ATT 1 - Resolution — Mountain View City Council, June 25, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

-1 of 2-
#400v1<CAO> - 20242506_Resolution_MND_City Bridges

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2024

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

ADOPTING THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR
2019/20 CITY BRIDGES AND CULVERTS STRUCTURAL INSPECTION AND REPAIRS, PROJECT 20-60,

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Mountain View prepared an Initial Study and approved for circulation a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, the Project 20-60 (the “Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration”) in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, together with State guidelines implementing said Act, all as amended to date (collectively “CEQA”); and

WHEREAS, the 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 (the “Project”) analyzed under the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is to replace two golf cart bridges, City Bridge #25 and City Bridge #27, located within the Shoreline Golf Links Facility . A more detailed description of the Project is set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts due to implementation of the Project to a less-than- significant level;

WHEREAS, the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public comment from November 8, 2023 through December 8, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View did not receive any public comments and prepared a final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which is unchanged from the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, to facilitate implementation of a ll identified mitigation measures, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared to identify the timing of, and the agency responsible for monitoring of each mitigation measure to be implemented to reduce significant impacts to less than significant level; and

WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View is the lead agency on the Project, and the City Council is the decision-making body for the proposed approval of the Project; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and intends to take actions on the Project in compliance with CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, are on file at the City of Mountain View’s and available for inspection by any interested person; now therefore be it

-2 of 2-
#400v1<CAO> - 20242506_Resolution_MND_City Bridges
RESOLVED: that the City Council finds the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Council finds on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Initial Study /Mitigated Negati ve Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Council finds the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independence judgment and analysis of the City of Mountain View; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Council hereby designates the Public Works Director, at 500 Castro Street, First Floor, Mountain View, California, 94041, as the custodian of documents and records of proceedings on which this decision is based; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project.

- - - - - - - - -

Exhibit: A. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

to Marichrisse Hoang, Associate Civil Engineer, City of Mountain View Public Works Department
fro
m Christina Lau, Senior Project Manager
re Final IS/MND for 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60
date December 14, 2023
This memo was prepared as an informational document for the City of Mountain View for the 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60. The purpose of this Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) memo is to summarize the public review process for the project. This Final IS/MND Memo and Attachments, together with the Draft IS/MND (November 2023), comprise the CEQA environmental review for the project.

Section 15074(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision -making body shall adopt the proposed mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.”
The project includes mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment A) presents these mitigation measures, identifies the timing and responsible entity for implementation of the measures, and a sign- off for completion.

The 30-day public review period for the draft IS/MND began on November 8, 2023 and closed on December 8, 2023. The Notice of Intent (NOI) was filed at the Santa Clara County Clerk’s office on November 8, 2023 (Attachment B) and published in the Mountain View Daily Post on November 8 , 202 3. The document was also submitted for State Agency review with the State Clearinghouse (SCH#2023110216).

No written comments were received from any state or local agency, or the public during the comment period. Therefore, no errata or text changes are necessary for the IS/MND as a result of the public review process.

The following attachments are included for reference:
• Attachment A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) • Attachment B: Notice of Intent County and Filing Receipts

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 December 2023 City of Mountain View
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, which state:
“When adopting a mitigated negative declaration, the lead agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects” (§15074(d)) and;
“The Lead Agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation, report on mitigation, or both. “Reporting” generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the decision-making body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. “Monitoring” is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight.

There is often no clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited to ensuring compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both.” (§15097 (c))
The table beginning on the next page list the impacts, mitigation measures, and timing of the mitigation measures (when the measures will be implemented) related to the City of Mountain View 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60. All mitigation measures listed here will be implemented by the City and its contractors.

According to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4 (a) (2), “Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-binding instruments. In the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.” Therefore, all mitigation measures as listed in this MMRP will be adopted by the City when the project is approved.

Attachment A
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 December 2023 City of Mountain View
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
Impact BIO-1:

Project construction
could accidentally
injure or kill a
western pond turtle
or disturb them.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1:

An additional survey shall occur no more than 24 hours prior to the start of construction. The surveys shall be performed when the weather is sunny and warm to increase the likelihood that turtles will be detected, if present.

The results of the surveys shall be documented and provided to the City.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Worker Environmental Training. All construction personnel shall participate in a worker environmental awareness program. These personnel shall be informed about the possible presence of all special-status species and habitats associated with the species identified to be potentially present in the project vicinity and that unlawful take of the animal or destruction of its habitat is a violation of federal and State laws. Prior to construction activities, the qualified biologist shall instruct all construction personnel about (1) the description and status of the species; (2) the importance of their associated habitats; and (3) a list of measures being taken to reduce impacts on these species during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information shall be prepared for distribution to the construction crew and anyone else who enters the project site. All project personnel shall sign an affidavit certifying that they have attended the training and agree to follow the applicable avoidance measures.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Avoidance Measures for Western Pond Turtle. To minimize potential impacts on western pond turtle, project construction shall adhere to the following measures:

Prior to the start of excavation within the pond, weighted silt curtains or similar barriers shall be installed in the pond around the work area to exclude pond turtles and other wildlife from the excavation area and to minimize sedimentation in the pond. The silt curtains or similar barriers shall be checked and maintained daily until the excavation is completed.

Implementation:

City of Mountain
View or its
contractor shall
implement this
measure with a
qualified biologist
Timing:

During
construction
activities.

Monitoring:

City of Mountain
View and a
qualified
biologist.

Initials: ________

Date: _________
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 December 2023 City of Mountain View
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
No equipment shall enter the pond. Excavation shall be done with an excavator staged outside the pond and reaching in.

Project activities shall be limited to the smallest area necessary for equipment staging, site access, construction equipment and personnel parking, debris storage, etc.

Construction shall be limited to daylight hours to prevent nighttime construction noise impacts to wildlife and no construction site flood lighting shall be utilized.

To eliminate an attraction for the predators of special-status species, all food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in solid, closed containers (trash cans) and removed from the construction site daily.

Plastic mono-filament netting (erosion control matting, wattles), rolled erosion control products or similar material shall not be used at the project site to prevent accidentally trapping wildlife species.

If western pond turtle or other special-status species is found during construction, all work shall cease in the area where the individual was found until the animal leaves the impact area on its own. If this is not possible, a qualified biologist shall contact CDFW to determine whether the animal can be moved to an appropriate relocation site. If moving the animal is approved, the qualified biologist shall be given sufficient time to complete the task. Only qualified biologists shall capture, handle, and move listed species. The qualified biologist shall monitor any relocated individual until it is determined that it is safe.

If a western pond turtle is observed during preconstruction surveys or project construction, a qualified biologist shall monitor all in-water work to ensure that no turtles are harmed during project construction.

Impact BIO-2: The
proposed project
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Burrowing Owl Protection. Project construction (including staging) shall occur during the non-breeding season (i.e.,

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 December 2023 City of Mountain View
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
could impact nesting
or wintering
burrowing owl, a
CSSC. There are
known past nesting
locations within 150
to 300 feet of the
project site.
wintering season) for burrowing owl from September 1 to January 31 if feasible. Within 14 days of project initiation, the Contractor shall obtain current information on burrowing owl nesting or wintering locations from the City of Mountain View, and construction shall avoid all nest and winter burrow locations with a minimum 250-foot buffer. A current map of burrowing owl nest or wintering locations shall be kept on site at all times, and buffer zones shall be flagged for avoidance prior to the start of construction.

If ground squirrel burrows are located within the project footprint, one-way doors shall be installed by the City’s Wildlife Preservation Biologist to passively evict any ground squirrels from the immediate area and in the unlikely event burrowing owls are present within those burrows. The one- way doors shall remain in place for at least 48 hours and until construction commences at which time they can be removed by the City’s Wildlife Preservation Biologist.

Impact BIO-3: The
proposed project
could impact nesting
birds protected
under the federal
MBTA and
California Fish and
Game code. Birds
could nest in the
trees, shrubs or
structures in or near
the project site.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Pre-Construction Survey for Nesting Birds.

Project construction (including staging) shall occur outside of the bird nesting season if possible (defined as the time between September 1st and January 31st). If construction starts during the bird nesting season between February 1st and August 31st, the Contractor shall contact the City of Mountain View within 14 days of project initiation about any known white-tailed kite nest locations, saltmarsh common yellowthroat nest locations, or other known nesting bird locations. In addition, a qualified biologist shall perform a pre-construction survey to identify active bird nests on or near the site, including staging areas. The pre-construction survey shall take place no more than seven days prior to the start of construction, and if more than seven days pass with no construction activities, another pre-construction survey shall be required. The survey shall include all trees, shrubs, and structures on the site, and all trees, shrubs, and structures within a 250-foot radius of the site. In addition, a

0.5-mile radius shall be searched for nesting white-tailed kite. If an active,

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 December 2023 City of Mountain View
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
native bird nest has been documented by the City or is found during the survey, the biologist shall designate a construction-free buffer zone (0.5 mile for white-tailed kites, typically 500 feet for other raptors, and 250 feet for other birds) around the nest to remain in place until the young have fledged. The qualified biologist shall be contacted immediately if a bird nest is discovered during project construction. The results of the survey and nest monitoring (if applicable) will be documented, and any nest buffer zones shall be flagged for avoidance prior to the start of construction.

Impact BIO-4: The
proposed project
could impact
roosting bats if they
are present under
Bridge #25 or
Bridge #27.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Not less than 30 days before the start of construction-related activities (including but not limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, tree removal, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading), a roosting bat survey will be conducted within the project site and a 50-foot buffer, including the culverts under Bridge #25 and under Bridge #27, as feasible. The survey may be conducted at any time of year but should be conducted in such a way to allow sufficient time to determine if special-status bats or maternity colonies are present. If no signs of bats are detected during the survey, no further surveys are warranted.

If signs of bat occupancy (e.g., guano pellets or urine staining) are detected or if the biologist cannot adequately survey under the bridges, a follow-up dusk emergence survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist. A dusk survey will verify if bats are present and/or will determine the number of bats present, and will also include the use of acoustic equipment to determine species of bats present.

If an occupied maternity or colony roost is detected, CDFW shall be consulted to determine appropriate measures, such as the establishment of a no-disturbance buffer. The results of the surveys shall be documented.

Impact BIO-5: The
proposed project
would include
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: The project shall apply for coverage under RWQCB Order 2004-0004, which provides General WDRs for projects outside of federal jurisdiction that impact less than 0.2 acres of area 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 December 2023 City of Mountain View
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
excavation in an
artificial golf course
pond under the
jurisdiction of the
San Francisco Bay
RWQCB and
CDFW.
subject to Water Board jurisdiction. The City shall also submit a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration for the project to CDFW. The project shall not be initiated until all permits required by the RWQCB, and/or CDFW are obtained, or the agency(ies) have confirmed that no permits are required.

Impact CUL-1:

Construction of the
project could
potentially result in
disturbance to both
recorded and
unknown
archaeological
resources.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. The City shall retain a Professional Archaeologist on an “on- call” basis during ground disturbing construction activities to review, identify and evaluate any potential cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. The Professional Archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historical resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

If the Professional Archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, he/she shall notify the City and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommend mitigation measures to mitigate to a less-than significant impact in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5. Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery among other options. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (A.M.P) and/or Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) that may include data recovery may be recommended by the Professional Archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction.

Development and implementation of the A.M.P and ATP and treatment of significant cultural resources will be determined by the City in consultation with any regulatory agencies.

Implementation:

The City of
Mountain View
shall implement
this measure with
a qualified
Archeologist
Timing: During
construction
activities.

Monitoring:

City of Mountain
View. In the
event
archaeological
resources are
discovered, a
qualified
archaeologist
shall write a
report detailing
their findings and
submit it to the
City of Mountain
View.

Initials: ________
Date: _________
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 December 2023 City of Mountain View
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavation was undertaken.

Impact CUL-2:

Project excavation
could disturb
previously unknown
buried
archaeological
resources and/or
human remains.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5, Chapter 1492 of the California Health and Safety Code and Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code, if potential human remains are found, the lead agency (City of Mountain View) staff and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The coroner would provide a determination regarding the nature of the remains within 48 hours of notification. No further excavation or disturbance of the identified material, or any area reasonably suspected to overlie additional remains, can occur until a determination has been made. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, of Native American ancestry, the coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage Commission must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant from the deceased Native American. Within 48 hours of this notification, the Most Likely Descendant would recommend to the lead agency their preferred treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

Implementation:

The City of
Mountain View
shall implement
this measure
Timing:

During
construction
activities.

Monitoring:

City of Mountain
View and a
qualified
archeologist
Initials: ________
Date: _________
Impact GEO-1:

Project construction
could unearth
paleontological
resources, including
fossils.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Stop-Work Provision. If paleontological resources are discovered during construction, ground-disturbing activities shall halt immediately until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the discovery. Depending on determinations made by the paleontologist, work may either be allowed to continue once the discovery has been recorded, or if recommended by the paleontologist, recovery of the resource may be required, in which ground-disturbing activity within the area of the find would be temporarily halted until the resource has been recovered. If treatment and salvage is required, recommendations shall be Implementation:

The City of
Mountain View or
its contractor
shall implement
this measure.

Timing:

Measures to be
implemented
Monitoring:

City of Mountain
View. In the
event
paleontological
resources are
encountered, a
paleontologist
shall be
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 December 2023 City of Mountain View
Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation
and Timing
Monitoring
Responsibility
consistent with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines and current professional standards.

The City of Mountain View shall ensure that information on the nature, location, and depth of all finds is readily available to the scientific community through university curation or other appropriate means. during
construction
contacted to
evaluate the find.

Initials: ________
Date: _________
Receipt: 23-168944
Product
CEQA
Total
Change (Cash)
11/8/23 9:12 AM nkhamphilath
Name
Regina Alcomendras
Santa Clara County
Clerk-Recorder
(408) 299-5688
https://www.clerkrecorder.org

ENVIRONMENTAL FILING
#Pages
Document#
Document Info:

Filing Type

PLEASE KEEP FOR REFERENCE
Extended
$0.00
2 ENV24844

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
F
$0.00
$0.00
Attachment B
State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife
2023 ENVIRONMENT AL DOCUMENT FILING FEE

CASH RECEIPT
DFW 753.Sa (REV. 01/01/23) Previously DFG 753.Sa
SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE . TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY.

LEAD AGENCY LEADAGENCY EMAIL
Print Save
RECEIPT NUMBER :
42 - ENV24844 -
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER (If applicable)
DATE
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW marichrisse. hoang@mou ntalnview .gov 11/08/2023

COUNTY/STATE AGENCY OF FILING DOCUMENT NUMBER
I Santa Clara
- - - - l

PROJECT TITLE
2019/20 CITY BRIDGES AND CULVERTS STRUCTURAL INSPECTION AND REPAIRS, PROJECT 20-60

PROJECT APPLICANT NAME

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

PROJECT APPLICANT ADDRESS
500 CASTRO STREET
PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box)
IR] Local Public Agency D School District
CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:

D Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
D Mitigated/Negative Declaration (MND)(ND)

PROJECT APPLICANT EMAIL
CITY

MOUNTAIN VIEW
STATE
CA

PHONE NUMBER
(650))903-6991

ZIP CODE
94041
D Other Special District D State Agency D Private Entity $ ________ o_.o_o
$ 0.00 ------ - - - --
D Certified Regulatory Program (CRP) document - payment due directly to CDFW $3,839.25
$2,764.00
$1,305 .25 $ 0.00 - -------- - -
D Exempt from fee
D Notice of Exemption (attach)
D CDFW No Effect Determination (attach)
D Fee previously paid (attach previously issued cash receipt copy) D Water Right Application or Petition Fee (State Water Resources Control Board only) D County documentary handling fee
$850.00 $
$
$ D Other
PAYMENT METHOD:

D Cash D Credit □ Check IXI Other TOT AL RECEIVED $
SIGNATURE AG.ENCY OF FILING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE
X ~-M
Nina Khamphilath, Deputy County Clerk-Recorder
ORIGINAL· PROJECT APPLICANT COPY· COFW/ASB COPY- LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK

0.00 $0.00 0.00
DFW 753 .5a (Rev. 01/01/2023)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLERK

CEQA FILING COVER SHEET
Santa Clara County - Clerk-Recorder Office
State of California
File Number: ENV24844

ENVIRONMENTAL FILING
No. of Pages: 2
Total Fees: $0.00
File Date: 11/08/2023
Expires: 12/08/2023
REGINA ALCOMENDRAS, Clerk-Recorder
By: Nina Khamphilath, Deputy Clerk-Recorder

THIS SPACE FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY
Complete and attach this form to each CEQA Notice filed with the County Clerk

TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY
Check Document being Flied:

D Environmental Impact Report {EIR}
D Filing Fee (new project)
D Previously Paid F&W (must attach F&W receipt and project titles must match) D No Effect Determination (F&W letter must be attached) D Mitigated Negative Declaration (MN □) or Negative Declaration {ND) D Filing Fee (new project)
D Previously Paid ~&W (must attach F&W receipt and project titles must match) D No Effect Determination (F&W letter must be attached} D Notice of Exemption (NOE)
~ Other (Please fill In type):

Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration

1. LEAD AGENCY: City of Mountain View

2. LEAD AGENCY EMAIL: [email protected]

3. PROJECT TITLE: 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60

4. APPLICANT NAME; City of Mountain View PHONE: (650) 903-6991

5. APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
a. APPLICANT ADDRESS: 500 Castro Street , Mountain View, CA 94041

7. PROJECT APPLICANT IS A: ~ Local PubUc Agency O School District O Other Special District Ostate Agency □ Private Entity

8. NOTICE TO BE POSTED FOR 30 DAYS.

Rev_B/2023
FIiing fees are due at the time a Notice of Determination/Exemption Is filed with our office. For more lnformaUon on filing fees and No Effect Daterminarion&, please refer to California Coda of Regulations, TiUe 14, section 753.5. -0 c.._-,.
~-~ Cltyof
~-;, Mountain View

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Public Services Division
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650-903-6329 I MountainView.gov
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Title: 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 City/County: City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, Callfornla Public Review Period: November 8, 2023 to December 8, 2023 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Mountain View (City) has prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 which is available beginning on November 8, 2023 for review and comment by the public and all Interested persons, agencies, and organizations for a period of 30 days, ending on December 8, 2023. All comments on the Draft MND must be received by that date.

Project Location: The project site is located within the 73.S•acre Shoreline Golf Links golf course at 2940 North Shoreline Boulevard in the northern part of the City of Mountain View.

Project Description: The purpose of the project is to remove two structurally deficient bridges located In the Shoreline Golf Links golf course and Install new two prefabricated bridges within the vicinity of the existing bridges being removed. These structures were previously reviewed as part of the 2018 Citywide Bridge and Culvert Structural Assessment Program, and were found to have significant deficiencies. The purpose of the project Is to replace these structures. The project addressed In this Initial Study is part of a _larger project; 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60.

Potentially Significant Environmental Effects: Potentially significant impacts In the following areas are discussed In the Mitigated Negative Declaration: Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, and Geology and Soils. Each potentially significant effect is reduced to a less-than-significant level through mitigation.

Public Review and Comment: Comments on the Draft MND must be received by D e c e m b e r 8, 2023. The document will be available for review on the City of Mountain View Website: https://www.mountainview.gov/our-clty/departments/community- development/plannlng/active-projects/ceqa-postlngs. An electronic or paper copy of the Draft MND can be requested by contacting Marichrisse Hoang, at (650)
903-6991, or [email protected]. Comments on the Draft MND may be submitted in writing to: Marichrisse Hoang, City of Mountain View, Public Works Division, 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94041 or [email protected].

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural
Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60

Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration

November 2023

Prepared with Assistance from MIG, Inc.

This page is intentionally blank

Page i

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project: 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60.

Project Proponent: City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041

Property Owner: City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041

Lead Agency: City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041

Availability of Documents: The Initial Study for this Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for review at: https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community- development/planning/active-projects/ceqa-postings

Contact – Marichrisse Hoang , Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department, Public Services Division, (650) 903-6991, [email protected]

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to replace two golf cart bridges, City Bridge #25 and City Bridge #27, that are located within the Shoreline Golf Links Facility in the City of Mountain View. The structures were previously reviewed and identified with significant deficiencies as part of the 2018 Citywide Bridge and Culvert Structural Assessment Program.

At City Bridge #25, the project will construct a new prefabricated steel bridge structure to the northeast of the existing corrugated metal pipe (CMP) causeway structure. The project will include construction of new pile supported abutments, installation of a 152 -foot long by 8 -foot wide prefabricated steel truss bridge , protection of the causeway CMP structure, removal of existing asphaltic concrete paving along the causeway, excavation to separate the existing causeway from the adjacent land to create an island feature with in Pond #4, and other miscellaneous site work necessary for the new bridge and pathway conforms. The new bridge will consist of a prefabricated steel through truss with cross bracing, safety rails, toe plate and lightweight concrete deck. New concrete abutments supported on cast-in-drilled-hole piling will be constructed.

At City Bridge #27, the project will replace the existing 70-foot long by 6-foot wide golf cart bridge over pond #4 at the 5 th Fairway of Shoreline Golf Links. The project will include removal of the existing bridge, installation of a 70-foot long by 6.5-foot wide prefabricated truss bridge, and other miscellaneous site work necessary for the new bridge. The existing City Bridge # 27 structure consists of a prefabricated steel through truss superstructure supported on existing concrete abutments. The replacement bridge will consist of a prefabricated steel through truss with cross bracing, safety rails, toe plate and wood decking. The existing concrete abutments will be reused.

Page ii

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

PROPOSED FINDINGS
The City of Mountain View (City) has reviewed the attached Initial Study and determined that the Initial Study identifies potentially significant project effects, but:

1. Revisions to the project plans incorporated herein as mitigation would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effects would occur; and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15064(f)(3) and 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for consideration as the appropriate CEQA document for the project.

BASIS OF FINDINGS
Based on the environmental evaluation presented in the attached Initial Study, the project would not cause significant adverse effects related to; air quality, aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transport ation, utilities/service systems, and wildfire. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.

The environmental evaluation has determined that the project would have potentially significant impacts on biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, and geology and soils, as described below.

Mitigation Measures
The project could result in significant adverse effects to biological resources , cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources. However, the project includes the mitigation measures listed below, which reduce these impacts to a less -than-significant level. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish o r wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Nor would the project cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly.

Mitigation Measures Incorporated into the Project
Impact BIO -1: Project construction could
accidentally injure or kill a western pond turtle
or disturb them.

Mitigation Measure BIO -1a:

Preconstruction Survey. No more than two
weeks prior to the commencement of ground -
disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall
perform a visual survey for western pond
turtles within aquatic and upland habitat in the
project area. An additional survey shall occur
no more than 24 hours prior to the start of
Page iii

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View construction. The surveys shall be performed
when the weather is sunny and warm to
increase the likelihood that turtles will be
detected, if present. The results of the surveys
shall be documented and provided to the City.

Mitigation Measure BIO -1b: Worker
Environmental Training . All construction
personnel shall participate in a worker
environmental awareness program. These
personnel shall be informed about the possible
presence of all special -status species and
habitats associated with the species identified
to be potentially present in the project vicinity
and that unlawful take of the animal or
destruction of its habitat is a violation of federal
and State laws. Prior to construction activities,
the qualified biologist sha ll instruct all
construction personnel about (1) the
description and status of the species; (2) the
importance of their associated habitats; and
(3) a list of measures being taken to reduce
impacts on these species during project
construction and implementation. A fact sheet
conveying this information shall be prepared
for distribution to the construction crew and
anyone else who enters the project site. All
project personnel shall sign an affidavit
certifying that they have attended the training
and agree to follow the applicable avoidance
measures.

Page iv

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View • No equipment shall enter the pond.

Excavation shall be done with an
excavator staged outside the pond and
reaching in.
• Project activities shall be limited to the
smallest area necessary for equipment
staging, site access, construction
equipment and personnel parking, debris
storage, etc.
• Construction shall be limited to daylight
hours to prevent nighttime construction
noise impacts to wildlife and no
construction site flood lighting shall be
utilized.
• To eliminate an attraction for the predators
of special -status species, all food -related
trash items such as wrappers, cans,
bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed
of in solid, closed containers (trash cans)
and removed from the construction site
daily.
• Plastic mono -filament netting (erosion
control matting, wattles), rolled erosion
control products or similar material shall
not be used at the project site to prevent
accidentally trapping wildlife species.
• If western pond turtle or other special -
status species is found during
construction, all work shall cease in the
area where the individual was found until
the animal leaves the impact area on its
own. If this is not possible, a qualified
biologist shall contact CDFW to determine
whether the animal can be moved to an
appropriate relocation site. If moving the
animal is approved, the qualified biologist
shall be given sufficient time to complete
the task. Only qualified biologists shall
capture, handle, and m ove listed species.

The qualified biologist shall monitor any
relocated individual until it is determined
that it is safe.
• If a western pond turtle is observed during
preconstruction surveys or project
construction, a qualified biologist shall
monitor all in-water work to ensure that no
Page v

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View turtles are harmed during project
construction.

Impact BIO -2: The proposed project could
impact nesting or wintering burrowing owl, a
CSSC. There are known past nesting
locations within 150 to 300 feet of the project
site.

Mitigation Measure BIO -2: Burrowing Owl
Protection. Project construction (including
staging) shall occur during the non-breeding
season (i.e., wintering season) for burrowing
owl from September 1 to January 31 if
feasible. Within 14 days of project initiation,
the Contractor shall obtain current information
on burrowing owl nesting or wintering
locations from the City of Mountain View, and
construction shall avoid all nest and winter
burrow locations with a minimum 250-foot
buffer. A current map of burrowing owl nest or
wintering locations shall be kept on site at all
times, and buffer zones shall be flagged for
avoidance prior to the start of construction.

