.

4.12.1.2 Existing Conditions
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection to the project site is provided by the Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD), which serves a population of approximately 82,739 and an area of 12 square miles. The MVFD provides fire suppression, emergency medical services (EMS), technical rescue respon se, hazard ous materials response, hazard prevention and education, hazardous material storage inspection, regulation of waste and urban runoff wat er and disaster preparedness services. In fiscal year 2020/2021, out of 8,512

North Bayshore Master Plan 320 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
emergency calls made to the MVFD, 6,003 of the calls were for EMS and 445 were for fire.231 The MVFD has an established response time of six minutes for all EMS (i.e. those requiring a code -3 response) from the time units are dispatched to a call (County EMS Policy 304).

The City of Mountain View also participates in a mutual aid program with neighboring cities, including Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale. Through this program, one or more of the mutual aid cities may provide assistance to MVFD in whatever capacity was needed, if they have capacity available.

Station Five is closest to the project site. Station five is located at 2195 North Shoreline Boulevard, approximately 0.3 miles north of the core project site. The MVFD reviews applications for new projects to ensure that they comply with the City’s current fire codes and standards.

Police Protection Services
Police protection to the project site is provided by the MVPD, which consists of authorized staff of 181 full-time, part-time, and limited -period personnel.232 Officers patrolling the area are dispatched from police headquarters, loc ated at 1000 Villa Street, approximately 1.2 miles south of the project site.

The MVPD has a goal to respond to Priority E and Priority 1 calls in less than four minutes at least 55 percent of the time. Priority E and Priority 1 calls are considered the highest priority calls and signal emergency dispatch from the MVPD. Priority E calls are of higher importance, because they are often associated with violent crime incidents. MVPD has a mutual aid agreement with the surrounding jurisdictions, under which the other agencies would assist the MVPD in responding to calls when needed.

Schools
The project site is located within the Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) and Mountain View -Los Altos Union High School District (MVLASD). The MVWSD serves grades kindergarten through eighth grade and the MVLAS services high -school age stud ents. Students generated by the project would attend Monta Loma Elementary School located at 460 Thompson Avenue (approximately one mile southwest of the core project site), Crittenden Middle School located at 1701 Rock Street (approximately 0.2-mile southwest of the core project site), and Mountain View High School located at 3535 Truman Avenue (approximately four miles south of the core project site).

Table 4.12-1 shows the existing school capacities at Monta Loma Elementary School, Crittenden Middle School, and Mountain View High School. As shown in the table, Monta Loma Elementary School and Crittenden Middle School both have capacity for additional students. Al though Mountain View High School’s enrollment is currently over-capacity, the school is accommodating the additional students through the use of portable buildings while more permanent classroom facilities are constructed.

231 Mountain View Fire Department. Fire Department Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2020 -21. Accessed February 14, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fire/about/report.asp 232 Mountain View Police Department. 2020 Annual Report. Accessed September 24, 2021. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=36134

North Bayshore Master Plan 321 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 4.12-1: 2021 to 2022 School Enrollment and Capacity School Current Enrollment Existing Capacity
Monta Loma Elementary School1 271 460
Crittenden Middle School1 532 1,008
Mountain View High School2 2,316 1,546
1 MVWSD. Level I Developer Fee Study. Appendix E. May 5, 2022. Accessed August 3, 2022. 2 Aguilar, Irene. Assistant to the Associate Superintendent -Business Services, Mountain View Los Altos High School District. Personal Communication. July 7, 2022.

Parks and Open Space
The City of Mountain View currently owns or manages approximately 993 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks and the Stevens Creek Trail. The urban parks are divided among 18 mini -parks, 13 neighborhood/school parks (under joint-use agreements with local school districts), five neighborhood parks not associated with school sites, two community parks, and one regional park (Shoreline at Mountain View). 233 The City also maintains 10 parks under joint -use agreements with local school districts. The closest park to the project site is Charleston Park, which is adjacent to the project boundary on the north side of Charleston Road.

Libraries
The Mountain View Public Library, located at 585 Franklin Street, is the City’s only libra ry. It is located approximately 1.57 miles southwest of the project site.

4.12.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on public services, would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?

233 City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. Accessed February 14, 2022 . https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14762

North Bayshore Master Plan 322 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.12.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact PS-1: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of w hich could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Implementation of the Precise Plan would increase the demand for fire protection services and additional fire equipment and personnel will be required to meet the City’s adopted response time standard. In order to determine the level of additional resources required, MVFD will complete a study to determine emergency response needs in the Precise Plan area. 234 The 2017 EIR concluded that this study and adherence to General Plan Policies PSA 1.1 and PSA 3.1 would reduce the impact to fire services to a less than significant level and would not result in the need to expand or construct new fire facilities.235 This finding was based on the Station Five building design and site layout that included an apparatus bay large enough to support a second engine company and space to add dormitory rooms for additional personnel. The project (under either option) is consistent with the development and growth assumptions in the 2017 EIR except the project includes 325 additional hotel rooms, 199,206 square feet of additional restaurant/retail uses , and 66,957 square feet of addition al institutional/recreational uses.

As discussed in Section 4.11 Population and Housing, this amount of additional employment does not represent a substantial increase in growth compared to what was evaluated in the 2017 EIR. This increase in growth would not require the construction or expansion of fire protection and EMS response facilities and resources beyond what was anticipated when Station Five was planned.

In addition, the proposed project (under either option) would comply with General Plan Pol icy PSA

3.1 by being constructed to current Fire Code standards to increase fire safety overall and reviewed by the MVFD for compliance with the City’s current fire codes and standards. To further assist with meeting response time standards with the potential for traffic congestion in the area, the City of Mountain View will consider the modernization of traffic signals using technologies that provide for signal pre -emption or adjustable signal timing to support emergency response vehicles.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact on fire protection services than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

234 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 395.
235 Ibid.

North Bayshore Master Plan 323 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact PS-2: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that the increase in housing units resulting from the implementation of the Precise Plan would likely result in the City designating the Precise Plan area as its own beat, which would require an additional eight to 10 officers.236 A new police beat north of US 101 could assist with response times. The 2017 EIR disclosed that in -lieu of a police substation, a point of operation for officers to utilize in the North Bayshore area may be considered. The 2017 EIR concluded that future development in conformance with current codes and adherence to General Plan Policies PSA 1.1, PSA

2.1, and PSA 2.3 would reduce the impact to police services to a less than significant level.

The project (under either option) would comply with General Plan Policies PSA 1.1, PSA 2. 1, and PSA 2.3 by constructing a police operations station within the proposed district parking garage located on Subarea AM1. The operations station would include work areas with computers that have access to the City’s network, a conference room, and a break room, consistent with the assumptions in the 2017 EIR. This police operations station would help the MVPD maintain adequate response times to the Precise Plan area and manage special events. The environmental impacts of this operations station are evaluated throughout this EIR. In addition, the project (under either option) would be reviewed by MVPD at the Planned Community Permit or building permit stage to ensure that safety features such as adequate lighting for pathways and entry points, along with adequate visibility into the properties are incorporated into the site design. This would minimize the opportunity for criminal activity, which would reduce potential impacts to response times. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would have result in the same less than significant impact disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact PS-3: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR disclosed that MVWSD and MVLASD would not have the capacity at existing schools to incorporate the increase in students that would result from the implementation of the Precise Plan.

The 2017 EIR concluded, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65996 , the future

236 Ibid. Page 396.

North Bayshore Master Plan 324 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
residential projects within the Precise Plan area would pay school impact fees to offset and adequately mitigate any potential impacts to schools to a less than significant level.237

The project (under either option) includes up to 7,000 residential uni ts (1,400 of which would be affordable), which would generate a pproximately 12,250 residents. It is estimated that the project (under either option) would generate 1,471 elementary and middle school students and 700 high school students for a total of 2,171 new students. 238 The estimated project generated students would materialize over time with the project’s 14-year buildout. The proposed residential units and their associated project generated students were accounted for in the 2017 EIR analysis. As discussed in Section 4.12.1.2, both Monta Loma Elementary School and Crittenden Middle School have existing capacity based on current enrollment numbers and would be able to accommodate the project’s estimated 1,471 elementary and middle school students. Therefore, the addition of new students as the project is gradually built -out would not require the expansion of those schools. As of the end of the 2021 to 2022 school year, Mountain View High School is over capacity by 770 students. The school currently utilizes portable classrooms in addition to permanent education facilities to accommodate the additional students. 239 The construction of permanent classr oom facilities is underway through Measure E bond program funding and has undergone separate environmental review. 240 After completion of construction, Mountain View High School would have a capacity of 2,379 students.

