Mountain View City Council
June 13, 2023

Attachment 1
-1-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2023

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

CERTIFYING THE NORTH BAYSHORE MASTER PLAN

SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS

RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND

ALTERNATIVES, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,

MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,

ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. , the City of Mountain View ( “City”) has prepared a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan (“Project”); and

WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated a Draft EIR for the requisite 45 -day public comment period, which ended on February 6, 2023 , and gave all public notices in the manner and at the times required by law; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared, completed, and adopted in accordance with CEQA the North Bayshore Precise Plan Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2013082088) (“Precise Plan EIR”), which evaluated the impacts of the North Bayshore Precise Pla n (“Precise Plan”) that allows up to 10.4 million square feet of office/ R&D development uses, 198,538 square feet of retail/restaurant uses, 26,138 square feet of service uses, and 9,854 residential units in the Precise Plan area; and

WHEREAS, in connection with the adoption of a resolution approving said Precise Plan, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18186 on December 12, 2017, setting forth certain findings pertaining to the Precise Plan EIR and adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting pro gram, all pursuant to the provisions of CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the Project was evaluated and analyzed under the Precise Plan EIR, and it was determined a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report to the Precise Plan EIR was required, as further explained in the Final SEIR, as defined below, for the Project; and

WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the SEIR for the Project in the manner and times required by law for review and comment by r esponsible and trustee agencies and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals from February 28, 2022 through March 30, 2022, and held a public scoping meeting on March 14, 2022; and -2-
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 2116 1 and 211092 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15087, on April 26, 2022, a Notice of Completion (“NOC”)/Notice of Availability (“NOA”) document for a Draft SEIR for the Project was duly prepared and distributed; and

WHEREAS, the City duly prepared and circulated the Draft SEIR for the required 45 -day public comment period, which commenced on December 21, 2022 and ended on February 6, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the City prepared responses to comments received on the Draft SEIR as reflected in the Response to Comments/Final SEIR document dated April 2023, which address all written and verbal comments on the environmental issues raised during the public review and comment period for the Draft SEIR, and was made available to all commenters and the public on April 11, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the Response to Comments/ Final SEIR, together with the Draft SEIR and all appendices to both documents, comprise the Final SEIR; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR was presented to the City Council on June 13, 2023, and the City Council has reviewed the Final SEIR on the Project , together with all associated staff reports, documents, testimony, correspondence and evidence constituting the record of proceedings; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identifies certain significant effects on the environment that would result from the implementation of the proposed Project; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identifies mitigation measures which, when implemented, will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects on the environment caused by the proposed Project, with the exception of the significant unavoidable impact(s) related to: (i) a conflict with an applicable air quality plan (due to construction NOx emissions, operational ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions, and health risk primarily from construction emissions); (ii) generation of a cumulatively considerable net increase in construction NOx emissions and operational ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions in a region that is considered nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards ; (iii) expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction; (iv) conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs; and (v) generation of a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG emissions impact; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identifies and analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project; and

-3-
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to monitor the changes to the Project which the lead agency has adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED: that the City Council of the City of Mountain View , having independently considered the Final SEIR and the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project as shown in the Final SEIR for the North Bayshore Master Plan, hereby:

1. Certifies that the Final SEIR, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City and has been presented to the City Council, which reviewed and considered the information in it, along with other relevant information in the Record of Proceedings, including, without limitation, public testimony, written correspondence, and staff reports and responses (including responses to comments on the Final SEIR received at or prior to the City Council public hearing) before approving the Project, and hereby finds that the Final SEIR constit utes an accurate, adequate, objective, and complete EIR.

2. Adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit B, which findings are incorporated by reference herein.

3. Adopts the Mitigation , Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, which incorporated the MMRP from the Precise Plan EIR, attached hereto as Exhibit C.

4. Adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures identified and described in the Final SEIR and determines that the Project, as mitigated, will avoid or reduce all of the significant adverse impacts to a less-than-significant level, with the exception of the significant unavoidable impacts related to : (i) a conflict with an applicable air quality plan (due to construction NO x emissions, operational ROG, NOx, and PM10 emissions, and health risk primarily from construction emissions); (ii) generation of a cumulatively considerable net increase in construction NO x emissions and operational ROG, NO x, and PM 10 emissions in a region that is considered nonattainment under an applicable Federa l or State ambient air quality standards ; (iii) expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction; (iv) conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs; and (v) generation of a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG emissions impact , which significant unavoidable impacts are considered acceptable because these unavoidable adverse environmental effects are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

5. Finds that a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives were identified and evaluated in the Final SEIR and further finds that none of the alternatives identified and evaluated in the Final EIR will achieve all of the Project objectives or to the same degree as the proposed Project and, otherwise, are infeasible for the reasons detailed in Exhibit B, do not represent substantial envir onmental benefits over the proposed Project and are, therefore, rejected as infeasible, within the meaning of CEQA, in favor of the proposed Project. -4-

6. The City, in making its decision to certify the Final SEIR and approve the Project and as detailed in Exhibit B, hereby recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinions exist with respect to certain environmental issues. The City has acquired a comprehensive and well- rounded understanding of the range of these technical and scientific opinions by its review of the Final SEIR, information provided by the experts who prepared the Final SEIR, the City’s staff and other consultants, other relevant materials in the Record of Proceedings, and its own experience and expertise in these matt ers. The materials reviewed by the City include, without limitation, statements of facts as well as other comments on the environmental issues set forth in the Final SEIR. This comprehensive review has enabled the City to make its determinations after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. As a result, the City has made determinations of significant effects based on substantial evidence and not public controversy or speculation. Accordingly, the City certifies that it s findings and determinations are based on all of the evidence contained in the Final SEIR as well as the evidence and other information in the Record of Proceedings and hereby elects to rely on the opinions set forth in the Final SEIR and other relevant materials in the Record of Proceedings.

TIME FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:

The time within which judicial review of this document must be sought is governed by California Code of Procedure Section 1094.6, as established in Resolution No. 13850, adopted by the City Council on August 9, 1983.

– – – – – – – – – – –

DP/2/RESO
807-06-13-23r-1

Exhibits: A. Final SEIR, Including Errata Dated June 1, 2023 B. CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
North Bayshore Master Plan
April 2023
SCH No.: 2022020712
In Consultation with
Prepared by
Exhibit A

North Bayshore Master Plan i Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Section 2.0 Draft EIR Public Review Summary .............................................................................. 2 Section 3.0 Draft EIR Recipients ..................................................................................................... 3 Section 4.0 Responses to Draft EIR Comments .............................................................................. 5 Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions ......................................................................................... 59

Appendix A: Draft EIR Comment Letters

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document, together with the December 2022 Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) (SCH# 2022020712), constitutes the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan project.

PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR
In conformance with the California Environme ntal Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, this Final SEIR provides objective information regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The Final SEIR also examines mitigation measures and alternatives to the project intended to reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. The Final SEIR is intended to be used by the City and any responsible agencies in making decisions regarding the project.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a), prior to approving a project, the lead agency shall certify that:

(1) The Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) The Final SEIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final SEIR prior to approving the project; and
(3) The Final SEIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

CONTENTS OF THE FINAL SEIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 specify that the Final SEIR shall consist of:

(a) The Draft SEIR or a revision of the Draft;
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft SEIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft SEIR; (d) The Lead Agency’s responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

PUBLIC REVIEW
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 21092.5[a] and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088[b]), the City shall provide a written response to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to cert ifying the SEIR. The Final SEIR and all documents referenced in the Final SEIR are available for public review at the Community Development Department, City Hall offices at 500 Castro Street, 1st Floor, on weekdays during normal business hours and the Mountain View Public Library at 585 Franklin Street during normal business hours. The Final SEIR is also available for review on line at the City’s website www.mountainview.gov/CEQA and on the State Clearinghouse website www.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov.

North Bayshore Master Plan 2 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
SECTION 2.0 DRAFT EIR PUBLIC REVIEW SUMMARY
The Draft SEIR for the North Bayshore Master Plan project, dated December 2022, was circulated to affected public agencies and interested parties for a 45 -day review period from December 21, 2022 through February 6 , 20 23. The City undertook the following actions to inform the public of the availability of the Draft SEIR:

• A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft SEIR was published at www.mountainview.gov/CEQA and in the Daily Post newspaper on December 21, 2022; • Notification of the availability of the Draft SEIR was mailed to property owners and tenants within a 750 foot radius of the project boundary and other members of the public who had indicated interest in the project;
• Email notification of the availability of the Draft SEIR was sent on December 21, 2022, to all subscribed recipients on the City’s project website at
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/google/googlenorthba yshore.asp.
• Notification of the availability of the Draft SEIR was sent on December 21, 2022 to all subscribed recipients on the City Hall Connection e-newsletter. • The Draft SEIR was delivered to the State Clearinghouse and posted on December 21, 2022, as well as sent to various governmental agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals (see Section 3.0 for a list of agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals that received the Draft EIR); and
• Copies of the Draft SEIR were made available on the City’s website at www.mountainview.gov/CEQA.

North Bayshore Master Plan 3 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
SECTION 3.0 DRAFT EIR RECIPIENTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15086 requires that a local lead agency consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR prepared for a project of this type from responsible agencies (government agencies that must approve or permit some aspect of the project), trustee agencies for resources affected by the project, adjacent cities and counties, and transportation planning agencies.

The NOA for the Draft SEIR was sent to owners and occupants within 750 foot of the project site and to adjacent jurisdictions. The following agencies and organizations received a copy o f the NOA or Draft SEIR from the City or via the State Clearinghouse:

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District
• California Air Resources Board
• California Department of Conservation
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection • California Department of Housing and Community Development • California Department of Parks and Recreation
• California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery • California Department of Toxic Substances Control
• California Department of Transportation, District 4
• California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics • California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning • California Department of Water Resources
• California Energy Commission
• California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
• California Highway Patrol
• California Native American Heritage Commission
• California Natural Resources Agency
• California Public Utilities Commission
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region • California State Lands Commission
• California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation • City of Palo Alto
• City of Sunnyvale
• Mountain View Whisman School District
• Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District
• NASA Ames Research Center
• PG&E
• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission • San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
• San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health • Santa Clara County Roads and Airports
• Santa Clara Valley Water District

North Bayshore Master Plan 4 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
• Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
• State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water • State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Financial Assistance • State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality • State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights • United States Environmental Protection Agency
• Valley Transportation Authority

North Bayshore Master Plan 5 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
SECTION 4.0 RESPONSES TO DRAFT EIR COMMENTS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this docu ment includes written responses to comments on environmental issues received by the City of Mountain View on the Draft SEIR.

Responses are not provided in this Final SEIR to comments pertaining to the merits of the project.

Comments are organized under headings containing the source of the letter and its date. The specific comments from each of the letters and /or emails are presented with each response to that specific comment directly following. Copies of the letters and emails received by the City of Mountain View are included in their entiret y in Appendix A of this document. All comments received on the Draft SEIR are listed below and will be considered by the City Council prior to making a decision on the project.

A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft SEIR for public review, but before certification. Information can include changes in the project or environmental se tting as well as additional data. However, new 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 of the projec t or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.

None of the comments raised on the Draft SEIR represent new significant information that would warrant recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).

Comment Letter and Commenter Page of Response

Master Responses ............................................................................................................................... 7 Federal and State Agencies .............................................................................................................. 11 A. Department of Toxic Substances Control (dated January 31, 2023) ................................ 11 Regional and Local Agencies........................................................................................................... 15 B. City of Palo Alto (dated February 17, 2023) .................................................................... 15 C. Mountain View Los Altos High School District (dated February 6, 2023) ..................... 17 D. Mountain View Whisman School District (dated February 3, 2023) ............................... 21 E. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (dated February 6, 2023) .......................... 26 F. Valley Water (February 15, 2023) .................................................................................... 33 Organizations, Businesses, and Individuals ..................................................................................... 35 G. Anish Morakhia (dated February 23, 2023) ..................................................................... 35 H. Laura Blakely (dated February 6, 2023) ........................................................................... 36 I. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (dated February 2, 2023) ...................................... 37 J. Sierra Club (dated January 25, 2023) ............................................................................... 37 K. Sierra Club, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and Green Foothills (dated February 6, 2023) ............................................................................................................................. 38

North Bayshore Master Plan 6 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Comment Letter and Commenter Page of Response

L. Tamara Wilson (dated February 6, 2023) ......................................................................... 55 M. The Friends of Mountain View Parks (dated February 6, 2023) ...................................... 56

North Bayshore Master Plan 7 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

MASTER RESPONSES
Several comments received during the public circulation of the Draft SEIR raised similar concerns and questions; therefore, a master response has been prepared to respond to those common concerns/questions. The master response addresses the following topics:

• Master Response 1: School Impacts

The purpose of the master response is to provide comprehensive answers in one location and to avoid redundancy throughout the individual responses. Cross references to topic responses are made, when appropriate, in individual responses.

Master Response 1: School Impacts

School impacts are discussed in Section 4.12 Public Services on pages 317 through 328 of the Draft SEIR. Responses to comments regarding the existing conditions, proposed project, project impacts, school impact fees, indirect impacts on schools, and the Shoreline Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment are provided below. None of the comments raised represent new significant information that would warrant recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).

Existing Conditions

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, the Draft SEIR discusses existing school conditions , including location of local schools and their current enrollment and capacity, on pages 320 through 321 and in Table 4.12-1. The text of the Draft SEIR has been revised to clarify the distance of the local schools in relation to the projects site and a figure has been added to illustrate the location of the local schools to the project site (refer to Section 5.0 Draft EIR Text Revisions).

Proposed Project

The project proposed is a master plan development that would implement a large portion of the already approved and adopted North Bayshore Precise Plan (Precise Plan). The Precise Plan allows for up to

10.4 million square feet of office and R&D development uses, 198,538 square feet of retail/restaurant uses, 26,138 square feet of service uses , and 9,854 residential units in North Bayshore. The City prepared and certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (2017 EIR) that evaluated the addition of the 9,854 residential units to North Bayshore in 2017.1 This certified 2017 Final EIR was reviewed by the public and agencies, including the Mountain View Los Altos High School District (MVLASD) and Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD). Background information on the approved Precise Plan and its associated environmental review is provided in Section 2.1 Background Information on page 5 of the Draft SEIR. The proposed North Bayshore Master Plan development would implement the already approved North Bayshore Precise Plan and includes the development of a large proportion of the already approved residential capacity allowed by the Precise Plan. A detailed description of the proposed master plan is provided in Section 2.3 Project Descripti on on pages 12

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

North Bayshore Master Plan 8 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
through 37 of the Draft SEIR. No site within the proposed Master Plan area is explicitly dedicated for a school.

Project Impacts

The project’s school impacts are discussed in Section 4.12.2.1 Project Impacts under Impact PS -3 of the Draft SEIR (pages 323-324), as well as Section 4.12.2.2 Cumulative Impacts under Impact PS -C on page 326 of the Draft SEIR. In both impact discussions, it is acknowledged that the existing, available school capacity could be insufficient and provision for addit ional school facilities may be required.2 Text has been added to the Draft SEIR to clarify this (refer to Section 5.0 Draft EIR Text Revisions). The impacts related to vehicle trips from proposed residences to schools are accounted for in the transportation analysis completed for the project included in Appendix D of the Draft SEIR and summarized in Section 3.4 Transportation under Impact TRN -2 on page 144 of the Draft SEIR. The residential trip generation used in the transportation analysis includes vehic le trips for the work commute and other travel purposes (such as travel to school, retail, entertainment, etc.).

The cumulative impacts on schools are specifically discussed in Section 4.12.2.2 Cumulative Impacts under Impact PS-C of the Draft SEIR (page 326). The scope of the cumulative analysis is explained on pages 47 and 48 of the Draft SEIR and includes a discussion of “impacts that might result from approval of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, in conjunction with the proposed project….” As explained in Section 1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report, the Draft SEIR tiers from the certified 2017 EIR, which analyzed cumulative impacts on schools from buildout of the Precise Plan and the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan). That is, the cumulative analysis accounts for residential development consistent with the adopted Precise Plan and General Plan, including the recently approved residential developments noted in comment letters that would generate students who would attend the same schools as the proposed project (e.g., 901-987 N. Rengstorff Avenue, 1255 Pear Avenue, 828/836 Sierra Vista Avenue, 1100 La Avenida Street, 2005 Rock Street, 2310 Rock Street, and 851-853 Sierra Vista Avenue).

School Impact Fees

As discussed on page 324 and 326 of the Draft SEIR, pursuant to state law (Government Code Section 65995 through 65998 summarized on page 317 of the Draft SEIR), the project (as well as other cumulative projects) would pay state -mandated school impact fees to MVWSD and MVLASD. The legislation states that the p ayment of school impact fees “are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” under CEQA (Section 65996[b]). The purpose of the school impact fees is to fund the construction or reconstruction of school facilities.

2 The 2017 EIR used student generation rates provided by MVWSD and MVLASD at the time the 2017 EIR was prepared. Based on these rates, the project would have generated approximately 980 elementary and middle school students and 671 high school students. The Draft SEIR used updated student generation rates provided by MVWSD and MVLASD and estimated the project would generate 1,321 elementary and middle school students and 607 high school students. Overall, the current student generation rates estimate an additional 341 elementary and middle school students and a reduction of 64 high school students compared to the 2017 EIR student generation rates. The update in student generation rates does not change the significance conclusions of the 2017 EIR, nor do they substantially change the analysis.

North Bayshore Master Plan 9 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
The City acknowledges that land and construction costs have risen, making the construction of schools more expensive. However, the City cannot (per Government Code 65995) levy or impose an additional fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement for school facilitie s (other than the payment of state - mandated school impact fees) in connection with, or made a condition of, project approval. The City will work with MVWSD and MVLASD to administer programs and develop school site properties.

The development of the school sites would be funded, in part, from the project’s payment of state - mandated school impact fees. Methods that also can be used by schools to increase or balance capacity within a District include placement of portable classrooms, and/or adjustments to atte ndance boundaries. But these methods are under MVWSD’s or MVLASD’s sole authority and discretion to choose and implement, and the City has no jurisdiction to dictate any particular method.

In light of the state law limits on school impact fees and the challenges to financing school construction, the adopted Precise Plan recognizes other voluntary avenues through shared agreements where the City can support local schools . These voluntary avenues are outlined in Section 3.4.5 of the Precise Plan and include the following:

1. City and School District Collaboration. The City will continue to assist local school districts to address local school needs to serve the North Bayshore area.

2. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The City has previously authorize d a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that allows the sale of development rights from a school site to property owners/developers for use at another property in the City. The TDR program seeks to allow new school sites in the City to transfer un used development rights to parcels within certain areas, and to allow the receiving sites to use TDR to apply for development projects that would otherwise exceed the maximum FAR. Repeating this process may provide additional resources by which a school district can acquire land.

3. Shared Facilities. The City may continue to provide Park Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee funding support for acquisition of school land and other partnerships with local school districts on sharing of open space at school sites.

4. Funding for Schools. The Shoreline Community shall work with the Mountain View Whisman School District and the Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District to allocate revenue related to the growth in assessed value due to new residential development within the Community pursuant to/in accordance with the annual tax allocation for each school district, through mutually agreed to and legally binding agreements.

The City continues to collaborate with the school districts on many voluntary projects including:

• Exploration of a potential 4-acre site in the North Bayshore area for MVWSD • The Educational Enhancement Reserve Joint Powers Agreement (EERJPA) which has been in place for 15 years and provides the MVWSD and MVLA with an annual payment from the Shoreline Community
• Enabling the construction of a 144-unit affordable teacher housing project at 777 Middlefield Road for the MVWSD
• Joint Use Agreement for City and District joint use of open space • School Resource Officer Program
• Safe Routes to School Program
• School Crossing Guards

North Bayshore Master Plan 10 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
• Beyond the Bell and the Beat After School Program
• Exploration of potential sites for a high school for the MVLA

Indirect Impacts on Schools

Comments were received claiming the Draft SEIR did not analyze the indirect impacts of 18 significant, unavoidable transportation and traffic impacts on transporting students to schools. The Draft SEIR does not identify any new significant, unavoidable transportation impacts resulting from the project. It is assumed the 18 significant and unavoidable transportation impacts mentioned in the comment letters were the Level of Service impacts (LOS) previously identified in the 2017 EIR . A Statement of Overriding Considerations for these LOS impacts was adop ted by the City Council in 2017. After the certification of the 2017 EIR, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was passed which formally changed the criteria for determining a significant CEQA transportation impact from LOS to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Thus, the previous 18 significant and unavoidable LOS impacts identified in the 2017 EIR are no longer environmental impacts under CEQA. As explained above, the transportation impacts related to school trips was accounted for in the transportation analysis for the project.

Comments were also received about the indirect impact of school districts needing to provide interim housing during buildout of the proposed project. It is assumed that the “interim housing” referred to in the comments refers to classroom space for ne w students as opposed to temporary housing, since students would not be physically coming to the school facilities until their housing units are constructed and they live in the Master Plan area. Interim classroom space would be considered a direct impact on school facilities, not an indirect impact. As discussed above , the project would pay state-mandated school impact fees which constitute full mitigation under state law . If and when new or expanded school facilities are proposed, the proposal would be su bject to separate environmental review. In addition, the 2017 EIR, which the Draft SEIR tiers from, states “It is assumed that the addition of portable classrooms/buildings would occur on existing school sites and that environmental impacts associated with the construction, while requiring separate environmental review, could be mitigated to a less than significant level”.3 This clarification has been added to the Draft SEIR (refer to Section 5.0 Draft EIR Text Revisions). Indirect impacts on school facilities, such as construction air quality, hazardous materials, noise, and transportation, are discussed throughout the Draft SEIR.

Shoreline Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment

Several comment letters suggest a tax funding agreement between the City and MVWSD/MVLASD in relation to development within the Precise Plan area. Such financial and funding agreements are explicitly outside of the CEQA analysis and process. Thus, no further response is required.

3 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 398.

North Bayshore Master Plan 11 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES
A. Department of Toxic Substances Control (dated January 31, 2023)

Comment A.1: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following:
groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, presence of site buil dings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

Response A.1: The comments pertaining to the topics mentioned in the above comment are responded to below.

Comment A.2: DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR: 1. The EIR references the listing compiled in accordance with California Government Code Section 65962.5, commonly known as the Cortese List. Not all sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous substances will be found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends that the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR address actions to be taken for any sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous substances within the Project area, not just those found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends consulting with other agencies that may provide oversight to haz ardous waste facilities or sites impacted with hazardous substances in order to determine a comprehensive listing of all sites impacted by hazardous waste or substances within the Project area. DTSC hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues can be found on DTSC’s EnviroStor data management system. The EnviroStor Map feature can be used to locate hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues for a county, city, or a specific address. A search within EnviroStor indicates that numerous hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues are present within the Project’s region.

Response A.2: The Draft SEIR tiers from the certified 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan Final E IR (2017 EIR) , which included a discussion of existing hazardous materials sites with the Precise Plan area. Section 4.6.1.2 of the Draft SEIR (pages 240- 246) summarizes the site history and hazardous materials contaminations documented in the project area based on hazards and hazardous materials reports completed for the project site. The hazards and hazardous materials reports are included in Appendix I of the Draft SEIR and include multiple Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) prepared in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard practices . A search of databases that comprise the Cortese List (including DTSC’s EnviroStor and the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker) and other federal, state, tribal, and county regulatory databases was completed as part of the on -site investigations and reports . The other federal, state, tribal, and county regulatory databases searched included the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), RCRAInfo, Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Reports, Aboveground Storage Tanks, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Lands, Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Lands, Santa Clara County – CUPA Facilities List, and Santa

North Bayshore Master Plan 12 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Clara County – Local Oversight Program Listing databases. Refer to Appendix I of the Draft SEIR for the names of all databases searched and the results.

The Draft SEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, where it was distributed to state agencies including the DTSC, California Water Resources Control Board, and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. The City also provided the Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIR to the agencies listed in Section 3.0 Draft EIR Recipients, and the Santa Clara County Clerk. The City did not receive comments from other hazardous materials regulatory agencies besides DTSC.

Comment A.3: 2. A State of California environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a local agency that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 101480 should provide regulatory concurrence that the Project site is safe for construction and the proposed use.

Response A.3: Standard condition of approval COA HAZ -1.1, s pecifically the requirement for the toxic assessment on page 252-253 of the Draft SEIR, requires the project applicant work with an oversight agency, which could be the DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board (as suggested by the above comment) , to address site remediation or building design/construction requirements when specific development projects under the Master Plan are proposed. The standard condition requires the design of remediation equipment, equipment placement, or remediation activities be reviewed by the oversight agency and City. In addition, the standard condition requires written proof from the regulatory agency be submitted to the City that the remediation and/or design is adequate. Alternatively, if it is determined no remediation is required on a particular parcel, documentation that no regulatory oversight is needed is required to be submitted to the City.

Comment A.4: 3. The EIR should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the Project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the Project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies s hould be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The EIR should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

Response A.4: The existing sources of contamination are described in Section 4.6.1.2 Existing Conditions on pages 240-247 of the Draft SEIR. The potential for the project to result in a release of hazardous wastes/substances due to historic or future activities is discussed in Section 4.6.2.1 Project Impacts on pages 248-266 of the Draft SEIR.

