May 31, 2023 | Page 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE May 31, 2023
TO David Printy
Principal Project Manager
City of Mountain View Public Works Department
FROM Steve Noack, Principal
SUBJECT New Fire Station #5 Project Burrowing Owl Mitigation Addendum to the Approved Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Introduction and Purpose
This document is an Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the New Fire Station #5 Project, approved on April 28, 2009 (herein referred to as the “Approved Project”). This Addendum serves as the environmental review for development and implementation of a Burrowing Owl Foraging Area Mitigation, Enhancement and Monitoring Plan (Burrowing Owl Plan) for the training classroom site on the Fire Station #5 site. This Addendum has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. and the State CEQA Guidelines.
This Addendum documents that none of the conditions described in CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 or 15164 calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Mountain View is the lead agency charged with the responsibility of deciding whether or not to approve the proposed action. This Addendum analyzes the proposed minor changes to the Approved Project.
Standard for Preparation of an Addendum
Pursuant to Section 21166, Subsequent or Supplement Impact Report; Conditions, of CEQA and Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations, of the State CEQA Guidelines, when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project unless the lead agency determines that one or more of the following conditions are met:
Substantial project changes are proposed that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
Substantial changes would occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or New information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified was adopted shows any of the following:
The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.
Attachment 2
May 31, 2023 | Page 2
Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR.
Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.
Where none of the conditions specified in Section 15162 are present, 1 the lead agency must determine
whether to prepare an Addendum or whether no further CEQA documentation is required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[b]). An Addendum is appropriate where some minor technical changes or additions to the previously certified EIR or IS/MND are necessary, but there are no new or substantially more severe significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration).
In
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has determined that an Addendum to the approved IS/MND is the appropriate environmental document for the Modified Project. This Addendum reviews the changes proposed by the Modified Project and examines whether, as a result of any changes or new information, a subsequent MND may be required. This examination includes an analysis pursuant to the provisions of Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines concerning their applicability to the Modified Project.
Project Description
LOCATION AND SETTING
The project site is located at 2195 Shoreline Boulevard at the intersection of Shoreline Boulevard and Crittenden Lane in the Shoreline area. The site is currently developed with the new Fire Station, constructed after approval of IS/MND on April 28, 2009. As a result of the new construction, the site plan includes the location of a new classroom building, located in the southeast area of the site.
PROPOSED PROJECT
This section describes the proposed modification to the Approved Project.
Durin
g review of the Classroom Building plans, it was discovered that the classroom site is used as foraging habitat for the western burrowing owl, which is classified as a State Species of Special Concern which legally protects burrowing owls and their nests. The western burrowing owl is also listed as a national Bird of Conservation Concern, and is protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 2 The proposed
modification would be to comply with the second paragraph on p. 13 under Section II, B., Regulatory Framework, State of California Regulations as listed the Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan as described below:
1 See also Section 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which applies the requirements of Section 15162 to supplemental EIRs.
2 Trulio, Lynne, Ph.D., Higgins, Phillip, 2012 Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan, October 1, 2012, p.10.
May 31, 2023 | Page 3
If it is determined that burrowing owls occur on a project site, a burrowing owl habitat mitigation must be prepared to avoid “take” and this plan will be subject to review and approval of the CDFW. A Mitigation Agreement that will legally bind the applicant to the condition of the plan will be executed between the CDFW and the applicant before the CDFW will issue authorization for the mitigation activities.
I
n compliance with this requirement, the City prepared a Burrowing Owl Foraging Area Mitigation, Enhancement and Monitoring Plan (Burrowing Owl Plan) which is hereby incorporated by reference.3 The Burrowing Owl Plan addresses the loss of western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) foraging habitat, on the project site, including long-term monitoring to ensure the success of the Plan. This Burrowing Owl Plan will establish new and enhanced foraging habitat in a designated area within Shoreline. The Burrowing Owl Plan includes provisions to ensure overall success over the long term, including contingency measures if initial efforts are unsuccessful. The plan was developed in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), to provide compensatory mitigation for the removal of foraging habitat for burrowing owls at a site nearby in Shoreline Park in Mountain View. Once completed, the proposed mitigation site will provide significantly higher quality habitat than the impacted site. The monitoring and reporting on the mitigation area will be incorporated into existing monitoring activities performed in the Shoreline Park by the City’s Wildlife Preservation Coordinator. The site and landscaping improvements required for the owl foraging habitat will be performed by a combination of City staff and minor public works contracts and will be completed by spring 2024 well before construction of the classroom project is completed.
Environmental Analysis
As described in the section above, Standard for Preparation of an Addendum, this Addendum has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 to determine whether implementation of the Modified Project would result in any new impacts or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than were previously analyzed in the approved IS/MND. Accordingly, this Addendum only considers the extent to which the proposed changes could result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts; it does not reevaluate impacts that would remain consistent with the analysis in the approved MND.
T
he Modified Project would not change site-specific designs or proposed development, when compared to the Approved Project. The Modified Project would not require any revisions to the environmental conclusion contained in the approved IS/MND. The recently discovered presence of foraging habitat for the burrowing owl requires compliance with the provisions of the 2012 Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan, as described above.