If ground squirrel burrows are located within
the project footprint, one -way doors shall be
installed by the City’s Wildlife Preservation
Biologist to passively evict any ground
squirrels from the immediate area and in the
unlikely event burrowing owls are present
within those burrows. The one-way doors shall
remain in place for at least 48 hours and until
construction commences at which time they
can be removed by the City’s Wildlife
Preservation Biologist.

Impact BIO -3: The proposed project could
impact nesting birds protected under the
federal MBTA and California Fish and Game
code. Birds could nest in the trees, shrubs or
structures in or near the project site.

Mitigation Measure BIO -3: Pre-
Construction Survey for Nesting Birds.

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View than seven days prior to the start of
construction, and if more than seven days
pass with no construction activities, another
pre-construction survey shall be required. The
survey shall include all trees, shrubs, and
structures on the site, and all trees, shrubs,
and structures within a 250 -foot radius of the
site. In addition, a 0.5 -mile radius shall be
searched for nesting white -tailed kite. If an
active, native bird nest has been documented
by the City or is found during the survey, the
biologist shall d esignate a construction -free
buffer zone (0.5 mile for white -tailed kites,
typically 500 feet for other raptors, and 250
feet for other birds) around the nest to remain
in place until the young have fledged. The
qualified biologist shall be contacted
immediately if a bird nest is discovered during
project construction. The results of the survey
and nest monitoring (if applicable) will be
documented, and any nest buffer zones shall
be flagged for avoidance prior to the start of
construction.

Impact BIO -4: The proposed project could
impact roosting bats if they are present under
Bridge #25 or Bridge #27.

Mitigation Measure BIO -4: Not less than 30
days before the start of construction -related
activities (including but not limited to
mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing,
tree removal, vegetation removal, fence
installation, demolition, and grading), a
roosting bat survey will be conducted within
the project site and a 50-foot buffer, including
the culverts under Bridge #25 and under
Bridge #27 , as feasible. The survey may be
conducted at any time of year but should be
conducted in such a way to allow sufficient
time to determine if special -status bats or
maternity colonies are present. If no signs of
bats are detected during the survey, no further
surveys are warranted.

If signs of bat occupancy (e.g., guano pellets
or urine staining) are detected or if the
biologist cannot adequately survey under the
bridges, a follow -up dusk emergence survey
should be conducted by a qualified biologist. A
dusk survey will verify if bats are present
and/or will determine the number of bats
present, and will also in clude the use of
Page vii

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View acoustic equipment to determine species of
bats present.

If an occupied maternity or colony roost is
detected, CDFW shall be consulted to
determine appropriate measures, such as the
establishment of a no-disturbance buffer. The
results of the surveys shall be documented.

Impact BIO -5: The proposed project would
include excavation in an artificial golf course
pond under the jurisdiction of the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB and CDFW.

Mitigation Measure BIO -5: The project shall
apply for coverage under RWQCB Order
2004-0004, which provides General WDRs for
projects outside of federal jurisdiction that
impact less than 0.2 acres of area subject to
Water Board jurisdiction . The City shall also
submit a Notification of Lake or Streambed
Alteration for the project to CDFW. The project
shall not be initiated until all permits required
by the RWQCB, and/or CDFW are obtained,
or the agency(ies) have confirmed that no
permits are required.

Impact CUL -1: Construction of the project
could potentially result in disturbance to both
recorded and unknown archaeological
resources.

Mitigation Measure CUL -1: Inadvertent
Discovery of Archaeological Resources .

The City shall retain a Professional
Archaeologist on an “on - call” basis during
ground disturbing construction activities to
review, identify and evaluate any potential
cultural resources that may be inadvertently
exposed during construction. The
Professional Archaeologist shall review and
evaluate any discoveries to determine if they
are historical resource(s) and/or unique
archaeological resources under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Monitoring Plan (A.M.P) and/or
Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) that
may include data recovery may be
recommended by the Professional
Archaeologist if significant archaeological
deposits are exposed during ground disturbing
construction. Development and
implementation of the A.M.P and ATP and
treatment of significant cultural resources will
be determined by the City in consultation with
any regulatory agencies.

A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with
the City at the conclusion of ground disturbing
construction if archaeological and Native
American monitoring of excavation was
undertaken.

Impact CUL -2: Project excavation could
disturb previously unknown buried
archaeological resources and/or human
remains.

No furt her excavation or disturbance of the
identified material, or any area reasonably
suspected to overlie additional remains, can
occur until a determination has been made. If
the County Coroner determines that the
remains are, or are believed to be, of Native
American ancestry, the coroner would notify
the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours. In accordance with California
Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the
Native American Heritage Commission must
immediately notify those persons it believes to
be the Most Likely Descendant from the
deceased Native American. Within 48 hours of
this notification, the Most Likely Descendant
would recommend to the lead agency their
preferred treatment of the remains and
associated grave goods.

Page ix

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Impact GEO -1: Project construction could
unearth paleontological resources, including
fossils.

Mitigation Measure GEO -1: Stop -Work
Provision. If paleontological resources are
discovered during construction, ground -
disturbing activities shall halt immediately until
a qualified paleontologist can assess the
significance of the discovery. Depending on
determinations made by the paleontologist,
work may either be allowed to continue once
the discovery has been recorded, or if
recommended by the paleontologist, recovery
of the resource may be required, in which
ground-disturbing activity within the area of the
find would be temporarily halted until the
resource has been recovered. If treatment and
salvage is required, recommendations shall
be consistent with Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology guidelines and current
professional standards.

The City of Mountain View shall ensure that
information on the nature, location, and depth
of all finds is readily available to the scientific
community through university curation or other
appropriate means.

Table of Contents Page x

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View 2019/20 CITY BRIDGES AND CULVERTS STRUCTURAL INSPECTION AND REPAIRS, PROJECT 20-60

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Background and Overview ............................................................................... 1

1.2 Regulatory Guidance .................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Lead Agency Contact Information ................................................................................ 2

1.4 Document Purpose and Organization ........................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 3

2.1 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Project Location and Site Description ........................................................................... 3

2.3 Proposed Project .......................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Standard Specifications .............................................................................................. 12

2.5 Required Approvals .................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND RESPONSES ....................................... 15

3.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................... 21

3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources ............................................................................. 24

3.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 26

3.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................. 34

3.5 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 57

3.6 Energy ........................................................................................................................ 65

3.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................... 68

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................... 74

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................. 78

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ..................................................................................... 84

3.11 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................. 91 Table of Contents Page xi

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.12 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................... 92

3.13 Noise .......................................................................................................................... 93

3.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................ 98

3.15 Public Services .......................................................................................................... 99

3.16 Recreation ............................................................................................................... 101

3.17 Transportation .......................................................................................................... 102

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 104

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................. 107

3.20 Wildfire ..................................................................................................................... 109

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................... 111 CHAPTER 4. REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 114 CHAPTER 5. PREPARERS .................................................................................................... 120

TABLES
Table 2-1: Project Construction Equipment Estimates ................................................................. 5 Table 2-2: Specifications Included as Part of the Project ........................................................... 12 Table 3-1: Potentially Applicable BAAQMD Rules and Regulations ........................................... 29 Table 3-2: Estimated Project Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ............................... 31

FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2-3 Site Photos of City Bridge #25 ..................................................................................... 8 Figure 2-4 Site Photos of City Bridge #27 ..................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-5 Construction Detail City Bridge #25 ........................................................................... 10 Figure 2-6 Construction Detail City Bridge #27 ........................................................................... 11

Table of Contents Page xii

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Emissions Report Appendix B: Pond 4 Shoreline Golf Course Bird Nesting Survey for Bridge Project Appendix C: Biological Species Tables
Appendix D: Archaeological Review, Basin Research Associates, September 1, 2023 [Confidential – held on file at the City]
Appendix E: Preliminary Foundation Report Golf Cart Bridge Replacement (Bridge #25) Shoreline Golf Links 1st Fairway, City of Mountain View, California

Table of Contents Page xiii

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

This page intentionally left blank
Introduction Page 1

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Chapter 1. Introduction
This Initial Study (IS) evaluates the potential environmental effects of a project to replace two golf cart bridges within the Shor eline Golf Links golf course in Mountain View, California. These proposed activities constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The City of Mountain View (City) is the CEQA Lead Agency for the project. Responsible agencies include California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City is implementing a project identified in the 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs Project 20-60 to replace two bridges, #25 and #27, within the Shoreline Golf Links golf course. These structures were previously reviewed as part of the 2018 Citywide Bridge and Culvert Structural Assessment Program. and were found to have significant deficiencies. The purpose of the project is to replace these structures.

1.2 REGULATORY GUIDANCE
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15000 et seq.) establish the City as the lead agency for the project. The lead agency is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 as, “t he public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.” The lead agency is responsible for preparing the appropriate environmental review document under CEQA. The Mountain View City Council serves as the decision -making body for the City and is responsible for adopting the CEQA document and approving the project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 states that a public agency shall prepare a proposed Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration when:

1. The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or

2. The Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
• Revisions in the project plans made before a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effects would occur, and • There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.

Pursuant to Section 15070, the City has determined a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental review document for the project.

To ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in a Mitigated Negative Declaration are implemented, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(a) requires the City to adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the Introduction Page 2

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. The City shall prepare a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan based on the mitigation measures contained in this IS/MND.

1.3 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION
The lead agency for the project is the City of Mountain View. The contact person for the lead agency is:

Marichrisse Hoang, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department, Public Services Division
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Phone: (650) 903-6991
Email: [email protected]

1.4 DOCUMENT PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION
The purpose of this document is to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacements. This document is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1 – Introduction. This chapter introduces the project and describes the purpose and organization of this document.
• Chapter 2 – Project Description. This chapter describes the project location, area, site, objectives, and characteristics.
• Chapter 3 – Environmental Checklist and Responses. This chapter contains the Environmental Checklist that identifies the significance of potential environmental impacts (by environmental issue) and a brief discussion of each impact resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This chapter also contains the Mandatory Findings of Significance.
• Chapter 4 – Report Preparation. This chapter provides a list of those involved in the preparation of this document.
• Appendices

Project Description Page 3
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description

2.1 PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the project is to remove two structurally deficient bridges located in the Shoreline Golf Links golf course and install new two prefabricated bridges within the vicinity of the existing bridges being removed . The project addressed in this Initial Study is part of a larger project; 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located within the 73.5-acre Shoreline Golf Links golf course at 2940 N orth Shoreline Boulevard (APN 116-05-076) in the northern part of the City of Mountain View, California. The golf course is nestled within the 750 -acre Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park and near the San Francisco Bay shoreline (Figure 2-1). Bridge #25 is located at the 1 st tee at Pond #4 and Bridge #27 is located at 5th fairway at Pond #4 (Figure 2-2). The project site is mainly open space, grassy minor slopes, existing intermittent trees, an artificial pond, and paved golf cart paths throughout the site.

Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park includes numerous other amenities and natural features such as the historic Rengstorff House, Shoreline Lake, Michael’s restaurant, Mountain View Slough, Permanente Creek, and several hiking and bike trails providing access to the open space and wildlife habitat areas of the adjacent Baylands. Shoreline Amphitheatre is located to the south of the Park. Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided via Interstate 101, located south of the project site, and from Shoreline Boulevard or Amphitheatre Parkway.

Existing Bridge Conditions
The following description of the existing bridge conditions was obtained from the 2018 City-Wide Bridge and Culvert Structural Inspection Report.

City Bridge #25
City Bridge #25 crosses Pond #4 between the Shoreline Golf Links Club House and the 1 st tee.

The structure consists of a roughly seven foot, four inch wide pathway constructed of asphalt concrete paving, crossing over six (6) large di ameter (approximately five -foot, six inch plus) corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culverts. The approaches leading up to the bridge structure (north and south ends) are in good condition. The barrels of the CMP are in poor condition, exhibiting deformation and section loss due to cor rosion. The top asphalt deck of the bridge is in poor condition as well, exhibiting large longitudinal cracks and spalls. In addition, the curb is separating from the deck at several locations due to significant settlement. Despite the City’s efforts to mitigate the issues, the conditions of the bridge continue to deteriorate and have required the closure of the bridge and pathway to maintain safety.

City Bridge #27
City Bridge #27 is a pedestrian bridge crossing Pond #4 at the 5 th Fairway. The structure is a roughly 70-foot long prefabricated steel U-Truss (Pony Truss) bridge providing a roughly six foot wide clear width which allows golf carts to cross the pond. The deck of the bridge is made of timber planks. The planks are held in place by steel angles that have become warped and loose Project Description Page 4
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View at multiple locations causing separations between the deck planks. Steel members below the deck were not painted and are showing signs of corrosion. Corrosion with flaking is evident at the steel connection of the bearing seat. The substructure is in good overall condition, with minor erosion along the north abutment.

2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
Proposed Improvements
The project analyzed in this Initial Study includes the following improvements:

City Bridge #25
The project will construct a new prefabricated steel bridge structure to the northeast of the existing corrugated metal pipe (CMP) causeway structure. The project will include construction of new pile supported abutments, installation of a 152 -foot long by 8-foot wide prefabricated steel truss bridge, protection of the causeway CMP structure, removal of existing asphalt concrete (AC) paving along the causeway, excavation to separate the existing causeway from the adjacent land to create an island feature wi thin Pond #4, and other miscellaneous site work necessary for the new bridge and pathway conforms. The new bridge will consist of a prefabricated steel through truss with cross bracing, safety rails, toe plate and lightweight concrete deck. New concrete abutments supported on cast -in-drilled-hole pilings will be installed . Holes will be drilled for the abutments where reinforcing steel cages will be lowered into, then filled with concrete. The new prefabricated bridge will be shipped as one single unit or two units that will need to be assembled at the staging area or bridge site prior to installation. Once assembled, the bridge would be lowered into place with a crane.

City Bridge #27
The project will replace City Bridge #27, a 70-foot long by 6-foot wide golf cart bridge over Pond #4 at the 5th Fairway. The project includes removal of the existing bridge, installation of a 70-foot long by 6.5 -foot wide prefabricated truss bridge with cross bracing, safety rails, toe plate , and wood decking, as well as other miscellaneous site work (i.e., new approaches) necessary for the new bridge.

The existing City Bridge #27 is supported on concrete abutments . The existing bridge anchor bolts will be cut off and a crane will lift the old bridge onto a truck and removed from the site. The new prefabricated steel bridge will be delivered to the site and unloaded from the truck. A crane would be used to lower the new bridge onto the existing concrete abutments and new epoxy anchor bolts will be drilled into existing concrete abutments to properly secure the new steel bridge in place. A recycled water utility conduit mounted to the northern side of the existing bridge would be detached from the existing bridge prior to removal of the bridge. The utility conduit would remain in place and then be reattached to the new bridge superstructure once it is installed.

Construction
Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in March 2024 and to be completed by March 2025. The duration anticipated for this project varies between 125 to 225 working days depending on fabrication/procurement time, and upon approval of shop drawings for the prefabricated steel bridges (typical range 16 to 36 weeks). Construction will occur in two phases. The first phase will Project Description Page 5
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View consist of the construction/installation, of the new Bridge #25 and clearing of the existing asphalt pathway. This phase is estimated to take at least 10 to 12 weeks for bridge construction , plus additional time for site work. The second phase will consist of the removal and replacement of the new prefabricated steel superstructure for Bridge #27. This phase is estimated to take roughly two weeks for bridge superstructure replacement.

The expected construction equipment type and numbers of days in use for the project are as follows:

Table 2-1: Project Construction Equipment Estimates
Equipment Type No. on Site No. of Working
Days In Use
Crane 1 1 week
Backhoe/Tractor 2 12 weeks
Bore/Drill Rig 1 1 week

Hours would be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and no construction on Saturday or Sunday would be allowed unless prior approval is granted, consistent with the City’s noise regulations for construction hours (Municipal Code Chapter 8.70). Access to the project site will be from Shoreline Boulevard and the Michael’s/Golf Links parking lot.

Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Pond #4
N. Shoreline Blvd.

Michael's at Shoreline
Restaurant
Project Description Page 8
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Figure 2-3 Site Photos of City Bridge #25

Photo 1. View of Existing City Bridge #25 looking southeast across the top of the existing deteriorated causeway.1

Photo 2. Closeup of existing deterioration Bridge #25.

1. Due to Bridge #25 being closed to pedestrians, no additional photos were taken from different viewpoints.

Project Description Page 9
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Figure 2-4 Site Photos of City Bridge #27

Photo 3. View of Existing City Bridge #27 looking south.

Photo 4. View of Existing City Bridge #27 looking northwest.

Project Description Page 10
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Figure 2-5 Construction Detail City Bridge #25

Use pg. 6 of 12 on 95% design plan set

Project Description Page 11
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Figure 2-6 Construction Detail City Bridge #27
Use pg. 11 of 12 on 95% plan set.

Project Description Page 12
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

2.4 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
The project plans contain the following project -specific and City of Mountain View Standard specifications (Provisions and Standard Details - July 2019) that will be applied to the project to help avoid or reduce potential project impacts , as shown on Table 2-2. Because these are included on the project plans or specifications they are considered part of the project and not mitigation.

Table 2-2: Specifications Included as Part of the Project Topic Best Management Practice /Specifications
Dust Control –
Construction Notes
Specification 7
At all times during construction and until final completion and acceptance of the work, the contractor shall prevent the formation of an airborne dust nuisance in such a manner that it will contain dust particles to the immediate surface of the work per Section 5-10 of the Standard Provisions.

The contractor shall perform such treatment within 2 hours after notification by the City that an airborne nuisance exists.

Maintenance of Work
Site – Construction
Notes Specification 10
The contractor shall keep the street and work site clean and free from rubbish and debris per Section 5 -15 of the Standard Provisions. This provision requires preventing spillage on haul routes, cleaning up spillage, sweeping all streets of mud and dirt and debris that are the result of the contractor’s work and keeping the work site in a clean and neat appearance. Any spillage on haul routes shall be immediately removed and cleaned up.

Compliance with
environmental
documents –
Construction Notes
Specification 15
The contractor shall comply with the provisions of all permits, licenses or other authorizations applicable to the work with respect to the Environmental Quality Act per Section 7 -02 of the Standard Provisions.

Maintain traffic control
devices - Construction
Notes Specification 17
The contractor shall install and maintain fences, barriers, lights and signs that are necessary to give adequate warning to the public at all times per Section 7-05 of the Standard Provisions in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Hazardous Materials
and Waste –
Construction Notes
Specification 19
All work shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials or hazardous waste to the soil or groundwater, and minimizes the discharge of hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, polluted water and sediments to the storm drain system per Section 7-08.01 of the Standard Provisions.

Construction Noise -
Construction Notes
Specification 21
Noise working hour restrictions.

In order to limit disturbing noises, construction work shall occur only between the hours of 7:30 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Work outside of these hours is prohibited, unless the City grants an exception. Exceptions will be considered only when, in the opinion of the Public Works Director, construction Project Description Page 13
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View during normal construction hours would inconvenience the public and neighboring residents more than working outside of these hours. Exceptions will not be granted merely to expedite the construction work.

Discharge to curbside
gutter, storm sewer,
storm drain or natural
outlets.

Mountain View
Municipal Code Chapter

35.31.3.1 It shall be unlawful to discharge or cause a threatened discharge to any curbside gutter, storm sewer, storm drain gutter, creek or natural outlet any domestic sewage, sanitary sewage, industrial wastes or polluted waters except where permission is granted by the fire chief or his designee. Unlawful discharges to storm drains shall include, but are not limited to discharges from: toilets, sinks, commercial or industrial processes, cooling systems, air compressors, boilers, fabric or carpet cleaning, equipment cleaning, vehicle cleaning, swimming pools, spas, fountains, const ruction activities (e.g., painting, paving, concrete placement, saw cutting, grading}, painting, and paint stripping, unless specifically permitted by a discharge permit or unless exempt ed pursuant to regulations established by the fire chief or his designee. Additionally, it shall be unlawful to discharge any pollutants or waters containing pollutants that would contribute to violations of the City's stormwater discharge permit or applicable water quality standards.

Mountain View
Municipal Code Chapter

35.32.2.1 Discharge
Permit
It shall be unlawful for any person or organization to discharge or cause to be discharged any industrial wastes or polluted water whatsoever directly or indirectly into the sewer system without first obtaining a permit for discharge. The discharge applica nt shall not commence discharge prior to permit issuance. Furthermore, it shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any industrial wastes or polluted water in excess of the quantity or quality limitations, or to violate any other requirement set forth in this article or in a permit for discharge.

Standard Provisions
and Standard Details,
Section 5-10, Dust
Control.

Attention is directed to Section 30, “Water for Construction,” of these Standard Provisions. At all times during construction and until final completion and acceptance of the Work, the Contractor shall prevent the formation of an airborne dust nuisance by oiling or watering as required by the Engineer, to treat the site of the Work in such a manner that it will confine dust particles to the immediate surface of the Work. The Contractor shall perform such treatment within two (2) hours after notification by the Engineer that the airborne nuisance exists. If the Contractor fails to remove the nuisance within two (2) hours, the City may order that the treatment of the site be done by City personnel and equipment or by others. All expenses incurred in the performance of this treatment shall be charged to the Contractor. The co st shall be paid for by the Contractor separately or be deducted from the periodic payments to the Contractor as such costs are incurred by the City.

Standard Provisions
and Standard Details,
In compliance with State and Federal regulations on construction storm water management and nonpoint source pollution control, no Project Description Page 14
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Section 7-08 Disposal of
Materials, 7-08.01
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control
pollutants will be allowed to enter the storm drainage system. The Contractor shall be responsible for containing and removing any waste from the Contractor’s construction operation using the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP) and shall properly dispose the waste from the site. The Contractor shall be responsible for cleaning catch basins if solid and liquid waste material originating from the Contractor’s operation enters the storm drain. Violation of this provision shall cause the City to issue a stop-work notice and take necessary action to require the Contractor to correct and comply with the regulations. All costs related to the stop-work action and corrective work to come into compliance shall be fully borne by the Contractor.

All construction projects occurring within City limits shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials or hazardous waste to the soil or groundwater, and minimizes the discharge of hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, polluted water and sediments to the storm drain system in accordance with City Code Section 35.32.101(T). Practices which may be implemented to meet the intent of this requirement are described in the City of Mountain View’s document “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Guidelines for Construction Projects” and “It’s in the Contract! (but not in the Bay) - Pollution prevention specifications for construction contractors and maintenance crew supervisors working in the City of Mountain View.”

2.5 REQUIRED APPROVALS
The City is both the proponent and the Lead Agency for the proposed project. The proposed project requires permit approval from the following agencies:
• San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), coverage under RWQCB Order 2004-000 (Waste Discharge Requirements);
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 15

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Chapter 3. Environmental Checklist and Responses

1. Project Title: 2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60.

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Mountain View , 500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94041.

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Marichrisse Hoang, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department, Public Services Division, City of Mountain View, 500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 9404 1, Phone: (650) 903 -6991, Email:
[email protected]

4. Project Location: 2940 North Shoreline Boulevard, Mountain View, California 94043

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Same as the Lead Agency

6. General Plan Designation: Regional Park

7. Zoning: PF-Public Facility

8. Description of the Project: The project proposes to replace two golf cart bridges within the Shoreline Golf Links golf course in the City of Mountain View.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Adjacent land uses include office/office parks, open space/recreation, and the Shoreline Amphitheatre.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? The City of Mountain View has not received a request from Native American tribes for consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1. Letters and/or emails were sent by Basin Research Associates in August 2023 to the nine locally knowledgeable Native American individuals/organizations identified by the NAHC to determine if any potential resources of interest to the Native American community were present. No responses were received.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 16

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Public Services
Agricultural and
Forestry Resources Hazards and Hazardous
Materials Recreation
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation
Biological Resources Land Use/Planning Tribal Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities/Service Systems Energy Noise Wildfire
Geology/Soils Population/Housing Mandatory Findings of Significance

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 17

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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 significant 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 significant 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 significant 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.

Signature Date
Name (print) Title

Marichrisse Hoang
11/03/2023
Associate Civil Engineer
Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 18

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appro- priate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in 5. below, may be cross- referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program. EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 19

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

7. Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a. the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 20

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

This page intentionally left blank
Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 21

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.1 AESTHETICS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:*
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage points.) If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?

*Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099

3.1.1 Environmental Setting
The project proposes to replace two existing golf cart bridges that are located within the Shoreline Golf Links Golf Course. The project site is currently developed as a golf course, with open space, minor slopes, existing intermittent trees, a n artificial pond, and paved trails throughout the site.

The project site is surrounded by the Mountain View Slough to the north, the Shoreline Amphitheatre to the south, a public park with a kite flying area to the east, and the Shoreline Lake to the west. Various hiking trails surround the project site to the south, east, and west.

3.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Local Regulations
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan (City of Mountain View, 2012) contains the following policies related to community character and provide design guidance:

LUD 9.3: Enhanced public space. Ensure that development enhances public spaces through these measures:

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 22

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View o Encourage strong pedestrian -oriented design with visible, accessible entrances and pathways from the street.
o Encourage design compatibility with surrounding uses. o Encourage building articulation and use of special materials to provide visual interest.
o Promote and regulate high -quality sign materials, colors and design that are compatible with site and building design.
o Encourage attractive water-efficient landscaping on the ground level.

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

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

LUD 6.1: Neighborhood character. Ensure that new development in or near residential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character.

