Mountain View City Council
June 13, 2023

Table 2.3-5: Summary of Proposed District Parking Facilities Parking Garage Subarea Location Use Served Approximate Number of Parking Stalls
SB-P-1 SB-PPSB-BR-6 Hotel, Retail,
residential visitor ±600

COA AQ-1.21: Both Project Options: Indoor Formaldehyde Reductions. If the project utilizes composite wood materials (e.g., hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for interior finishes, then only composite wood materials that are made with CARB approved, no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, or ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins shall be utilized (CARB, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions fro m Composite Wood Products, 17 CCR Section 93120, et seq., 2009-2013).

1 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.

DP/2/CDD
807-06-01-23ERR 6 of 8

The following condition of approval is required by the City of the project to facilitate and potentially further reduce health risk impacts to the existing residences within the Santiago Villa mobile home park.

Condition of Approval

COA AQ-1.12: Both Project Options: At the onset of construction in the Master Plan area (Phase 1/ Phase 2), the applicant shall provide all the existing residents of the Santiago Villa Mobile Home Park a one -time offer of $350 to purchase MERV-13 or higher rated air filters. The applicant shall notify existing residents of this offer as part of the applicant’s preconstruction outreach and notification program.

Nesting Birds heading as follows:

The proposed project would remove 3,330 2,895 existing on -site trees (including 1,509 1,660 Heritage trees) and demolish most of the existing buildings.

COA BIO-1.1: Both Project Options: A habitat confirmation survey assessment for burrowing owls must be conducted and submitted for review with any Planned Community Permit (PCP) requests for development of parking structure at Subarea SA -BP-1. This assessm ent shall confirm the presence/absence of individual owls on the SA -BP-1 property at the time of PCP review, and this assessment shall also evaluate whether the suitability of the SA-BP-1 property as burrowing owl nesting or foraging habitat has changed si nce the preparation of the EIR. The assessment shall cover all areas within the construction area for the parking structure and Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan (BOPP) boundaries. Based on the results of the habitat survey assessment, the applicant shall comply with Chapter 5.1 , Habitat Overlay Zone, of the Precise Plan, the BOPP, and the habitat assessment guidelines found in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 2012.

Management measures would be developed by the City in coordination consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and may include establishment of new nesting or foraging habitat, enhancement of existing habitat or passive relocation of burrowing owls. This confirmation assessment would be in addition to the Pr econstruction Nesting Bird Survey requirement as per the standard condition of approval prior to construction activities on-site.

DP/2/CDD
807-06-01-23ERR 7 of 8

COA BIO-1.12: Both Project Options: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey : To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal canno t be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys shall be performed no more than two days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests as follows:

Draft SEIR, Page 144 REVISE the last sentence of the last paragraph under Impact TRN-2 as follows:

As shown in Table 3.4 3 below, the project’s total VMT per service population (under either option) of 25.13 would not exceed the significance threshold of

24.4625.46; thus, the project would result in a less than significant VMT impact. (New Impact [Less than Significant Impact])

bullet points as follows:

While the Master Plan includes more development within the Precise Plan and on Subarea AM1SA-BP-1 consisting of a parking garage and police substation which would improve public services in the area, that development would:

as follows:

Per the City’s Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance, the project would be required to provide 36.835.7 acres of open space to meet the City’s three acres per 1,000 residents ratio. As mentioned above, the project proposes 30.526.1-acres of open space; therefore, the project would be required to pay in-lieu fees for the remaining 6.29.6-acres.

follows:

Per the City’s Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance, the project (under either option) would be required to provide 36.835.7-acres of open space to meet the City’s three acres per 1,000 residents ratio. The project (under eith er option) would comply with the Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance by providing a total of 30.526.1-acres of open space, including 11. 73 acres of POPA open space to be developed under the project and 18.9

14.8 acres dedicated to the City for development future parks at a later date, and paying in lieu fees for the remaining 6.29.6-acres.

DP/2/CDD
807-06-01-23ERR 8 of 8

CONCLUSION

Recirculation of the Draft SEIR for the project is not required pursuant to CEQA. The above text revisions are minor and do not represent substantial new information or result in changes to the analysis or findings of the Draft SEIR. The text revisions to Mitigation Measures 2017 EIR MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-2.1 are consistent with what was discussed and disclosed in the Draft SEIR analysis and provide further clarification and understanding on how the mitigation measure is to be implemented. The addition of Condition of Approval COA AQ-1.1 was added to facilitate and potentially further reduce the health risk impacts to existing residences within the Santiago Villa mobile home park . COA AQ -1.1 does not change the air quality analysis or conclusions discussed and disclosed in the Draft SEIR. The project applicant has agreed to implemen t Mitigation Measures 2017 EIR MM AQ -1.1 and MM AQ -2.1 as revised and Condition of Approval COA AQ-1.1. The terminology was revised in Condition of Approval COA BIO -1.1 to clarify the intent and requirements of the condition and the applicant has agreed to implement COA BIO-1.1 as revised.2 The other text revisions are minor typographical and grammatical edits (e.g., corrections to the subarea label, COA numbering, tree numbers, VMT threshold, and park space required) are insignificant modifications to the Draft SEIR text that do not change the analysis or conclusions discussed and disclosed in the Draft SEIR.

In conformance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft SEIR, technical appendices and reports, Final SEIR, together with the information contained in this Errata are intended to inform the decision -makers and the public of the environmental effects of the North Bayshore Master Plan project.

2 Condition of Approval COA BIO-1.1 was added to the Draft SEIR as a text revision in the Final EIR to further reduce the potential less than significant impacts to burrowing owls during construction of the proposed parking garage at Subarea SA -BP-1. The addition of COA BIO -1.1 does not change the burrowing owl analysis or conclusions discussed and disclosed in the Draft SEIR.

EXHIBIT B
DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR THE

NORTH BAYSHORE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

MAY 2023

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 1 of 42
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings

To support a decision on a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or Subsequent EIR (SEIR), is prepared, the lead or responsible agency must prepare written findings of fact (Findings) for each significant effect on the environment identified in the EIR (Public Resources Code Section 21081). The City of Mountain View, as the lead agency, has prepared these Findings for the North Bayshore Master Plan (Project), generally located north of the U.S. 101 freeway bounded by Charleston Road to the north, Stevens Creek to the east, Space Park Way to the south, and Huff Avenue to the west, on portions of the Gateway Master Plan area located at the northwest corner of Shoreline Boul evard and the U.S. 101 freeway northbound on-ramp and six parcels between San Antonio Road and Marine Way in the P(39) (North Bayshore) Precise Plan, on a portion of the Shoreline Amphitheatre parcel north of Amphitheatre Parkway outside the North Bayshore Precise Plan area. The Findings must be adopted by the Mountain View City Council, which the City Council hereby elects to do as detailed more fully herein.

Section 15091(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines state that:

“(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which a EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the Project unless the public agen cy makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:

(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and juris diction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the final EIR.”

In short, the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) requires that the lead agenc y adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of a project. For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the public

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 2 of 42
agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. i CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 states:

“If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”

1.2 Record of Proceedings

For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project consists of : (a) matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, Federal, State, and local laws and regulations; and (b) the following documents which are in the custody of the City:

• Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project (See Appendix B of the Draft SEIR for the Notice of Preparation);

• The Public Review Draft SEIR and supporting documentation prepared for the Project (Draft SEIR published in December 2022 and all attached Appe ndices), and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred to therein;

• All written and verbal comments and documents submitted to the City by agencies, organizations, and members of the public on the Project and the SEIR (before, during, and after the close of the public comment period up through the close of the public testimony portion of the City Council’s public hearing on the Project);

• The Project’s Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), which incorporates the North Bayshore Precise Plan Subsequent EIR MMRP as Appendix A to the Project MMRP;

• The Public Review Final SEIR/Response to Comments Document and supporting documentation prepared for the Project (Final SEIR published in April 2023), and all decisions, determinations, documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referenced to therein;

• All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Proj ect, and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, referred to therein;

• All locally adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, General Plan, Precise Plan and ordinances, master plan and implementation plan

i Public Resources Code Section 21081(b).

