Mountain View City Council
November 4, 2025

Renewables Portfolio: Carbon Neutrality Regulations
Senate Bills 1078, 107, and X1-2 and Executive Order S-14-08 A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the renewables portfolio standard established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. EO S-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the State’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (SB X1-2).

Eligible renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production decreases indirect GHG emissions from development projects because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.

Senate Bill 350
SB 350 was signed into law in September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS—40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also set a new goal to double the energy-efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures.

Senate Bill 100
On September 10, 2018, SB 100 was signed into law. Under SB 100, the RPS for public-owned facilities and retail sellers consists of 44 percent renewable energy by 2024, 52 percent by 2027, and 60 percent by 2030. SB 100 also established a new RPS requirement of 50 percent by 2026.

Furthermore, the bill establishes an overall State policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California enduse customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the State cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon-free electricity target.

Senate Bill 1020
SB 1020 was signed into law on September 16, 2022. SB 1020 provides interim RPS targets (90 percent renewable energy by 2035 and 95 percent renewable energy by 2040) and requires renewable energy and zero-carbon resources to reach 100 percent clean electricity by 2045.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
JULY 2025 Page 4.5-9
Energy Efficiency Regulations
California Building Code: Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.

The Building Energy Efficiency Standards encourage efficient electric heat pumps, establish electric-ready requirements for new construction, expand solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthen ventilation standards, among other approaches. The 2022 standards require mixed-fuel single-family homes to be electric-ready to accommodate replacement of gas appliances with electric appliances. In addition, the new standards include prescriptive photovoltaic system and battery energy storage system requirements for high-rise, multi-family buildings (i.e., more than three stories) and noncommercial buildings such as hotels, offices, medical offices, restaurants, retail stores, schools, warehouses, theaters, and convention centers.

California Building Code: CALGreen
The California Green Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code. CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.9 The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective January 1, 2011, and were last updated in 2022. The 2022 CALGreen standards became effective on January 1, 2023. 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations
The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (20 CCR Sections 1601–1608) were adopted by the CEC on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally regulated appliances and non–federally regulated appliances. Though these regulations are now often viewed as “business as usual,” they exceed the standards imposed by all other states, and they reduce GHG emissions by reducing energy demand.
9 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the Code.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Solid Waste Diversion Regulations
Assembly Bill 939: Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 California’s Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939, Public Resources Code Section 40050 et seq.) set a requirement for cities and counties throughout the state to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. In 2008, the requirements were modified to reflect a per capita requirement rather than tonnage. To help achieve this, the Act requires that each city and county prepare and submit a source reduction and recycling element. AB 939 also established the goal for all California counties to provide at least 15 years of ongoing landfill capacity.

Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011) increased the statewide goal for waste diversion to 75 percent by 2020 and requires recycling of waste from commercial and multi-family residential land uses. Section 5.408 of CALGreen also requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.

Assembly Bill 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327, Public Resources Code Section 42900 et seq.) requires areas to be set aside for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects. The Act required the California Integrated Waste Management Board to develop a model ordinance for adoption by any local agency requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials as part of development projects. Local agencies are required to adopt the model or an ordinance of their own.

Assembly Bill 1826
In October 2014, AB 1826 was signed into law, requiring businesses to recycle their organic waste on and after April 1, 2016, depending on the amount of waste they generate per week.

This law also requires that on and after January 1, 2016, local jurisdictions across the state implement an organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses and multi-family residential dwellings with five or more units. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed with food waste.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
JULY 2025 Page 4.5-11
Water Efficiency Regulations
Senate Bill X7-7
The 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan was issued by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2010 pursuant to SB 7, which was adopted during the 7th Extraordinary Session of 2009–2010 and therefore dubbed “SBX7-7.” SBX7-7 mandated urban water conservation and authorized DWR to prepare a plan implementing urban water conservation requirements, which DWR did through the 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan. In addition, it required agricultural water providers to prepare agricultural water management plans, measure water deliveries to customers, and implement other efficiency measures. SBX7-7 required urban water providers to adopt a water conservation target of a 20 percent reduction in urban per capita water use by 2020 compared to 2005 baseline use.

Assembly Bill 1881: Water Conservation in Landscaping Act The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires local agencies to adopt the updated DWR model ordinance or an equivalent. AB 1881 also requires CEC to consult with DWR to adopt, by regulation, performance standards and labeling requirements for landscape irrigation equipment, including irrigation controllers, moisture sensors, emission devices, and valves, to reduce the wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or water.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
On September 19, 2016, SB 1383 was signed into law to supplement the GHG reduction strategies in the Scoping Plan to consider short-lived climate pollutants, including black carbon and methane. Black carbon is the light-absorbing component of fine particulate matter produced during the incomplete combustion of fuels. SB 1383 required CARB, no later than January 1, 2018, to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants to achieve a reduction in methane by 40 percent, hydrofluorocarbon gases by 40 percent, and anthropogenic black carbon by 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030. The bill also established targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. On March 14, 2017, CARB adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which identifies the State’s approach to reducing anthropogenic and biogenic sources of short-lived climate pollutants. Anthropogenic sources of black carbon include on- and off-road transportation, residential wood burning, fuel combustion (charbroiling), and industrial processes. According to CARB, ambient levels of black carbon in California are 90 percent lower than in the early 1960s, despite the tripling of diesel fuel use.10 In-use on-road rules were 10 California Air Resources Board, March 2017, Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

expected to reduce black carbon emissions from on-road sources by 80 percent between 2000 and 2020.

REGIONAL
Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Region
MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 on October 21, 2021.11 Plan Bay Area 2050 provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation-related GHG reduction goals of SB 375. An overarching goal of the regional plan is to concentrate development in areas where there are existing services and infrastructure rather than allocate new growth to outlying areas where substantial transportation investments would be necessary to achieve the per capita passenger vehicle, VMT, and associated GHG emissions reductions.

Bay Area Clean Air Plan
The Air District adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (Clean Air Plan) on April 19, 2017. The 2017 Clean Air Plan also lays the groundwork for reducing GHG emissions in the Bay Area to meet the State’s 2030 GHG reduction target and 2050 GHG reduction goal.

Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program
Under Air District Regulation 14, Model Source Emissions Reduction Measures, Rule 1, Bay Area Commuter Benefits Program, employers with 50 or more full-time employees within the Air District are required to register and offer commuter benefits to employees. In partnership with the Air District and MTC, the Rule’s purpose is to improve air quality, reduce GHG emissions, and decrease the Bay Area’s traffic congestion by encouraging employees to use alternative commute modes, such as transit, vanpool, carpool, bicycling, and walking. The benefits program allows employees to choose from one of four commuter benefit options, including a pre-tax benefit, employer-provided subsidy, employer-provided transit, and alternative commute benefit.

LOCAL
Valley Transportation Authority 2021 Congestion Management Program Document The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) aims to adopt transportation improvement programs for Santa Clara County. 12 The CMP provides a
roadmap to reduce congestion, land use decision-making and air quality programs among local 11 Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050. https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-11/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed May 20, 2024. 12 Valley Transportation Authority, December 2021, 2021 Congestion Management Program Document, https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/2021CMPDocumentV2_Reduced.pdf

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
JULY 2025 Page 4.5-13
jurisdictions. The 2021 update also documents changes to VTA’s Transportation Demand Program (TDM), regional planning efforts by ABAG and MTC, and future updates to the Multimodal Improvement Plan. Develop a list of projects intended to maintain or improve the level of service on the designated system and to maintain transit performance standards.

Mountain View Code of Ordinances
The Mountain View Code of Ordinances includes various directives to minimize adverse impacts to greenhouse gas emissions in the City of Mountain View. The following Ordinances would apply to the proposed project that would reduce GHG emission impacts:
 Section 8.20.12, Subsection 101.10.1.2.2 added, adopts the green building standards for nonresidential new construction. All nonresidential new construction must comply with the following:
 The mandatory measures of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code and any Mountain View amendments;
 Shall meet the intent of LEED ® Gold certified;
 Shall meet the parking requirements per Table 101.10 and Table A5.106.5.3.2;  Shall demonstrate energy compliance to meet or exceed Title 24, Part 6.  Section 8.20.14, Table 101.10 added, adopts the following applicable California Green Building Standards Code.
 Section 8.20.42, Subsection 5.106.5.3.2 amended and Table 5.106.5.3.2 added, adopts and amends the following applicable Tier 2 CALGreen electric vehicle (EV) parking standards.

Mountain View Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan
The City adopted its Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan (MOCAP) in 2015 to address climate action planning for government operations in the city. The Plan defines actions that the City can implement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions resulting from municipal operations (e.g., government buildings, facilities, and vehicle fleet). In addition to the emission reduction benefits, implementation of the Plan intends to lower energy, water, and fuel costs; reduce exposure to future energy cost increases; and improve government service delivery. The MOCAP was prepared in accordance with the State’s Local Government Operation Protocol which provides guidance on how to inventory greenhouse gas emissions resulting from government buildings and facilities, government fleet vehicles, wastewater treatment and potable water treatment facilities, landfill facilities, and other operations and services13 13 City of Mountain View, May 2015, Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan, https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/816/637940976800700000

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.5.2 Existing Conditions
In 2022, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2020 emissions using the GWPs in IPCC’s AR4, and California produced 369.2 MMTCO2e GHG emissions, 14 35.3
MMTCO2e lower than 2019 levels and 61.8 MMTCO2e below the 2020 GHG limit of 431 MMTCO2e. The 2019 to 2020 decrease in emissions is likely due in large part to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the peak level in 2004, California’s GHG emissions have generally followed a decreasing trend. In 2014, statewide GHG emissions dropped below the 2020 GHG limit and have remained below the limit since that time. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 13.8 metric tons per person to 9.3 metric tons per person in 2020, a 33-percent decrease.15
California’s transportation sector remains the largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 37 percent of the state’s total emissions in 2020. Industrial sector emissions made up 20 percent and electric power generation made up 16 percent of the state’s emissions inventory. Other major sectors of GHG emissions include commercial and residential (4 percent), agriculture and forestry (8.6 percent), high-GWP gases (5.8 percent), and recycling and waste (2 percent). 16 Transportation emissions continued to decline for the past three consecutive years with the rise of fuel efficiency in the passenger vehicle fleet and increase in battery electric vehicles. The deployment of renewable and/or less-carbon-intensive resources and higher energy efficiency standards have facilitated the continuing decline in fossil fuel electricity generation. The industrial sector trend has been flatter in recent years but saw a decrease of 7.1 MMTCO2e in 2020. Commercial and residential emissions saw a decrease of 1.7 MMTCO2e. Emissions from high-GWP gases have continued to increase as they replace ozone-depleting substances that are being phased out under the 1987 Montreal Protocol. Emissions from other sectors have remained mostly constant in recent years. Overall trends in the inventory also continue to demonstrate that the carbon intensity of California’s economy (the amount of carbon pollution per million dollars of gross domestic product) is declining. From 2000 to 2020, the carbon intensity of California’s economy decreased by 49 percent while the gross domestic product increased by 56 percent.17
14 California Air Resources Board, October 26, 2022, California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2020 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators Report. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000-2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf. 15 California Air Resources Board, October 26, 2022, California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2020 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators Report. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000-2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf. 16 California Air Resources Board, October 26, 2022, California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2020 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators Report. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000-2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf. 17 California Air Resources Board, October 26, 2022, California Greenhouse Gas 2000-2020 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators Report. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/2000-2020_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
JULY 2025 Page 4.5-15

4.5.3 Significance Criteria
Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant GHG emissions impact if it would:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

4.5.4 Project Impact Analysis
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts.
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
A project does not generate enough GHG emissions on its own to influence global climate change; therefore, this section measures the project’s contribution to the cumulative environmental impact associated with GHG emissions.

Development of the proposed project would contribute to climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from the construction activities needed to implement the project, which would generate a short-term increase in GHG emissions, as well as a long-term increase in GHG emissions from on-road mobile sources, energy use, area sources, water use/wastewater generation, and solid waste disposal. As identified in the Air District’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, short-term construction activities are one-time emissions that would not substantially contribute to GHG emissions impacts. While the Air District does not have an adopted significance threshold for construction emissions, the Air District recommends that construction GHG emissions are quantified and disclosed. As such, Table 4.5-1, Construction-Related GHG Emissions, provides the construction-related GHG emissions associated with implementation of the proposed project.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Table 4.5-1 Construction-Related GHG Emissions
Construction Year MT CO2e
1 343
2 444
3 385
Source: California Emissions Estimator Model, Version 2022.1 Notes: MT CO2e = Metric Ton (MT) of Carbon Dioxide equivalent (CO2e) For operational phase, the Air District identifies in its 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that projects that implement the BMPs shown in Table 4.5-2, Consistency Analysis with the Air District’s GHG Best Management Practices, would contribute their fair share of what will be required to achieve the State’s long-term climate goals. As shown in Table 4.5-2, the proposed project would be consistent with the Air District’s GHG BMPs; therefore, impacts to the environment would be less than significant.