B
ased on the information provided in this Addendum, and the absence of site-specific design changes in the Modified Project, implementation of the Modified Project would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts analyzed in the approved IS/MND. The proposed modifications to the Approved Project would not result in a substantial change to the project and, therefore, additional environmental review is not necessary.
3 Higgins, Phillip, Burrowing Owl Mitigation Plan for the Fire Station Classroom/Training Construction Project, 20-35 Shoreline Boulevard Mountain View, October 4, 2002.
May 31, 2023 | Page 4
Conclusion
As summarized below, and for the reasons described in the section above, Environmental Analysis, of this Addendum, the City of Mountain View has concluded that the Modified Project would not result in any new significant impacts not previously identified in the approved IS/MND; nor would it result in a substantial increase in the severity of any significant environmental impact previously identified in the approved IS/MND.
For these reasons, a subsequent EIR is not required, and an Addendum to the approved IS/MND is the appropriate CEQA document to address the Modified Project. This section provides an evaluation of the Modified Project in light of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT
The proposed changes under the Modified Project would be to approve the Burrowing Owl Foraging Area Mitigation, Enhancement and Monitoring Plan (Burrowing Owl Plan) as required by the 2012 Shoreline Burrowing Owl Preservation Plan. Consequently, there are no substantial changes proposed to the Approved Project that will require major revisions of the previous IS/MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES
As described above in the environmental analysis above, the Modified Project would not result in new significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the approved IS/MND, would not substantially increase the severity of significant environmental effects identified in the approved IS/MND, and thus would not require major revisions to the approved IS/MND. The Modified Project, therefore, is not substantial and does not require major revisions to the approved IS/MND or a subsequent IS/MND. In addition, the physical conditions within the project area have not changed substantially since the approval of the IS/MND.
NEW INFORMATION
No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known when the approved IS/MND was approved, has been identified which shows that the Modified Project would be expected to result in: 1) new significant environmental effects not identified in the approved IS/MND; 2) substantially more severe environmental effects than shown in the approved IS/MND; 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project sponsor declines to adopt the mitigation or alternative; or 4) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those identified in the Certified EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the project sponsor declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23 1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION I. INTRODUCTION
A. PROJECT TITLE AND ADDRESS:
Project Title: New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
Project Address: The project is located at 2195 North Shoreline Boulevard, in the City of Mountain View.
B. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
500 Castro Street
P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, California, 94039-7540
C. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER:
Frederick F. Fallah, AIA, Senior Project Manager (650) 903-6311 D. PROJECT SPONSOR' S NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
+
P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, California, 94039-7540
E. GENERAL PLAN DESI GNATION AND ZONING:
1992 General Plan: North Bayshore Community
Zoning: P-34
F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City is proposing to replace the existing temporary station with a new, permanent station on the same site. The project includes an approximately 10,000 square foot fire station and may also include a separate 2,200 square foot Police multi-purpose building. The basic 10,000 square foot Fire Station would provide sleeping quarters, rest rooms, kitchen, day room, fire apparatus bay and
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23 2 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
storage. The Fire Department has been operating out of a temporary Fire Station No. 5 at the project site since 1999. The station houses a one-engine company and
a cross-staffed hazardous materials vehicle. Station No. 5 is staffed by 3 on-duty personnel and serves the North Bayshore Area. Programs and activities for fire station in the new building will be similar to those in the old station. Fire fighters operate the station 24 hours a day, 7 days per week for the entire year. A breakdown of the approximate sizes of fire station building areas is shown in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1 – FLOOR PLAN
Use or Activity Floor Area
Lobby, Restroom & Office 500
Dining, Kitchen & Day Room 650
Apparatus Bay 3,800
Decon/Med Storage, Turnout & Laundry 400 Exercise Room 300
Hazmat, Hoses and Workshop Storage 700 4- Firefighter Bedroom & Bath Suites 980 Mechanical, Telephone & Data Room 300 Change, W/C, Linen & Janitorial 130
Stairs, Rip/Run, Pole 300
Gross Circulation and Wall Thickness 1,940 Total 10,000
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23 3 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
G. LOCATION OF PROJECT:
The location of this project is at corner of North Shoreline Boulevard and Crittenden Lane near the entrance to the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park in the City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California.
Figure 1—Location Map
Corner of North Shoreline Boulevard and Crittenden Lane New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23 4 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Figure 2 Site Plan
Building Location within Site
H. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement)— County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health and Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Required approvals for this project include:
(1) City Council approval of Schematic Design
(2) City Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of and finding that the Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. (3) City Council approval of plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for Bids.
(4) County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, Solid Waste, Methane gas detection.
(5) Bay Area Air Quality Management Distri ct, electrical generator construction and operation permit.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23 5 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
II. DETERMINATION
In accordance with local procedures regard ing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and on the basis of that study recommends the following determination:
The proposed project will not have a si gnificant effect on the environment, because mitigation measures have been added and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided.
The Initial Study incorporates all relevant information regarding potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required.
III. FINDINGS
A. As discussed in the preceding sections , the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate historic or prehistoric sites.
B. As discussed in the preceding sections, both short-term and long-term environmental effects associated with the proposed project will be less than significant.
C. When impacts associated with the adop tion of the proposed project are considered alone or in combination with other impacts, the project-related impacts are insignificant.