3.1.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. For purposes of determining significance under CEQA, a scenic vista is defined as a viewpoint that provides expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the public. The project is located on a golf course that is within a regional park. The golf course offers expansive views of grassy hills and lush vegetation around the artificial pond. The project would result in temporary visual changes during construction due to the presence of construction vehicles, cran es, signage and debris. These temporary visual changes would be visible to golf players and visitors of the golf course. However, these visual changes would be temporary. Additionally, the replacement bridges would conform to the existing visual landscape and the overall visual quality of the project site would remain substantially unchanged. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is not visible from a n officially designated state scenic highway as there are none in the area (Caltrans, 2019). Therefore, no impact would occur. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. As noted above, the project proposes to replace two existing structurally deficient bridges within a golf course that is within a regional park. The duration of Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 23

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View construction of the project would temporarily disrupt visual character due to the presence of construction vehicles, cranes, signage and debris. Although the proposed replacement for the existing asphalt pathway (City Structure #25) will be a prefabricated steel bridge structure that will change the appearance of the pathway, the new bridge will be consistent with the other pedestrian/golf cart bridges on the golf course and within the park. In contrast to the existing bridges, the new bridges would enhance surrounding visual quality as there would be no visible deterioration. Therefore, no permanent significant change or degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site is anticipated. This impact would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Impact. No new lighting or change in lighting is proposed as part of the project.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 24

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project*:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland) as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program. of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?

*In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
The project is located in the City of Mountain View in an area designated as Urban and Built -up Land by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

The project site is currently developed with a golf course and is zoned PF -Public Facility. There is no land near the project site that is used for agricultural purposes.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 25

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.2.2 Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) assesses the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural land and conversion of these lands over time. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The best quality land is called Prime Farmland. In CEQA analyses, the FMMP classifications and published county maps are used, in part, to identify whether agricultural resources that could be affected are present on or near the project site.

Williamson Act Program
The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value (CDC 2023).

3.2.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. (Responses a – e). There are no forest lands or agricultural lands on or near the project site, which is within a regional park. Therefore, the project would not convert or cause the conversion of any farmland or forest land to a non -agricultural/non-forest use. The proposed project would not impact Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, forest land, or land under a Williamson Act contract. Thus, the project would not result in impacts to any agricultural or forestry resources.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 26

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.3 AIR QUALITY

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project*:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

*Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

3.3.1 Environmental Setting
Air quality is a function of pollutant emissions and topographic and meteorological influences.

Physical atmospheric conditions such as air temperature, wind speed and topography influence air quality.

Criteria Air Pollutants
Federal, state, and local governments control air quality through the implementation of laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards. The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for “criteria” pollutants considered harmful to the environment and public health. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), ozone (O 3), fine particulate matter (particles

2.5 microns in diameter and smaller, or P.M.2.5), inhalable coarse particulate matter (particles 10 microns in diameter and smaller, or P.M.10), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2). California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are more stringent than the national standards for the pollutants listed above and include the following additional pollutants: hydrogen sulfide (H2S), sulfates (SOx), and vinyl chloride. In addition to these criteria pollutants, the federal and state governments have classified certain pollutants as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or toxic air contaminants (TACs), such as asbestos and diesel particulate matter (DPM).

San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
The proposed project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), an area of non-attainment for both the 1 -hour and 8-hour state ozone standards, and the national 24 -hour P.M.2.5 standard (BAAQMD 2023b, Table 5 -1 SFBAAB Designation Status). The SFBAAB is Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 27

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View comprised of nine counties: all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, Napa, and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma.

The San Francisco Bay Area is generally characterized by a Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers and cool, damp winters. During the summer daytime high temperatures near the coast are primarily in the mid -60s, whereas areas farther inland are typically in the high -80s to low-90s. Nighttime low temperatures on average are in the mid -40s along the coast and low to mid-30s inland.

The Mediterranean climate is seen along most of the West Coast of North America and is primarily due to a (typically dominating) high-pressure system, located off the west coast of North America, over the Pacific Ocean. During the summer and fall months the high -pressure ridge is at its strongest and therefore provides a more stable atmosphere. Warm temperatures and a stable atmosphere associated with the high-pressure ridge provide favorable conditions for the formation of photochemical pollutants (e.g., O3 and secondary particulates (e.g., nitrogen oxides (NOx) and SO2).

Varying topography and limited atmospheric mixing throughout the SFBAAB restrict air movement resulting in reduced dispersion and higher concentrations of air pollutants. The SFBAAB is most susceptible to air pollution during the summer when cool marine ai r flowing through the Golden Gate can become trapped under a layer of warmer air (a phenomenon known as an inversion) and is prevented from escaping the valleys and bays created by the Coast Ranges.

Existing Emissions Sources
The proposed project would be located at the Shoreline Golf Links golf course on Shoreline Boulevard. The golf course generates emissions primarily from vehicle trips and operations at the course itself, including emissions from landscape equipment and consumer products (e.g., cleaning supplies). These existing emissions contribute to local and regional air quality conditions.

Sensitive Receptors
A sensitive receptor is defined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) as a facility or land use that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollution, such as children, seniors, or people will illnesses (BAAQMD 2023b, Appendix F) These typically include residences, hospitals, and schools. The proposed project is located at the Shoreline Golf Links golf course at Shoreline Regional Park. This type of active recreational facility does not inc lude permanent receptors; however, parks are generally considered to be a land use sensitive to air pollution as sensitive receptors may visit the park for recreation purposes. Besides golf course and park visitors, there are other no sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the work areas.

3.3.2 Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
CARB In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation
CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Equi pment regulation is intended to reduce emissions of NOx and P.M. from off -road diesel vehicles, including construction equi pment, operating within Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 28

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View California. The regulation imposes limits on idling; requires reporting equipment and engine information and labeling all vehicles reported; restricts adding older vehicles to fleets; and requires fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines or installing exhaust retrofits for P.M.. The requirements and compliance dates of the off-road regulation vary by fleet size, and large fleets (fleets with more than 5,000 horsepower) must meet average targets or comply with Best Available Control Technology requirements beginning in 2014. CARB has off-road anti-idling regulations affecting self -propelled diesel-fueled vehicles 25 horsepower and up. The off-road anti-idling regulations limit idling on applicable equipment to no more than five minutes, unless exempted due to safety, operation, or maintenance requirements.

CARB On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle (In-Use) Regulation CARB’s On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles (In-Use) regulation (also known as the Truck and Bus Regulation) is intended to reduce emission of NOX, P.M., and other criteria pollutants generated from existing on-road diesel vehicles operating in California. The regulation applies to nearly all diesel-fueled trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds that are privately or federally owned, and for privately and publicly owned school buses. Heavier trucks and buses with a GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds must comply with a schedule by engine model year or owners can report to show compliance with more flexible options. Fleets complying with the heavier trucks and buses schedule must install the best available P.M. filter on 1996 model year and newer engines, and replace the vehicle eight years later. Trucks with 1995 model year and older engines had to be replaced starting in 2015.

Replacements with a 2010 model year or newer engine meet the final requirements, but owners can also replace the equipment with used trucks that have a future compliance date (as specified in regulation). By 2023, all trucks and buses must have at least 2010 model year engines with few exceptions.

Regional Regulations
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for maintaining air quality and regulating emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants within the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD carries out this responsibility by preparing, adopting, and implementing plans, regulatio ns, and rules that are designed to achieve attainment of state and national air quality standards. The BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for maintaining air quality and regulating emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants within the SFBAAB. The BAAQMD carries out this responsibility by preparing, adopting, and implementing plans, regulations, and rules that are designed to achieve attainment of state and national air quality standards. The BAAQMD currently has 14 regulations containing more th an 100 rules that control and limit emissions from sources of pollutants. Table 3-1 summarizes the major BAAQMD rules and regulations that may apply to the proposed project.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 29

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Table 3-1: Potentially Applicable BAAQMD Rules and Regulations Regulation Rule Description
1 – General Provisions
and Definitions
1 – General Provisions
and Definitions
301 – Public Nuisance: Establishes
that no person shall discharge
quantities of air contaminants or other
materials which cause injury,
detriment, nuisance or annoyance to
any considerable number or person or
the public; or which endangers the
comfort, repose, health, or safety of
any such person or the public.
6 – Particulate Matter 1 – General
Requirements
Limits visible particulate matter
emissions.
6 – Particulate Matter 6 – Prohibition of
Trackout
Limits the quantity of particulate
matter through control of trackout of
solid materials on paved public roads
from construction sites that are
greater than one acre in size.
8 – Organic Compounds 3 – Architectural
Coatings
Sets forth VOC limitations and
requirements for architectural
coatings. Traffic marking coatings are
required to meet a standard of 100
g/L.

Source: BAAQMD, 2023c
On April 29, 2017, the BAAQMD adopted its Spare the Air-Cool the Climate 2017 Clean Air Plan (Clean Air Plan). The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the most recent Bay Area ozone plan, the 2010 Clean Air Plan, in fulfillment of state ozone planning requirements. The Plan focuses on the three following goals:
• Attain all state and national air quality standards.
• Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic air contaminants; and
• Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The plan includes 85 distinct control measures to help the region reduce air pollutants and has a long-term strategic vision which forecasts what a clean air Bay Area will look like in the year 2050.

The control measures aggressively target the largest sou rce of GHG, ozone pollutants, and particulate matter emissions – transportation. The 2017 Clean Air Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 30

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Plan includes more incentives for electric vehicle infrastructure, off -road electrification projects such as Caltrain and shore power at ports, and reducing emissions from trucks, school buses, marine vessels, locomotives, and off-road equipment (BAAQMD 2017).

Local Regulations
City of Mountain View General Plan
Chapter 5, Infrastructure and Conservation, of the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (City of Mountain View, 2012) includes the following goals and policies to address air quality that may be applicable to the proposed project (City of Mountain View, 2012):

Goal INC-20: Clean, breathable air and strongly controlled city sources of air pollution.

Policy INC 20.6: Air quality standards. Protect the public and construction workers from construction exhaust and particulate emissions.

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

Goal MOB-9: Achievement of state and regional air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

3.3.3 Discussion
Would the proposed project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with nor obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD 2017 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes increases in regional construction, area, mobile, and stationary source activities , and operations in its emission inventories and plans for achieving attainment of air quality standards. Chapter 5 of the 2017 Clean Air Plan contains the BAAQMD’s strategy for achieving the plan’s climate and air quality goals. The proposed project would not result in a change in land use, population, or vehicle miles traveled. The 2017 Clean Air Plan’s focus on long-term air quality improvement would account for the proposed project’s short -term construction emissions. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the deconstruction and off-haul of two existing bridges and the installation of two new bridges. These activities would generate equipment and vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. Construction activities would include demolition, new bridge construction, paving, and potentially architectural coating phases. The project’s potential construction emissions were estimated using the Calif ornia Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2022.1 . The modeling is based on default CalEEmod assumptions, with the following project-specific modifications:

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 31

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View • Construction Equipment: CalEEMod default assumptions for construction equipment were modified to reflect project-specific construction activities, phasing, and timelines, as provided by the City.
• Bridge Removal and Decommissioning Activities: Approximately 10 tons of debris off-haul was added to the model to account for demolition and removal and decommissioning of the existing bridges and vegetation. • Fugitive Dust Control Measures: Fugitive dust control measures consistent with the City’s Standard Specifications were incorporated in the construction emissions modeling.

Specifically, the model assumes the site would be watered twice a day, reducing fugitive dust emissions by 36 percent.

The project’s estimated construction criteria air pollutant emissions are presented in Table 3-2.

Refer to Appendix A for detailed CalEEMod assumptions and output files.

Table 3-2: Estimated Project Construction Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Year(A)
Pollutant Emissions (Tons Per Year)
ROG NOx CO
P.M.10 P.M.2.5
Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust
2024 0.1 0.6 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Year(A)
Pollutant Emissions (Average Pounds per Day)(B)
ROG NOx CO
P.M.10 P.M.2.5
Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust
2025? 0.3 3.1 3.8 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.1
BAAQMD CEQA Threshold 54 54 -- BMPs 82 BMPs 82
Potentially Significant Impact? No No No No No No No
Source: BAAQMD 2023b, MIG 2023. See Appendix A.
(A) Emissions estimates assume construction begins in March 2024 and is complete by March 2025. (B) Average daily emissions estimates are based on 106 total active construction days.

As shown in Table 3-2, construction emissions associated with the proposed project would be below all BAAQMD significance thresholds for criteria air pollutant emissions. For all projects, the BAAQMD recommends implementation of nine “Basic Best Management Practices for Construction-Related Fugitive Dust Emissions ” to reduce construction fugitive dust emissions levels; these basic measures are also used to meet the BAAQMD’s best management practices (BMPs) threshold of significance for construction fugitive dust emissions (i.e., the implementation of all basic cons truction measures renders fugitive dust impacts a less than significant impact).

As mentioned in Section 2.4, th e proposed project would incorporate the City’s Standard Provisions and Details , including Section 5 -10 Dust Control, which states the contractor shall prevent the formation of an airborne dust nuisance in such a manner that it will contain dust particles to the immediate surface of the work . Thus, the City’s dust control requirements are commensurate with the BAAQMD’s guidelines. T he proposed project’s potential construction emissions, therefore, would be less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 32

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Once constructed, the proposed project would not change the operation of the golf course and, therefore, would not increase operations -related emissions (i.e., the project would not change visitor patterns, landscaping operations, etc.). For this reason, o perational emissions were not estimated for the project. This impact would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impact Discussion
The SFBAAB is an area of non-attainment for national and state ozone, state PM10, and national and state PM2.5 air quality standards (BAAQMD 20 23b Table 5 -1). As shown in Table 3-2, the BAAQMD has established project -level thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. The BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds are also the levels at which the BAAQMD has determined that a project’s individual contribution to the cumulative impac t of non-attainment is cumulatively considerable (BAAQMD 2023b) . As discussed under impact discussions a) and b) above, the proposed project does not conflict with the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan and would not result in construction or operational emissions that exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance. As such, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to regional air quality impacts.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no residences, schools, hospitals etc. that could be affected by construction emissions within 1,000 feet of the project site. Emissions associated with the proposed project would not affect golf course attendants or staff because the project does not involve substantial equi pment operations or activities for a prolonged period of time. Emissions would be intermittent over two phases, and different golf course visitors and staff would come and go from the golf course on a daily basis. Thus, potential sensitive receptors would not be continuously exposed to construction emissions. This impact would be less than significant. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project could generate odors from the following sources and activities:
• Evaporation of gasoline, oil, and other fluids that can escape from pumps, hoses, and tanks in construction equipment and motor vehicles (e.g., haul trucks, tow trucks, and other vehicles).
• Off-gassing of volatile compounds from asphalt surfaces (e.g., paving of pathways to and from the bridges).
• Emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment exhaust pipes (e.g., a loader, backhoe, grader, etc.).

Potential odors may or may not, depending on the individual’s olfactory sensitivity, be perceived as objectionable, offensive, a nuisance, etc. Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. An odor that is offensive to one perso n may not be offensive to a different person, and unfamiliar odors are more easily detected and are more likely to cause complaints than familiar odors, as a person can become desensitized to almost any odor over time (known as odor fatigue). In general, the quality and intensity of an odor influence a person’s reaction. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience (e.g., flowery, putrid).

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 33

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View The intensity of an odor depends on its concentration in the air. When an odor s ample is progressively diluted, the odor concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes low enough where the odor is no longer detectable.

Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur at a park (golf course) where there are no residences within 1,000 feet of the work sites. Visitors to the golf course would move about the park and would not be continuously exposed to potential construction -related odors. For these reasons, the construction of the proposed project would not generate objectionable odors that could affect a substantial number of people. This impact is less than significant.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 34

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) 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 Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?

d) 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?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

3.4.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is on a golf course vegetated with mowed turf and landscape trees. There is a parking lot and buildings to the north of the project site . There are other recreational land uses within the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park to the east, west, and south, also vegetated with mowed turf and landscape trees or unmowed nonnative annual grasslands, and bisected by roads, trails, and parking lots . Permanente Creek is located about 100 feet to the east of Pond #4, and diked Baylands are about 0.3 mile to the north. A large artificial lake (Shoreline Lake) is located about 0.2 mile northwest of the pond. There is commercial and industrial develo pment surrounding the Mountain View Regional Park to the east, south, and west, about 0.4 to 0.6 mile from the project site.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 35

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Existing Land Cover Types and Vegetation
Land cover types at the project site include open water (Pond #4) and the surrounding golf course.

Vegetation on Bridge #25 includes English ivy (Hedera helix) and cattails (Typha sp.). Bridge #27 is not vegetated but has cattails growing adjacent to it. The shoreline of the pond is vegetated with native wetland species such as cattails, bulrush (Schoenoplectus sp.), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and willows ( Salix sp.), and nonnative herbaceous species such as black mustard (Brassica nigra ), Italian thistle ( Carduus pycnocephalus), bristly oxtongue ( Helminthotheca echioides), curlydock ( Rumex crispus ), and wild oats ( Avena sp.). Nonnative pepper trees (Schinus molle) and native coy ote brush ( Baccharis pilularis) is also present at some locations along the pond. The golf course is vegetated with some type of turf grass, but the species was not apparent because it is regularly mowed.

Wildlife
The City conducted two nesting bird surveys for the proposed project in July 2023 (Higgins, 2023a in Appendix B). One survey was conducted July 18th and a second survey was conducted July 21st, both surveys were conducted early in the morning (start time was 7am July 18th and 6am July 21st) when bird species are more active. During the survey on July 18th, a total of 26 species were observed with 95 individuals, while on July 21st, a total of 23 species and 202 individuals were observed. Breeding activity was observed for 9 species: American coot (Fulica americana), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans ), common gallinule (Gallinula galeata ), great -tailed grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus ), green heron (Butorides virescens), hooded oriole (Icterus culcullatus), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus 35odiceps), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia). Breeding activity varied from a nest with eggs to active feeding of young to observations of recently fledged young.

A site visit was also conducted for the project by MIG biologist Megan Kalyankar in July 2023.

The following bird species were observed within or adjacent to Pond #4 during the site visit:

American coot, Canada goose ( Branta canadensis ), cliff swallow ( Petrochelidon pyrrhonota ), Forster’s tern ( Sterna forsteri), great-tailed grackle, green heron, mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos), and red-winged blackbird ( Agelaius phoeniceus). California ground squirrels ( Otospermophilus beecheyi) were the only m ammals observed at the project site. Two invertebrate species were observed: Anise swallowtail (Papilio zelicaon) and a dragonfly (Odonata order).

Other wildlife that commonly occurs in urban environments are also likely present in the project area. Some ex amples may include native species such as the California slender sal amander (Batrachoseps attenuatus ), western fence lizard ( Sceloporus occidentalis ), American robin (Turdus migratorius), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), northern raccoon ( Procyon lotor), striped skunk ( Mephitis mephitis ); and the non-native species such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus), rock pigeon (Columba livia), fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and brown rat (Rattus norvegicus).

Special-Status Species
For the purposes of this document, special-status species include those plant and animals listed, proposed for listing or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Federal Endangered Species Act ( FESA); those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened or endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act ( CESA); animals designated as California Fully Protected (CFP) or Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 36

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) by the CDFW; and plants listed as California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2, 3 and 4 of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (Inventory).

The potential occurrence of special-status plant and animal species at the project site was initially evaluated by developing a list of special-status species that are known to or have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the study area based on a 9 -quad (U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle where the project is located and the eight surrounding quads ) search of current database records (e.g., California Natural Diversity Database [ CNDDB] and CNPS Electronic Inventory records), and review of the USFWS list of federal endangered and threatened species (using their online tool Information for Planning and Consultation or IPaC), NMFS’ Critical Habitat Website (NMFS, 2023a), and NMFS’ Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper (NMFS, 2023b). The potential for occurrence of those species included on the list was then evaluated based on the habitat requirements of each species relative to the habitat conditions documented in the project area. If there are no documented occurrences within 5 miles of the project area, if there is clearly no suitable habitat present, and /or if the project area is clearly outside of the expected range of the species, these species were eliminated from further consideration and are not discussed further. All remaining species were then evaluated for their potential to occur in or near the project site based on the presence of suitable habitat and nearby occurrences.

Special-status Plants
A total of forty -six (46) special -status plant species occur or historically occurred in the project region according to the CNPS Inventory (CNPS, 2023), CNDDB records (CNDDB , 2023), and IPaC (USFWS, 2023). There are historic occurrences of alkali milk -vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener, CRPR 1B.2) from 1905, and of Hoover’s button celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri, CRPR 1B.1) from 1909 at the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park, but both are listed in the CNDDB as “possibly extirpated.” There are recent occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii, CRPR 1B.1); this species is described below.

There is no suitable habitat in or near the project site for any of the other forty-five (45) special- status plant species that occur in the project region. The special-status plant species are not expected to occur at the project site for at least one of the following reasons: (1) lack of suitable habitat types; (2) absence of specific microhabitat or edaphic requirements (e.g., serpentine or alkaline soils); (3) the species is presumed extirpated or is not expected to occur in the proj ect vicinity due to range; and/or (4) the site is too developed and regularly disturbed to be expected to support the species. Special-status species plants with past occurrences within five miles of the project site are included in a table in Appendix C along with their listing status, range, habitat requirements, life form and blooming period, and potential to occur in the study area ; other special-status plants evaluated for potential occurrence in the project area are listed below the table.

Congdon’s tarplant
Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) is an annual herb in Sunflower Family (Asteraceae) that blooms from May to November. It occurs throughout western California from San Luis Obispo to Solano County. It grows in valley and foothill grasslands with alkaline or clay Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 37

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View soils from 0-230 meters. It is severely threatened by development, and possibly threatened by grazing and non-native plants.\
There are six sub-populations at the Shoreline including two subpopulations on former golf course ponds and one subpopulation on the edge of the golf course at three locations . It was once observed approximately 656 feet from Bridge #27 (Higgins, 2023b).

Special-status Animals
A total of fifty-eight (58) special-status animal species occur or historically occurred in the project region according to CNDDB records (CNDDB, 2023) and IPaC (USFWS, 2023), although fourteen (14) of those species do not meet the definition of special -status species used in this document.

A list of forty-four (44) special-status animal species was compiled using the USFWS and CNDDB databases and evaluated for their potential to occur in or near the project site . Thirty-four (34) special-status animal species are unlikely to occur due to a lack of suitable habitat, urban development and human disturbance, and/or because the project site is outside of their usual range. All special -status animal species evaluated for their potential occurrence on the project site are included in Appendix C along with listing status, range, habitat requirements, and potential to occur at or near the project site.

Monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus ), northwestern pond turtle ( Actinemys marmorata ), and eight special-status bird species are known to occur in the project area and are described below.

Many of the 20 bird species considered in the analysis have been observed at the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park according to CNDDB and/or recent eBird records (eBird is a citizen science online portal where birdwatchers can post their observations), and several additional special-status bird species with no CNDDB records from the area have also been observed at the Park according to eBird. However, most of these bird species either do not breed at the Park, and/or occur there only occasionally; and/or there is no suitable habitat for the species on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, only eight bird species that breed in the project area and are known to or could occur at or near the project site based on known nesting locations and/or suitable habitat on the project alignment are described below.

Monarch Butterfly
Federal Listing Status: Federal Candidate (FC); State Listing Status: None Monarch butterflies require milkweeds for egg -laying and larval development, but adults obtain nectar from a wide variety of flowering plants in many habitats. Individuals congregate in winter roosts, primarily in Mexico and in widely scattered locations on the central and southern California coast. The monarch butterfly is a common migrant, and less common breeder, in the South San Francisco Bay Area, where monarchs forage for nectar and breed on stands of milkweed. Native milkweed occurs in scattered locations in the South Bay, and some monarchs in the region breed on native milkweed. Those milkweed plants typically senesce (i.e., become dried and die) by fall, so under natural conditions, monarchs do not breed in the South Bay in winter (due to the absence of suitable hostplants) or form overwintering aggregations here. However, landscape plantings within the City of Mountain View also incorporate nonnative tropical milkweed ( Asclepias curassavica). That plant species’ life cycle, coupled with artificial irrigation of the plants, allows it to serve as a suitable larval hostplant even in winter.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 38

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Monarch butterfly breeds at the Shoreline at the maintenance building and in the monarch butterfly habitat area north of the kite flying lot, and near the Shoreline along Shorebird Way and Charleston Road, and along Charleston Way near Shorebird Way (H.T. Harvey & Associates, 2023). There is a monarch butterfly habitat restoration project approximately 1,300 feet from Bridge #27, where over one thousand native milkweeds were planted: monarchs observed daily in that area, and eggs and caterpillars observed June -September 2023 (Higgins, 2023b).

Northwestern Pond Turtle
Federal Listing Status: Proposed Threatened; State Listing Status: California Species of Special Concern (CSSC)
The northwestern pond turtle occurs in ponds, streams, and other wetland habitats in the Pacific slope drainages of California. Ponds or slack -water pools with suitable basking sites (such as logs) are an important habitat component for this species, and western pond turtles do not occur commonly along high-gradient streams. Females lay eggs in upland habitats, in clay or silty soils in unshaded areas. Juveniles occur in shallow aquatic habitats with emergent vegetation and ample invertebrate prey. Nesting habitat is typically found within 600 feet of aquatic habitat, but if no suitable nesting habitat can be found close by, adults may travel overland considerable distances to nest.

This species was observed in Pond #4 on April 21, 2021 (Appendix B). The pond contains suitable aquatic and basking habitat, though upland habitat for nesting is limited by the surrounding golf course. There are three CNDDB records of western pond turtle within 5 miles of the project site.

The closest to the project site i s in the channels along the Bay Trail near the Moffet Field Golf Course, from 2012.