Despite this increase in capacity, there would not be sufficient capacity to accommodate the estimated 700 high school students anticipated from the project. Based on current enrollment, Mountain View High School would be 637 students over capacity.

The State Legislature provided authority for school districts to assess impact fees for both residential and nonresidential development projects. Those fees, as authorized under Education Code Section 17620(a) and Government Code Section 65995(b), are collected by municipalities at the time building permits are issued and conveyed to the affected school district in accordance with a defined fee structure. The Legislature has declared that the payment of those fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts generated by new development.

Consistent with Government Code 65996 and the 2017 EIR, the project (under either option) would pay state-mandated school impact fees to the Mountain View Whisman School District and Mountain View Los Alto High School District to offset impacts to local schools, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project (under either option) would result in the same impact to schools as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

237 Ibid. Page 398.
238 Based on the following student generation rates: Elementary and middle school students per market -rate multi- family unit: 0.124 (0.555 per below market -rate unit) Source: Mountain View Whisman School District. Level I Developer Fee Study. Appendix E. May 5, 2022. Accessed August 3, 2022.

High school students per market-rate multi-family unit = 0.047 (0.312 per below market-rate unit) Source: Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Level 1 Developer Fee Study. July 27, 2020. Table 1 239 Aguilar, Irene. Assistant to the Associate Superintendent -Business Services, Mountain View Los Altos High School District. Personal Communication. July 7, 2022.
240 Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - Mountain View High School Expansion Project (SCH Number 2011092006). November 2018. Page 10.

North Bayshore Master Plan 325 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact PS-4: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facil ities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR disclosed that although the North Bayshore area has a large amount of existing park space, additional park (and recreation) space could be required to serve the Precise Plan residents. The 2017 EIR concluded that the impacts associated with the increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities would be reduced to a less than significant impact by requiring compliance with the Quimby Act (California Government Code, Section 66477) and the Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance ( Chapter 41 of the City Code), which require developers to dedicate park space and/or pay an in-lieu fee to offset demand.241

The proposed project (under either option) would include a total of 30.5-acres of open space, including

11.7 acres of POPA open space to be developed under the project (under either option) and 18.9 acres of parkland dedicated to the City for development of future parks at a later date (see Figure 2.3-3). The

30.5 acres of parkland included in the project would offset the demand for recreational facilities by future employees and residents living and working on -site. Per the City’s Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance, the project would be required to provide 36.8-acres of open space to meet the City’s three acres per 1,000 residents ratio. As mentioned above, the project proposes 30. 5- acres of open space; therefore, the project would be required to pay in-lieu fees for the remaining 6.2- acres. Project-related impacts from construction of on-site parks are discussed further in Section 4.13 Recreation below and are concluded to be less than significant , which is consistent with the findings of the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact PS-5: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The 2017 EIR concluded that the growth projected in the Precise Plan would not trigger the City to build or operate a new library in the Precise Plan area. 242 Implementation of the Precise Plan would result in a total of 38,910 employees and 9,850 dwelling units at full buildout in 2030. 243 The project (under either option) is consistent with the development and growth assumptions in the 2017 EIR for

241 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 400.
242 Ibid.
243 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 383 to 384.

North Bayshore Master Plan 326 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
the Precise Plan except the project includes 325 additional hotel rooms , 199,206 square feet of additional restaurant/retail uses, and 66,957 square feet of additional institutional/recreational uses.

These additional uses would result in additional jobs , hotel visitors, and recreational users that were not accounted for in the 2017 EIR (as discussed in Section 4.11 Population and Housing). The single library in the City currently serves the existing population of 82,739, and the additional employees and visitors beyond what was accounted for in the 2017 EIR would account for a minor portion of the library’s visitors. Therefore, the nominal increase in employees and visitors in the City would not result in a new or more substantially severe impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR that would necessitate the construction of additional library facilities in the City. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

4.12.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact PS-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant public services impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less t han Significant Cumulative Impact)]

As discussed in the 2017 EIR, cumulative projects in Mountain View and Sunnyvale may require provision of public services, including fire and police services, schools, and recreational facilities. The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR. While the Master Plan includes more development within the Precise Plan and on Subarea AM1, that development would:

• Be constructed within the existing service areas of the MVFD and MVPD; • Be constructed to current Fire Code standards and be reviewed by the MVFD for compliance with the City’s current fire codes and standards;
• Be reviewed by MVPD to ensure safety features are incorporated to minimize the opportunity for criminal activity;
• Pay the appropriate school impact fees to the Mountain View Whisman School District and Mountain View Los Alto High School District in accordance with California Government Code Section 65996; and
• Comply with the Quimby Act (California Government Code, Section 66477) and the Park Land Dedication Ordinance in Chapter 41 of the City Code.

Therefore, the project (under either option) and the associated increase in employment, hotel visitors, and recreational users beyond what was studied i n the 2017 EIR would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant public services impact. This is the same cumulative impact identified in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

North Bayshore Master Plan 327 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.12.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
PS-1: Both Project Options: The project
would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for fire
protection services.

Yes LTS None N/A
PS-2: Both Project Options: The project
would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for
police protection services.

Yes LTS None N/A
PS-3: Both Project Options: The project
would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for
schools.

Yes LTS None N/A

North Bayshore Master Plan 328 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
PS-4: Both Project Options: The project
would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for
parks.

Yes LTS None N/A
PS-5: Both Project Options: The project
would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for
other public facilities.

Yes LTS None N/A
PS-C: Both Project Options: The project
would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a
cumulatively significant public
services impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 329 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.13 RECREATION

4.13.1 Environmental Setting
The existing recreational setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.13.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential deve lopments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

Regional & Local
Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan Update The Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan Update is a regional trails plan approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in November 1995 .244 It provides a framework for implementing the County’s vision of providing a contiguous trail network that connects cities to one another, cities to the county’s regional open space resources, County parks to other County parks, and the northern and southe rn urbanized regions of the County. The plan identifies regional trail routes, sub-regional trail routes, connector trail routes, and historic trails.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impac ts due to recreation impacts.

The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project (under either option).

Policy Description
Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
POS 1.1 Additional parkland. Expand park and open space resources to meet current City standards for open acreage and population in each neighborhood.

POS 1.2 Recreation facilities in new residential developments. Require new development to provide park and recreation facilities.

POS 2.6 Diverse park amenities. Design parks to address a range of activities for diverse populations.

244 Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan Update. November 14, 1995.

North Bayshore Master Plan 330 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Policy Description
POS 4.2 Park design. Implement high-quality park amenities and design.

POS 6.1 Citywide network of pathways. Develop a citywide network of pedestrian and bicyc le pathways to connect neighborhoods, employment centers, open space resources and major destinations within the city.

North Bayshore Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains standards and guidelines to avoid significant recreation impacts. The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed project.

Guidelines Description
Public Open Space
1 Open space development. The Plan’s new open spaces should be coordinated with private development projects and planned infrastructure improvements 2 Connected open spaces. New public open spaces should be accessible from and located within a comfortable walking and biking distance of residents and workers. Open spaces should be located along bikeways or greenways
3 Sustainability. New public open spaces should be designed to incorporate best practices in sustainability, including water use and conservation, stormwater management, land scaping, and planting.

Mountain View Municipal Code
Chapter 41 of the City’s Municipal Code contains a Park Land Dedication Ordinance, which sets requirements for parkland dedication or in-lieu fees. The City requires developers to dedicate at least three acres of parkland for each 1,000 persons who will live in a new housing project (owned or rented), or to pay an in-lieu fee that would be used to offset the increased demands on park facilities. The City also allows developers to propose, for City Co uncil consideration, a POPA space within a residential development site for parkland credit, reducing the land or in -lieu fee obligation generated by the development.

4.13.1.2 Existing Conditions
As discussed under Section 4.12 Public Services, the City of Mountain View currently owns or manages approximately 993 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks and the Stevens Creek Trail.245 The City also maintains 10 parks under joint-use agreements with local school districts. The Precise Plan area itself contains approximately 32 acres of parks and open space, including Charleston Park, Shoreline Athletic Fields, and Garfield Park . The nearby recreational facilities to the project site include Charleston Park, Shoreline Athletic Fields, Permanente Creek Trail, Stevens Creek Trail, and Shoreline At Mountain View park.