The implementation of s tandard condition of approval COA HAZ-1.1 and mitigation measures 2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.1, and 2017 EIR MM HAZ -3.3 through 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.15 of the Draft SEIR (pages 252-258) would ensure the health and safety of future occupants and the environment. These measures require the project to obtain oversight by the appropriate regulatory agency , and conduct any additional studies

North Bayshore Master Plan 13 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
required by the oversight agency in order to further delineate and implement site remediation or building design/construction requirements.

Comment A.5: 4. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance. This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL -contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underne ath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil, DTSC recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the Project described in the EIR.

Response A.5: Text has been added to page 241 of the Draft EIR to clarify that on-site soils closest to US 101 may be contaminated with Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL) (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions) . Mitigation measure 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.8 on page 257 of the Draft SEIR requires soil sampling and analytical testing on sites adjacent to US 101 for aerially deposited lead, and appropriate management of it under regulatory oversight, if found above screening levels.

Comment A.6: 5. If buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead -based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Gu idance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers.

Response A.6: Standard conditions of approval COA HAZ-1.2 and COA HAZ-1.3 of the Draft SEIR (pages 260-261) require the project to conduct pre-demolition surveys for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), asbestos containing materials (ACMs), and lead - based paint. If PCB, ACMs, or lead -based paint are found, the project would remove these materials in accordance with applicable regulations. No school is proposed as part of this project, therefore, sampling in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers is not applicable.

Comment A.7: 6. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed Project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

Response A.7: The project does not propose to import soils; therefore, the above reference to the 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material is not applicable.

North Bayshore Master Plan 14 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Comment A.8: 7. If any sites included as part of the proposed Project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the EIR. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).

Response A.8: As discussed in Section 4.6.1.2 of the Draft SEIR (pages 240-244), the project site was previously used as agricultural land and on -site soil could be contaminated with agricultural chemicals. Table 4.6-1 of the Draft SEIR (pages 242 - 244) identifies known or suspected contaminants of each site parcel and shows 40 of the 42 parcels either have residual pesticides exceeding environmental screening levels present in soil or have a history of on-site agricultural uses. Sampling of soils required by standard condition of approval COA HAZ -1.1 and mitigation measures 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.1, 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.3, 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.5, and 2017 EIR MM HAZ-3.9 would be completed in accordance with applicable standards and practices , such as DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision) and any other applicable DTSC guidance documents.

North Bayshore Master Plan 15 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES
B. City of Palo Alto (dated February 17, 2023)

Comment B.1: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Draft EIR for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project. Below are the City of Palo Alto’s comments regarding the CEQA document, the Master Plan Project, TDM measures, and the upcoming Multimodal Transportation Analysis (MTA).

Please feel free to contact me, if you have any questions regarding the comments. We look forward to reviewing the MTA when it is published.

1. The transportation analysis has included the TDM measures to achieve the trip cap targets and to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes. The addition of new jobs and residences will generate additional traffic on Palo Alto streets. The current MVGO shuttle provides service between North Bayshore and Caltrain station via San Antonio Rd. However, there is no shuttle stop on San Antonio Rd in Palo Alto. The future development in North Bayshore and San Antonio Rd would generate the demand for the shuttle service. Project’s TDM program should have a provision for the shuttle stop on San Antonio Rd to reduce the local traffic impacts in Palo Alto.

Response B.1: The project would implement a large portion of the City’s adopted North Bayshore Precise Plan. For this reason, the Draft SEIR tier s from the certified 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan EIR. The project’s impact on transit facilities is discussed under Impact TRN-1 on pages 143-144 of the Draft SEIR and concluded that the project would not disrupt existing transit services or facilitie s, interfere with the implementation of planned transit facilities, or conflict with adopted transit policies.

The analysis in the Draft SEIR concluded that the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to transit facilities than disclosed in the 2017 EIR.

No impact was identified, therefore, no mitigation (such as the above suggested shuttle stop on San Antonio Road) can be required under CEQA. In addition, SB 743, which was passed by the State Legislature, formally changed the c riteria for determining a significant CEQA transportation impact from LOS to VMT. Thus, the project’s potential contribution to traffic congestion on City of Palo Alto streets are no longer considered environmental impacts under CEQA.

Comment B.2: 2. The new residential development is likely to generate outbound vehicle trips. The TDM measures should also identify the neighboring major employment areas to provide local shuttle service.

Response B.2: As outlined in the Draft SEIR, the Master Plan project would implement a large portion of the adopted North Bayshore Precise Plan, which requires an aggressive trip reduction and transportation demand management. In addition, the Master Plan project itself proposes a 35 percent single -occupancy vehicle target and ambitious trip reduction measures in order to comply with the City’s adopted NBPP requirements. This comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

North Bayshore Master Plan 16 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Comment B.3: 3. The project shall be generating new peak hours trips and daily trips which shall have a local traffic impact on bike routes in Palo Alto. The MTA (Multimodal Transportation Analysis) should also discuss the required pedestrian and bicycle improvements at impacted intersections to provide safer intersection crossings.

Response B.3: As discussed under Impact TRN-1 on pages 142-143 of the Draft SEIR, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to bicycle (or pedestrian) facilities was identified. As a result, no mitigation is required under CEQA. The MTA includes analysis and discussion of pedestrian and bicycle improvements at study intersections. This document is on-file at the City and available for review at the City’s website at
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/google/google northbayshore.asp.

Comment B.4: 4. All Palo Alto intersections selected in the North Bayshore Precise Plan traffic study should also be evaluated as part of the North Bayshore Master Plan MTA.

5. The MTA report should include recommendations for required off-site improvements in Palo Alto if a significant impact is identified on the Palo Alto streets or intersections.

6. The MTA report should be shared with the City of Palo Alto to review the project-generated traffic impacts.

Response B.4: As discussed under Impact TRN-1 on pages 139-144 of the Draft SEIR, no new or substantially more severe significant impacts to roadways would occur as a result of the project than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. Therefore, no mitigation is required under CEQA.

congestion and delay are no longer environmental impacts under CEQA. Therefore, separate from CEQA, the City evaluated the project’s operational effects on the roadway system in an MTA. The MTA report was shared with the City of Palo Alto on 3/31/2023 and is available for review on the City’s website at https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/google/google northbayshore.asp.

This comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment B.5: 7. The City of Palo Alto identified proposed Housing Opportunity Sites in our draft Housing Element in the vicinity of the North Bayshore Master Plan area, including near West Bayshore Road, San Antonio Road, and Fa bian Way. More information on proposed Housing Element Opportunity Sites can be found online: https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp - content/uploads/2022/12/Palo-Alto-Housing-Element-2023-2031.pdf.

8. The forthcoming new housing location - Homekey Palo Alto at 1237 San Antonio Road - is near to the North Bayshore Master Plan area. Please consider the Homekey Palo Alto site relative to potential

North Bayshore Master Plan 17 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
temporary construction air quality, noise, and vibration. For example, use of temporary construction noise barriers, sound curtains, and other noise reduction strategies may be necessary during proposed garage construction near San Antonio Road.

Response B.5: 1237 San Antonio Road is adjacent to the MW1 subarea (Subarea MW1 has been renamed to MW-BP-1, see Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions) of the proposed project. As discussed in Sections 3.1 Air Quality and Section 4.10 Noise of the Draft SEIR, the project would implement mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval to reduce impacts to related to construction air quality and noise.

Specific to noise, the project would comply with standard condition of approval COA NOI-1.1, which requires the use of temporary sound barriers and other noise reduction strategies.

Comment B.6: 9. If or when development occurs in North Bayshore Master Plan area, there is a standing request from our Fire Department to coordinate on local intersection flow in the San Antonio area to facilitate multi-jurisdiction emergency response access.

10. If or when development occurs in the North Bayshore Master Plan area, there is a standing request from our Emergency Operations team for coordination of public safety operations (including our ongoing shared Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system).

Response B.6: The City will coordinate with the City of Palo Alto Fi re Department and Emergency Operations team during implementation of the project to facilitate multi-jurisdictional emergency response access, as requested in the above comment.

This comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

C. Mountain View Los Altos High School District (dated February 6, 2023)

Comment C.1: This document serves as the Mountain View Los Altos High School District (MVLA) response to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan. We have reviewed the report and provide the following information in regard to the adequacy of the findings as related to direct and indirect impacts on the Mountain View Los Altos High School District. We understand that the passage of SB50 limits the levying of developer fees for direct impacts on school districts. However, nothing precludes the City, Developer and School District from working collaboratively to develop a mitigation strategy to address the direct and indirect city growth impacts on the school district.

Student Growth
The City of Mountain View's Draft Subseque nt EIR indicates the impact of 700 high school students would be adequately mitigated by developer fees. This is not accurate. In reality, developer fees are woefully inadequate, covering less than ten percent of actual school construction and land costs in the city of Mountain View.

Response C.1: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the School Impact Fees section of the response.

North Bayshore Master Plan 18 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Comment C.2: Moreover, the updated Draft Subsequent EIR states: “As of the end of the 2021 to 2022 school year, Mountain View High School is over capacity by 770 students. The school currently utilizes portable classrooms in addition to permanent education facilities t o accommodate the additional students. The construction of permanent classroom facilities is underway through Measure E bond program funding and has undergone a separate environmental review. After completion of construction, Mountain View High School woul d have a capacity of 2,379 students. Despite this increase in capacity, there would not be sufficient capacity to accommodate the estimated 700 high school students anticipated from the project. Based on current enrollment, Mountain View High School would be 637 students over capacity

The Draft Subsequent EIR acknowledges that there would not be sufficient capacity for the additional high school students that would result from this project. Therefore, an additional high school campus is necessary to accommodate the estimated 700 high school students.

Response C.2: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the School Impact Fees section of the response.

Comment C.3: Indeed, the Draft Subsequent EIR does not take into account projects that were already approved in the northern half of the city, some of which are outside of the North Bayshore precise plan area. These projected students will precede the impact of students generated by the North Bayshore Master Plan and further exacerbate Mountain View Los Altos Hig h School District's lack of capacity to accommodate them.

Response C.3: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the Project Impact section of the response.

Comment C.4: Cost to House Students Generated From the North Bayshore Master Plan

Construction costs in the Bay Area have escalated dramatically in the last ten years. The State per pupil grant does not reflect this escalation, and therefore, the gap between what the State allows and provides for school construction is significantly less than the actual cost of school construction.

Land-City May Reserve or Designate Real Property for a School Site

In addition to the dramatic escalation in construction costs in the Bay Area, land costs have increased as well. The State of California will provide fifty pe rcent of the cost of land for eligible school construction. However, the remaining fifty percent of the land cost is the responsibility of the local school district. These substantial increases in land costs make it difficult to build schools in accordance with the Department of Education school site guidelines. The land cost escalation issues were anticipated when S850 was drafted and Government Code section 65998 allows cities to "reserve or designate" real property for a school site.

North Bayshore Master Plan 19 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

Response C.4: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts. This comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment C.5: California Department of Education’s general guidance for a school site recommends approximately 33.5 acres of land for a high school that would serve approximately 1,100 students, which is the number of high school students MVLA estimates will come from this and other approved housing projects in the city of Mountain View. As a condition of approval of the North Bayshore Master Plan, and prior to the certification of the Draft Subsequent EIR, we request that the City and Developer designate and reserve a school site for MVLA. The availability of land for school construction in Mountain View is extremely limited. The District is amenable to creative efforts to utilize all real property options and is willing to discuss these options with the Developer.

Response C.5: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the School Impact Fees section in the response.

Comment C.6: Indirect Impacts

Chawanakee Unified School District V. County of Madera

In this appellate court case, the court concluded that the phrase in SB50 “impacts on school facilities” does not cover all possible environmental impacts. While the North Bayshore Master plan does consider noise, emissions, traffic, and other indirect impacts, it does not specifically identify those indirect impacts in the operation of a school district. For example, the eighteen “significant unavoidable impacts” created by transportation and traffic may have an indirect impact on transporting students to school if the school is not in the proximity of the North Bayshore Master Plan project.

In addition, the buildout of 9,850 units is in a plan that covers a period through 2030. The approximate 10-year buildout of the project would mean an absorption rate of 980 units per year. This construction period would require the MVLA District to provide interim hous ing over a period of time and is considered an “indirect impact.” This issue is not addressed in the Draft Subsequent EIR.

North Bayshore Master Plan 20 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Response C.6: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the Indirect Impacts on Schools section of the response.

Comment C.7: Shoreline Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment

As noted in the draft EIR:

The Shoreline Community shall work with the Mountain View Whisman School District and the Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District to allocate revenue related to the growth in assessed value due to new residential development within the Community pursuant to/in accordance with the annual tax a/location for each school district, through mutually agreed to and legally binding agreements.

The North Bayshore Master Plan indicates the desire to transform a once blighted area into a thriving mixed development area. The businesses and residences that are being planned are currently planned in a de facto redevelopment district. The Shoreline Community, which is managed by the city of Mountain View staff and City Council, currently diverts tax revenue from the schools to the City.

MVLA, MVWSD, and the city of Mountain View have formed a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), also known as Shoreline Educational Enhancement Reserve (EER), that began releasing part of the tax increment to schools. The agreement guarantees a minimum of approximately $1.84 million annually to MVLA. That agreement not only ends on July 1, 2023, but also ceases to provide any share of the tax increment thereafter.

Through a formula that was developed by the JPA, MVLA received $3,423,095 this year. Per the county assessor ’s office, MVLA ’s normal tax increment would have been $8,920,000 this year, a deficit of $5,496,905. Assessed Value Tax revenue from commercial and residential properties is what community funded districts use to address day-to-day operating costs and is not intended for building schools. As indicated in the Draft Subsequent EIR, North Bayshore should generate 700 high school students. At the MVL A current per student expenditure rate of $30,000, this would mean that tax revenue would, at minimum, need to equal $21,000,000 in the near future.

Response C.7: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the Shoreline Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment section of the response.

Comment C.8: Closing Comments

Our comments regarding the Draft Subsequent EIR should not be construed to indicate our opposition to the North Bayshore Master Plan. It is critical that all interested parties understand that the new dwelling units are of such magnitude that school mitigation measures for the project exceed the District's ability to absorb the 700 students estimated from this project. We look forward to the cooperation of the City and proponents of the project to m eet with MVLA and resolve the apparent challenges in this proposed project. We suggest that the District, City, and proponents of the project delay the approval of the North Bayshore Master Plan and the Draft Subsequent EIR and meet soon to provide creative, viable measures that meet the needs of MVLA and all stakeholders.

North Bayshore Master Plan 21 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Response C.8: The City understands MVLA’s position and appreciates this comment.

This comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

D. Mountain View Whisman School District (dated February 3, 2023)

Comment D.1: This document serves as the Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) response to the Amended North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP), Draft Environmental Impact Report.

We have reviewed the report and provide the following informa tion in regard to the adequacy of the findings as related to direct and indirect impacts on the Mountain View Whisman School District. We understand that the passage of SB50 limits the levying of develop er fees for direct impacts on school districts. However, nothing precludes the City, Developer and School District from working collaboratively to develop a mitigation strategy to address the direct and indirect city growth impacts on the school district.

Response D.1: This is an introductory paragraph and the letter’s specific comments are responded to below.

Comment D.2: Student Growth: The City of Mountain View’s Draft EIR indicates the impact of 1,471 elementary and middle school students would be adequately mi tigated by developer fees. Moreover, the updated Draft EIR indicates:

As discussed in Section 4.12.1.2, both Monta Loma Elementary School and Crittenden Middle School have existing capacity base d on current enrollment numbers and would be able to accommodate the project’s estimated 1,471 elementary and middle school students. Therefore, the addition of new students as the project is gradually built-out would not require the expansion of those schools.

Furthermore, the Draft EIR asserts:

The project site is located within the Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) and Mountain View -Los Altos Union High School District (MVLASD). The MVWSD serves grades kindergarten through eighth grade and the MVLAS services high -school age students. Students generated by the project would attend Monta Loma Elementary School located at 460 Thompson Avenue (approximately one mile southwest of the core project site), Crittenden Middle School located at 1701 Rock Street (approximately 0.2-mile southwest of the core project site), and Mountain View High School located at 3535 Truman Avenue (approximately four miles south of the core project site).

Table 4.12 1 shows the existing school capacities at Monta Loma Elementary School, Crittenden Middle School, and Mountain View High School. As shown in the table, Monta Loma Elementary School and Crittenden Middle School both have capacity for additional students.

North Bayshore Master Plan 22 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

Unfortunately, as highlighted below, the City of Mountain View EIR report does not take into account projects that were already approved in the northern half of the city, some of which are outside of the North Bayshore precise plan area. These projected students will precede the impact of students generated by the North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP). While both Monta Loma Elementary School and Crittenden Middle School are in the proximity of the NBPP, there will be no capacity available when the NBPP project is developed. Based on our student generation rates, which the City used in its own EIR report, Monta Loma will have 117 new students assigned to the school prior to the completion of these additional units.

North Bayshore Master Plan 23 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Based on MVWSD’s Future Growth Considera tions and Solutions presentation to the Board of Education on March 24, 2022, monitoring the pace of future residential development was identified as a key task to support other District planning actions. The table below was included as a 10 -year projection of future residential development in the District service area.

Note: 1,682 units listed as “Under Construction” on table should be revised to 1,050 units due to 632 units in 2580/2590 California Ave. project being outside MVWSD service area.

Response D.2: Please r efer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the Project Impacts section of the response.

Comment D.3: COST TO HOUSE STUDENTS GENERATED FROM NBPP

Construction costs in the Bay Area have escalated dramatically in the last 8 years. The State per pupil grant does not reflect this escalation and therefore the gap between what the State allows and provides for school construction is significantly less than the actual cost of school construction.

LAND
In addition to dramatic escalation in construction costs in t he Bay Area, land costs have increased as well. The State of California will provide 50% of the cost of land for eligible school construction.

However, the remaining 50% of the land cost is the responsibility of the local school district. These substantial increases in land costs make it difficult to build schools in accordance with the Department of Education school site guidelines. The land cost escalation issues were anticipated when SB50 was drafted and Government Code section 65998 allows the cities to “reserve or designate” real property for a school site.

North Bayshore Master Plan 24 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

Response D.3: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts. This comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment D.4: Moreover, the Draft EIR inaccurately indicates the distance from North Bayshore to Monta Loma Elementary. As noted in the plan: “Students generated by the project would attend Monta Loma Elementary School located at 460 Thompson Avenue (approximately one mile southwest of the core project site), Crittenden Middle School located at 1701 Rock Street (approximately 0.2 -mile southwest of the core project site),”

Response D.4: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts, specifically the Existing Conditions section of the response.

Comment D.5: In the following diagrams you will find that almost every elementary school student within the city of Mountain View is approximately 1 to 1.5 miles from school. The placement of these schools helps to facilitate the school as a civic meeting point for the community and reduces commutes.

In contrast, while Monta Loma and Crittenden reside close to the outer perimeters off the development area, Monta Loma is more than two miles away from the central residential hub of these developments, thus negating its ability to serve as a community anchor. Because MVWSD cannot provide bussing to an additional 1400 students due to significant cost, not having a school within a 1.5 mile radius would effectively invalidate the traffic study included as part of this EIR.

Refer to the comment letter included in Appendix A for the above referenced diagrams.

Response D.5: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts, specifically the Project Impacts section of the response.

Comment D.6: California Department of Education’s general guidance for a school site recommends approximately 10 acres of land for an elementary school and 25 acres for a middle school. It is worth noting that MVWSD does have a school (Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary) t hat resides on less than

North Bayshore Master Plan 25 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
the minimum recommended land. Vargas Elementary is an extremely tight footprint, which creates logistical issues as it pertains to growth and meeting student needs.

In contrast, the North Bayshore plan only intimates at the possibi lity of green space being used for a school. This referenced site in the DEIR, if provided to MVWSD, would have twice the enrollment of Vargas Elementary with less acreage; the site is 3 acres compared to Vargas Elementary which sits on

4.5 acres and is 7 acres less than the state’s minimum recommendation. While an urban school design can mitigate / maximize a small site footprint, this potential site would be inadequate to serve the needs of the community.

Ergo, as a condition of approval of the NBPP proj ect, and prior to the certification of the DEIR, we request that the City and Developer designate and reserve multiple elementary school sites for MVWSD. The availability of land for school construction in Mountain View is extremely limited. The District is amenable to creative efforts to utilize all real property options and is willing to discuss these options with the Developer.

Response D.6: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the School Impact Fees section of the response.

Comment D.7: INDIRECT IMPACTS

Chawanakee Unified School District V. County of Madera

In this appellate court case, the court concluded that the phrase in SB50 “impacts on school facilities” does not cover all possible environmental impacts. While the NBPP does consider noise, emissions, traffic, and other indirect impacts, it does not spec ifically identify those indirect impacts in the operation of a school district. For example, the eighteen “significant unavoidable impacts” created by transportation and traffic may have an indirect impact on transporting students to school if the school is not in the proximity of the NBPP project.

In addition, the buildout of 9,850 units is in a plan that covers a period through 2030. The approximate 10-year buildout of the NBPP project would mean an absorp tion rate of 980 units per year. This construction period would require the MVWSD to provide interim housing over a period of time and is considered an “indirect impact.” This issue is not addressed in the DEIR.

Response D.7: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the Indirect Impacts on Schools section of the response.

Comment D.8: Shoreline Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment

As noted in the EIR report:

Funding for Schools. The Shoreline Community shall work with the Mountain View Whisman School District and the Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District to allocate revenue related to the growth in assessed value due to new residential development within the Community pursuant to/in accordance with the annual tax allocation for each school district, through mutually agreed to and legally binding agreements.

North Bayshore Master Plan 26 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
The North Bayshore Precise plan indicates the desire to transform a once blighted area into a thriving mixed development area. The businesses and residences that are being planned are currently planned in a de facto redevelopment di strict. The Shoreline community, which is managed by the city of Mountain View staff and City Council currently diverts all tax revenue. Currently MVLA, MVWSD and the city of Mountain View have formed a Joint Powers Authority, also known as Share Shoreline, that began releasing part of the tax increment to schools. The current agreement, which not only ends but also ceases to provide any share of the tax increment on July 1st, 2023, currently guarantees approximately $2.8 million. Through a formula that was developed by the City, MVWSD received $5,346,723 dollars this year. Per the county assessor ’s office, MVWSD normal tax increment would have been $13,926,094.67 last year.

Assessed Value Tax revenue from commercial and residential is what community funded districts use to address day-to-day operating costs and is not really intended for building schools. As indicated in the EIR, North Bayshore should generate 1471 students. At the MVWSD current per student expenditure rate of $23,000 this would mean that t ax revenue would at minimum need to equal $33,833,000 in the near future. An increase of students in this fashion, without the tax increment to cover the cost per pupil expenditures, would reduce our per pupil expenditures from $23,000 to $16,611 dollars. This reduction means that each student in our District would experience a decrease of $6,389 in programs and services annually.

Response D.8: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the School Impact Fees and Shoreline Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment sections of the response.

Comment D.9: CLOSING COMMENTS - Our comments regarding the DEIR should not be construed to indicate our opposition to the amended NBPP. It is critical that all interested par ties understand that the new dwelling units are of such magnitude that school mitigation measures for the project exceed the District’s ability to absorb the 1,471 students projected from this project. We look forward to the cooperation of the City and proponents of the project to meet with MVWSD and resolve the apparent challenges in this proposed project. We suggest that the District, City, and proponents of the project delay the approval of the North Bayshore Master Plan and the DEIR and meet soon to provide creative viable measures that meet the needs of MVWSD and all stakeholders.

Response D.9: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts. This comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

E. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (dated February 6, 2023)

Comment E.1: VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Google North Bayshore Master Plan as well as its accompanying Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR). The first half of this letter contains VTA’s comments on the December 2022 version of the Master Plan, while the second half contains VTA's comments on the DSEIR for the CEQA review process. This letter builds on VTA comments on the March 2022 version of the Master Plan we provided in a letter dated May 5, 2022, as well as comments on City-led transportation projects in North Bayshore including the US10l/Shoreline off-ramp and the Shoreline transit lane transmitted by email on July 15, 2022.

North Bayshore Master Plan 27 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Comments on the North Bayshore Master Plan

VTA has the following comments on the Google North Bayshore Master Plan dated December 2022:

Project Location and Land Use / Transportation Integration VTA supports the proposed development intensification and the introduction of new smaller streets to improve circulation and reduce block sizes in the North Bayshore Master Plan. VTA recognizes that the Master Plan builds on the overall growth levels, general placement of land uses and circulation network in the updated North Bayshore Precise Plan approved in 2017. VTA notes that the North Bayshore area is not located on the core transit network and is not as well served by shops and services as other areas of the city. The geographic characteristics of North Bayshore pose challenges to the area’s ability to support transit, due to its location on the periphery of the City with few portals across the US 101 barrier. However, VTA is supportive of the City’s efforts to balance jobs and housing within the City including North Bayshore. The development of high density re sidential in this area which has been historically dominated by employment uses will help balance the mix of uses and create opportunities for employees to live closer to work. This could lead to a reduction in automobile trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) within North Bayshore, on a per-service-population basis.

VTA encourages the City to continue its efforts to make North Bayshore a place where daily trips can be accomplished without a car. These efforts should include supporting the Mountain View TMA and MVgo shuttle, supporting the Mountain View Community Shuttle, prioritizing transit on Shoreline Boulevard and Charleston Road, and including strong Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements and parking maximums with all new development in North Bayshore.