D. The above discussions do not identify any substantial adverse impacts to people as a result of the proposed project.
E. This determination reflects th e independent judgment of the City.
Cathy R. Lazarus, Public Works Director Date
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
Initial Study
INITIAL STUDY
(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT)
New Fire Station No. 5
Project 03-23
March 25, 2009
Prepared By:
City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
500 Castro Street
P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
(650) 903-6311
Contact: Frederick F. Fallah, AIA, Senior Project Manager This statement is prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act _____________________________________________________________________________________________
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
Initial Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction and Project Description .................................................................................... 1
II. Environmental Checklist and Disc ussion of Potential Effects .............................................. 6 A. Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................ 6 B. Population and Housing ............................................................................................... 7 C. Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................................. 8 D. Noise .......................................................................................................................... 11 E. Air Quality ............................................................................................................... . .13 F. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................... .15 G. Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................... .18 H. Biology ...................................................................................................................... .21 I. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................ .24 J. Public Services .......................................................................................................... .26 K. Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................... .27 L. Recreation ................................................................................................................ . .29 M. Aesthetics .................................................................................................................. .30 N. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... .32 O. Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................... 33 P. Agricultural Resources ............................................................................................... 34
III. Mandatory Findings ........................................................................................................... .35
IV. Determination ............................................................................................................. ........ .36
V. List of Data Sources ........................................................................................................... .37
FIGURES
1 Location Map ................................................................................................................ ........ 3 2 Site Plan ................................................................................................................... ............. 4
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Title and Address:
Project Title: New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
Project Address: The project is located at 2195 North Shoreline Boulevard, in the City of Mountain View.
B. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
500 Castro Street
P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, California, 94039-7540
C. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Frederick F. Fallah, AIA, Senior Project Manager
City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
(650) 903-6311
D. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
500 Castro Street
P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, California, 94039-7540
E. General Plan Designation and Zoning:
General Plan: North Bayshore Community
Zoning: P-34
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
F. Project Description:
The City is proposing to replace the existing temporary station with a new, permanent station on the same site. The project includes an approximately 10,000 square foot fire station and may also include a separate 2,200 square foot Police multi-purpose building. The basic 10,000 square foot Fire Station would provide sleeping quarters, rest rooms, kitchen, day room, fire apparatus bay and storage. The Fire Department has been operating out of a temporary Fire Station No. 5 at the project site since 1999.
The station houses a one-engine company and a cross-staffed hazardous materials vehicle. Station No. 5 is staffed by 3 on-duty personnel and serves the North Bayshore Area. Programs and activities for fire station in the new building will be similar to those in the old station. Fire fighters operate the station 24 hours a day, 7 days per week for the entire year. A breakdown of the approximate sizes of fire station building areas is shown in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1 – FLOOR PLAN
Use or Activity Floor Area
Lobby, Restroom & Office 500
Dining, Kitchen & Day Room 650
Apparatus Bay 3,800
Decon/Med Storage, Turnout & Laundry 400 Exercise Room 300
Hazmat, Hoses and Workshop Storage 700 4- Firefighter Bedroom & Bath Suites 980 Mechanical, Telephone & Data Room 300 Change, W/C, Linen & Janitorial 130
Stairs, Rip/Run, Pole 300
Gross Circulation and Wall Thickness 1,940 Total 10,000
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
G. Location of Project:
The location of this project is at corner of North Shoreline Boulevard and Crittenden Lane near the entrance to the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park in the City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California.
Figure 1—Location Map
Corner of North Shoreline Boulevard and Crittenden Lane
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
Figure 2 Site Plan
Building Location within Site
H. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement)— County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health and Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Required approvals for this project include:
(1) City Council approval of Schematic Design
(2) City Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of and finding that the Initial Study reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. (3) City Council approval of plans and specifi cations and authorizing advertisement for Bids.
(4) County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Hea lth, Solid Waste, Methane gas detection.
(5) Bay Area Air Quality Management District, electrical generator construction and operation permit.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors below would be poten tially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Service Systems
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST AND DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
This section includes the Environmental Checklist required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an explanation of responses made to questions on the checklist, mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels and a finding as to the significance of each potentially adverse impact after mitigation.
A. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over
the project (including, but not
limited to, the General Plan,
specific plan, local coastal
program or Zoning Ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
1,2,3,4
2. Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation
plan?
1,2,3,4
3. Physically divide an established
community?
1,2,3,4
A.1: This project does not conflict with the City's existing General Plan designation, land use plan or policy. The site is located in the P-34 (North Bayshore Planned Community/Precise Plan) Zone District. The purpose of this Zoning District is to establish a zoning framework for new open space resources, corporate office/research and development uses. The special provisions and flexibility of the Planned Community (P) Zone will help integrate new development with Shoreline Regional Park and surrounding industries and foster distinctive, quality development that will benefit the district and the community. The new fire station is a permitted use in this zone and will be located on the same site as the existing fire station. The new fire station provides emergency response services to surrounding offices and other facilities and is the first response-station to any emergency call on Highway 101 and surrounding areas.
A.2, A.3: This project does not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community and does not physically divide an established community.
Finding: The proposed project will not conflict with the policies adopted for the area and will not result in any adverse environmental effects for land use or planning.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
B. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Induce substantial population
growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1,2,3
2. Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1,2,3
3. Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
1,2,3,4
B.1: Services provided from the new fire station will be similar to those provided from the existing station. The proposed project does not involve construction of new homes and, thus, will not induce additional population growth in the area.