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 3 of 42
together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring and reporting programs, and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area, such as the City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program adopted by the City Council on July 10, 2012 and the City’s Climate Action Plan (Climate Protection Roadmap adopted in 2015);

• The City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2011012069), including a ll appendices attached thereto, certified by the Mountain View City Council on July 10, 2012, and all findings, decisions, determinations, and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the General Plan EIR;

• The City of Mountain View North Baysh ore Precise Plan Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2013082088), including all appendices attached thereto, certified by the Mountain View City Council on December 12, 2017 (the “2017 SEIR”) , and all findings, decisions, determinations, and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the 2017 SEIR;

• All staff reports, presentation materials, and other documents prepared by the City with respect to the Final SEIR and the Project, and any minutes or verbatim transcripts of all info rmation and Study Sessions, workshops, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; and

• Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, Subdivision (e).

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

City of Mountain View
Community Development Director
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Contact: Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner, 650-903-6306

1.3 Incorporation by Reference

The Final SEIR is hereby incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the comparative analysis of alternatives, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the scope and nature of mitigation measures, and the reasons for approving the Project despite the conclusion regarding associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 4 of 42

1.4 Findings

The Findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence contained in the Record of Proceedings, including, without limitation, the Final SEIR, including relevant technical studies, reports, and evaluations supporting the Final SEIR’s analysis. As previously stated, the Draft SEIR (including, without limitation, all appendices attached thereto) addresses the potential effects on the environment that are associated with the Project as required under CEQA, and the Final SEIR and written response t o the public comments received on the Draft SEIR and minor text and graphic revisions to the Draft SEIR. See Section 1.2 above for information regarding the location and custodian of the documents that comprise the Record of Proceedings.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 5 of 42
SECTION 2: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

This section provides a brief description of the Project, lists the objectives of the proposed Project, lists the Precise Plan Guiding Principles, and lists the Project alternatives evaluated in the Draft SEIR.

2.1 Brief Project Description

The proposed Master Plan would allow for the demolition of 68 of the existing 69 buildings (as well as removal of related surface parking lots and landscaping) to construct:

• Up to 7,000 residential dwelling units (including 15% affordable residential units);

• Up to 3,145,897 square feet of office space (including 1,303,250 square feet of net new office space and 1,842,647 square feet of existing office space to be redeveloped);

• 14.6 acres of public open space and 11.3 acres of Privately Owned /Publicly Accessible (POPA) open space;

• Up to 244,000 square feet of retail uses;

• Up to of 55,000 square feet of community facilities;

• Up to 525 hotel rooms;

• A 2,000 square foot Police Operations Station;

• Up to six aboveground parking structures; and

• As an option, a private district utilit ies systems with an approximately 130,000 square-foot District Central Plant (DCP) and underground distribution/collectio n lines to serve the buildings within the Master Plan with wastewater, recycled water, thermal energy (heating and cooling), electric power via a microgrid, and/or pneumatic waste collection.

A more detailed Project description is provided in Section 2.0 of the Draft SEIR.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 6 of 42

2.2 Project Objectives

The stated objectives of the Master Plan Project include the following:

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 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 one-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.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 7 of 42

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.

2.3 Precise Plan Guiding Principles

To provide additional context, each alternative discussed in the SEIR was evaluated against the Precise Plan’s Guiding Principles, which support and establish the vision for growth in the plan area and are used as a reference point for stakeholders and decision -makers in evaluating projects. These principles include:

1. Create Complete Neighborhoods

2. Create Distinct Areas within North Bayshore

3. Promote Housing Affordability

4. Enhance Ecosystems and Habitat

5. Improve Transportation Connections to North Bayshore

6. Expand and Improve Public Spaces

7. Create Walkable, Human-Scale Blocks

8. Concentrate Growth to Support Transit

9. Make the Area Highly Sustainable

10. Promote Transit, Biking, and Walking

11. Construct Buildings that Support Public Areas

12. Minimize the Potential Consequences of Sea Level Rise

13. Promote Economic Diversity

14. Promote Retail, Entertainment, and the Arts

2.4 Alternatives

This SEIR is a Subsequent EIR to the 2017 Precise Plan SEIR (SCH No. 2013082088) and tiers from the 2017 SEIR and the Mountain View 2030 General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2011012069) (General Plan EIR) and is incorporated here by reference . Because this SEIR tiers off the prior certified 2017 SEIR, the alternatives analysis completed for the Precise Plan, is incorporated in the Draft SEIR by reference.

The Draft SEIR considered seven Project alternatives. Four of these alternatives (Location; Alternative Site Design, Smaller Project Site; No Project Redevelopment; and Mitigated 86% Reduced Development) were not further considered because of infeasibility, ability of the alternative(s) to reduce the impacts further , or meet the Preci se Plan and City’s vision for the area . Based on the Project objectives and anticipated environmental consequences, and pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following Project alternatives were selected for analysis:

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 8 of 42
• No Project, No New Development Alternative: The Project would not be built, and the site would remain in its existing condition with 1,853,703 square feet of office, light industrial, and retail uses.

• Mitigated 11 % Reduced Development Alternative: This alternative assumes a 11% reduction in all proposed development to avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable construction NOx impacts to a less than significant level for only one year (2024) with incorporation of air quality mitigation measures, resulting in 2.8 million square feet of office, 6,230 residential units, 467 hotel rooms, 217,000 square feet of retail, and 49,000 square feet of community space.

• Mitigated 39 % Reduced Development Alternative: This alternative assumes a 39% reduction in all proposed development to avoid some of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. This alternative would reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable construction NO x impact (Impact AQ -1), health risk (cancer and annual PM2.5) impact (Impact AQ -1), and operational NO x and PM 10 (Impact AQ1) to a less than significant level with implementation of the same mitigation iden tified for the Project, resulting in 434,000 square feet of office, 980 residential units, 74 hotel rooms, 34,160 square feet of retail, and 7,700 square feet of community space.

A more detailed description of these alternatives, and required findings, are set forth in Section 5: Feasibility of Project Alternatives , of this Exhibit B . The detailed description of the alternatives is also provided in Section 8.0 of the Draft SEIR.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 9 of 42
SECTION 3: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL

The Final SEIR indicated that significant effects on the environment to the following environmental resources would occur if the Project were implemented:

• Air Quality: Impact AQ-4 regarding generation of odors • Biological Resources: Impacts BIO-1 and BIO-C regarding special-status species • Hazardous Materials: Impact HAZ-2 regarding exposure to hazardous materials • Noise and Vibration: Impact NOI-2 regarding ground-borne vibration

The Final SEIR includes analysis of the Project (with standard City utilities connections) and Project with District Utilities System Option (with private district utilities connections), so each impact and mitigation measure (MM) identifies if it applies to both Project options or just one Project option. The environmental impacts listed above would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures into the Project . The mitigation measures are listed under each of the impacts below and are included in a MMRP, which has been prepared separately from these findings (Citation 4).

NOTE: As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR, the Air Quality analysis covers several different topics and p ollutant types, including consistency with plans, modeling for various criteria pollutants, and health risk assessments, which are evaluated for both Project construction as well as operation. These are often discussed together, but are measured and analyzed differently. Because some of the technical results under each Air Quality impact heading were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and some were found to be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation, several of the Ai r Quality topics are discussed in both Section 3 and Section 4 of this Statement of Findings.

3.1 Air Quality

Impact AQ-4: Project with District Utilities Systems Option: The Project with District Utilities Systems Option would have the potential to result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors). However, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

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

• Ventilation of the system using carbon absorption, biofiltration, ammonia scrubbers, o r other effective means to treat exhausted air from the enclosed facility;

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 10 of 42

• Odor proofing of refuse containers used to store and transport grit and screenings or biosolids; and

• Injection of chemicals to control hydrogen sulfide.

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

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

Findings

Through implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ -4.1 and compliance with BAAQMD regulations, the Project with District Utilities System Option would limit the discharge of odorous substances and respond to upset conditions and odor complaints with corrective actions, reducing impacts to a less than significant level.

As described herein, the above mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Project with District Utilities System Option that avoid or reduce this significant i mpact to a less -than- significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure described above is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project with District Utilities System Option as a con dition of approval . Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project with District Utilities System Option which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less- than-significant level. Adoption of the condition of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project with District Utilities System Option.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 11 of 42

3.2 Biological Resources

Impact BIO-1: Both Project Options : The Project (under either option) would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. However, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Congdon’s Tarplant

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

Monarch Butterfly

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

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

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 12 of 42
monarch eggs or larvae . Alternatively, monarch butterflies could be raised in captivity and released (with USFWS approval).