Burrowing Owl
Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: CSSC Burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia) occurs throughout the lowlands of California, including the Central Valley, northeastern plateau, southeastern deserts, and coastal areas. It is a ground dwelling owl, typically found nesting in arid prairies, fields, and open areas where vegetation is sparse and low to the ground. It is heavily dependent upon the presence of small mammal burrows (e.g., ground squirrel) in its habitat to provide shelter from predators or inclement weather, as well as to provide a nesting location. Foraging habitat is often present in grassland areas. In California, burrowing owls breed from February 1 to August 31, with some variances by geographic location and climatic conditions. The non -breeding season (i.e., wintering season) for burrowing owl occurs from September 1 to January 31. Burrowing owls p refer short grass grasslands with burrow networks, and frequently with boulder fields or rock outcrops. Burrows are frequently modified by these owls. Constructed burrows (artificial burrows) are readily occupied by burrowing owls, and have been constructed for habitat enhancement and mitigation in several sites in California.

Burrowing owls are known to occur at the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park based on CNDDB and City of Mountain View records. They occur year-round at the Park and nest at various locations on the golf course and in surrounding areas. The City has an active management program for burrowing owls including preserves, artificial burrows, and regular nest monitoring.

Based on City of Mountain View records, there are past burrowing owl nest locations within about Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 39

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View 150 feet of Bridge #27 and within about 300 feet of Bridge #25 . There is an owl mitigation area about 0.1 mile southwest of the project site. There are no owl nesting sites in or adjacent to the project site itself (City of Mountain View, 2023).

Northern Harrier
Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: CSSC Breeding Northern Harriers (Circus hudsonius) are most common in large, undisturbed tracts of wetlands and grasslands with low, thick vegetation. They breed in freshwater and brackish marshes, lightly grazed meadows, old fields, tundra, dry upland prairies, drained marshlands, high-desert shrubsteppe, and riverside woodlands across Canada and the northern United States.

During winter they use a range of habitats with low vegeta tion, including deserts, coastal sand dunes, pasturelands, croplands, dry plains, grasslands, old fields, estuaries, open floodplains, and marshes. Northern Harriers forage on the wing, coursing low over the ground. They eat small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds.

Northern harriers successfully nested in the Mountain View Tidal Marsh in 2018, approximately 1,150 feet from Bridge #27 (Higgins, 2023b). It was observed at the Mountain View Shoreline most recently in November 2021 according to eBird. There is suitable breeding and foraging habitat for this species in coastal marsh north and east of the site; but there is no suitable habitat within or adjacent to the project site.

White-tailed Kite
Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: California Fully Protected (CFP) The white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) is found in lowland areas of California west of the Sierra Nevada from the head of the Sacr amento Valley south, including coastal valleys and foothills to western San Diego County at the Mexico border. They are residents of the Central Coast of California. White -tailed kites are residents in a variety of open habitats, including agricultural areas, grasslands, scrub and open chaparral habitats, meadows, and emergent wetlands throughout the lower elevations of California. Nests are constructed mostly of twigs and placed in small to large trees, often at habitat edges or in isolated groves. This species preys upon a variety of small mammals and other vertebrates.

White-tailed kites are known to occur at the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park based on CNDDB and City of Mountain View records. This species nested at the Shoreline from 2018-2020, and just outside the Shoreline as recently as 2022 (Higgins, 2023 b). The closest nest location to the project site was approximately 600 feet northwest of the back side of Michael’s near the parking lot for the Rengstorff House in 2019 (City of Mountain View, 2020).

Saltmarsh Common Yellowthroat
Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: CSSC Saltmarsh common yellowthroat ( Geothlypis trichas sinuosa ) found year-round in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay, from Tomales Bay in Marin County and Napa Sloughs in southern Sonoma County on the north, east to Carquinez Straight, and south to vicinity of San Jose in Santa Clara County. Saltmarsh common yellowt hroat mostly breeds and winters in wet meadow, fresh Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 40

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View emergent wetland, and saline emergent wetland habitats in areas around the south end of San Francisco Bay. It requires thick, continuous cover down to water surface for foraging; and tall grasses, tule patches, and willows for nesting. It eats insects, especially caterpillars and other larvae; as well as spiders and seeds.

Saltmarsh common yellowthroat was observed during the July 2023 bird surveys conducted by the City (Appendix B). This species has been observed breeding at Pond 4 and adjacent areas, (the high-level ditch to the east of the pond and along Permanente Creek) for several years now (2017-2023). It is also known from Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park from recent CNDDB records and eBird observations.

California Black Rail
Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Threatened, CFP California black rails (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) appear to be composed of three clearly distinct metapopulations. The first and most numerous inhabits tidal marshes in the northern San Francisco Bay area, with small occurrences at sites from Bodega Bay to northwest Baja California. The second, intermedi ate-sized metapopulation is found in the Central Valley. The third, much smaller metapopulation occurs in the lower Colorado River/Salton Sea. California black rails inhabit freshwater marshes, wet meadows, and shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger bays. Most California populations, especially in the southern part of the state are nonmigratory and habitat serves for breeding, foraging, and overwintering. In tidal areas, rails require a dense cover of upland vegetation to provide protection from predators when rails must leave marsh habitats during high tide. Typical associated habitats in freshwater include bulrush (Scirpus spp.). California black rails feed on isopods, insects, and other arthropods.

California black rail nested in the Stevens Creek Tidal Marsh in 2022 and 2023 (Higgins, 2023b), approximately 0.6 miles East of Bridge #27. There is suitable breeding and foraging habitat for this species near the site, but it more likely occurs in the marsh habitat to the North and East of the site than at the project site. Therefore, it has only a moderate potential to occur in or near the project site.

Alameda Song Sparrow
Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: CSSC Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula ) is a subspecies of the song sparrow, endemic to the tidal salt marshes of Al ameda and San Mateo Counties. This species inhabits pickleweed ( Salicornia sp.) marshes, and nests low in gumplant ( Grindelia sp.) bushes (high enough to escape high tides) and in pickleweed. It eats small insects and seeds.

There are seven CNDDB records of Al ameda song sparrow within five miles of the project site, most recently near the Palo Alto Golf Course and Alviso in 2004. Song sparrows have been observed at Shoreline Park as recently as July 2023 according to eBird, but it is unknown if they are Alameda song sparrows. There is suitable habitat in the vegetation at the site and nearby along Permanente Creek. This species has a high potential to occur at or near the site.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 41

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View California Ridgeway’s Rail
Federal Listing Status: Endangered; State Listing Status: Endangered, CFP Ridgeway’s rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) is found almost exclusively in the marshes of the San Francisco estuary in San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, Sonoma, and Marin counties. It inhabits brackish marsh, marsh and s wamp, salt marsh, and wetland habitats. It is most likely in salt water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. This species is associated with abundant growths of pickleweed but feeds away from cover on invertebrates from mud-bottomed sloughs. Ridgeway’s rail forages on mussels, arthropods, and snails which they probe from just below the surface.

California Ridgeway’s rail occurs near the project site according to a 2001 CNDDB record at Permanente Creek and recent observations on eBird. This species has been observed in Permanente Creek, Mountain View Tidal Marsh, and Stevens Creek Tidal Marsh (Higgins, 2023b).

It was last observed in Permanente Creek in 2022 in the lower portion of the creek (Higgins, 2023b). However, it likely occurs more often in the marsh habitat along the Bay shore . There is no breeding habitat or foraging habitat for this species in or adjacent to the project site.

Black Skimmer
Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: CSSC Black skimmer (Rynchops niger) breeds along the Central Coast in California, and occurs year round in coastal Southern California. Black skimmers spend their entire lives in coastal areas, usually around sandy beaches and islands, although a few colonies can be found in inland locations with very large lakes. Nesting birds use open sandy areas, gravel or shell bars with sparse vegetation, or broad mats of wrack (dead vegetation) in saltmarsh. Foraging birds frequent places that concentrate prey: tidal waters of bays, estuaries, lagoons, creeks, rivers, ditches, and saltmarsh pools. They eat many species of fish, mostly under five inches long, and a few crustaceans, such as shrimp or blue crab (when the crabs are molting).

Black skimmers are known to nest at the Shoreline Lake from a 2015 CNDDB record, and have been most recently observed in May 2023 according to eBird. Black skimmers have been nesting on the Shoreline Lake island from 2015-2023, and is one of the largest breeding colonies in the Bay Area with 119 adults and 121 eggs last year (Higgins, 2023b) . This species may forage at the project site but is unlikely to nest there due to a lack of suitable nesting habitat within and adjacent to the artificial pond.

Critical Habitat
Critical habitat includes specific geographic areas that contain features essential to the conservation of a species listed as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and that may require special management and protection. Critic al habitat may also include areas that are not currently occupied by the species but will be needed for its recovery.

The USFWS and NMFS are responsible for designating critical habitat for the species under their respective jurisdictions.

There is no critical habitat in or adjacent to the project site, however critical habitat occurs nearby in Permanente Creek. All tidally influenced areas of San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 42

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Suisun Bay up to the elevation of mean higher high water are critical habitat for Northern green sturgeon ( Acipenser medirostris ) - Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS), listed as threatened under FESA. This includes the tidally-influenced portion of Permanente Creek. Green sturgeon - Southern DPS is known to inhabit the San Francisco Bay, and may occasionally range into the tidally influenced areas of streams or rivers that discharge into the Bay, but it only spawns in the Sacr amento River. This species is large and requires deep water usually not present in Permanente Creek. Thus, it is unlikely to occur near the project site.

No other critical habitat occurs in the project area.

Essential Fish Habitat
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” (16 U.S.C. 1802[10]).

There is no EFH in or adjacent to the project site, however EFH occurs nearby in Permanente Creek. Permanente Creek is in EFH for Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ), Coho salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ), coastal pelagic species, and groundfish . However, Chinook salmon and coho salmon have not been observed in the creek, and anadromous and pelagic fish are prevented from migrating up the creek by the Permanente Creek Diversion which culminates in a 10-foot (3.0 m.) drop impassable to fish. For example, steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus) - Central California Coast DPS historically occurred in Permanente Creek but is no longer present due to the migration barrier.

No other EFH occurs in the project area.

Sensitive Vegetation Communities
The CDFW determines the level of rarity and imperilment of vegetation types; and tracks sensitive communities in its Rarefind database (CNDDB, 2023). Global rankings (G) of natural communities reflect the overall condition (rarity and endangerment) of a habitat throughout its range, whereas state (S) rankings reflect the condition of a habitat within California. Natural communities are defined using NatureServe’s standard heritage program. methodology as follows (CDFG, 2007):
• G1/S1: Less than 6 viable occurrences or less than 2,000 acres; • G2/S2: Between 6 and 20 occurrences or 2,000 to 10,000 acres; • G3/S3: Between 21 and 100 occurrences or 10,000 to 50,000 acres; • G4/S4: The community is apparently secure, but factors and threats exist to cause some concern.

There are no sensitive vegetation communities in or adjacent to the project site, although sensitive pickleweed mats occur nearby along Permanente Creek.

Jurisdictional Waters
Artificial ponds do not meet the definition of waters of the U.S. and thus are not under the jurisdiction of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB or Water Board) under Section 401 of the CWA. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) shows a Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 43

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View hydrologic connection between the artificial pond at the project site and Permanente Creek, which is a water of the U.S. However, this hydrologic connection was confirmed not be present on recent aerial imagery (Google Earth, 2023) and during the July 2023 site visit. The USACE still needs to confirm this based on aerial photos and site photos to be provided by the City or its consultant (Frentzen, 2023).

The project site is in an area of historic Baylands, which is potentially subject to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). The USACE provided the following guidance regarding Section 10 of the RHA applicability in diked Baylands: “In order to be regulated as historic Section 10 RHA, the project site is currently below the mean high water (MHW)2, the project site would have been historically below MHW in its unobstructed, natural state, and that the area has not at one time been above MHW. In order to determine that the Corps does not have Section 10 authority over this project, the project propo nent will need to provide documentation that the area was at one time completely filled, and that the ponds were created in uplands sometime after the diked bayland was filled” (Frentzen, 2023). Historical aerial imagery of the project site from 1970 and 1972 showed that the project area was already filled in 1970, but the pond was not present, while it was present in 1972 (Esri, 2023). The Corps agreed that the project is not subject to Section 10 of the RHA based on these historical aerial photographs (Frentzen, 2023).

The artificial pond does meet the definition of a Water of the State, and thus is subject to Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) under the Port er-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter- Cologne Act). The project is likely eligible for coverage under RWQCB Order 2004-0004, which provides General WDRs for projects outside of federal jurisdiction that impact less than 0.2 acres of area subject to Water Board jurisdiction.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) requires a Lake or Stre ambed Alteration Agreement for impacts to lakes or streams in California under Section 1600 of the California Fish and G ame Code. CDFW requested that the City submit a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration to CDFW for the project at the August 10, 2023 Interagency meeting; CDFW would determine whether a Lake Alteration Agreement is needed for the project based on information provided in the Notification (Garrison, 2023).

Wildlife Movement
The project site is near the San Francisco Bay and salt marsh and estuarine habitat along the Bay shore, providing regional habitat and movement opportunity for shorebirds and water birds.

Small mammals, amphibians and reptiles may be restricted to the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park by surrounding development and waterways that prevent them from accessing nearby habitat areas. Wildlife movement is generally limited to the west of the Park due to dense urban development. Permanente Creek connects t o the San Francisco Bay and may provide a movement corridor for aquatic species, but movement in the creek is limited by the Permanente Creek Diversion which culminates in a 10 -foot (3.0 m.) drop impassable for fish and many other aquatic species.

2 The average of all the high water heights observed over the National Tidal Datum Epoch.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 44

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.4.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, as amended, provides the regulatory framework for the protection of plant and animal species (and their associated critical habitats), which are formally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as endangered or threatened under FESA. FESA has the following four major components: (1) provisions for listing species, (2) requirements for consultation with the United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (3) prohibitions against “taking” (i.e., harassing, harming, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct) of listed species, and (4) provisions for permits that allow incidental “take”. Recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species are defined in FESA.

Under Section 7 of FESA, any federal agency that is authorizing, funding, or carrying out an action that may jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species must consult with the federal agency that oversees the protection of that species, typically the USFWS and/or NMFS, depending on the species that may be affected. Non-federal agencies and private entities can seek authorizat ion for take of federally listed species under Section 10 of FESA, which requires the preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).

U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC §§ 703 et seq., Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 10) states it is “unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported, deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be carried, or receive for shi pment, transportation, carriage, or export any migratory bird, any part, nest, or egg of any such bird, or any product, whether or not manufactured, which consists, or is composed in whole or in part, of any such bird or any part, nest or egg thereof…” In short, under MBTA it is illegal to disturb a nest that is in active use, since this could result in killing a bird, destroying a nest, or destroying an egg. The USFWS enforces MBTA. The MBTA does not protect some birds that a re non-native or human-introduced or that belong to families that are not covered by any of the conventions implemented by MBTA.

Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law regulating water quality. The implementation of the CWA is the responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, the EPA depends on other agencies, such as the individual states and the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), to assist in implementing the CWA. The objective of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Section 404 and 401 of the CWA apply to activiti es that would impact waters of the U.S. The USACE enforces Section 404 of the CWA and the California State Water Resources Control Board enforces Section 401, as well as state water laws.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 45

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Section 404 . As part of its mandate under Section 404 of the CWA, the EPA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the U.S.”. “Waters of the U.S.” include territorial seas, tidal waters, and non-tidal waters in addition to wetlands and drainages that support wetland vegetation, exhibit ponding or scouring, show obvious signs of channeling, or have discernible banks and high -water marks. Wetlands are defined as those areas “that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequenc y and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3(b)). Wetlands that were converted to cropland before 1985, ditches carved wholly in dry land that don’t carry relatively permanent flow, and artificial lakes and ponds are excluded as waters of the U.S. The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. is prohibited under the CWA except when it is in compliance with Section 404 of the CWA. Enforcement authority for Section 404 was given to the USACE, which it accomplishes under its regulatory branch. The EPA has veto authority over the USACE’s administration of the Section 404 program. and may override a USACE decision with respect to permitting.

Section 401. Any applicant for a federal permit to impact waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA, including Nationwide Permits where pre-construction notification is required, must also provide to the USACE a certification or waiver from the State of California. The “401 Certification” is provided by the State Water Resources Control Board through the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899 prohibits the creation of any obstruction to the navigable capacity of waters of the U.S., including discharge of fill and the building of any wharfs, piers, jetties, and other structures without Congressional approval or authorization by the Chief of Engineers and Secretary of the Army (33 U.S. Code 403). Navigable waters of the U.S., which are defined in 33 CFR, Part 329.4, include all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, and/or those which are presently or have histor ically been used to transport commerce . The shoreward jurisdictional limit of tidal waters is further defined in 33 CFR, Part 329.12 as “the line on the shore reached by the plane of the mean (average) high water (MHW).” Where precise definition of the actual location of the MHW line becomes necessary, it must be established by survey with reference to the available tidal datum. Historic/ diked Baylands are subject to Section 10 of the RHA in some cases. If a project proposes to discharge dredged or fill ma terial and/or introduce other potential obstructions in navigable waters of the U.S., a Letter of Permission authorizing these impacts must be obtained from the USACE or the U.S. Coast Guard under Section 10 of the RHA.

State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq.) requires public agencies to review activities which may affect the quality of the environment so that consideration is given to preventing damage to the environment. When a lead agency approves a development project that could affect the environment, it must disclose the potential environmental effects of the project. This is done with an “Initial Study and Negative Declaration” Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 46

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View (or Mitigated Negative Declaration) or with an “Environmental Impact Report.” Certain classes of projects are exempt from detailed analysis under CEQA if they meet specific criteria and are eligible for a Categorical Exemption.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 defines endangered, threatened, and rare species for purposes of CEQA and clarifies that CEQA review extends to other species that are not formally listed under the state or federal Endangered Species acts but that meet specified criteria. The state maintains a list of sensitive, or “special -status,” biological resources, including those listed by the state or federal government or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as endangered, threatened, rare or of special concern due to declining populations. During CEQA analysis for a proposed project, the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) is usually consulted. CNDDB relies on information provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), USFWS, and CNPS, among others. Under CEQA, the lists kept by these and any other widely recognized organizations are considered when determining the impact of a project.

California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish and Game Code 2050 et seq.) generally parallels FESA. It establishes the policy of the State to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the take, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or by the regulations. “Take” is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” This definition differs from the definition of “take” under FESA. CESA is administered by CDFW. CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful p rojects but mandates that State lead agencies consult with the CDFW to ensure that a project would not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species.

Fully Protected Species and Species of Special Concern
The classification of California fully protected (CFP) species was the CDFW’s initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been listed under CESA and/or FESA. The Fish and Game Code sections (§5515 for fish, §5050 for amphibian and reptiles, §3511 for birds, §4700 for mammals) deal with CFP species and sta te that these species “…may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected species” (CDFW Fish and Game Commission 1998). “Take” of these species may be authorized for necessary scientific research. This language makes the CFP designation the strongest and most restrictive regarding the “take” of these species. In 2003, the code sections dealing with CFP sp ecies were amended to allow the CDFW to authorize take resulting from recovery activities for state -listed species. In 2023, the code was amended to allow take permits for infrastructure and renewable energy projects, and remove American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) and brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) from the list of CFP (California Senate Bill 147).

California species of special concern (CSSC) are broadly defined as animals not listed under the FESA or CESA, but which are nonetheless of concern to the CDFW because they are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or historically occurred in l ow numbers and known threats to Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 47

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View their persistence currently exist. This designation is intended to result in special consideration for these animals by the CDFW, land managers, consulting biologists, and others, and is intended to focus attention on the species to help avert the need for costly listing under FESA and CESA and cumbersome recovery efforts that might ultimately be required. This designation also is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on the biology, distribution, and status of poorly known at-risk species, and focus research and management attention on them. Although these species generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under CEQA during project review.

California Fish and Game Code
Sections 3503.5 and 3513 Nesting Birds. Nesting birds, including raptors, are protected under California Fish and G ame Code Section 3503, which reads, “It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.” In addition, under California Fish and G ame Code Section 3503.5, “it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant there to.” Passerines and non-passerine land birds are further protected under California Fish and G ame Code 3513. As such, CDFW typically recommends surveys for nesting birds that could potentially be directly (e.g., actual removal of trees/vegetation) or indir ectly (e.g., noise disturbance) impacted by project-related activities. Disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by CDFW.

Sections 4150-4155 Non-Game Mammals. Sections 4150-4155 of the California Fish and Game Code protect non -game m ammals, including bats. Section 4150 states “A m ammal occurring naturally in California that is not a game mammal, fully protected mammal, or fur-bearing mammal is a nongame mammal. A non-game mammal may not be taken or possessed except as provided in this code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the commission .” The non -game mammals that may be taken or possessed are primarily those that cause crop or property damage. Bats are classified as non-game mammals and are protected under the California Fish and Game Code, in addition to being protected if they are a listed species (e.g., CSSC, CFP, state or federal threatened, or state or federal endangered).

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The intent of the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne) is to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water, and it applies to both surface and ground water. Under this law, the State Water Resources Control Board develops stat ewide water quality plans, and the R egional Water Quality Control Boards (R WQCBs) develop basin plans, which identify beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation plans. The RWQCBs have the primary responsibility to implement the provision s of both statewide and basin plans. Waters regulated under Porter-Cologne, referred to as “waters of the State,” include isolated waters that are not regulated by the USACE. Projects that require a USACE permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact waters of the State are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification Program. If a proposed project does not require a federal license or permit, any person discharging, or proposing to discharge, was te (e.g., dirt) to waters of the State must file a Report of Waste Discharge and receive either waste discharge requirements (WDRs) or a waiver to WDRs before beginning the discharge.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 48

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View CDFW Jurisdiction and California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1607 Sections 1600-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code require that a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) application be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” CDFW reviews the proposed actions in the application and, if necessary, prepares a LSAA that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources, including mitigation for impacts to bats and bat habitat.

Local Regulations
City of Mountain View General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Infrastructure and Conservation Element of the City of Mountain View’s 2030 General Plan (City of Mountain View, 2012) apply to protection of biological resources at the project site:

Goal INC -16: Rich and biologically diverse ecological resources which are protected and enhanced.

Policy INC 16.2: Shoreline at Mountain View. Manage Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park to balance the needs of recreational, open space, habitat, commercial and other uses.

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

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

Goal INC -17: A healthy and well -managed watershed that contributes to improved water quality and natural resource protection.

Mountain View Municipal Code
Chapter 32- Trees, Shrubs and Plants. Chapter 32 of the Mountain View Municipal Code states that: “No person shall cut, trim, prune, plant, spray, remove, injure or interfere with any street tree or shrub without the prior written permission of the director of parks and recreation” (Section

32.6). A “street tree” includes any tree or shrub, by whomever owned or planted it , in a street or public place (Section 32.2). Damage to street trees from hazardous materials in the root zone of street trees is also prohibited (Section 32.9).

The ordinance also contains provisions for the preservation of heritage trees, which include any of the following:

1. A tree which has a trunk with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more measured at fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade;
Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 49

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

2. A multi-branched tree which has major branches below fifty -four (54) inches above the natural grade with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches measured just below the first major trunk fork;

3. Any quercus (oak), sequoia (redwood), or cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of twelve (12) inches or more when measured at fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade;

4. A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the city council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit (Section 32.23).

3.4.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) 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 Fis h and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project’s potential impacts on special- status species, nesting birds, and roosting bats are discussed below.

Congdon’s tarplant – Less Than Significant Impact. No tarplant species were observed within or near the project site during July and August 2023 site visits performed by MIG biologist Megan Kalyankar. The project site also lacks suitable habitat for Congdon’s tarplant because it is occupied by open water (Pond #4) and associated cattails and tules, and the mowed golf course.

The proposed project would involve only a small amount of vegetation removal on the causeway (existing Bridge #25) and immediately adjacent to the pond and would not impact known nearby occurrences of Congdon’s tarplant (the closest is 656 feet from Bridge #27). Therefore, no potentially significant project-related impacts to Congdon’s tarplant are expected.

Monarch Butterfly – Less Than Significant Impact. No milkweed was observed within or near the project site during July and August 2023 site visits performed by MIG biologist Megan Kalyankar. The project site also has limited nectar plants because it is primarily occupied by open water (Pond #4) and the mo wed golf course. The proposed project would involve only a small amount of vegetation removal on the causeway (existing Bridge #25) and immediately adjacent to the pond and would not impact the nearby monar ch restoration area (1,300 feet from Bridge #27). Therefore, no potentially significant project -related impacts to monarch butterfly are expected.

Western Pond Turtle - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated . As described in the Environmental Setting above, a western pond turtle was observed in Pond #4 in 2021, and Pond #4 includes suitable aquatic and basking habitat for western pond turtle. The proposed project is expected to benefit western pond turtle in the long term by creating an island feature from the existing causeway that could be used for basking. However , in the short term project construction could accidentally injure or kill a western pond turtle or disturb them. Project construction could also impact habitat quality by causing erosion and sedimentation or accidentally releasing construction fuels and fluids into Pond #4. Direct impacts would be avoided by M itigation Measure s BIO-1a through 1c , listed below. Impacts to habitat quality would be Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 50

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View avoided by standard and project-specific BMPs to protect water quality and prevent erosion and sedimentation (see Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality for more information).