B.2, B.3: The proposed project will not displace any existing housing or people in the area.
Finding: The proposed project will not cause any adverse effects on population or housing in the area.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
C. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Cause an increase in traffic which
is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system (i.e., result in
a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads
or congestion at intersections)?
1,2,3,5
2. Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the
County Congestion Management
Agency for designated roads or
highways?
1,2,3,5
3. Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
1,2,3,5
4. Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
1,2,3,5
5. Result in inadequate emergency
access?
1,2,3,5
6. Result in inadequate parking
capacity?
1,2,3,5
7. Conflict with adopted policies,
plans or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
1,2,3,5
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
C.1, C.2: The project replaces an existing fire stati on with one of a larger size, but the number of personnel and operations at the proposed fire station are the same as the existing and will not generate additional traffic. The proposed Police Multi-Purpose building could create additional trips, but the number of vehicles using the building will not exceed 60 vehicles. Use of this building will be for meetings and other gatherings that occur periodically rather than daily. Use of the building will not always, but may occasionally, coincide with peak traffic hours. The proposed Police multi-purpose building would create additional vehicle trips, but will not create a significant impact at any signalized intersection. The City of Mountain View CEQA Guidelines state that a significant project impact to a signalized intersection occurs if the project results in one of the following:
Causes a study signalized intersection to deteriorate from acceptable LOS D conditions or better to unacceptable LOS E or F conditions,
Causes a signalized City of Mountain View (local) intersection currently operating at LOS E or F conditions to increase in critical movement delay of four (4) seconds or more, and increase in the critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more,
Cause a CMP intersection to deteriorate from acceptable LOS E conditions or better to unacceptable LOS F conditions,
Cause a CMP intersection currently operating at LOS F conditions to increase in critical movement delay of four (4) seconds or more, and increase in the critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more.
All of the study intersections along the Shoreline Boulevard corridor at LOS D or better under Charleston East Project Conditions (June 2007). Assuming the worst case and adding all 60 trips to any intersection during the AM or PM peak hour will result in an increase of average delay per vehicle of approximately 2.9 seconds/vehicle to approximately 3.4 seconds per vehicle with no change in the level of service. Therefore, even with these conservative assumptions, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact.
C.3: The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns.
C.4, C.5: The proposed project will not create any additional hazards for pedestrians or bicyclists and will not create an impediment to access by emergency vehicles. A new traffic signal is proposed at the intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and Crittenden Lane. The project will provide pedestrian push buttons; audible pedestrian signals and countdown pedestrian signals to facilitate pedestrians crossing the intersection. This traffic signal will have emergency vehicle preemption equipment to allow emergency vehicles to pass through the intersection without any other traffic entering the intersection. The project will install flashing red beacon on Crittenden Lane to warn motorists when fire trucks exit the fire station from the main driveway on Crittenden Lane. The project includes battery back-up equipment that will allow the traffic signal to operate normally for up to two hours and in a flashing mode for an additional four hours in case of a power outage.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
C.6: The proposed project will not result in inadequate parking capacity. Sufficient parking will be provided onsite for the fire station, and parking for the Police multi-purpose building will be provided on a shared basis in the adjacent Amphitheatre lot.
C.7: The proposed project will not conflict with the City's policies, plans or programs supporting alternative modes of transportation. The pedestrian and bicycle features included in this project will aid pedestrian and bicyclists in crossing the intersection safely.
Finding: No significant impacts to circulation and parking are expected and no mitigation is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
D. NOISE
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in
the local General Plan or Noise
Ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
1,2,3,7
2. Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive ground-
borne vibration or ground-borne
noise levels?
1,2,3,7
3. A substantial permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
1,2,3,7
4. A substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the
project?
1,2,3,7
5. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public-use airport,
would the project expose people
residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
1,2,3,7
6. For a project within the vicinity of
a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1,2,3,7
D.1, D.2, D.3: While the 1992 General Plan Noise Contour Map indicates that the exterior sound levels in the vicinity of the project site are 60 to 65 decibels, higher noise levels are periodically generated in the area from the adjacent Shoreline Amphitheatre and from emergency apparatus leaving the existing fire station while operating sirens. These conditions will continue unchanged after construction of the proposed project.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
The new building will have mechanical equipment for heating and cooling and exhaust fans for fire truck fumes. The most effective and least conspicuous approach is to reduce the potential sound and noise level at the source. The design incorporates a roof area surrounded by screen walls that are acoustically treated to absorb sound. Heat pumps and air conditioning units will be placed on this roof to minimize noise and visual impact. Use of high parapet walls for visual and acoustical screening will help to reduce the sound level to acceptable minimum. Also the exterior walls of the new building will be insulated, with sound absorptive and dense materials such as brick veneer and cement plaster exterior finish. All windows will be insulated dual glazing.
A new noise source included in the proposed project is a pad-mounted electrical generator to provide temporary power during a power outage. The generator is located near the building close to North Shoreline Boulevard and will be a low noise type in a sound-attenuated enclosure (71dba @ 23 feet). A concrete block wall around the enclosed generator will further reduce the noise level. The generator will only operate occasionally for testing and during power outages.