245 City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. Accessed January 6 , 202 2. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14762

North Bayshore Master Plan 331 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.13.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on recreation:

1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

4.13.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact REC-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or oth er recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The park and open space vision for the Precise Plan area includes a conceptual central open space, several neighborhood parks, a system of linear parks, and a series of trails and pathways that connect habitat areas and recreational spaces. Each Complete Neighborhood Area would have a minimum of one neighborhood park.

The 2017 EIR concluded that future development in compliance with the Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance (Chapter 41 of the City Code) would not result in significant imp acts to park or recreational facilities. 246 Per the City’s Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance, the project (under either option) would be required to provide 36.8-acres of open space to meet the City’s three acres per 1,000 residents rat io. The project (under either option) would comply with the Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance by providing a total of 30.5-acres of open space, including 11.7 acres of POPA open space to be developed under the project and 18.9 acres dedicated to the City for development future parks at a later date, and paying in lieu fees for the remaining 6.2-acres. The compliance of the project (under either option) with the Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance would offset the dema nd for recreational facilities by project employees and residents living and working on-site. The project (under either option) would result in the same less than significant impact to parks and recreational facilities as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

246 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 400.

North Bayshore Master Plan 332 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact REC-2: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which migh t have an adverse physical effect on the environment . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The proposed project (under either option) would construct 11.7 acres of POPA open space . The environmental impacts associated with development of this POPA open space are discussed throughout this EIR. The project (under either option) would dedicate 18.9 acres to the City for future development of City parks. Future development on the dedicated land would be subject to separate environm ental review. The development of the POPA open space would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. The project (under either option) would result in new impacts pertaining to construction and operational criteria air pollutants and community health risk; however, these new impacts are attributed to the residential, office, retail, hotel, parking, and district utility system. The development of the 30.5 acres of open space , as described in Section

2.3.2, would not alone result in new impacts not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR. Subsequent project-level environmental review may be required for these 18.9 acres of dedicated parkland when proposed for development. Therefore, the project (under either option) 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)]

4.13.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact REC-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant recreation impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project ( Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

As discussed in Section 4.12 Public Services, the 2017 EIR disclosed that although the North Bayshore area has a large amount of existing park space, additional park (and recreation) space could be required to serve the Precise Plan residents. The 2017 EIR concluded that the impacts associated with the increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities would be reduced to a less than significant impact through compliance with the Quimby Act (California Government Code, Section 66477) and the Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance (Chapter 41 of the City Code), which require developers to dedicate park space and/or pay an in-lieu fee to offset demand.247

As discussed under Impact REC-1 above, the project (under either option) would comply with the Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance by providing a total of 30.5-acres of open space and paying in lieu fees . The compliance of the project (u nder either option) with the Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance would offset the demand for recreational facilities generated by the project, and any future projects in the vicinity would be subject to the same requirements outlined in Chapter 41 of the City Code. Therefore, the project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative recreation impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

247 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 400.

North Bayshore Master Plan 333 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.13.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
REC-1: Both Project Options: The project
would not increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated.

Yes LTS None N/A
REC-2: Both Project Options: The project
would not include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment.

Yes LTS None N/A
REC-C: Both Project Options: The project
would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to a
cumulatively significant recreation
impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 334 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.14 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.14.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for tribal cultural resources has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.14.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52, effective July 2015, established a new category of resources for consideration by public agencies called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice of projects to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified. Where a project may have a significant impact on a TCR, consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a TCR or until it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

Under AB 52, TCRs are defined as follows:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are also either:
o Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources, or
o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
• A resource determined by the lead agency to be a TCR.

4.14.1.2 Existing Conditions
On May 28, 2021, Tamien Nation requested notification from the City of all non -exempt projects within the City of Mountain View. The tribal representatives for the Tamien Nation were sent the Notice of Preparation for the proposed project on February 28, 2022. Consultation was requested by Tamien Nation on March 1, 2022. City staff reached out to Tamien Nation via email and phone for consultation. The City received no response to its outreach efforts from Tamien Nation. The City has made a good faith effort to engage in tribal consultation with the Tamien Nation by sending several emails and leaving multiple phone messages. The City sent a final email on August 1, 2022 to notify Tamien Nation that the City was a) including cultural sensitiv ity training and Native American archaeological monitoring as project conditions of approval (which were previously requested by Tamien Nation during consultation on other projects) and b) concluding tribal consultation. In addition, the City completed a S acred Lands File Search for the site (including Subarea AM1 located outside the Precise Plan area) on November 17, 2022 . No known TCRs were identified on the project site through the file search (or consultation with Tamien Nation).

North Bayshore Master Plan 335 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.14.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on TCRs, would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

4.14.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact TCR-1: Project and Project with District Utilities System Option: The project (under either option) would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k) . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

For the 2017 EIR, Native American tribes were consulted, and no Native American cultural resources (such as TCRs) were identified within or near the Precise Plan Area. The 2017 EIR concluded that development in the Precise Plan area (which includes most of the project) w ould result in less than significant impacts to TCRs, as there were no identified TCRs within or near the Precise Plan area.248

As noted in Section 4.14.1, no known TCRs are located on -site. As discussed in Section 4.3 Cultural Resources under Impact CUL-2, the project (under either option) would implement the same conditions of approval as identified in the 2017 EIR for cultural resources.

The project would implement the conditions of approval outlined in COA CUL-2.1 to reduce potential impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level should they be identified during ground disturbing activities by providing cultural sensitivity training to the construction crews on-site, retaining a Native American archaeological monitor on -site to observe ground -disturbing activities, and establishing procedures to protect resources in the event they are discovered. The project (under either option), therefore, would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

248 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 233 and 237.

North Bayshore Master Plan 336 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Impact TCR-2: Project and Project with District Utilities System Option: The project (under either option) would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Refer to discussion under Impact TCR-1. The project (under either option) would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the 2017 EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

4.14.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Impact TCR-C: The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant tribal cultural resources impact. Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

The 2017 EIR concluded that all cumulative projects within Mountain View or neighboring cities would be required to implement conditions of approval or mitigation measures that would avoid impacts to cultural resources (including TCRs) or reduce them to a less than significant level. The project (under either option) would implement conditions of approval COA CUL-2 and COA TCR-1.1 to reduce impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level. For this reason, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impact to tribal cultural resources than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

North Bayshore Master Plan 337 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.14.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same/Similar
Impact
Analyzed in
2017 EIR
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
TCR-1: Both Project Options: The
project would not cause a
substantial adverse change
in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource that
is listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code
Section 5020.1(k).

Yes LTS None N/A
TCR-2: Both Project Options: The
project would not cause a
substantial adverse change
in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource that
is determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1.

Yes LTS None N/A
TCR-C: Both Project Options: The
project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively significant
tribal cultural resources
impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 338 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

4.15 WILDFIRE

4.15.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for wildfire has not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR.

4.15.1.1 Existing Conditions
The project site is not classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone.249

4.15.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on wildfire, if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 2) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the un controlled spread of a wildfire?
3) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines , or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? 4) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

4.15.2.1 Project Impacts
The 2017 EIR concluded that there are no Fire Hazard Severity Zones for state responsibility areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones for local responsibility areas that have been identified within or adjacent to the North Bayshore Precise Plan area. 250 The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, the project (under either option) would not result in significant wildfire impacts. This would be consistent with the findings of the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

4.15.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, the project (under either option) would not contribute to a significant cumulative wildfire impact. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

249 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
250 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 296.

North Bayshore Master Plan 339 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result
in significant wildfire impacts.

Yes LTS None N/A
WLD-C:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result
in significant cumulative wildfire
impacts.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS = Less than Significant, N/A = Not Applicable

North Bayshore Master Plan 340 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
SECTION 5.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Impact GRO-1: The project would not foster or stimulate significant economic or population growth in the surrounding environment. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Growth Inducing Impact)]

Pursuant to t he CEQA Guidelines , a project is considered to be growth inducing if it would “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment” (Section 15126.2[e]). This section of the EIR is intended to evaluate the impacts of such growth in the surrounding environment. Examples of projects likely to have significant growth inducing impacts include removing obstacles to population growth, for example extending or expanding infrastructure beyond what is needed to serve the pro ject. Other examples of growth inducement include increases in population that may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.