VTA Bus Service and Bus Stops in Master Plan Area
In December 2019, VTA implemented direct bus service on Local Route 40 between the Mountain View Transit Center and North Bayshore, via Shoreline Boulevard. This route, which also serves San Antonio Center, Downtown Los Altos and Foothill College, operates at 30 -minute headways on weekdays and 45 to 50-minute headways on weekends. We appreciate that the Master Plan recognizes VTA Route 40 as the trunk transit line through the area and does no t assume new or realigned routes on alternative streets in the area. VTA looks forward to the development of North Bayshore into a more transit-supportive, active, and pedestrian -oriented area, which will increase transit utilization and hopefully will warrant increased transit investment in the future. Additional investments that could be warranted by continued development include increased transit service levels (longer hours of service and/or more frequent service) as well as increased capital investment s into transit facilities (e.g., bus stop amenities such as shelters, benches, lighting, schedule information, and real -time bus arrival displays). Any potential future increase in service would need to be considered within the framework of VTA’s Board-adopted Transit Sustainability Policy/Service Design Guidelines.

VTA offers the following additional comments regarding VTA bus service and bus stops in the North Bayshore Master Plan area:
• VTA only envisions providing bus service along Shoreline Boulevard a nd Charleston Road now and in the future. Currently the street network of North Bayshore outside of Shoreline and Charleston is fragmented, with few streets taking direct paths and with very long blocks. Even though the North Bayshore Master Plan adds smal ler grid streets in some locations, the resulting network is still indirect, with many offset intersections and segments that would be

North Bayshore Master Plan 28 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
difficult for a transit bus to traverse. Furthermore, it appears that the roadway network in the southeast quadrant of No rth Bayshore (south of Space Park, east of Shoreline) will remain largely unchanged, also making it more difficult to serve areas east of Shoreline due to the lack of a direct north-south roadway connection.
• Plan 6.1.9 of the Master Plan shows a transit ro ute along Charleston Road east of Shoreline, and a transit stop on Charleston at Inigo Way Extension. Following discussions with City staff, we understand that it is their expectation that this location would only be served by Google buses and TMA/Community shuttles, and there is no expectation that VTA buses will travel east of Shoreline. VTA reiterates that it would not be operationally efficient for VTA to serve this location due to the discontinuous roadway network and the need for buses to make a U - turn, so we do not envision serving the stop on Charleston at Inigo Way Extension. • In addition to the challenges of serving the proposed stop near Charleston and Inigo Way Extension, it is also difficult to have buses directly serve the intersection of Shorel ine Boulevard and Charleston Road, because most buses turn at this intersection and placing bus stops is a challenge. As a result, the nearest bus stop on Charleston is 900 feet west of the intersection (at Charleston Park) and the nearest bus stop on Shor eline that VTA can serve in the northbound direction is 1100 feet south of the intersection (near Space Park Way). While the distance from the stop at Charleston Park to the Shoreline/Charleston intersection is partially mitigated by the attractive pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on Shoreline, VTA would like to emphasize the importance of providing transit stops near this intersection to serve the proposed new development. VTA would like to work with the City to maintain and prioritize the transit stops on Shoreline just south of Charleston, as this block is developed and the Shoreline transit lane is designed; this may include consideration of a queue jump lane or transit-only signal to facilitate bus movement in the northbound direction. We also encourage the City and Google to prioritize attractive pedestrian connections to transit stops near this intersection.
• In the mid -2010s during the update of North Bayshore Precise Plan, the City and Google considered the addition of a new bridge across the Stevens Creek to connect North Bayshore to the NASA Ames/Google Bayview area. If such a crossing was added by extendin g Charleston Road and was open to transit vehicles, it would become more feasible to operate VTA transit service to the proposed stop at Charleston and Inigo Way Extension. While there is no guarantee that VTA transit service would make this crossing, VTA encourages the City to re-open its planning process for a crossing of the Stevens Creek, to provide more options for transit service if warranted by future conditions.
• VTA is pleased to see that the Transit Network figure in the December 2022 version of th e Master Plan shows a transit stop at Shoreline Boulevard and Pear Avenue, which was not shown in the March 2022 version. VTA understands that all bus stops along Shoreline between US 101 and Charleston will eventually be part of the transit lane project d esign. At these locations, a stop next to the transit lane as well as a second street -side bus stop serving the general-purpose lanes will be necessary in each direction, for a total of four stops at each location.
• The Master Plan envisions a network of transit stops with amenities such as “benches, shelters, and information displays” (p. 55). VTA makes bus stop improvements per our Transit Passenger Environment Plan (TPEP), which outlines the framework by which we allocate limited public dollars to fund bu s stop investments, using factors such as ridership, equity, accessibility, and site conditions. We look forward to collaborating with interested stakeholders

North Bayshore Master Plan 29 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
to develop and improve bus stops in the area while following the framework set out in our TPEP. I n addition, we are happy to collaborate with third -party developers and provide specifications for transit facilities (shelters, benches, etc.) in cases where bus stop improvements are a condition of approval.

Other Transit-Related Considerations
• VTA suggests that Plan 6.1.9 of the Master Plan (Transit Network) be modified to show the locations of existing and planned bus-only lanes in the North Bayshore area. • The Master Plan, as well as the North Bayshore Precise Plan, generally show how bus stops would fit into the street cross -sections along with protected bike lanes, sidewalks, and other street elements. However, close attention will still be needed to the design of bus stops along Shoreline and Charleston to promote safety and minimize conflicts between buses, other motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. VTA requests that the City share any plans for street redesigns and bus stop modifications early in the process as the Master Plan buildout occurs. • The placement of trees and landscaping should ta ke into account the height of the vehicles travelling underneath the canopy, proximity of the root system to travel ways, and the amount of abscission onto bus stops, transit lanes, roadways, sidewalks, and bicycle paths, and the maintenance needed to prevent buildup of vegetation debris that can lead to localized flooding. • Modifications to VTA bus stops may require a Construction Access Permit from VTA; more information is available at https://www.vta.org/business-center/construction-access-permits. • VTA encourages Google and the City to consider the transportation needs of school -age children in the new Master Plan residential development, as well as the impact of school location decisions. Without new K -12 schools, transportation of the area’s new school -age children between home and school will be a challenge. VTA provides school-oriented service when and where possible, but t his service can only do so much and is often less than ideal, given resource constraints.

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

For the “Key Corners” along Shoreline Boulevard shown in Plan 4.3.1, VTA notes that it will be critical for these locations to be designed for safe and comfortable crossings of Shoreline by pedestrians and bicyclists; otherwise, Shoreline will continue to pose a barrier to non -motorized travel and will deter

North Bayshore Master Plan 30 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
people from taking transit. VTA supports the statement in Section 6.1 of the Master Plan that “Intersections will be designed with attention to Vision Zero pedestrian safety goals and principles.” The intersection of Shoreline and La Avenida will be one of the most challenging locations for pedestrian and bicycle crossings, requiring special attention by the City and the applicant and design treatments to calm motor vehicle traffic to/from US101.

Other Bicycle and Pedestrian Considerations -
• VTA commends the applicant for continuing to build out the Green Loop concept; at 1.7 miles, this will be a great amenity for the neighborhood (p. 54). • The Master Plan states that “Bike share services will be integrated into transit stations to support last -leg connections” (p. 54). VTA recommends expanding this to include scooter share, as data on micromobility programs already in place suggests that scooters have better use rates than bikes. VTA also notes that we have not been able to accommodate bike share or scooter share vehicles on light rail station platforms due to limited space, ADA requirements, and system safety concerns. When new transit stops in and around the Master Plan area are designed to integrate bike/scooter share nearby, VTA requests that the applicant and the City consult with VTA regarding the design. Bike and scooter share vehicles should be given their own space for parking, and geofencing should be used to prevent parking within a transit stop. • Loading & servicing netw ork – In addition to accommodating motor vehicle loading, VTA recommends that the servicing plan accommodate bicycle utility vehicles (p. 55). • VTA strongly supports the proposed connections to the Stevens Creek Trail (p. 57). • Complete Streets discussion (p. 56) and Block Circulation figure (p. 68) – The new streets and mid-block breaks will improve connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, the Master Plan does not show pedestrian crossings across major existing or proposed roads.

VTA’s Community Design & Transportation (CDT) Manual recommends midblock crossings for blocks larger than 200 feet. VTA recommends adding mid -block crossings along Huff Avenue, Joaquin Road, Inigo Way, Monarch Street (west of Shoreline), Plymouth Street/Space Park Way, a nd Shoreline Boulevard (as feasible given the planned transit lane). This is particularly important where mid-block breaks in the Master Plan continue across these roads. • Roundabout at Charleston Road / Inigo Way Extension (Figure 6.1.6, p. 81) – It is unclear from this conceptual plan how pedestrians would navigate through the intersection. Please modify to show pedestrian access, crosswalks, yield lines, and curb ramps. There is also no narrative discussing the role of this roundabout and what types of vehicles it is intended to accommodate; suggest adding a brief narrative in the Master Plan.

Response E.1: This comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR. The City will respond and coordinate with VTA on the specific requests and details of this comment outside of the CEQA process as part of their staff report.

Comment E.2: Comments on the North Bayshore Master Plan DSEIR

VTA has the following comments on the DSEIR, for the CEQA review process:

Project Effects on Transit
The DSEIR concludes that “Implementation of the proposed project (under either option) would not result in modifications to the transit network that would disrupt existing transit service” (DSEIR p.

North Bayshore Master Plan 31 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
143) and that “the project (under either option) would not conflict with a transit program, plan, ordinance or policy, and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant transit impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR” (DSEIR p. 144). Wh ile VTA generally agrees with this conclusion, we note that care must be taken during the Master Plan buildout and the implementation of related transportation projects to ensure that transit facilities are not disrupted.

As noted in Section 6.3 of the Ma ster Plan, the City’s North Bayshore Precise Plan identified several required Priority Transportation Projects to support the planned growth and development within the North Bayshore area, and the Master Plan assumes timely implementation of these projects . Two of these projects, the US101/Shoreline off -ramp realignment, and the Shoreline reversible transit lane project, may affect bus operations to and from VTA’s North Yard facility. Any loss or restriction of the use of this yard would strain VTA’s service as it is the main base for buses serving the El Camino Real corridor and other area routes. Close coordination with VTA will be required to ensure that access to North Yard is not impeded during construction of buildings or street improvements in the Mas ter Plan area. VTA requests that the City provide VTA staff an opportunity to review designs for any roadways with VTA service that will be modified by the buildout of the Master Plan and Priority Transportation Projects, including the Shoreline reversible transit lane. Any street/lane closures should be communicated with VTA and other transportation providers for route detours and implementation of temporary bus stops.

Response E.2: The project would be required to implement standard condition of approval COA TRN -3.1 on pages 145 -146 of the Draft SEIR , which requires the project to prepare a construction management plan as specific development projects under the Master Plan are proposed . As part of the construction management plan, a traffic control plan must be prepare d if construction requires temporary roadway closure, lane closure, shoulder closure, and/or bike land closure. The City will share these plans with VTA if any temporary closures would affect VTA operations.

Comment E.3: Air Quality Impacts – Role of Transportation Technology in Mitigation

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

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

North Bayshore Master Plan 32 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
The implementation of newer traffic signal controllers, including supporting communication infrastructure, could be used to provide transit signal priority, adaptive timin g for non -motorized modes of travel, and improved performance monitoring plus enhanced real-time response to incidents and congestion on the roadways within the Master Plan area. VTA encourages the City to work with the project applicant to make improvemen ts in the transportation technology infrastructure to benefit transit operations, pedestrians, and bicycles, and further reduce operational period air quality impacts.

Response E.3: As stated on page 65 of the Draft SEIR and noted in the comment above, the project’s significant and unavoidable operational NOx and PM10 air pollutant emissions are primarily due to project generated traffic. The transportation technology infrastructure mitigation measures suggested in the above comment could improve traffic flow within the project area; however, the operational NOx and PM10 air pollutant emissions are a result of the large number of vehicle trips generated by the project and the overall trip length or VMT when compared agai nst BAAQMD’s project-specific thresholds . Improvements in traffic flow would improve traffic operations and congestion, but would not materially reduce the number of project - generated vehicle trips or VMT , therefore, the suggested improvements would not reduce the project’s operational NOx and PM10 air pollutant emissions. For this reason, the above suggested improvements in the transportation technology infrastructure would not mitigate the project’s significant operational NO x and PM10 air pollutant emission impacts. The City will consider transportation technology infrastructure that improves transit operations on Charleston Road and Shoreline Boulevard as a condition of approval.

Comment E.4: Air Quality and Transportation Effects – TDM Mitigation

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

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

Response E.4: As discussed in Section 2.3.10 Transportation Demand Management of the Draft SEIR (page 37), the project would implement a TDM plan consistent with the commercial and residential TDM guidelines in Chapter 6 of the Precise Plan.

Chapter 8.3 Monitoring Programs of the Precise Plan outlines the monitoring requirements for site specific TDM plans and vehicle trip caps . The monitoring requirements for non-residential uses include surveys of worker and data collection by a third party, as suggested in the above comment. The monitor ing requirements for residential uses include the preparation of a residential vehicle trip performance standard report in which surveys of residents are required. The City could require collection of empirical data by third parties of the residential uses , if the site is found

North Bayshore Master Plan 33 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
in non -compliance with its TDM plan and residential vehicle trip performance standard. In addition, the City regularly monitors the district vehicle trip cap at the three major entry points into North Bayshore gateways ( San Antonio R oad, Rengstorff Avenue, and Shoreline Boulevard ) and prepares an annual North Bayshore district transportation performance monitoring report to assess gateway vehicle operations.

Comment E.5: Although VTA recognizes that the list of Master Plan TDM strategies in the DSEIR (Section 2.3.10, p. 37) is not exhaustive, we recommend that the City work with the applicant to add partnering with VTA on transportation solutions to the project’s TDM strategies. Partnerships between the applicant and VTA could include transit service funding partnerships, and the applicant providing free or deeply discounted transit passes to employees and residents of the new development.

Response E.5: The City and applicant will coordinate with VTA regarding partnership opportunities. This comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment E.6: Description of Existing Transit Facilities and VTA Bus Service

In the VTA Bus Service writeup within the Existing Transit Facilities section (DSEIR p. 135), VTA suggests making the following corrections:

• Changing “Orange Line” to ”the ACE Orange Shuttle ”; using ”Orange Line” in this section could confuse the ACE shuttle service with VTA's Orange light rail line • Changing the second sentence to read: “Route 40 also stops at the Mountain View Transit Center, approximately 1.5 miles south of from the project site, and the San Antonio Transit Center, approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the project site” • Changing the third sentence to note that the Mountain View Transit Centre is served by four VTA bus routes (21, 40, 51, and 52)
• Adding a fourth sentence to this section: “The San Antonio Transit Center also provides connections to several VTA bus routes (21, 22, 40, 522)”

Response E.6: The text of the Draft SEIR has been revised per the above comment, please refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions.

F. Valley Water (February 15, 2023)

Comment F.1: Thank you for your consideration of comments after the deadline. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan (Plan) and has the following comments:

1) Table 2.6 -1 Required Approvals (page 46): The section notes Valley Water review and approval “may be required if wells are required or if abandoned wells are proposed to be destroyed…” Please note Valley Water review and approval would be required in either case (via well permit), and any abandoned well discovered during construction must be properly destroyed.

North Bayshore Master Plan 34 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Response F.1: The text added to page 46 of the Draft SEIR has been added to clarify the above, refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions, and this will be listed by the City as a condition of approval for the Master Plan pr oject. This comment does not raise any issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft SIER; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment F.2: 2) Project with District Utilities System Option (DEIR page 262): Given the presence of contaminated shallow groundwater under portions of the project site and the huge number of deep geothermal bores needed for the potential geothermal system (6,500), Valley Water is concerned with the possibility of inter-aquifer transfer of contaminants. If this option is pursued, Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program should be consulted early in the process to ensure construction methods and materials will adequately protect groundwater quality.

Response F.2: Impacts to groundwater due to drilling of geothermal bores are discussed on page 262 of the Draft SEIR. The geothermal bores would be drilled using techniques and materials as approved under permit issued by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Text has been added to page 262 of the Draft SEIR to clarify that Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program would be consulted as well.

Comment F.3: 3) 4.7.2.1 Hydrology and Water Quality, Project Impacts (various, including pages 279, 280, 283): Several sections note that Valley Water pumps groundwater from the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin. As the Groundwater Sustainabili ty Agency, Valley Water manages local groundwater basins to ensure sustainable supplies for all beneficial uses. However, groundwater is pumped by well users, including water retailers, other municipal/industrial users, and private well owners. It is these users, collectively, that pumped about 75,000 AFY from the northern Santa Clara Basin, not Valley Water. Please correct all related references.

Response F.3: The text of the Draft SEIR has been revised per the above comment, please refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions.

Comment F.4: 4) Encroachment Permit: As noted in previous comments, Valley Water has no right of way within the project area. Any development located adjacent to a creek and not within a Va lley Water fee title property or easement (which is Valley Water’s jurisdiction), should comply with Valley Water’s Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (https://www.valleywater.org/contractors/doingbusinesses-with-the-district/permits-working-district- land-or-easement/guidelines-and-standards-landuse-near-streams). The Guidelines and Standards were adopted by the Water Resources Protection Collaborative (which includes the City of Mountain View) through resolutions in 2007.

Response F.4: The project does not propose development adjacent to a creek. This comment does not raise any issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

North Bayshore Master Plan 35 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

ORGANIZATIONS, BUSINESSES, AND INDIVIDUALS
G. Anish Morakhia (dated February 23, 2023)

Comment G.1: I am a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood. It recently came to my attention that the North Bayshore Master Plan doesn't include an elementary school for the new development and the plan is to enroll the kids from North Bayshore at Monta Loma Elementary.

Based on a reading of the North Bayshore Master Plan draft Environmental Impact Report (Dec 2022), I didn't understand how the report claims that around 1500 new elementary and middle schoolers will be accommodated in Monta Loma Elementary and Crittenden Middle School. Shown below is a snapshot from the draft EIR that shows that Monta Loma Elementary can accommodate additional 189 students and Crittenden Middle school can accommodate additional 476 students.

Is it correct to assume that 5/8th of the 1500 new students will be elementary school going age? That would be around 900 new elementary school students which grossly exceeds the current capacity.

The report mentions there is no need for expanding either of these schools and doesn't mention any other schools as alternatives.

Response G.1: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts, specifically the Project Impacts section of the response.

Comment G.2: I see on Google’s website for North Bayshore that they are allocating 4 acres to be potentially used as a school site as shown in the image below. But there doesn't seem to be any plans to build a new school.

North Bayshore Master Plan 36 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

Maybe I am missing something here. But the calculations for the schools in the report don't add up.

Could you please help clarify?

Response G.2: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts; no school is proposed as part of the project. A portion of the project site would be dedicated to the City for a future public use; however, the type of public use has not been determined at this time. Future environmental review of the public use would be required when proposed.

H. Laura Blakely (dated February 6, 2023)

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

Response H.1: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , including the Project Impacts section of the response.

North Bayshore Master Plan 37 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Comment H.2: And while the proposed 3 -4 acre site dedication will theoretically provide space for construction of one new elementary school, 1,471 elementary students cannot be jammed into a single 3 or 4 acre site.

Response H.2: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts, specifically the Proposed Project section of the response.

Comment H.3: Additional new school sites and funding will be needed to provide sufficient classroom space across MVWSD. Our high school district will have similar needs.

I understand that the state legislature long ago bowed to the will of the all-powerful Building Industry Association lobby and deemed that the statutory developer impact fees will mitigate all impacts, but reality tells us this is simply not the case. In today’s economy, declaring that revenues generated by charging $0.66 to $4.79 per square foot of development are the panacea can best be characterized as magical thinking. There will be tremendous negative impacts on our community and environment if means to fill the “school funding gap” (per the language of the City’s School Strategy Policy K -26) are not identified.

Response H.3: Please refer to Master Response 1: Sch ool Impacts, specifically the School Impact Fees section of the response.

Comment H.4: Finding the solution must be a collaborative effort. Please defer approval of the draft EIR until true mitigations can be identified and put forth with active participation from all stakeholders.

We must establish a way for our community to grow in a sustainable manner so that our children can be educated in schools that are not exploding with too many students.

Response H.4: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts. This comment does not raise any issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft SIER; therefore, no further response is required.

I. Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society (dated February 2, 2023)

Comment I.1: I am looking for the responses to comments received on the North Bayshore Precise Plan and the Final EIR. Comments on the North Bayshore Master Plan December 2022 SCH No.:
2022020712 are due Monday, and I would like to see the response to previous comments.

Response I.1: The Final EIR for the North Bayshore Precise Plan is available at https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/northbayshore _/default.asp.

J. Sierra Club (dated January 25, 2023)

Comment J.1: The staff and volunteers of the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter request a two -week extension to the comment period for response to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the North Bayshore Master Plan released in December 2022. This would move the comment deadline from February 6, 2023 to February 20, 2023. Many of our staff and volunteers have been adversely impacted by power and internet outages due to the historic storms inundating the Bay Area

North Bayshore Master Plan 38 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
in addition to dealing wi th flooding and wind damage. As you know, this has been a very difficult period for many residents of the Bay Area. In addition, the SDEIR comment period occurs over a holiday period where many people have family and community obligations.

Response J.1: The Draft SEIR was available for public review and comment for 45 days, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), from December 21, 2022 through February 6, 2023. The City will not be officially extending the public review period for the Draft SEIR , however, the City indicated to the commenter that the City would do its best to accommodate late comments received, as feasible . This comment does not raise any issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

K. Sierra Club, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and Green Foothills (dated February 6, 2023)

Comment K.1: The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Green Foothills are local environmental organizations with inherent interest in biodiversity, native plants and wildlife, ecosystems and natural resources in open spaces and in urban landscapes. We have engaged in planning and conservation efforts in North Bayshore and Shoreline Park for many years.

We continue to have a strong interest in the way the community develops and the impacts of the development on the natural environment and the species that share it with us . We have reviewed the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project (NBMPP, Project) and submit the following comments.

1) Project Description
In our Scoping Comments on the NOP, we asked for the Vision for North Bayshore (described on page 5 of the North Bayshore Precise Plan, NBPP) to be expressed fully to include “innovation and sustainability” as well as “the protection of habitat.” We ask again for all elements of the North Bayshore vision to be reflected in the Project Description section.

Response K.1: Section 2.5 Project Objectives of the Draft SEIR (pages 42 -44) includes the project’s stated objective to “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 ”. In addition, the City’s vision for the Precise Plan is included in this section and lists the elements mentioned in the comment above.

It should also be noted, as stated in Section 1.0 Introduction of the Draft SEIR, that the proposed Master Plan project is intended to implement a large portion of the Precise Plan. For this reason, the Draft SEIR tiers off the previously certified 2017 EIR and builds upon the analysis completed for the adopted Precise Plan.

Comment K.2: 2) Approval by Responsible Agencies
The project is immediately adjacent to areas that provide habitat for special -status species (including but not limited to San Francisco Common Yellowthroat at the Charleston Retention Basin and Burrowing owls and Congdon’s tarplant at Shoreline Park). The project also contains the largest heron/egret rookery in the south bay (at Shorebird Way). The California Department of F ish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a Trustee Agency responsible for protecting migratory and nesting birds under California Fish and Game Code and their mandate includes projects and activities that may cause

North Bayshore Master Plan 39 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts through disturbance. Is permitting by CDFW required for project elements in the vicinity of the Charleston Retention Basin, the rookery of Shorebird Way, and Amphitheater Parkway / Shoreline Park?

• Please add the California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to Table 2.6-1: Required Approval.

Response K.2: The Draft SEIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, where it was distributed to state agencies including California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Permits are only required from CDFW if the project would impact a species listed under the California Endangered Species Act or impact a lake, stream, or riparian habitat that is regulated under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code.

As discussed in Section 3.2.2.1 Project Impacts on pages 102 -107 of the Draft SEIR, the project would not impact a species listed under the California Endangered Species Act or impact a lake, stream, or riparian habitat that is regulated under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. The project’s impact to the bi ological resources identified in the above comment (including burrowing owls, San Francisco common yellowthroat, egret rookery, and migratory and nesting birds), as well as riparian habitats (including in and adjacent to the Charleston Retention Basin), ar e less than significant with the project’s compliance with the Habitat Overlay Zone ( HOZ) and Bird Safe Design standards established in the Chapter 5 of the Precise Plan and outlined on pages 93-96 of the Draft SEIR, mitigation measure MM BIO -1.1 (page 101 of the Draft SEIR), and standard condition of approval COA BIO-1.1 (page 104 of the Draft SEIR). In addition, the project will be required to comply with the City’s Burrowing Owl Protection Plan and a condition of approval has been added (see Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions and Response K.11: below) to require a habitat confirmation survey in order to receive a Planned Community Permit for development at the AM1 site (Subarea AM1 has been re named to SA-BP-1, see Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions). Therefore, no permits from CDFW are required.

Comment K.3: 2) Utilities
Several new 12 kilovolt (kV) distributio n lines are expected to extend from the PG&E’s Ames Substation North Bayshore Precise Plan to the NBMPP area (Section 2.3.5). Bird collision with power lines is a recognized threat to colonial nesting colonies and bird populations, and the risk is greater in the vicinity of water features (such as Stevens Creek) and for larger birds (such as herons and egrets).