The City’s Stationary Equipment Noise Ordinance states that fixed equipment shall not generate in excess of 55 decibels measured at an adjacent residential property line. The proposed generator would comply as there are no adjacent residential properties.
Operations at the new fire station will be sim ilar to existing station and there will no additional sources of ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise.
D.4: The only periodic increase in noise levels is associated with the proposed emergency generator, discussed above. The generator will operate only occasionally, will be insulated and enclosed behind a block wall, and will comply with the City’s Stationary Equipment Noise Ordinance.
A temporary increase in noise levels will occur during construction. The project will include requirements that noise generating construction activities will only occur during the City’s allowable work hours.
D.5: The project is not located within an airport land use plan and does not effect or expose people working in the vicinity to excessive noise levels.
D.6: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and does not effect or expose people working in the vicinity to excessive noise levels.
Finding: With the measures included in the project to screen noise-generating equipment and limit construction hours, no significant noise impacts are expected and no mitigation is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
E. AIR QUALITY
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
1. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of applicable air
quality plan?
1,2,3
2. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
1,2,3
3. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is nonattainment
under an applicable Federal or
State ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
1,2,3
4. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
1,2,3
5. Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of
people?
1,2,3
E.1, E.2, E.3: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has established thresholds for determining whether particular projects have the potential for significant air quality impacts. If a project exceeds the thresholds, an air quality analysis is required, as well as reviews of the project by BAAQMD staff. If a project does not exceed BAAQMD thresholds, it is typically assumed to have a less-than significant impact upon local air quality. Operations at the new station, including staffing and service levels, will be similar to the existing station and so will not result in any significant impact on air quality. New vehicle trips associated with the Police multi-purpose building will not exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 2,000 trips per day that triggers an air quality analysis, and therefore a less than significant impact is assumed.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
E.4: The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is office buildings and Shoreline Amphitheatre parking lot surrounding the project. Temporary construction activities could affect air quality during project construction as some dust could be generated. Construction and grading activities could raise particulate matter (dust) into the atmosphere, reduce local air quality, and expose surrounding receptors to new pollutant concentrations. To reduce this potential impact to less than significant levels, the project specifications will require a dust abatement program that will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to construction. This program may include watering exposed soil surfaces twice daily, cessation of grading activities during high winds (20 MPH or greater), covering and anchoring stockpiles of soil and sweeping construction areas and streets of mud and debris. The Contractor shall be responsible to provide equipment and manpower to implement the approved dust abatement measures.
E.5: The proposed project involves no construction of any odor-generating structures and, thus, will not generate additional odor for this area.
Finding: No significant impact to air quality is expected and no mitigation other than what is specified in project plans and specifications is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
1,2,3,4,9
2. Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of
preexisting nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or
planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
1,2,3,4,8,
9 3. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
1,2,3,4,9
4. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or
off-site?
1,2,3,4,9
5. Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
1,2,3,4,9
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
6. Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
1,2,3,4,9
7. Place housing within a 100-year
flood-hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary
or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood-hazard delineation
map?
1,2,3,4,9
8. Place within a 100-year flood-
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
1,2,3,4,9
9. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
1,2,3,4,9
10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami or
mudflow?
1,2,3,4,9
F.1: The proposed project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project plans and specifications will be reviewed by the City’s Environmental Safety Section for compliance with applicable water quality and waste discharge standards.
F.2: The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharging. The project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the site. As such, the project will abide by Provision C.3 of the City’s Municipal Storm Water Discharge Permit, which mandates certain storm water treatment requirements. A LEED certification will also be sought for the project. Stormwater features such as an infiltration basin will be installed that will result in little or no change in stormwater infiltration at the site.
F.3, F.4: The proposed project will not significantly alter existing drainage patterns of the area because the drainage pattern will be similar to that at the existing fire station. The project will not alter the course of any stream or river. The project includes a percolation basin the will reduce surface water runoff. The project site will be covered with landscaping and hardscape, and surface water leaving the site will enter gutters and storm drain facilities, so there will be no impact to siltation or erosion on- or off-site.
F.5: Because there is only a minor increase in impervious surface over the existing condition, the proposed project does not contribute extensive runoff water that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
F.6: A major source of water quality deterioration is "nonpoint source" pollution, which results from urban runoff. Urban runoff is typically contaminated by oil and grease from nearby parking areas and roads, sediments from construction-related activities, pesticides and fertilizers from landscaping, and lead or other heavy metals from automobiles.
Construction activities may contribute but will minimize the amount of contamination of surface runoff and groundwater. The project will be required to adhere to the City's adopted Best Management Practices for construction sites as required by Mountain View Municipal Code Section 35.32.10(t). Best Management Practices are cost-effective practices which comply with storm water discharge regulations and are accepted by the City of Mountain View and the Santa Clara Valley nonpoint source discharge program for minimizing discharges of polluted water or industrial waste to the storm or sanitary sewer system, thereby protecting water quality in streams, the groundwater basin and the Bay. Adherence to existing regulations will result in no significant water quality impacts.
F.7: The project does not include housing.
F.8, F.9: The project is within a 100-year special flood hazard area, Zone AE, with a base flood elevation of 11 feet. The City is in the process of submitting a Letter of Map Revision – Fill (LOMR-F) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to remove the site from the special flood hazard area. The finished floor of the fire station will be higher than the 100-year base flood elevation as required by City Code. The project is not protected by a levee. The project is not in a floodway so will not impede or redirect flows.