Table 4.5-2 Consistency Analysis with the Air District’s GHG Best Management Practices Sector Consistency Analysis
Buildings
a. The project will not include natural
gas appliances or natural gas
plumbing (in both residential and
nonresidential development).

Consistent. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed project will be constructed as all-electric buildings with no natural gas appliances or plumbing. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this BMP.
b. The project will not result in any
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
electrical usage as determined by the
analysis required under CEQA Section
21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of
the State CEQA Guidelines.

Consistent. The proposed buildings would be built to comply with the most current CALGreen Building Code requirements and building efficiency standards to reduce unnecessary energy consumption.

Moreover, as determined in Section 3.6, Energy, in the Initial Study (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Scoping Comments), the proposed project was determined to not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.

Transportation
a. Achieve compliance with electric
vehicle requirements in the most
recently adopted version of CALGreen
Tier 2.

Consistent. In compliance with the City’s adoption of the CALGreen standards, the proposed project would implement the applicable CALGreen electric vehicle parking stall standards, thereby increasing access to alternative refueling infrastructure. Also, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed project will include CALGreen Tier 2 parking standards. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this BMP.
b. Achieve a reduction in projectgenerated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average
consistent with the current version of
Consistent. As described in Section 4.8, Transportation, the increase in staff is not substantial and represents an approximately 8-percent increase from existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would generate a nominal increase in vehicle trips.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
JULY 2025 Page 4.5-17
Table 4.5-2 Consistency Analysis with the Air District’s GHG Best Management Practices the California Climate Change Scoping
Plan or meet a locally adopted Senate
Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the
recommendations provided in the
Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research's Technical Advisory on
Evaluating Transportation Impacts in
CEQA:
• Residential projects: 15 percent
below the existing VMT per
capita.
• Office projects: 15 percent below
the existing VMT per employee.
• Retail projects: no net increase in
existing VMT.

However, because, even at maximum capacity, the new employees at the project site would be relocated from existing office space elsewhere in the city, the increase in trips would not represent net new trips for the city as a whole. The proposed project’s VMT impacts are determined to be less than significant. Because the SB 743 VMT reduction targets are designed to produce reductions in transportation-related GHG emissions, the proposed project is considered consistent with this BMP.

Source: Bay Area Air District, April 2023, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Applicable plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions include CARB’s Scoping Plan, ABAG’s/MTC’s Plan Bay Area 2050, and the City’s MOCAP. A consistency analysis with these plans is presented below.

CARB Scoping Plan
The CARB Scoping Plan is applicable to State agencies but is not directly applicable to cities, counties, and individual projects (i.e., the Scoping Plan does not require local jurisdictions to adopt its policies, programs, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions). However, new regulations adopted by the State agencies from the Scoping Plan result in GHG emissions reductions at the local level. Local jurisdictions benefit from reductions in transportation emissions rates, increases in water efficiency in the building and landscape codes, and other statewide actions that affect a local jurisdiction’s emissions inventory from the top down.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS and changes in the CAFE standards. Additionally, local jurisdictions are encouraged to prepare local GHG reduction plans to align local GHG reductions with the State GHG reduction targets identified in the Scoping Plan.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the 2022 Climate Change Scoping Plan include:
implementing SB 100, which expands the RPS to 60 percent by 2030; expanding the Low Carbon

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Fuel Standards (LCFS) to 18 percent by 2030; implementing the Mobile Source Strategy to deploy zero-electric vehicle buses and trucks; implementing the Sustainable Freight Action Plan; implementing the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, which reduces methane and hydrofluorocarbons to 40 percent below 2013 levels by 2030 and black carbon emissions to 50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030; continuing to implement SB 375; creating a post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program; and developing an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink.

Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the low carbon fuel standards, California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the CAFE standards, and other early action measures as necessary to ensure the State is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279. In addition, new developments are required to comply with the most current Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. The proposed project’s GHG emissions would be reduced from compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32, SB 32, and AB 1279 were adopted. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

ABAG/MTC’s Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area 2050 is the Bay Area’s regional transportation plan to achieve the passenger vehicle emissions reductions identified under SB 375. Plan Bay Area 2050 is the current SCS for the Bay Area, adopted October 21, 2021. In addition to significant transit and roadway performance investments to encourage focused growth, Plan Bay Area 2050 directs funding to neighborhood active transportation and complete streets projects, climate initiatives, lifeline transportation and access initiatives, safety programs, and PDA planning. 18 While Plan Bay Area 2050 does not override local land use control, it provides guidance to the local jurisdictions such as Santa Clara County on how future development can be consistent with the State’s GHG and VMT reduction goals. This includes constructing more infill development in downtowns and centers in close proximity to jobs and services.

Plan Bay Area 2050 is the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy that identifies the sustainable vision for the Bay Area.19 The proposed project would result in the redevelopment of the project site where there is already access to existing infrastructure and services. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use concept plan in Plan Bay Area 2050 and impacts would be less than significant. 18 Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed October 24, 2022.
19 Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, October 2021, Plan Bay Area 2050, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf, accessed October 24, 2022.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
JULY 2025 Page 4.5-19
Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan
The City of Mountain View adopted its MOCAP in 2015 in order to present and evaluate mechanisms by which the City may achieve an emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The MOCAP includes strategies that the City can implement to reduce emissions associated with its government operations. The proposed project is a new Public Safety Building that would replace the existing Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building. Because the proposed project would serve as a government building, an analysis for its consistency with the MOCAP strategies is presented in Table 4.5-3, Consistency Analysis with the Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan.

Table 4.5-3 Consistency Analysis with the Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan Sector Consistency Analysis
Facilities
Strategy F-1: Low-Carbon Grid
Electricity
Procure Low-Carbon Grid Electricity
through Utility Programs or
Large-Scale Renewable Energy
Development.

Consistent. While the proposed project is not directly applicable to the development/procurement of low-carbon electricity options, it would support this strategy by constructing all-electric buildings that comply with Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, the Mountain View Code of Ordinances and the requirements for LEED Gold Certification.

These project features associated with compliance with these codes would reduce electricity usage from the project as the City continues to seek low-carbon energy options with Silicon Valley Clean Energy, which would supply electricity to the proposed project.

Strategy F-2: Renewable/LowCarbon Electricity Generation Develop Additional Renewable
Energy Facilities
Consistent. Compliance with the Mountain View Code of Ordinances requires new non-residential construction to include rooftop PV installation to accommodate the load from all-electric buildings, consistent with this strategy’s Action B to include PV installations at city buildings. The Ordinance Code also requires water heating systems to be all-electric or solar which would support Action B of this strategy, as applicable.

Strategy F-3: Existing Building
Energy Retrofit and Management
Reduce Energy Consumption in
Existing Municipal Buildings through
Energy Efficiency Improvements,
Interactive Management Systems,
Employee Education, and Building
Operation and Maintenance Policies.

Consistent. The proposed project would not be involved with the actions that implement this strategy included the development of an energy efficiency fund, strengthening the City’s energy efficiency procurement policy, and retro-commissioning program, but would generally support this strategy by implementing the energy reduction requirements in the City’s Code of Ordinances and the applicable California Building Codes.

Strategy F-4: New Building Energy
Performance
Establish Energy Efficiency Targets
for New Municipal Buildings.

Consistent. As discussed previously, the proposed project would be required to achieve LEED Gold Certification for the project buildings, thereby directly supporting this strategy.

Strategy F-5: Public Realm Lighting
Efficiency
Upgrade Public Realm Lighting to
Consistent. The proposed project would be required to comply with the California Energy Code which contains standards for high-efficacy lighting fixtures and lighting controls for non-residential buildings. The proposed

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Table 4.5-3 Consistency Analysis with the Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan More Efficient Technology. project would therefore support the intent of this strategy by implementing energy efficient lighting.

Strategy F-6: Landscape Water
Conservation
Formalize Existing Landscape
Conservation Practices into a Green
Grounds Policy.

Consistent. This strategy refers to an effort to formally adopt a Greens Ground Policy by the City to better regulate the implementation of water conserving strategies. The proposed project would comply with the City’s adopted water conservation policies including the water conservation landscaping regulations contained in Division 3, Article XI, in the City Zoning Code.

Vehicle Fleet
Strategy VF-1: Efficient Vehicles
Transition City Fleet to More Efficient
Vehicles and Provide Operational
Improvement Guidance
Consistent. The proposed project would not be directly involved with efforts to procure fuel efficient vehicles but would comply with and benefit from State and City policies that aim to increase fuel efficiency for vehicles.

Strategy VF-2: Alternative Fuel
Vehicles
Increase Use of Alternative Fueled
Vehicles and Refueling
Infrastructure.

Consistent. In compliance with the City’s adoption of the CALGreen standards, the proposed project would implement the applicable CALGreen electric vehicle parking stall standards. Also, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the proposed project will include CALGreen Tier 2 parking standards; thereby, increasing access to alternative refueling infrastructure.

Strategy VF-3: Behavior/Fuel
Optimization
Encourage and Promote FuelEfficient Driving.

Consistent. As described in Section 4.8, Transportation, the increase in staff is not substantial and represents an approximately 8-percent increase from existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would generate a nominal increase in vehicle trips.

However, because, even at maximum capacity, the new employees at the project site would be relocated from existing office space elsewhere in the city, the increase in trips would not represent net new trips for the city as a whole. This nominal increase in daily vehicle trips would not have a significant impact on VMT nor conflict with this strategy to reduce employee VMT.

Solid Waste
Strategy SW-1: Waste Reduction
Reduce Municipal Waste through
Procurement Policies, Waste
Diversion Goals, and Waste Stream
Monitoring and Analysis.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with the relevant requirements in the City’s Energy Efficient Procurement Policy. It would also comply with the City’s waste diversion programs and municipal code requirements per Chapter 16, Garbage, Rubbish and Weeds, of the Code of Ordinances.

Strategy SW-2: Recyclable Paper
Reduction
Reduce Paper Use in Municipal
Operations.

Consistent. This strategy references the implementation of a paperless office policy for the City. Operation of the Public Safety Building would comply with this strategy to the extent possible.

Strategy SW-3: Landscape Waste
Diversion
Expand City Efforts in Landscape
Waste Composting.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with the provisions of SB 1383, the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act, as codified in the City Code of Ordinances in Article VI, Chapter 16. This includes requirements for composting at non-residential uses.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
JULY 2025 Page 4.5-21
Table 4.5-3 Consistency Analysis with the Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan Strategy SW-4: Construction and
Demolition Waste Diversion
Increase Construction and
Demolition Waste Diversion Rates
for Municipal Projects.

Consistent. Section 5.408 of CALGreen requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. This exceeds the City’s 50 percent diversion noted in the MOCAP and the proposed project would comply with all applicable CALGreen standards.

Source: City of Mountain View, May 2015, Municipal Operations Climate Action Plan, https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/816/637940976800700000 Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.5.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Project-related GHG emissions are not confined to a particular air basin but are dispersed worldwide. Therefore, impacts under impact discussions (a) and (b) are not project-specific impacts to global warming, but the proposed project’s contribution to this cumulative impact.

While the proposed project would contribute to short-term and long-term increases in GHG emissions, it would implement the BMPs established by the Air District for the purpose of achieving the State’s climate goals. Compliance with these BMPs would reduce GHG impacts to a less-than-significant level for the proposed project. The proposed project is also consistent with other applicable state and local plans including the CABR 2022 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, and the City’s MOCAP, as discussed in impact discussion (b). Therefore, cumulative GHG impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This page is intentionally left blank.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
JULY 2025 Page 4.6-1

4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the proposed project to result in a significant hazards and hazardous materials impact. The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Mountain View Public Safety Building Project for SVA Architects, PlaceWorks, June 2024
Complete copies of these studies are included in Appendix D, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, of this Draft EIR.

As described in Chapter 2, Introduction, of this Draft EIR, the only significance criterion identified in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that is evaluated in this chapter includes impacts associated with the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, this chapter only addresses this one issue.

4.6.1 Regulatory Background
Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, plans, or guidelines related to hazards and hazardous materials and potentially applicable to the proposed project are summarized below.

FEDERAL
United States Environmental Protection Agency
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the primary federal agency that regulates hazardous materials and waste. In general, the EPA works to develop and enforce regulations that implement environmental laws enacted by Congress. The agency is responsible for researching and setting national standards for a variety of environmental programs, delegating the responsibility for issuing permits, and monitoring and enforcing compliance to states and Native American tribes. EPA programs promote handling hazardous waste safely, cleaning up contaminated land, and reducing waste volumes through such strategies as recycling. California falls under the jurisdiction of EPA Region 9. Under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and in cooperation with State and tribal partners, the EPA Region 9 Waste Management and Superfund Divisions manage programs for site environmental assessment and cleanup, hazardous and solid waste management, and underground storage tanks.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 protects water, air, and soil resources from the risks created by past chemical disposal practices. This law is also called the Superfund Act and regulates sites on the National Priority List, which are called Superfund sites. The act was intended to encompass the prevention of and response to uncontrolled hazardous substances releases. It provides mechanisms for reacting to emergencies and chronic hazardous material releases. In addition to procedures to prevent and remedy problems, it established a system for compensating appropriate individuals and assigning appropriate liability. It is designed to plan for and respond to failure in other regulatory programs and remedy problems resulting from action taken before the era of comprehensive regulatory protection.