Findings

Through implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1.1, MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3, the Project (under either option) would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on Congdon’s tarplant by conducting preconstruction surveys and implementing measures to protect and manage Congdon’s tarplant if found or monarch butterflies by limiting planting of nonnative milkweeds and conducting preconstruction surveys to ensure no monarch butterfly eggs, larvae, or pupae are disturbed.

As described herein, the above mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project (under either option) to avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less -than-significant level.

The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project (under either option) as conditions of approval for the Project (under either option). Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project (under either option) which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less - than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measures part of the Project.

Impact BIO-C: Both Project Options: The Project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant biological resources impact. However, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Refer to MM BIO-1.1, MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3.

Findings

Through implementation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1.1, MM BIO-1.2, and MM BIO-1.3, the Project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant biological resources impact by conducting preconstruction surveys and implementing measures to protect and manage Congdon’s tarplant if found and limiting planting of nonnative milkweeds and conducting preconstruction surveys to ensure no monarch butterfly eggs, larvae, or pupae are disturbed. These measures will mitigate the Project’s impacts and will offset any cumulative contribution to biological resources impacts.

As des cribed herein, the above mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project (under either option) to avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less -than-significant level.

The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitig ation measures

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 13 of 42
described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project (under either option) as conditions of approval for the Project (under either option). Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project (under either option) which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less - than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project (under either option).

3.3 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Impact HAZ-2: Both Project Options: The Project (under either option) would 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. However, with implementation of the identified mitig ation, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

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., U .S. 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: 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 U .S. 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 neighboring 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 the Project’s construction. If vapor intrusion controls are required, the Vapor Intrusion Controls Evaluation shall detail the specific proposed controls, which shall include Project components designed specifically for vapor intrusion control (e.g., a subslab 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

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 14 of 42
systems or parking level ventilation). The Vapor Intrusion Controls Evaluation shal l also summarize any anticipated operations and maintenance requirements for the planned vapor intrusion controls, if applicable, as well as a summary of planned activities to evaluate the performance of the planned vapor intrusion controls, such as postconstruction 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:

— Vapor Intrusion Cont rol 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 commissioni ng, where applicable.

— 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 Responsib le Parties (as designated by the oversight agency), including identifying conditions that could affect the implementation and monitoring of the approved remedy.

2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.5: Both Project Options: At future Project sites identified as being impacted or potentially impacted during the property-specific Phase I ESA or subsequent studies, a Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared prior to development activities to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil, soil vapor, or ot her 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 confirmation from the oversight agency that their review is not required . The SMP for the property shall include the following activities:

• Property control procedures to control the flow of personnel, vehicles and materials in and out of the property.

• Monitoring of vapors (if VOCs are determined to be a COC) during the removal of the underground utilities as well as any other underground features. An Environmental Professional shall be present to observe soil conditions, monitor

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 15 of 42
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 sam pling and analytical testing will be performed. If additional sampling is performed, a report documenting sampling activities (with site plans and analytical data) shall be provided to the oversight agency.

• Minimization of dust generation, storm wate r 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 groundwater 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 a ctivity 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 suspected of being contaminated so that appropriate disposal or reuse alternatives can be implemented. All soil excavated and transported from the property shall be appropriated disposed at a permitted facility.

• Segregation of “clean” and “impacted” soil stockpiles.

• Evaluation and documentation of the quality of soil imported to the property.

• Soil containing chemicals exceeding the lower of the then -current DTSC, Water Board or U.S. EPA residential screening levels or typical background concentrations of metals shall not be accepted.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 16 of 42
• Monitoring of excavations and trenches for the potential presence of VOC vapors (if a COC).

• Evaluation of the on -property soil conditions to de termine 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 groundwater migration through trench backfill and utility conduits (if soil and/or groundwater 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 a re placed below groundwater shall be installed with watertight fittings to reduce the potential for groundwater 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 water retention ponds to be lined with a minimum 30 mil 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 groundwater (if present).

• Methods to mitigate the potential for vapor intrusion of VOC vapors (if present) into the planned structures.

• For construction activity that involves below ground work (e.g. , mass grading, foundation construction, excavating or utility trenching), information regarding property risk management procedures (e.g., a copy of the SMP) shall be provided to the contractors for their review, and each contractor should provide such information to its subcontractors.

• If excavation dewatering is required, protocols shall be prepared to evaluate water quality and discharge/disposal 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 groundwater also shall be presented and shall include treating/discharging groundwater to the sanitary sewer under a Publicly Owned Tre atment Works (POTW) permit or treating/discharging groundwater to the storm drain system pursuant to a California Regional Water Quality Control Board —San Francisco Bay Region (Water Board) NPDES permit. If dewatering activities may impact known groundwater contaminant plumes in the vicinity of the property, the oversight

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 17 of 42
agency responsible for the remediation of these contaminant releases shall be notified of planned activities.

• The Project applicant’s Environmental Professional shall assist in the implementation of the SMP for the property and shall, at a minimum, perform part- time observation services during demolition, excavation, grading , and trenching 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 reusing it on future Project sites shall require an oversight agency’s written approval; the written approval shall be provided to the City .

At a minimum, if contaminated soil is left in-place, a deed restriction or land use covenant shall detail the location of these soils . This document shall include a surveyed map of these impacted soils; shall restrict future excavation in these areas; and shall require future excavation be conducted in these areas only upon written approval by an oversight agency.

2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.7: Both Project Options: Any soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater remediation of a future Project site during development activities shall require written approval by an oversight agency and shall meet all appli cable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and requirements.

2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.8: 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 18 of 42
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 workin g 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 well as for compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and guidelines.

2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.12: Both Project Options : Groundwater monitoring wells and remediation system components located on future Project sites within the Precise Plan area shall be protected during construction. Upon written approval from the overseeing regulatory agency, the wells could be destroyed under permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District prior to mass grading activities . Relocation of the wells may be required.

The locations of future groundwater monitoring wells and other remediation infrastructure, if any, shall be incorporated into the development plans.

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 monitoring wells for monitoring and sampling purposes, and cooperate with the oversight agency and Responsible P arties during implementation of any subsequent investigation or remediation, if required . In addition, if vapor intrusion poses a human health risk, the Project applicant and subsequent property owners and occupants shall provide access for future indoor air vapor monitoring activities and shall not interfere with the implementation of remedies required by the oversight agency.

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

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.

Findings

Pursuant to 2017 EIR mitigation measures, the Project (under either option) shall implement the applicable mitigation measures (2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.1 and MM HAZ-3.3 through MM HAZ-3.15) for each parcel (see Table 4.6-2 of the Draft SEIR). With implementation of 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.1 and MM HAZ -3.3 through MM HAZ -3.15 as applicable per Tabl e 4.6 -2 of the Draft SEIR, the

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 19 of 42
Project (under either option) impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant because contaminated soil, groundwater, and soil vapor would be identified, characterized, managed, monitored, remediate d, and mitigated (as appropriate) under regulatory oversight (as applicable) . The impact is, therefore, considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As described herein, the above mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Project (under either option) that avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project (under either option) as conditions of approval for the Project (under either option) . Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less -than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure s part of the Project (under either option).

3.4 Noise

Impact NOI-2: Both Project Options: The Project (under either option) would result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. However, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

• 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 i nclude 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’ of the Project. A qualified structural engineer shall conduct this task.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 20 of 42
— Development of a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure-specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions.

— Construction contingencies shall be identified for when vibration levels approached the limits.

— At a minimum, vibration monitoring shall be conducted during initial demolition activities and during pile driving activities. Monitoring result s 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.

Findings

With the incorporation of 2017 EIR MM NOI -4.1, 2017 EIR MM NOI -4.2, and 2017 EIR MM NOI-4.3, the Project (under either option) would result in a less -than-significant vibration impact by avoiding pile driving, locating vibration compaction activities away from vibration sensitive structures, monitoring vibration effects, and making appropriate repairs or providing compensation if damage occurs.

As described herein, the above mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Project (under either option) that avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above is feasible, and these mitigation measures are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project (under either option) as conditions of approval for the Project (under either option). Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project (under either option) which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect s as identified in the Final SEIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less - than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measures part of the Project (under either option).