F.10: The project site is not near any large water bodies or sources of mudflow so will not result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow.
Finding: No significant hydrology impacts are expected, and no mitigation is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury or death involving:
1,2,3,10
(i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the
area or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special
Publication 42.
1,2,3,10
(ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
1,2,3,10
(iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
1,2,3,10
(iv) Landslides?
1,2,3,10
2. Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
1,2,3,10
3. Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
1,2,3,10
4. Be located on expansive soil as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
1,2,3,10
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
5. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater?
1,2,3,10
G.1. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone1, as defined by the California State Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). In addition, no active or potentially active faults exist on, or in the immediate vicinity of the site. 2 The City of Mountain View is situated about 6 miles east of the San Andreas Fault and 10 miles west of the Hayward Fault. The proposed project will involve work exclusively on the surface of the earth and, thus, will not make the area more prone to seismic activity.
The 1992 General Plan Geologic Hazard Zones Map indicates that the projec t site is located in Zone D. This zone has a high potential for liquefaction or differential settlement in the event of a large magnitude earthquake. Liquefaction and subsidence generally occur in loose saturated sands. The fire station site is on engineered fill and the potential for liquefaction is relatively low.
The fire station site is located at the southwest corner of the former Crittenden landfill, which was closed in the late 1990’s. During operation of the landfill, between the late 1960’s through 1996, a deep borrow pit was excavated along the western portion of the landfill site. This pit extended to depths of about 50 to 60 feet below the current ground surface and was known as Crittenden Canyon. The fire station site is situated directly above the southwestern corner of this man-made canyon, which was subsequently backfilled in the mid-1990s with engineered fill. The fire station is located outside the mapped limits of the municipal refuse, which lies just east of the site. A soils report by Kleinfelder (File No.: 95845 - November 4, 2008) has been prepared for the project and its recommendations will be followed.
G.2: Soil exposed by construction activities may be subject to erosion by heavy winds or rain.
The project construction specifications will require contractors to comply with the City's Best Management Practices for construction that will minimize erosion impacts to less than significant levels.
G.3: The project site is relatively flat and is not adjacent to any steep slopes. Based on the location of the site and its surrounding areas, there is no chance of exposing people and property to landslides. A soils report has been prepared for the site (Kleinfelder, 2008) that investigated the soils conditions at the site and made recommendations for design and construction of the project that will reduce the risks from unstable soils to a less than significant level. The
1 Alquist-Priolo Zones designate areas most likely to experience fault rupture, although surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to those specifically zoned areas.
2 An active fault is defined by the State of California as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately within the last 10,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary (last 1.6 million years), unless direct geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of the Holocene or longer. This definition does not mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement are necessarily inactive.
Sufficiently active is also used to describe a fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement occurred on one or more of its segments (Hart, 1997).
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
recommendations of the soils report will be followed during design and construction of the project.
G.4: The proposed project is not located on expansive soil. The building will be constructed based on recommendation in the Geotechnical Investigation report by Kleinfelder (File No.:
95845 - November 4, 2008). No substantial risks to life or property are expected.
G.5: Sanitary sewers are available at the project site, so no alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed.
Finding: No significant geophysical impacts are expected from the proposed project and no mitigation is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
H. BIOLOGY
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive
or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1,2,3
2. Have a substantial adverse effect
on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
1,2,3
3. Have a substantial adverse effect
on Federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption or other means?
1,2,3
4. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
1,2,3
5. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
1,2,3,11
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
6. Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan or other
approved local, regional or State
habitat conservation plan?
1,2,3
H.1: The proposed project site is located in an urbanized area and is surrounded by existing commercial development. The project site is located in an "Urban Developed" habitat3 with no endangered, threatened or rare species present.
H.2 : There are no riparian habitats in the vicinity of this proposed project.
H.3 : There are no wetlands in the vicinity of this project.
H.4 : The project site contains biological resources but is not near any streams, creeks or other riparian resources. The project site is in a highly urbanized environment and will not negatively affect wildlife corridors. Existing trees on the project site may provide nesting and foraging habitat for bird species. Construction of the new fire station would involve the removal of trees.
Tree removal has the potential to result in direct harm to individual birds through “take” of their nests, eggs or nestlings. Construction activities may also result in indirect impacts to protected birds resulting from construction noise and removal of potential nesting substrate.
MITIGATION MEASURE: Potential impacts of the proposed fire station construction would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of the following mitigation measure:
Mitigation Measure H.4-1 Conduct Pre-construction Survey for Nesting Birds and Implement Protective Measures if Identified: Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no sooner than 14 days prior to the start of vegetation removal, grading or other construction activities. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey. If vegetation removal or other construction or operational activities are not started within 21 days of the survey, another survey shall be required. The survey area shall include construction site, access roads, dense tree areas, and staging areas, as well as within 150 feet of the site boundaries.
In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or trees to be removed, or in habitat 150 feet of construction activities, vegetation removal and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged, the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of a second nesting attempt, or there will be no significant impact from the proposed construction activities.