STATE
California Unified Program Administration
In 1993, Senate Bill 1082 gave the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) the authority and responsibility to establish a unified hazardous waste and hazardous materials management and regulatory program, commonly referred to as the Unified Program. The Unified Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of environmental and emergency response programs. The Unified Program Administration and Advisory Group (UPAAG) was created to foster effective working partnerships between local, State and federal agencies. The UPAAG’s goals and objectives are listed in the UPAAG Strategic Plan. The six programs are:
 Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans)  California Accidental Release Prevention Program
 Underground Storage Tank Program
 Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program
 Hazardous Waste Generator and Onsite Hazardous Waste Treatment (tiered permitting) Programs
 California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Material Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements
The State agency partners involved in the Unified Program have the responsibility of setting program element standards, working with CalEPA on ensuring program consistency, and providing technical assistance to the certified unified program agencies. The following State agencies are involved with the Unified Program:
 California Environmental Protection Agency. The Secretary of the CalEPA is directly responsible for coordinating the administration of the Unified Program. The Secretary

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
JULY 2025 Page 4.6-3
certifies Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA). The Secretary has certified 83 CUPAs to date, which carry out the responsibilities previously handled by approximately 1,300 State and local agencies.
 Department of Toxic Substances Control. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) provides technical assistance and evaluation for the hazardous waste generator program, including on-site treatment (tiered permitting).  Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services is responsible for providing technical assistance and evaluation of the Business Plan Program and the California Accidental Release Response Plan (CalARP) Programs.  Office of the State Fire Marshal. The Office of the State Fire Marshal is responsible for ensuring the implementation of the Hazardous Material Management Plans and the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement Programs. These programs tie in closely with the Business Plan Program.
 State Water Resources Control Board. The State Water Resources Control Board provides technical assistance and evaluation for the underground storage tank program in addition to handling the oversight and enforcement for the aboveground storage tank program.

Under Division 4.5 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Both RCRA and the Hazardous Waste Control Law impose “cradle to grave” regulatory systems for handling hazardous waste in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

California Health and Safety Code and Code of Regulations California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and 19 CCR Section 2729 set out the minimum requirements for business emergency plans and chemical inventory reporting. A business that uses hazardous materials or a mixture containing hazardous materials must establish and implement a business plan if the hazardous material is handled in certain quantities. These regulations require businesses to provide emergency response plans and procedures, training program information, and a hazardous material chemical inventory disclosing hazardous materials stored, used, or handled on-site.

California Health and Safety Code Section 25250.256 requires that every generator of used oil, other than the owner or operator of a used oil collection center, as defined in Section 48622 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), or a household hazardous waste collection facility, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 25218.1, that transfers used oil to a recycling facility, shall submit a certification to the transporter that the used oil transferred meets the definition of used oil pursuant to Section 25250.1(a) of the Health and Safety Code. The certification shall

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

specifically state that the used oil does not contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at a concentration of 5 parts per million (ppm), or greater, in accordance Health and Safety Code Section 25250.1(iv)(B)(1)(a).

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5
22 CCR Division 4.5 sets forth the requirements for hazardous waste generators; transporters; and owners or operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. These regulations include the requirements for packaging, storage, labeling, reporting, and general management of hazardous waste prior to shipment. In addition, the regulations identify standards applicable to transporters of hazardous waste. These regulations specify the requirements for transporting loads of hazardous waste, including manifesting, vehicle registration, and accidental emergency discharges during transportation.

Hazardous Materials Disclosure Programs
The Unified Program administered by the State of California consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities for environmental and emergency management programs, which include Business Plans, the California Accidental Release Prevention Program, and the Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program. The Unified Program is implemented by CUPAs at the local government level.

The County of Santa Clara has four Certified United Program Agencies that administer hazardous materials, hazardous waste, and underground storage tank programs within their jurisdictions—Hazardous Materials Compliance Division of the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCEH) (for all areas of Santa Clara County other than the cities of Santa Clara, Gilroy, and Sunnyvale); Santa Clara City Fire Department; Gilroy Building, Life, and Environmental Safety to Community Development Department, Fire Prevention Division; and the Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety. Under the Unified Program, the four CUPAs consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspection, and enforcement activities associated with several regulatory programs.1 Under an agreement with the County, the Mountain View Fire Department implements hazardous materials programs as a participating agency under the Unified Program.2 1 Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1566/2024-10/final-vol-i-santa-clara-county-mjhmp_7-26-2024.pdf ?VersionId=sJ_YNu0VIsDHH5dMOSdiwVAgC7Gl2P.Z. 2 City of Mountain View, 2022, City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, page 4.8-

15. MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
JULY 2025 Page 4.6-5
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code is contained in 24 CCR Part 9. The Code is updated every three years and includes provisions and standards for hazardous materials.

LOCAL
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Public Safety Element of the Mountain View 2030 General Plan provides information about risks in Mountain View from hazards and contains goals and policies designed to protect the community and its property from hazardous materials. The Mountain View 2030 General Plan policies relevant to the proposed project are listed in Table 4.6-1, Mountain View 2030 General Plan Policies Relevant to Hazardous Materials and the Proposed Project.

Table 4.6-1 Mountain View 2030 General Plan Policies Relevant to Hazardous Materials and the Proposed Project
Policy
Number Policy Text
Chapter 8, Public Safety (PSA) Element
Policy 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.

Policy 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.

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

Source: City of Mountain View, 2012, 2030 General Plan.

Mountain View Municipal Code
The City of Mountain View Municipal Code contains all ordinances for the city. The Municipal Code is organized by Chapter, Article, Division, and Section.

Chapter 24, Hazardous Materials, regulates hazardous materials and other regulated materials.

Division II, Materials Regulated, regulates materials that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, pose a significant hazard if released into the workplace or the environment. Section 24.2.1, Exclusions, establishes minimum quantity exclusions for materials. Division VII, Applications and Permits, outlines provisions related to the permitting of the storage, use, and handling of hazardous materials in excess of the exempt amounts.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.6.2 Existing Conditions

SITE HISTORY
Based on the review of historical and maps, the project site has been developed since at least 1897. No previous agricultural fields or farming activities were noted on the project other than historical packaging and warehousing facilities for agricultural products. Based on a search of the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office, the California Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, there were no environmental liens or activity and use limitations identified for the project site. The project site has not been used as a site for mining operations, drug manufacturing, or any other potentially hazardous historical uses.
3 Historical surrounding land uses include residential and light industrial uses (warehouses for the storage of agricultural products) starting around 1897.4

RECORDS REVIEW
The objective of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the proposed project is to assess whether “recognized environmental conditions” (REC), historical RECs (HREC), and controlled RECs (CREC) are associated with the project site.

No RECs were identified related to activities on the project site. However, an REC was identified associated with former dry cleaners on adjacent properties; potential migration of soil vapors and/or groundwater from these properties creates a vapor encroachment condition (VEC) on the project site.5 The Phase I ESA identified these sites as having potential tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene or PCE) plumes within 100 feet of the project site and are listed below:6
 Former Fremont Laundry (990 Villa Street). This site is approximately 95 feet southeast of the project site and is identified on the DTSC’s voluntary cleanup site (VCP) list and Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program (SMBRP) list. The facility has a land use covenant and has been certified by DTSC as having completed all response actions. However, ongoing maintenance and operation activities associated with the active subslab depressurization system occur on the site. The dry cleaner has not operated at the site since 1985, and the property is now developed as a two-story commercial building. However, because this 3 PlaceWorks, 2024, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Mountain View Public Safety Building Project for SVA Architects, page 18.
4 PlaceWorks, 2024, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Mountain View Public Safety Building Project for SVA Architects, page 19.
5 PlaceWorks, 2024, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Mountain View Public Safety Building Project for SVA Architects, pages 1 to 2. 6 PlaceWorks, 2024, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Mountain View Public Safety Building Project for SVA Architects, pages 26, 30, 36, and 37.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
JULY 2025 Page 4.6-7
facility is upgradient from the project site, it is considered to be an REC due to the possibility of vapor migration onto the project site. This is a potential vapor encroachment issue is considered to be an REC.
 Former Evelyn Avenue Parking Lot (southeast corner of Evelyn Avenue and Franklin Street). This site is approximately 150 feet east-southeast of the project site and is identified on DTSC’s VCP list. The site previously contained a parking lot and is now developed with a multi-family building. Although the facility received a “no further action” determination in 2009 by DTSC, because the property is upgradient from the project site and there is contamination of groundwater beneath the property with potential vapor migration onto the project site, this is considered to be an REC.

Although these off-site facilities have been investigated and remediated, the off-site extent of the soil vapor and/or groundwater plumes westward toward the project site has not been investigated, and subsequent investigation of the adjacent property to the east showed migration of soil vapors onto that property. Therefore, the Phase I ESA recommends further analysis (through a Phase II ESA) to determine if the project site has been impacted by vapor concentrations and/or groundwater concentrations in excess of commercia land use screening levels. More information regarding these sites and other results of the records search are available in the Phase I ESA (see Appendix D, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, of this Draft EIR).

The Phase I ESA does not identify any HRECs or CRECs in connection with the project site.

4.6.3 Significance Criteria
The Initial Study prepared for this Draft EIR (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Scoping Comments) identified that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact for the following significance criteria:
 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?  Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?  Would the project 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?  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?

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

 Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
 Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? The proposed project would have a significant impact under Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines if it would:
a) 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.

4.6.4 Project Impact Analysis
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts.
a) Would the project 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?
Hazardous materials during construction could potentially include fuels, lubricants, greases, and coatings. After construction, the use of hazardous materials could contain cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in the regular maintenance and operation of the proposed uses. An accidental release of any of these materials could pose a health hazard to the public. Existing laws, regulations, policies, and procedures that would serve to prevent the release of hazardous materials include applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations described in Section 4.6.1, Regulatory Background, of this section. Compliance with these existing laws, regulations, policies, and procedures would help to ensure that future development activities would not create a significant hazard to the public.

The project site may be impacted by soil vapors and/or groundwater due to the migration of dry cleaning chemicals (primarily PCE) from nearby properties to the east that formerly contained dry cleaning operations.

According to the Phase I ESA prepared for the proposed project, the former Fremont Laundry site at 990 Villa Street has had measured indoor air concentrations in excess of DTSC commercial/industrial carcinogenic screening levels, groundwater concentrations above maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), and maximum concentrations in soil vapor of 200,000 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3). The 990 Villa Street site has a land use restriction and is being regulated by DTSC, with ongoing maintenance and operation of an active sub-slab

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
JULY 2025 Page 4.6-9
depressurization system. Annual reports indicate that the sub-slab depressurization system is working in accordance with permit requirements. However, it is not known if soil vapors migrated onto the project site prior to the installation of the sub-slab depressurization system, and no known off-site investigation of soil vapors or groundwater concentrations to the west (i.e., in the direction of the project site) has been conducted. Soil vapor concentrations along the western edge of the property, within 100 feet of the project site, had PCE concentrations of 12,000 ug/m3.

In addition, the Evelyn Avenue parking lot site has had measured PCE groundwater concentrations up to 230 micrograms per liter (ug/l) and soil vapor concentrations up to 13,000 ug/m3 at locations along the western portion of the site. The site previously contained a parking lot and is now developed with a multi-family building. DTSC issued a no further action letter in 2009 based on the enhanced ventilation of the below-grade garage. However, no off-site investigation was conducted at this property, and it is unknown whether soil vapors and/or groundwater may have migrated to the west (i.e., toward or onto the project site).

The proposed project involves on-site construction activities that could expose workers to subsurface hazards. In addition, the proposed project involves an increase in the occupancy of the project site (due to the proposed increase in on-site employment), which would expose additional people to potential hazards when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, without further investigation, the proposed project has the potential to exacerbate existing hazards associated with these off-site hazardous materials sites. Therefore, the impact would be significant.

Impact HAZ-1: The construction activities and increased site occupancy involved in the proposed project could exacerbate an existing hazard associated with the release of hazardous materials originating from off-site land uses.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits, shallow soil samples and groundwater samples shall be taken in the near surface soil and tested for tetrachloroethylene to determine if contaminants from previous operations on the former Fremont Laundry or Evelyn Avenue parking lot sites are present at concentrations above established regulatory construction worker safety and commercial environmental screening levels. The results of the soil sampling and testing must be provided to the City of Mountain View Community Development Department.

If contaminated soils or groundwater are found in concentrations above the appropriate regulatory environmental screening levels for the proposed project, the project sponsor shall obtain regulatory oversight from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or Regional Water Quality Control Board to mitigate the contamination found. A Site Management Plan (SMP), Removal Action Plan (RAP), or equivalent document must be prepared by a

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

qualified hazardous materials consultant. The plan must establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety and the health of future workers and visitors to the project site during operation of the proposed project. Evidence of regulatory oversight and a regulatory approved plan shall be provided to the City of Mountain View Community Development Department.