The Growth-Inducing impact analysis from the 2017 EIR is hereby incorporated by reference. The 2017 2017 EIR concluded implementation of the Precise Plan would not significantly induce growth for the following reasons:

• The proposed residential development in the Precise Plan is intended to reduce development pressure for housing elsewhere in Mountain View and nearby cities. This growth would occur within a developed area of Mountain View and the Precise Plan is consistent with General Plan goals for focused and sustainable growth by supporting the intensification of development in an urbanized area that is currently served by existing roads, transit, utilities, and public services;
• Although the Precise Plan has the potential to incrementally increase economic pressure and contribute to rising rents and housing prices, the additional residential development in Mountain View and other nearby cities would generally be in accordance with the General Plans of those cities, and would occur primarily within the developed, urban service ar eas, as outlined in local and regional plans; and
• The Precise Plan would not open undeveloped land to further growth or provide expanded utility capacity that would be available to serve future unplanned development. The Precise Plan would not encourage or facilitate other activities that would cause significant environmental effects. Instead, it would facilitate the reuse and intensification of office/light industrial land in an existing urban setting, consistent with goals and policies the City’s General Plan.251

The number of residential units and the amount of office square footage proposed by the project (under either option) is consistent with the totals studied in the 2017 EIR. As discussed throughout this document, the project (under either option) w ould develop an additional 199,206 square feet more of restaurant/retail uses, an additional 66,957 square feet of institutional/recreational uses, and 325 more hotel rooms than were evaluated in the 2017 EIR. In addition, the project would develop Subarea AM1,

251 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 568-570.

North Bayshore Master Plan 341 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
which is outside of the Precise Plan boundaries and was not evaluated in the 2017 EIR with a parking garage.

Although the project (under either option) includes more development than what was studied in the 2017 EIR, the project, including the deve lopment of AM1 which is outside of the Precise Plan area, would remain consistent with the visions, standards, guidelines, policies, and the intent of the Precise Plan and General Plan and would be located in an urbanized area served by existing infrastructure and services. The parking structure on AM1 would be designed to serve the new employees and visitors generated by the proposed project and would not include a surplus of parking stalls that could facilitate additional growth in the area. Similarly, the construction and operation of the DCP in the project with District Utilities System Option would serve the project site and would not serve surrounding areas in a way that would induce growth. Therefore, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or more severe growth-inducing impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Growth Inducing Impact)]

North Bayshore Master Plan 342 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
SECTION 6.0 SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL

CHANGES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), an EIR must identify significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project being analyzed. Significant irreversible changes include the 1) irreversible use of nonrenewable resources, 2) commitment of future generations to similar use, 3) irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents associated with the project and 4) irretrievable commitments of resources.

6.1 IRREVERSIBLE USE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF

NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
As disc ussed in the 2017 EIR, implementation of the Precise Plan would require the use and consumption of nonrenewable resources during construction and operation of future development projects.252 Nonrenewable resources used would include fossil fuels, metals, co ncrete, plastics, and water. Renewable resources, such as lumber and energy from renewable sources (e.g., solar and wind), would also be used. The Precise Plan includes standards and guidelines that support sustainable energy consumption through efficiency, conservation, and the increased use of renewable energy sources. The Precise Plan also encourages the use of third-party certified building materials that are selected based on their embodied energy and GHG emissions.

The project would comply with the City’s Reach Code requirements for all electric building operations, rooftop solar panels, and electric vehicle infrastructure. The project site would receive electricity from SVCE, which provides electricity from 100 percent GHG -emission free sources. The project would also implement a TDM plan designed to reduce residential and nonresidential vehicle trips, meet the intent of LEED Platinum standards on all proposed non -residential buildings, and achieve the equivalent of a GreenPoint rating of 120 points or better for proposed residential buildings.

Although the project would result in the development of additional restaurant/retail, institutional, and recreational square footage and hotel rooms that were not accounted for in the 2017 EIR, that development would occur in infill locations and comply with the same standards, guidelines, and regulations described in the 2017 EIR to support sustainability. T he project with District Utilities System Option would include the construction of a new private district utilities system that is intended to maximize the efficiency of energy and water resources on -site and deliver energy and wet utilities to project buildings. Therefore, as similarly concluded in the 2017 EIR, although the project would result in the consumption of nonrenewable resources, it would result in the construction and operation of more sustainable development.

252 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 571-572.

North Bayshore Master Plan 343 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

6.2 COMMITMENT OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO SIMILAR USES
The 2017 EIR concluded that because the Precise Plan area was already predominantly developed with office, industrial, commercial, and residential uses, implementation of the Precise Plan would result in the intensification of existing development in a way that would benefit the City and region by providing sustainably-developed and well -planned commercial and residential development within an existing urban area.253

The redevelopment and intensification of most of the project site was accounted for in the 2017 EIR, with the exception of Subarea AM1. The redevelopment of Subarea AM1 and the additional development proposed by the project (under either option) (i.e., 199,206 square feet more of restaurant/retail uses, 66,957 square feet more of institutional/recreational uses, and 325 more hotel rooms) would also benefit the City and region by being sustainably -developed and part of a master planned development.

6.3 IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ACCIDENTS
The 2017 EIR identified irreversible environmental changes that included potential degradation of existing biological and cultural features, loss of aesthetic integrity, major hazardous waste release, and installation of utility and roadway infrastructure. The 2017 EIR concluded that the mitigation measures outlined in the document would reduce all such irreversible or nearly irreversible effects to less than significant levels.

As discussed throughout this document, the project (including the development on Subarea AM1 and the additional development beyond what was anticipated in the 2017 EIR) would be required to implement the same conditions and mitigation measures identified in the 2017 EIR. Implementation of these measures, in addition to the newly identified conditions of approval and mitigation measures, would reduce any potential irreversible or nearly irreve rsible environmental changes to a less than significant level.

253 Ibid. Page 571.

North Bayshore Master Plan 344 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
SECTION 7.0 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
As discussed in Section 3.1 Air Quality and 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would result in new significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction NOx emissions, operational ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions, and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions).

• 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 BAAQM D 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 ex pose sensitive receptors to substantia l pollutant concentrations. (New Impact [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 p urpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact]) • Impact GHG-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG emi ssions impact. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact])

North Bayshore Master Plan 345 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
SECTION 8.0 ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to a project as it is proposed. The CEQA Guidelines specify the EIR should identify alternatives which “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” The purpose of the alternatives discussion 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).

In order to comply with the purposes of CEQA, it is important to identify alternatives that reduce the significant impacts anticipated to occur if the project is implemented and try to meet as many of the project’s objectives as possible. The CEQA Guidelines emphasiz e a commonsense approach – the alternatives should be reasonable, “foster informed decision making and public participation,” and focus on alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts. The range of alternatives selected for analysis is governed by the “rule of reason” which requires the EIR to discuss only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.

The three critical factors to consider in selec ting and evaluating alternatives are, therefore: (1) the significant impacts from the proposed project which could be reduced or avoided by an alternative, (2) the project objectives, and (3) the feasibility of the alternatives available. These factors are discussed below.

8.1 FACTORS IN SELECTING AND EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES

8.1.1 Significant Impacts of the Project
As explained above, the CEQA Guidelines state an alternatives analysis in an EIR should be limited to alternatives that are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and achieve most of the basic project objectives. In addition to those identified in the Precise Plan EIR, the project would result in new, significant and unavoidable impacts due to a) construction NOx emissions, b) operational ROG, NOx, and PM 10 emissions, and c) health risks (primarily due to construction emissions), which have been identified in the EIR as the following:

• 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, NO x, and PM 10 emissions, and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions) in excess of BAAQMD thresho lds. (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 criteria pollutants during operation 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])

North Bayshore Master Plan 346 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
• Impact AQ -3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations in excess of BAAQMD thresholds during construction. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable 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 im pact. (New Impact [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]) • Impact GHG-C: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) woul d result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG emissions impact. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Cumulative Impact])

8.1.2 Project Objectives
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the EIR must include a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of meeting all of the project objectives, their ability to meet most of the basic objectives is considered relevant to their consideration. As identified in Section 2.5 Project Objectives, the applicant’s objectives for the project 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.

North Bayshore Master Plan 347 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

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.