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 21 of 42
SECTION 4: SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT LEVEL

A significant unavoidable impact is an impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level if the Project (under either option) is implemented. Except for the impacts described below, all significant impacts associated with the proposed Project (under either option) would be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR. The Project (under either option) would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts:

4.1 Air Quality

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 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds and exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

2017 EIR MM AQ -2.1: Both Project Op tions: 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 impl ement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by BAAQMD 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:

• When the air quality index forecast exceeds 100 for particulates for the Project area and the reading exceeds 100 for particulates by 10:00 a.m. for the Project area, prohibit grading activities for that day.

• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered at a frequency of no less than two times per day in order to maintain adequate soil moisture for dust control. Dewatering effluent extracted from the site may be utilized for watering all exposed surfaces, if found to meet VOC and Fuel General Permit NPDES permit requirements pursuant to the Site Management Plan required per Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1 in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

• Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site or cover them with tarpaulin.

• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered and loaded material shall not extend above the walls or back of the truck bed.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 22 of 42

• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry p ower sweeping is prohibited.

• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

• Prohibit off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.

• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.

• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Mountain View and the on -site coordinator/monitor regarding dust complaints. The on-site coordinator/monitor shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

BAAQMD’s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

• All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph and visible dust extends beyond site boundaries.

• Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction adjacent to sensitive receptors. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50% porosity.

• Where applicable, vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. Dewatering effluent extracted from the site may be utilized for watering all exposed surfaces, if found to meet VOC and Fuel General Permit NPDES permit requirements pursuant to the Site Management Plan required per Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1 in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 23 of 42
• Excavation, grading, and ground -disturbing constru ction activities shall be phased in accordance with the phasing plan to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.

• Avoid tracking of visible soil material on the public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) site accesses to a distance of 100’ from public paved roads shall be treated with 6” to 12” compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment of soil prior to leaving the site.

• Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1%.

2017 EIR MM AQ -3.1: Both Project Options : Construction health risk assessments shall be required on a project-by-project basis, either through screening or refined modeling, to identify impacts and, if necessary, include effective mitigation measures to reduce exposure and significant risks to health, based upon BAAQMD -recommended thresholds for TACs (e.g., 10 in 1 million cancer case s). Reduction in health risk can be accomplished through, though is not limited to, the following measures:

• Construction equipment selection;

• Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices;

• Modify construction schedule; and

• Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust.

2017 EIR MM AQ -4.1: Both Project Options : The following measures shall be utilized in site planning and building designs to reduce TAC and PM2.5 exposure where new sensitive receptors are located within 650’ of U.S. 101:

• Future development under the Precise Plan that includes sensitive receptors (such as residences, schools, hospitals, daycare centers, or retirement homes) located within 650’ of U.S. 101, local roadways, and stationary sources shall require site -specific analysis to quantify the level of TAC and PM 2.5 exposure. This ana lysis shall be conducted following procedures outlined by BAAQMD. If the site-specific analysis reveals significant exposures, such as cancer risk greater than 10 in 1 million acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 1.0, or annual PM 2.5 exposures greater than 0.3 µg/m 3, or a significant cumulative health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 100 in 1 million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 10.0, or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.8 µg/m 3, additional measures such as those detailed below shall be employed to reduce the risk to below the threshold. If this is not possible, the sensitive receptors shall be relocated.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 24 of 42

• Future developments that would include TAC sources would be evaluated through t he CEQA process or BAAQMD permit process to ensure that they do not cause a significant health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 10 in 1 million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 1.0, or annual PM2.5 exposures greate r than

0.3 µg/m3, or a significant cumulative health risk in terms of excess cancer risk greater than 100 in 1 million, acute or chronic hazards with a Hazard Index greater than 10.0, or annual PM2.5 exposures greater than 0.8 µg/m3.

• For significant cancer risk exposure, as defined by BAAQMD, indoor air filtration systems shall be installed to effectively reduc e particulate levels to a less than significant level.

Project sponsors shall submit performance specifications and design details to demonstrate that lifetime residential exposures would result in less than significant cancer risks (less than 10 in 1 million chances or 100 in 1 million for cumulative sources), Hazard Index or PM 2.5 concentration.

• Air filtration systems installed shall be rated MERV-13 or higher and a maintenance plan for the air filtration system shall be implemented.

• Trees and/or v egetation shall be planted between sensitive receptors and pollution sources, if feasible. Tree species that are best suited to trapping particulate matter shall be planted, including the following: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritime), Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid poplar (Populus deltoids X trichocarpa), and Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens).

• Sites shall be designed to locate sensitive receptors as far as feasible from any freeways, roadways, refineries, diesel generators, distribution centers, and rail lines.

• Operable windows, balconies, and building air intakes shall be located as far away from these sources as feasible. If near a distribution center, residents shall not be located immediately adjacent to a loading dock or where trucks concentrate to deliver goods.

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, 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 emission standards for NO x and PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible; otherwise:

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 25 of 42

— If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets U.S.

EPA emission standards for Tier 2 or 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve an 85% 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 Ti er 4 Final off -road emission standards are not commercially available for the specific off -road equipment necessary during construction. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall take into consideration the following factors: (i) potential significant delays to critical -path timing of construction and (ii) the geographic proximity to the Project site of Tier 4 Final equipment.

— Use of alternatively fueled equipment with lower NO x emissions that meet the NO x and PM reduction requirements above.

• Use electric portable equipment such as aerial lifts, air compressors, cement mortar mixers, concrete/industrial saws, cranes, and welders. Portable equipment shall be powered by grid 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 and fueling infrastr ucture for zero emission construction vehicles 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 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 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

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 26 of 42
reapplication of coatings during the Project’s operational lifetime, the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall contain a stipulation for low VOC coatings to be used. Examples of “super -compliant” coatings are contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website.

• The City shall review the above measures every tw o years to ensure these measures incorporate the latest guidance and tools available to mitigate the identified impacts as recommended by BAAQMD Project construction and introduction of new land uses would occur over 14 years or further into the future whe re newer measures and measures that are not considered feasible now would be available to further reduce emissions. These could include greater use of zero -emission construction and stationary equipment and more incentives to support zero emission vehicle s. New updated mitigations if identified as part of the two year assessment would be implemented with every new building construction approved as part of the Master Plan Project from that point onwards.

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

Findings

Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions—The 2017 EIR disclosed that implementation of the Precise Plan would result in short -term and long -term pollutant emissions from building construction and operations (including operation of stationary sources like emergency backup diesel generators) and vehicle use . The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not have numeric thresholds related to direct and indirect regional criterial air pollutant emissions resulting from plan implementation; rather, BAAQMD only requires emission computations for Project-level analysis.

Therefore, the construction and operational emissions of the Project (under either option) were modeled and compared to BAAQMD thresholds . Operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with the Project (under either option) would be generated pr imarily from vehicles driven by future employees, residents, customers, and vendors to and from the Project site and from consumer products.

Because of the different modeling requirements for a specific project versus a plan, the construction and operatio nal criteria pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project (under either option) would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction NO x and operational ROG, NOx, and PM10.

Community Health Risk—In addition, the Project (under either option) would exceed BAAQMD project-level thresholds for health risk. Therefore, while the Project (under either option) would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP) control measures and goals, the Project (under either option) is found to be inconsistent with the 2017 CAP based on the Project (under either option) exceeding BAAQMD project-level thresholds and resulting in significant, unavoidable (with the above mitigation incorporated) construction (NO x) and

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 27 of 42
operational criteria air pollutant (ROG, NO x, and PM 10) emissions and health risk impacts (primarily due to construction emissions).

As described herein, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project (under either option) that reduce this significant impact . The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project (under either option) as conditions of approval for the Project (under either option) . Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project (under either option) which substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation me asure set forth above will reduce the significant effect; however, not to a less than significant level . Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measures part of the Project.

Impact AQ -2: Both Project Options : The Project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of construction (NO x) and operational (ROG, NO x, and PM10) criteria pollutants for which the Project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Refer to 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2.