In the event that vapor encroachment is discovered, the proposed project shall develop a vapor management plan. The vapor management plan shall be prepared in consultation with applicable regulatory agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and shall be reviewed and accepted by the City of Mountain View prior to the issuance of demolition and grading permits.

Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.6.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
This analysis considers potential impacts of the proposed project when considered along with the potential impacts of the cumulative development projects listed in Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List. Other projects would use, store, transport, and dispose of increased amounts of hazardous materials and thus could pose substantial risks to the public and the environment.

The City’s 2030 General Plan EIR identifies a less-than-significant impact with the implementation of standard mitigation measures and development conditions to reduce the potential for contamination associated with hazardous materials in areas adjacent to highways or previously used for agriculture or industrial uses. Future development in the city would be subject to environmental review, as applicable, to mitigate any significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by other projects would conform with regulations of the multiple agencies described in Section

4.6.1, Regulatory Background. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant with compliance with such regulations and procedures.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
JULY 2025 Page 4.7-1

4.7 NOISE
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the regulatory framework and existing conditions related to noise sources and the overall noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed project, evaluates the potential impacts that could occur from development of the proposed project, and details mitigation measures needed to reduce significant impacts.

The technical data and modeling used for this analysis are in Appendix E, Noise Data, of this Draft EIR.

Noise and Vibration Fundamentals
Noise is defined as unwanted sound and, when overexposed, is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Although sound can be easily measured, the perception of noise and the physical response to sound complicate the analysis of its impact on people. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” Following are brief definitions of terminology used in this section.  Sound. A disturbance created by a vibrating object, which when transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, is capable of being detected by the human ear or a microphone.
 Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable.  Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale.  A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
 Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (Leq). The mean of the noise level, energy averaged over the measurement period.
 Lmax. The maximum root-mean-square noise level during a measurement period.  Statistical Sound Level (Ln). The sound level that is exceeded “n” percent of time during a given sample period. For example, the L50 level is the statistical indicator of the time-varying noise signal that is exceeded 50 percent of the time (during each sampling period), meaning that half of the sampling time, the changing noise levels are above this value and half of the time they are below it. This is called the “median sound level.” The L10 level, likewise, is the value that is exceeded 10 percent of the time (i.e., near the maximum) and this is often known as the “intrusive sound level.” The L90 is the sound level exceeded 90 percent of the time and is often considered the “effective background level” or “residual noise level.”

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise

 Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn or DNL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am.
 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy-average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to the levels occurring during the period from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm, and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. Note: For general community/environmental noise, CNEL and Ldn values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent/interchangeable and are treated as such in this assessment.  Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The peak rate of speed at which soil particles move (e.g., inches per second) due to ground vibration.
 Sensitive Receptor. Noise- and vibration-sensitive receptors include land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residences, schools, motels and hotels, libraries, religious institutions, hospitals, and nursing homes are examples.
 Vibration Decibel (VdB). A unitless measure of vibration, expressed on a logarithmic scale and with respect to a defined reference vibration velocity. In the U.S., the standard reference velocity is 1 micro-inch per second (1x10-6 in/sec).

SOUND FUNDAMENTALS
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in Hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies.

Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are “felt” more like a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale performs this compensation by weighting frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.

Changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A 3 dBA change in noise levels is considered the minimum change that is detectable with human hearing in outside environments. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernable to most people in an exterior environment whereas a 10 dBA change is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the sound.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise
JULY 2025 Page 4.7-3
Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and, when overexposed, is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and many local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities.

SOUND MEASUREMENT
Sound pressure is measured through the A-weighted measure to correct for the relative frequency response of the human ear. That is, an A-weighted noise level de-emphasizes low and very high frequencies of sound similar to the human ear’s de-emphasis of these frequencies.

Unlike linear units such as inches or pounds, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, representing points on a sharply rising curve. An increase of 10 dBA is 10 times more intense than 1 dBA, 20 dBA is 100 times more intense, and 30 dBA is 1,000 times more intense. A sound as soft as human breathing is about 10 times greater than 0 dBA. The decibel system gives a rough connection between the physical intensity of sound and its perceived loudness to the human ear. Ambient sounds generally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud).

The decibel level of sound decreases as the distance from the sound source increases. Sound dissipates exponentially with distance from the noise source. This phenomenon is known as “spreading loss.” For a single point source, sound levels decrease by approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. This drop-off rate is appropriate for noise generated by on-site operations from stationary equipment or activity at a project site. If noise is produced by a line source, such as highway traffic, the sound decreases by 3 dBA for each doubling of distance in a hard-site environment. Line source noise in a relatively flat environment with absorptive vegetation decreases by 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance.

Time variation in noise exposure is typically expressed in a steady-state energy level equal to the energy content of the time varying period (called Leq) or, alternately, as a statistical description of the sound level exceeded over some fraction of an observation period. These “Ln” values are typically used to demonstrate compliance with a noise ordinance for stationary sources. Other values typically noted during a noise survey are Lmin and Lmax, which represent the minimum and maximum root-mean-square noise levels over a measurement period.

Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during the evening and night, State and local laws require that an artificial dBA increment be added to quiet time noise levels in a 24-hour noise descriptor called the CNEL or DNL.

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF NOISE
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. Exposure to high noise levels affects our entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise

excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure, functions of the heart, and the nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA can result in permanent hearing damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, even short-term exposure causes a tickling sensation in the ear, called the threshold of feeling. As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation becomes painful, called the threshold of pain. Table 4.7-1, Typical Noise Levels, shows typical noise levels from familiar noise sources.

Table 4.7-1 Typical Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
Onset of physical discomfort 120+
110 Rock band (near amplification system)
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
90 Diesel truck at 50 feet, at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime 50 Dishwasher, next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater or large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime
30 Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night or concert hall (background) 20 Broadcast/recording studio
10 Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: California Department of Transportation, 2013.

Note: dBA = A-Weighted Decibel

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise
JULY 2025 Page 4.7-5

VIBRATION FUNDAMENTALS
Vibration is an oscillating motion in the earth. Like noise, vibration is transmitted in waves, but through the earth or solid objects. Unlike noise, vibration is typically of a frequency that is felt rather than heard.

Vibration can be natural—such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or landslides—or humancaused, such as explosions, heavy machinery, or trains. Both natural and human-caused vibration may be continuous, such as from operating machinery, or impulsive, as from an explosion.

As with noise, vibration can be described by both its amplitude and frequency. Amplitude can be characterized in three ways—displacement, velocity, and acceleration. Particle displacement is a measure of the distance that a vibrated particle travels from its original position; for the purposes of soil displacement, it is typically measured in inches or millimeters. Particle velocity is the rate of speed at which soil particles move in inches per second or millimeters per second.

Table 4.7-2 presents the human reaction to various levels of peak particle velocity.

Table 4.7-2 Human Reaction to Typical Vibration Levels
Vibration Level
Peak Particle
Velocity
(in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.006–0.019 Threshold of perception, possibility of
intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type

0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible Recommended upper level of vibration to which ruins and ancient monuments should be
subjected

0.10 Level at which continuous vibration
begins to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” (i.e., not
structural) damage to normal buildings

0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk to
“architectural” damage to normal dwelling—
houses with plastered walls and ceilings

0.4–0.6 Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than normally
expected from traffic, but would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: California Department of Transportation, 2013.

Vibrations also vary in frequency, and this affects perception. Typical construction vibrations fall in the 10 to 30 Hz range and usually occur around 15 Hz. Traffic vibrations exhibit a similar range of frequencies; however, due to their suspension systems, buses often generate frequencies

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise

around 3 Hz at high vehicle speeds. It is less common, but possible, to measure traffic frequencies above 30 Hz.

The way in which vibration is transmitted through the earth is called propagation. As vibration waves propagate from a source, the energy is spread over an ever-increasing area such that the energy level striking a given point is reduced with the distance from the energy source. This geometric spreading loss is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Wave energy is also reduced with distance as a result of material damping in the form of internal friction, soil layering, and void spaces. The amount of attenuation provided by material damping varies with soil type and condition as well as the frequency of the wave.

4.7.1 Regulatory Background
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, and local governments have established standards and ordinances to control noise.

FEDERAL
Federal Highway Administration
Proposed federal or federal-aided highway construction projects at a new location, or the physical alteration of an existing highway that significantly changes the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the number of through-traffic lanes, require an assessment of noise and consideration of noise abatement per 23 CFR Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has adopted noise abatement criteria for sensitive receivers—such as picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sport areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals—when “worst-hour” noise levels approach or exceed 67 dBA Leq (FHWA 1978).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
In addition to FHWA standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has identified the relationship between noise levels and human response. The USEPA determined that over a 24-hour period, an Leq of 70 dBA will result in some hearing loss. Interference with activity and annoyance will not occur if exterior levels are maintained at an Leq of 55 dBA and interior levels at or below 45 dBA. These levels are relevant to planning and design and useful for informational purposes, but they are not land use planning criteria because they do not consider economic cost, technical feasibility, or the needs of the community; therefore, they are not mandated.

The USEPA also set 55 dBA Ldn as the basic goal for exterior residential noise intrusion. However, other federal agencies, in consideration of their own program requirements and goals, as well

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise
JULY 2025 Page 4.7-7
as the difficulty of actually achieving a goal of 55 dBA Ldn, have settled on the 65 dBA Ldn level as their standard. At 65 dBA Ldn, activity interference is kept to a minimum, and annoyance levels are still low. It is also a level that can realistically be achieved.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has set the goal of 65 dBA Ldn as a desirable maximum exterior standard for residential units developed with HUD funding (This level is also generally accepted within the State of California.) Although HUD does not specify acceptable interior noise levels, standard construction of residential dwellings typically provides 20 dBA or more of attenuation with the windows closed. Based on this premise, the interior Ldn should not exceed 45 dBA.

Occupational Health and Safety Administration
The federal government regulates occupational noise exposure common in the workplace through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) under the USEPA. Noise limitations would apply to the operation of construction equipment and could also apply to any proposed industrial land uses. Noise exposure of this type is dependent on work conditions and is addressed through a facility’s Health and Safety Plan, as required under OSHA, and is therefore not addressed further in this analysis.

STATE
General Plan Guidelines
The State of California, through its General Plan Guidelines, discusses how ambient noise should influence land use and development decisions and includes a table of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable uses at different noise levels, expressed in CNEL (OPR 2017). A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. By comparison, a normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. The General Plan Guidelines provide cities and counties with recommended community noise and land use compatibility standards that can be adopted or modified at the local level based on conditions and types of land uses specific to that jurisdiction.

California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) is Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. CBC Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 12, Section 1206.4, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, requires that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room. The noise

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise

metric is evaluated as either the Ldn or the CNEL, whichever is consistent with the noise element of the local general plan.

The State’s noise insulation standards for non-residential uses are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 11, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). CALGreen noise standards are applied to new or renovation construction projects in California to control interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. Proposed projects may use either the prescriptive method (Section

5.507.4.1) or the performance method (Section 5.507.4.2) to show compliance. Under the prescriptive method, a project must demonstrate transmission loss ratings for the wall and roofceiling assemblies and exterior windows when within a noise environment of 65 dBA CNEL or higher. Under the performance method, a project must demonstrate that interior noise levels do not exceed 50 dBA Leq(1hr).

Airport Noise Standards
California Code of Regulations Title 21, Subchapter 6, Airport Noise Standards, establishes 65 dBA CNEL as the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports.

Noise-sensitive land uses are generally incompatible in locations where the aircraft exterior noise level exceeds 65 dBA CNEL, unless an aviation easement for aircraft noise has been acquired by the airport proprietor or the residence is a high-rise with an interior CNEL of 45 dBA or less in all habitable rooms and has an air circulation or air conditioning system, as appropriate. Assembly Bill (AB) 2776 requires any person who intends to sell or lease residential properties in an airport influence area to disclose that fact to the person buying the property LOCAL
The City of Mountain View General Plan Noise Element discusses the effects of noise exposure on the population and sets policies designed to protect residents from excessive and persistent noise intrusions. Policy NOI 1.7: Stationary Sources, restricts noise levels from stationary sources through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance and will only apply to long-term operational noise.

The City of Mountain View Code of Ordinances that apply to the project are as follows.

Construction Noise Standards
Under Section 8.70, Construction Noise, the hours allowed for construction are stated below:

No construction activity shall commence prior to 7:00 a.m. nor continue later than 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No work is permitted on Saturday unless prior written approval is granted by the chief building official. The term "construction activity" shall include any physical activity on the construction site or in the staging area, including the

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise
JULY 2025 Page 4.7-9
delivery of materials. In approving modified hours, the chief building official may specifically designate and/or limit the activities permitted during the modified hours. No construction activity is allowed on Sunday or recognized holidays.