H.5 : The project includes removal of approximately 6-12 trees that are considered Heritage trees according to the City’s Heritage tree ordinance. The project will comply with the City’s
3 City of Mountain View; General Plan; October 1992.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
Heritage tree ordinance, including review of mitigation measures by the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and approval of removals and mitigation measures by the City Council.
Mitigation measures will include planting of additional trees. An arborist report has been prepared for the project. Tree protection measures identified in the arborist report will be included in the project. Compliance with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance and implementation of the tree protection measures in the report would reduce potential effects of the proposed construction on Heritage trees to a less-than-significant level.
H.6 : This project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or State habitat conservation plan.
Finding : Implementation of Mitigation Measure H.4-1, identified in this Initial Study would reduce potential impacts to biological resources at the project site to a less-than-significant level.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials?
2 2. Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
2 3. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances
or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
2 4. Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
2 5. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public-use airport,
would the project result in a
safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
2 6. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
2 New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
7. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wild land fires,
including where wild lands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wild lands?
2 I.1, I.2, I.3: Only very small quantities of flammable or hazardous materials (fuel for chain saw, etc.) are stored at the fire station. All applicable codes and regulations related to the storage and transport of such materials will be followed and the project is not within ¼ mile of a school, so impacts are considered less than significant.
I.4: The project site is not on the City's list of hazardous materials sites.
I.5: The proposed project sites are not located in an airport land use plan or within two miles of any public or public-use airports.
I.6: The proposed project will not interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan.
The project includes the installation of emergency vehicle preemption equipment to allow emergency vehicles to pass through the intersection without other traffic entering the intersection. City's Fire Department and Traffic Division of the Public Works Department have evaluated the proposed traffic signal project and have determined that the proposed plan would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plan.
I.7: The proposed project is located in a highly urbanized area and is not subject to wild land fires.
Finding : No significant health hazards are expected from the proposed project and no mitigation is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
J. PUBLIC SERVICES
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?
1 b. Police protection?
1 c. Schools?
1 d . P a r k s ?
1 e. Other public facilities? 1
J.1.a: The proposed project involves constructing a new fire station building and traffic signal, thus, will not create a need for new or altered fire protection. Operation at the new station is similar to existing.
J.1.b : The proposed project may include constructing a new 2,200 square feet separate Police multi-purpose building on a separate pad. The use of the building is for the Police department training and, thus, will not create a need for new or altered police protection.
J.1.c : The proposed project will not require new or altered school services.
J.1.d : The proposed project will not require new or altered park services.
J.1.e: The project will not create a need for other new public facilities.
Finding : No significant impacts to public services are expected and no mitigation is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
K. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
1,2,3
2. Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
1,2,3
3. Require or result in the
construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
1,2,3
4. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
1,2,3
5. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing
commitments?
1,2,3
6. Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
1,2,3
7. Comply with Federal, State and
local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
1,2,3
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
K.1: Fire station staffing will be same as the existing station, so there will be no increase in wastewater treatment requirements. The police building will only create minor, occasional wastewater treatment demand.
K.2 : The proposed project will not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities and will, therefore, have no impact on water treatment or distribution facilities.
K.3 : The project includes only a minor increase in impervious area, so the proposed project will not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities and will, therefore, not cause significant environmental effects.
K.4 : Water use will be similar to the existing fire station, so the proposed project will not require any new or expanded water supplies.
K.5 : Wastewater treatment requirements will be similar to the existing fire station, so the proposed project has no impact on the wastewater treatment provider.
K.6 : Solid waste disposal needs will be similar to the existing fire station, so the proposed project will not impact landfill capacity.
K.7 : The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Finding : No impacts to utilities or service systems are expected and no mitigation is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
L. RECREATION
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
1,2,3
2. Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
1,2,3
L.1: The proposed project will not increase demand for parks in the vicinity.
L.2 : The proposed project does not include recreational facilities and would not increase the demand for parks or other recreational facilities or affect existing park resources.
Finding : No impacts to recreation resources are expected and no mitigation is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
M. AESTHETICS
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
1,2,3,6
2. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings and historic
buildings within a State scenic
highway?
1,2,3,6
3. Substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
1,2,3,6
4. Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
1,2,3,6
M.1: This project is located in a commercial zoned office and light manufacturing and research and development area. The proposed project will construct a two-story approximately 10,000 square foot new fire station building. The project complies with the height limit of the zoning district, is not large enough to significantly affect the views of surrounding hillsides, and it will not adversely affect a scenic vista.
M.2 : The project is not in view of scenic resources such as rock outcroppings or historic buildings within a State scenic highway. The most visually significant trees in the project area will remain and new additional trees will be planted, so no damage to scenic resources is expected.
M.3 : The proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the project site. In keeping with a traditional fire station design, the building exterior is finished with warm color brick and stucco finish. The highly visible apparatus bay and tower incorporates clerestory windows to allow ample natural light into the building. The new building will be more attractive than existing modular units and will enhance the view from both Shoreline Boulevard and Crittenden Lane creating a strong and welcoming façade. The Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed and made comments that given the direction provided by City Council for design of a traditional fire station, the project has satisfied majority of design criteria and meets their satisfaction.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
M.4 : The project will include outdoor lighting that is similar to what is found on adjacent properties. Within the developed urban setting, the exterior surfaces will not be a significant source of glare. Exterior brick veneer and stucco are earth-tone color with absorbent characteristics and dual glazed tinted windows are designed to allow natural light into the building with minimal reflectance for glare. The proposed project will also add traffic signal lights to the intersection of Shoreline Boulevard and Crittenden Lane, but the new lights will not create unacceptable levels of bright light or glare for the area.