Findings

The Bay Area does not meet State and/or Federal ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), or coarse particulate matter (PM10). High ozone levels are caused by cumulative emissions of ROG and nitrogen oxides (NO x). Construction period criteria pollutant emissions associated with the Project (under either option) were modeled and emissions were found to be below the BAAQMD significance threshold with the implementation of the above mitigation measures, with the exception of NO x. Construction NOx emissions, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, would exceed BAAQMD thresholds in the first year of Project construction (under either option) . Operational ROG, NO x, and PM 10 criteria pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project (under either option) would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. While it is feasible and enforceable for the City to require super compliant VOC coatings be applied initially (as required by the above Mitigation Measure MM AQ-1.1), the City cannot ensure that future occupants or tenants would use super-compliant VOC coatings during reapplication for the lif etime of the Project (under either option) . In addition, there is no feasible mitigation measure to ensure consumer products (such as inks, coatings, and adhesives) used by future residents and tenants would be low in VOCs. Therefore, the Project’s operational ROG emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Operational NOx and PM 10 emissions are primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project (under either option). The Project (under either option) includes a comprehensive and aggressive Transportation Demand Management Program and no further feasible mitigation measures to reduce vehicle emissions are available . Therefore, the Project’s operational NO x and PM 10 emissions (under either option) would be significant and unavoidable.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 28 of 42

Impact AQ-3: Both Project Options: The Project (under either option) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Refer to 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, 2017 EIR MM AQ-3.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2.

Findings

The Project (under either option) would result in exposure of sensitive receptors near the Project site to TAC emissions in excess of BAAQMD risk thresholds for excess cancer cases and annual PM2.5 concentrations primarily from construction emissions . Modeling completed found implementation of City standard condition of approval and mitigation measures 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.2, 2017 EIR MM AQ-3.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2 would reduce the health risk , but not to a less than significant level ; therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable.

As described herein, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project (under either option) that reduce this significant impact . The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigat ion measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project (under either option) as conditions of approval for the Project (under either option) . Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project (under either option) which substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect; however, not to a less than signific ant level . Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure s part of the Project (under either option).

Impact AQ-C: Both Project Options : The Project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant air quality impact in regard to the implementation of the 2017 CAP and net increase in criteria pollutants.

Refer to 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, 2017 EIR MM AQ-3.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2.

Findings

By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact . In developing thresholds of significance for air pollution, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable, re sulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s air quality conditions . That is, if a project exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

Implementation of the 2017 CAP —As described above under Impact AQ -1, the Project (under either option) would be consistent with the 2017 CAP goals, but would result in significant,

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 29 of 42
unavoidable construction NOx emissions, operational ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions, and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions) . The Project’s implementation (under either option) of City standard conditions of approval, 2017 EIR MM AQ -2.1, 2017 EIR MM AQ -2.2, 2017 EIR MM AQ-3.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2 would reduce these impacts but not to a less than significant level (as detailed under the findings for Impact AQ -1, Impact AQ-2, and Impact AQ-3 above) . The Project (under either option), therefore, would res ult in a cumulatively considerable impact to the implementation of the 2017 CAP.

Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants —As discussed under Impact AQ -1, the Project (under either option) would result in significant, unavoidable NOx emissions during construction and ROG, NOx, and PM 10 emissions during operations . Implementation of mitigation measures 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, 2017 EIR MM AQ -2.2, 2017 EIR MM AQ -3.1, MM AQ -1.1, and MM AQ -1.2 would reduce this impact; however, not to a less than significant level as detailed under the findings for Impact AQ-2 above. The Project (under either option), therefore, would result in a cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant impact.

As described herein, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project (under either option) that reduce this significant impact . The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project (under either option) as conditions of approval for the Project (under either option) . Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project (under either option) which substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect; however, not to a less than significant level . Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure s part of the Project (under either option).

4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

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 in regard to the 2017 CAP and City Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) by resulting in construction NO x emissions, operational ROG, NO x, and PM10 emissions, and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions) in excess of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds and exceeding the development and GHG emissions assumptions in the GGRP.

Refer to 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2.

Findings

The 2017 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would be consistent with the 2017 CAP, Plan Bay Area 2050, and California Transportation Plan 2040. The Project (under either option) is consistent with the Precise Plan; therefore, it is consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 and

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 30 of 42
California Transportation Plan 2040 for the same reasons disclosed in the 2017 EIR for the Precise Plan. The Project (under either option) is inconsistent with the 2017 CAP because it would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for construction NO x, operational ROG, NO x, and PM 10 emissions, and health risk and would be inconsistent with the GGRP because the Project development and resulting emissions are greater than what was assumed in the City’s GGRP (as well as the 2017 EIR) . Therefore, the Project (under either option) would result in a new significant and unavoidable impact.

As described herein, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project (under either option) that reduce this significant impact . The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project (under either option) as conditions of approval for the Project (under either option) . Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project (under either option) which substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect; however, not to a less than significant level . Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation mea sures part of the Project (under either option).

Impact GHG-C: Both Project Options: The Project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG emissions impact by being inconsistent with the 2017 CAP and GGRP.

Refer to 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2.

Findings

GHG emissions have a broader, global impact; therefore, if a Project results in an individual significant GHG impact, its contribution to a significant cumulative impact would be qualify as considerable. As discussed above under Impact GHG-2, the Project (under either option) would result in a significant GHG impact by conflicting with the 2017 CAP and GGRP . Therefore, the Project (under either option) would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative GHG emissions impact.

As described herein, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project (under either option) that reduce this significant impact . The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project (under either option) as conditions of approval for the Project (under either option) . Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project (under either opti on) which substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect; however, not to a less than significant level . Adoption of the

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 31 of 42
conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project (under either option).

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 32 of 42
SECTION 5: FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The Draft SEIR included seven project alternatives. Four of these alternatives (Location Alternative; Alternative Site Design, Smaller Project Site ; No Project Redevelopment; and Mitigated 86 % Reduced Development ) were considered but screened out from further evaluation because of infeasibility and inability of the alternative(s) to avoid or reduce the impacts further or meet the Precise Plan and City’s vision for the area, as further described in Section 8.2.1 of the Draft SEIR. Therefore, the SEIR evaluated three Alternatives (No New Development, Reduced Development —11%, and Reduced Development —39%) for further analysis.

The City hereby concludes that the Final SEIR evaluated a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed Project (under either option) so as to foster informed public participation and informed decision -making. For the reasons set forth in the Final EIR and summarized below, and in other relevant evidence in the Record of Proceedings, the City hereby rejects each of the alternatives and approves the Project.

The basis for rejecting each of these Alternatives is summarized below and detailed more fully in the Final SEIR (see Section 9.0 of the Draft SEIR) and other relev ant materials in the Record of Proceedings.

5.1 No Project, No New Development Alternative

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 a tota l of approximately 1,853,703 square feet of office, light industrial, and retail uses.

Findings

Given no new development under this alternative , it would avoid the Project’s significant, unavoidable air quality and GHG impacts related to construction NOx, operational ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions, and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions), as well as avoid all other impacts because it would not change existing conditions.

The No Project, No New Development Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it would not meet any of the Project objectives. This alternative would not redevelop the site consistent with the Precise Plan vision with a high-density mix of uses (including residential) and open space/park land (Objectives 1 through 5, and 7) . In addition, the uses would not implement a robust TDM plan (Objective 6) or include a district utilit ies system (Objective 8). This alternative would not meet any of the Precise Plan’s guiding principles because it would not re develop the site consistent with the Precise Plan . Because this alternative would not include housing, it would also not assist the City in meeting its RHNA for new housing.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 33 of 42

5.2 Mitigated 11% Reduced Development Alternative

The purpose of the Mitigated 11% Reduced Development Alternative is to avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable construction NOx emissions impacts with the incorporation of the air quality mitigation measures identified for the Project (under either option). To reduce the Project’s NOx emissions during construction, the overall development would have to be reduced by approximately 11 % to achieve less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated . This alternative, therefore, assumes approximately 2.8 million square fe et of office uses, 6,230 residential units, 467 hotel rooms, 217,000 square feet of retail uses, 49,000 square feet of community/civic uses and

23.4 acres of parks and open space.

Findings

The Mitigated 11% Reduced Development Alternative would avoid the Project’s significant, unavoidable construction NO x impact with incorporation of the same mitigation measures identified for the Project (under either option). This alternative would result in similar significant and unavoidable construction health risk (Impact AQ -1) and operational ROG, NO x, and PM 10 (Impact AQ-1) impacts as the Project under either option. This alternative would result in similar VMT impacts as the Project under either op tion 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, a nd 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.