• Can construction of new distribution lines that cross Stevens Creek be placed underground and under bridges?
• If undergrounding is found infeasible, please request that PG&E use markers to make the wires more visible to flying birds. A variety of line marking devices, including hanging markers, coils, and aviation marker balls, are commercially available. • The Project utility upgrades, including distri bution lines and supporting facilities, should not create electrocution hazards to raptors.

North Bayshore Master Plan 40 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Response K.3: As discussed in Section 2.3.5 Utilities of the Draft SEIR (pages 22-23), possible future modifications to PG&E’s Ames substation would undergo separate environmental review, per the CPUC’s General Order No. 131 -D (GO 131 -D), once the actual alignments and final designs are completed . The Draft EIR explains that:
“Pursuant to Article XII, Section 5, of the California Constitution, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has exclusive power and authority with respect to “all matters cognate and germane to the regulation of public utilities.” The Constitution, moreover, prohibits municipalities from regulating “matters over which the Legislature grants regulating power to the Commission.” (Cal. Const., art. XII, § 8.) PG&E’s electric facilities are designed, operated, and maintained in accordance with GO 131 - D, which explicitly provides: “Local jurisdictions acting pursuant to local authority are preempted from regulating electric power line projects, distribution lines, substations, or electric facilities constructed by public utilities subject to the CPUC’s jurisdiction.” (GO 131-D, § XIV.B.) Although local governments do not have the power to regulate activities related to public utilities’ electric facilities, the CPUC encourages, and PG&E participates in, cooperative discussions with affected local governments regarding locating such facilities and to address local concerns where feasible. The pos sible PG&E modifications to the Ames substation are not covered in this EIR and would undergo separate environmental review per GO 131 -D.” It is expected, however, that future PG&E lines would ultimately be undergrounded, as this is standard practice for new lines.

In general, t o avoid impacts to birds, PG&E implements the specifications and requirements set forth in its comprehensive Avian Protection Plan, which includes:
- Employee training to ensure compliance with all federal and state bird protection laws.
- Use of “Bird-safe” poles since 2002.
- Promotion of migratory bird and habitat conservation in cooperation with federal and state agencies.

Comment K.4: 4) Private District Utilities System Option; District Central Plant (DCP) The DCP is proposed East of 1201 Charleston and potentially could integrate into the building (2.3.5.2). The DCP includes chillers, heat pumps, distribution pumps, cooling towers and air blowers as well as independent backups.

• We are concerned with noise and lighting that t his infrastructure and its operations may introduce to the area between Stevens Creek and the heron/egret rookery. Light is especially concerning due to state requirements for industrial facilities. Please describe potential noise and lighting to be used at the DCP, and provide mitigation, including:
o Use of fixtures with Correlated Color Temperature no more than 2700 Kelvin o Use of manual switch for work that is performed at night so that all-night lighting can be minimized.
o Please consider Section 10, Artificial Light at Night, below.

Refer to Appendix A for a copy of this comment letter for the Artificial Light at Night attachment included.

North Bayshore Master Plan 41 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Response K.4: As described in the Draft SEIR, m ost mechanical equipment at the proposed district central plant (DCP) would be locat ed inside the DCP building, with only the cooling towers located on the roof or adjacent to the DCP building . The independent backup referenced in the above comment refers to backup connections to the municipal utilities system. These independent backup co nnections would be underground. In addition, the project would be required to implement standard condition of approval COA NOI -1.1 (Draft SEIR page 306) , which requires mechanical equipment to not exceed a noise level of 55 dBA during the day (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) or 50 dBA during the night (between 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) as measured at residential land uses.

Also, pursuant to the Specific Plan egret rookery HOZ standards, no modifications to the western façade and roof of the 1201 Charleston Road building may be modified that would reduce suitability of the rookery site for egrets (as stated on page 94 of the Draft EIR). A qualified biologist shall review any proposed build ing or site modifications and recommended strategies to the City to ensure there will be no adverse impacts to the egret rookery habitat. Therefore, when a planned community permit is submitted to the City for the DCP, it shall be reviewed by a qualified biologist to ensure it would not adversely impact the egret rookery.

Other HOZ standards (Building placement in the HOZ and Construction near the egret colony standards on page 94 of the Draft EIR) prohibit any new non -residential building within 200 feet of the rookery (with exceptions) and prohibit external construction involving heavy equipment or loud noise within 200 feet of the rookery during the nesting season. Compliance with these Precise Plan standards would prevent significant noise impacts to the egret rookery.

As discussed in Section 4.1.2.1 Project Impacts under Impact AES-4 of the Draft SEIR (page 195), lighting for the project, including the DCP, would comply with outdoor lighting standards and guidelines in Precise Plan Section 4.6 Outdoor Lighting and the standards and guidelines in Precise Plan Section 5.2 Bird Safe Design. In addition, the project will be required to comply with the Precise Plan egret rookery HOZ standard outlined on page 94 of the Draft SEIR for low intensity outdoor lighting within 200 feet of the rookery and utilize full cutoff fixtures to reduce the amount of light reaching the rookery. Compliance with these standards would reduce light pollution to a l ess than significant level. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures are required.

Comment K.5: The Water Reuse Facility is expected to meet disinfected tertiary recycled water standards as described under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The recycled water would be used for non-potable water demands on-site including toilet flushing, cooling, and irrigation. o Can recycled water uses include sustaining permanent and seasonal wetlands at the Charleston Retention Basin and the Eco Gem during dry spells?

Response K.5: Though the water from the DCP would be clean enough to use in the wetland areas, this is not proposed by the project and, therefore, was not evaluated in the Draft EIR.

North Bayshore Master Plan 42 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Comment K.6: 5) Green Building and Emissions Reduction Features (Section 2.3.7) The groundwater level at North Bayshore, especially in the Shorebird area, is high enough to sustain the wetlands of the Charleston Retention Basin and vegetation around the basin with no irrigation at all. In areas of high water level, native vegetation which is not drou ght tolerant should be permitted because it allows a more biodiverse ecosystem to thrive with minor, if any, irrigation needs after establishment. Planting drought tolerant vegetation to satisfy Green Building Standards in locations where implementation of the standards is not needed should not be required or encouraged.

• Are there areas within the NBMPP area where the groundwater level is high enough to support vegetation that is not drought tolerant, for example, the eco-gem area? • On page 29, under Energy Efficient Design, promises “Energy modeling in early design phases to optimize wall-to-wall ratios, thermal performance, and exterior shading.” Is the intention to model window-to-wall ratios?

Response K.6: This comment does not raise questions regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required. That said, the project is required to comply to the landscape design standards in the Precise Plan. A t the time planned community pe rmits are submitted, the applicant would submit p lanting palettes for specific areas based on the underlying site conditions, such as depth to summer groundwater and soil quality, as well as design objectives. Areas that have the underlying hydrology to support hydrophilic or wetland species would not be planted with upland species that are not suited to these conditions.

The “wall -to-wall” is a typo and is meant to say “window -to-wall”. This has been corrected in Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions.

Comment K.7: 6) Parking Structures
In our NOP scoping comments, we asked “Please include one alternative scenario with reduced parking… This alternative should also analyze the impact of mitigation strategies that increase the pedestrian, micro-mobility and bicycle capacity, including using Green Streets potentially within the entire North Bayshore Precise Plan area.”
The NBMPP does not offer a Reduced Parking Alternative. Instead, five parking structures are planned to accommodate ±7,274 cars (Table 2.3 -5). This adds to existing and planned parking under future buildings, parking structures currently under construction, and existing parking structures. While all new parking structures are of concern, we are especially concerned with the parking structure at Subarea AM1 (Amphitheater).

Response K.7: Section 8.0 Alternatives on page 345 of the Draft SEIR explains that an EIR should identify alternatives that feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen the project’s significant impact. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. A reduced parking alternative, as suggested in the above comment that eliminates the parking garage at Subarea AM1 is infeasible because there is no data to support the viability of t he proposed land uses with the elimination of 4,584 stalls (which is how many parking stalls would be provided in Subarea AM1 and represents approximately 36 percent of the total number of parking provided).

North Bayshore Master Plan 43 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
In addition, the proposed project provides parking consistent with the parking standards established by Chapter 6 of the Precise Plan, which establishes parking maximums based on land use. The proposed office uses would be parked at 2.0 stalls per 1,000 square feet (compared to the maximum allowed parki ng ratio of 2.7 stalls per 1,000 square feet) and the residential uses would be parked at approximately 6.5 stalls per dwelling unit at full buildout (consistent with the Precise Plan maximum allowable parking per unit) (see Section 2.3.9 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking of the Draft SEIR, page 33); thus, the project, as proposed, utilizes reduced parking in compliance with the Precise Plan goals . In addition, the Master Plan project itself proposes a 35 percent single-occupancy vehicle target and ambitious trip reduction measures in order to comply with the City’s adopted NBPP requirements. The project, therefore, is proposing less parking than allowed and expected of development in the Precise Plan.

For these reasons, a reduced parking alternative was not evaluated in the Draft SEIR.

The project’s consistency with roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit plans is discussed under Section 3.4.2.1 Project Impacts under Impact TRN-1 of the Draft SEIR (pages 139-144). The proposed project would be consistent with all local and regional plans, including the specific design guidelines outlined in the Precise Plan.

Comment K.8: The NBPP envisioned the vast parking spaces of North Bayshore becoming open space and the area becoming less car-centric. But with so many cars accommodated at North Bayshore, this vision may not be implemented as intently and purposely as we hoped.

• Please provide the footprint of 1) existing and 2) planned parking structures in North Bayshore, in acres.
• Please consider using feasible strategies like parking cash-out which Stanford, Lockheed, and Genentech used to avoid building additional parking lots and to reduce automobile use.

Stanford may be the best example because it operates under a traffic cap. Traffic caps work if enforced (for example, using pavement sensors that count vehicles throughput) and controlled (via pricing) and feedback systems, such as increasing pricing and fines for exceeding the cap). • Prior to building each parking structure, please study overall parking demand to evaluate how multi-modal behaviors evolve, and ensure that the added parking is indeed needed.

Response K.8: The locations and approximate footprint of the proposed parking garages for the North Bayshore Master Plan, which is the subject of the Draft SEIR (and not the entire Precise Plan), are shown on Figure 2.3-1 on page 13 of the Draft SEIR. Tables 2.3-1 and 2.3-5 on pages 16-20 of the Draft SEIR provide a summary of the number of parking spaces proposed in each parking garage and the approximate size of the garages in square feet.

As discussed in Section 2.3.10 Transportation Demand Management of the Draft SEIR (page 37), the project would implement TDM strategies consistent with Chapter 6 of the Precise Plan. These strategies include , but are not limited to parking cash-out and trip monitoring (see Response E.4: above).

North Bayshore Master Plan 44 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
As the project phases are built, both the applicant and City will evaluate the need for additional parking garages.

Comment K.9: At the Alta/Huff Parking Structure, Google created a dynamic structure that can accommodate change of use in the future - from parking cars to housing people. This flexibility of re- purpose should be the model for all parking structures:

• New parking structures should be built to allow future re-purposing such as housing. • New parking structures should be built so as to be able to respond immediately to crisis needs (shelter during major weather events, shelter post earthquake).

Response K.9: This suggestion is acknowledged. The use of proposed parking garages for housing is not proposed by the project and, therefore, not evaluated in the Draft SEIR. This comment does not raise any issues regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment K.10: 6.1 Amphitheater Parking Structure (AM1)
The Amphitheater Parking Structure (AM1) has not been studied in the North Bayshore Precise Plan.

It has been previously required to accommodate parking needs for the Charleston East project, but since that time the Alta/Huff Parking Structure has been built, and parking at the Google Landings project is under construction.

• Please consider removing the AM1 structure from the NBMPP or provide an alternative location(s) for parking in North Bayshore. As suggested above, putting a price on parking and a vehicle cap can go a long way towards reducing the need for parking. Such measures should be considered as an alternative to building this structure, especially at this scope and at this location.

Response K.10: The Draft SEIR on page 14 discloses that AM1 was not previously studied in the 2017 EIR. As such, the impacts of constructing a parking structure at this location are discussed throughout the Draft SEIR.

The purpose of the SEIR is to evaluate the project as proposed. The parking structure at Subarea AM1 is proposed as part of the Master Plan project and required to adequately park the project. The location of the parking structure at Subarea AM1 does not result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be managed, therefore, no location alternative for this parking garage was evaluated in the Draft SEIR. Refer to Response K.7: above regarding why a reduced parking alternative was not evaluated in the Draft SEIR. Also, refer to Response E.4: regarding project TDM measures, such as parking cash out and monitoring.

Comment K.11: Significant Impacts on Burrowing Owls
We are greatly concerned that the parking structure at AM1 will have a significant impact on Burrowing owls locally and regionally. A comment letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife (April 6, 2022) also highlights the potential of impacts to Burrowing owls.

North Bayshore Master Plan 45 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
The Burrowing owl population in the south Bay Area has suffered a significant decline and the breeding population is at a risk of extirpation. In the past four years, the county’s Burrowing owl population has been sustained by deliberate conservation actions implemented primarily by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency in an effort to accomplish the requirements of this adopted Valley Habitat Plan.

The City of Mountain View has been engaged in conservation and monitoring efforts at Shoreline Park for decades and has been implementing a Burrowing Owl Conservation Plan since 1998. This plan was updated in 2012 with the adoption of the Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan (BOPP). The BOPP incorporated historical mitigation areas, stipulated Population and Habitat Goals, and designated additional areas (preserves) where owl habitat (for foraging and for breeding) is to be maintained to support wintering and nesting owls. The historical mitigations (Figure 1, from BOPP page 80) involve legal commitments to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and must be retained in perpetuity. Vista slope includes mitigation areas, including a mitigation site on the south -west corner of AM1. Vista slope has consistently been used by wintering and by nesting Burrowing owls over the years.

The City of Mountain View is an active participant in the Conservation Actions that are funded in part by the Habitat Agency. Shoreline Park has been one of only two locations where intervention actions by the Habitat Agency, including overwintering of fledglings and supplemental feeding, have been successful (Figure 2). Impact s to the success of Burrowing owls of Shoreline Park can potentially hamper recovery efforts in the south Bay Area and conflict with the adopted Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan.

Refer to the comment letter included in Appendix A for the above referenced figures.

The BOPP (2012) provides:, “Under the California Endangered Species Act, the Burrowing owl is a State Species of Special Concern based on both localized and State -wide population declines as well as losses of suitable habitat (CDFG, 1995). Under California Fish and Game Code, Section 1802, the CDFG is the agency manager and trustee of fish and wildlife resources and their habitat.” The BOPP states, “this document also provides procedures for meeting wildlife laws and regulations without the City having to consult CDFG on every action taken at the Park that has the potential to harm Burrowing owls.” The Plan describes 10 Owl Management Actions, including “Action 9. Employ a full -time biologist with owl expertise.”

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

Response K.11: As discussed in Section 3.2.2.1 Project Impacts under Impac t BIO-1 of the Draft SEIR (page 103), the project (including development on AM1) would comply with the measures listed in Chapter 5.1 Habitat Overlay Zone, Standard 2 of

North Bayshore Master Plan 46 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
the Precise Plan regarding burrowing owls. This standard and associated measures are described on pages 93 -94 of the Draft SEIR. In addition, the project would comply with the specific protocol recommendations listed in the burrowing owl preservation plan (BOPP). This includes protocol F on page 54 of the BOPP, which requires the applicant to prepare a project evaluation for review by the City’s burrowing owl specialist. Text has been added to pages 97 and 103 of the Draft SEIR to clarify the project’s consistency with the BOPP (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions).

Additionally, all state, federal, and local requirements would be met by the project during construction and operation.

The Draft SEIR was prepared by the City in consultation with the City’s biologist, and the following condition of approval was added to the Draft SEIR:

COA BIO-1.1: Both Project Options: A habitat confirmation survey for burrowing owls must be conducted and submitted for review with any Planned Community Permit (PCP) requests for development of parking structure at AM1. 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, 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 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.

Comment K.12: To protect the Burrowing owls of Shoreline Park, the North Bayshore Precise Plan designated a buffer (Burrowing Owls Habitat Overlay Zone, HOZ) where buildings are not permitted within 250 -ft of Burrowing owl habitat, and no net increase in impervious surface can occur. No buildings taller than 55 feet can be constructed within 100 feet of any HOZ boundar y. There are additional stipulations regarding lighting, perching, pesticide use etc.

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

As we understand it, the SDEIR makes two assump tions that lead to the findings that the impact is “Same Impact as Approved Project; Less than Significant Impact”:

1) Assumption 1: The edge of the potentially suitable Burrowing owl habitat is analogous to the baseline of the Burrowing Owl HOZ, and so mitigation can be similar.

2) Assumption 2: The developed/landscaped habitat in AM1 is of relatively low value to wildlife (including Burrowing owls).

North Bayshore Master Plan 47 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
We disagree with both assumptions.

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

Subarea AM1 is described in footnote 54 “The developed/landscaped habitat in AM1 is of relatively low value to wildlife, but provides nesting and foraging opportunities for some urban-adapted species of birds.” This description neglects to mention that Burrowing owls may also forage at the site. The footnote shows that the parking lot supports Burrowing owl prey species such as mice, lizards, and small birds. Burrowing owls are known to forage and even nest in parking lots. In “Studies of Western Birds 1:218–226, 2008, Species Accounts (pages 218-226) (attached), the description of this California Species of Special Status includes, “developed environments pose a substantial risk to Burrowing owls from mortality caused by traffic (Klute et al. 2003, D. K. Rosenberg et al. unpubl. data). Owls nesting along roadsides or parking lots are at greatest risk, although owls foraged along roads over 1 km from the nest burrow (Gervais et al. 2003).” Burrowing owls have also been observed foraging in parking lots in North Bayshore.

The observation in the DSEIR footnote 54 that “California ground squirrels and their burrows are common in the ruderal grassland margins of the parcel, as well as on the adjacent grasslands at Shoreline Park” further substantiates the value of this site for burrowing owls. Overwintering or breeding Burrowing owls likely forage here, and potentially use ground squirrel burrows. The AM1 site is important to the preservation of Burrowing owls, and building here should be recognized as a significant impact and avoided, or adequately mitigated.

• Please discuss the impacts to Burrowing owls, including loss of habitat onsite, lighting, increased recreational activity on Vista slope, hazards related to the anticipated increase in vehicle traffic, potential introduction of dogs and cats, and construction-related activities. • Please consider a regional context for the discussion of impacts to Burrowing owls and include:
o Cumulative impacts on Burrowing owls. Please include the Moffett Park Specific Plan in Sunnyvale and development and maintenance activities in Moffett Park. o The role of Shoreline Park in the recovery efforts by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency.

Response K.12: The project would implement a large portion of the adopted North Bayshore Precise Plan. For this reason, the Draft SEIR tier s from the certified 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan EIR. Impacts to burrowing owls are discussed on page 103 of the Draft SEIR. The HOZ measures for the NBPP, including the 250-foot buffer, took into consideration the same potential impacts of projects on burrowing owls that would result from construction of the parking structure at Subarea AM1. Applying the

North Bayshore Master Plan 48 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
250-foot buffer to the proposed parking structure is, therefore, appropriate even though Subarea AM1 was not evaluated in the 2017 NBPP EIR. Refer to Response K.11:
regarding the project’s less than significant impact to burrowing owls and compliance with all applicable regulations including the BOPP.

The above comment that Amphitheatre Parkway separates burrowing owl habitat from the areas studied in the Precise Plan is not entirely accurate. Lands in the northwest part of the Precise Plan area are immediately adjacent to burrowing owl habitat, with no intervening road, and the 250-foot buffer that would be applied to the proposed parking structure is also applied to t hose portions of the Precise Plan area (i.e., Vista Slope). The potential stressors (habitat impacts, lighting, recreational activity, vehicular traffic, introduction of nonnative animals) that may be involved in the construction and operation of the proposed parking structure are the same as those that were evaluated in the certified 2017 Precise Plan EIR . In addition, the proposed use (i.e., parking) is the same as the existing use on Subarea AM1. The BOPP does not identify Subarea AM1 as a designated mitigation area.

The Draft SEIR (on pages 98 and 103) explain s that Subarea AM1 is dominated by pavement, and includes trees and narrow slivers of ruderal habitat subject to frequent disturbances (i.e., vehicle traffic, pedestrians, etc.). In addition, t here is no evidence that burrowing owls have used the site of the proposed parking structure in recent years for nesting habitat. For these reasons, the City’s consulting biologists disagree with the above comment. The ruderal habitat of Subarea AM1 is mar ginally suitable as stated on page 100 of the Draft SEIR. In addition , a habitat confirmation survey will be conducted as a condition of approval for the Planned Community Permit to determine any management measures that need to be taken (see Response K.11:).

Cumulative impacts of the project are discussed on pages 111 -112 of the Draft SEIR.

The Draft SEIR concluded that cumulative impacts from the proposed project and other projects in the area on special-status species would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with federal, state, and local regulations. The proposed Moffett Park Specific Plan (SCH#2021080338) is located approximately two miles east of the project site, outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Mountain View and not proposed as part of the project, and would be subject to the same federal, regional, and local regulations to protect burrowing owls as the proposed project and to reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.

As discussed on page 110 of the Draft SEIR under Impact BIO-6, the project site is not located within the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan and is, therefore, not subject to its regulations. In addition, the project would not conflict with the burrowing owl management activities related to the Habitat Agency within Shoreline Park.

Comment K.13: We believe that avoidance of the impacts by not building this structure is the best alternative. It was not part of the MPSP, and can be eliminated from the NBMPP. If avoidance is not feasible, the following mitigations should be added to the mitigations and standards offered in the DSEIR in order to reduce significant impacts to owls at Shoreline Park and regiona lly, and to the success of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan.

North Bayshore Master Plan 49 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
• Plant grasses and shrubs in the 250-ft buffer to provide foraging for Burrowing owls. • Ensure there is no-net-loss of impervious area/habitat. • Install a green roof, seeded to provide grassy foraging habitat. • Avoid any lighting or spillover light into the 250 -ft HOZ. Lighting in the parking structure should not be visible from Vista slope.
• Fencing is needed to stop people from creating social trails to access Vista slope. Design and fencing should direct people to the official trails that provide signs and guidance (such as no dogs, day-use only).
• Additional Mitigation measures should craft best management guidance and requirements based upon the following:
o Mountain View’s BOPP in consultation with the City’s Burrowing Owl Biologist, o CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) and consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game,
o Mitigation measures for Burrowing Owls from the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan.

Response K.13: As discussed in Response K.11: and Response K.12: , the project would comply with the measures listed in Chapter 5.1 Habitat Overlay Zone, Standard 2 of the Precise Plan and the BOPP. These measures include, but are not limited to, preconstruction surveys, avoiding construction within a 250 -foot buffer zone, lo w- intensity lighting facing away from burrowing owl habitat, no increases in impervious surfaces, social trail deterrence and fencing within Shoreline Park, and coordination with CDFW and the City’s burrowing owl biologist. Chapter 5.1 Habitat Overlay Zone, Standard 2 of the Precise Plan also requires projects to perform construction monitoring for burrowing owls consistent with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Condition 15.

Based on the discussion in the Draft SEIR, no significant impact wou ld occur to burrowing owls. The project will be required to comply with the City’s Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan and a condition of approval has been added to require a habitat confirmation survey in order to receive a Planned Community Permit for development at the AM1 site (see Response K.11:). For this reason, no additional mitigation measures, such as the ones referenced in the above comment, are required.

Comment K.14: 7) Egret Rookery, Shorebirds Wilds and Eco -gem Area The terminus of Charleston Rd./Shorebird Way is home to the largest egret and heron rookery in the South Bay. The rookery is recognized in the NBPP which states, “This rookery is regionally significant as one of the largest egret colonies in the South Bay and is an important natural resource.” In recent years, nesting birds in this area included Snowy Egrets, Great Egrets, Black -crowned night herons, White-tailed kites, Western bluebirds, Red-shouldered hawks and Red-tailed hawks (Matthew Dodder, SCVAS, personal Communications).

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

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

North Bayshore Master Plan 50 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
• Please develop Standards, Guidelines and Protocols to ensure that noisy or light -generating events, events that attract predators and/or other potential disturbances (especially outdoor activities) are evaluated by the City’s Biologist if they are scheduled to occur during the nesting season.
• In the letter from CDFW, the agency requests that the SEIR include building height and location alternatives that reduce environmental impacts such as not locating tall buildings near biologically sensitive areas. We ask that any facade that faces the egret rookery/Shorebirds wilds, the ecogem and the retention basin implement bird -safety measures (including glazing above 60-ft).

Response K.14: The project would implement a large portion of the adopted North Bayshore Precise Plan. For this reason, the Draft SEIR tier s from the certified 2017 North Bayshore Precise Plan EIR. Impacts to the egret rookery are discussed on pages 103-105 and page 107 of the Draft SEIR. As described on page 20 of the Draft SEIR, the community activities proposed at 1201 Charleston would be located inside the existing building and activities would be similar to normal business operations. The proposed park space surrounding the egret rookery would be a mix of POPA and dedicated park land to the City. Page 20 of the Draft SEIR describes the use of Shorebirds Wilds as having “passive open space and native gardens to support the egret rookery and enhance the natural quality of the surrounding HOZ.” No noisy or light- generating events, or those that would attract predators, are proposed as part of the project; therefore, no additional analysis or associated impact is identified in the Draft SEIR. The project would comply with existing regulations including the M igratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code.