Finding : No significant impacts are expected to aesthetics and no mitigation is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
N. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in
15064.5?
1,6
2. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to 15064.5?
1,6
3. Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
1,6
4. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
1,6
N.1: According to a Cultural Resources Assessment prepared for the City's 1992 General Plan, there are no known historical resources in the vicinity of the project site.
N.2: There are no known archaeological resources in the vicinity of the project site.
N.3: There are no known paleontological resources in the vicinity of the project site. 4 N.4: There are no known human remains in the vicinity of the project sites.
Finding: No impacts to cultural resources are expected, and no mitigation is required.
4 Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1992 General Plan, Basin Research Associates, Inc., August 1990.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
O. MINERAL RESOURCES
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
1. Result in the loss of availability of
a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the State?
1,6
2. Result in the loss of availability of
a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local General Plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
1,6
O.1: There are no known mineral resources in the vicinity of the project site.
O.2: There are no known mineral resource recovery sites in the vicinity of the project site.
Finding: No impacts to mineral resources are expected and no mitigation is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
P. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Will the proposed project result in
the following environmental
effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Data
Sources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural r esources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
1. Convert prime farmland, unique
farmland or farmland of State-
wide importance (farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources
Agency, to nonagricultural use?
1 2. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson
Act contract?
1 3. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of farmland
to nonagricultural use?
1 P.1: The project site is not used for agricultural purposes and is not designated as farmland.
P.2: The project site is designated for fire station and existing fire station has been in operation for last ten years and is not zoned for agricultural use.
P.3: The project sites do not involve any conversion of farmland.
Finding: No impacts to agricultural resources are expected and no mitigation is required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
III. MANDATORY FINDINGS
Will the proposed project result in the
following environmental effects?
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
1. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment;
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species; cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community; reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal; or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
2. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects and the effects of probable future
projects.)
3. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
IV. DETERMINATION
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signific ant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a si gnificant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards; and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signific ant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects: (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards; and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Michael A. Fuller, Assistant Public Works Director Date
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
V. LIST OF DATA SOURCES:
1. City of Mountain View General Plan, 1992.
2. City of Mountain View General Plan, Environmental Impact Report, EIR, 1992.
3. City of Mountain View, California Envir onmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
4. City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance.
5. Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997.
6. Cultural Resources Assessment for the 1992 Gene ral Plan, Basin Research Associates, Inc., August 1990.
7. City of Mountain View Municipal Code.
8. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1988.
9. Best Management Practices, City of Mountain View City Code, Chapter 35.
10. Geotechnical Investigation Report for Proposed Mountain View Fire Station No. 5, North Shoreline Boulevard by KLEINFELDER, File No.: 95845 - November 4, 2008.
11. Certified Arborist’s Tree I nventory & Status Report for Fire Station #5 Project, by Ray Morneau, Arborist, dated August 7, 2008
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Title and Address:
Project Title: New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
Project Address: The project is located at 2195 North Shoreline Boulevard, in the City of Mountain View.
B. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
500 Castro Street
P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, California, 94039-7540
C. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Frederick F. Fallah, AIA, Senior Project Manager
City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
(650) 903-6311
D. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
500 Castro Street
P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, California, 94039-7540
E. General Plan Designation and Zoning:
General Plan: North Bayshore Community
Zoning: P-34
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
F. Project Description:
The City is proposing to replace the existing temporary station with a new, permanent station on the same site. The project includes an approximately 10,000 square foot fire station and may also include a separate 2,200 square foot Police multi-purpose building. The basic 10,000 square foot Fire Station would provide sleeping quarters, rest rooms, kitchen, day room, fire apparatus bay and storage. The Fire Department has been operating out of a temporary Fire Station No. 5 at the project site since 1999. The station houses a one-engine company and a cross-staffed hazardous materials vehicle. Station No. 5 is staffed by 3 on- duty personnel and serves the North Bayshore Area. Programs and activities for fire station in the new building will be similar to those in the old station. Fire fighters operate the station 24 hours a day, 7 days per week for the entire year.
G. Location of Project:
The project is located at corner of North Shoreline Boulevard and Crittenden Lane near the entrance to the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park in the City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California.
II. DETERMINATION
In accordance with local procedures regard ing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and on the basis of that study recommends the following determination:
The proposed project will not have a si gnificant effect on the environment, because mitigation measures have been added and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided.
The Initial Study incorporates all relevant information regarding potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required.
New Fire Station No. 5, Project 03-23
III. FINDINGS
Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:
A. As discussed in the preceding sections, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate historic or prehistoric sites.
B. As discussed in the preceding sections, both short-term and long-term environmental effects associated with the proposed project will be less than significant.
C. When impacts associated with the adoption of the proposed project are considered alone or in combination with other impacts, the project-related impacts are insignificant.
D. The above discussions do not identify any subs tantial adverse impacts to people as a result of the proposed project.
E. This determination reflects th e independent judgment of the City.
Michael A. Fuller, Assistant Public Works Director Date