This alternative al igns with several Precise Plan Principles as it promotes a new mixed -use neighborhood with residential, commercial, retail, and open space uses in greater intensities near transit. However, not to the same extent as the proposed Project (under either option). For example, Project 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). Therefore, this alternative would assist the City in meeting its RHNA for new housing to a lesser extent than the proposed Project . 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 23.4 acres (whereas the Project proposes 26.3 acres under either option).

This alternative does not fully deliver high-density, alternative transportation/transit -oriented development to the levels contemplated in the Precise Plan . An 11% reduction in development

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 34 of 42
would result in less development overall in North Bayshore . This would hamper the associated development of transit connections due to less concentration 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). Additionally, because this alternative would develop a mix of uses onsite, it could include community benefits, although to a lesser extent than the Project as community benefits are based upon total development proposed.

This alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it does not meet the Project objectives or the policy goals of the Precise Plan as well as the proposed Project. It is also inconsistent with the General Plan Housing Element’s obligation and policy to facilitate meeting the City’s RHNA goal.

5.3 Mitigated 39% Reduced Development Alternative

The purpose of the 39% Reduced Development Alternative is to avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable construction NO x emissions, operational NO x and PM 10 emissions, and health risk (cancer and annual PM 2.5) impacts with the incorporation of the air quality mitigation measures identified for the Project (under either option) . To reduce the Project’s construction NO x emissions, operational NO x and PM 10 emissions, and TAC emissions during construction and operation, the overall development would have to be reduced by approximately 39 %. This alternative, therefore, assumes approximately

1.9 million square feet of office uses, 4,270 residential units, 320 hotel rooms, 148,840 square feet of ground floor retail space, 33,550 square feet of community/civic uses, and 16 acres of parks and open space.

Findings

The 39% Reduced Development Alternative would reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable cons truction NO x impact, health risk (cancer and annual PM 2.5) impact, and operational NO x and PM 10 to a less than significant level with incorporation of the same mitigation measures identified for 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 operational ROG, 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 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.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 35 of 42
The 39% Reduced Development Alternative would not meet Project Objectives 4 or 5 of providing approximately 7,000 residential units and 3 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 meet 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 16 acres of open space/park land would be provided, which is less than the 26.3 acres proposed by the Project (under either option). This alternative could also provide a district utilities system, consistent with Objective 8.

A 39 % reduction in development would not meet the Precise Plan (stainability, density, infrastructure, and transit) goals to the same degree as the Project (under either option) . This alternative would not result in a development which meets the Precise Plan’s land use targets intended to create Complete Neighborhoods. This Project would alternative would assist the City in meeting its RHNA for new housing to a substantially lesser extent than the proposed Project or the 11% reduced development alternative. A 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.

This alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it does not meet most of the Project objectives and does not further the vision and goals of the Precise Plan to the same degree as the proposed Project. It is also inconsistent with the General Plan Housing Element’s obligation and policy to facilitate meeting the City’s RHNA goal.

5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative(s)

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e)(2) states that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative . If the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

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. Among the other alternatives, the Mitigated 39% Re duced Development Alternative would be an environmentally superior alternative because it would avoid one or more of the Project’s significant, unavoidable impacts (construction NOx emissions, health risk [cancer and annual PM2.5] impact, and/or operational NOx and PM10 emissions), and result in lesser impacts to other resource areas compared to the Project (under either option).

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 36 of 42
SECTION 6: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a Project against its unavoidable risks when determining whether to approve a project . If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project (under either option) outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable . CEQA requires the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record.

The Final SEIR and the CEQA Findings of Fact conclude that implementing the North Bayshore Master Plan will result in certain significant impacts to the environment that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened with the application of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore necessary to comply with CEQA, Public Resources Code, Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093. The significant and unavoidable impacts and the benefits related to the Project are:

• Air Quality: Conflict with Air Quality Plan (Impact AQ-1, Impact AQ-C)—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) i n excess of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds.

• Air Quality: Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant (Impact AQ -1, Impact AQ -2, and Impact AQ-C)—The Project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable net incr ease of construction (NO x) and operational (ROG, NO x, and PM 10) criteria pollutants for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

• Air Quality: Exposure to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations (Impact AQ-1, Impact AQ-3, and Impact AQ-C)—The Project (under either option) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Conflict with GHG Plan (Impact GHG-2 and Impact GHG-C)— The Project (under either option) would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs in regard to the 2017 CAP and GGRP.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 37 of 42
The City further specifically finds that the significant unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the proposed Project’s benefits and are acceptable in light of the benefits of the Project (under either option), based on the findings below:

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

• All Mitigation Measures recommended in the Final EIR have been incorporated into the Project (under either option) and will be implemented through the MMRP, incorporated by reference herein.

• In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has, in determining whether or not to approve the Project, balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of the Project (under either option) against these unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that the benefits of the Project (under either option) outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The following statements specify the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, the benefits of the Project (under either option) outweigh its unavoidable environmental risks. The City also finds that any one of the following reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the Project (under either option). Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City will stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the City’s Finding s and the benefits described below can be found in the Record of Proceedings.

The City of Mountain View finds that the North Bayshore Master Plan Project (under either option) has benefits that outweigh the significant, unavoidable impacts identified abov e. The benefits of the Project (under either option) are:

6.1 Economic Benefits

• The Project would develop the area with residential and office uses at an increased density and FAR near major roadways, providing a more efficient use of available land and improved pedestrian and bicycle network. The Project would redevelop an underutilized site with a greater land-use intensity of office development, residential, and retail that supports business growth in the City.

• The Project would include a high -quality office development, attracting regional enterprises to or retaining existing enterprises in the City.

• The Project would implement the North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP or the Precise Plan) and specifically implement the City’s vision for creati ng complete neighborhoods in the North Bayshore Area.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 38 of 42
• The Project would provide for beneficial, City revenue -generating infill in support of the City’s long-term fiscal health, including offsetting any increased City staffing needs generated by population growth.

• The Project would advance the vision of the NBPP by providing sustainable, economically diverse uses.

• The Project would generate revenue for the City through increased property tax revenue and Community Benefit Contribution from the Project.

• Development of the Project would create new jobs.

6.2 Social Benefits

• The Project would lead to the redevelopment of an underutilized site served by existing transportation and utility infrastructure.

• The Project would increase housing supply in the City, which further improves the jobs-housing imbalance and would contribute housing units to facilitate the City’s meeting its RHNA for the new RHNA cycle starting in 2023.

• The Project would expand and enhance recreational open space opti ons within the City by providing series of connected new public parks and publicly accessible open space linking to existing natural assets along Stevens and Permanente Creeks, Shoreline at Mountain View regional park, Charleston Retention Basin, and Charleston Park.

• The Project would also meet the City’s General Plan land use goals and policies which promote pedestrian and bicycl e connections to services and employers by creating on-site pedestrian and bicycle amenities.

• The Project would provide support future active uses in the City through their public benefit program, which will further available neighborhood-serving uses to residents, workers, and visitors in the area.

• The Project would improve the overall aesthetic and visual quality of the NBPP area and support connectivity of natural elements throughout the Master Plan Area.

• The Project would extend Citywide pedestrian and bicycle pathways to connect neighborhoods, open space resources, and major destinations within the City and into the adjoining areas.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 39 of 42
Regionwide or Statewide Environmental Benefits

• The Project would promote compact growth by increasing job opportunities at a location near existing transportation and utility infrastructure with the goal of reducing the region’s overall greenhouse gas emissions and VMT by focusing development near transit and infrastructure with a TDM program.

The City Council has carefully weighed these impacts and benefits and finds that the benefits of implementing the Project (under either option) outweigh the above significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

The City Council finds that each of the above specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations and benefits of the North Bayshore Master Plan (under either option), separately and independently, outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project, and each one is an overriding consideration independently w arranting Project approval. The Council finds that the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project (under either option) are overridden by each of these individual considerations, standing alone . The significant unavoidable environmental effects remai ning after adoption of mitigation measures are considered acceptable in light of these significant benefits of the North Bayshore Master Plan (under either option), as described in this Statement of Overriding Considerations.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 40 of 42
SECTION 7: CONCLUSION; NO RECIRCULATION OF THE FINAL EIR IS REQUIRED

An EIR is adequate as long as it provides specific response to all specific questions about significant environmental issues, and as long as the EIR, as a whole, reflects a good faith effort at full disclosure. “Recirculation is not required where the new information added to an EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modification in an adequate EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b))

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), n ew information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect on the Project (under either option) or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the Project’s proponents have declined to implement . “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing:

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

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

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

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

The City finds the SEIR is not inadequate nor did any of the commenters disclose any new “significant information” as defined by CEQA that would r equire recirculation of the SEIR . No new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts have been identified that would result from the Project (under either option) or from an alternative or a new mitigation measure proposed as part of th e Project (under either option) . Moreover, no new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified that are considerably different from others previously analyzed and would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project (under either option) that the City and the applicant have declined to implement .