All new construction (including the proposed parking garage on AM1) is required to comply with Chapter 5 of the Precise Plan, which establishes Bird Safe Design measures. In addition, Chapter 5. 1 Habitat Overlay Zone, Standard 3 of the Precise Plan establishes specific requirements around the egret rookery, including landscape design, low -lighting requirements, and coordination with the City biologist on any modifications to the adjacent 1201 Charleston building’s western façade or roof.

Comment K.15:
• Please develop a Tree Preservation Plan for the trees in the Egret rookery HOZ. o This plan should identify important trees to preserve. This should specifically include the London plane trees that are traditionally used by the egrets and the redwoods across Shorebird Way (including the redwood in which a White-tailed kite has been nesting). o The plan should specify maintenance requirements, importantly including irrigation with water with no salt content.

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

North Bayshore Master Plan 51 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Response K.15: Standard condition of approval COA BIO -2.1 on pages 109 -110 of the Draft SEIR require s that an arborist report, arborist inspections, replacement, protection measures, and preservation plans be completed by the project when specific developments are proposed to successfully protect and preserve trees, including the trees within the egret rookery. The Draft SEIR found and the City concluded that the project, with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures an d standard conditions of approval, would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to egrets than disclosed in the certified 2017 Precise Plan EIR.

Comment K.16: 8) Potential Loss of Trees
The loss of trees and canopy, and mitigations for such loss, are o f great public interest in Mountain View. In 2022, the City has prioritized Biodiversity as a strategic goal, and within this goal, a new Urban Forest Master Plan is being developed. The new Plan, with associated code changes, is likely to be completed wit hin two years and change the existing, inadequate regulations for the protection of trees. COA BIO -2.1, “Tree Mitigation and Preservation Plan” defers the preparation of a Tree Mitigation Plan and at the same time grandfathers in existing tree mitigation requirements for decades to come. However, in light of the ecological sensitivity of North Bayshore, note the following.

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

Response K.16: As the comment points out, the project would comply with the City’s standard condition of approval COA BIO-2.1 (which is described on pages 109-110 of the Draft SEIR and discussed above in Response K.15:), which follows the guidelines and regulations of the City’s current Tree Preservation Ordinance. CEQA requires an evaluation of the project against the conditions, thresholds, and plans which exist at the time of analysis (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126. 2(a) and 15064.7) . If the Tree Preservation Ordinance is updated in the future, subsequent planned commu nity permits for development under the proposed Master Plan would be subject to compliance with the updated version. Please refer to the arborist report in Appendix F

North Bayshore Master Plan 52 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
of the Draft SEIR for location of existing redwoods and those proposed to be removed as part of the project.

Please refer to Response K.14: regarding tree preservation and the egret rookery.

Comment K.17: 9) Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Why has the cumulative Impact analysis not addressed Google’s Bayview Campus, Caribbean campus and the City of Sunnyvale’s Moffett Park Specific Plan? These projects are located in close proximity to the NBMPP (a biking/walking distance) along the Bay. These projects and plans introduce millions of square feet of office space and thousands of hotel rooms and housing units. The implementation of the Moffett Park Specific Plan is expected to coincide with the development of the NBMPP. All these projects have a Google nexus, and all may have cumulative impacts on Biological Resources, air quality, traffic and other environmental resources. We encourage the City to analyze the cumulative impacts of these additional projects.

Response K.17: The methodology for evaluating cumul ative impacts is described on pages 47-48 of the Draft SEIR. The analysis should include either a list of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projections from an adopted general plan or similar document. B oth approaches were used in the Draft SEIR. In addition, t he cumulative geographic area of impact varies for different resource areas. Also, the Draft SEIR tiers from the certified 2017 Precise Plan EIR and incorporates that cumulative analysis by reference.

As explained on page 1 11-112 of the Draft SEIR, as well as in Response K.12:, all cumulative projects are subject to the same federal and state regulations and same/similar local regulat ions to protect biological resources and reduce cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.

Management District’s significance threshold, it is assumed the project’s criteria air pollutant emissions would also be cumulatively considerable. For this reason, emissions from other cumulative projects do not need to be quantified or explicitly discussed to determine whether the project would result in cumulat ive air quality impacts. The cumulative projects listed in Table 3.0-1 of the Draft SEIR on pages 48- 49 were considered for the cumulative health risk assessment; however, only the 1100 La Avenida and 1255 Pear Avenue projects were within 1,000 feet of the project site (see Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions for clarification on cumulative project distances) and included in the analysis. The Draft SEIR assumed that both of these projects would be occupied by the time project construction began and, therefore, they were treated as sensitive receptors.

The methodology for evaluating cumulative Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts is explained on pages 147-148 of the Draft SEIR and is based on the project’s affects to regionwide VMT. The cumulative condition is based on the City of Mountain View travel model and the 2007 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) land use projections for adjacent jurisdictions and planned and funded transportation system improvements in the Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2 040. While the above

North Bayshore Master Plan 53 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
mentioned Google projects are not explicitly mentioned in the cumulative condition, additional growth within adjacent jurisdictions is accounted for in the analysis. Other cumulative transportation impacts pertaining to consistency wit h programs, plans, ordinance, and policies, hazards, and emergency access are more localized to the project site and area, (i.e., not affected by the cumulative projects identified in the above comment, which are either already built and occupied or located at least two miles from the project site) and evaluated as such on pages 147-149 of the Draft SEIR.

Text has been added to page 48 of the Draft SEIR to clarify that the cumulative analysis considers the effects of cumulative projects including the existing Google Bayview campus, the approved but not yet constructed Google Caribbean campus, and the proposed Moffett Park Specific Plan where applicable (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions).

In addition, f or all the impacts assessed in the Draft SEIR, the proposed project was found to have the same or similar impacts to those disclosed in the certified 2017 Precise Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project, which is within the same geographic area analyzed in the certified 2017 Precise Plan EIR, would not result in new or more severe significant cumulative impacts than those disclosed in the 2017 Precise Plan EIR.

This comment does not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the Draft EIR.

Comment K.18: 10) Artificial Light at Night
In the time since the NBPP was adopted, scientific evidence and understanding of the devastating impacts of Artificial Light At Night (ALAN), especially in the blue band of the spectrum, has grown substantially. We now know much more about impacts of ALAN to the environment and to human health, and we have a better understanding of how to mitigate the impacts. The Artificial Light at Night Research Literature Database includes many recent (2018 -2023) scientific studies that focus on the harmful impacts of LED lighting to species, ecosystems and human health, impacts that were not known, and could not have been discovered, when the NBPP was approved in 2017. The primary lesson that emerges from these studies is that ALAN must be minimized.

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

• Eliminating minimum requirements for lighting from the NBPP and the NBMPP. Lighting for all human needs can be achieved without setting minimums. • Turning off all outdoor lights at 10PM.
• Ensuring that Correlated Color Temperature should not exceed 2700 Kelvin (with potential exception to vibrant social activity centers).
• Including as Standards and Guidelines the best practices that the International Dark -sky Association (IDA) provides in its Board Policy on the Application of the Lighting Principles document (June 24, 2021). This policy provides guidance for implementing the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting that are offered as mitigation for the significant impacts of

North Bayshore Master Plan 54 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
ALAN on the environment. These guidelines include the following among other recommendations.
o The spectral content, or color, of light sho uld be limited to only what is necessary for the task. Because of the disproportionate impact on the nighttime environment, particular attention should be paid to reducing the total emissions of short-wavelength or “blue” light (defined for the purposes of this resolution between the wavelengths of 380 nm and 520 nm) through light source spectrum management. o To minimize negative environmental impacts, IDA recommends using lamps rated at 2200K CCT18 , Phosphor-Converted Amber LED, or some filtered LED. o When higher than 2200K CCT is necessary to meet lighting objectives, keep the total emission of blue light into the environment as low as reasonably possible through low intensities, careful targeting, and reduced operating times. o Near sensitive sites, such as conservation areas, sensitive wildlife habitat, ecological reserves, parks, astronomical observatories, or stargazing sites, IDA recommends that lighting installations use 0% blue light and a narrower spectrum of emission. o Critically sensitive environments should be kept naturally dark. • Tall buildings that emit internal light at night can divert bird migration patterns and increase bird collisions. Any buildings that face ecologically sensitive areas should include window coverings that can be drawn at nigh t to reduce visibility of light from surrounding areas. We are especially concerned with the lighting of parking garages, particularly the proposed garage on Amphitheater Parkway.

Response K.18: The analysis in the Draft EIR (page 195) found that t he proposed project (including development on Subarea AM1) , in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards and guidelines in Precise Plan Section 4.6 Outdoor Lighting and the standards and guidelines in Precise Plan Section 5.2 Bird Safe Design , would reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant level and would not result in a new or more substantially severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. For this reason, no additional mitigation (such as the measures in the above commen t) are required.

Comment K.19: 11) Hydrology
Have impacts of the Project to the hydrology of the Charleston Retention Basin been analyzed? Please ensure that the wetland is not deprived of water.

Response K.19: Impacts related to hydrology and water quality are discussed in Section 4.7 of the Draft SEIR on pages 269 -286. The project would comply with the City’s standard condition of approval COA HYD -1.1 (described on page 277 -279 of the Draft SEIR) , the General Construction Permit , and current MRP to reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level . In addition, the project would retrofit existing streets with stormwater treatments in accordance with the MRP and City policy, and reduce the total amount of impervious surfaces on the project site. Further, the existing dra inage patterns leading to Charleston Retention Basin would be maintained and the required stormwater treatment areas would allow cleaner flows to reach the Charleston Retention Basin than under existing conditions.

North Bayshore Master Plan 55 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
L. Tamara Wilson (dated February 6, 2023)

Comment L.1: I’m writing today to comment on the Amended North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). In particular, I’d like to comment on the indirect impact on Mountain View schools – both the Mountain View Whisman School Dist rict (MVWSD) and the Mountain View Los Altos (MVLA) High School District – responsible for educating the future children coming from this large, new proposed community. As a former MVWSD board member (2016-2020), I see this as a wonderful opportunity for the City of Mountain View, the Developer, and the 2 school districts to work together to serve the future students generated from the proposed development while also considering the broader picture factoring in all future growth in the school impact analysi s and school site needs. I realize the City cannot impose school related fees on developers, but the current school impacts are grossly underestimated and the findings are not aligned with real world facts. There are numerous other projects, both approved and in process, that will also bring additional pupils to our schools well ahead of the NBPP development. These numbers do not appear to be factored into the school site impacts. Neither MVWSD nor MVLA has the monetary resources to purchase new land to house the sheer magnitude of all future growth in the city, when all existing and approved developments are factored in. Land costs were roughly $15 million and acre over 3 years ago and even with the State of California paying for ½ of the land costs, our di stricts simply cannot afford the remaining costs for both land and construction with their current revenue streams.

Response L.1: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the Project Impacts section of the response.

Comment L.2: One potential and logical avenue to explore, to alleviate the pressure and of either new land and/or facilities from Mountain View’s school districts, would be to faithfully, fairly, and more equitably renegotiate the Shoreline Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment set to expire in June 2023. The current allocation to MVWSD alone is a mere 38% of what the normal tax base would be in any other part of the city. Renegotiating to a more representative rate could allow both districts to set aside funds for school site modifications, f acilities expansion, potential lease lapses (as income would no longer be needed) and possibly the purchase of additional land before the NBPP students arrive, as well as help both district’s serve these students once they populate classrooms. Without such revenue, existing student services would decline for all Mountain View students. Ideally, with a development of this size, a walkable elementary school within the NBPP community is what is needed, as all of MVWSD’s kids can currently walk and bike to near by schools, an opportunity all Mountain View residents should be afforded. Schools within communities foster relationships, build healthy connections, improve mental health, and serve as focal gathering spaces for after -hours events and open space use.

Response L.2: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts , specifically the Shoreline Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment section of the response.

Comment L.3: Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments on the DEIR. I respectfully request a more adequate representation of the full impact on Mountain View’s schools of a development of this size, and encourage the thoughtful consideration of all possible, creative, and collaborative solutions to the vision of creating an entirely new neighborhood in our beauti ful city while also supporting schools to equitably educate our children near where they live.

North Bayshore Master Plan 56 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Response L.3: Please refer to Master Response 1: School Impacts. This comment does not raise any issues about the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

M. The Friends of Mountain View Parks (dated February 6, 2023)

Comment M.1: This document serves as the response by The Friends of Mountain View Parks to the Amended North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). I have reviewed the report and provide the following comments concerning the adequacy of the findings relating to the direct and indirect impacts to parks, open space, the Shoreline Regional Wildlife Area, and the overall quality of life in the proposed North Bayshore development.

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

The project Master Plan proposes a total of 30.5 acres of parks and open space with 18.9 acres of unimproved land dedicated to the City of Mountain View and 11.7 areas provided as POPA open space which would be improved and maintained by the applicant in perpetuity. DEIR at Section 2.3.2.

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

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

41.3 of this chapter.” Section 41.3(e).

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

Response M.1: The land acreage the project would dedicate to the City as parkland has been refined from 18.9 to 14.8 acres (please refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text

North Bayshore Master Plan 57 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Revisions). As noted by the above comment, the City has an adopted Parkland Dedication Ordinance that establishes in-lieu fees. Chapter 41 of the City’s Municipal Code states that “The fees collected pursuant to this chapter are to be used only for the purpose of providing park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision from which fees are collected… Fees so collected shall be used to purchase land, buy equipment, construct improvements or rehabilitate a proposed or existing mini-park, neighborhood park, community park, recreational facility, Stevens Creek Trail, community gardening facility or combination thereof serving said residential development .” Therefore, the in-lieu fees paid by the projec t will be used by the City for park and recreational facilities within proximity to the project site and within the North Bayshore Precise Plan area. Text from Chapter 41 of the Municipal Code has been added to the Draft SEIR summary to clarify this aspect of Chapter 41.

Comment M.2: In addition to the 7,000 residential dwelling units, the proposed North Bayshore development further includes 3.1 million square feet of office space of which 1.3 million square feet is new office space and 1.8 million square feet is exist ing office space to be developed, 224,000 of retail space, and 525 hotel rooms. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Subsequent Impact Report for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project, City of Mountain View dated February 28, 2022.

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

Response M.2: The City’s parkland dedication requirement is calculated based on the number of new residents (not employees) a development would generate. E mployees and visitors of non-residential uses would use park and recreation facilities on a limited basis compared to residents, therefore, the City does not require parkland dedication for non-residential development. Employees and visitors of non-residential uses are not considered to substantially deteriorate park facilities.

Comment M.3: General Plan Policy POS 1.2 is to “Require new development to provide park and recreation facilities”. This policy is not limited to residential development. The new commercial and office developments should be required to provide park and recreation facilities in addition to the parks being created for the new residential development.

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

North Bayshore Master Plan 58 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
For at least these reasons, I recommend that the City and the proponents of the proposed North Bayshore project provide additional park and open space as part of their project, and that the City delay the approval of the North Bayshore Master Plan and the DEIR to address the concerns raised in this letter.

Response M.3: The complete description of General Plan Policy POS 1.2 is not provided in full in the above comment. Per the General Plan, General Plan Policy POS-

1.2 is as follows: “ POS 1.2: Recreation facilities in new residential developments.

Require new development to provide park and recreation facilities.” The first sentence of General Plan Policy POS 1.2 (“Recreation facilities in new residential developments”) means that this policy pertains to new residential developments. The above interpretation of this Genera l Plan Policy in the above comment is incorrect – this policy does not apply to non-residential developments.

The open space and recreational facilities constructed as part of the project would be available for use to residents, as well as visitors and e mployees. Protection of the Shoreline Regional Wildlife Area would be maintained and areas off -limits to people would continue to be enforced. As discussed on pages 325 and 331 of the Draft SEIR, the project would comply with the City’s Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance to provide adequate parkland. Per the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance, in-lieu fees could be used to maintain existing parks within and near the project site, including Shoreline Park. Also refer to Response M.2:.

None of the comments raised represent new significant information that would warrant recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).

North Bayshore Master Plan 59 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
SECTION 5.0 DRAFT SEIR TEXT REVISIONS
This section contains revisions to the text of the North Bayshore Master Plan Draft SEIR dated December 2022. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the text.

Master edit REVISE all occurrences of subarea labels with the revised labels below:

Draft EIR Subarea Labels Final EIR Revised Subarea Labels Shorebird Yards SB-PU
SB-PO-1 SB-BO-1
SB-PO-2 SB-BO-1
SB-PO-3 SB-BO-3

SB-PH SB-BH
SB-PR-1 SB-BR-1
SB-PR-2 SB-BR-2
SB-PR-3 SB-BR-3
SB-PR-4 SB-BR-4
SB-PR-5 SB-BR-5
SB-PR-6 SB-BR-6
SB-PR-7 SB-BR-7
SB-PR-8 SB-BR-8
JS-PO-1 JS-BO-1
JS-PR-1 JS-BR-1
JS-PR-2 JS-BR-2
JS-PR-3 JS-BR-3
JN-PO-1 JN-BO-1
JN-PO-2 JN-BO-2
JN-PR-1 JN-BR-1
JN-PR-3 JN-BR-3
JN-PR-4 JN-BR-4
JN-PR-6 JN-BR-6
JN-PR-7 JN-BR-7
PE-PR-1 PE-BR-1
PE-PR-2 PE-BR-2
MW1 MW-BP-1
MW2 MW-BP-2
AM1 SA-BP-1
Basement (SB -PH, SB -PO-1, SB -PO-2,
SB-PR-1)
Basement (SB-BH, SB-BO-1, SB-BO-
2, SB-BR-1)
Basement (SB-PR-2) Basement (SB-BR-2)
Basement (SB-PR-3, SB-PR-4) Basement (SB-BR-3, SB-BR-4) Basement (SB-PR-5) Basement (SB-BR-5)
Basement (SB-PR-7) Basement (SB-BR-7)
Basement (SB-PR-8) Basement (SB-BR-8)

North Bayshore Master Plan 60 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Page v REVISE the fourth sentence under Summary of Project as follows:

The project would also dedicate 18.914.8 acres of public open space and construct 11. 73 acres of Privately Owned Publicly Accessible (POPA) open space.

• Up to 7,000 residential dwelling units (including 20 15 percent affordable residential units); • 18.914.8 acres of public open space and 11.73 acres of Privately Owned Publicly Accessible (POPA) open space;
• Up to 244,000 square feet of retail uses;4

4 Since circulation of the Draft SEIR, the project has been refined to reduce the amount of total retail by 10,010 square feet from 244,000 to 233,990 square feet. This reduction would not materially change the impact analyses or conclusions in the Draft SEIR.

Note:
8&5
&RUMNYMJFYWJ5FWPNSL,FWFLJNXFUQFS S
UFWPNSLLFWFLJYMFY\TZQIUWT[NIJUFWPNSLKTWZ X
QTHFYJI\NYMNSYMJ2FXYJW5QFS&WJF9MJUFWPNS L
LFWFLJ\NQQGJUFWYTKYMJ2FXYJW5QFSѣX(*6&WJ [
GZY\NQQWJVZNWJF)J[JQTURJSY7J[NJ\5JWRNYF X
QTHFYJITZYXNIJTKYMJ3'55FWJF
9MNX5QFSNXUFWYTKYMJ3TWYM'F^XMTWJ2FXYJW
5 9MNX5QFSIJRTSXYWFYJXFHTSHJUYZFQUQFSKTWY M
KZYZWJIJ[JQTURJSYTKYMJ2FXYJW5QFS&WJF
7TFI\F^FQNLSRJSYXFSIQFSIZXJUFWHJQXFWJ
LJSJWFQIJUNHYNTSX9MNX2FXYJW5QFSRF^GJ
JINSWJXUTSX
J
(NY^HTRRJSYXFXUFWYTKYMJIJ[JQTURJSYWJ[N J
U W T H J X X F S IK Z Y Z W J_ T S N S LU J W R N YF U U Q N H F Y N T S X  Key
OFFICE

RESIDENTIAL

ACTIVE USES
HOTEL

PUBLIC USE

FLEX - PARKING,

RESIDENTIAL

FLEX - COMMUNITY USE,

DISTRICT SYSTEMS

PARKING

DISTRICT CENTRAL PLANT

GREEN LOOP

INDICATIVE LOCATION

OF MID-BLOCK BREAKS

CONCEPTUAL

DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS

OPEN SPACE

LIMITED ACCESS STREET

PROJECT AREA

NBPP BOUNDARY

AREA NOT SUBJECT TO

REDEVELOPMENT
Source: Google, March 2023.

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INDIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

STIERLIN CT

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEKSTEVENS CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INDIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

STIERLIN CT

CRITTENDEN LNCRITTENDEN LN

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

SPACE PARK WAYSPACE PARK WAY

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

MASTER PLAN SITE

NORTH BAYSHORE PRECISE

PLAN BOUNDARY
PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN FIGURE 2.3-1
North Bayshore Master Plan
City of Mountain View
61Final SEIR
April 2023

North Bayshore Master Plan 62 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

Subarea SB-PU, shown on Figure 2.3 -2, would be dedicated to the City for future public use. 5 In addition, land within Subareas noted in Table 2.3-1 below would also be dedicated to the City for the development of affordable housing to meet North Bayshore Precise Plan affordable housing requirements.

5 The public use of this dedicated land is currently unknown and would undergo separate environmental review once development is proposed.

Source: Google, March 2023.

Ke
XX
Key
XX-X-# BLOCK NUMBER

INDICATIVE LOCATION

OF MID-BLOCK BREAKS

CONCEPTUAL

DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS

OPEN SPACE

PROJECT AREA

AREA NOT SUBJECT TO

REDEVELOPMENT

OFF-SITE PARKING SUBAREAS

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

WILLOW ST

BLACK ST

WILLOW ST

BLACK ST

STEVENS CREEK

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEK

PERMANENTE CREEK

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD
MACON

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

PLYMOUTH ST

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD
MACON

CASEY AVENUE

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

PLYMOUTH ST

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

MONARCH ST

MONARCH ST

MONARCH ST

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST MONARCH ST

MONARCH ST

MONARCH ST

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST SOCIAL SPINESOCIAL SPINE

SPACE PARK WAYSPACE PARK WAY

MARINE WAY

BAYSHORE PARKWAY

SAN ANTONIO ROAD

AMPHITHEATRE PARKWAY

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

MASTER PLAN SITE

BAYSHORE FWY

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

SB-FLEX
SB-DCP
SB-BR-6
JS-BR-1
JS-BO-1
JS-BR-3

JS-FLEX
MW-BP-2
MW-BP-1
SA-BP-1

JOAQUIN

TERRACE EAST

JOAQUIN

TERRACE WEST

JOAQUIN
GROVE

JOAQUIN

COMMONS

JOAQUIN
PORTAL

SHORELINE
SQUARE

GATEWAY
PLAZA

GREENWAY PARK WEST

GREENWAY

PARK EAST

SHOREBIRD

WILDSSHOREBIRD
SQUARE

ECO GEM
MASTER PLAN SUBAREAS FIGURE 2.3-2
North Bayshore Master Plan
City of Mountain View
63 Final SEIR
April 2023

North Bayshore Master Plan 64 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

Table 2.3-1: Master Plan Development by Subareas
Subareas Proposed
Use(s)
Square
Feet Units
Maximum
Building
Height
(feet)
Vehicle Parking
Provided Maximum
Excavation
Depth (feet) Stalls Square
Feet
SB-BPO-1
Office 511,259
0 110
118
111,714 8
Retail 33,711 136
SB-PO-2 Office 738,156 0 95 139 65,176 8
Greenway
Park West Retail 2,000 0 95 0 0 8
SB-BPO-3 Office 390,179 0 80 73 32,483 8
Greenway
Park East Retail 1,000 0 80 0 0 8
SB-BPH
Hotel 160,000
0 110 0 0 8
Retail 16,731
SB-BPR-1
Residential 360,342
366 160
257
139,000 8
Retail 27,192 80
SB-BPR-2
Residential 486,000
428 160 233 98,000 8
Retail 39,707
SB-BPR-3
Residential 202,000
211 160 0 0 8
Retail 18,552
SB-BPR-4
Residential 296,000
297 160 224 77,000 8
Retail 12,825
SB-BPR-5
Residential 183,000
176 95 162 68,000 8
Retail 16,732
SB-BPR-62
Residential 223,000 220 95 155 34,000
8 Active Use 4,550
0 95
495
185,000 Hotel
Parking 0 105
SB-BPR-7 Residential 161,000 172 95 73 15,000 8
SB-BPR-8 Residential 241,000 215 55 280 117,000 8
SB-FLEX Community 55,000 0 45 0 0 8

North Bayshore Master Plan 65 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Table 2.3-1: Master Plan Development by Subareas
Subareas Proposed
Use(s)
Square
Feet Units
Maximum
Building
Height
(feet)
Vehicle Parking
Provided Maximum
Excavation
Depth (feet) Stalls Square
Feet
District
Systems,
Ancillary
Retail
35,000
SB-DCP District
Systems 95,000 0 45 5 0 8
SB-PP
Retail 4,550
0 95
495
151,000 8 Hotel
Parking 0 105
JS-BPO-1
Office 250,000
0 140 50 25,000 8
Retail 3,990
JS-BPR-12 Residential 426,000 409 160 220 54,000 8
JS-BPR-22
Residential 284,000
288,000 283
276 160 201
161
84,000
47,000 8
Retail 10,010
JS-BPR-3
Residential 327,000
318 160 241 107,000 8
Retail 7,000

JS-FLEX
Hotel 180,000
0 140
250
332,579 8 Retail 4,000
Office 0 450
JN-BPO-1 Office 770,023 0 95 171 72,478 8
JN-BPO-2 Office 486,280 0 110 112 46,497 8
JN-BPR-12 Residential 970,000 922 160 688 186,000 8
JN-BPR-3 Residential,
Parking 953,000 881 160 1,059 404,215 8
JN-BPR-4
Residential 367,000
375 160 220 74,000 8
Retail 7,748
The Portal Retail 1,000 0 110 0 0 8
JN-BPR-6 Residential 280,000
380,000 391 160 182 76,000 8

North Bayshore Master Plan 66 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Table 2.3-1: Master Plan Development by Subareas
Subareas Proposed
Use(s)
Square
Feet Units
Maximum
Building
Height
(feet)
Vehicle Parking
Provided Maximum
Excavation
Depth (feet) Stalls Square
Feet
Retail 20,655
JN-BPR-7
Residential 809,000
805,000 764
771 160 520
560
173,000
210,000 8
Retail 6,597
PE-BPR-1
Residential 287,000
341 160 184 77,000 8
Retail 10,000
PE-BPR-22 Residential 232,000 231 95 151 63,000 8
MW1
MW-BP-1 Parking 0 0 80 416 477,411 8
MW2
MW-BP-2 Parking 0 0 80 474 362,120 8
AM1
SA-BP-1
Police
Operations
Station
2,000
0 90 4,584 1,516,800 8
Parking 0
Basement
(SB-BPH,
SB-BPO-1,
SB-BPO-2,

SB-BPR-
1)1
Office,
Residential,
Hotel, Retail
0 0 160 800 653,483 30
Basement
(SB-BPR-
2)1
Residential,
Retail 0 0 160 327 117,008 30
Basement
(SB-BPR-
3, SB-
BPR-4)1
Residential,
Retail 0 0 160 331 82,400 30
Basement
(SB-BPR-
5)1
Residential,
Retail 0 0 95 115 54,416 30
Basement
(SB-BPR-
7)1
Residential 0 0 95 112 39,624 30

North Bayshore Master Plan 67 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Table 2.3-1: Master Plan Development by Subareas
Subareas Proposed
Use(s)
Square
Feet Units
Maximum
Building
Height
(feet)
Vehicle Parking
Provided Maximum
Excavation
Depth (feet) Stalls Square
Feet
Basement
(SB-BPR-
8)1
Residential 0 0 55 140 94,020 30
1 Basement parking is not proposed at this time; however, if basement is pursued an equivalent amount of podium parking would be removed in order to maintain a proposed total number of 12,708 parking spaces (see Table 3.3- 2 below)
2 Land within these subareas would be dedicated to the City for development of affordable housing to meet North Bayshore Precise Plan affordable housing requirements.