Stationary Noise Standards
Under Section 21.26, Stationary equipment noise, the noise limits for stationary equipment (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning mechanical systems, and air compressors). are stated below:

No person shall own or operate on any property any stationary equipment, such as, but not limited to, air compressors, equipment for swimming pools, spas, or air conditioners, which produces a sound level exceeding 55 dB(A) (50 dB(A) during the night, 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) when measured at any location on any receiving residentially used property.

4.7.2 Existing Conditions
The dominant community noise sources in the project area are Caltrain railroad train pass-bys and the Central Expressway traffic. Noise associated with local surface streets, existing Mountain View Police Department operations, and neighborhood activities also make up the noise environment at the project site. Based on the Mountain View 2030 General Plan Figure

7.3, Noise Contours 2030, the project site lies within the 65 dBA to 70 dBA CNEL noise contours attributable to Caltrain railroad pass-bys and Central Expressway traffic.

4.7.3 Significance Criteria
The Initial Study prepared for this Draft EIR (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Scoping Comments) identified that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact for the following significance criterion:

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?
Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines states that the proposed project would result in a significant noise impact if it would:
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 applicable standards of other agencies.
b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise

CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION THRESHOLDS
The City does not have specific limits or thresholds for construction noise. Therefore, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) construction noise criterion of 80 dBA Leq(8hr) is used in this analysis to assess construction noise impacts at sensitive receptors.

STATIONARY NOISE THRESHOLDS
The project would have a significant impact if operational stationary noise sources exceed the City of Mountain View equipment noise standards of 55 dB(A) (50 dB(A) during the night, 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.).

TRANSPORTATION NOISE THRESHOLDS
A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment related to noise if it would substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas. Most people can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal, quiet conditions, and changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions. Changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA is readily discernible to most people in an exterior environment. Based on this, the following thresholds of significance, similar to those recommended by the FAA, are used to assess traffic noise impacts at sensitive receptor locations. A significant impact would occur if the traffic noise increase would exceed:
 1.5 dBA in ambient noise environments of 65 dBA CNEL and higher  3 dBA in ambient noise environments of 60 to 64 dBA CNEL  5 dBA in ambient noise environments of less than 60 dBA CNEL

VIBRATION THRESHOLDS
The City does not have specific limits or thresholds for construction vibration. Therefore, the recommended criteria by the FTA for vibration damage shown in Table 4.7-4 are used in this analysis.

4.7.4 Project Impact Analysis
The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise
JULY 2025 Page 4.7-11
a) Would the proposed project 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 applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Vehicles
The City does not have specific limits or thresholds for construction noise; to provide for a conservative and quantified assessment of potential construction noise impacts, this analysis uses the FTA-recommended criterion of 80 dBA Leq(8hr) for residential uses to evaluate project construction noise impacts.

Construction activity, including worker, material delivery, and large equipment delivery trips to and from the project site, would temporarily increase noise levels along local site access roadways. Individual construction vehicle and haul trucks may create momentary noise levels of up to approximately 85 dBA (Lmax) at 50 feet from the vehicle. These occurrences would generally be infrequent and short in duration. Construction generates temporary trips from workers, vendors, and haul trucks. The period during which building construction, paving, and architectural coating phases would overlap is anticipated to generate the most trips, with an estimated total of 120 per day. The existing traffic volume on South Shoreline Boulevard is 23,500 daily trips.1 The addition of 120 trips when compared to the existing traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed project would result in a noise increase of approximately 0.1 dBA Ldn or less. Most people can detect changes in sound levels of approximately 3 dBA under normal, quiet conditions; changes of 1 to 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions; and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. Therefore, the increase of

0.1 dBA Ldn would not be noticeable and noise impacts from construction vehicles would therefore be less than significant.

Construction Equipment
Noise generated during construction is based on the number and type of equipment used, the load and power requirements to accomplish tasks for each construction phase, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. The extent to which construction noise affects receptors varies based on factors such as noise attenuation due to distance, the ambient noise environment, and the location of the construction activity in relation to the receptor (such as intervening barriers and topography). Each phase of construction involves the use of different kinds of construction equipment and therefore has its own distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from construction activities are dominated by the loudest piece of construction equipment. The dominant noise source is typically the engine, although intermittent events (such as dropping of materials) can also be noticeable. Heavy equipment, such as a dozer or a loader, can have maximum, short-duration noise levels of 85 dBA or greater at 50 feet. Because 1 City of Mountain View, 2012, City of Mountain View Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise

noise from construction equipment is intermittent and diminishes at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling distance, the average noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors would be lower, because mobile construction equipment would move around the site with different loads and power requirements.

Using information provided by the City of Mountain View and methodologies and inputs employed in the air quality assessment, the RCNM was used to model construction noise from each of the major phases. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not require blasting or pile driving. During building construction, a bore/drill rig is proposed for the building foundations. Since the RCNM calculations do not account for shielding due to intervening buildings and structures, ground effects, or air absorption, the results of these calculations are conservative (that is, they represent a reasonable worst-case scenario). Table

4.7-5, Project-Related Construction Noise, summarizes the estimated construction noise levels for each construction phase at a distance of 50 feet.

Table 4.7-5 Project-Related Construction Noise
Construction Activity Phase
RCNM
Reference
Noise Level at
50 ft (dBA Leq)
Residences to
the South at
130 ft
(dBA Leq)
Residences to
the West at 100
ft
(dBA Leq)
Residences to
the East at 115
ft
(dBA Leq)
Demolition 85 77 79 78
Site Preparation 83 75 77 76
Grading 85 77 79 78
at 120 ft at 125 ft at 160 ft
Building Construction 83 75 75 73
Architectural Coating 74 66 66 64
at 205 ft at 110 ft at 95 ft
Paving 83 71 76 77
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024, Construction Noise Modeling (see Appendix E, Noise Data).

Notes: Noise levels rounded to the nearest decibel.

The City has not established quantified noise limits for temporary construction activities; this analysis uses the FTA-recommended noise level limit of 80 dBA Leq(8hr) for residential receptors to assess construction noise impacts. As shown in Table 4.7-5, construction levels would range between 64 dBA Leq to 79 dBA Leq at adjacent residential uses during all phases of construction activity and would not exceed the daytime 80 dBA Leq(8-hr) threshold. However, project construction noise levels would generate a substantial temporary increase of up to +9 dBA over ambient noise levels at surrounding noise sensitive uses. Therefore, this impact is considered significant.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise
JULY 2025 Page 4.7-13
Impact NOI-1: The proposed project would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels during construction.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The project sponsor shall incorporate the following practices into the construction contract specifications to be implemented by the construction contractor during the entire construction phase of the project. The project sponsor and contractors shall prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan that includes the following measures:
 Limit construction to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends.
 Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible, to screen receptors to the west, south, and east from the construction area. Temporary noise barrier fences would provide a 5 dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier interrupts the line-of-sight between the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is constructed in a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps.
 At least 21 days prior to the start of construction activities, property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site shall be notified of the planned construction. The notification shall include a brief description of the project, a description of the construction phases to occur, the construction hours noted above, and the overall construction duration. The notification shall include the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint.
 At least 10 days prior to the start of construction activities, a sign shall be posted at the entrance(s) to the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City’s and contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, they shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action to the City.
 Prior to the start of construction, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified acoustical consultant to conduct construction noise monitoring during the major phases of project construction at select locations in the surrounding neighborhood.

The number and location of monitoring positions, and the construction phases during which monitoring shall occur, shall be determined by City staff in consultation with the acoustical consultant. All sound level meters used during monitoring shall satisfy the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard of Type 1 instrumentation. All measurements shall be at least 5 feet above the ground and

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise

away from reflective surfaces. The noise monitoring data and results shall be submitted in a memorandum to the City on a weekly basis during the construction phases requiring monitoring, along with comparison to the 80 dBA Leq (8-hr) construction noise limit. If exceedances of the construction noise limit are found, the applicant’s construction contractor shall modify construction techniques and equipment to reduce the construction noise below the 80 dBA Leq (8-hr) limit.  Signs shall be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. The signs shall note that all other equipment shall be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes. The construction manager shall be responsible for enforcing these noise reduction requirements.
 Construction trucks and equipment shall utilize the best available noise control techniques including improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible.  The contractor shall use impact tools that are hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used along with external noise jackets on the tools.
 Stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and air compressors) shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, insulation barriers, or other measures to reduce noise levels to the extent feasible.
 Stockpiling of materials shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
 During the entire active construction period, the use of noise-producing signals— including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells—shall be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager shall require the use of smart back-up alarms on equipment. (These devices automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level.) Alternately, equipment back-up alarms may be turned off and replaced with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.

Significance with Mitigation: Less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, particularly the use of equipment silencers and mufflers, construction noise would be

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise
JULY 2025 Page 4.7-15
reduced by up to 10 dBA.2 With Mitigation Measure NOI-1, construction noise levels are estimated to be 69 dBA Leq(8-hr) or less, which would not generate a substantial temporary increase over ambient noise levels at surrounding noise sensitive uses.

Operational Sources
Operational noise sources associated with the proposed project would be similar to existing operational noise and would include vehicles parking, K-9 training, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. The proposed indoor shooting range would be a new use and would follow industry standards and regulations to address noise, reverberation, and echoes.

The project would add new sources of stationary HVAC noise for the new building, but these would be comparable or quieter than other, similar sources at the existing building and would not result in notable changes at adjacent residential uses. The number of parking spaces would increase from existing conditions with the implementation of the project and its addition of a parking garage and surface parking expansion. Overall parking noise would be similar to existing conditions. Based upon previous noise measurements conducted, the single event noise level (SEL) attributable to a parking event is 71 dB SEL at 50 feet. To quantify the parking noise level for proposed parking spaces adjacent to the existing nearby residential uses, a conservative approach to the number of parking events occurring in a peak hour is applied. Assuming that each parking space adjacent to the existing residential uses were to fill and empty during the peak hour, the noise level is predicted to be 43 dB Leq at residential uses west of the northeast surface parking expansion and 44 dB Leq at residential uses to the south of the central parking expansion to a noise level of 43 dBA Leq. Operational noise sources would be similar to existing conditions and would not exceed the City’s daytime and nighttime stationary noise standards of 55 dBA Leq and 50 dBA Leq, respectively. Therefore, no significant permanent stationary source noise increases would occur and operational impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the proposed project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be associated with construction-related activities. Construction on the project site would have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and the operations involved. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effect on buildings in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight 2 Federal Highway Administration, Special Report – Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ENVIRonment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm, accessed March 4, 2022.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise

damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

Table 4.7-6, Construction Equipment Vibration Levels for Architectural Damage, identifies vibration levels for typical construction equipment at a reference distance of 25 feet and to varying distances of adjacent residential uses, which is the estimated distance from construction equipment activity to the closest structures to the project. The Municipal Code does not have quantified limits for potential architectural damage from construction vibration. However, the FTA provides criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various types of buildings and structures.3 This analysis uses a threshold of 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings to apply to the surrounding residential structures. As shown in Table 4.7-6, based on FTA data, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that would be used during project construction, including drilling during building construction for foundations, would range from 0.003 to 0.21 in/sec PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity.

Table 4.7-6 Construction Equipment Vibration Levels for Architectural Damage Equipment
Approximate PPV
at 25 feet (in/sec)
Residences to the
South Approximate
PPV
at 80 feet (in/sec)
Residences to the
West Approximate
PPV
at 35 feet (in/sec)
Residences to the
East Approximate
PPV
at 70 feet (in/sec)
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.037 0.127 0.045
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.016 0.054 0.019
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.013 0.046 0.016
Jackhammer 0.035 0.006 0.021 0.007
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001
Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Note: PPV, peak particle velocity
As shown in Table 4.7-6, vibration levels would not exceed the FTA’s threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV at all adjacent residential uses. Vibration levels could reach up to 0.127 in/sec PPV if a vibratory roller is used 35 feet of the nearest structure. However, vibratory rollers are used for paving and the nearest proposed paving activities would be approximately 35 feet from nearby structures and the FTA threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV would not be exceeded. Therefore, vibration from project construction equipment would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant. 3 Federal Transit Administration, 2018, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise
JULY 2025 Page 4.7-17

4.7.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Construction Noise
Like stationary-source noise, construction noise and vibration impacts are confined to a localized area of impact. Noise from construction activities would be temporary and would be less than significant after mitigation. Cumulative impacts would only occur if other projects were being constructed in the vicinity of the project at the same time as the project. There are no other, known future projects in the vicinity of the proposed project that might add simultaneous construction activity noise (to the project’s construction noise). Therefore, the proposed project would not create a cumulatively considerable stationary noise impact and cumulative construction impacts would be less than significant.

Stationary-Source Noise
Stationary-source noise generated by the project is localized and limited to noise impacts to noise-sensitive receptors near the project site. Noise from operation of the project would not result in significant noise impacts to the residential uses in the vicinity. Further, there are no other, known future projects in the vicinity of the proposed project that would add more stationary sources so as to notably contribute to the nearby receptors’ community noise levels.