All of the responses to comments contained in this Final SEIR merely provide information that clarifies and amplifies the evaluation of impacts contained in the Draft SEIR.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 41 of 42
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and the information contained in the record, the City Council has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the Project (under either option):

(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the final EIR.

(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by sch other agency.

(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the final SEIR.

DP/2/CDD
807-04-21-23ExhB 42 of 42

CITATIONS

1. City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2013082088. November 2017.

2. City of Mountain View. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2022020712. December 2022.

3. City of Mountain View. 2022. Final Environmental Impact Report for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2022020712. April 2023.

4. City of Mountain View. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project. April 2023.

Exhibit C

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
North Bayshore Master Plan Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2022020712

This MMRP identifies the new project-specific mitigation measures and revised 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan mitigation measures required of the project . The project is also subject to the mitigation measures identified in the 2017 MMRP enclosed as Appendix A.

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 1 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance

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

2017 EIR MM AQ-2.11: Both Project Options: Measures
to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM10
from construction shall be implemented to ensure that
short-term health impacts to nearby senssitive
receptors are avoided. The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic
construction mitigation measures recommended by
BAAQMD 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:
• When the air quality index forecast exceeds 100 for
particulates for the project area and the reading
exceeds 100 for particulates by 10:00 a.m. for the
project area, prohibit grading activities for that day. • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered at a frequency of no less than two times per Project applicant
and any contractors
implementing the
project
All mitigation measures shall be
printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and project
plans.

Oversight of implementation by
City of Mountain View Chief
Building Official and Fire Marshal
(or their designees).

Prior to issuance of
grading and
demolition permits,
if used during
construction, and
prior to issuance of
building permits, if
permanent
installation.

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

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 2 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
day in order to maintain adequate soil moisture for dust control. Dewatering effluent extracted from the site
may be utilized for watering all exposed surfaces, if
found to meet VOC and Fuel General Permit NPDES
permit requirements pursuant to the Site Management
Plan required per Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1.
• Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste
materials stored at the site or cover them with
tarpaulin.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered and loaded material
shall not extend above the walls or back of the truck
bed.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Prohibit off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13,
Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and
properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 3 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a
certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Mountain View and
the on-site coordinator/monitor regarding dust
complaints. The on-site coordinator/monitor shall
respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

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

Dewatering effluent extracted from the site may be
utilized for watering all exposed surfaces, if found to meet VOC and Fuel General Permit NPDES permit
requirements pursuant to the Site Management Plan
required per Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1.
• Excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities shall be phased in accordance with the phasing plan to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any
one time.
• Avoid tracking of visible soil material on the public roadways by employing the following measures if
necessary: (1) site accesses to a distance of 100’ from public paved roads shall be treated with 6” to
City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 4 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
12” compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel;
and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment
of soil prior to leaving the site.
• Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be
installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 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, ensure
heavy-duty and 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 emission
standards for NOx and PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible; otherwise,
— If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available,
alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA
emission standards for Tier 2 or 3 engines and
include particulate matter emissions control
equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel
emission control devices that altogether achieve an
85% 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
City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 5 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
standards are not commercially available for the
specific off-road equipment necessary during
construction. For purposes of this mitigation
measure, “commercially available” shall take into
consideration the following factors: (i) potential
significant delays to critical-path timing of
construction and (ii) the geographic proximity to
the project site of Tier 4 Final equipment.
— Use of alternatively fueled equipment with lower
NOx 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 and fueling
infrastructure for zero emission construction vehicles
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 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 City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 6 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
posted legible and visible signs in designated queuing
areas and at the construction site to clearly notify
operators of idling limit.
• Use low volatile organic compound or VOC (i.e., ROG)
coatings, that are below current BAAQMD
requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings), for at least 80% 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” coatings are contained in the
South Coast Air Quality Management District’s
website.2
Project applicant
and any contractors
implementing the
project
All mitigation measures shall be
printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and project
plans.

Stipulation for low VOC coatings
for reapplication during the
project’s operational lifetime shall
be printed in the Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions.

Oversight of implementation by
City of Mountain View Chief
Building Official and Fire Marshall
(or their Designees).

Prior to issuance of
grading and
demolition permits,
if used during
construction, and
prior to issuance of
building permits, if
permanent
installation.

At the time of
reapplication of
coatings.

• The City shall review on a biannual basis the measures above to ensure that these incorporate feasible
measures recommended by BAAQMD. Project
construction and introduction of new land uses would
occur over 14 years or further into the future where
newer measures and measures that are not considered
feasible now would be available to further reduce
emissions. These could include greater use of zero-
Project applicant All mitigation measures shall be
reviewed and updated as needed
and printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and project
plans.

Prior to issuance of
grading and
demolition permits,
if used during
construction, and
prior to issuance of
building permits, if
permanent

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

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 7 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
emission construction and stationary equipment and
more incentives to support zero emission vehicles.
installation.

MM AQ-1.2: Both Project Options: Permanent stationary
emergency generators installed on-site shall have engines that meet or exceed U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards for NOx and particulate matter emissions.

Project applicant All mitigation measures shall be
printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and project
plans.

Oversight of implementation by
City of Mountain View Chief
Building Official and Fire Marshal
(or their designees).

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

Refer to 2017 MMRP for 2017 EIR MM-3.1.

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
nonattainment under an
applicable Federal or State
ambient air quality standard even
with the implementation of
mitigation. (New Impact
[Significant, Unavoidable Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated])
Refer to 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2 above.

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 8 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Impact AQ-3: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations even with the
implementation of mitigation.
(New Impact [Significant,
Unavoidable Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated])
Refer to 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2 above.

Refer to 2017 MMRP for 2017 EIR MM-3.1.

Impact AQ-4: Project with
District Utilities Systems Option:

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

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

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

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

The plan shall describe procedures to address upset
conditions caused by equipment failures, power outages, flow control, or treatment issues, as well as odor
complaints. Procedures would include investigating and identifying the source of the odor/odor complaint and
corrective actions could include installing specific odor control technologies (e.g., odor control units) or adjusting plant operations (e.g., by adding ferrous chloride
injections). The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Project applicant

Mitigation measure shall be
printed on project plans.

Odor control plan submitted to
the City and BAAQMD.

Posting of notification sign on-
site.

Maintenance of odor complaint
log and corresponding responses
by operator.

Oversight of implementation by
City of Mountain View Public
Works Director and Community
Development Director (or their
designees) and BAAQMD.

Prior to issuance of
building permits for
the District Central
Plant.

Ongoing during
project operations.

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 9 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Public Works Director (or the Director’s designee) and
BAAQMD prior to issuance of building permits for the DCP.

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

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

The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. A log of odor complaints and procedures implemented to respond
to complaints shall be maintained by the operator and
provided to the City upon request.

Impact AQ-C: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant
cumulative air quality impact even
with the implementation of
mitigation. (New Impact
[Significant, Unavoidable
Cumulative Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated])
Refer to 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2 above.

Refer to 2017 MMRP for 2017 EIR MM AQ-3.1.

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 10 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Biological Resources Impacts
Impact BIO-1: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would not have a
substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species
in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS with the implementation
of mitigation. [New Impact (Less
than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)]
MM BIO-1.1: Both Project Options: Within two years prior to disturbance of ruderal habitat for construction of the Shoreline Amphitheatre parking structure, a qualified
biologist shall conduct a survey for Congdon’s tarplant during the appropriate season (e.g., late summer and fall), at a time when the species is detectable at nearby
reference sites. The survey shall cover all areas within, and within 50’ of, the construction area for the parking
structure. If Congdon’s tarplant is found in the survey area, the applicant shall comply with North Bayshore Precise Plan Landscape Design Standard 4 to protect and manage
Congdon’s tarplant. Management measures would be
developed in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and may include establishment of a new population or enhancement of existing populations at Shoreline at Mountain View regional park (in coordination with the City of Mountain View).