Table 2.3-2: Square Footage of Master Plan Uses
Master Plan Uses Square Feet
Office 3,145,897
Residential (7,000 units) 7,187,342
Hotel (525 rooms) 340,000
District Central Plant 130,000
Retail1 244,000
Community 55,000
Parking (12,708 stalls) 5,377,066

1. Since circulation of the Draft SEIR, the project has been refined to reduce the amount of total retail by 10,010 square feet from 244,000 to 233,990 square feet. This reduction would not materially change the impact analyses or conclusions in the Draft SEIR.

The Master Plan proposes a network of dedicated public space, POPA open space subject to an access covenant, and private open space. Approximately 18.914.8 acres of unimproved land is proposed to be dedicated to the City. 6 In addition, approximately 11. 73 acres of parks and open space would be provided as POPA open space which would be improved and maintained by the applicant (Google) in perpetuity. In total, approximately 20 17 percent of the project site (i.e., 30.526.1 of the 151 153 acres) would be ded icated parkland or POPA. Additional publicly accessible spaces include streets, paths,

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

North Bayshore Master Plan 68 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
and other areas that do not qualify as parks. Parkland and open space locations and sizes are detailed in Table 2.3-3 and shown in Figure 2.3-3 below.

Table 2.3-3: Park and Open Space Locations and Size
Park Neighborhood Area (acres) Type Ownership
Greenway Parks Shorebird ±2.45 POPA Google
Eco Gem Shorebird ±10.78 Dedicated City
Shorebird Wilds Shorebird ±4.56 POPA Google
Shorebird Yard Shorebird ±4.1 Dedicated City
Shorebird Square Shorebird ±0.3 Dedicated City
The Portal Joaquin ±0.8 POPA Google
Joaquin Grove Joaquin ±1.4 POPA Google
Joaquin Commons Joaquin ±2.6 Dedicated City
Joaquin Terrace Joaquin ±2.2 POPA Google
Gateway Plaza Joaquin ±0.9 Dedicated City
Shoreline Square Joaquin ±0.3 Dedicated City
Total acreage ±30.526.1

Source: Google, March 2023.

KEY

DEDICATED PARK LAND

OPEN SPACE (EITHER

DEDICATED PARK

LAND OR POPA)

GREEN LOOP

INDICATIVE LOCATION

OF MID-BLOCK BREAKS

CONCEPTUAL

DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS

LIMITED ACCESS STREET

PROJECT AREA
Note:
.YNXFYYMJ&UUQNHFSYѣXKZYZWJINXHWJYNTSYTIJQN [
UFWPXFSI545&XWFYMJWYMFSIJINHFYJQFSIYT
(NY^
9MNX5QFSNXUFWYTKYMJ3TWYM'F^XMTWJ2FXYJ W
9MNX5QFSIJRTSXYWFYJXFHTSHJUYZFQUQFSKTW
KZYZWJIJ[JQTURJSYTKYMJ2FXYJW5QFS&WJF
7TFI\F^FQNLSRJSYXFSIQFSIZXJUFWHJQXFW
J
LJSJWFQIJUNHYNTSX9MNX2FXYJW5QFSRF^GJ
JINSWJXUTS
(NY^HTRRJSYXFXUFWYTKYMJIJ[JQTURJSYWJ
[
U W T H J X X F S IK Z Y Z W J_ T S N S LU J W R N YF U U Q N H F Y N T S X

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEKSTEVENS CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

MONARCH STMONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

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

MASTER PLAN SITE

BAYSHORE FWYBAYSHORE FWY
PROPOSED PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS FIGURE 2.3-3
North Bayshore Master Plan
City of Mountain View
69Final SEIR
April 2023

North Bayshore Master Plan 70 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

Heating and cooling for all Master Plan buildings would be provided from the DCP through all-electric generation using a combination of ground source heating and cooling, heat recovery chillers, air source heat pumps, water -cooled chillers, cooling towers, biogas, and thermal energy storage. This Most mechanical equipment (i.e., chillers, heat pumps, and pumps) would be located inside the DCP, with only the cooling towers mounted on the roof or adjacent to the DCP.

• Energy Efficient Design: Energy modeling in early design phases to optimize windowwall-to- wall ratios, thermal performance, and exterior shading.

Source: Google, March 2023.

Key

EXISTING PUBLIC STREET

RECONFIGURED

PUBLIC STREET

VACATED PUBLIC STREET

NEW PUBLIC STREET

NEW PRIVATE STREET

NEW PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
(INDICATIVE)

PEDESTRIAN/BIKE

ACCESS ONLY

NEW PEDESTRIAN

LANEWAY (SOCIAL SPINE)

TRANSIT BOULEVARD

LIMITED ACCESS STREET

NEW PRIVATE

STREET(LIMITED ACCESS)

INDICATIVE LOCATION

OF MID-BLOCK BREAKS

CONCEPTUAL

DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS

OPEN SPACE

PROJECT AREA

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEKSTEVENS CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

MONARCH STMONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

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

MASTER PLAN SITE

BAYSHORE FWYBAYSHORE FWY
PROPOSED STREET NETWORK FIGURE 2.3-4
North Bayshore Master Plan
City of Mountain View
71Final SEIR
April 2023

North Bayshore Master Plan 72 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

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

Pages 34-35 REPLACE Figure 2.3-5 and Figure 2.3-6 with the following figures:

Source: Google, March 2023.

Key

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION
(INDICATIVE)

PEDESTRIAN LANEWAY
(SOCIAL SPINE)

PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY

ZONE (SOCIAL SPINE)

LIMITED ACCESS STREET

INDICATIVE LOCATION

OF MID-BLOCK BREAKS

CONCEPTUAL

DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS

OPEN SPACE

PROJECT AREA

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEKSTEVENS CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

MONARCH STMONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

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

MASTER PLAN SITE

BAYSHORE FWYBAYSHORE FWY
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN NETWORK FIGURE 2.3-5
North Bayshore Master Plan
City of Mountain View
73Final SEIR
April 2023
Source: Google, March 2023.

Key

CLASS I -

GREEN LOOP

CLASS II-

BUFFERED ON STREET

BIKE LANE

CLASS IV-

SEPARATED BI-

DIRECTIONAL CYCLE TRACK

CLASS IV-

SEPARATED ONE-WAY

CYCLE TRACK

MULTI-USE PATH

FUTURE BIKE PATH ON

PRIVATE PROPERTY

OWNED BY OTHERS

INDICATIVE LOCATION

OF MID-BLOCK BREAKS

CONCEPTUAL

DEVELOPMENT BLOCKS

OPEN SPACE

LIMITED ACCESS STREET

PROJECT AREA

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

CHARLESTON RDCHARLESTON RD

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

JOAQUIN RD

HUFF AVE

ALTA AVE

PERMANENTE CREEK

STEVENS CREEKSTEVENS CREEK

SHORELINE BLVDSHORELINE BLVD

MANZANITA ST

GROVE ST

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY

INIGO WAYINIGO WAY
MACON

MONARCH ST

PEAR AVE

LA AVENIDA

MONARCH ST

MONARCH STMONARCH ST

PLYMOUTH ST

SHOREBIRD WAYSHOREBIRD WAY

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

MASTER PLAN SITE

BAYSHORE FWYBAYSHORE FWY
PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK FIGURE 2.3-6
North Bayshore Master Plan
City of Mountain View
74Final SEIR
April 2023

North Bayshore Master Plan 75 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 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-PP Hotel, Retail,
residential visitor ±600
JN-P-1 JN-BPR-3 Hotel, Retail,
residential visitor ±500
JS-P-1 JS-Flex Office, Hotel, Retail,
residential visitor ±700
AM1
SA-P-1
AM1
SA-BP-1
Office, public ±4,584
MW1 & MW2
MW-P-1 & MW-P-2
MW1 & MW2
MW-BP-1 & MW-
BP-2
Office ±890
Total ±7,274

heading as follows:

The project site contains approximately 3,9693,608 trees7, 1,8061,660 of which are Heritage trees as defined in the City’s Municipal Code. Implementation of the Master Plan would result in the removal of approximately 3,3302,895 existing trees (including 1,5091,345 Heritage trees). The project would plant 3,115 new trees throughout the site as required by City policies or as otherwise agreed to with the City. Tree species to be planted would be native and include oak and sycamore trees. In addition to new trees, the Master Plan proposes new landscaping consisting of native and/or drought -tolerant plants. The landscaping (including trees) within the project site to the greatest degree possible would be irrigated using recycled water (not potable water) to the extent feasible at full buildout.

7 This total excludes the trees on land that would be dedicated as parkland as part of the proposed project , except for the Eco Gem. Existing trees on the Eco Gem subarea are included in the 3,608 total.

North Bayshore Master Plan 76 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

Valley Water/U.S.

Environmental Protection
Agency
Approvals of proposed geobores. Review and approval may be required if wells are required and/or if abandoned wells are proposed to be destroyed during construction of the project. Review and issue well construction, relocation, and destruction permits, including soil borings greater than 45 feet in depth.

Table 3.0 -1 identifies the pending and approved (but not yet constructed or occupied) cumulative projects within 1,000 feet of near the project site that were included considered in the cumulative air quality analysis. Cumulative projects, including the existing Google Bayview campus, the approved but not yet constructed Google Caribbean campus, and the proposed Moffett Park Specific Plan , are analyzed in the Draft SEIR where applicable.

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

• For demolition and construction activities prior to the year 2024, off-road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater shall use R99 or R100 renewable diesel fuel to the extent feasible and commercially available.8

The greatest sources for operational ROG emissions are area emissions (e.g., architectural coatings and consumer product use) and the greatest source for operational NOx and PM10 emissions is project traffic.9

8 The California Air Resources Board adopted new regulations for off-road diesel equipment in November 2022, which requires all off-road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater to use R99 or R100 renewable diesel fuel beginning January 1, 2024, Source: California Air Resources Board. “Proposed Amendments to the In-Use Off- Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation”. November 17, 2022. Accessed April 10, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/board/res/2022/res22 -19.pdf. 9 Since circulation of the Draft SEIR, the project description has been refined to no longer provide inclusionary housing, which would reduce the percentage of affordable housing units from 20 percent to 15 percent. The number of overall housing units (7,000) would not change. Mobile emissions from project operation were based on trip generation rates that differentiate between market rate and affordable housing units. The five percent shift from affordable to market rate housing units would result in approximately 116 additional daily vehicle trips. This incremental increase in trips would not change the results of the operational air quality analysis, nor change the conclusions presented in the Draft SEIR for operational air quality emissions.

North Bayshore Master Plan 77 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

The project’s mobile NOx and P M10 emissions from proposed land uses wou ld be reduced to the maximum extent feasible through the stringent TDM measures proposed by the project as described in Section 32.3.10 Transportation Demand Management.

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

Yes S 2017 EIR MM
AQ-2.1, 2017

EIR MM AQ-

3.1, 2017 EIR
MM-4.1, MM
AQ-1.1, MM
AQ-1.2
SU

Preservation Ordinance discussion:

Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan

The City of Mountain View first adopted the Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan (BOPP) in 1998 and it was updated in October 2012. The BOPP describes an adaptive management approach to preserving burrowing owls based on setting goals, implementing actions to a chieve those goals and monitoring the results of actions and the, if goals are met, revising actions based on consultation with burrowing owl experts and Shoreline Park managers to determine what actions could be taken to improve conditions for burrowing o wls. The BOPP also provides procedures for meeting wildlife laws and regulations without the City having to consult CDFW on every action taken at Shoreline Park that has the potential to harm burrowing owls.

The project site contains 4,021 a total of 3,820 trees,. Of the existing trees, 212 of the trees are located within areas proposed to be dedicated to the City as parkland (except for the Eco Gem) and, therefore, would be managed at the City’s discretion. The remaining trees (3,608 trees) are located within areas proposed for redevelopment and the Eco Gem. Of the 3,608 tree, including 1,8121,660 are Heritage trees as defined in the City’s Municipal Code.10 Of the 4,0213,608 trees on-site, approximately 12 percent are in poor condition, 42 percent are in fair condition, and 46 percent are in

10 Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 32, Article II defines a “Heritage Tree” as a tree with any of the following characteristics: a tree trunk with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more, measured at fifty-four inches above natural grade. Multi-trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork. Any of the following three species of trees with a circumference of twelve inches or more, measured at fifty -four inches above natural grade: Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), Cedrus (cedar), and groves of trees designated as “heritage” by the City Council.

North Bayshore Master Plan 78 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
good condition. Tthe most common tree species on-site are coast redwood, London plane, sweetgum, Canary island pine, and evergreen ash, most of which are in good or fair condition. The most common tree on-site is the coast redwood, which comprises approximately 21 percent of the trees on- site. The largest tree on-site is a coast redwood with a trunk diameter of 58 inches, it is located in the northeastern portion of the project site.

An actively breeding population of burrowing owls is present in Shoreline Park, and habitats on Vista Slope, immediately west of Subarea AM1SA-BP-1, are managed to provide suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for this species. Marginally suitable burrowing owl foraging and roosting habitat, and possibly nesting habitat, is present on the north, east, and western margins of Subarea AM1SA-BP-1 in the form of ruderal grassland with abundant ground squirrel burrows.

There is no evidence that burrowing owls have used Subarea SA-BP-1 for nesting habitat in recent years. These areas do not provide high-quality owl habitat due to their narrow nature and frequent disturbance, but burrowing owls may occasionally be present on Subarea AM1SA-BP-1. Burrowing owls are more likely to occur (and more regularly) in the Vista Slope grasslands immediately to the west of AM1SA-BP-1. It is possible that up to one pair of white-tailed kites and one pair of loggerhead shrikes could nest in trees or shrubs within or immediately adjacent to Subarea AM1SA- BP-1.

MM BIO-1.1: Both Project Options:

MM BIO-1.2: Both Project Options:

MM BIO-1.3: Both Project Options:

In addition, the project would implement the following condition of approval to further reduce any potential impacts to burrowing owls on Subarea SA-BP-1.

Condition of Approval

COA BIO-1.1: Both Project Options: A habitat confirmation survey for burrowing owls must be conducted and submitted for review with any Planned Community Permit (PCP)

North Bayshore Master Plan 79 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
requests for development of parking structure at Subarea SA-BP-1. The assessment shall cover all areas within the constructi on area for the parking structure and Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan (BOPP) boundaries. Based on the results of the habitat survey, the applicant shall comply with Chapter 5.1 Habitat Overlay Zone of the Precise Plan, the BOPP and the habitat assessment g uidelines found in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, 2012. Management measures would be developed by the City in coordination 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.

as follows:

The proposed project would remove 3,3302,895 existing on-site trees, including 1,5091,345 Heritage trees, from the project site. The project would plant 3,7153,115 new trees. The City of Mountain View regulations require a permit to remove or move any tree over 48 -inches in circumference or any Quercus, Sequoia, or Cedrus over 12-inches in circumference (measured at 54 -inch above grade). A City of Mountain View Heritage tree removal permit is required before any Heritage trees are removed.

The proposed project (under either option) would implement the following standard City condition of approval.

In addition, the project would not conflict with the burrowing owl management activities related to the Habitat Plan within Shoreline Park. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan . Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The proposed project (under either option) is consistent with the Precise Plan; therefore, it is consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 and California Transportation Plan 2040 for the same reasons disclosed in the 2017 EIR for the Precise Plan.

North Bayshore Master Plan 80 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

GHG-C: Both Project Options: The
project would result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a
cumulatively significant
GHG emissions impact.

Partially SU 2017 EIR
MM AQ-2.1,
2017 EIR
MM AQ-3.1,
2017 EIR

MM GHG-

1.1, 2017 EIR

MM GHG-

1.2, MM AQ-

1.1, MM AQ-

1.2 SU

VTA Route 40 and the ACE Orange ShuttleLine serves the project vicinity with bus stops in each direction on Shoreline Boulevard and Charleston Road. Route 40 also stops at the Mountain View Transit Center, approximately 1.5 miles south of from the project site , and the San Antonio Transit Center, a pproximately 2.5 miles southwest of the project site . The Mountain View Transit Center provides connections to Caltrain, VTA light rail transit, several VTA bus routes (21, 40, 51, and 52), MV community shuttle, and MVgo shuttle routes. The San Antonio Tra nsit Center also provides connections to several VTA bus routes (21, 22, 40, and 522).

For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not conflict with a transit progr am, plan, ordinance or policy, and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant transit impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact, pursuant to SB 743Significant and Unavoidable Impact])

The proposed project’s land use mix, TDM plan, and 35 percent SOV mode share target were entered into the City’s Travel Model to calculate total project-generated VMT.11 As shown in 3.4-3 below, the

11 Since circulation of the Draft SEIR, the project description has been refined to no longer provide inclusionary housing, which would reduce the percentage of affordable housing units from 20 percent to 15 percent. The num ber of overall housing units (7,000) will not change. VMT is partially based on trip generation rates and service population numbers that differentiate between market rate and affordable housing units. The five percent reduction in affordable housing units would result in approximately 116 additional daily vehicle trips and 35 additional residents. These incremental increases would not change the results of the VMT analysis, nor change the less than significant impact conclusion presented in the Draft SEIR for VMT.

North Bayshore Master Plan 81 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
project’s total VMT per service population (under either option) of 25.13 would not exceed the significance threshold of 24.46; thus, the project would result in a less than significant VMT impact.12

Drainage Infrastructure as follows:

The project (under either option) would dedicate approximately 18.914.8 acres of unimproved land to the City and construct approximately 11. 73 acres of POPA open space. This would result in approximately 17 percent of the project site (i.e., 30.526.1 of the 151 153 acres) being dedicated parkland or POPA which would decrease the amount of impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions by approximately eight three acres (or five two percent).

California banned lead as a fuel additive in 1992. Due to the site’s proximity to US 101, on -site soils closest to US 101 may contain aerially deposited lead (ADL) from automobiles driving along US 101.

District Utilities Systems Option heading as follows:

The project would consult Valley Water’s Well Ordinance Program and tThe geothermal bores would be drilled using techniques and materials, such as installing permanent conductor casing, that would prevent cross-contamination of aquifers as approved under permit issued by the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

Treatment (C.3) section:

Stormwater treatment controls required under this condition may be required to enter into a formal recorded Maintenance Agreement with the City.

The City of Mountain View, including the entire project site, lies entirely within the confined zone of the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin and is not located within a designated groundwater recharge area.

The principal aquifer zone that Valley Water pumps drinking water manages ground water from generally occurs at depths below 150 feet bgs, and shallow groundwater within 150 feet of the ground

12 Since circulation of the Draft SEIR, the project has been refined to reduce the amount of total retail by approximately 10,000 square feet. This reduction would not change the conclusion of the VMT analysis and the impact would remain less than significant.

North Bayshore Master Plan 82 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
surface is not typically used for the region’s water supply. 13 Between 2010 and 2019, Valley Water well users (including water retailers, other municipal/industrial users, and private well owners) pumped an average of 24.4 billion gallons of groundwater per year (75,000 AFY).

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

As discussed under Impact HYD -2, the project would dedicate approximately 17 percent of the site (i.e., 30.526.1 of the 151 153 acres) as parkland which would decrease impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions.

As discussed under Impact HYD -2, the project would require temporary dewatering during construction activities. This dewatering would pump shallow groundwater on-site at depths of up to 50 feet bgs. As discussed previously, this dewatering would not pump groundwater from any principal aquifer zones that are typically used for drinking water supplies. In addition, the amount of dewatering required for the project (under either option) is estimated to comprise a small percentage of the average amount of groundwater pumped by Valley Water from the principal aquifer zones each year. For these reasons, the project (under either option ) would not conflict with water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The project (under either option) would be allocated 1.3 million square feet of “bonus” FAR in return for community benefits such as contributing to the funding of the Charleston Transit Corridor and dedicating 20 15 percent of the new residential units as affordable housing units.

13 Ibid. Page 2-3.

North Bayshore Master Plan 83 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

The existing noise environment in the project area results primarily from vehicular traffic along freeway and roadways (including US 101, North Shoreline Boulevard, Charleston Road, and Amphitheatre Parkway), and aircraft associated with Moffett Federal Ai rfield. The project site, including Subarea AM1SA-BP-1 which is outside of the Precise Plan boundaries, is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the Moffett Federal Airfield (refer to Figure 4.10-1). The nearest sensitive receptors are the Santiago Villa mobile home park (located south of Subareas SB-PBR-8 and SB-PUthe Shorebird Yards, and adjacent to the east of PE -PBR-2), the Shashi Hotel at the corner of North Shoreline Boulevard and Spacepark Way (adjacent to the north of Subarea PE -PBR-1), and a single-family residence at 1024 Alta Avenue, located approximately 725 feet west of the Joaquin Courts subarea of the Master Plan (refer to Figure 2.3-2).

It is likely that c onstruction of the proposed project and construction of adjacent cumulative projects would overlap. Specifically, the Microsoft project (located at 1045 La Avenida Street), Sobrato project (located at 1255 Pear Avenue), and the 1100 La Avenida Affordable H ousing project are all located near the Santiago Villa mobile home park (located south of Subarea SB-PBR-8 and the Shorebird Yards, and adjacent to the east of PE -PR-2), a sensitive receptor. All these cumulative projects (including the project under either option), would be required to adhere to City Code requirements and standard conditions of approval (which are discussed under Impact NOI -1). For these reasons, the cumulative projects would not result in a significant cumulative construction noise impact . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

follows:

Chapter 41 of the City’s Municipal Code states that “The fees collected pursuant to this chapter are to be used only for the purpose of providing park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision from which fees are collected… Fees so collected shall be used to purchase land, buy equipment, construct improvements or rehabilitate a proposed or existing mini -park, neighborhood park, community park, recreational facility, Stevens Creek Trail, community gardening facility or combination thereof serving said residential development.”

Students generated by the project would attend Monta Loma Elementary School located at 460 Thompson Avenue (approximately one 1.3-miles southwest of the core project site), Crittenden Middle School located at 1701 Rock Street (approximately 0. 26-mile southwest of the core project site), and Mountain View High School located at 3535 Truman Avenue (approximately four five miles south of the core project site). Figure 4.12-1 below shows the approximate distance of Monta Loma Elementary School and Crittenden Middle School in relation to the project site.