Impact BIO-1: Project construction could accidentally injure or kill a western pond turtle or disturb them.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Preconstruction Survey. No more than two weeks prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall perform a visual survey for western pond turtles within aquatic and upland habitat in the project area. An additional survey shall occur no more than 24 hours prior to the start of construction. The surveys shall be performed when the weather is sunny and warm to increase the likelihood that turtles will be detected, if present. The results of the surveys shall be documented and provided to the City.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Avoidance Measures for Western Pond Turtle. To minimize potential impacts on western pond turtle, project construction shall adhere to the following measures:
• Prior to the start of excavation within the pond, weighted silt curtains or similar barriers shall be installed in the pond around the work area to exclude pond turtles and other wildlife from the excavation area and to minimize sedimentation in the pond. The silt curtains or similar barriers shall be checked and maintained daily until the excavation is completed.
• No equipment shall enter the pond. Excavation shall be done with an excavator staged outside the pond and reaching in.
• Project activities shall be limited to the smallest area necessary for equipment staging, site access, construction equipment and personnel parking, debris storage, etc.
• Construction shall be limited to daylight hours to prevent nighttime construction noise impacts to wildlife and no construction site flood lighting shall be utilized.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 51

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View • To eliminate an attraction for the predators of special-status species, all food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps shall be disposed of in solid, closed containers (trash cans) and removed from the construction site daily. • Plastic mono-filament netting (erosion control matting, wattles), rolled erosion control products or similar material shall not be used at the project site to prevent accidentally trapping wildlife species.
• If western pond turtle or other special-status species is found during construction, all work shall cease in the area where the individual was found until the animal leaves the impact area on its own. If this is not possible, a qualified biologist shall contact CDFW to determine whether the animal can be moved to an appropriate relocation site. If moving the animal is approved, the qualified biologist shall be given sufficient time to complete the task. Only qualified biologists shall capture, handle, and move listed species. The qualified biologist shall monitor any relocated individual until it is determined that it is safe.
• If a western pond turtle is observed during preconstruction surveys or project construction, a qualified biologist shall monitor all in-water work to ensure that no turtles are harmed during project construction.

Effectiveness: These measures would minimize and/or avoid impacts to western pond turtle to less than significant levels
Implementation: City of Mountain View and its contractor Timing: Pre-construction phase (BIO-1a and BIO-1b) and construction phase (BIO-1c).

Monitoring: The results of the preconstruction survey, any nest buffers, and animal relocations shall be documented by the City or its contractor (BIO-1a and BIO-1c). The signed affidavit will provide a record of the worker environmental training (BIO-1b).

Burrowing Owl - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated . As described in the Environmental Setting above, burrowing owls (a CSSC) are year -round residents at Shoreline Park and are known to nest in the project area. Based on City of Mountain View records, there are past burrowing owl nest locations within about 150 feet of Bridge #27 and within about 300 feet of Bridge #25, and a burrowing owl mitigation area about 0.1 mile southwest of the site. As a result, project construction has the potential to disturb nesting or wintering burrowing owls in the vicinity of the project due to construction noise and activity. Such disturbance could cause stress- related behavior changes or even nest or burrow abandonment. Mitigation Measure BIO-1b above and BIO-2 below, would prevent potential impacts to nesting or wintering burrowing owls.

Impact BIO -2: The proposed project could impact nesting or wintering burrowing owl, a CSSC. There are known past nesting locations within 150 to 300 feet of the project site.

Mitigation Measure BIO -2: Project construction (including staging) shall occur during the non-breeding season (i.e., wintering season) for burrowing owl from September 1 to January 31 if feasible. Within 14 days of project initiation, the Contractor shall obtain current information on burrowing owl nesting or wintering locations from the City o f Mountain View, and construction shall avoid all nest and winter burrow locations with a minimum 250 -foot Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 52

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View buffer. A current map of burrowing owl nest or wintering locations shall be kept on site at all times, and buffer zones shall be flagged for avoidance prior to the start of construction.

If ground squirrel burrows are located within the project footprint, one -way doors shall be installed by the City’s Wildlife Preservation Biologist to passively evict any ground squirrels from the immediate area and in the unlikely event burrowing owls are present within those burrows. The one-way doors shall remain in place for at least 48 hours and until construction commences at which time they can be removed by the City’s Wildlife Preservation Biologist.

Effectiveness: This measure would minimize and/or avoid impacts to burrowing owls to less than significant levels
Implementation: City of Mountain View and its contractor Timing: Pre-construction phase (no more than 14 days prior to site disturbance) and construction phase (if nest or winter burrow buffer is required).

Monitoring: The City of Mountain View monitors and documents burrowing owl nest and wintering locations at the Mountain View Shoreline.

California Ridgeway’s Rail - Less Than Significant Impact. As described in the Environmental Setting above, California Ridgeway’s rail (Federal and State Endangered and a CFP) ha s been occasionally observed in the project area according to CNDDB records and eBird observations.

Although this species may occasionally occur in the part of Permanente Creek near the project site, they likely usually stay in the larger coastal marsh area near the Bay shore . The coastal marsh vegetation along Permanente Creek near the project site is insufficient to support nesting for this species, and foraging habitat is limited due to insufficient vegetation cover.

In addition, the project would have little to no impact to Permanente Creek since the creek is not within the project footprint. In addition, standard and project-specific BMPs to protect water quality and prevent erosion would be implemented to prevent construction related runoff from entering the creek (see Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality for more information). Therefore, potential project impacts to California Ridgeway’s rail and their habitat are expected to be less than significant.

Other Special -Status and Nesting Birds - Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in the Environmental Setting above, white -tailed kite (a CFP) , saltmarsh common yellowthroat (a CSSC), and black skimmer (a CSSC) are known to nest in the project area, and Alameda song sparrow (a CSSC) may occur and nest in or near the project site.

In addition, the project area contains habitat for a variety of common nesting and migratory bird species. All native birds and their nests are protected by the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code.

Project construction could disturb special -status and common nesting birds in the vicinity of the project alignment due to construction noise and activity. Such disturbance could cause stress - related behavior changes or even nest abandonment. Mitigation Me asure BIO-3, listed below, would prevent potential impacts to nesting birds.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 53

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Impact BIO-3: The proposed project could impact nesting birds protected under the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Birds could nest in the trees, shrubs or structures in or near the project site.

Mitigation Measure BIO -3: Pre-Construction Survey for Nesting Birds. Project construction (including staging) shall occur outside of the bird nesting season if possible (defined as the time between September 1st and January 31st). If construction starts during the bird nesting season between February 1st and August 31st, the Contractor shall contact the City of Mo untain View within 14 days of project initiation about any known white -tailed kite nest locations, saltmarsh common yellowthroat nest locations, or other known nesting bird locations. In addition, a qualified biologist shall perform a pre -construction survey to identify active bird nests on or near the site, including staging areas. The pre -construction survey shall take place no more than seven days prior to the start of construction, and if more than seven days pass with no construction activities, another pre -construction survey shall be required. The survey shall include all trees, shrubs, and structures on the site, and all trees, shrubs, and structures within a 250-foot radius of the site. In addition, a 0.5-mile radius shall be searched for nesting white -tailed kite. If an active, native bird nest has been documented by the City or is found during the survey, the biologist shall designate a construction-free buffer zone (0.5 mile for white -tailed kites, typically 500 feet for other raptors, and 250 feet for other birds) around the nest to remain in place until the young have fledged. The qualified biologist shall be contacted immediately if a bi rd nest is discovered during project construction. The results of the survey and nest monitoring (if applicable) will be documented, and any nest buffer zones shall be flagged for avoidance prior to the start of construction.

Effectiveness: This measure would minimize and/or avoid impacts to nesting birds to less than significant levels.

Implementation: The City of Mountain View or its contractor.

Timing: Pre-construction phase (within 14 and seven days prior to site disturbance) and construction phase (if nest monitoring is required).

Monitoring: The City of Mountain View monitors and documents white -tailed kite nest locations at the Mountain View Shoreline. The qualified biologist’s written report will include all survey and monitoring results, and implementation of any avoidance and minimization measures.

Impacts to Roosting Bats – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated . Although unlikely, bats could roost under Bridge #27 or in the culverts in Bridge #25 if the water level is low enough. The project must comply with the provisions of the California Fish and G ame Code to protect non -game m ammals, including bats. Mitigation Measure BIO -4, listed below, would prevent significant impacts to roosting bats.

Impact BIO-4: The proposed project could impact roosting bats if they are present under Bridge #25 or Bridge #27.

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View survey will be conducted within the project site and a 50-foot buffer, including the culverts under Bridge #25 and under Bridge #27, as feasible. The survey may be conducted at any time of year but should be conducted in such a way to allow sufficient time to determine if special-status bats or maternity colonies are present. If no signs of bats are detected during the survey, no further surveys are warranted.

If an occupied maternity or colony roost is detected, CDFW shall be consulted to determine appropriate measures, such as the establishment of a no -disturbance buffer. The results of the surveys shall be documented.

Effectiveness: This measure would minimize and/or avoid impacts to roosting bats to less than significant levels
Implementation: The City of Mountain View or its contractor.

Timing: Pre-construction phase (not less than 30 days prior to site disturbance).

Monitoring: The qualified biologist’s written report will include all survey results, and implementation of any avoidance and minimization measures.

Critical Habitat and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) - Less Than Significant Impact . As described in the Environmental Setting above, Permanente Creek near the project site is critical habitat for green sturgeon - Southern DPS (listed as threatened under FESA), and EFH for Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, pelagic species, and groundfish. However, none of these species are known to occur in Permanente Creek and none is expected to occur regularly if at all due to a lack of suitable habitat and a major migration barrier. In addition, the proposed project is not expected to impact Permanente Creek since the creek is not within the project footprint . In addition, standard and project-specific BMPs to protect water quality and prevent erosion would be implemented to prevent construction related runoff from entering the creek (see Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality for more information). Therefore, potential impacts to critical habitat and EFH are expected to be less than significant.
b) 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 Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. Riparian habitat including cattails, bulrush, willows and other wetland plants as well as nonnative and upland plants is present along the edge the artificial pond at the project site. Vegetation removal associated with the project would be limited to small areas near the bridge abutments and along the causeway (existing Bridge #25) . Vegetation removal associated with the abutments would be temporary as the vegetation is expected to grow back after construction, though permanent impacts would occur on the portions of the causeway to be excavated to create the island feature in the pond. Large scale or s ubstantial impacts to the riparian habitat associated with the artificial pond are not expected.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 55

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Riparian habitat is also present near the project site along Permanente Creek, including pickleweed mats, a sensitive natural community according to CDFW . Permanente creek is not within the project footprint , and standard and project-specific BMPs to protect water quality and prevent erosion would be implemented to prevent construction related runoff from entering the creek (see Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality for more information). Therefore, potential impacts to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities are expected to be less than significant.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact. Although a hydrologic connection is shown between the artificial pond at the project site and Permanente Creek in the NWI, MIG Senior Biologist Megan Kalyankar confirmed that no hydrologic connection exists during a field verification on August 22, 2023 . A report with georeferenced photos of the NWI connection and a summary of the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the area was submitted to the USACE. The USACE confirmed in an email dated September 25, 2023 that there is likel y no wetland connection between the artificial pond and Permanente Creek, and it is therefore likely that no Clean Water Act Section 404 permit is required from the USACE (Frentzen, 2023). In this case, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification (issued by the RWQCB) is also not required . The USACE had previously confirmed that the project is not subject to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (Frentzen, 2023). The pond is a water of the State under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB , and is therefore subject to WDR requirements under the Porter -Cologne Act. The proposed project would likely qualify for coverage under RWQCB Order 2004-0004, which provides General WDRs for projects outside of federal jurisdiction that impact less than 0.2 acres of area subject to Water Board jurisdiction. The pond may also be subject to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, and thus a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration must be submitted to CDFW (Garrison, 2023). Mitigation Measure BIO-5, listed below, would ensure that the project complies with all applicable permitting requirements and thus would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands or other jurisdictional waters.

Impact BIO-5: The proposed project would include excavation in an artificial golf course pond under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB and CDFW.

Mitigation Measure BIO -5: The project shall apply for coverage under RWQCB Order 2004-0004, which provides General WDRs for projects outside of federal jurisdiction that impact less than 0.2 acres of area subject to Water Board jurisdiction. The City shall also submit a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration for the project to CDFW. The project shall not be initiated until all permits required by the RWQCB, and/or CDFW are obtained, or the agency(ies) have confirmed that no permits are required.

Effectiveness: This measure would minimize and/or avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters.

Implementation: The City of Mountain View or its contractor.

Timing: Pre-construction phase ( all required permits shall be obtained prior to project initiation).

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 56

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Monitoring: Required permits may include avoidance and monitoring measures to be implemented prior to, during, and following project construction. d) 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? No Impact. The project would not interfere with wildlife movement or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. As described in the Existing Setting, there are existing barriers to wildlife movement in the project area due to urban development and the Permanente Creek Diversion. In addition, the proposed project is the replacement of two existing bridges over an artificial pond. The project would not create any barriers to wildlife movement, either in the pond or in upland areas. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance (including the County Heritage and Significant Tree Ordinances)?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the Mountain View Tree Ordinance (Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 32: Trees, Shrubs and Plants) because the project would not remove, trim, or damage any tree. The proposed project is the replacement of two existing bridges over an artificial pond , and the creation of an island feature in the pond from the existing causeway. Vegetation removal would be limited to small areas near the bridge abutments and along the causeway.

The project would not conflict with City regulations or policies protecting sensitive biological resources with mitigation incorporated in this document to protect burrowing owl , other special- status and nesting birds , and roosting bats . The project would comply with all applicable regulations and permitting requirements, and s tandard and project -specific BMPs would be implemented during construction to protect water quality in the artificial pond and nearby Permanente Creek (see Section 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality for more information). All other potential impacts to biological resources are expected to be less than significant (see responses to Questions a through d above).
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that applies to the project site. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with such a plan.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 57

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
The following discussion is based on an archaeological review memo report prepared by Basin Research Associates (Basin), dated September 1, 2023 [Appendix D, Confidential – held on file at the City].

The memo incorporates the findings of a prehistoric and historic site record and literature search completed for the project site by the California Historical resources Information System, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park (CHRIS/NWIC File No. 2 3-0019 dated 7/27/23). In addition, reference material from the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley and Basin Research Associates, San Leandro was also consulted. Specialized listings for cultural resources consulted include:
• California History Plan (CAL/OHP 1973)
• California Inventory of Historic Resources (CAL/OHP 1976) • Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California (CAL/OHP 1988) • National Register for Historic Places (NRHP) listings in Santa Clara County (USNPS 2023 a-c)
• Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) for Santa Clara County (CAL/OHP 2023a)
• Listed California Historical Resources for Santa Clara County (CAL/OHP 2023b) • Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility for Santa Clara County [ADOE] (CAL/OHP 2023c)
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted regarding resources on the Sacred Lands File (SLF). Results were negative and contact was initiated with the Native American individuals/groups recommended by the NAHC. No other agencies, departments or Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 58

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View local historical societies were contacted regarding landmarks, potential historic sites or structures due to the nature of the proposed project improvements. A field review was not undertaken due to the location of the project within a former landfill within an active golf course.

The NAHC was contacted for a search of the SLF for the project site. The review was negative.

Thirteen (13) locally knowledgeable Native American individuals/organizations for eight tribes/groups listed by the NAHC were contacted to determine if other tribal cultural resources of importance were present.
• Valentin Lopez, Chairperson, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Galt; • Ed Ketchum, Vic-Chairperson, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, Galt; • Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, • Lakeport;
• Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan; Hollister; • Kanyon Sayers-Roods, Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, San Jose; • Monica Arellano, Vice Chairwoman, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay • Area, Castro Valley;
• Lillian Camarena, Secretary, Tamien Nation, Madera;
• Quirina Luna Geary, Chairperson, Tamien Nation, San Jose; • Johnathan Wasaka Costillas, THPO, Tamien Nation, Clearlake Oaks; • Andrew Galvan, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Fremont;
• Vincent Medina, Tribal Consultant, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, San Lorenzo; • Desiree Vigil, THPO, The Ohlone Indian Tribe, Burlingame; and, • Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson, Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band; Salinas.

No responses were received as of August 31, 2023.

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
Prehistoric
The aboriginal inhabitants of Mountain View belonged to a group known as the Puichon subgroup of the Ohlone (also known as Castonaon/Ohlone) who occupied the area between the lower San Francisquito Creek and lower Stevens Creek within present -day Menlo Park, Palo Alto and Mountain View.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 59

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View No known Native American villages, trails, traditional use areas or contemporary use areas have been identified in, adjacent or near the project sites.

None of the known prehistoric mound sites were located within or adjacent to the project sites.

The CHRIS/NWIC records search (File No. 23 -0019) was negative for Native American prehistoric, combined prehistoric/historic, and/or ethnographic sites within the project sites and adjacent areas.

Historic
Hispanic Period
The Spanish philosophy of government in northwestern New Spain was directed at the founding of presidios, missions, and secular towns with the land held by the Crown (1769-1821), while the later Mexican Period policy (1822 -1848) stressed individual ownersh ip of the land (Hart 1987).

None of the known routes of Spanish expeditions proceed through or near the project site.

The project was located within the Rincon de San Francisquito, a rancho finally confirmed to Maria Concepcion Valencia de Rodriquez in 1868. No adobe dwellings or other structures and/or features, etc. have been identified in or adjacent to the project sites.

American Period
Both New and Old Mountain View were located south of the general project area between the Southern Pacific railroad tracks and present -day El Camino Real (former San Jose and San Francisco Road) (Garaventa and Anastasio 1990 after various). No known American Era Resources were identified within the project sites as part of the records search and/or as a result of a limited historic map review. The 1943 US Water Department Palo Alto quadrangle shows the project within tidal marsh with (apparently) salt marsh further to the north. By 1961, as shown on the Palo Alto topographic quadrangle, the project site and vicinity were designated “Sewage Disposal.”
Records Search Results
The Basin study was completed to determine if significant cultural resources were or are present within or adjacent to the proposed pedestrian bridge replacements within the Shoreline Golf Links.

The CHRIS/NWIC records search was negative for reports and/or resources within or adjacent to the project site. One built environment resource has been recorded within a 1,000-foot radius of the project sites.

No known ethnographic Native American villages, trails, traditional use areas or contemporary use areas and/or other features of cultural significance have been identified within or adjacent to the project site. No known potential Hispanic Period archaeological resources have been reported within or adjacent to the project site. No American Period archaeological sites have been recorded or reported within or adjacent to the project site. No listed or known potential NRHP and/or CRHR are located within or adjacent to the project site. No other significant or potentially significant local, state or federal cultural resources/historic properties, landmarks, points of interest have been identified within or adjacent to the project site.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 60

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View The project site appear s to have a low archaeological sensitivity for unexpected discoveries of prehistoric archaeological resources due to their location within former tidal marsh not suitable for occupation. There are no recorded or reported prehistoric sites, ethnographic Nati ve American resources, and/or historic era sites/resources within or adjacent to the two bridge replacement locations.

3.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
National Historic Preservation Act
Federal protection is legislated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. These laws maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing i n the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA and related regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) constitute the primary federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require con sideration of effects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Impacts to properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
Pursuant to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In addition, resources included in a local register of historic resources or identified as significant in a local survey conducted in accordance with state guidelines are also considered historic resources under CEQA, unless a preponderance of the facts demonstrates otherwise. Per CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude a Lead Agency from determining that the resource may be a historic resource as defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1. CEQA applies to archaeological resources when (1) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a historical resour ce or (2) the archaeological resource satisfies the definition of a “unique archaeological resource.” A unique archaeological resource is an archaeological arti fact, object, or site that has a high probability of meeting any of the following criteria:

1. The archaeological resource contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. The archaeological resource has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. The archaeological resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 61

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria.

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

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

California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity must cease and the county coroner be notified.

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

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

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 62

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050 and 7052
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 declares that, in the event of the discovery of human remains outside a dedicated cemetery, all ground disturbances must cease, and the county coroner must be notified. Section 7052 establishes a felony penalty for mutilating, disinterring, or otherwise disturbing human remains, except by relatives.

California Penal Code Section 622.5
California Penal Code Section 622.5 provides misdemeanor penalties for injuring or destroying objects of historic or archaeological interest located on public or private lands but specifically excludes the landowner.

Government Code Section 6254(r)
Government Code explicitly authorizes public agencies to withhold information from the public relating to Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.

Government Code Section 6250 et. seq.

Records housed in the Information Centers of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) are exempt from the California Public Records Act.

Local Regulations
Mountain View General Plan
The following goal and policies from the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (City of Mountain View, 2012) Land Use Element relate to protection of historic and cultural resources.

Goal LUD-11: Preserved and protected important historic and cultural resources.

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

Policy LUD 11.6: Human remains. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of human remains.

3.5.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
No Impact. There are no historical resources located on or within the immediate vicinity of the two golf course bridges that would be affected by the project.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 63

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The CHRIS/NWIC records search conducted for the project site indicated that there are no known archeological resources that have been identified within or adjacent to the project site. Additionally, the project site appears to have a low archaeological sensitivity for unexpected discoveries of prehistoric archaeological resources due to their location within former tidal marsh not suitable for occupation. Although archaeological discovery is unlikely, in the event that archaeological resources are discovered, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -1 would bring project related impacts to a less-than- significant level.

Impact CUL-1: Construction of the project could potentially result in disturbance to both recorded and unknown archaeological resources.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. The City shall retain a Professional Archaeologist on an “on - call” basis during ground disturbing construction activities to review, identify and evaluate any potential cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. The Professional Archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historical resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

If the Professional Archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, he/she shall notify the City and other appropriate parties of the evalua tion and recommend mitigation measures to mitigate to a less -than significant impact in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5. Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation in -place, recordation, additional archaeologic al testing and data recovery among other options. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan ( A.M.P) and/or Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) that may include data recovery may be recommended by the Professional Archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction. Development and implementation of the A.M.P and ATP and treatment of significant cultural resources will be determined by the City in consultation with any regulatory agencies.

A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the City at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavation was undertaken.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . As stated, no known archaeological resources have been identified on or near the project site. Additionally, the project site is located within a former landfill and former tidal marsh not suitable for occupation. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to disturb human remains. However, in the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered , the project will implement the following mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 64

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Impact CUL-2: Project excavation could disturb previously unknown buried archaeological resources and/or human remains.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5, Chapter 1492 of the California Health and Safety Code and Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code, if potential human remains are found, the lead agency (City of Mountain View) staff and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The coroner would provide a determination regarding the nature of the remains within 48 hours of notification. No further excavation or disturbance of the identified material, or any area reasonably suspected to overlie additional remains, can occur until a determination has been made. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, of Native American ancestry, the coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage Commission must immediately notify those persons it bel ieves to be the Most Likely Descendant from the deceased Native American. Within 48 hours of this notification, the Most Likely Descendant would recommend to the lead agency their preferred treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

Implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 would ensure that the project would not have a significant impact on buried archaeological resources. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 65

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.6 ENERGY

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction
or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

3.6.1 Environmental Setting
Energy consumption is closely tied to the issues of air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as the burning of fossil fuels and natural gas for energy has a negative impact on both, and petroleum and natural gas currently supply most of the energy consumed in California.

In general, California’s per capita energy consumption is relatively low, in part due to mild weather that reduces energy demand for heating and cooling, and in part due to the State’s proactive energy efficiency progr ams and standards. According to the California Energy Commission, Californians consumed about 2 80,738 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity and 1 1,923 million therms of natural gas in 2021 (CEC 2023a and CEC 2023b).

In 202 1, total electricity use in Santa Clara County was 16, 905 million kilowatt hours (kWh), including 12,632 million kWh of consumption for non-residential land uses (CEC 2023a). Natural gas consumption was 41 7 million therms in 202 1, including 1 81 million therms from non - residential uses (CEC 2023b).

Energy conservation refers to efforts made to reduce energy consumption to preserve resources for the future and reduce pollution. It may involve diversifying energy sources to include renewable energy, such as solar power, wind power, wave power, geotherm al power, and tidal power, as well as the adoption of technologies that improve energy efficiency and adoption of green building practices. Energy conservation can be achieved through increases in efficiency in conjunction with decreased energy consumption and/or reduced consumption from conventional energy sources.

3.6.2 Regulatory Setting
Since increased energy efficiency is so closely tied to the State’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions and address global climate change, the regulations, policies, and action plans aimed at reducing GHG emissions also promote increased energy efficiency and the transition to renewable energy sources. The U.S. EPA and the State address climate change through numerous pieces of legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and implementation programs aimed at reducing energy consumption and the production of GHG.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 66

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View The proposed project would not involve the development of facilities that include energy intensive equipment or operations. While there are numerous regulations that govern GHG emissions reductions through increased energy efficiency, the following regulatory setting description focuses only on regulations that: 1) provide the appropriate context for the prop osed project’s potential energy usage; and 2) may directly or indirectly govern or influence the amount of energy used to develop and operate the propo sed improvements. For ex ample, the project would not result in permanently occupied buildings and thus the State building code requirements pertaining to energy efficiency are not discussed below. See the Environmental and Regulatory Setting discussion in Section 3.8, Greenhouse Ga s Emissions, for a description of the key regulations related to global climate change, energy efficiency, and GHG emission reductions.

State Regulations
Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation
CARB initially approved the LCFS regulation in 2009, identifying it as one of the nine discrete early action measures in the 2008 Scoping Plan to reduce California’s GHG emissions. The LCFS regulation is designed to encourage the use of cleaner low -carbon transportation fuels in California, encourage the production of those fuels, and therefore, reduce GHG emissions and decrease petroleum dependence in the transportation sector. The LCFS regulation defines a Carbon Intensity, or “CI,” reduction target (or s tandard) for each year, which the rule refers to as the “compliance schedule.”
The LCFS regulation initially required a reduction of at least 10 percent in the CI of California’s transportation fuels by 2020. CARB approved some amendments to the LCFS in December 2011, which were implemented on January 1, 2013. In September 2015, the Board approved the re - adoption of the LCFS, which became effective on January 1, 2016, to address procedural deficiencies in the way the original regulation was adopted. The 2015 rulemaking included many amendments, updates, and improvements to the progr am, including a compliance schedule that maintained the 2009 LCFS regulation’s target of a 10 percent reduction in average carbon intensity by 2020 from a 2010 baseline. In 2018, the Board approved amendments to the regulation, which included strengthening and smoothing the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 in-line with California's 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32, adding new crediting opportunities to promote zero emission vehicle adoption, alternative jet fuel, carbon capture and sequestration, and advanced technologies to achieve deep decarbonization in the transportation sector (CARB, 2020).