8.1.3 Alignment with Precise Plan Guiding Principles
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. To provide additional context, each alternative discussed below is evaluated against the Precise Plan’s guiding principles.

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.

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.

North Bayshore Master Plan 348 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

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.

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

North Bayshore Master Plan 349 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
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.

8.1.4 Feasibility of Alternatives
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and case law interpreting CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines have found that feasibility can be based on a wide range of factors and influences. The CEQA Guidelines state that such factors can include (but are not limited to) the suitability of an alternate site, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, consistency with a general plan or with other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent can “reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (Section 15126.6[f][1]).

8.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The project proposes to implement a large portion of the City’s adopted Precise Plan, which prescribes the land uses to be developed within the Plan. Therefore, decisions regarding the appropriate land use types and densities in this location have recently been made by the City. Because this EIR tiers off the prior certified 2017 EIR, the alternatives analysis completed for the Precise Plan, is hereby incorporated by reference.

8.2.1 Project Alternatives Considered But Rejected From Further Analysis

8.2.1.1 Location Alternative
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project. An alternative site may be considered when impacts of the project might be avoided or substantially lessened, and the project proponent can feasibly attain control of the site. Only alternative locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the impacts of the project and meet most of the basic project objectives need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.6[f] and 15126.6[f][2][A]).

An alternative location for the project would need to:

• Avoid or substant ially lessen the p roject’s significant construction NO x, operational ROG , NOx, and PM10 emissions, and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions) impacts; • Be of similar size as the project site ( approximately 150-acres) and be able to accommodate the project’s buildout, density, and mix of uses;
• Served by available infrastructure (including transportation and utilities); • Have the appropriate General Plan designation that would allow for high intensity commercial office, residential, retail, and community uses at an intensity over 1.0 FAR; and • Be, or able to be, under control of the applicant.

In consideration of an alternative location in an EIR, the CEQA Guidelines advise the key question is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.” 254 Any project of similar size and intensity as the proposed project (under either option) within the City of Mountain View would have similar construction a nd

254 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A)

North Bayshore Master Plan 350 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
operational air pollutant emissions and, therefore, result in the same significant and unavoidable construction NO x and operation ROG, NO x, and PM 10 impacts as the project (under either option).

Additionally, if the applicant were to gain control over a site that did meet the above listed characteristics, development of the project (under either option) on this alternative site would likely result in similar or more construction health risk impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, an alternative infill location in Mountain View of this size and nature does not exist and would not substantially lessen the project’s identified significant and unavoidable impacts.

Case law interpreting CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), supports the conclusion that an EIR need not include a potentially feasible alternative location in every instance, based on the rule of reason and considerations of feasibility.255

For the reasons described above, an alternative site was not considered further.

8.2.1.2 Alternative Site Design, Smaller Project Site Alternative As discussed in Section 3.1 Air Quality, the project site is adjacent to existing residences and project emissions, primarily those from construction activities, would expose those residents to TAC emissions in excess of BAAQMD health risk thresholds. Health risk impacts are due, in part, to the proximity of sensitive receptors to construction activities. Therefore, an alternative site design and smaller project site alternative were considered in order to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable health risk impact.

Generally, project construction activities would result in less than significant health risks to sensitive receptors located 1,000 feet or greater from construction activities. However, as shown in Figure 3.1-1, a large portion of the northeastern part of the project site is located within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Santiago Villa mobile home park. No rearrangement of land uses or development of the same amount of uses on a smaller portion of the project site located 1,000 feet from the Santiago Villa mobile home park site is feasible because the development would exceed Precise Plan development guidelines, and be inconsistent with Precise Plan principles 1, 2, and 7. For these reasons, an alternative site design or smaller project site alternative were not considered further.

8.2.1.3 No Project, Redevelopment Alternative
The No Project, Redevelopment Alternative assumes that if the proposed project were not approved, the site could be redeveloped at the base FAR allowed by the Precise Plan. The site is currently developed at a FAR similar to the allowed base FAR, therefore, this alternative essentially would be the redevelopment of the site with the same or similar land uses and density. It is not economically feasible for a developer to demolish existing uses, only to rebuild them at the same or similar density, particularly at the size and scale of the project and site . For these reasons, the No Project, Redevelopment Alternative was not considered further. 256,257

255 California Native Plant Society v City of Santa Cruz (2009) and Mira Mar Mobile Community v City of Oceanside (2004)
256 Seifel Consulting, Inc. Mountain View Gateway Master Plan Economic Feasibility Update. November 19, 2021. 257 City of Mountain View. Gateway Master Plan City Council Staff Report. November 5, 2019.

North Bayshore Master Plan 351 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

8.2.1.4 Mitigated 86 Percent Reduced Development
It is estimated that the project (under either option) would need to be reduced by 86 percent in order to reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts to a less than significant level with the implementation of the same mitigation measures required of the project. An 86 percent reduction in development proposed by the project equates to approximately 434,000 square feet of office space, 980 residential units, 74 hotel rooms, 34,160 square feet of retail uses, and 7,700 square feet of community uses. This a lternative was considered b ut rejected because it would not meet the basic project objectives of providing high-density development (objectives 3, 4, 5) Similar to the discussion under 9.2.1.3 above, the Mitigated 86 Percent Reduced Development Alternative would also not likely be economically viable, particularly given the size and scale of the site and the costs associated with redevelopment. The Mitigated 86 Percent Reduced Development Alternative would also not meet the Precise Plan framework principles of concentrating high -density growth to create a sustainable walkable/bikeable/ alternative transportation/transit -oriented complete neighborhoods with focused economic diversity (principles 1, 8, 9, 10, and 13).

8.2.2 Selected Alternatives
The selected alternativ es for analysis are the No Project , No New Development Alternative and Reduced Development Alternatives . A breakdown of the development assumptions for each of the selected alternatives is provided in Table 8.2-1 below. A summary co mparison of the mitigated environmental impacts of the project (under either option) and the project alternatives is provided in Table 8.2-3 at the end of this section.

Table 8.2-1: Summary of Development Assumptions for the Project and Project Alternatives Project (under
either option)1
Project Alternatives
No Project, No
New
Development
Mitigated 11%
Reduced
Development
Mitigated
39% Reduced
Development
Light Industrial (million
square feet) 0

1.8 0 0
Office (million square feet) 3.1 2.8 1.9
Residential (units) 7,000 0 6,230 4,270
Hotel (rooms) 525 0 467 320
Retail (square feet) 244,000 11,056 217,000 148,840
Community (square feet) 55,000 0 49,000 33,550
Park/open space (acres) 30.5 0 27.1 18.6
1 The project with District Utilities System Option includes a DCP not reflected as a land use in the table. 2 Park sizes are estimated for the purposes of this discussion. Community benefits and impact requirements and fees would be recalculated based on the ultimate development square footages and residential unit types ultimately approved. Parkland specifically would be provided as a combination of land and impact fees.

North Bayshore Master Plan 352 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

8.2.2.1 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 versus the impacts of not approving the project. The CEQA Guidelines specifically advise the No Project Alternative shall address both the existing conditions and “what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future 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 Alternative, therefore, the project site could remain as it is today or the site could be redeveloped with uses consistent with the existing Precise Plan and General Plan land use designation.

For this reason, there are two logical No Project alternatives: 1) a No Project, No New Development Alternative (which is described below) and 2) a No Project , Redevelopment Alternative (which was described above in Section 8.2.1.3 and rejected).

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.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
The No Project , No New Development Alternative would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts related to construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions), as well as avoid all other impacts disclosed in Section 4.0 Previously Identified Effects because it would not change existing conditions (see Table

8.2-3).

Consistency with Precise Plan Principles
The No Project, No New Development Alternative would not meet any of the Precise Plan’s guiding principles because it would not redevelop the site consistent with the Precise Plan.

Relationship to Project Objectives
The No Project, No New Development Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives because it would not redevelop the site consistent with the Precise Plan vision with a high-density mix of uses (including residential) and open space/parkland (objectives 1 through 5, and 7). In addition, the uses would not implement a robust TDM plan (objective 6) or include a district utility system (objective 8).

Conclusion
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 that call for development of a high-density, alternative transportation/transit-oriented complete neighborhood with a variety of land uses.