1.5 M
ile
Radius

1.5 M
ile
Radius
.5 Mile Radius
.5MileRadius
.5 Mile Radius.5 Mile Radius
1 Mile Radius1 Mile Radius

1.5 Mile Radius

1.5 Mile Radius
1 M
ile Radius
1M
ile
Radius
Permanente Creek TrailPermanente Creek Trail
Permanente Creek TrailPermanente Creek Trail
Huff AvenueHuff AvenueJoaquin Road
Space Park Way
Pear Avenue
North Shoreline Boulevard
North Shoreline Boulevard
La Avenida Street
El Centro Avenue
Stierlin CourtAmphitheatre Parkway
Rengstorff Avenue
Old Middlefield Way
West Middlefield Road
Thompson Avenue
Central Expressway
San Antonio Road
Charleston Road
Charleston Road
Leghorn Street
Marine Way
Garcia Avenue
Alta Avenue
M
offett Boulevard
RT Jones Road
De France Avenue
Zook Road
Joaquin Road
Space Park Way
Pear Avenue
North Shoreline Boulevard
NorthShoreline
Boulevard
La Avenida Street
El Centro Avenue
Stierlin CourtAmphitheatre Parkway
Rengstorff Avenue
Old Middlefield Way
West Middlefield Road
Thompson Avenue
Central Expressway
San
Antonio
Road
Charleston Road
Charleston Road
Leghorn Street
Marine Way
Casey AveCasey AveCasey AveCasey Ave
Garcia Avenue
Alta Avenue
M
offettBoulevard
RTJonesRoad
De France Avenue
Zook Road
Mountain View Slough
Adobe Creek
Permanente CreekPermanente Creek
Mountain View Slough
Adobe Creek
85 101
101
101
Stevens C
reek Trail
StevensC
reekTrail
evens C
reek
StevensC
reek
San Antonio RdSan Antonio Rd
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Nov. 19, 2021. Photo Date: Sep. 2021 0 .25 .5 .75 1 Mile
Master Plan Site
North Bayshore Precise Plan
Boundary
Distance From Crittenden
Middle School
Distance From Monta Loma
Elementary School
ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLE SCHOOL LOCATIONS FIGURE 4.12-1
North Bayshore Master Plan
City of Mountain View
84Final SEIR
April 2023

North Bayshore Master Plan 85 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

The project (under ei ther option) includes up to 7,000 residential units ( 1,400 1,050 of which would be affordable), which would generate a pproximately 12,250 residents. It is estimated that the project (under either option) would generate 1,471 1,321 elementary and middle school students and 700 607 high school students for a total of 2,171 1,928 new students.14 The estimated project generated students would materialize over time with the project’s 14 -year buildout. The proposed residential units and their associated project generated students were accounted for in the 2017 EIR analysis.15 As discussed in Section 4.12.1.2, both Monta Loma Elementary School and Crittenden Middle School have existing capacity based on current enrollment numbers and would be able to accommodate most of the project’s estimated 1,471 1,321 elementary and middle school students. Therefore, the addition of new students as the project is gradually built-out would not require the expansion of those schools. As of the end of the 2021 to 2022 school year, Mountain View High School is over capacity by 770 students. The school currently utilizes portable classrooms in addition to permanent education facilities to accommodate the additional students.16 The construction of permanent classroom facilities is underway through Measure E bond program funding and has undergone separate environmental review. 17 After completion of construction, Mountain View High School would have a capacity of 2,379 students. Despite this increase in capacity, there would not be sufficient capacity to accommodate the estimated 700 607 high school students anticipated from the project. Based on current enrollment, Mountain View High School would be 637 544 students over capacity. Consistent with the conclusion in the 2017 EIR, the buildout of the Precise Plan (which includes the proposed residential units) may require the expansion or construction of additional school facilities.18

14 Based on the following student generation rates: Elementary and middle school students per market -rate multi- family unit: 0.124 (0.555 per below market-rate unit) Source: Mountain View Whisman School District. Level I Developer Fee Study. Appendix E. May 5, 2022. Accessed August 3, 2022.

High school students per market-rate multi-family unit = 0.047 (0.312 per below market-rate unit) Source: Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Level 1 Developer Fee Study. July 27, 2020. Table 1 15 The 2017 EIR used student generation rates provided by MVWSD and MVLASD at the time the 2017 EIR was prepared. Based on these rates, the project would have generated approximately 980 elementary and middle school students and 671 high school students. Since the certification of the 2017 EIR, the school districts have updated their student generation rates. The updated student generation rates for market rate housing are about the same between the 2017 EIR and the Draft SEIR; however, the draft SEIR now includes a student generation rate for below market rate (BMR) housing for K-8 students. This BMR rate was not included in the 2017 EIR.

This Draft SEIR uses the updated student generation rates provided by MVWSD and MVLASD to estimate the number of students generated by the project. Overall, the current student generation rates estimate an additional 341 elementary and middle school students and a reduction of 64 high school students compared to the 2017 EIR student generation rates.

The updated student generation rates and estimated number of student generated by the project is not considered substantial new information because it would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR and the project would still pay the state-mandated school impact fee to reduce impacts to schools to a less than significant level.
16 Aguilar, Irene. Assistant to the Associate Superintendent-Business Services, Mountain View Los Altos High School District. Personal Communication. July 7, 2022.
17 Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - Mountain View High School Expansion Project (SCH Number 2011092006). November 2018. Page 10. 18 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Pages 397-398, Page 401.

North Bayshore Master Plan 86 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

The p roposed project (under either option) would include a total of 30.526.1-acres of open space, including 11.73 acres of POPA open space to be developed under the project (under either option) and

18.914.8 acres of parkland dedicated to the City for developme nt of future parks at a later date (see Figure 2.3-3). The 30.526.1 acres of parkland included in the project would offset the demand for recreational facilities by future employees and residents living and working on-site. Per the City’s Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance, the project would be required to provide 36.834.5- 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 6.28.4-acres. Project -related impacts from construction of on -site parks are discussed further in Section 4.13 Recreation below and are concluded to be less than significant, which is consistent with the findings of the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As discussed in the 2017 EIR, cumulative projects in Mountain View and Sunnyvale may require provision of public services, including fire and police services, schools, and recreational facilities. For instance, the 2017 EIR disclosed that the development o f the Precise Plan (which accounts for the proposed number of residential units) and cumulative projects could result in the need for new schools.19 The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2017 EIR and there is no substantial change in the project (e.g., no change in the number of residential units) or circumstances under which the project is undertaken (e.g., no public school closures) . While the Master Plan includes more development within the Precise Plan a nd on Subarea AM1SA-BP-1, that development would consist of a parking garage and police substation, which would improve public services in the area.

follows:

Chapter 41 of the City’s Municipal Code states that “The fees collected pursuant to this chapter are to be used only for the purpose of providing park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision from which fees are collected… Fees so collected shall be used to purchase land, buy equipment, construct improvements or rehabilitate a proposed or existing mini -park, neighborhood park, community park, recreational facility, Stevens Creek Trail, community gardening facility or combination thereof serving said residential development.”

19 Ibid.

North Bayshore Master Plan 87 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

The 2017 EIR concluded that future development in compliance with the Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance (Chapter 41 of the Ci ty Code) would not result in significant impacts to park or recreational facilities.20 Per the City’s Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance, the project (under either option) would be required to provide 36.834.5-acres of open space to mee t the City’s three acres per 1,000 residents ratio. The project (under either 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 6.28.4-acres. The compliance of the project (under either option) with the Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance would offset the demand for recreational facilities by project employees and residents living and working on -site. The project (under either option) would result in the same less than signific ant impact to parks and recreational facilities as disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The proposed project (under either option) would const ruct 11.73 acres of POPA open space. The environmental impacts associated with development of this POPA open space are discussed throughout this EIR. The project (under either option) would dedicate 18.914.8 acres to the City for future development of City parks. Future development on the dedicated land would be subject to separate environmental review. The development of the POPA open space would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. The project (under either option) would result in new impacts pertaining to construction and operational criteria air pollutants and community health risk; however, these new impacts are attributed to the residential, office, retail, hotel, parking, and district u tility system. The development of the 30.526.1 acres of open space, as described in Section 2.3.2, would not alone result in new impacts not previously disclosed in the 2017 EIR. Subsequent project -level environmental review may be required for these 18.914.8 acres of dedicated parkland when proposed for development. Therefore, the project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2017 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As discussed under Impact REC-1 above, the project (under either option) would comply with the Park Land Dedication or Fees In Lieu Thereof Ordinance by providing a total of 30.526.1-acres of open space and paying in lieu fees.

20 City of Mountain View. North Bayshore Precise Plan Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse #2013082088. March 2017. Page 400.

North Bayshore Master Plan 88 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

Table 8.2-1: Summary of Development Assumptions for the Project and Project Alternatives Project (under
either option)1
Project Alternatives
No Project, No
New
Development
Mitigated 11%
Reduced
Development
Mitigated
39% Reduced
Development
Light Industrial (million
square feet) 0

1.8 0 0
Office (million square feet) 3.1 2.8 1.9
Residential (units) 7,000 0 6,230 4,270
Hotel (rooms) 525 0 467 320
Retail (square feet) 244,000 11,056 217,000 148,840
Community (square feet) 55,000 0 49,000 33,550
Park/open space (acres) 30.526.1 0 27.123.2 18.615.9
1 The project with District Utilities System Option includes a DCP not reflected as a land use in the table. 2 Park sizes are estimated for the purposes of this discussion. Community benefits and impact requirements and fees would be recalculated based on the ultimate development square footages and residential unit types ultimately approved. Parkland specifically would be provided as a combination of land and impact fees.

Table 8.2-2: Approximate Percent Reduction in Development Required to Avoid Significant and Unavoidable Construction and Operational Air Quality Impacts Construction-Related Impacts
NOx (2024 only) Cancer Risk Annual PM2.5
Approximate %
Reduction 11 22 39
Approximate
Corresponding
Amount of
Development
Office: 2.8 msf
Residential: 6,230 du
Hotel: 467 rooms
Retail: 217,000 sf
Community: 49,000 sf
Open Space: 23.2 acres
Office: 2.4 msf
Residential: 5,460 du
Hotel: 410 rooms
Retail: 190,000 sf
Community: 43,000 sf
Open Space: 20.4 acres
Office: 1.9 msf
Residential: 4,270 du
Hotel: 320 rooms
Retail: 148,840 sf
Community: 33,550 sf
Open Space: 15.9 acres

North Bayshore Master Plan 89 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023
Table 8.2-2: Approximate Percent Reduction in Development Required to Avoid Significant and Unavoidable Construction and Operational Air Quality Impacts Operation-Related Impacts
ROG NOx PM10
Approximate %
Reduction 86 55 28
Approximate
Corresponding
Amount of
Development
Office: 434,000 sf
Residential: 980 du
Hotel: 74 rooms
Retail: 34,160 sf
Community: 7,700 sf
Open Space: 3.7 acres
Office: 1.4 msf
Residential: 3,150 du
Hotel: 236 rooms
Retail: 109,800 sf
Community: 24,750 sf
Open Space: 11.7 acres
Office: 2.2 msf
Residential: 5,040 du
Hotel: 378 rooms
Retail: 176,000 sf
Community: 40,000 sf
Open Space: 18.8 acres

Alternative bullet as follows:

Objective 7 is to provide new open space and public park areas and this alternative would provide

27.1 23.2 (whereas the project proposes 30.526.1 acres under either option).

Development Alternative bullet as follows:

Under this alternative, approximately 18.615.9 acres of open space/park land would be provided, which is less than the 30.5 26.1 acres proposed by the project (under either option).

North Bayshore Master Plan 90 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View April 2023

Appendix A: Draft EIR Comment Letters
Printed on Recycled Paper

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
January 31, 2023
Ms. Diana Pancholi
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
[email protected]

DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR NORTH
BAYSHORE MASTER PLAN – DATED DECEMBER 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2022020712)
Dear Ms. Pancholi:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR:

1. The
EIR references the listing compiled in accordance with California Government Code Section 65962.5, commonly known as the Cortese List. Not all sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous substances will be found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends that the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR address actions to be taken for any sites impacted by hazardous waste or hazardous substances within the Project area, not just those found on the Cortese List. DTSC recommends consulting with other agencies that may provide oversight to hazardous waste facilities or sites impacted with hazardous substances in order to determine a comprehensive listing of all sites Yana Garcia
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
'\ ' ~~
o/
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Meredith Williams, Ph.D.

Director
8800 Cal Center Drive
Sacramento, California 95826-3200
Gavin Newsom
Governor
Letter A
Ms. Diana Pancholi
January 31, 2023

impacted by hazardous waste or substances within the Project area. DTSC hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues can be found on DTSC’s EnviroStor data management system. The EnviroStor Map feature can be used to locate hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues for a county, city, or a specific address. A search within EnviroStor indicates that numerous hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination issues are present within the Project’s region.

2. A
State of California environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a local agency that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 101480 should provide regulatory concurrence that the Project site is safe for construction and the proposed use.

3. T
he EIR should acknowledge the potential for historic or future activities on or near the Project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the Project site. In instances in which releases have occurred or may occur, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The EIR should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

4. R
efiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance.

This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil, DTSC recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the Project described in the EIR.

5. I
f buildings or other structures are to be demolished on any project sites included in the proposed project, surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California Ms. Diana Pancholi
January 31, 2023

environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers.

6. I f any projects initiated as part of the proposed Project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

7. If any sites included as part of the proposed Project have been used for agricultural, weed abatement or related activities, proper investigation for organochlorinated pesticides should be discussed in the EIR. DTSC recommends the current and former agricultural lands be evaluated in accordance with DTSC’s 2008 Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties (Third Revision).

DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR. Should you choose DTSC to provide oversight for any environmental investigations, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
G
avin McCreary, M.S.

Project Manager
Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
Department of Toxic Substances Control
cc: (next page)
t
Ms. Diana Pancholi
January 31, 2023

cc: ( via email)
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Mr. Dave Kereazis
Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
From: Patel, Shrupath <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 10:35:44 AM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Cc: Lait, Jonathan <[email protected]>; Star-Lack, Sylvia <Sylvia.Star- [email protected]>; Atkinson, Rebecca <[email protected]>; Kamhi, Philip <[email protected]>
S
ubject: North Bayshore Master Plan Project Comments
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

H
ello Diana,
T
hank you for the opportunity to comment on Draft EIR for the North Bayshore Master Plan Project.

Below are the City of Palo Alto’s comments regarding the CEQA document, the Master Plan Project, TDM measures, and the upcoming Multimodal Transportation Analysis (MTA). Please feel free to contact me, if you have any questions regarding the comments. We look forward to reviewing the MTA when it is published.

1. T
he transportation analysis has included the TDM measures to achieve the trip cap targets and to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes. The addition of new jobs and residences will generate additional traffic on Palo Alto streets. The current MVGO shuttle provides service between North Bayshore and Caltrain station via San Antonio Rd. However, there is no shuttle stop on San Antonio Rd in Palo Alto. The future development in North Bayshore and San Antonio Rd would generate the demand for the shuttle service. Project’s TDM program should have a provision for the shuttle stop on San Antonio Rd to reduce the local traffic impacts in Palo Alto.

2. The new residential development is likely to generate outbound vehicle trips. The TDM measures should also identify the neighboring major employment areas to provide local shuttle service.

3. The project shall be generating new peak hours trips and daily trips which shall have a loc al
t
raffic impact on bike routes in Palo Alto. The MTA (Multimodal Transportation Analysis) should also discuss the required pedestrian and bicycle improvements at impacted intersections to provide safer intersection crossings.

4. All Palo Alto intersections selected in the North Bayshore Precise Plan traffic study should also be evaluated as part of the North Bayshore Master Plan MTA.

5. The MTA report should include recommendations for required off-site improvements in Palo Alto if a significant impact is identified on the Palo Alto streets or intersections.

6. The MTA report should be shared with the City of Palo Alto to review the project-generated traffic impacts.

7. The City of Palo Alto identified proposed Housing Opportunity Sites in our draft Housing Element in the vicinity of the North Bayshore Master Plan area, including near West Bayshore Road, San Antonio Road, and Fabian Way. More information on proposed Housing Element Opportunity Letter B
Sites can be found online: https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp- content/uploads/2022/12/Palo-Alto-Housing-Element-2023-2031.pdf.

8. The forthcoming new housing location - Homekey Palo Alto at 1237 San Antonio Road - is near to
the North Bayshore Master Plan area. Please consider the Homekey Palo Alto site relative to potential temporary construction air quality, noise, and vibration. For example, use of temporary construction noise barriers, sound curtains, and other noise reduction strategies may be necessary during proposed garage construction near San Antonio Road.

9. If or when development occurs in North Bayshore Master Plan area, there is a standing request from our Fire Department to coordinate on local intersection flow in the San Antonio area to facilitate multi-jurisdiction emergency response access.

10. If or when development occurs in the North Bayshore Master Plan area, there is a standin g
re
quest from our Emergency Operations team for coordination of public safety operations (including our ongoing shared Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system).

T
hank you
Shrupath
Shrupath Patel
Associate Planner
Office of Transportation I City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650-329-2568 I E: [email protected]

MVLA

MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES Phil Faillace, Ph.D.

Sanjay Dave
Esmeralda Ortiz
Thida Cornes
Catherine Vonnegut

HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Serving the communities or Mountain View,
Los Altos and Los Altos H Js
February 6, 2023
Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Dear Ms. Pancholi,

SUPERINTENDENT
Nellie Meyer, Ed.D.

This document serves as the Mountain View Los Altos High School District (MVLA) response to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan.

We have reviewed the report and provide the following information in regard to the adequacy of the findings as related to direct and indirect impacts on the Mountain View Los Altos High School District. We understand that the passage of SB50 limits the levying of developer fees for direct impacts on school districts. However, nothing precludes the City, Developer and School District from working collaboratively to develop a mitigation strategy to address the direct and indirect city growth impacts on the school district.

Student Growth
The City of Mountain View's Draft Subsequent EIR indicates the impact of 700 high school students would be adequately mitigated by developer fees. This is not accurate. In reality, developer fees are woefully inadequate, covering less than ten percent of actual school construction and land costs in the city of Mountain View. Moreover, the updated Draft Subsequent EIR states:

As of the end of the 2021 to 2022 school year, Mountain View High School is over capacity by 770 students. The school currently utilizes portable classrooms in addition to permanent education facilities to accommodate the additional students. The construction of permanent classroom facilities is underway through Measure E bond program funding and has undergone a separate environmental review. After completion of construction , Mountain View High School would have a capacity of 2,379 students.

Despite this increase in capacity, there would not be sufficient capacity to accommodate the estimated 700 high school students anticipated from the project . Based on current enrollment, Mountain View High School would be 637 students over capacity. 1299 Bryant Avenue, Mountain View, Callfornla 94040-4599 Phone : (650) 940-4650 Letter C
February 6, 2023
RE: Mountain View Los Altos High School District (MVLA) response to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan

The Draft Subsequent EIR acknowledges that there would not be sufficient capacity for the additional high school students that would result from this project. Therefore, an additional high school campus is necessary to accommodate the estimated 700 high school students.

Indeed, the Draft Subsequent EIR does not take into account projects that were already approved in the northern half of the city, some of which are outside of the North Bayshore precise plan area. These projected students will precede the impact of students generated by the North Bayshore Master Plan and further exacerbate Mountain View Los Altos High School District's lack of capacity to accommodate them.

Cost to House Students Generated From the North Bayshore Master Plan Construction costs in the Bay Area have escalated dramatically in the last ten years. The State per pupil grant does not reflect this escalation, and therefore, the gap between what the State allows and provides for school construction is significantly less than the actual cost of school construction.

LandwCity May Reserve or Designate Real Property for a School Site In addition to the dramatic escalation in construction costs in the Bay Area, land costs have increased as well. The State of California will provide fifty percent of the cost of land for eligible school construction . However, the remaining fifty percent of the land cost is the responsibility of the local school district. These substantial increases in land costs make it difficult to build schools in accordance with the Department of Education school site guidelines. The land cost escalation issues were anticipated when S850 was drafted and Government Code section 65998 allows cities to "reserve or designate" real property for a school site.

GOVERNMENT CODE-GOV
TITLE 7. PLANNING ANO LAND USE [65000 • 66499.58] i Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats . 1974. Ch. 1536. 1 DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING [65000 • 66103) ( Heading of Division 1 added by Stats. 1974. Ch 1536 J CHAPTER 4.9. Payment of Fees, Charges, Dedications. or Other Requirements Against a Development Project (65995 • 65998) ( Chapter 4.9 addttd by Stats. 1986. Ch. 887. Sec. 11. > 65998. (a) Nothing in this chapter or in Section 17620 of the Education Code shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the authority of a local agency to reserve or designate real propert y for a schoolsite. (b) Nothing in this chapter or in Section 17620 of the Education Code shall be interpreted to limit or prohib it t he ability of a local agency to mitigate the impacts of a land use approval involvi ng, but not tlmited to, the planning, use, or development of real propert y other than on the need for school facilit ies. (AddN by Stats . 1998, Ch. 407, S ec. 25. Effective August 27, 1998. Operativ e November 4, 1998 (Prop. IA was adoptN Nov. 3) by Sec. 31 of Ch. 407. Note : Pursuant to Education Code Section 101 122 (subd . (d)), which was added Nov. 8, 2016 , by Prop. 51, Chapter 4.9 (Sections 65995 to 65998 ) as it read on Jan. l , 2015, continues in effect until Dec. 31, 2020, or e-arlier date prescribed. Thereafter , Chapter 4.9 may be amended. ) 1299 Bryant Avenue, Mountain View, California 94040-4599 Phone: (650) 940-4650 February 6, 2023
RE: Mountain View Los Altos High School District (MVLA) response to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan

California Department of Education's general guidance for a school site recommends approximately 33.5 acres of land for a high school that would serve approximately 1,100 students, which is the number of high school students MVLA estimates will come from this and other approved housing projects in the city of Mountain View.

As a condition of approval of the North Bayshore Master Plan, and prior to the certification of the Draft Subsequent EIR, we request that the City and Developer designate and reserve a school site for MVLA. The availability of land for school construction in Mountain View is extremely limited. The District is amenable to creative efforts to utilize all real property options and is willing to discuss these options with the Developer.

Indirect Impacts
Chawanakee Unified School District V. County of Madera
In this appellate court case, the court concluded that the phrase in S850 "impacts on school facilities" does not cover all possible environmental impacts. While the North Bayshore Master plan does consider noise, emissions, traffic, and other indirect impacts, it does not specifically identify those indirect impacts in the operation of a school district. For example, the eighteen "significant unavoidable impacts" created by transportation and traffic may have an indirect impact on transporting students to school if the school is not in the proximity of the North Bayshore Master Plan project. In addition, the buildout of 9,850 units is in a plan that covers a period through 2030. The approximate 10-year buildout of the project would mean an absorption rate of 980 units per year. This construction period would require the MVLA District to provide interim housing over a period of time and is considered an "indirect impact." This issue is not addressed in the Draft Subsequent EIR.

Shoreline Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment
As noted in the draft EIR:

The Shoreline Community shall work with the Mountain View Whisman School District and the Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District to allocate revenue related to the growth in assessed value due to new residential development within the Community pursuant to/in accordance with the annual tax a/location for each school district, through mutually agreed to and legally binding agreements
The North Bayshore Master Plan indicates the desire to transform a once blighted area into a thriving mixed development area. The businesses and residences that are being planned are currently planned in a de facto redevelopment district. The Shoreline Community, which is managed by the city of Mountain View staff and City Council, currently diverts tax revenue from the schools to the City. MVLA, MVWSD, and the city of Mountain View have formed a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), also known as Shoreline Educational Enhancement Reserve (EER), that began releasing part of the tax increment to schools. The agreement guarantees a minimum of approximately $1.84 million annually to MVLA. That agreement not only ends on July 1, 2023, but also ceases to provide any share of the tax increment thereafter. 1299 Bryant Avenue, Mountain View, California 94040-4599 Phone: (650) 940-4650 February 6, 2023
RE: Mountain View Los Altos High School District (MVLA) response to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Bayshore Master Plan Page4
Through a formula that was developed by the JPA, MVLA received $3,423,095 this year. Per the county assessor's office, MVLA's normal tax increment would have been $8,920,000 this year, a deficit of $5,496,905.

Assessed Value Tax revenue from commercial and residential properties is what community­ funded districts use to address day-to-day operating costs and is not intended for building schools. As indicated in the Draft Subsequent EIR, North Bayshore should generate 700 high school students. At the MVLA current per student expenditure rate of $30,000, this would mean that tax revenue would, at minimum, need to equal $21,000 ,000 in the near future.

Closing Comments
Our comments regarding the Draft Subsequent EIR should not be construed to indicate our opposition to the North Bayshore Master Plan. It is critical that all interested parties understand that the new dwelling units are of such magnitude that school mitigation measures for the project exceed the District's ability to absorb the 700 students estimated from this project. We look forward to the cooperation of the City and proponents of the project to meet with MVLA and resolve the apparent challenges in this proposed project. We suggest that the District, City, and proponents of the project delay the approval of the North Bayshore Master Plan and the Draft Subsequent EIR and meet soon to provide creative, viable measures that meet the needs of MVLA and all stakeholders.

Respectfully,
~~
Nellie Meyer
Superintendent

MVLAHSD
cc: Alison Hicks, Mayor
Pat Showalter, Vice Mayor
Margaret Abe-Koga, Councilmember
Ellen Kamei, Councilmember
Lisa Matichak, Councilmember
Lucas Ramirez, Councilmember
Emily Ramos, Councilmember
Dr. Phil Faillace, Board President
Sanjay Dave, Board Vice President
Esmeralda Ortiz, Board Clerk
Thida Cornes, Board Trustee
Catherine Vonnegut, Board Trustee
Mike Mathiesen, Associate Superintendent
1299 Bryant Avenue , Mountain View, California 94040-4599 Phone: (650) 940-4650 City of Mountain View
℅ Diana Pancholi, Project Planner
500 Castro St.