Project applicant All mitigation measures shall be
printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and project
plans.

A qualified biologist shall conduct
a survey for Congdon’s tarplant.

Coordination with California
Department of Fish and Wildlife if
deemed necessary.

Oversight of implementation by
City of Mountain View
Community Development Director
(or their Designees).

Within two years
prior to issuance of
grading or
demolition permits
for the
Amphitheatre
parking structure.

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

Project applicant Mitigation shall be printed on all
construction documents,
contracts, and project plans, as
well as Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions.

Nonnative milkweeds shall not be
included in Master Plan
landscaping palettes. Native
milkweed plants shall not be
irrigated after August.

Prior to issuance of
building permits.

On-going during
project operations.

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 11 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Oversight of implementation by
City of Mountain View
Community Development Director
(or designees).

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

Project applicant Mitigation measures shall be
printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and project
plans.

A qualified biologist shall conduct
a survey for monarch butterfly
eggs, larvae, or pupae and
coordinate with U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service if deemed
necessary.

Oversight of implementation by
City of Mountain View
Community Development Director
(or Designees).

Prior to issuance of
grading or
demolition permits.

Within two weeks
prior to any clearing,
construction, or
maintenance in
landscaped areas
with milkweed
plants present.

Impact BIO-5: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would not conflict with
any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance. [(New Impact [Less
than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated])
Refer to MM BIO-1.1 above.

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 12 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Impact BIO-C: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would not result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a significant
cumulative biological resources
impact with the implementation
of mitigation. [New Cumulative
Impact (Less than Significant
Cumulative Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)]
Refer to, MM BIO-1.1, -1.2, and -1.3 above.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts
Impact GHG-1: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would generate GHG
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment. (Same Impact as
Approved Project [Significant
Unavoidable Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated])
Refer to MM AQ-1.1 above.

Refer to 2017 MMRP for 2017 EIR MM GHG-1.1 and 2017 EIR MM GHG-1.2.

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 even with the
implementation of mitigation.
(New Impact [Significant
Unavoidable Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated])
Refer to 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2 above.

Refer to 2017 MMRP for 2017 EIR MM AQ-3.1.

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 13 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Impact GHG-C: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulatively
significant GHG emissions impact
even with the implementation of
mitigation. (New Impact
[Significant Unavoidable
Cumulative Impact])
Refer to 2017 EIR MM AQ-2.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ-1.2 above.

Refer to 2017 MMRP for 2017 EIR MM AQ-3.1, 2017 EIR MM GHG-1.1, and 2017 EIR MM GHG-1.2.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
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 with the
implementation of mitigation.
(Same Impact as Approved
Project [Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated])
2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.3:3 Both Project Options: Prior to the start of any construction activity on properties with known contaminants of concern (COC) exceeding the lower of the then-current DTSC, Water Board or US EPA residential
vapor intrusion screening levels, the project applicant shall submit a Vapor Intrusion Control Evaluation to the City and the designated regulatory oversight agency for review and approval which consists of the following:
• An Air Monitoring Plan, which would assess the
exposure of future on-site construction workers and
neighboring 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 the project’s construction. If vapor intrusion
controls are required, the Vapor Intrusion Controls
Evaluation shall detail the specific proposed controls, which shall comprise of project components designed
Project applicant
and any contractors
implementing the
project.

Mitigation measure shall be
printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and project
plans.

Oversight of implementation by
the City’s Community
Development Department, and
regulatory oversight agency as
applicable.

Prior to the issuance
of grading or
building permits.

3 This mitigation measure has been revised from the 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan MMRP to provide clarity on the requirement s. This measure supersedes the 2017 MMRP measure.

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 14 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
specifically for vapor intrusion control (e.g., a subslab vapor barrier and/or ventilation system) and/or project components designed primarily for other purposes,
which may also mitigate potential vapor intrusion (e.g., waterproofing systems or parking level ventilation).

The Vapor Intrusion Controls Evaluation shall also
summarize any anticipated operations and
maintenance requirements for the planned vapor
intrusion controls, if applicable, as well as a summary of planned activities to evaluate the performance of
the planned vapor intrusion controls, such as
postconstruction 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:
— 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 postconstruction indoor air
sampling and system commissioning, where
applicable.
— 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-3.5: Both Project Options:4 At future
project sites identified as being impacted or potentially impacted during the property-specific Phase I ESA or
subsequent studies, a Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared prior to development activities to establish
Project applicant
and any contractors
implementing the
project.

Mitigation measure shall be
printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and project
plans prior to issuance of permits.

Prior to issuance of
grading and
demolition permits.

4 This mitigation measure has been revised from the 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan MMRP to provide clarity on the requirement s. This measure supersedes the 2017 MMRP measure.

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 15 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
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 confirmation from the oversight agency that their review is not required. The SMP for the property shall include the following activities:
• Property control procedures to control the flow of
personnel, vehicles and materials in and out of the
property.
• Monitoring of vapors (if VOCs are determined to be a
COC) during the removal of the underground utilities as well as any other underground features. An
Environmental 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 additional
sampling is performed, a report documenting sampling
activities (with site plans and analytical data) shall be provided to the oversight agency.
• Minimization of dust generation, stormwater 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 groundwater are present or suspected. Worker
training requirements, health and safety measures and
soil handling procedures shall be described.

SMP shall be submitted to the
regulatory oversight agency for
review and approval (if required),
and documentation of the
regulatory agency’s approval (or
confirmation no approval is
required) shall be provided to the
City.

Oversight of implementation by
the City’s Community
Development Department, and
regulatory oversight agency.

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 16 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
• 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 suspected of
being contaminated so that appropriate disposal or
reuse alternatives can be implemented. All soil
excavated and transported from the property shall be
appropriated disposed at a permitted facility.
• Segregation of “clean” and “impacted” soil stockpiles. • Evaluation and documentation of the quality of soil
imported to the property.
• Soil containing chemicals exceeding the lower of the
then-current DTSC, Water Board, or U.S. 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
groundwater migration through trench backfill and
City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 17 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
utility conduits (if soil and/or groundwater 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 groundwater
shall be installed with watertight fittings to reduce the potential for groundwater 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 water
retention ponds to be lined with a minimum 30 mil 5
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 groundwater (if present).
• Methods to mitigate the potential for vapor intrusion of VOC vapors (if present) into the planned structures. • For construction activity that involves below ground
work (e.g., mass grading, foundation construction,
excavating or utility trenching), information regarding property risk management procedures (e.g., a copy of
the SMP) shall be provided to the contractors for their review, and each contractor should provide such
information to its subcontractors.
• If excavation dewatering is required, protocols shall be prepared to evaluate water quality and
discharge/disposal 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

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

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 18 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
extract, treat and dispose groundwater also shall be
presented and shall include treating/discharging
groundwater to the sanitary sewer under a Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW) permit or treating/
discharging groundwater to the storm drain system
pursuant to a California Regional Water Quality Control Board—San Francisco Bay Region (Water Board) NPDES
permit. If dewatering activities may impact known
groundwater contaminant plumes in the vicinity of the
property, the oversight agency responsible for the
remediation of these contaminant releases shall be
notified of planned activities.
• The project applicant’s Environmental Professional
shall assist in the implementation of the SMP for the
property and shall, at a minimum, perform part-time
observation services during demolition, excavation,
grading and trenching 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-3.8:6 Both Project Options: Due to the
North Bayshore Precise Plan area’s proximity to U.S. 101, soil sampling and analytical testing on a future site adjacent to U.S. 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 U.S. EPA residential Project applicant
and any contractors
implementing the
project.

Mitigation measures shall be
printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and project
plans.

Oversight of implementation by
Prior to the approval
of grading,
demolition, and
building permits

6 This mitigation measure has been revised from the 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan MMRP to provide clarity on the requirement s.

City of Mountain View—North Bayshore Master Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program DP/2/CDD/807-04-21-23ExhC Page 19 of 19 April 2023—Exhibit C Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
screening levels, it shall be appropriately managed under regulatory agency oversight.
the City’s Community
Development Department, and
regulatory agency as applicable.

Refer to 2017 MMRP for 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.1, 3.4, 3.6,

3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, and 3.15

SOURCE: City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Master Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2022020712. December 2022.