3.6.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the demolition and removal of two existing bridges and the installation of two new bridges. Construction activities would require the use of heavy -duty off -road construction equi pment and on -road vehicles (e.g., passenger vehicles truck trips for deliveries and hauling) that would combust fuel, primarily diesel and gasoline. The use of this fuel energy would be necessary to construct the project. In addition, the Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 67

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View proposed project would include the use of prefabricated materials and would reuse existing concrete abutments for Bridge #27. These features would result in fewer hauling and vendor trips associated with transportation of construction materials to and from the site, and therefore less construction-related fuel combusted. The proposed project would not change the operation of the golf course, result in new operations -related vehicle miles travelled, or result new electrical or natural gas demand at the golf course. The project, therefore, would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. This impact would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact. The proposed project would replace and install two new bridges at the Shoreline Golf Links golf course within the City of Mountain View. Project construction would require the use of construction equipment and generate construction-related vehicle trips that would combust fuel, primarily diesel and gasoline. As discussed under response a), the proposed project involves construction of two new bridges and would not increase energy consumption over the long term.

There are state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency that directl y apply to the proposed project. The project, therefore, would not conflict with nor obstruct a state or local plan adopted for the purposes of increasing the amount of renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 68

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:

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?
Note: Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
c) 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?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste
water?

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?

3.7.1 Environmental Setting
The following discussion is based on a foundation report prepared for the project site by Parikh Consultants Inc. dated August 15, 2022. and is included in this initial study as Appendix E.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 69

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Site Geology
The project is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province and adjacent to the southern San Francisco Bay. Geologic unit extents and descriptions have been derived from “Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California.”
Project site geology indicates the site is underlain by artificial fill over estuarine mud (afem). The unit is described as fill deposited over sediments along the margins of San Francisco Bay and other estuarine deposits mapped in the Sacramento/San Joaquin delta. The fill may be engineered and/or non -engineered material and each may occur within the same area. This mapped artificial fill overlies estuarine sediment and was placed to form new land. The thickness of the fill overlying estuarine sediment is typically five to twenty feet. Depth to bedrock was not revealed during this investigation, however a well drilled about 6,000 feet south-east of the project site did not intersect bedrock to a maximum depth of about 750 feet below surface. Geologic and elevation data relative to the site does not indicate the presence of geologic hazards such as landslides, slope failure, rockfalls, or debris flows.

An artificial pond is located adjacent at project site and covers an area about 6.2 acres. Historical aerial photography and topographic maps indicate the Project area was occupied by marshland, agricultural land, and partly by a shallow perennial artificial lake that was mostly infilled.

Subsurface Conditions
Subsoils at the project site consist predominantly of fine-grained cohesive soils of medium plasticity. The general consistency is medium stiff to stiff.

Groundwater
Groundwater is at shallow depth as the site is next to the pond. Filed observation indicated that the water may be just a couple feet below grade. The Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) data interpretation appears to indicate that the groundwater level could be at ground surface.

Groundwater may vary with the passage of time due to seasonal groundwater fluctuation, local irrigation practice, surface and subsurface flows, ground surface run -off, and other factors that may not be present at the time of investigation.

Seismic Conditions
The project site is located in a seismically active part of northern California. Santa Clara County and the rest of the Bay Area are in one of the most active seismic regions in the United States.

Many active faults exist in the regional area and can produce earthquakes that may cause strong ground shaking at the project site. Each year, low - and moderate -magnitude earthquakes occurring within or near the Bay Area are felt by residents. Sin ce the mid -nineteenth century, hundreds of earthquakes have been fel t in Santa Clara County. The closest major faults to the project site are the Hayward Fault.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 70

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.7.2 Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act regulates develo pment in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. There are no Alquist -Priolo earthquake fault zones on the project site (CDC 2022).

Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was passed in 1990 following the Loma Prieta earthquake to reduce threats to public health and safety and to minimize property damage caused by earthquakes. The act directs the U.S. Department of Conservation to identify and map areas prone to the earthquake hazards of liquefaction, earthquake -induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The act requires site -specific geotechnical investigations to identify potential seismic hazards and formulate mitigation measures prior to permitting most developments designed for human occupancy within the Zones of Required Investigation.

California Building Code
The 2019 2022? California Building Codes (CBC) cover grading and other geotechnical issues, building specifications, and non-building structures.

California Public Resources Code
Section 5097 of the Public Resources Code specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, including human remains, historic or prehistoric resources, paleontologic al resources on nonfederal land.

The disposition of Native American burials falls within the jurisdiction of the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Section 5097.5 of the Code states the following:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

3.7.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
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 significant evidence of a known fault? Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 71

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View No Impact. A review of the Mountain View Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map indicates that no Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault zones are mapped trending through or immediately adjacent to the project sites (Santa Clara County 2012). ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Region. Significant earthquakes have occurred in the San Francisco Bay Area and are believed to be associated with crustal movements along a system of subparallel fault zones that generally trend in a no rthwesterly direction. The project proposes to replace two structurally deficient golf cart bridges within the Shoreline Golf Links golf course . Strong ground-shaking at the project site will probably occur durin g the design life of the project as a result of a major earthquake on one of the active faults in the region. The project would not create potential for or exacerbate existing conditions related to seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction occurs when loose, saturated sandy soils lose strength and flow like a liquid during earthquake shaking. Ground settlement often accompanies liquefaction. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose, silty sands, and uniformly graded sands . The project site is located in an area with very high liquefaction susceptibility according to the Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California; USGS in Cooperation wi th the California Geological Survey (see Appendix E) for Liquefaction Susceptibility Map for the site). Based on the exploration data at site, the subsoils are primarily cohesive soils. There are isolated pockets and lenses of medium dense sand and gravel in the clayey deposits. However, these locally encou ntered sand and gravel pockets are relatively thin and not continuous. Therefore, liquefaction triggering potential exists at the site, but it is considered to have relatively insignificant impact on foun dation design of the bridge replacement. This impact would be less than significant. iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The project site has a relatively flat topography except for small intermittent grassy slopes. The project site is not located in or adjacent to any mapped landslides and is not located within a county or state regulatory zone for landsliding (California Geological Survey 2006). Once replaced, the new bridges would function the s ame as the existing bridges. Therefore, the proposed project would not create or exacerbate landslide conditions on or adjacent to the project site. No impact would occur.
b) Result in significant soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in a relatively flat area and would not be exposed to substantial slope instability, erosion, or landslide related hazards. In order to reduce the potential for temporary erosion during project construction, erosion control measures would be implemented as discussed in Section 2.4, Standard Specifications . Once the bridges are installed, disturbed soils would be returned to pre -project conditions (repaved as roadway or natural surface pathway). See Section 3.9 of this document for a compl ete discussion regarding erosion.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 72

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View c) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. Subsidence is the sinking of the Earth's surface in response to geologic or man-induced causes. Lateral spreading involves the lateral movement of a liquefied soil layer (and overlying layers) toward a free face . Lateral spreading is typically associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of an exposed slope.

As stated above, the proposed bridge replacements are located in a liquefaction hazard area that could become unstable due to liquefaction subsidence, collapse, or lateral spreading. This is determined to have a less than significant impact because the proposed improvements are the replacement of existing golf cart bridges, the foundations for which have been designed according to site specific conditions as evaluated in the foundation report prepared by Parikh Consultants Inc. dated August 15, 2022 and the proposed improvements will not house people for residence or work. The project would have a less than significant impact on landslide potential, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as noted in the 2010 California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to replace two structurally deficient golf cart bridges on golf course. The project may occur in expansive soils, however, it would not include construction of habitable structures and is not expected to create substantial risks to life or property because of expansive soil. The impact is considered less than significant. e) 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?
No Impact. The project proposes to replace two structurally deficient golf cart bridges within the Shoreline Golf Links Golf Course. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater facilities are not included as part of the proposed project.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . The Geotechnical Report (Parikh Consultants 2022) notes fill and alluvial soils are present in the area. The proposed project could result in excavation and earth moving activities beyond prior depths of disturbance, but would remain within non-native fill. Alluvial soils along creeks and engineered fill soils are not generally expected to contain fossils. The project has a low risk of encountering unique paleontological resources, however the possibility remains that the project could encounter paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that if discovered, paleontological resources would be protected. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

Proposed project excavation would occur at a n average depth of around six feet. Fossils are found in sedimentary rock strata and gravel layers. Ground disturbing works is anticipated to be predominantly in previously disturbed ground. Where excavation is not in disturbed ground, it is Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 73

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View anticipated to be in surficial soils. The project has a low risk of encountering unique paleontological resources, due to the urban developed nature of the site. However, there is still a possibility that the project could encounter paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that if discovered, paleontological resources would be protected. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.

Impact GEO-1: Project construction could unearth paleontological resources, including fossils.

Mitigation Measure GEO -1: Stop -work provision . If paleontological resources are discovered during construction, ground -disturbing activities shall halt immediately until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the discovery. Depending on determinations made by the paleontologist, work may either be allowed to continue once the discovery has been recorded, or if recommended by the paleontologist, recovery of the resource may be required, in which ground -disturbing activity within the area o f the find would be temporarily halted until the resource has been recovered. If treatment and salvage is required, recommendations shall be consistent with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines and current professional standards.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 74

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?

3.8.1 Environmental Setting
Gases that absorb and emit infrared thermal radiation (heat) in the atmosphere and affect regulation of the Earth’s temperature are known as greenhouse gases (GHGs). There are many compounds present in the Earth’s atmosphere which are GHGs, including but not limited to water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), and nitrous oxide (N 2O). GHGs allow solar radiation (sunlight) to enter the atmosphere freely. When solar radiation strikes the earth’s surface, it is either absorbed by the atmosphere, land, and ocean surface, or reflected back toward space. The land and ocean surface that has absorbed solar radiation warms up and emits infrared radiation toward space. GHGs absorb some of this infrared radiation and “trap” the energy in the earth’s atmos phere. Entrapment of too much infrared radiation produces an effect commonly referred to as the “Greenhouse effect.” Human activities since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (approximately 1750) have increased atmospheric GHG concentrations. Avera ge global surface temperatures have risen as a result of GHG emissions. This increase in globally averaged surface temperatures is commonly referred to as “Global Warming,” although the term “Global Climate Change” is preferred because effects associated w ith increased GHG concentrations are not just limited to higher global temperatures (NOAA, 2023b).

GHGs that contribute to climate regulation are a different type of pollutant than criteria or hazardous air pollutants because climate regulation is global in scale, both in terms of causes and effects. Some GHGs are emitted to the atmosphere naturally by biological and geological processes such as evaporation (water vapor), aerobic respiration (carbon dioxide), and off - gassing from low oxygen environments such as sw a.m.ps or exposed permafrost (methane); however, GHG emissions from human activities such as fuel combustion (e.g., carbon dioxide) and refrigerants use (e.g., hydrofluorocarbons) significantly contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, climate regulation, and global climate change.

Human production of GHG has increased steadily since pre -industrial times (approximately pre- 1880) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased from a pre-industrial value of 280 parts per million (p pm) in the early 1800’s to 42 4 ppm in June 2023 (NOAA 2023a). The effects of increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere include climate change (increasing temperature and shifts in precipitation patterns and amounts), reduced ice and snow cover, sea level rise, and acidification of oceans. Th ese effects in turn will impact food and water supplies, infrastructure, ecosystems, and overall public health and welfare.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 75

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View The 1997 United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol international treaty set targets for reductions in emissions of four specific GHGs – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulfur hexafluoride – and two groups of gases – hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons . These GHGs are the primary GHGs emitted into the atmosphere by human activities. The six common GHGs are described below.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is released to the atmosphere when fossil fuels (oil, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, and wood or wood products are burned.

Methane (CH 4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil.

Methane emissions also result from the decomposition of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills and the raising of livestock.

Nitrous oxide (N 2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6) is commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage electrical transmission and distribution equipment such as circuit breakers, substations, and transmission switchgear. Releases of SF 6 occur during maintenance and servicing as well as from leaks of electrical equipment.

Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are generated in a variety of industrial processes.

GHG emissions from human activities contribute to overall GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and the corresponding effects of global climate change (e.g., rising temperatures, increased severe weather events such as drought and flooding). GHGs can remain in the atmosphere long after they are emitted. The potential for a GHG to absorb and trap heat in the atmosphere is considered its global warming potential (GWP). The reference gas for measuring GWP is CO 2, which has a GWP of one. By comparison, CH4 has a GWP of 25, which means that one molecule of CH 4 has 25 times the effect on global warming as one molecule of CO 2. Multiplying the estimated emissions for non-CO2 GHGs by their GWP determines their carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which enables a project’s combined global warming potential to be expressed in terms of mass CO2 emissions. GHG emissions are often discussed in terms of Metric Tons of CO 2e, or MTCO2e.

3.8.2 Regulatory Setting
State Regulations
California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the lead agency for implementing Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act adopted by the Legislature in 2006. AB 32 requires the CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan containing the main strategie s that will be used to achieve reductions in GHG emissions in California.

Executive Order B-30-15, 2030 Carbon Target and Adaptation, issued by Governor Brown in April 2015, sets a target of reducing GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels in 2030. By directing state agencies to take measures consistent with their existing authority to reduce GHG emissions, this order establishes coherence between the 2020 and 2050 GHG reduction goals Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 76

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View set by AB 32 and seeks to align California with the scientifically established GHG emissions levels needed to limit global warming below two degrees Celsius.

To reinforce the goals established through Executive Order B-30-15, Governor Brown went on to sign SB 32 and AB 197 on September 8, 2016. Senate Bill 32 made the GHG reduction target to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 a requirement as opposed to a goal. Assembly Bill 197 gives the Legislature additional authority over CARB to ensure the most successful strategies for lowering emissions are implemented, and requires CARB to, “protect the state’s most impacted and disadvantaged co mmunities …[and] consider the social costs of the emissions of greenhouse gases.”
On September 16, 2022, Governor Newson signed into law AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, and SB 1020, the Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022. AB 1279 codified California’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal and established a GHG emission reduction target of 85% below 1990 levels. SB 1020 set targets for the retail sale of electricity of 90% clean electricity by 2035 and 95% by 2040, and 100% by 2045. It also set a target for 100% clean electricity for electricity serving state agencies by 2035.

Regional Regulations
CARB 2022 Scoping Plan
The CARB Scoping Plan is the comprehensive plan primarily directed at identifying the measures necessary to reach the GHG reduction targets stipulated in AB 32. The third update to the scoping plan, the 2022 Scoping Plan (CARB 2022a), was released in May 2022 and adopted by CARB in December 2022. The plan presents a scenario for California to meet the State goal of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 (CARB 2022a). Unlike the previous scoping plans, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies more heavily on the implementation, adoption, and use of existing technologies to reduce GHG emissions over the coming decades, as opposed to technologies that need to be developed. Examples of existing technologies the 2022 Scoping Plan relies upon include the use of renewable energy and energy storage systems (as opposed to polluting alternatives) for the electrical grid and transitioning the transportation sector’s mobile sources to ze ro-emission technologies for light - and heavy-duty vehicles. The 2022 Scoping Plan also differs from its predecessors in that it takes into account carbon sources and sinks from California’s natural and working lands and identifies the need for active carbon capture and sequestration techno logies for some emissions sectors, such as petroleum refining and the production/processing of stone, clay, glass, and cement.

The continued implementation of existing plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions remain critical for achieving the State’s 2030 and 2045 GHG reduction goals. For ex ample, the 2022 Scoping Plan identifies a goal of achieving a per capita VMT reduction of at least 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and a 30 percent below 2019 levels by 2045, which is related to the implementation of SB 375 and recommendations provided by the Scoping Plan’s Environmental Justice Ad visory Committee. The 2022 Scoping Plan also acknowledges that, “local governments are also frequently the sources of innovative and practical climate solutions that can be replicated in other areas. Their efforts to reduce GHG emissions within their jurisdictions are vital to achieving the state’s near-term air quality and long- term climate goals and can also provide important co-benefits such as improved air quality, local economic benefits, healthier and more sustainable communities, and improved quality of life.” Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 77

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Local Regulations
City of Mountain View Municipal Code
Chapter 16.65 of the City’s Municipal Code, Garbage, Rubbish and Weeds Article III Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion, requires covered projects to recycle or divert at least sixty -five percent, or meet the amounts, criteria and requirements specified in the applicable California Green Building Standards Code, whichever is more restrictive, of all materials generated for discard by the project.

3.8.3 Discussion
Global climate change is the result of GHG emissions worldwide; individual projects do not generate enough GHG emissions to influence global climate change. Thus, the analysis of GHG emissions is by nature a cumulative analysis focused on whether an individual project’s contribution to global climate change is cumulatively considerable. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities are anticipated to take approximately 1 4 weeks and would generate GHG emissions from equipment fuel combustion as well as worker, vendor, and haul trips to and from the project site. Construction is expected to take approximately 104 weeks, and ground disturbance would be limited to the locations specified in the project description. As estimated using CalEEMod, project construction activities could generate a total of up to approximately 128 MTCO 2e. The proposed project has been designed to minimize potential GHG emissions from construction activities. For example, the project would use prefabricated bridge structures to replace existing bridges and would reuse existing concrete abutments for Bridge #27. Construction activities would also cease to emit GHGs upon completion. Given the low magnitude of the project’s construction GHG emissions and the means and methods that would be employed to reduce potential GHG emissions, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including the 2022 Scoping Plan. The policies contained in the 2022 Scoping Plan generally apply to larger projects and uses that result in long -term trip generation and energy consumption (e.g., commercial buildings, residential structures, etc.) and not to a bridge replacement project. No impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 78

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?

b) 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?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?

d) 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?

e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use
airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in the project
area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?

3.9.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is located at a golf course within the Shoreline Regional Park, a regional recreation area on a closed landfill. Hazardous materials used and stored at the park are likely limited to landscape maintenance products such as fertilizers, herbicides, and/or pesticides. The operation and maintenance of the existing sanitary sewer line may occasionally require the use of hazardous materials in small quantities. No hazardous materials used for sanitary sewer maintenance are stored in Shoreline Regional Park.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 79

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.9.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 to serve as a single source collection of all federal research, monitoring, standard -setting, and enforcement activities to make sure there is appropriate protection of the environ ment. The EPA’s duty is to create and enforce regulations that protect the natural environment and apply the laws passed by Congress. The EPA is also accountable for establishing national criteria for various environmental programs and enforcing compliance.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a Federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Through CERCLA, the EPA was given power to seek out those parties responsible for any release and assure their cooperation in the cleanup.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enacted in 1976 governs the disposal of solid waste and hazardous materials. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act gives the EPA the power to control the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances that cannot be disposed of in ordinary landfills. It also allows for each state to apply their own hazardous waste programs instead of implementing the federal program. on the condition that the state’s program. is just as strict in its requirements. This state program. must be permitted by the EPA in order to be used.

State Regulations
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) was established in 1991 and is comprised of: the California Air Resources Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, CalRecycle, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and the Department of Pesticide Regulation. This integrated group amalgamates all of California’s environmental authority agencies into one and has led the state of California in de veloping and applying numerous progressive environmental policies in America. The primary goal of the Cal/EPA is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) is one of nine regional water quality control boards that exercise rulemaking and regulatory activities by basins throughout the state. The boards were created by the landmark Porter-Cologne Act. The San Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 80

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board covers Region 2, which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Santa Clara (north of Morgan Hill), San Mateo, Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano Counties.

The RWQCB oversees cases involving groundwater contamination within the San Francisco Bay Area from Spills, Leaks, Incidents and Clean -up (SLIC) cases . The County of Santa Clara’s Department of Environmental Health , however, is charged with oversight of most leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases. In the incidence of a spill at a project site, the applicant would notify the County of Santa Clara to determine which agency would be the lead regulator - County, RWQCB or Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC).

Cortese List
The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List.” The Cortese list was authorized by the state legislature in 1985. A list of several types of hazardous materials sites is gathered by several agencies as directed by the statute.

Under Government Code Section 65962.5.(a), the Department of Toxic Substances Control shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following:

1. All hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

2. All land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property pursuant to Article 11 (commencing with Section 25220) of Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.

3. All information received by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code on hazardous waste disposals on public land.

4. All sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code.

Under Government Code Section 65962.5. (c) the State Water Resources Control Board shall compile and update as appropriate, but at least annually, and shall submit to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of all of the following:

1. All underground storage tanks for which an unauthorized release report is filed pursuant to Section 25295 of the Health and Safety Code.

2. All solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a migration of hazardous waste and for which a California regional water quality control board has notified the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 13273 of the Water Code.

3. All cease and desist orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water Code, and all cleanup or abatement orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13304 of the Water Code, that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 81

California Department of Toxic Control
The California Department of Toxic Control, a department of the Cal/EPA, is the primary agency in California for regulating hazardous waste, cleaning up existing contamination, and finding ways to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced in California. The California Department of Toxic Control regulates hazardous waste primarily under the authority of the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

Local Regulations
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following goal and policies of the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (2012) Public Safety Element relate to hazardous materials.

Goal PSA -3: A community protected from fire, hazardous materials and environmental contamination.

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

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

3.9.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to replace two structurally deficient golf cart bridges on a golf course. Project operations would not involve the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Use of hazardous materials would be limited to small quantities of construction fuels and fluids during the temporary construction period as well as small quantities of cleansers and other chemicals for cleaning purposes. These materials would be stored and used in accordance with the m anufacturer’s specifications . The compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations would reduce any chance of upset conditions to less than significant levels.
b) 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?
Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 82

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed replacement of two structurally deficient golf cart bridges would not include the use of hazardous materials after project completion.

Construction of the project would involve the use of hazardous materials ( fuels, oils and other vehicle-related products) . These materials would be used in relatively small quantities, in compliance with local and state safety requirements. Waste management and materials pollution control BMPs include designated areas for material delivery and storage, materials use, stockpile management, spill prevention and control, solid and hazardous waste management, contaminated soil, concrete waste, sanitary/septic, and liquid waste management would also be implemented as required at the construction sites . With the implementation of these BMPs, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving hazardous materials. This impact would be less than significant.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or hazardous waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school . The nearest schools are Monta Loma Elementary School and Theuerkauf Elementary School , located approximately 1. 5 and 1.7 miles south of the project site. No structures, except for bridge #27 proposed de-construction as part of the project. Construction activities will be confined entirely to the project site. Excavation would be minimal given the relatively small size of each bridge (See Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6) Therefore, construction emissions would not significantly affect nearby sensitive receptors (see Section 3.3.3. for additional information). Thus, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to schools in the vicinity. This impact would be less than significant. d) 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? No Impact . The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (otherwise known as the Cortese List ) (CalEPA 2022, DTSC 2022, SWRCB 2022). No proposed project activities would extend onto this adjacent site, therefore there would be no impact to soil or groundwater at the adjacent site. e) 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. The project site is located approximately 1.3 miles west of the Moffett Federal Airfield.

The site is within the Airport Influence Area according to Figure 8 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but outside the Airport Safety Zones depicted in Figure 7 of the Moffett Federal Airfield (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 2012). However, the project is the replacement of existing infrastructure and would not include any buildings or aboveground structures. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 83

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposes to replace two structurally deficient golf cart bridges on a golf course. The construction contractor would maintain access for emergency vehicles for the duration of construction and therefore would not significantly impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency evacuation plan . After project construction is completed, there would be no impediment to vehicular or emergency vehicle access. Thus, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact to emergency plans. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The project site is not within the wildland-urban interface (ABAG 2022). The nearest mapped wildland-urban interface is located approximately two miles southwest of the site. The project does not propose new structures within areas designated within the wildland -urban interface and is therefore not subject to wildfire-related building practices.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 84

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream. or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;

iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or

iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

3.10.1 Environmental Setting
The project is located in the City of Mountain View, where the climate is Mediterranean. Summers are warm and dry, while winters are mild and wet. However, both summers and winters are somewhat moderated due to the City’s relative proximity to the Pacific Ocean, The annual average high temperature is 69 ºF and the annual average low temperature is 51 ºF. Annual average precipitation is 14.7 inches (US Climate Data, 2020).

The project area drains into the Mountain View Slough, which is the engineered channel extension of Permanente Creek, a 13.8 -mile perennial stream originating in the Santa Cruz Mountains southwest of the site . The Mountain View Slough discharges directly to San Francisco Bay approximately 1.3 miles north of the project site. The Permanente Creek watershed encompasses Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 85

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View approximately 17.5 square miles. The project site is generally level, and ranges from 10 to 13 feet above mean sea level (Google Earth, 2022).

Bridge #25 and #27 cross over an artificial pond, which provides irrigation water for the golf course. Shoreline Lake, a man-made, 50-acre saltwater lake filled by waters pumped in from the San Francisco Bay that circulate back out into Permanente Creek, is located approximately 1,300 feet west of Bridge #25, across the Mountain View Slough.

3.10.2 Regulatory Setting
The following paragraphs describe the applicable federal, state and local laws and agencies that provide the regulatory framework for analyzing potential hydrology and water quality impacts.

Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal legislation governing water quality and forms the basis for several state and local laws throughout the nation. The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Important and applicable sections of the Act are:
• Section 303 of the federal C WA requires states to develop water quality standards to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters. In accordance with California’s Porter/Cologne Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) are required to develop water quality objectives that ensure their region meets the requirements of Section 303 of the CWA. • Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which is a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredge or fill material) into waters of the U.S. In California, this permit program. is administered by the RWQCBs, and is discussed in detail below.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any point source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added Section 402(p), which established a framework for regulating nonpoint source storm water discharges under the NPDES. The NPDES General Construction Permit requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as excavation. Construction activities on one or more acres are subject to a series of permitting requirements contained i n the NPDES General Construction Permit. This permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented during project construction. The project sponsor is also required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Quality. The NOI includes general information on the types of construction activities that would occur on the site. The project would not disturb one or more acres, and thus is not subject to the Construction General Permit.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 86

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), as revised in December 2007 (California Water Code Sections 13000 -14290), provides for protection of the quality of all waters in the State of California for use and enjoyment by the pe ople of California. It further provides that all activities that may affect the quality of waters of the state shall be regulated to obtain the highest water quality that is reasonable, considering all demands being made and to be made on those waters. The Act also establishes provisions for a statewide program. for the control of water quality, recognizing that waters of the state are increasingly influenced by interbasin water development projects and other statewide considerations, and that factors such as precipitation, topography, population, recreation, agriculture, industry, and economic development vary regionally within the State. The statewide progr am for water quality control is, therefore, administered most effectively on a local level with state wide oversight. Within this framework, the Act authorizes the State Water Resources Control Board and RWQCBs to oversee the coordination and control of water quality within California.

State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards Created by the California State Legislature in 1967, the State Water Resources Control Board holds authority over water resources allocation and water quality protection within the State. The five-member State Water Resources Control Board allocates water rights, adjudicates water right disputes, develops statewide water protection plans, establishes water quality standards, and guides the nine RWQCBs. The mission of the State Water Resources Control Board is to, “preserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California’s water resources, and ensure their proper allocation and efficient use for the benefit of present and future generations.” The City of Mountain View is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

Local Regulations
Stormwater Drainage
The discharge of stormwater from the City’s municipal storm sewer system is regulated primarily under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The RWQCB implements these regulations at the regional level. Under the CWA, the RWQCB has regulatory authority over actions in waters of the United States, through the issuance of water quality certifications.

As authorized by the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. controls water pollution by regulating point and non -point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or outfalls that convey pollutants directly to surface waters . Non-point sources, such as stormwater runoff, convey pollutants indirectly to these waters. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards administer the NPDES permit program. in California for general and individual discharge permits. The City is a co - permittee with other members of a regional association known as the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Progr am (SCVURPPP), which shares a joint municipal discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB to municipalities in Bay Area counties to allow Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 87

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View the discharge of stormwater runoff into the San Francisco Bay (Order R2 -2015-0049) This regional municipal discharge permit and known as the M unicipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). New and redevelopment projects within these jurisdictions are subject to applicable provisions of the MRP.

In addition to the MRP, which includes post-construction requirements for new and redevelopment projects, construction projects that disturb one or more acres of soil are required to obtain coverage under the statewide General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity ( Construction General Permit ). To be covered under the Construction General Permit, a project applicant would be required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The subject project is not required to obtain coverage under this permit as it disturbs less than one acre of soil.

Flood Zone Mapping
The National Flood Insurance Program. branch of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maintains maps of floodways and floodplains for the United States. FEMA maps these areas on Flood Insurance Rate Maps or FIRMs. A typical FIRM will show specific flood hazard areas, flood risk zones , and floodplains at a local level of detail. In some identified flood hazard zones, certain types of construction and/or uses are prohibited or property owners are required to carry flood insurance. The project sites are located within a designated Zone X, which is defined as containing areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood, areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from one percent annual chance flood.3 Valley Water
Valley Water is the water resources agency responsible for balancing flood protection needs with the protection of natural water courses and habitat in the Santa Clara Valley. Valley Water serves 16 cities and 1.8 million residents , providing wholesale water supply, operating three water treatment plants, and providing flood protection along the creeks and rivers within Santa Clara County.

Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 35- Water, Sewage and Other Municipal Services Section 35.32.3.1 of the Mountain View Municipal Code states:
“It shall be unlawful to discharge or cause a threatened discharge to any discharge to any curbside gutter, storm sewer, storm drain gutter, creek or natural outlet any domestic sewage, sanitary sewage, industrial wastes, polluted waters, construction waste , litter or refuse except where permission is granted by the fire chief. Unlawful discharges to storm drains shall include, but are not limited to, discharges from: toilets, sinks, commercial or industrial processes, cooling systems, air compressors, boile rs, fabric or carpet cleaning, equipment cleaning, vehicle cleaning, swimming pools, spas, fountains, construction activities (e.g., painting, paving, concrete placement, saw cutting, grading), painting and paint stripping, unless specifically permitted by a

3 FEMA. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Santa Clara County, California and Incorporated Areas, Map Nos. 06085C0036H & 06085C0045H. May 18, 2009.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 88

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

discharge permit or unless exempted pursuant to regulations established by the fire chief.

Additionally, it shall be unlawful to discharge any pollutants or waters containing pollutants that would contribute to violations of the city's stormwater discharge permit or applicable water quality standards.”
Section 35.33.11 states:
“All construction projects occurring within city limits shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials or hazardous waste to the soil or groundwater, and minimizes the discharge of hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, polluted water and sediment to the storm sewer system. Practices which shall be implemented to meet the intent of this requirement are described in city guidelines. The city may require any additional practices consistent with its NPDES stormwater discharge permit if it concludes that the intent of this section is not being met during the construction process.” The Section goes on to list example sediment and erosion control BMPs such as: (1) silt fences around the site perimeter; (2) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (3) filter fabric over catch basins; (4) covering of exposed stockpiles; (5) concrete washout areas; (6) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and (7) vegetation, hydroseeding or other soil stabilization methods for high erosion areas.

3.10.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. There would be no permanent impacts to water quality from the project.

As previously stated, t he project does not involve more than one acre of disturbance and is not required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. However, the City’s Standard Provisions and Standard Details (July 2019) and notes included in the project plans address nonpoint source pollution including use of appropriate best management practices , unlawful discharge of pollutants into curbs and storm drains, and maintenance of the construction site (refer to Section 2.4 of this document). Implementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality to less than significant levels. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No Impact. The proposed bridge replacement project would not use groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The project would not increase impervious surfaces, require groundwater, or create demand for water supply.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 89

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream. or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
No Impact (i-iv). The proposed project would not alter Permanente Creek or the Mountain View Slough, increase impervious surface area, or otherwise alter the drainage pattern of the project site or area. The project proposes to replace two existing structurally deficient golf cart bridges on a golf course. The project does not include any additional aboveground structures or any permanent aboveground changes to the project site. Temporary ground disturbance would be limited to areas immediately surrounding the foundations and abutments o f the two existing bridges. Standard and project-specific BMPs to protect water quality and prevent erosion will be implemented during construction (see response to Question a above). The replacement bridges would not result in increased amounts of impervious surface area and would therefore not increase the volumes of stormwater runoff from the bridge surfaces. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- of off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Impede or redirect flood flows. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact . The project is located within FEMA Flood Zone A, which is defined as areas having a 1% annual chance of flooding. Flood Zone A is considered a high-risk flood zone and would require that new buildings be constructed with finished floor elevations above the identified flood elevation. However, no flood elevation was identified at the project location, and the proposed bridges, which would not be impacted by flooding, would not be subject to these restrictions. There is no risk of pollutant release because the bridges would be designed to facilitate pedestrian and golf cart travel, and would not contain or store pollutants..

A tsunami is a large tidal wave generated by an earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption.

Tsunami inundation maps have been developed for the San Francisco Bay area. The project site is not within a tsun ami inundation zone (California Department of Conservation, 20 23), and therefore, it would not be subject to flooding from a tsunami.

Seiches are waves that oscillate in enclosed water bodies, such as reservoirs, lakes, ponds, swimming pools, or semi-enclosed bodies of water. Although the project proposes to replace two existing bridges that cross an artificial pond , there is no risk of pollutant release because the Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 90

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View bridges would be designed to facilitate pedestrian and golf cart travel, and would not contain or store pollutants. This impact would be less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact. The project proposes to replace two structurally deficient golf cart bridges on a golf course, and does not include new uses that pose water quality hazards . The project would not result in a net increase in impervious pavement . The project would not increase e ither demand for groundwater or impact existing groundwater in any way. Therefore, the project would not affect groundwater supplies, quality, or management.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 91

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?

3.11.1 Environmental Setting
The purpose of the project is to replace two structurally deficient bridges within the Shoreline Golf Links golf course, facility, which is located within the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park and near the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The project site is designated as Regional Park by the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Zoned PF-Public Facility.

3.11.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The purpose of the project is to replace two structurally deficient bridges within the Shoreline Golf Links golf course , which is within open space that is designated for recreational use. There are no residences on or near the project site. Construction activities would occur entirely within the project boundaries, and the project does not propose any new roads or other infrastructure that would divide an established community. Therefore, there would be no impact. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No Impact. As stated, the project would replace two structurally deficient bridges within the Shoreline Golf Links golf course, which is within open space that is designated for recreational use. The project would not conflict with the goals and policies in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (City of Mountain View, 2012) or with the City’s Municipal Code (City of Mountain View, 2022b) The project does not propose general plan amendment or rezoning. Additionally, no new land uses are proposed. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 92

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) 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?

b) 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?

3.12.1 Environmental Setting
There are no mines or mineral resources in the City of Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012). Additionally, the project site is not a locally-important mineral resource recovery site. The proposed project would not result in excavation of mineral resources or the loss of availability of known mineral resources. The project would therefore have no impact.

3.12.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) 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?
b) 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? No Impact (Responses a – b). As stated in Section 3.12.1, there are no mines or other mineral resources within the City of Mountain View . The project site has no potential for use in resource recovery and therefore would have no impact on the availability of mineral resources.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 93

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.13 NOISE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or in other applicable
standards of other agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

3.13.1 Environmental Setting
Noise may be defined as loud, unpleasant, or unwanted sound. The frequency (pitch), amplitude (intensity or loudness), and duration of noise all contribute to the effect on a listener, or receptor, and whether the receptor perceives the noise as objectionable, disturbing, or annoying.

The Decibel Scale (dB)
The decibel scale (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative amplitude of a sound.

Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 dB represents a tenfold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dBs is 100 times more intense, 30 dBs is 1,000 more intense, and so on. In general, there is a rel ationship between the subjective noisiness, or loudness of a sound, and its amplitude, or intensity, with each 10 dB increase in sound level perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness.

Sound Characterization
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common method is the “A-weighted sound level,” or dBA. This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is typically most sensitive. Thus, most environmental meas urements are reported in dBA, meaning decibels on the A-scale. Human hearing matches the logarithmic A-weighted scale, so that a sound of 60 dBA is perceived as twice as loud as a sound of 50 dBA. In a quiet environment, an increase of 3 dB is usually perceptible, however, in a complex noise environment such as along a busy street, a noise increase of less than 3 dB is usually not perceptible, and an increase of 5 dB is usually perceptible. Normal human speech is in the range from 50 to 65 dBA.

Generally, as environmental noise exceeds 50 dBA, it becomes intrusive and above 65 dBA noise Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 94

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View becomes excessive. Nighttime activities, including sleep, are more sensitive to noise and are considered affected over a range of 40 to 55 dBA.

Sound levels are typically not steady and can vary over a short time period. The equivalent noise level (Leq) is used to represent the average character of the sound over a period of time. The L eq represents the level of steady noise that would have the same acoustical energy as the sum of the time-varying noise measured over a given time period. Leq is useful for evaluating shorter time periods over the course of a day. The most common L eq averaging period is hourly, but L eq can describe any series of noise events over a given time period.

Variable noise levels are values that are exceeded for a portion of the measured time period.

Thus, L01 is the level exceeded one percent of the time and L90 is the level exceeded 90 percent of the time. The L90 value usually corresponds to the background sound level at the measurement location.

Noise exposure over the course of an entire day is described by the day/night average sound level, or Ldn, and the community noise equivalent level, or CNEL. Both descriptors represent the 24-hour noise impact on a community. For Ldn, the 24-hour day is divided into a 15-hour daytime period (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and a nine-hour nighttime period (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and a 10 dB “penalty” is added to measure nighttime noise levels when calculating the 24-hour average noise level. For example, a 45 dBA nighttime sound level would contribute as much to the overall day-night average as a 55 dBA daytime sound level. The CNEL descriptor is similar to Ldn, except that it includes an additional 5 dBA penalty beyond the 10 dBA for sound events that occur during the evening time period (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) The artificial penalties imposed during L dn and CNEL calculations are intended to account for a receptor’s increased sensitivity to sound levels during quieter nighttime periods.

Sound Propagation
The energy contained in a sound pressure wave dissipates and is absorbed by the surrounding environment as the sound wave spreads out and travels away from the noise generating source.

Theoretically, the sound level of a point source attenuates, or decreas es, by 6 dB with each doubling of distance from a point source. Sound levels are also affected by certain environmental factors, such as ground cover (asphalt vs. grass or trees), atmospheric absorption, and attenuation by barriers. Outdoor noise is also a ttenuated by the building envelope so that sound levels inside a residence are from 10 to 20 dB less than outside, depending mainly on whether windows are open for ventilation or not.

When more than one point source contributes to the sound pressure level at a receiver point, the overall sound level is determined by combining the contributions of each source. Decibels, however, are logarithmic units and cannot be directly added or subtracted together. Under the dB scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dB increase in noise levels. For example, if one noise source produces a sound power level of 70 dB, two of the s ame sources would not produce 140 dB – rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear can discern 1 ‐dB changes in sound levels when exposed to steady, single ‐frequency (“pure‐tone”) signals in the mid ‐frequency (1,000–8,000 Hz) range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people can Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 95

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5 ‐dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10 ‐dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness.

Noise Effects
Noise effects on human beings are generally categorized as:
• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and/or dissatisfaction • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning, or relaxing • Physiological effects such as startling and hearing loss Most environmental noise levels produce subjective or interference effects; physiological effects are usually limited to high noise environments such as industrial manufacturing facilities or airports. Predicting the subjective and interference effects of noise is difficult due to the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and past experiences with noise; however, an accepted method to determine a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise source is to compare it to the existing environment w ithout the noise source, or the “ ambient” noise environment. In general, the more a new noise source exceeds the ambient noise level, the more likely it is to be considered annoying and to disturb normal activities.

Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern 1 ‐dB changes in sound levels when exposed to steady, single ‐frequency (“pure‐tone”) signals in the mid ‐frequency (1,000–8,000 Hz) range. In typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people are able to begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5 dB increase is generally percei ved as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10 dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness that would almost certainly cause an adverse response from community noise receptors.

Groundborne Vibration
Vibration is the movement of particles within a medium or object such as the ground or a building.

As is the case with airborne sound, groundborne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared, in inches per second (in/sec). PPV represents the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal and is most appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage. Human response to groundborne vibration is subjective and varies from person to person.

Existing Noise Environment
The City’s noise environment consists of transportation and stationary related noise sources. The Mountain View 2030 General Plan (City of Mountain View, 2012) Noise Element identifies roadway traffic, aircraft noise from Moffet Federal Airfield, landscaping maintenance equi pment, construction, loading and unloading, commercial activities and everyday neighborhood activities as the predominant noise sources in the City. The project site is currently developed and consists of a golf course with pedestrian an d golf cart access pathway and bridges. The primary sources Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 96

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View of noise at and around the golf course are golf course attendants, automobiles and trucks traveling along US 101, Shoreline Boulevard, Garcia Avenue, and Amphitheatre Parkway, Shoreline Amphitheatre, and aircraft flyover.

Sensitive Receptors
Noise sensitive receptors are areas where unwanted sound or increases in sound may have an adverse effect on people or land uses. Residential areas, hospitals, schools, and parks are examples of noise receptors that could be sensitive to changes in existing environmental noise levels. The closest noise sensitive receptors to the project site would be the golf course visitors and users of the Shoreline Regional Park.

3.13.2 Regulatory Setting
Local Regulations
Mountain View General Plan
The purpose of Noise Element in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (City of Mountain View, 2012) is to guide policies for addressing exposure to current and projected noise sources in Mountain View. Table 7-1 of the Noise Element contains outdoor noise environment guidelines.

Normally acceptable noise levels for golf courses are 55 -70 CNEL, while noi se levels of 70 -80 CNEL are normally unacceptable and above 80 CNEL is clearly unacceptable (City of Mountain View, 2012).

Mountain View Municipal Code
Section 8.70 of the City Code restricts construction activity to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday, Sunday or holidays without written approval from the City. If the hours of construction activity change, then the general contractor, applicant, developer or owner is required to erect a sign at a prominent location on the construction site to let subcontractors and material suppliers know of the working hours.

3.13.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is the replacement and installation of two new bridges which would not generate a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project once installed. As described in Section 2.3, construction of the proposed project is anticipated to take approximately 14 weeks. During this time, construction equipment (e.g., crane, bore/drill rig, backhoes, etc.) would be required to demolish and remove the two existing bridges and install the two new bridges. These activities could temporarily increase noise levels in the project area. Construction noise would be intermittent, occurring only when equi pment is in operation, and t he City would comply with Municipal Code Section 8.70 – Construction Noise, which limits construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 97

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Per the construction notes section of the plan set prepared by Biggs Cardosa Associates Inc., construction of the proposed project would occur between 7:30 AM and 4:00 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. These “normal working hours” are within the construction hours as described in the Municipal Code Section 8.70, therefore the proposed project comply with the construction activity limits as set forth in the Municipal Code. Golf course and park visitors would move around and therefore would not be continuously exposed to construction noise levels. There are no other noise sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the work areas. Given the short duration of project construction activities and compliance with the City’s Standard Specifications , the project would not generate a significant temporary noise impact, nor would it conflict with an applicable standard. The impact is considered less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The potential for groundborne vibration and noise is typically greatest when vibratory or large equi pment such as bore/drill rigs are in operation. For the proposed project, these types of equipment would primarily operate during installation of the cast- in drilled piles for Bridge #25. This equi pment would, at worst -case, operate at least 130 feet or more from any structure, with intervening elevation differences, creek bed, and other factors that would reduce direct transmission of groundborne vibration to nearby buildings. Receptors would be moving around the site and not continuously exposed to construction -related vibrations. The proposed project, therefore, would not generate substantial or excessive groundborne vibration levels.
a) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the Moffett Federal Airfield.

The site is within the Airport Influence Area according to Figure 8 of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but outside the 65 CNEL noise contour depicted in Figure 5 for the airfield (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 2012). Although the proposed project is within the Airport Influence Area, the proposed project is not considered sensitive to single -event noise levels or overflights. Therefore ,the proposed project is not located within a noise impact zone and would not expose people working in the area to excessive noise levels.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 98

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce a substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?

3.14.1 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
No Impact. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the project would replace two existing golf cart bridges that are located within the Shoreline Golf Links facility. The construction of the two bridges would be confined to within the project boundary. The project does not propose new homes, businesses, o r other infrastructure that would directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth. No Impact would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As stated, t he project would replace two existing deficient golf cart bridges.

Construction activities would be confined within the project boundary and would have no effect on housing. Therefore, the project would not displace a substantial number of people or require any new housing. No impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 99

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) 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:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?

3.15.1 Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
The Mountain View Fire Department serves the residents of Mountain View, there are five stations servicing the City. In addition to direct fire suppression and prevention, the Mountain View Fire Department performs support functions such as emergency medical services, rescue services, hazardous and toxic materials emergency response, coordination of City-wide disaster response efforts, enforcement of fire and life safety codes, enforcement of state and federal hazardous materials regulations, and investigation of fire cause, arson and other emergency events for cause and origin ( City of Mountain View Information and Resources 2022) . The stations ar e found as listed below:
• Fire Station No. 1, 251 S. Shoreline Blvd.
• Fire Station No. 2, 160 Cuesta Dr.
• Fire Station No. 3, 301 N. Rengstorff Ave.
• Fire Station No. 4, 229 N. Whisman Rd.
• Fire Station No. 5, 2195 N. Shoreline Blvd.

Police
The Mountain View Police Department is responsible for public safety in the project area. The Mountain View Police Department has an office at 1000 Villa Street.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 100

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Schools
The City has three school districts and 21 schools total: 14 elementary, five high schools, and two middle schools (California Department of Education 2023).

Parks
The project site is located within the Shoreline Golf Links golf course, public facility, which is located within the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park. The Permanente Creek Trail is located to the west, adjacent to the project site immediately south of Michael’s at Shoreline Restaurant. Shoreline Park, which features recreation trails and a lookout point is located south of the project site and west of the Shoreline Amphitheatre ().

3.15.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) 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:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
No Impact. The purpose of the project is to replace two structurally deficient bridges within the Shoreline Golf Links golf course , which is located within the Mountain View Regional Park . The project does not propose any new housing or businesses and therefore would not induce population growth , therefore it would not increase enrollment at local schools or require the provision of new or physically altered schools, nor increase the use of local and regional parks or require the provision of new or physically altered parks or other governmental facilities .

Additionally, the project would not adversely impact public service ratios. Further, construction activities would be confined to the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 101

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.16 RECREATION

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) 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?

b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?

3.16.1 Environmental Setting
The City of Mountain View has nearly 1,000 acres of parks and open space land, divided among 39 park sites that include 18 mini -parks (1 undeveloped), 13 neighborhood/school parks, five neighborhood parks not associated with school sites, two community parks, and one regional park. The project site is located at the Shoreline Golf Links golf course which is located within the Shoreline Regional Park. Encompassing 753 acres, the Shoreline Regional Park is the largest and only regional park in Mountain View . The Shoreline Regional Park and Stevens Creek Trail comprise approximately 80 percent of all the parks and open space acreage in Mountain View.

3.16.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that significant physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact (Responses a - b). The project proposes to replace two existing structurally deficient bridges within the Shoreline Golf Links golf course, which is located within the existing Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park. The project does not propose to build infrastructure that would increase usage of the golf course or the Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park . Therefore, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Additionally, the project would not include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact would occur.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 102

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.17 TRANSPORTATION

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program., plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to
vehicle miles travelled?

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

3.17.1 Environmental Setting
The project is located within the Shoreline Golf Links golf course . Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided via Interstate 101, located south of the project site, and from Shoreline Boulevard or Amphitheatre Parkway.

3.17.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a progr am, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? No impact. The project would not conflict with a progr am, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system. The project is the replacement of two structurally deficient bridges on a golf course. The bridge is not for vehicle travel. The new bridges would improve circulation on the property for pedestrians and golf cart drivers. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), which pertains to vehicle miles travelled?
No Impact. The project proposes to replace two structurally deficient bridges. The bridges are for pedestrians and golf carts. The project does not involve new land uses that have the potential to generate vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Therefore, the project will not conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 103

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View a) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The project proposes to replace two structurally deficient bridges on a golf course.

The project does not propose new roads or intersections or changes to the land use of the project site or area. Therefore, the project would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses.
c) Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact. The project proposes to replace two structurally deficient bridges on a golf course.

Construction vehicles would use designated access routes and emergency access would be maintained during construction. Therefore, the project would not impact emergency access.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 104

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?

ii) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American Tribe.

3.18.1 Environmental Setting
Please see Section 3.5 Cultural Resources for information about the cultural and tribal cultural setting at the project site.

3.18.2 Regulatory Setting
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 sets provisions for the intentional removal and inadvertent discovery of human remains and other cultural items from federal and tribal lands. It clarifies the ownership of human remains and sets forth a process for repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects and sacred religious objects to the Native American groups claiming to be lineal descendants or culturally affiliated with the remains or objects. It requires any federall y funded institution housing Native American remains or artifacts to compile an inventory of all cultural items within the museum or with its agency and to provide a summary to any Native American tribe claiming affiliation.

Native American Heritage Commission, Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 – 5097.991 Section 5097.91 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), whose duties include the inventory of places of religious or social significance to Native Americans and the identification of known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands. Under Section 5097.9 of the PRC, a state policy of noninterference with the free expression or exercise of Native American religion was articulated along with a Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 105

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View prohibition of severe or irreparable d amage to Native American sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites or sacred shrines located on public property. Section 5097.98 of the PRC specifies a protocol to be followed when the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner. Section 5097.5 defines as a misdemeanor the unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources located on public lands.

California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 2001 Codified in the California Health and Safety Code Sections 8010 –8030, the California Native American Graves Protection Act (NAGPRA) is consistent with the federal NAGPRA. Intended to “provide a seamless and consistent state policy to ensure that all California Indian human remains and cultural items be treated with dignity and respect,” the California NAGPRA also encourages and provides a mechanism for the return of remains and cultural items to line al descendants.

Section 8025 established a Repatriation Oversight Commission to oversee this process. The act also provides a process for non –federally recognized tribes to file claims with agencies and museums for repatriation of human remains and cultural items.

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 specifies that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. AB 52 requires a lead agency to be gin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project, if the tribe requests in writing to the lead agency, to be informed by the lead agency of proposed projects in that geographic area and the tribe requests consultation, prior to determining whether a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report is required for a project.

No Native American tribes contacted the City of Mountain View under AB52, and thus AB52 consultation was not required as part of the project.

3.18.3 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resources, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the l andscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 106
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Under CEQA, a significant resource is one that is listed in a California or local historic register or is eligible to be listed. As such, lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate such resources against the California Register criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources (PRC § 21084.1, 20174, 14 CCR § 15064.5(3).

It is possible for a lead agency to determine that an artifact, site, or feature is considered significant to a local tribe, without necessarily being eligible for the CRHR. A determination of such by a lead agency would make an artifact a significant resource under CEQA.

As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, no recorded Tribal Cultural Resources are known to be within or near the project site, according to the aforementioned CHRIS record search via the NWIC at Sonoma State University.