North Bayshore Master Plan 353 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

8.2.2.2 Reduced Development Alternatives
The project (under either option) results in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts due to construction emissions (i.e., construction NO x emissions and health risk) and operational criteria air pollutant emissions (i.e., ROG, NO x, and PM10). While construction air quality impacts are annual impacts based on the intensity of construction equipment use at the project site (in that, construction emissions may vary slightly depending on the time of year and overall schedule) a simple way to reduce construction and operational air pollutant emissions is to reduce the amount of construction and development. Table 8.2-2 below shows the approximate percent reduction in development required to result in a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated (i.e., the same mitigation required of the project under either option).

Table 8.2-2: Approximate Percent Reduction in Development Required to Avoid Significant and Unavoidable Construction and Operational Air Quality Impacts Construction-Related Impacts
NOx (2024 only) Cancer Risk Annual PM2.5
Approximate %
Reduction 11 22 39
Approximate
Corresponding
Amount of
Development
Office: 2.8 msf
Residential: 6,230 du
Hotel: 467 rooms
Retail: 217,000 sf
Community: 49,000 sf
Office: 2.4 msf
Residential: 5,460 du
Hotel: 410 rooms
Retail: 190,000 sf
Community: 43,000 sf
Office: 1.9 msf
Residential: 4,270 du
Hotel: 320 rooms
Retail: 148,840 sf
Community: 33,550 sf
Operation-Related Impacts
ROG NOx PM10
Approximate %
Reduction 86 55 28
Approximate
Corresponding
Amount of
Development
Office: 434,000 sf
Residential: 980 du
Hotel: 74 rooms
Retail: 34,160 sf
Community: 7,700 sf
Office: 1.4 msf
Residential: 3,150 du
Hotel: 236 rooms
Retail: 109,800 sf
Community: 24,750 sf
Office: 2.2 msf
Residential: 5,040 du
Hotel: 378 rooms
Retail: 176,000 sf
Community: 40,000 sf

The following discussion does not evaluate each of the identified percent reductions in the table above but evaluates a representative analysis on the following:

• Mitigated 11 Percent Reduced Development Alternative
• Mitigated 39 Percent Reduced Development Alternative

As discussed in Section 8.2.1.4, an 86 Percent Reduced Development Alternative was considered but rejected given that it would not meet the basic project objectives of providing high -density development (objectives 3, 4, 5) and would not meet the Precise Plan principles of concentrating high-

North Bayshore Master Plan 354 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
density growth to create a sustainable, alternative transportation/transit -oriented complete neighborhood with focused economic diversity (principles 1, 8, 9, 10, and 13). .

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
• Mitigated 11 Percent Reduced Development Alternative - This alternative would reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable construction NO x impact to a less than significant level for only one year (2024) with implementation of the same mitigation identified for the project (Impact AQ -1). This alternative would result in similar significant and unavoidable construction health risk (Impact AQ-1) and operational ROG, NO x, and PM10 (Impact AQ-1) impacts as the project under either option. This alternative would result in similar VMT impacts as the project under either option because the amount of development and the service population would be reduced proportionally and result in the same VMT rate. This alternative would result in similar energy, project-generated traffic noise, population and housing, public services, and utilities and services impacts as the project under either option though to a lesser degree because this alternative would have less development (thereby generating less vehicle trips and population). All other impacts (aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, and recreation) would be the similar to the project given this alternative would result in development of the same site.

• Mitigated 39 Percent Reduced Development Alternative – This alternative would reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable construction NOx impact (Impact AQ-1), health risk (cancer and annual PM2.5) impact (Impact AQ-1), and operational NOx and PM10 (Impact AQ- 1) to a less than significant level with implementation of the same mitigation identified for the project. This alternative would result in similar VMT impacts as the project under either option because the amount of development and the service population would be reduced proportionally and result in the same VMT rate. This alternative would result in similar operational ROG, ene rgy, project -generated traffic noise, population and housing, public services, and utilities and services impacts as the project under either option though to a lesser degree because this alternative would have less development (thereby generating less emissions, vehicle trips, and population). All other impacts (aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, and recreation) would be the same as the project given this alternative would result in redevelopment of the same site.

Consistency with Precise Plan Principles
● Mitigated 11 Percent Reduced Development Alternative – This alternative does not fully deliver high -density, alternative transportation/ transit-oriented development to the levels contemplated in the Precise Plan. An 11 percent reduction in development would result in less development overall in North Bayshore. This would hamper the associated development of transit connections due to less concentr ation of density (Precise Plan principles 5 and 8) and would result in less affordable housing (Precise Plan principle 3). This alternative would also result in an equivalent reduction in area funding for parks, open space, infrastructure, and supportive retail and service uses called for in the Precise Plan ( Precise Plan principles 6, 9, 13, and 14).

North Bayshore Master Plan 355 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

● Mitigated 3 9 Percent Reduced Development Alternative – A 3 9 percent reduction in development would not meet the project objectives and Precise Plan (stainability, density, infrastructure and transit) goals to the same degree as the project. This alternative would not result in a development which meets the precise plan’s land use target s intended to create Complete Neighborhoods. Reduced project would not produce density (and the development fees and required improvements it facilitates) required to promote housing affordability, improve transportation connections, expand and improve public spaces, concentrate growth to support transit, and promote alternative modes of transportation.

Relationship to Project Objectives
• Mitigated 11 Percent Reduced Development Alternative – This alternative could meet project objectives but not to the same extent as the proposed project (under either option). For example, objective 4 is to provide approximately 7,000 new residential units. This alternative includes 6,230 residential units (whereas the project proposes 7,000 under either option).

Objective 5 is to provide approximately 3.0 million square feet of office uses and this alternative includes 2.8 million square feet of office uses (whereas the project proposes 3.1 million square feet under either option). Objective 7 is to provide new open space and public park areas and this alternative would provide 27. 1 (whereas the project proposes 30. 5 acres under either option).

• Mitigated 39 Percent Reduced Development Alternative – This alternative would not meet project objectives 4 or 5 of providing approximately 7,000 residential units and 3.0 million square feet of office uses. The alternative would include 4,270 residential units and 1.9 million square feet of office uses. This alternative could meet project objectives 1 and 2 of redeveloping the site with a mix of uses including employment uses. The alternative could me et project objective 3 but not to the same extent as the project because it would not be as dense and therefore not as efficient of use of land. This alternative could provide a robust TDM program and provide new open space and public parks. Under this alternative, approximately 18.6 acres of open space/park land would be provided, which is less than the 30. 5 acres proposed by the project (under either option). This alternative could also provide a district utility system, consistent with objective 8.

Conclusion
• Mitigated 11 Percent Reduc ed Development Alternative – 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 environmental 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 – This alternative would reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable construction NOx impact (Impact AQ-1), health risk impact (Impact AQ -1), and operational NO x and PM10 impact (Impact AQ -1) to a less than significant level with mitigation, and result in the same or similar (though lesser) impacts

North Bayshore Master Plan 356 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
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.

8.2.2.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. Based on the discussion of project alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative to the project is the No Project, No New Development Alternative because it would avoid all of the project’s significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Sectio n 15126.6(e)(2) states that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Therefore, in addition to the No Project , No New Development Alternative, the Mitigated 39 Percent Reduced Development Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative.

North Bayshore Master Plan 357 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 8.2-3: Comparison of Impacts Between the Project and Project Alternatives Impacts Proposed
Project
No Project,
No New
Alternative
Mitigated Reduced
Development Alternative
11% 39%
Aesthetics LTS NI LTS LTS
Air Quality
• Impact AQ-1 Construction NOx SU NI LTS LTS
• Impact AQ-1 Health Risk
o Cancer Risk SU NI SU LTS
o PM2.5 SU NI SU LTS
• Impact AQ-1 Operational
Criteria Air Pollutants
o ROG SU NI SU SU
o NOx and PM10 SU NI SU LTS
Biological Resources LTS NI LTS LTS
Cultural Resources LTS NI LTS LTS
Energy LTS NI LTS LTS
Geology and Soils LTS NI LTS LTS
Greenhouse Gas Emissions SU* NI SU SU
Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS NI LTS LTS
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS NI LTS LTS
Land Use LTS NI LTS LTS
Noise LTS NI LTS LTS
Population and Housing LTS NI LTS LTS
Public Services LTS NI LTS LTS
Recreation LTS NI LTS LTS
Transportation/Traffic LTS** NI LTS LTS
Tribal Cultural Resources LTS NI LTS LTS
Utilities and Service Systems LTS NI LTS LTS
Meets All Project Objectives? Yes No Yes, but to a
lesser extent
than the project
Partially

North Bayshore Master Plan 358 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Table 8.2-3: Comparison of Impacts Between the Project and Project Alternatives Impacts Proposed
Project
No Project,
No New
Alternative
Mitigated Reduced
Development Alternative
11% 39%
Notes:
* The significant and unavoidable GHG impact was identified in the 2017 EIR. Alternatives to reduce this effect were evaluated in the 2017 EIR, therefore, no additional alternatives to reduce GHG emissions are required to be evaluated.
** The 2017 EIR concluded that the Precise Plan would result in significant, unavoidable impacts related to LOS deficiencies and vehicle congestion. Subsequent to the certification of the 2017 EIR, SB 743 was adopted.