Therefore, the proposed project would not create a cumulatively considerable stationary noise impact and cumulative operational impacts would be less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.7 Noise

This page is intentionally left blank.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
JULY 2025 Page 4.8-1

4.8 TRANSPORTATION
This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the proposed project to result in a significant transportation impact. As described in Chapter 2, Introduction, of this Draft EIR, the only significance criterion identified in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines that is evaluated in this chapter is regarding conflicting with or being inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts, subdivision (b), Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts. Therefore, the information in this chapter is only focused on the issue of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is a measure of circulation network use or efficiency that accounts for the number of daily vehicle trips generated, multiplied by the length or distance of those trips. VMT represents a number of daily miles driven and can be expressed in different ways, including total VMT, which is an aggregate value measured in miles, and VMT per capita or VMT per employee, both of which are performance metrics measured in the number of miles driven per person.

4.8.1 Regulatory Background
STATE
Senate Bill 743
On September 27, 2013, Senate Bill (SB) 743 was signed into law. 1 The Legislature found that
with the adoption of the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, commonly referred to by its legislative bill number Senate Bill (SB) 375, the State had signaled its commitment to encourage land use and transportation planning decisions and investments that reduce VMT and thereby contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), as required by the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32). SB 743 required CEQA lead agencies to shift away from using traditional level of service standards and automobile delay to determine significant traffic impacts. It should be noted that level of service standards are used outside of the CEQA document to evaluate other non-CEQA transportation impacts of development projects, such as congestion, circulation, and safety issues and concerns.

California Environmental Quality Act: Section 15064.3
In response to the passing of SB 743, the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) (formally the Office of Planning and Research) updated the CEQA Guidelines Section 1 An act to amend Sections 65088.1 and 65088.4 of the Government Code, and to amend Sections 21181, 21183, 21186, 21187, 21189.1, and 21189.3 of, to add Section 21155.4 to, to add Chapter 2.7 (commencing with Section 21099) to Division 13 of, to add and repeal Section 21168.6.6 of, and to repeal and add Section 21185 of, the Public Resources Code, relating to environmental quality.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.8 Transportation

15064.3 to include new transportation-related evaluation metrics, including VMT. Specifically, Section 15064.3(b)(1) and (2) list the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects and transportation projects, respectively. Section 15064.3(b)(3) and (4) describe analysis approaches including qualitative analysis and other methodologies, respectively.

LOCAL
In keeping with the new CEQA requirements pursuant to SB 743, the City released its MultiModal Transportation Analysis Handbook (MTA Handbook), which establishes a clear and consistent technical approach to undertaking transportation analysis for projects in Mountain View. The MTA Handbook is based on the current City processes and state-of-practice in transportation planning and traffic engineering. The City expects these guidelines to result in studies that provide a comprehensive and accurate analysis of multi-modal transportation and traffic effects, which provide valuable information for decision-makers and the public as the City reviews project proposals. The MTA Handbook provides a methodology for assessing transportation operational effects of projects and associated operational improvements.

Specifically, Section 4.4, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis, of the MTA Handbook states that a project shall undertake VMT analysis as required under CEQA requirements and outlined in Appendix A (CEQA Transportation Analysis) and Appendix B (VMT Analysis Requirement Checklist) of the MTA Handbook. Appendix A includes guidance on when a project shall undertake a VMT analysis and when a project is exempt from a quantitative VMT analysis.

Appendix B includes a checklist that is used to determine if a project is screened out from the preparation of a quantitative VMT analysis.

4.8.2 Existing Conditions
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, the project site is currently occupied by the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building and a pump station, K-9 training area, 42-stall public parking lot, 110-stall, restricted-access parking lot, for a total of 152 parking spaces. The project site currently has 169 employees.

4.8.3 Significance Criteria
The Initial Study prepared for this Draft EIR (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Scoping Comments) identified that the proposed project would not result in a significant impact for the following significance criteria:
 Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?  Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.8 Transportation
JULY 2025 Page 4.8-3
 Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The proposed project would have a significant impact under Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines if it would:
a) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

4.8.4 Project Impact Analysis
The following impact analysis addresses the threshold of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts.
a) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The proposed project would replace the existing Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building with a new Public Safety Building with the same local communityserving use and purpose for the residents of Mountain View. While the on-site parking would increase from 152 to 244 spaces, and the building’s maximum capacity is designed for up to 242 employees, once built, the proposed Public Safety Building would have an immediate personnel increase of thirteen (13) environmental health staff who would be relocated to the project site as part of the proposed project. This increase in staff is not substantial and represents an approximately 8-percent increase from existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would generate a nominal increase in vehicle trips. However, because the new employees at the project site would be relocated from existing office space elsewhere in the city, the increase in trips would not represent net new trips for the city as a whole.

Further, the project does not generate any new population and at full capacity would serve the city population overtime as it grows. Pursuant to the City’s MTA Handbook’s Methodology, "Public services (e.g., police, fire stations, libraries, community centers, public utilities) do not generally generate substantial VMT. Instead, these land uses are often built in response to developments from other land uses (e.g., office and residential) and typically serve local communities." The MTA Handbook also states that public services buildings can be evaluated using the retail thresholds. As stated, the proposed project will replace the existing use with the same community-serving uses with a net new building size of approximately 30,000 square feet, which is less than the 50,000 square-foot local-serving retail project size that the City finds to have a less-than-significant VMT impact.

Additionally, a key environmental aspect of VMT is its relationship to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As discussed in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and would not conflict with an applicable plan,

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4.8 Transportation

policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with or be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and the impact is less than significant.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

4.8.5 Cumulative Impact Analysis
The analysis of the proposed project, above, addresses cumulative impacts to the transportation network in the city and its surroundings; accordingly, cumulative impacts would be the same as those discussed above and no additional analysis is warranted.

Significance without Mitigation: Less than significant.

JULY 2025 Page 5-1

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the alternatives analysis for the proposed project, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that an environmental impact report (EIR) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines sec. 15126.6[a]).

The discussion includes an explanation of the methodology used to select alternatives to the proposed project, with the intent of identifying potentially feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts identified for the proposed project while still meeting most of the basic project objectives, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a).

This chapter identifies a reasonable range of alternatives that meet these criteria, and these alternatives are evaluated with respect to minimizing adverse environmental effects as compared to the proposed project. It also describes other alternatives and alternative concepts that were considered but eliminated from detailed consideration and the reasons for their elimination. For the alternatives selected for analysis, this chapter evaluates the impacts of the alternatives against baseline environmental conditions and compares the potential impacts of the alternatives with those of the proposed project. Finally, as required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), based on this analysis, this chapter then discusses the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

The discussion in this chapter is intended to inform the public and decision makers of feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. Section 15126.6, “Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project,” of the CEQA Guidelines states that:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. (sec. 15126.6[a])

5.2 FACTORS CONSIDERED WHEN DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the basis for determining the range of CEQA alternatives and identifies the specific alternatives that are analyzed in this Draft EIR. The primary factors considered when determining feasible alternatives to the proposed project are the identified project objectives and the significant impacts that have been identified for the proposed project.

5.2.1 Project Objectives
Chapter 3, Section 3.3, Statement of Objectives, lists the objectives that have been established for the proposed project and will aid decision makers in their review of the project, the project alternatives, and associated environmental impacts.

5.2.2 Significant Impacts
Apart from the No Project Alternative, alternatives to a project should be evaluated because of their ability to feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and avoid or lessen the project’s identified significant impacts. The proposed project would result in 12 significant impacts.

LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH MITIGATION
The following impacts were found to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
 Impact AIR-1: Without mitigation, construction activities for the proposed project could generate fugitive dust that exceeds State standards.
 Impact AIR-2: Construction activities for the proposed project could generate cancer risks above acceptable levels for the maximally exposed residential receptor.  Impact BIO-1: Tree removal and demolition activities during site clearance could destroy active nests, and/or otherwise interfere with nesting of birds protected under federal and State law.
 Impact BIO-2: The proposed development would result in removal of trees protected under City’s Municipal Code.
 Impact CUL-2: Construction activities for the proposed project have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
JULY 2025 Page 5-3
 Impact CUL-3: Construction activities for the proposed project have the potential to result in unanticipated discovery of human remains interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.  Impact CUL-4: Construction activities for the proposed project have the potential to cause a significant impact to an unknown tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074.
 Impact GEO-1: The construction activities, increased site occupancy, and development of new structures under the proposed project could exacerbate an existing hazard associated with liquefaction due to seismic events.
 Impact GEO-2: The construction activities, development, and increased site occupancy involved in the proposed project could exacerbate an existing hazard associated with unstable soils due to seismically induced liquefaction.  Impact HAZ-1: The construction activities and increased site occupancy involved in the proposed project could exacerbate an existing hazard associated with the release of hazardous materials originating from off-site land uses.  Impact NOI-1: The proposed project would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels during construction.

SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The following impact was found to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation measures.
 Impact CUL-1: The proposed project would remove the historical resource on the project site that is eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 as a significant example of the work of master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

5.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires EIRs to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides that among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in the EIR are (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Following is a discussion of alternatives considered and rejected, along with the reasons that alternative was not included in the analysis.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

OFF-SITE/ALTERNATE SITE ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project. The key question and first step in the analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)]). It is presumed that an alternate site could be identified that would avoid the proposed project’s significant-and-unavoidable impact associated with historic resources. However, in general, any development of the size and type proposed by the project would have substantially the same impacts on air quality, biological resources, noise, and tribal cultural resources. Without a sitespecific analysis, specific impacts on cannot be evaluated. In addition, this alternative would not meet the project’s objective to reuse the site of the existing Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building.

Because no suitable alternative site that could meet the basic objectives of the project would reduce all significant impacts, a feasible location alternative was not identified and was not evaluated further.

5.4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS
The following alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that have the potential to feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed project and that may avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts of the proposed project.
 No Project Alternative
 Historic Preservation Alternative
The analyses of the project alternatives focus on these same significance criteria evaluated in Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR because both project alternatives would be located on the same project site as the proposed project, and would entail the same building size and footprint as exists under existing conditions. Thus, both project alternatives would either represent a continuation of baseline of conditions or would have the potential to affect the same environmental resources that would be affected under the proposed project.

5.5 ALTERNATIVE A: NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed project would not be approved. No development activities would occur on the project site, which would remain in its existing condition. The project site is currently occupied by the Mountain View Police Services - Fire

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
JULY 2025 Page 5-5
Administration building; a 42-stall public parking lot; a 110-stall, restricted-access parking lot’ a pump station; and a K-9 training area. Under this alternative, these facilities would remain on the project site, and no changes in the use or occupancy of the project site would occur. Unlike under the proposed project, under the No Project Alternative environmental health staff would not be relocated to the project site.

5.5.1 Air Quality
As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, the proposed project would result in two significantbut-mitigable impacts associated with air emissions from construction activities. These impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and AIR-2.

Operational and odor impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Under the No Project Alternative, no construction activities would occur. Therefore, the project’s two significant-but-mitigable impacts would be avoided.

Under the proposed project, all new facilities would meet current State building standards and would be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certified, and would thus be designed with high-efficiency fixtures and energy conservation features. The No Project Alternative would not include these beneficial project features. However, under project operations of both the proposed project and the No Project Alternative, the primary source of long-term criteria air pollutants would be from project-related vehicle trips. Because the No Project Alternative would involve reduced on-site parking, a reduced building size, and reduced building occupancy in comparison to the proposed project, it is expected that this alternative would generate fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project. Therefore, overall operational emissions are expected to be reduced when compared to the proposed project.

Overall, the No Project Alternative would result in reduced air quality impacts when compared to the proposed project.

5.5.2 Biological Impacts
As described in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, construction of the proposed project would result in two significant-but-mitigable impacts associated with tree removal and potential disturbance to nesting birds. These impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and BIO-2.

The No Project Alternative would not involve construction activities and thus would avoid the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts. Therefore, impacts would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

5.5.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact associated with the demolition of the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building, a historical resource. In addition, the proposed project would result in three significant-but-mitigable impacts associated with construction activities for the proposed project that have the potential to adversely affect or disturb unknown subsurface archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources. These impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4, respectively.

The No Project Alternative would not involve demolition activities that would remove a built historic resource or construction activities that could disturb unknown subsurface resources.

Therefore, it would avoid the project’s significant cultural and tribal cultural resource impacts and impacts would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.

5.5.4 Geology and Soils
As described in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, the proposed project would result in two significant-but-mitigable associated with the exacerbation of existing soil and seismic hazards.

These impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2.

The No Project Alternative would not involve construction activities that would involve ground disturbance or develop new structures. The No Project Alternative would not involve any changes to the current use or occupancy of the project site and would not expose additional people to existing hazards when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, it would avoid the project’s significant-but-mitigable geology and soils impacts and impacts would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.

5.5.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts, and mitigation is not required.

The No Project Alternative would not involve construction activities and thus would result in reduced construction phase GHG emissions.