Mountain View, CA 94041
February 3, 2022
Dear Mrs. Pancholi,
This document serves as the Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) response to the Amended North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP), Dra Environmental Impact Report. We have reviewed the report and provide the following informaon in regard to the adequacy of the findings as related to direct and indirect impacts on the Mountain View Whisman School District. We understand that the passage of SB50 limits the levying of developer fees for direct impacts on school districts. However, nothing precludes the City, Developer and School District from working collaboravely to develop a migaon strategy to address the direct and indirect city growth impacts on the school district.

Student Growth:

The City of Mountain View’s Dra EIR indicates the impact of 1,471 elementary and middle school students would be adequately migated by developer fees. Moreover, the updated Dra EIR indicates:

As discussed in Secon 4.12.1.2, both Monta Loma Elementary School and Crienden Middle School have exisng capacity based on current enrollment numbers and would be able to accommodate the project’s esmated 1,471 elementary and middle school students. Therefore, the addion of new students as the project is gradually built-out would not require the expansion of those schools.

Furthermore, the Dra EIR asserts:
, ,,,/,
•7~ . / /,~ .,,
~ Mountain View
Whisman
School District
A foundation of excellence. A future of
achievement.™
District Office
T 650.526.3500
1400 Montecito Ave.

Mountain View, CA 94043
mvwsd.org
Letter D
The project site is located within the Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District (MVLASD). The MVWSD serves grades
kindergarten through eighth grade and the MVLAS services high-school age students. Students generated by the project would aend Monta Loma Elementary School located at 460 Thompson Avenue (approximately one mile southwest of the core project site), Crienden Middle School located at 1701 Rock Street (approximately 0.2-mile southwest of the core project site), and Mountain View High School located at 3535 Truman Avenue (approximately four miles south of the core project site).

Table 4.12-1 shows the exisng school capacies at Monta Loma Elementary School, Crienden Middle School, and Mountain View High School. As shown in the table, Monta Loma
Elementary School and Crienden Middle School both have capacity for addional students.

Unfortunately, as highlighted below, the City of Mountain View EIR report does not take into account projects that were already approved in the northern half of the city, some of which are outside of the North Bayshore precise plan area. These projected students will precede the impact of students generated by the North Bayshore Precise Plan (NBPP). While both Monta Loma Elementary School and Crienden Middle School are in the proximity of the NBPP , there will be no capacity , ,,,/,
•7~ . / /,~ .,,
~ Mountain View
Whisman
School District
District Office
T 650.526.3500
1400 Montecito Ave.

Mountain View, CA 94043
Table 4.12-1: 2021 to 2022 School Enrollment and Capacity School Current Enrollment Existing Capacity
Manta Loma Elementary School 1 271 460
Crittenden Middle School 1 532 1,008
Mountain View High School2 2,316 1,546
1 MVWSD. Level I Developer Fee Study. Appendix E. May 5, 2022. Accessed August 3, 2022. 2 Aguilar, Irene. Assistant to the Associate Superintendent-Business Services, Mountain View Los Altos High School District. Personal Communication. July 7, 2022.

A foundation of excellence. A future of
achievement.™
mvwsd.org
available when the NBPP project is developed. Based on our student generaon rates, which the City used in its own EIR report, Monta Loma will have 117 new students assigned to the school prior to the compleon of these addional units.

Based on MVWSD’s Future Growth Consideraons and Soluons presentaon to the Board of Educaon on March 24, 2022, monitoring the pace of future residenal development was idenfied as a key task to support other District planning acons. The table below was included as a 10-year projecon of future residenal development in the District service area.
, ,,,/,
•7~ . / /,~ .,,
REF#
20 26
30 41
52 56
74 43
59 60
71 12
13 22
35 54
69 78
32 10
53 55
58 72
73 79
~ Mountain View
Whisman
School District

PROJECT TITLE
Bubb
1051 Boranda Ave.
1332 Park Dr.
918 Rich Ave .
1411-1495 W. El Camino Real (Lu11 Largo)
1313/1347 W. E1 Camino Real
773 Cuesta Dr.
982 Bonita Ave.

Subto tal
Castro
1958 Latham St.
570 5. Rengstorff Ave.
1919-1933 Game l Way/ 574 Escuela Ave.
1720Villa St.
601 Escuela Ave/ 1873 Latham St.

Subt otal
Landels
870 E. El Camino Real
City lot 12
325-339 Franklin St.
676 W . Dana St.
525 E. Evelyn Ave. (Flower Mart)
231-235 Hope St.
860 Bay St.

Subt otal
Monta Loma
901-987 N. Rengstorff Ave.
1255 Pear Ave.
828/836 Sierra Vista Ave.
1100 La Avenida St.
2005 Rock St.
2310 Rock St.
851-853 Sierra Vista Ave.

Subto tal
RESIDENTIAL UNITS (D.U.)
New Existi ng
(Dem o)
Tota l
1 29 0 29
53 0 53
24 0 24
1 4
0 8
124
0 85 70 85
121 29 121
226 19 226
25 25
463
371 42 371
120 0 120
15 13 15
0 471 0 471
0 0
1000
126 126
635 0 635
20 5 20
100 0 100
15 0 15
55 59 55
9 3 9
960
A foundation of excellence. A future of
achievement.™
Net SF/Condos/Ro
whou ses
0 0
2 2
29 29
53 53
24 3
119 95
15 15
92 207
24 344 21
329
120
9 471
945 25
125
635
15 15
100
15 15
-4 -4
6 6
892 32
Mutti Below Total K-5
Market Fa mily Rate Unit s Student s
0 0.076
29 1.102
53 2.014
24 24 2.04
3 0.114

0.304
24 119 5.65

0.228
15 0.57
92 92 7.82
192 15 207 20.94
24 24 2.04
308 15 344 31.598
329 329 27.965
120 120 36.96
2 0.076

0.342
471 471 40.035

0.342

0.19 800 120 945 105.91
125 125 10.625
540 95 635 75.16
15 0.57
100 100 30.8
15 0.57
-4 -0.152
6 0.228
665 195 892 117.801
6-8
Studen ts
0 0.022

0.319

0.583

0.936

0.033

0.088

1.98 0.066

0.1 65

3.588

11.193

0.936

15.948

12.831

29.64 0.022

0.099

18.369

0.099

0.055

61.115

4.875

44.525

0.165

24.7 0.165
-0.044

0.066

74.4S2
District Office
T 650.526.3500
1400 Montec ito Ave.

Mounta in View, CA 94043
E~ mentary
Schoo l Middl e School
Bubb Graham
Bubb Graham
Bubb Graham
Bubb Graham
Bubb Graham
Bubb Graham
Bubb Graham
Castro Graham
Castro Graham
Castro Graham
Castro Graham
Castro Graham
Landels Graham
Landels Graham
Landels Graham
Landels Graham
Landels Graham
Landels Graham
Landels Graham
Manta Loma Crittenden
Manta Loma Crittenden
Manta Loma Crittenden
Manta Loma Crittenden
Manta Loma Crittenden
Manta Loma Crittenden
Manta Loma Crittenden
mvwsd.org
Note: 1,682 units listed as “Under Construcon” on table should be revised to 1,050 units due to 632 units in 2580/2590 California Ave. project being outside MVWSD service area.

COST TO HOUSE STUDENTS GENERATED FROM NBPP
Construcon costs in the Bay Area have escalated dramacally in the last 8 years. The State per pupil grant does not reflect this escalaon and therefore the gap between what the State allows and provides for school construcon is significantly less than the actual cost of school construcon.

LAND
In addion to dramac escalaon in construcon costs in the Bay Area, land costs have increased as well. The State of California will provide 50% of the cost of land for eligible school construcon. However, the remaining 50% of the land cost is the responsibility of the local school district. These substanal increases in land costs make it difficult to build schools in accordance with the Department of Educaon school site guidelines. The land cost escalaon issues were ancipated when SB50 was draed and Government Code secon 65998 allows the cies to “reserve or designate” real property for a school site. , ,,,/,
•7~ . / /,~ .,,
~ Mountain View
Whisman
School District
Year

FUTURE GROWTH -RESIDENTIAL UNITS
Under Construction
Appro ved
Under Review
NB & EW Master Plans (Under Review)
Other-NB & EW Precise Plans (Approved )
Othe r-Terra Bella & Moffett Field

FUTURE GROWTH -DISTRICT CAPACITY
Elementary Schools
N
N
0 N
..,
N
0 N
;!;
0 N
...

N
0 N
4 ~
0 N
5 Within Capacity I------------ ~
At Capacity
Over Capacity
Middle Schools
:::;
0 N
6 ~
0 N
7 Wit hin Capacity I------------ -+---- __,
At Capacity
Over Capacity
A foundation of excellence. A future of
achievement.™
en
N
0 N
8 g
0 N
9 ~ ..,
0 N
10 District Office
T 650.526.3500
1400 Montecito Ave.

Mountain View, CA 94043
~
0 N
11 :•u
mvwsd.org
Moreover, the Dra EIR inaccurately indicates the distance from North Bayshore to Monta Loma Elementary. As noted in the plan:

Students generated by the project would aend Monta Loma Elementary School located at 460 Thompson Avenue
(approximately one mile southwest of the core project site), Crienden Middle School located at 1701 Rock Street
(approximately 0.2-mile southwest of the core project site), In the following diagrams you will find that almost every elementary school student within the city of Mountain View is approximately 1 to 1.5 miles from school. The placement of these schools helps to facilitate the school as a civic meeng point for the community and reduces commutes. In contrast, while Monta Loma and Crienden reside close to the outer perimeters of the development area, Monta Loma is more than two miles away from the central residenal hub of these developments, thus negang its ability to serve as a community anchor. Because MVWSD cannot provide bussing to an addional 1400 students due to significant cost, not having a school within a 1.5 mile radius would effecvely invalidate the traffic study included as a part of this EIR. , ,,,/,
•7~ . District Office / /,~ .,,
~ Mountain View
Whisman
School District
T 650.526.3500
1400 Montecito Ave.

Mountain View, CA 94043
ENT CO:D:E ~ GOV
· I · _IE 1. fl LAf4r4!tt!G P.tUJ1 L..AN!l:I !JcSE l/;,5!lJ01) • i;i6 · "-5'8.1 ( "1'~ . .· (;4 . rf~ 7 .)mi:"Ji'i;J~ bJI _ •~. 97, Ch, 153J ) Dl\lilSilON t. Pl!.AfiltJI ·a AND ZOt.:.tlNC 165()00. ea.103.] ( He d.1'1.~ oJ D. oo radded by St,ats.. 1974, Ch. fffl. ' C:HAP ER 4.9. Pi!l!,lffli'!itt or Fei'!Ss, Ch l'gl:c1;, Dci:di~lioits , o CMl'ti'! IR:i!q; iFi'!rrl~iilS Ag In.SI a _: ~y opmen1. Project [fl!i!l 95 • ll!ia91J.] ( Cti~ 4',9 d'~ by St.al.s. 19i Cfi S-87, Soc ff, ' apte or In Sei:.tlon l 76. 0 o the E. e.atlon C !lh.a I be I nterpr1!1:ed ro II t or· pmhl It rity of a f<Kal a'il,e,ni;y o reserve o desi!illll t re I i:;iroi:;ierty for sm oolsi , hapter · 17 o duca on Code sh I terpreted to, llmlt ,or pro e o1b"li . . nw ~ im · ndl U li approva i ;, bu nc lim1 111d to, th ~ annin'il, (. ~ed by Sta~ . .1 ~ . Ch. 4tJ1. Ser. · . Eff~t.,ve A UY 7. 1998 . Opera-ti . No . tbe r- • 1998 (Prop . .1A was ;,aopt.a Nott, J) by :S: r;. 3-J ofC'1, 41J7. Not.-: Pui7Wnt o Ed~ti.wi Cod• S r; ·i;;i JOlU2 {~LltlvJ, (d)}, !lfflir;h 1-v.r. add Nov. S, O . .Hi, by Prop. I, Cha-pter '""· 9 (.S-e on-s 65995 rn 6 998} ;;,.s · r~ad on Ja11. 1, 01 , 0011Nn m eff'c1:-.t un ID . 31. ll020 . or e.arl~ date p . sa-i . Tn ar'r • CnapFer-4. 9 ma b-e a · d . . } A foundation of excellence. A future of
achievement.™
mvwsd.org
California Department of Educaon’s general guidance for a school site recommends approximately 10 acres of land for an elementary school and 25 acres for a middle school. It is worth nong that MVWSD does have a school (Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary) that resides on less than the minimum recommended land. Vargas Elementary is an extremely ght footprint, which creates logiscal issues as it pertains to growth and meeng student needs.

In contrast, the North Bayshore plan only inmates at the possibility of green space being used for a school. This referenced site in the DEIR, if provided to MVWSD, would have twice the enrollment of Vargas Elementary with less acreage; the site is 3 acres compared to Vargas , ,,,/,
•7~ . / /,~ .,,
~ Mountain View
Whisman
School District
I
I
I
I
/
I
,,, ,,,
-- - ... ,~-... ' ~ I / .............. t.
,,~ ~ --,,E
I i\ HUFF , ,'
\ I ' V...,Sttiool q I
l ' ,;(~,
\ I """" - _.. /
\ I / '/
' I l /
' ~, - ------~ ..... ;'
chool Residential J ~ - - .,
rvice Boundaries
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
/
'
,,, ,,,
/
' ' ....
,,. ,.
' ...
.... -- -_..
.... ___ ,,,,,,.

A foundation of excellence. A future of
achievement.™
,, ,,,
/
I
I
I
'I
District Office
T 650.526.3500
1400 Montecito Ave.

Mountain View, CA 94043
mvwsd.org
Elementary which sits on 4.5 acres and is 7 acres less than the state’s minimum recommendaon. While an urban school design can migate / maximize a small site footprint, this potenal site would be inadequate to serve the needs of the community.

Ergo, as a condion of approval of the NBPP project, and prior to the cerficaon of the DEIR, we request that the City and Developer designate and reserve mulple elementary school sites for MVWSD. The availability of land for school construcon in Mountain View is extremely limited. The District is amenable to creave efforts to ulize all real property opons and is willing to discuss these opons with the Developer
.

INDIRECT IMPACTS
Chawanakee Unified School District V. County of Madera
In this appellate court case, the court concluded that the phrase in SB50 “impacts on school facilies” does not cover all possible environmental impacts. While the NBPP does consider noise, emissions, traffic, and other indirect impacts, it does not specifically idenfy those indirect impacts in the operaon of a school district. For example, the eighteen “significant unavoidable impacts” created by transportaon and traffic may have an indirect impact on transporng students to school if the school is not in the proximity of the NBPP project. In addion, the buildout of 9,850 units is in a plan that covers a period through 2030. The approximate 10-year buildout of the NBPP project would mean an absorpon rate of 980 units per year.

This construcon period would require the MVWSD to provide interim housing over a period of me and is considered an “indirect impact.” This issue is not addressed in the DEIR.

Shoreline Community Redevelopment Area Tax Increment
As noted in the EIR report:

Funding for Schools. The Shoreline Community shall work with the Mountain View Whisman School District and the Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District to allocate revenue , ,,,/,
•7~ . / /,~ .,,
~ Mountain View
Whisman
School District
A foundation of excellence. A future of
achievement.™
District Office
T 650.526.3500
1400 Montecito Ave.

Mountain View, CA 94043
mvwsd.org
related to the growth in assessed value due to new residenal development within the Community pursuant to/in accordance with the annual tax allocaon for each school district, through mutually agreed to and legally binding agreements.

The North Bayshore Precise plan indicates the desire to transform a once blighted area into a thriving mixed development area. The businesses and residences that are being planned are currently planned in a de facto redevelopment district. The Shoreline community, which is managed by the city of Mountain View staff and City Council currently diverts all tax revenue. Currently MVLA, MVWSD and the city of Mountain View have formed a Joint Powers Authority, also known as Share Shoreline, that began releasing part of the tax increment to schools. The current agreement, which not only ends but also ceases to provide any share of the tax increment on July 1st, 2023, currently guarantees approximately $2.8 million. Through a formula that was developed by the City, MVWSD received $5,346,723 dollars this year. Per the county assessor's office, MVWSD normal tax increment would have been $13,926,094.67 last year.

Assessed Value Tax revenue from commercial and residenal is what community funded districts use to address day-to-day operang costs and is not really intended for building schools. As indicated in the EIR, North Bayshore should generate 1471 students. At the MVWSD current per student expenditure rate of $23,000 this would mean that tax revenue would at minimum need to equal $33,833,000 in the near future. An increase of students in this fashion, without the tax increment to cover the cost per pupil expenditures, would reduce our per pupil expenditures from $23,000 to $16,611 dollars. This reducon means that each student in our District would experience a decrease of $6,389 in programs and services annually.

CLOSING COMMENTS
Our comments regarding the DEIR should not be construed to indicate our opposion to the amended NBPP . It is crical that all interested pares understand that the new dwelling units are of such magnitude that school migaon measures for the project exceed the District’s ability to absorb the 1,471 students projected from this project. We look forward to the cooperaon of the City and , ,,,/,
•7~ . / /,~ .,,
~ Mountain View
Whisman
School District
A foundation of excellence. A future of
achievement.™
District Office
T 650.526.3500
1400 Montecito Ave.

Mountain View, CA 94043
mvwsd.org
proponents of the project to meet with MVWSD and resolve the apparent challenges in this proposed project. We suggest that the District, City, and proponents of the project delay the approval of the North Bayshore Master Plan and the DEIR and meet soon to provide creave viable measures that meet the needs of MVWSD and all stakeholders.

Respecully,
Ayindé Rudolph Ed.D.

Superintendent
CC: Mountain View City Council
Mountain View Whisman Board of Trustees
Mrs. Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager
, ,,,/,
•7~ . / /,~ .,,
~ Mountain View
Whisman
School District
A foundation of excellence. A future of
achievement.™
District Office
T 650.526.3500
1400 Montecito Ave.

Mountain View, CA 94043
mvwsd.org
V
Santa Clara Valley
Transportation
\=-- Authority
February 6, 2023
City of Mounta in View
Community Development Department
Attention: Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner
500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
RE: North Bayshore Master Plan and Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report Dear Diana,
VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Google North Bayshore Master Plan as well as its accompanying Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR). The first half of this letter contains VTA's comments on the December 2022 version of the Master Plan, while the second half contains VT A's comments on the DSEIR for the CEQA review process. This letter builds on VTA comments on the March 2022 version of the Master Plan we provided in a letter dated May 5, 2022, as well as comments on City-led transportation projects in North Bayshore including the USlOl/Shoreline off-ramp and the Shoreline transit lane transmitted by email on July 15, 2022.

Comments on the North Bayshore Master Plan
VTA has the following comments on the Google North Bayshore Master Plan dated December 2022:

Project Location and Land Use/ Transportation Integration VTA supports the proposed development intensification and the introduction of new smaller streets to improve circulation and reduce block sizes in the North Bayshore Master Plan. VTA recognizes that the Master Plan builds on the overall growth levels, general placement of land uses and circulation network in the updated North Bayshore Precise Plan approved in 2017. VTA notes that the North Bayshore area is not located on the core transit network and is not as well served by shops and services as other areas of the city. The geographic characteristics of North Bayshore pose challenges to the area's ability to support transit, due to its location on the periphery of the City with few portals across the US 101 barrier . However, VTA is supportive of the City's efforts to balance jobs and housing within the City including North Bayshore. The development of high density residential in this area which has been historically dominated by employment uses will help balance the mix of uses and create opportunities for employees to live closer to work. This could lead to a reduction in automobile trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) within North Bayshore, on a per-service-population basis.

VTA encourages the City to continue its efforts to make North Bays ho re a place where daily trips can be accomplished without a car. These efforts should include supporting the Mountain View TMA and MVgo shuttle, supporting the Mountain View Community Shuttle, prioritizing transit on Shoreline Boulevard and Charleston Road, and including strong Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements and parking maximums with all new development in North Bayshore. 3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1927
Administration '<08-321-555:>
Customer Service 408•3?1-2300 Solutions that move you
Letter E
City of Mountain View
North Bayshore Master Plan and DSEIR

VTA Bus Service and Bus Stops in Master Plan Area
In December 2019, VTA implemented direct bus service on Local Route 40 between the Mountain View Transit Center and North Bayshore, via Shoreline Boulevard. This route, which also serves San Antonio Center, Downtown Los Altos and Foothill College, operates at 30-minute headways on weekdays and 45 to SO-minute headways on weekends. We appreciate that the Master Plan recognizes VTA Route 40 as the trunk transit line through the area and does not assume new or realigned routes on alternative streets in the area. VTA looks forward to the development of North Bays ho re into a more transit­ supportive, active, and pedestrian-oriented area, which will increase transit utilization and hopefully will warrant increased transit investment in the future. Additional investments that could be warranted by continued development include increased transit service levels (longer hours of service and/or more frequent service) as well as increased capital investments into transit facilities (e.g., bus stop amenities such as shelters, benches, lighting, schedule information, and real-time bus arrival displays). Any potential future increase in service would need to be considered within the framework of VT A's Board­ adopted Transit Sustainability Policy/Service Design Guidelines.

VTA offers the following additional comments regarding VTA bus service and bus stops in the North Bayshore Master Plan area:
• VTA only envisions providing bus service along Shoreline Boulevard and Charleston Road now and in the future. Currently the street network of North Bayshore outside of Shoreline and Charleston is fragmented, with few streets taking direct paths and with very long blocks. Even though the North Bayshore Master Plan adds smaller grid streets in some locations, the resulting network is still indirect, with many offset intersections and segments that would be difficult for a transit bus to traverse. Furthermore, it appears that the roadway network in the southeast quadrant of North Bayshore (south of Space Park, east of Shoreline) will remain largely unchanged, also making it more difficult to serve areas east of Shoreline due to the lack of a direct north-south roadway connection. • Plan 6.1.9 of the Master Plan shows a transit route along Charleston Road east of Shoreline, and a transit stop on Charleston at Inigo Way Extension. Following discussions with City staff, we understand that it is their expectation that this location would only be served by Google buses and TMA/Community shuttles, and there is no expectation that VTA buses will travel east of Shoreline.

VTA reiterates that it would not be operationally efficient for VTA to serve this location due to the discontinuous roadway network and the need for buses to make a U-turn, so we do not envision serving the stop on Charleston at Inigo Way Extension.
• In addition to the challenges of serving the proposed stop near Charleston and Inigo Way Extension, it is also difficult to have buses directly serve the intersection of Shoreline Boulevard and Charleston Road, because most buses turn at this intersection and placing bus stops is a challenge. As a result, the nearest bus stop on Charleston is 900 feet west of the intersection (at Charleston Park) and the nearest bus stop on Shoreline that VTA can serve in the northbound direction is 1100 feet south of the intersection (near Space Park Way). While the distance from the stop at Charleston Park to the Shoreline/Charleston intersection is partially mitigated by the attractive pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on Shoreline, VTA would like to emphasize the importance of providing transit stops near this intersection to serve the proposed new development. VTA would like to work with City of Mountain View
North Bayshore Master Plan and DSEIR

the City to maintain and prioritize the transit stops on Shoreline just south of Charleston, as this block is developed and the Shoreline transit lane is designed; this may include consideration of a queue jump lane or transit-only signal to facilitate bus movement in the northbound direction. We also encourage the City and Google to prioritize attractive pedestrian connections to transit stops near this intersection.
• In the mid-2010s during the update of North Bayshore Precise Plan, the City and Google considered the addition of a new bridge across the Stevens Creek to connect North Bayshore to the NASA Ames/Google Bayview area. If such a crossing was added by extending Charleston Road and was open to transit vehicles, it would become more feasible to operate VTA transit service to the proposed stop at Charleston and Inigo Way Extension. While there is no guarantee that VTA transit service would make this crossing, VTA encourages the City to re-open its planning process for a crossing of the Stevens Creek, to provide more options for transit service if warranted by future conditions.
• VTA is pleased to see that the Transit Network figure in the December 2022 version of the Master Plan shows a transit stop at Shoreline Boulevard and Pear Avenue, which was not shown in the March 2022 version. VTA understands that all bus stops along Shoreline between US 101 and Charleston will eventually be part of the transit lane project design. At these locations, a stop next to the transit lane as well as a second street-side bus stop serving the general-purpose lanes will be necessary in each direction, for a total of four stops at each location. • The Master Plan envisions a network of transit stops with amenities such as "benches, shelters, and information displays" (p. 55). VTA makes bus stop improvements per our Transit Passenger Environment Plan (TPEP), which outlines the framework by which we allocate limited public dollars to fund bus stop investments, using factors such as ridership, equity, accessibility, and site conditions. We look forward to collaborating with interested stakeholders to develop and improve bus stops in the area while following the framework set out in our TPEP. In addition, we are happy to collaborate with third-party developers and provide specifications for transit facilities (shelters, benches, etc.) in cases where bus stop improvements are a condition of approval.

Other Transit-Related Considerations
• VTA suggests that Plan 6.1.9 of the Master Plan (Transit Network) be modified to show the locations of existing and planned bus-only lanes in the North Bayshore area. • The Master Plan, as well as the North Bayshore Precise Plan, generally show how bus stops would fit into the street cross-sections along with protected bike lanes, sidewalks, and other street elements.

However, close attention will still be needed to the design of bus stops along Shoreline and Charleston to promote safety and minimize conflicts between buses, other motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. VTA requests that the City share any plans for street redesigns and bus stop modifications early in the process as the Master Plan buildout occurs. • The placement of trees and landscaping should take into account the height of the vehicles travelling underneath the canopy, proximity ofthe root system to travel ways, and the amount of City of Mountain View
North Bayshore Master Plan and DSEIR