Pursuant to SB 743, LOS and vehicle congestion are no longer impacts under CEQA. Therefore, this impact is characterized as LTS in this EIR.

North Bayshore Master Plan 359 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
SECTION 9.0 REFERENCES
The analysis in this Environmental Impact Report is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:

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.

Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021.

---. “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.

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.

---. 2021 Air Monitoring Network Plan. July 1, 2021. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/technical-services/2020-network-plan-draft- 202100526-pdf.pdf?la=en.

---. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

---. Planning Healthy Places A Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning. 2016. Accessed December 7, 2022.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/planning-healthy- places/php_may20_2016-pdf.pdf?la=en.

---. 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.

---. Spare the Air Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 2017. Accessed December 7, 2022. 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.

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

---. 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. January 2019.

North Bayshore Master Plan 360 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

---. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed July 1, 2022. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm.

--. “Advanced Clean Cars II.” Accessed December 6, 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-ii.

---. Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update. May 2022.

---. “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/.

California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed July 1, 2022. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.

California Department of Conservation. “California Earthquake Hazards Zone”. Webmap. Accessed November 23, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/.

---. “California Important Farmland Finder.” Accessed December 7, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

---. “2021 California Tsunami Maps and Data.” Accessed January 10, 2022. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed December 7, 2021. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

---. “FHSZ Viewer”. Accessed February 15, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed September 24, 2021. https://abag.ca.gov/our- work/housing/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed July 1, 2022. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist.

California Energy Commission. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed July 1, 2022. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency- standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency.

---. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed July 1, 2022. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed May 26, 2022. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2021 Supplemental California Gas Report. Accessed June 30,

North Bayshore Master Plan 361 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
2022. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020- 10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf.

California Geological Survey. “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation”. Map. Accessed November 23, 2021.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/.

California Office of Historic Preservation. “CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6.” Accessed April 25, 2022. http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%20 2011%20update.pdf.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.

California State Water Resources Control Board. “2020-2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report).” May 11, 2022. Accessed September 2, 2022.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020_202 2_integrated_report.html.

California Water Boards: San Francisco Bay, Stormwater Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Reissuance. Accessed on April 8, 2022.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/.

Caltrans. “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” Accessed February 10, 2022. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa.

City of Mountain View. “Environmental Protection.” Accessed November 18, 2021. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fire/environment/protection.asp.

---. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011.

---. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. Accessed February 14, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14762.

---. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016.

---. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.

---. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR. State Clearinghouse # 2011012069. September 2012.

---. “Mountain View Green Building Code”. 2019. Accessed September 19, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/2019_mountain_view_g reen_building_and_reach_codes.asp.

North Bayshore Master Plan 362 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

---. Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis Handbook, Version 1.0. February 2021. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=33964.

---. Municipal Code, Chapter 32 Article II. May 24, 2021.

---. North Bayshore Precise Plan. November 2014.

---. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report.

State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017.

---. Recycled Water Feasibility Study. March 2022.

City of San José. Downtown West Mixed-Use Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2019080493). October 2020.

Cornerstone Earth Group. Geotechnical Investigation: 1400 North Shoreline Campus. March 28, 2014.

---. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation: Shorebird Way Corporate Campus.

August 11, 2017.

Elevate Environmental Consultants, Inc. Geothermal Pile Environmental Memo for the North Bayshore Master Plan Development. December 10, 2021.

---. Chemical Use Summary for the North Bayshore Master Plan District Systems in Mountain View, California. December 10, 2021.

ENGEO. Preliminary Geotechnical Report: Google North Bayshore. November 27, 2019.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Flood Insurance Rate Map. Community Panel Nos. 06085C0037H & 06085C0036H.” Effective Date May 18, 2009.

Fehr & Peers. North Bayshore Master Plan: Transportation Analysis. December 2022.

Google. North Bayshore Master Plan: Additional Dewatering Information. October 19, 2022.

---. North Bayshore Master Plan Dewatering Memo. February 25, 2022.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. North Bayshore Framework Master Plan Biological Resources Confirmation Report. January 12, 2022.

Melvin C. Stinson, Michael W. Manson and John J. Plappert. Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco Monterey Bay Area: Classif ication of Aggregate Resource Areas: South San Francisco Bay Production – Consumption Region. 1987.

North Bayshore Master Plan 363 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

Mountain View Fire Department. Fire Department Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2020-21. Accessed February 14, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fire/about/report.asp.

Mountain View Police Department. 2020 Annual Report. Accessed September 24, 2021. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=36134.

Mountain View Whisman School District. Level I Developer Fee Study. Appendix E. May 5, 2022.

Accessed August 3, 2022.

Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration – Mountain View High School Expansion Project (SCH Number 2011092006). November 2018.

---. Level 1 Developer Fee Study. July 27, 2020. Table 1

Public Law 110–140—December 19, 2007. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed July 1, 2022. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf.

Public Resources Code Section 21009. Accessed December 7, 2021. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/prc-sect-21099.html.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Provision C.12. November 19, 2015.

Santa Clara County, Airport Land Use Commission. November 18, 2016. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Moffett Federal Airfield. A ccessed November 16, 2021. https://plandev.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb941/files/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf.

Santa Clara County. Geologic Hazards Zones. Maps 2 and 10. October 2012.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Annual Report 2019”. Accessed December 8, 2022. https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2020-04/AnnualReport2019_Accessible.pdf.

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. HMP Applicability Map: City of Mountain View. November 2010. Available at: https://scvurppp.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/Mountain_View_HMP_Map.pdf.

Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. November 2021.

Schaaf & Wheeler. North Bayshore Master Plan Utility Impact Study. December 16, 2022.

Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed June 30, 2022. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.

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 364 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022

Talon LPE. “Using mud rotary drilling for your next environmental drilling project.” Accessed June 14, 2022. https://www.talonlpe.com/blog/why-choose-mud-rotary-drilling-for-your- environmental-drilling-project.

TreanorHL. North Bayshore Framework Master Plan, Mountain View, CA – Historic Resource Evaluation. March 2022.

United States Fish & Wildlife Service. “Danaus plexippus.” Accessed April 22, 2022. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/species/monarch-danaus-plexippus.

United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed July 1, 2022. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.

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.

---. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System. July 2016. Accessed November 24, 2021. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/IM2016-124_att1.pdf.

United States Energy Information Administration. “Natural Gas Consumptions Estimates, 2020.” Accessed June 30, 2022.
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_fuel/html/fuel_use_ng.html& sid=US&sid=CA.

---. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2020.”
Accessed June 30, 2022. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed May 26, 2022 https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary- resource-conservation-and-recovery-act.

---. “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.

---. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed May
26, 2022. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.

---. “The 2020 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” January 2021.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1010U68.pdf.

---. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, Ozone Disinfection. September 1999. https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ozon.pdf.

North Bayshore Master Plan 365 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Valley Water. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasin. November 2021.

Personal Communication
Aguilar, Irene. Assistant to the Associate Superintendent-Business Services, Mountain View Los Altos High School District.

Azevedo, Becky. Waste Management Technical Manager.

North Bayshore Master Plan 366 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
SECTION 10.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS

10.1 LEAD AGENCY
City of Mountain View
Community Development Departments
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner
John Schwarz, Contract Environmental Planner

10.2 CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants and Planners
Kristy L. Weis, Principal Project Manager
Tyler Rogers, Project Manager
Nick Towstopiat, Associate Project Manager

Archaeological/Historical Consultants
Cultural Resources Consultants
Dan Shoup, Principal

Cornerstone Earth Group
Geotechnical Consultants
Dahn Tran, Senior Principal Engineer
John Dye, Principal Engineer
Matthew Schaffer, Project Manager

ENGEO
Geotechnical Consultants
Bahareh Heidarzardeh
Yan Lap Janet Kan
Jeff Fippin

ENGEOTECH, Inc.