As described in Section 5.5.1, Air Quality, under the proposed project, all new facilities would meet current State building standards and would be LEED Gold certified, and would thus be designed with high-efficiency fixtures and energy conservation features. The No Project Alternative would not include these beneficial project features. However, because the No Project Alternative would involve reduced on-site parking, a reduced building size, and reduced

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
JULY 2025 Page 5-7
building occupancy in comparison to the proposed project, it is expected that operation of this alternative would generate fewer vehicle trips and thus reduced GHG emissions when compared to the proposed project.

Overall, neither the proposed project nor the No Project Alternative would result in significant GHG emissions impacts. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts when compared to the proposed project.

5.5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would result in one significant-but-mitigable impact associated with potential exposure of future construction workers and future site occupants to the release of hazardous materials originating from former off-site land uses. This impact would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

The No Project Alternative would not involve construction activities or increase the site occupancy of the project site when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, it would avoid the project’s significant-but-mitigable impact associated with exacerbating a potential existing hazard and impacts would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.

5.5.7 Noise
As described in Section 4.7, Noise, the proposed project would result in one significant-butmitigable impact associated with construction activities. This impact would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.

The No Project Alternative would not involve construction activities. Therefore, it would avoid the project’s significant-but-mitigable impact.

As described in Section 4.7, Noise, the proposed project is expected to result in similar overall levels of operational noise when compared to existing conditions. The No Project Alternative would not increase the site occupancy of the project site when compared to existing conditions and is expected to result in fewer vehicle trips when compared to the proposed project.

Therefore, operational noise is expected to be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed project.

Overall, noise impacts would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.

5.5.8 Transportation
As described in Section 4.8, Transportation, the proposed project would result in less-thansignificant transportation impacts, and mitigation is not required.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

The No Project Alternative would not involve any changes to the current use or occupancy of the project site. Therefore, it would not result in any vehicle trips in comparison to existing conditions.

Overall, neither the proposed project nor the No Project Alternative would result in significant transportation impacts. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts when compared to the proposed project.

5.6 ALTERNATIVE B: HISTORIC PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE
Under the Historic Preservation Alternative, the existing, 44,914-square-foot building would not be demolished and the proposed project would occur within the existing Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building. This alternative assumes that the existing parking garage would be reconfigured and/or expanded, or that new structured parking would be built, to accommodate the increased parking supply included in the proposed project. While parking areas would be reconfigured or expanded to accommodate more vehicles, the overall site access would not be changed.

Because the building size would not increase from existing conditions, it is assumed that this alternative would include interior renovations to upgrade existing facilities but would not include any notable expansions to existing facilities, amenities, or offices for Mountain View Police Department staff. In addition, unlike under the proposed project, under this alternative environmental health staff would not be relocated to the proposed project.

5.6.1 Air Quality
As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, the proposed project would result in two significantbut-mitigable impacts associated with air emissions from construction activities. These impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 and AIR-2.

Operational and odor impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Under the Historic Preservation Alternative, reduced construction activities would occur when compared to the proposed project. On-site construction would occur but would be limited to interior renovations and parking garage reconfiguration or expansion. While the project’s two significant-but-mitigable impacts may not be entirely avoided, air emissions would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.

Under the proposed project, all new facilities would meet current State building standards and would be LEED Gold certified, and would thus be designed with high-efficiency fixtures and energy conservation features. The Historic Preservation Alternative would not include these beneficial project features.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
JULY 2025 Page 5-9
Under project operations of both the proposed project and the Historic Preservation Alternative, the primary source of long-term criteria air pollutants would be from projectrelated vehicle trips. Because the Historic Preservation Alternative would involve a reduced building size and reduced building occupancy in comparison to the proposed project, it is expected that this alternative would generate fewer employee vehicle trips than the proposed project. However, the Historic Preservation Alternative would increase the parking supply at the site and renovate the on-site building, which could result in additional visitors occupying the project site when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, overall operational air emissions are expected to be only slightly reduced when compared to the proposed project.

Overall, the Historic Preservation Alternative would result in reduced air quality impacts when compared to the proposed project.

5.6.2 Biological Impacts
As described in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, construction of the proposed project would result in two significant-but-mitigable impacts associated with tree removal and potential disturbance to nesting birds. These impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and BIO-2.

Under the Historic Preservation Alternative, reduced construction activities would occur when compared to the proposed project. However, expansion of on-site parking facilities under this alternative could require tree removal. Therefore, the Historic Preservation Alternative would not avoid the proposed project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts, and impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed project.

5.6.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact associated with the demolition of the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building, a historical resource. In addition, the proposed project would result in three significant-but-mitigable impacts associated with construction activities for the proposed project that have the potential to adversely affect or disturb unknown subsurface archaeological resources, human remains, and tribal cultural resources. These impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2, CUL-3, and CUL-4, respectively.

The Historic Preservation Alternative would not involve demolition of the existing Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building and would therefore avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact. However, this alternative would involve construction activities that could unknown subsurface resources. Therefore, it would not avoid the project’s significant-but-mitigable impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resource impacts.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

Overall, cultural and tribal cultural resource impacts would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.

5.6.4 Geology and Soils
As described in Section 4.4, Geology and Soils, the proposed project would result in two significant-but-mitigable associated with the exacerbation of existing soil and seismic hazards.

These impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2.

The Historic Preservation Alternative would involve construction activities that would involve ground disturbance and develop new or expanded parking structures and facilities on the project site. While this alternative would not increase the employee population of the project site, it would increase the parking supply at the site and renovate the on-site building, which could result in additional visitors occupying the project site. Therefore, it could expose additional people to existing hazards when compared to existing conditions.

Therefore, the Historic Preservation Alternative would not avoid the project’s significant-butmitigable geology and soils impacts and impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed project.

5.6.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As described in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant GHG emissions impacts, and mitigation is not required.

Under the Historic Preservation Alternative, reduced construction activities would occur when compared to the proposed project. On-site construction would occur but would be limited to interior renovations and parking garage reconfiguration or expansion. Therefore, construction phase GHG emissions would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.

As described in Section 5.6.1, Air Quality, under the proposed project, all new facilities would meet current State building standards and would be LEED Gold certified, and would thus be designed with high-efficiency fixtures and energy conservation features. The Historic Preservation Alternative would not include these beneficial project features.

As described in Section 5.6.1, Air Quality, overall operational vehicle trips are expected to be only slightly reduced when compared to the proposed project. Thus, operational GHG emissions would be slightly reduced when compared to the proposed project.

Overall, neither the proposed project nor the Historic Preservation Alternative would result in significant GHG emissions impacts. Therefore, the Historic Preservation Alternative would result in similar impacts when compared to the proposed project.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
JULY 2025 Page 5-11

5.6.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As described in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed project would result in one significant-but-mitigable impact associated with potential exposure of future construction workers and future site occupants due to the release of hazardous materials originating from off-site land uses. This impact would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Under the Historic Preservation Alternative, reduced construction activities would occur when compared to the proposed project. On-site construction would occur but would be limited to interior renovations and parking garage reconfiguration or expansion. Parking garage construction under this alternative is expected to involve subterranean construction, which could expose construction workers to potential soils and groundwater contamination. In addition, while this alternative would not increase the employee population of the project site, it would increase the parking supply at the site and renovate the on-site building, which could result in additional visitors occupying the project site. Therefore, like the proposed project, this alternative would increase the number of site occupants exposed to potential hazards when compared to existing conditions.

Like the proposed project, the Historic Preservation Alternative would result in a significant-butmitigable impact associated with exacerbating a potential existing hazard; therefore, impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed project.

5.6.7 Noise
As described in Section 4.7, Noise, the proposed project would result in one significant-butmitigable impact associated with construction activities. This impact would be less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.

Under the Historic Preservation Alternative, reduced construction activities would occur when compared to the proposed project. On-site construction would occur but would be limited to interior renovations and parking garage reconfiguration or expansion. Therefore, this alternative is expected to reduce, but not entirely avoid, the project’s significant-but-mitigable noise impact.

As described in Section 4.7, Noise, the proposed project is expected to result in similar overall levels of operational noise when compared to existing conditions. The Historic Preservation Alternative, like the proposed project, would increase the number of site occupants and vehicle trips when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, operational noise is expected to be similar when compared to the proposed project.

Overall, noise impacts would be similar when compared to the proposed project.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

5.6.8 Transportation
As described in Section 4.8, Transportation, the proposed project would result in less-thansignificant transportation impacts, and mitigation is not required.

As described in Section 5.6.1, Air Quality, overall operational vehicle trips under the Historic Preservation Alternative are expected to be only slightly reduced when compared to the proposed project.

Overall, neither the proposed project nor the Historic Preservation Alternative would result in significant transportation impacts. Therefore, the Historic Preservation Alternative would result in similar impacts when compared to the proposed project.

5.7 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Table 5-1, Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts, compares the impact of each alternative to impacts of the proposed project. The impacts of each alternative are classified as having a reduced (↓), similar or comparable to (=), or greater (↑) level of impact when compared to the proposed project.

Table 5-1 Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts
Environmental Topic
Proposed
Project 1
Alternative A:

No Project
Alternative
Alternative B:

Historic
Preservation
Alternative

4.1 Air Quality LTS/M ↓ ↓

4.2 Biological Resources LTS/M ↓ =

4.3 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources SU ↓ ↓

4.4 Geology and Soils LTS/M ↓ =

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS = =

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTS/M ↓ =

4.7 Noise LTS/M ↓ =

4.8 Transportation LTS = =
Notes:

1. The impacts listed in this column represent the highest significance determination for each respective topic.

LTS Less than Significant
LTS/M Less than Significant with Mitigation
SU Significant and Unavoidable
↓ Reduced impact in comparison to the proposed project
= Similar impact in comparison to the proposed project
↑ Greater impact in comparison to the proposed project

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
JULY 2025 Page 5-13
Table 5-2, Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives, identifies the ability of each of the project alternatives to meet the proposed project’s objectives.

Table 5-2 Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives
Objective
Proposed
Project
Alternative A:

No Project
Alternative
Alternative B:

Historic
Preservation
Alternative
General Plan Consistency. Provide for the
development of the site consistent with City’s
General Plan.

Yes Yes Yes
Enhance Public Safety Infrastructure. Construct a
modern, state-of-the-art Public Safety Building that
meets the operational needs of the Mountain View
Police Department (MVPD) and other public safety
personnel.

Yes No Partial
Improve Operational Efficiency. Provide upgraded
facilities, including offices, an auditorium, sleep
quarters, lockers, and fitness areas, to enhance the
functionality and efficiency of police and fire
department operations.

Yes No Partial
Increase Parking Capacity. Develop a three-story
parking garage and reconfigure surface parking to
accommodate approximately 244 parking spaces,
improving access for personnel and visitors.

Yes No Yes
Enhance Site Access and Circulation. Improve
vehicular and pedestrian access with designated
secured and public entry points from Oak Street and
Franklin Street while maintaining connectivity to
major transportation routes.

Yes No No
Preserve Flexibility for Future City Uses. Reserve

0.6 acres of the project site for potential future
municipal development to accommodate evolving
community needs.

Yes No No
Site Reuse. Utilize the site that currently houses the
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration
building at 1000 Villa Street due to its central
location and parcel size that allows for the size and
mix of facilities envisioned for the proposed project.

Yes Partial Partial

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

5.7.1 Summary of Alternative A: No Project Alternative
As shown in Table 5-1, Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts related to GHG emissions and transportation. All other impacts (air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise) would be reduced when compared to the proposed project.

As shown in Table 5-2, Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives, the No Project Alternative would meet the objective to be consistent with the General Plan. It would partially meet the objective to reuse the project site because it would utilize the project site but would not allow for the size and mix of facilities envisioned for the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not meet any additional project objectives.

5.7.2 Summary of Alternative B: Historic Preservation Alternative As shown in Table 5-1, Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts, the Historic Preservation Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to air quality and cultural and tribal cultural resources. All other impacts (biological resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and transportation) would be similar when compared to the proposed project.

As shown in Table 5-2, Ability to Meet Proposed Project Objectives, the Historic Preservation Alternative would meet or partially meet most of the project objectives because it would be consistent with the General Plan, allow for some on-site enhancements (through interior renovations), increase the project site’s parking supply, and be located on the project site. The Historic Preservation Alternative would not provide a state-of-the art building, fully meet operational needs and efficiencies, enhance site access, provide an on-site reserve area for future City use, or allow for the size and mix of facilities envisioned for the proposed project.

5.8 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed project and the alternatives, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative to the proposed project that would be expected to generate the least number of significant impacts. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure, and the alternative to the proposed project selected may not be the alternative to the proposed project that best meets the goals or needs of the City of Mountain View. Because CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, the proposed project under consideration cannot be identified as the environmentally superior

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
JULY 2025 Page 5-15
alternative. Additionally, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives.

As shown in Table 5-1, Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts, and discussed in Section 5.7, Summary of Alternative Evaluation, the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts for nearly all environmental topics (six out of eight) when compared to the proposed project. The next environmentally superior alternative would be the Historic Preservation Alternative, which would reduce impacts for two topic areas.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Project

This page is intentionally left blank.