The Sacred Lands File Search was negative for tribal resources in the project area. Subsequent outreach was made to the tribal contacts provided by the NAHC for information on the location and nature of the resource(s) to determine if the project would impact known resources. No specific information was provided by the tribal contacts regarding the location and nature of tribal resources in the area, therefore, there is no confirmed potential for impacting known tribal cultural resources.

The implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL- 2 (see Section 3.5.3) would safeguard any TCRs if they are found to be present.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 107

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?

c) 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?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

3.19.1 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less than Significant Impact. The project is the replacement of two structurally deficient golf cart bridges within a golf course . No relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunication facilities is required as part of the bridges’ replacement. An existing recycled water utility conduit mounted on the exterior of Bridge #27 would remain in place and mounted to the new bridge once installed. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on utilities and service systems.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 108

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c) 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? No Impact. (Responses b - c). No additional water supply is being sought as part of the project.

The project is replacing two structurally deficient golf cart bridges within a golf course, which is not a new land use requiring water supplies.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant Impact. Some construction waste would be generated by the project over the short-term. Construction waste is expected to be minimal and would not exceed the capacity of the landfill that serves the area. The impact is considered less than significant. e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The project would not conflict with any federal, state or local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 109

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.20 WILDFIRE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

c) Require the installation of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream.
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-
fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

3.20.1 Environmental Setting
The project site is located in the City of Mountain View in a Local Responsibility Area. The project site is in a fully urbanized area surrounded by residential uses. The project site is not located in an area designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2022). The nearest area with a very high fire hazard designation is located in Portola Valley , approximately 8.5 miles southwest of the project site.

3.20.2 Discussion
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c) Require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 110

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream. flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact (Responses a - d). As stated, the project site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity zone. The nearest such zone is located approximately six miles southwest of the project site in the City of Los Altos . Therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Additionally, the project does not propose the installation of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Further, the project would not expose occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfires or expose people or structures to post wildfire dangers such as landslides or floods. There would be no impact.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 111

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially 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, substantially 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?

b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with
the efforts of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?

3.21.1 Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the previous sections of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures and standard specifications . As discussed in Section 3.4 Biological Resources, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures (MM BIO-1a through 1c, MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3, MM BIO-4, and MM BIO-5), the project would not significantly impact sensitive species or habitats. As discussed in Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, Section 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, and Section 3.7 Geology and Soils, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures (MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 , MM GEO-1), the project would result in a less than significant impact on archaeological and paleontological resources. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the efforts of past Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 112

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant. Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” As defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” Using this definition, a project that has no impact in a given impact category cannot have a cumulatively considerable contribution because its contribution is zero.

The project evaluated in this Initial Study is limited to the replacement of two existing golf cart bridges on a golf course . Due to the nature of this proposed project, many types of operational impacts that are frequently associated with development projects (e.g., housing, offices, commercial uses, etc.) would not occur. For example, as described in Section 3 of this Initial Study, operation of the proposed rep lacement bridges would have no adverse impacts on agriculture and forestry resources, land use, mineral resources, population and housing, and wildfire.

There are no other projects proposed or that would be under construction in the same general area as the proposed project. Therefore, short -term, construction related impacts of the project (e.g., dust, potential soil contamination, noise and vibration, sensitive species and habitat disturbance, and water quality) would not combine with the impacts of other projects and would not be cumulatively considerable . As described in Section 3.13 Noise, the noise sources that could occur during the replacement and installation of the two new bridges would not generate a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project once installed .

Furthermore, mitigation measures and standard specifications are included in the project to reduce construction-related impacts to a less than significant level.

As described in Section 3.4 Biological Resources, the project could affect sensitive biological resources in both the short - and long -term. These impacts, however, would not result in a cumulatively significant loss of such resources, because there are no other proposed projects or projects that would be under construction in the same general area as the proposed project. In addition, the project would implement a number of measures to reduce impacts on both common and special -status species, as described i n Section 3.4. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on biological resources.

There are no planned or proposed developments in the project area that could contribute to cumulative aesthetic, air quality, hydrology and water quality, public services, recreation, or utilities and service systems impacts. The project’s archaeological , biological resources , and geology and soils impacts are specific to the project alignment and would not contribute to cumulative impacts elsewhere.

The project’s impacts to GHG emissions are discussed in Section 3.8, and it was concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions.

Based on the discussion above, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts.

Environmental Checklist and Responses Page 113

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project could have potentially significant impacts on biological resources , cultural and tribal cultural resources and geologic resources. However, mitigation measures have been identified and included in the project (MM BIO-1a though 1c, MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3, MM BIO-4, MM BIO-5, MM CUL-1, and MM CUL-2 and MM GEO-1) to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. The project would have a less than significant impact or no impact on all other resource areas. The project also includes the City’s standard specifications to address potential dust, erosion and water quality an d safety during construction to further reduce adverse effects on human beings.

References Page 114
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View

This page intentionally left blank
References Page 115
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Chapter 4. References
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2022. Bay Area Hazards: Wildland -Urban Interface. Available:
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?layers=d45bf08448354073a26 675776f2d09cb. Accessed August 2023.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017. 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. BAAQMD, Planning, Rules, and Research Division. April 19, 2017.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2023b. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Last updated April 25, 2023. Available online at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans- and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines BAAQMD 2023c. Current Rules. Last updated June 12, 2023. Web:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules-and-compliance/current-rules Basin Research and Associates.2023. Archaeological Review – In Support of Environmental Clearance for Shoreline Park Bridges, City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022a. 2022 Scoping Plan Update. November 16, 2022.

Web. Accessed December 31 , 2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022 - 12/2022-sp.pdf
California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2020. “EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part One and the Final SAFE Rule” June 26, 2020.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_co2_adjustment_factors_06262020- final.pdf
California Department of Conservation.2022. California Important Farmland Finder . Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed June 2023.

California Department of Conservation. 2023. California Tsunami Maps. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsuna.m.i/maps. Accessed August 2023.

California Department of Conservation. 2023. Williamson Act Program.. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa#:~:text=The%20Willia.m.son%20Act%2C%20al so%20known,or%20related%20open%20space%20use. Accessed July, 2023.

California Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC). 2022. EnviroStor Database. A vailable:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=whisman+drive+and+evand ale+avenue. Accessed July 2023.

California Department of Education. California School Directory . Available:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/schooldirectory/. Accessed July 2023.

California Department of Education.2023. GeoHub District Areas. Available:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/. Accessed July 2023.

References Page 116
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View California Department of Fish and G ame (CDFG). 2007. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. List of California Vegetation Alliances and Rarity Ranking.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).2019. California State Scenic Highway System. Available:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8 e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed July 2023.

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2021. Cortese List Data Resources.

Available: https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanup- CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf. Accessed August 2023.

California Energy Commission (CEC) 2023a. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Electricity Consumption by County. CEC, Energy Consumption Database. n.d. Accessed July 11, 2023 at http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.
_____ 2023b. “Gas Consumption by County.” Gas Consumption by County. CEC, Energy Consumption Database. n.d. Accessed July 11 , 202 3 at
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

California Energy Commission.2022. 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. Available:
2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update | California Energy Commission. Accessed July 2023.

California Geological Survey. 2006. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Mountain View Quadrangle. Seismic Hazard Zones. Official Map. Released October . Available: January https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/?q=MOUNTAIN_VIEW_EZRIM.pdf. Accessed July 2023.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2023. Rarefind 5.0. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Accessed August 2023 at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps -and- Data.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2023. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (7.0 and

9.0 online editions). Accessed August 2023 at http://www.cnps.org/inventory.

City of Mountain View 2023. Shoreline at Mountain View Burrowing Owl Location Map, Burrowing Owl Locations, June 2023.

City of Mountain View. 2022. General Plan Land Use Map. Available:
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=1070. Accessed July 2023.

City of Mountain View. 2022. Fire Department Information and Resources. Available:
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fire/contact.asp. Accessed July 2023.

City of Mountain View. 2022b. City of Mountain View Municipal Code. Current through August 25.

Available: https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances.

Accessed August 2023.

City of Mountain View. 2020a. Burrowing Owl Successful Nest Locations 1999-2019.

References Page 117
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View City of Mountain View. 2020b. White-tailed Kite Nests 2018-2020.

City of Mountain View. 2015. Climate Protection Roadmap. September. Available:
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=19516. Accessed July 2023
City of Mountain View. 2013. Municipal Code Chapter 32- Trees, Shrubs and Plants.

City of Mountain View. 2012. Mountain View 2030 General Plan. Adopted July 10, 2012.

Available: https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community- develop.m.ent/planning/regulations/general-plan?locale=en. Accessed June 2023.

City of Mountain View 2012a . Mountain View 2030 General Plan. Adopted July 10, 2012.

Available online at: https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community- develop.m.ent/planning/regulations/general-plan?locale=en City of Mountain View. 2012b. Mountain View Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. August 2012.

Available online at: https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community- development/planning/regulations/greenhouse-gas-reduction-program.

City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. Available:
https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4758/6379816322069700

00. Accessed August 31, 2023.

City of Mountain View Precise Plan 2014. Available:
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29702. Accessed July 2023.

Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2020. eBird. Accessed August 2023 at: https://ebird.org/home.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2021. FEMA Flood Map Service Center .

Available: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery#searchresultsanchor.

Accessed August 2023.

Frentzen, Caroline. 2023 (August and September). Personal communication with Caroline Frentzen, Regulatory Project Manager, San Francisco District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Google Earth Pro. 2023 (August). Shoreline Golf Links, 2940 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View, CA 94043. 37 °25’48.92”N, 122 °04’59.98”W, Eye alt 3162 ft. Google 202 3. Accessed August 2023.

Higgins, Philip. 2023a. Pond 4 Shoreline Golf Course Bird Nesting Survey for Bridge Project. July 2023.

Higgins, Philip. 2023 b. Personal communication with Philip Higgins, Wildlife Preservation Coordinator, City of Mountain View Community Services Department, Shoreline Division.

September 2023.

References Page 118
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Higgins, Philip. Personal communication with Philip Higgins, Wildlife Preservation Coordinator, City of Mountain View Community Services Department, Shoreline Division. September 16, 2020.

H.T. Harvey & Associates. 2023 (March 14). Shoreline Wildlife Management Plan. Prepared for Shoreline Division, Community Development, City of Mountain View. Prepared by Philip Higgins, City Biologist.

Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 202 3a. “Mauna Loa CO2 Monthly Mean Data.” Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. NOAA, Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division. July 5 , 202 3. Web. Accessed August 7, 2023 . http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/.
_____ 2023b. Basics of the Carbon Cycle and the Greenhouse Effect. A vailable online at:
https://gml.noaa.gov/outreach/carbon_toolkit/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2023a. Critical Habitat - Green Sturgeon (Southern DPS). Accessed August 2023 at:
https://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=c845b529c7d14742 abfb5b3d0cc00dcf.

NMFS. 2023b. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Accessed August 2023 at:
https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/apps/efhmapper/?page=page_4&views=view_14. [NWI] National Wetlands Inventory. 2020. Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Accessed March 2020 at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html.

Santa Clara County. 2012. Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones. October 26. Accessed August 10, 2023 at
https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/GEO_GeohazardATLAS.pdf.

Santa Clara County. 2020. County of Santa Clara 2020 County Operations Greenhouse Gas Inventory February 2022.

Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. 2012. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County: Moffett Federal Airfield. Adopted November 2, 2012. Amended 12/19/18.

Available: https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf.

Accessed August 2023.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2022. GeoTracker Database. Available:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=313+Fairchild +Drive%2C+Mountain+view+ca. Accessed July 2023.

U.S. Energy Information Administration.2023. California State Energy Profile. Available: California Profile (eia.gov). Accessed July, 2023.

References Page 119
2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View _____ 2023b. CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. Last updated April 25, 2023. Available online at: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act- ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines
_____ 2023c. Current Rules. Last updated June 12, 2023. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/rules - and-compliance/current-rules
_____ 2023b. “Gas Consumption by County.” Gas Consumption by County. CEC, Energy Consumption Database. n.d. Accessed July 11 , 202 3 at
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2023. Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC).

Accessed August 2023 at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

2019/20 City Bridges and Culverts Structural Inspection and Repairs, Project 20-60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - City of Mountain View Chapter 5. Preparers

MIG, Inc. Environmental Analysis and Document Preparation 2055 Junction Avenue, Suite 205
San Jose, CA 95131
(650) 327-0429
www.migcom.com
Mike Campbell – Director of Environmental Analysis
Christina Lau – Sr. Project Manager
William Deeman – CEQA Analyst
Megan Kalyankar – Biologist
Rose Redlich – CEQA Analyst and Graphics

Basin Research Associates. Cultural Resources Assessment Colin Busby, PhD, RPA
Managing Principal
510-430-8441 x101
[email protected]
www.basinresearch.com

Appendix A: Shoreline Golf Links Bridge
Replacement Detailed Emissions
R e p o r t
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 1 / 20
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2024) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 2 / 20

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 3 / 20

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 4 / 20

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement
Construction Start Date 3/1/2024
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 28.2
Location 37.43034529957799, -122.0833590893834
County Santa Clara
City Mountain View
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1700
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.16

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Bridge/Overpass
Construction

0.04 Mile 0.00 0.00 0.00 — — —
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 5 / 20

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.37 1.14 10.7 13.3 0.02 0.43 0.17 0.60 0.39 0.04 0.44 — 2,650 2,650 0.11 0.04 0.94 2,666 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.37 1.14 10.7 13.2 0.02 0.43 0.17 0.60 0.39 0.04 0.44 — 2,639 2,639 0.11 0.04 0.02 2,654 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.40 0.33 3.12 3.83 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.17 0.11 0.01 0.13 — 767 767 0.03 0.01 0.12 771 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.07 0.06 0.57 0.70 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 127 127 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 128

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
-------------------
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 6 / 20
2024 1.37 1.14 10.7 13.3 0.02 0.43 0.17 0.60 0.39 0.04 0.44 — 2,650 2,650 0.11 0.04 0.94 2,666 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.37 1.14 10.7 13.2 0.02 0.43 0.17 0.60 0.39 0.04 0.44 — 2,639 2,639 0.11 0.04 0.02 2,654 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.40 0.33 3.12 3.83 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.17 0.11 0.01 0.13 — 767 767 0.03 0.01 0.12 771 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.07 0.06 0.57 0.70 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 127 127 0.01 < 0.005 0.02 128

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing (2024) - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.29 1.08 10.5 12.5 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.39 — 0.39 — 2,387 2,387 0.10 0.02 — 2,395 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 7 / 20
2,395—0.020.102,3872,387—0.39—0.390.43—0.430.0212.510.51.081.29Off-Road Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.37 0.31 3.06 3.62 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 693 693 0.03 0.01 — 696 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.56 0.66 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 115 115 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 115 Dust
From
Material
Mo
vement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 153 153 < 0.005 0.01 0.65 — Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 110 110 0.01 0.02 0.29 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.69 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 8 / 20
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 142 142 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 110 110 0.01 0.02 0.01 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.69 0.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 41.6 41.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.9 31.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.20 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.89 6.89 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.27 5.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 — Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 9 / 20
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 10 / 20
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 11 / 20

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing
3/1/2024 7/26/2024 5.00 106 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Bore/Dr ill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
T
ractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Cr
anes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Concrete/Industr
ial
Saws
Diesel Av erage 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
F
orklifts Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 82.0 0.20
Linear, Grubbing &
Land Clearing
Cement
and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Av erage 1.00 8.00 10.0 0.56

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing — — — —
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 12 / 20
Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Vendor 4.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Hauling 0.01 20.0 HHDT Linear, Grubbing & Land Clearing Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Ton of
Debris)
Material Exported (Ton of
Debris)
Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Linear, Grubbing & Land
Clearing

0.00 10.0 0.00 0.00 —

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 13 / 20
Bridge/Overpass Construction 0.07 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 14 / 20
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will contin
ue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.40 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 8.55 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data
(32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or
heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea
level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft.

Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population
density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 15 / 20
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability
to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The
adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability
to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 11.6
AQ-PM 18.6
AQ-DPM 86.2
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 16 / 20
Drinking Water 62.0
Lead Risk Housing 10.4
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 25.6
Traffic 98.7
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 98.0
Groundwater 98.9
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 86.8
Impaired Water Bodies 94.6
Solid Waste 66.7
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 9.14
Cardio-vascular 19.4
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 42.7
Housing 68.5
Linguistic 74.4
Poverty 39.2
Unemployment 65.6

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty —
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 17 / 20
Employed —
Median HI —
Education —
Bachelor's or higher —
High school enrollment —
Preschool enrollment —
Transportation —
Auto Access —
Active commuting —
Social —
2-parent households —
Voting —
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability —
Park access —
Retail density —
Supermarket access —
Tree canopy —
Housing —
Homeownership —
Housing habitability —
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden —
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden —
Uncrowded housing —
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults —
Arthritis 7.6
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 18 / 20
Asthma ER Admissions 92.1
High Blood Pressure 12.4
Cancer (excluding skin) 13.2
Asthma 40.2
Coronary Heart Disease 9.8
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 19.2
Diagnosed Diabetes 30.7
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.0
Cognitively Disabled 54.2
Physically Disabled 60.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 74.4
Mental Health Not Good 51.7
Chronic Kidney Disease 10.6
Obesity 49.6
Pedestrian Injuries 0.0
Physical Health Not Good 39.9
Stroke 19.7
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 82.5
Current Smoker 57.8
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 49.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 32.8
Children 79.8
Elderly 36.8
English Speaking 0.0
Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 19 / 20
Foreign-born 0.0
Outdoor Workers 29.8
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 3.1
Traffic Density 0.0
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 0.0
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 0.0

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 50.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) —
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Y es Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

Shoreline Golf Links Bridge Replacement Detailed Report, 8/7/2023 20 / 20

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Updated construction phases and schedule based on project data request response received 6/28/23.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Updated construction equipment type and number based on data request response received 6/28/23.

Construction: Trips and VMT Updated vendor trips based on project construction schedule.

Construction: Paving Project assumed to have no paving-related activities based on data request response received on 6/28/23.

Pond 4 Shoreline Golf
Course Bird Nesting Survey
for Bridge Projectd 4 Shore
Appendix B:
pg. 1 Philip Higgins Wildlife Preservation Coordinator Community Services Department | Shoreline Division
Pond 4 Shoreline Golf Course Bird Nesting Survey for Bridge Project July 2023
Two bird nesting surveys were conducted at Pond 4 at the front 9 section of the golf course to determine bird activity in preparation for the bridge project.

NOTE: this time of the year (July) is not the prime time for bird nesting activity, although we are still within the timeline for the breeding season, however, significant breeding activity was observed during both surveys.

One survey was conducted July 18th and a second survey was conducted July 21st, both surveys were conducted early in the morning (start time was 7am July 18th and 6am July 21st) when bird species are more active. The weather both days was clear, with temperatures around 62F and 59F respectively both days, at least at the start of the survey period, which lasted approximately two hours for each survey.

During the survey on July 18th, a total of 26 species were observed with 95 individuals, while on July 21st, a total of 23 species and 202 individuals were observed (Table 1).

Breeding activity was observed for 9 species: American coot, black phoebe, common gallinule, great- tailed grackle, green heron, hooded oriole, marsh wren, pied-billed grebe, and song sparrow. Breeding activity varied from a nest with eggs to active feeding of young to observations of recently fledged young.

One State Species of Special Concern was observed: the San Francisco Common Yellowthroat (SFCY), this species has been observed breeding at Pond 4 and adjacent areas, (the high-level ditch to the east of the pond and along Permanente Creek) for several years now. This species is a wetland obligate species and inhabits the typical wetland flora (cattails and tules) of the pond year-round. Figure 1 shows the locations of where the SFCY were observed during the survey, while Figure 2 shows the historical locations of nesting SFCY at Shoreline including Pond 4.

Table 1: bird species and breeding activity observed during surveys on July 18th & 21st, 2023 at Pond 4 on the Front 9 of the Golf Course
Date & Quantity
Species 18-Jul-23 21-Jul-23 Breeding Activity
American coot 6 8 Nest with eggs
Anna's hummingbird 1 3
pg. 2 Philip Higgins Wildlife Preservation Coordinator Community Services Department | Shoreline Division
Barn swallow 3 2
Bewicks wren 1 1
Black -headed grosbeak 1
Black phoebe 7 2 Recently fledged young
Black-crowned night-heron 6 7
Bullocks oriole 1
Bushtit 1
California towhee 2
Canada goose 8
Cinnamon teal 4 5
Cliff swallow 6 1
Common gallinule 4 Recently fledged young
Great blue heron 1
Great egret 1
Great-tailed grackle 12 2 Feeding young
Green heron 2 3 Recently fledged young
Hooded oriole 2 Carrying food
House finch 1 3
Mallard 15 76
Marsh wren 1 3 Territorial display
Mourning dove 1
Nuttall's woodpecker 1
Pied-billed grebe 2 1 Recently fledged young
Red-tailed hawk 1
red-winged blackbird 1 65
San Francisco common yellowthroat 2 5
Snowy egret 1
Song sparrow 5 6 Recently fledged young
Violet-green swallow 2 2

pg. 3 Philip Higgins Wildlife Preservation Coordinator Community Services Department | Shoreline Division

Figure 1: Map showing location of San Francisco Common Yellowthroats observed during the surveys on July 18th and 21st 2023, at Pond 4 of the Shoreline Golf Course

San Francisco
Common
Yellowthroat
Activity July 2023
pg. 4 Philip Higgins Wildlife Preservation Coordinator Community Services Department | Shoreline Division

Figure 2: Map showing location of San Francisco Common Yellowthroat nesting locations at Shoreline 2017-2022

Additional Species of Concern that have been observed within and adjacent to the Golf Course Pond historically.

In addition to the bird nesting survey, a western pond turtle (a state species of special concern) was observed within Pond 4 of the golf course on April 21, 2021. No pond turtles were observed during the surveys during July, most likely as the temperature was not conducive this early in the morning, as turtles are reptiles and prefer warmer temperatures.

Burrowing owls (a state species of special concern) have nested historically within and adjacent to the golf course. Both resident and migratory burrowing owls inhabit Shoreline. During the 2023 breeding season, one pair of burrowing owls successfully raised chicks on the Back 5 section of the golf course on Fairway 14, while during 2022, one pair of burrowing owls successfully raised chicks on Fairway 9, which is located adjacent to Pond 4. Burrowing owls can forage up to 2 miles from their burrow and during 2023 we have had 41 burrowing owls residing at Shoreline.

San Francisco
common
yellowthroat
nest locations
2017 -2022
•
pg. 5 Philip Higgins Wildlife Preservation Coordinator Community Services Department | Shoreline Division
Conclusion
Bird nesting activity was observed for several species (9 species in total) while a total of 31 bird species were observed during both surveys. The Pond 4 area provides prime nesting and foraging habitat for a significant number of birds species and other wildlife (aquatic species including turtles). The adjacent golf fairways and tree species provide nesting and foraging habitat for a diversity of other species, including burrowing owls, red-tailed hawks (nesting of this species has occurred on the golf course previously on Fairway 7), white-tailed kites and golden eagles.

It is highly recommended that the bridge construction avoids the bird nesting season based on historical use of this area by nesting birds including San Francisco Common Yellowthroats.

Appendix 1: Photos of bird activity July 2023 at Pond 4 Shoreline Golf Course Photo 1: American coot nest with 4 eggs

pg. 6 Philip Higgins Wildlife Preservation Coordinator Community Services Department | Shoreline Division
Photo 2: American coot and common gallinule in territorial dispute of nesting areas

pg. 7 Philip Higgins Wildlife Preservation Coordinator Community Services Department | Shoreline Division
Photo 3: great-tailed grackle adult feeding young

pg. 8 Philip Higgins Wildlife Preservation Coordinator Community Services Department | Shoreline Division
Photo 4: green heron fledgling

pg. 1 Philip Higgins Wildlife Preservation Coordinator Community Services Department | Shoreline Division
Pond 4 Shoreline Golf Course Bird Nesting Survey for Bridge Project July 2023

Two bird nesting surveys were conducted at Pond 4 at the front 9 section of the golf course to determine bird activity in preparation for the bridge project.

During the survey on July 18th, a total of 26 species were observed with 95 individuals, while on July 21st, a total of 23 species and 202 individuals were observed (Table 1).

Table 1: bird species and breeding activity observed during surveys on July 18th & 21st, 2023 at Pond 4 on the Front 9 of the Golf Course

Date & Quantity

Species 18-Jul-23 21-Jul-23 Breeding Activity
American coot 6 8 Nest with eggs
Anna's hummingbird 1 3
pg. 2 Philip Higgins Wildlife Preservation Coordinator Community Services Department | Shoreline Division
Barn swallow 3 2
Bewicks wren 1 1
Black -headed grosbeak 1
Black phoebe 7 2 Recently fledged young
Black-crowned night-heron 6 7
Bullocks oriole 1
Bushtit 1
California towhee 2
Canada goose 8
Cinnamon teal 4 5
Cliff swallow 6 1
Common gallinule 4 Recently fledged young
Great blue heron 1
Great egret 1
Great-tailed grackle 12 2 Feeding young
Green heron 2 3 Recently fledged young
Hooded oriole 2 Carrying food
House finch 1 3
Mallard 15 76
Marsh wren 1 3 Territorial display
Mourning dove 1
Nuttall's woodpecker 1
Pied-billed grebe 2 1 Recently fledged young
Red-tailed hawk 1
red-winged blackbird 1 65
San Francisco common yellowthroat 2 5
Snowy egret 1
Song sparrow 5 6 Recently fledged young
Violet-green swallow 2 2