Geotechnical Consultants
Muhammad Hussain, Consultant

Farallon Consulting
Hazardous Materials Consultants
James Schwartz, Principal Geologist
Stephen Gaynier, Project Environmental Scientist

North Bayshore Master Plan 367 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
Fehr & Peers, Inc.

Transportation Consultants
Dan Rubins, Senior Associate
Mackenzie Watten, Travel Behavior Practice Leader
Taylor Whitaker, Senior Transportation Planner

H.T. Harvey & Associates
Biological Analysis
Steve Rottenborn, Principal/Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Stephen L. Peterson, Project Manager/Senior Wildlife Ecologist Jane Lien, Wildlife Ecologist

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Air Quality Analysis
James Reyff, Principal
William Popenuck, Consultant
Zachary Palm, Consultant

Schaaf & Wheeler
Utilities Impact Analysis & Water Supply Assessment
Leif Coponen, Vice President
Brett Crews, Assistant Engineer

TreanorHL
Historic Evaluation
Kimberly Butt, Principal

WRA, Inc.

Biological Peer Review
Justin Semion, Principal and Technical Services Director Scott Batiuk, Plant Biologist

North Bayshore Master Plan 368 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
SECTION 11.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACM Asbestos-containing materials
AD Anaerobic Digester
ADD Average Daily Demand
AFY Acre feet per year
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AULs Activity and Use Limitations
AWCS Automatic Waste Collection System
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BACT Best Available Control Technology
bgs Below Ground Surface
BLTS Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
BMP Best Management Practice
Btu British thermal unit
2017 CAP 2017 Clean Air Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Projects
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CMET Community Microgrid Enablement Tariff
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNEL Community Equivalent Noise Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society

North Bayshore Master Plan 369 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
COA Condition of Approval
COC Contaminants of Concern
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Ranks
dB Decibel
dBA A-weighted Decibel
DCP District Central Plant
DDW State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water DEH Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health DNL Day-Night Level
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
2017 EIR 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan Final Subsequent EIR EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESL Environmental Screening Level
ETC Employee Transportation Coordinator
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FAR Part 77 Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG Greenhouse Gas
General Plan City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
GGRP Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Gpd Gallon per day
Gpm Gallons per minute
GPUUIS 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study
GWh Gigawatt hours
GWMP 2021 Groundwater Management Plan
GWP Global Warming Potential

North Bayshore Master Plan 370 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
HM Hydromodification Management
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HMP Hydromodification Management Plan
HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle
HOZ Habitat Overlay Zone
HSP Health and Safety Plan
kV Kilovolt
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt hour
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq Noise Equivalent Level
LID Low Impact Development
LOS Level of Service
LTA Local Transportation Analysis
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDD Maximum Day Demand
MDD+FF Maximum Day Demand with Fire Flow
MEW Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman
MG Million gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
mpg Miles per Gallon
MRP
Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
MT Metric Tons
MTA Multimodal Transportation Analysis
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MVFD Mountain View Fire Department
MVGBC Mountain View Green Building Code
MVLASD Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District MVPD Mountain View Police Department
MVWSD Mountain View Whisman School District
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCP National Contingency Plan

North Bayshore Master Plan 371 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
NOD Notice of Determination
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
PARWQCP Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
PCBS Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PDA Priority Development Area
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
PHD Peak Hour Demand
PQOS Pedestrian Quality of Service
Precise Plan North Bayshore Precise Plan
PM Particulate Matter
POPA Privately Owned Publicly Accessible
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
psi Pound-force per square inch
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCH State Clearinghouse
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Areas
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SMP Site Management Plan
SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle
SR State Route
SVCE Silicon Valley Clean Energy
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TDR Transfer of Development Rights

North Bayshore Master Plan 372 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View December 2022
TMA Mountain View Transportation Management Association TPA Transit Priority Area
TSP Teledyne and Spectra-Physics
UIS Utility Impact Study
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Valley Water Santa Clara Valley Water District
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
VTA Valley Transportation Authority
WRF Water Reuse Facility
WSA Water Supply Assessment

DP/2/CDD
807-06-01-23ERR 1 of 8

ERRATA

North Bayshore Master Plan
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022020712) June 1, 2023

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF ERRATA

The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan was published for public review on December 21, 2022. The public review period ended on February 6, 2023. A total of 13 comment letters were received, some of which resulted in minor text revisions to the Draft SEIR. A Final SEIR which included these comments, formal responses, and text revisions to the Draft SEIR was circulated on April 11, 2023. The purpose of this errata document to the SEIR is to: (1) correct minor typographical and grammatical errors; (2) include clarifications and additional text as to two mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR; (3) add reference to a condition of approval related to air quality impacts after recent consultation with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; and (4) correct the amount of park space required under the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance; (5) revise terminology in the burrowing owl condition of approval after publication of the Final SEIR; and (6) a revision to correct a typo under vehicle miles traveled analysis in the Draft SEIR identified after publication of the Final SEIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR when:

(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certifica tion. As used in this Section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way tha t deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:

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

DP/2/CDD
807-06-01-23ERR 2 of 8
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably di fferent from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.

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

(b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.

(c) If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified.

(d) Recirculation of an EIR requires notice pursuant to Section 15087, and consultation pursuant to Section 15086.

(e) A decision not to r ecirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.

(f) The lead agency shall evaluate and respond to comments as provided in Section 15088.

Recirculating an EIR can result in the lead agency receiving more than one set of comments from reviewers. The following are two ways in which the lead agency may identify the set of comments to which it will respond. This dual approach avoids confusion over whether the lead agency must respond to comments which are duplicates or which are no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR. In no case shall the lead agency fail to respond to pertinent comments on significant environmental issues.

As shown below, the following revisions to the SEIR would not alter the analysis or conclusions of the SEIR. The following changes are intended to correct an omission in the SEIR and clarifies the existing analysis. Therefore, modifications are not substantial ne w informatio n and recirculation of the SEIR is not required under CEQA Guidelines.

DRAFT SEIR TEXT REVISIONS

Below are text revisions to Draft SEIR subsequent to the publication of the Final EIR, dated April 2023, that make insignificant modifications (e.g., minor typographical and grammatical DP/2/CDD
807-06-01-23ERR 3 of 8
edits) and clarify and amplify the existing text and discussion . Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the text.

Pages vi and 57 REVISE the following text to the first paragraph of Mitigation Measure 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1:

2017 EIR MM AQ -2.1: 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 BAA QMD to reduce fugitive dust emissions. There shall be a designated on -site coordinator and monitor to document and ensure implementation of the below dust control measures.

Emission reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the following measures:

Pages xi and 61 REVISE and ADD the following (underlined) text to the Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1.1:

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

• On-road medium- and heavy-duty trucks and off-road equipment and aggregate handling equipment used for construction shall be zero emissions, as certified by the California Air Resources Board, or meet the current most stringent emissions standard, if feasible and commercially available. Where not feasible and commercially unavailable , ensure heavy -duty or medium - duty diesel-fueled trucks are manufactured within the last eight years.

• 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 NO x and PM (PM 10 and PM 2.5), if feasible ; otherwise:

— If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emiss ion 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% 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 DP/2/CDD
807-06-01-23ERR 4 of 8
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.

— 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 electricity 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 and access to charging infrastructure for zero -emission construction vehicl es where applicable.

• The project shall implement a program that incentivizes construction workers to carpool, use EVs, or use public transit to commute to and from the project site. This program may include, but not be limited to, the following features, as feasible: providing a shuttle service to and from the Mountain View Caltrain station; preferential parking to carpool vehicles, vanpool vehicles, and EVs; and scheduling work shifts to be compatible with the schedules of local transit services.

• 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 the 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% of all residential and nonresidential interior paints and 80 % of exterior paints. This includes all architectural coatings applied during both construction and reapplications throughout the project’s operational lifetime. At least 80% 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, and Restrictions shall contain a stipulation for low-VOC coatings to be used. Examples of “super-compliant” DP/2/CDD
807-06-01-23ERR 5 of 8
coatings are contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website.1

• 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 the project will be required to incorpora te 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, wh ich 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 onward.