JULY 2025 Page 6-1

6. Other CEQA Considerations
This chapter provides an overview of the impacts of the proposed project based on the analyses presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of this Draft EIR. The topics covered in this chapter include impacts found not to be significant, growth-inducing impacts, and significant irreversible changes to the environment. A more detailed analysis of the effects that the proposed project would have on the environment, and proposed mitigation measures to minimize significant impacts, are provided in Sections 4.1 through 4.8.

6.1 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 allows environmental issues for which there is no likelihood of a significant impact to be briefly discussed and not analyzed further in the EIR. An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix A, Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and Scoping Comments, of this Draft EIR). Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study and the existing conditions on the project site and surrounding area it was determined that development of the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts for the following environmental issues:
 Aesthetics
 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
 Energy
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Land Use and Planning
 Mineral Resources
 Population and Housing
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Utilities and Service Systems
 Wildfire
In addition, based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study it was determined that development of the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts for some of the significance criteria in the following topic areas and, therefore, impacts related to these criteria are not analyzed further in this Draft EIR.  Air Quality
Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

6. Other CEQA Considerations

 Biological Resources
 Would the project 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?  Would the project 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?  Would the project 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?  Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
 Geology and Soils
 Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
- Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Landslides?
 Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?  Would the project 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?
 Would the project 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?
 Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

6. Other CEQA Considerations
JULY 2025 Page 6-3
 Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
 Would the project 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?  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?
 Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
 Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?  Noise
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?
 Transportation
 Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?  Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?  Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

6.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(a) requires that “Direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short- and long-term effects.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c) requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Table 1-1, Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, in Chapter 1, Executive Summary of this Draft EIR summarizes the significant impacts, mitigation measures, and levels of significance with and without mitigation.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

6. Other CEQA Considerations

Though mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact of the proposed project, the following impact would remain significant and unavoidable:

Impact CUL-1: The proposed project would remove the historical resource on the project site that is eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 as a significant example of the work of master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

6.3 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss whether “Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely.” The discussion shall consider primary and secondary impacts that generally commit future generations to similar uses, irreversible damage from environmental accidents, and irretrievable commitments of resources.

6.3.1 Land Use Changes that Commit Future Generations
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project will maintain the existing land use. The proposed project would replace the existing Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building with a new Public Safety Building with the same local community-serving use and purpose for the residents of Mountain View. Because the project site is already developed with the same uses, redevelopment under the proposed project would not represent a substantial change in land use.

6.3.2 Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
Potential environmental accidents of concern are those that would have adverse effects on the environment or public health due to the nature or quantity of material released during an accident and the receptors exposed to that release. Demolition and construction activities associated with development of the proposed project would involve some risk of environmental accidents; however, these activities would be monitored by local, State, and federal agencies, and would follow professional industry standards for safety and construction. The land uses proposed by the project would not include any uses or activities that are likely to contribute to or be the cause of a significant environmental accident. As a result, the proposed project would not pose a substantial risk due to environmental accidents.

6.3.3 Large Commitment of Non-Renewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. Redevelopment of the proposed project site would require water and electric service, as well as additional resources for construction.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

6. Other CEQA Considerations
JULY 2025 Page 6-5
Construction and ongoing maintenance of the proposed project would irreversibly commit some materials and nonrenewable energy resources. Materials and resources used would include, but are not limited to, nonrenewable and limited resources such as oil, gasoline, sand, gravel, asphalt, and steel. These materials and energy resources would be used for infrastructure development, transportation of people and goods, and utilities to operate the project. During the operational phase of the proposed project (post-construction), all electric energy sources would be used for lighting, heating, and cooling of residences and retail space, and oil and gasoline would be used for the transportation of people to and from the project site.

The proposed project would be required to comply with and implement several measures that would offset or reduce the need for nonrenewable resources. For example, the proposed project is required to comply with all applicable building and design requirements, including Title 24 relating to energy conservation. With compliance with Part 11 of Title 24, also known as CALGreen, the State’s Green Building Standards Code, the proposed project is required to reduce water consumption by 20 percent, divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, and install low pollutant-emitting materials. The proposed project would also implement environmentally sustainable standards for demolition, construction, and operation. The proposed project would be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certified, and would thus be designed with high-efficiency fixtures and energy conservation features. Further, the City does not contain any agricultural land or a mining reserve; therefore, there would be no impact with regards to those resources (see Section 6.1, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant, above).

Although the construction and operation of the proposed redevelopment project would involve the use of nonrenewable resources, through the inclusion of energy-conserving project features and compliance with applicable standards and regulations, the proposed project would not represent a large commitment of nonrenewable resources.

6.4 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires that an EIR discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Typical growth inducing factors might include the extension of urban services or transportation infrastructure to a previously unserved or under-served area, or the removal of major barriers to development. This section evaluates the proposed project’s potential to induce growth. Not all aspects of growth inducement are negative; rather, negative impacts associated with growth inducement occur only where the growth associated with the proposed project would cause adverse environmental impacts.

Growth-inducing impacts can be either direct or indirect. Direct growth-inducing impacts are generally associated with providing urban services to an undeveloped area. Indirect, or

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

6. Other CEQA Considerations

secondary growth-inducing impacts, consist of growth induced in the region by additional demands for housing, goods, and services associated with the population increase caused by, or attracted to, a new project.

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this Draft EIR, the proposed project would replace the existing Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building with a new Public Safety Building with the same local community-serving use and purpose for the residents of Mountain View. Accordingly, the construction and operation would not directly or indirectly induce growth.

JULY 2025 Page 7-1

7. Organizations and Persons Consulted
LEAD AGENCY—CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Public Works Department

CONSULTANT TEAM
SVA Architects
PlaceWorks
Forget Me Not History
Sandis
Woodreeve Consulting, LLC

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING DRAFT EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

7. Organizations and Persons Consulted

This page intentionally left blank.

APPENDIX A:

Notice of Preparation, Initial Study, and
Scoping Comments
This page is intentionally left blank.

CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
\\mtnview.city\data\PublicWorks\Archive\CIPs\20-01 to\20-49 Public Safety Building, Design\II. Design\B. Environmental Documents\20241204 CEQA documents\MountainViewPublicSaftey_NOP.docx

NOTICE OF PREPARATION
To:State Agencies From:City of Mountain View
Responsible Agencies 500 Castro St
Interested Parties Mountain View, CA 94041
Date: December 4, 2024
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View will be the Lead Agency and will
prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project.

Project Location: The project site is at 1000 Villa Street in the City of Mountain View in Santa Clara County.

The 4.12-acre project site is bounded by Central Expressway and the Caltrain Railroad to the north, Franklin Street to the east, Villa Street to the south, and South Shoreline Boulevard to the west. The site is assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number 158-15-027. Regional access to the project site is from SR-82, SR-85, and US 101.

Project Description: The proposed project would remove the existing Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) building and associated parking lot and K-9 training area, and construct a new Public Safety Building, parking garage, indoor shooting range, surface parking, and K-9 training area at the same location. In the eastern corner of the project site, a 0.6-acre area would remain undeveloped for future potential uses by the City. The current MVPD building is 44,914 square feet and the proposed Public Safety Building would be approximately 75,000 gross square feet, three-stories high, and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.49. The proposed Public Safety Building would have a variety of offices and associated service rooms for police and fire activities. Some of the designated areas include an auditorium, offices, sleep quarters, lockers, and a fitness room. As part of the proposed project, a three-story parking garage with approximately 168 parking spaces would be built on the site. At the top of the parking garage, an indoor shooting range would be installed. The K-9 training area would be reinstalled in the northern corner of the project site. In addition, the proposed project would include improved landscaping and would have four vehicular access points.

Initial Study: The initial study prepared for this project is available for review online at www.mountainview.gov and in person at Public Works Counter, 500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94041.

Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Comments on the NOP are due no later than the close of the 30- day NOP review period at 5:00 p.m. on January 15, 2024.

Please send your response to Naveen Govind, Senior Project Manager CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act

APPENDIX A
at the address shown above or email to [email protected] with “Mountain View Public Project Title:

Safety Building EIR” as the subject.

Mountain View Public Safety Building
Project Applicant, if any: City of Mountain View
Date December 10, 2024 Signature
Title Senior Project Manager
Telephone 650-903-6527
Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375. r l December 2024 | Initial Study EIR Scoping Document

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
City of Mountain View
Prepared for:

SVA Architects
Contact: Nathan Herrero, Principal
2030 Franklin St, Suite 210
Oakland, California 94612
510.267.3180
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Contact: Alexis Mena, Associate Principal
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
714.966.9220
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
~ PLACEWORKS

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Table of Contents
December 2024 Page i

Section Page

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 PURPOSE OF CEQA AND THE INITIAL STUDY ...................................................................... 5

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION............................................................................................................. 6

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING................................................................................................. 6

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................ 9

1.5 CITY ACTION REQUESTED.................................................................................................. 12

2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST............................................................................................13

2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION.................................................................................................... 13

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED....................................................... 14

2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY LEAD AGENCY) ................................................ 15

2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.................................................................... 16

3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................................19

3.1 AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................... 19

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ...................................................................... 23

3.3 AIR QUALITY...................................................................................................................... 25

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES................................................................................................... 28

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES...................................................................................................... 30

3.6 ENERGY ............................................................................................................................. 32

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS......................................................................................................... 35

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................................................... 39

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................................... 40

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY................................................................................... 44

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING................................................................................................ 51

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 52

3.13 NOISE ................................................................................................................................ 53

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................ 54

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES............................................................................................................... 56

3.16 RECREATION...................................................................................................................... 58

3.17 TRANSPORTATION............................................................................................................. 59

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.......................................................................................... 61

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...................................................................................... 62

3.20 WILDFIRE........................................................................................................................... 68

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ....................................................................... 70

4. LIST OF PREPARERS..........................................................................................................73 LEAD AGENCY................................................................................................................................. 73 PLACEWORKS ................................................................................................................................. 73

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure 1 Regional and Local Vicinity ................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph...............................................................................................................8 Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................................10 List of Tables
Table Page
Table 3.9-1 Hazardous Materials Sites ................................................................................................42 Table 3.19-1 Water Demands, Existing and Proposed ..........................................................................64 Table 3.19-2 Landfill Capacity................................................................................................................67 Table 3.19-3 Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation...........................................................................67

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Abbreviations and Acronyms
December 2024 Page iii

AAQS ambient air quality standards
AB Assembly Bill
afy acre-feet per year
AQMP air quality management plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP best management practices
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGP Construction General Permit
CO carbon monoxide
EIR environmental impact report
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
GHG greenhouse gases
gpy gallons per year
HVAC heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system
MVPD Mountain View Police Department
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
PM particulate matter
PRD Permit Registration Documents
RPS renewable portfolio standard
SB Senate Bill
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SOX sulfur oxides
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
UWMP urban water management plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Page iv PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

1. Introduction
December 2024 Page 5

1. Introduction

1.1 PURPOSE OF CEQA AND THE INITIAL STUDY
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) requires that before a lead agency1 makes a decision to approve a project that could have one or more adverse effects on the physical environment, the agency must inform itself about and consider the project’s potential environmental impacts, inform the public about the project’s potential environmental impacts and provide them an opportunity to comment on the environmental issues, and take feasible measures to avoid or reduce potential harm to the physical environment.

The City of Mountain View (City)—in its capacity as lead agency pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15050—is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with CEQA to determine if approval of the discretionary actions and subsequent development associated with the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment. As part of the project’s environmental review, the City authorized preparation of this Initial Study in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15063. Pursuant to Section 15063, purposes of an Initial Study are to:
 Provide the lead agency information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration.  Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration.  Assist in the preparation of an EIR if one is required.  Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project.  Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
 Eliminate unnecessary EIRs.
 Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

As further defined by Section 15063, an Initial Study is prepared to provide the City with information to use as the basis for determining whether an environmental impact report (EIR), negative declaration, or 1 Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21067, lead agency refers to the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

1. Introduction

mitigated negative declaration (MND) would be appropriate for providing the necessary environmental documentation and clearance for the proposed project.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is at 1000 Villa Street in the City of Mountain View in Santa Clara County. To the north of Mountain View is San Francisco Bay, to the east is Sunnyvale, to the south is Cupertino, and to the west is Palo Alto and Los Altos (see Figure 1, Regional and Local Vicinity Map). Mountain View is approximately 40 miles southeast of San Francisco and approximately 14 miles west of San José.

As shown on Figure 1, the 4.12-acre project site is bounded by Central Expressway and the Caltrain Railroad to the north, Franklin Street to the east, Villa Street to the south, and South Shoreline Boulevard to the west. The site is assigned Assessor’s Parcel Number 158-15-027. Regional access to the project site is from State Route 82 (SR-82), SR-85, and US 101.

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

1.3.1 Existing Land Use
The project site is at the existing Mountain View Police Department, and the proposed project encompasses 4.12 acres. The project site is currently zoned Public Facility (PF) with a corresponding General Plan land use designation of Parks, Schools and City Facilities.

As shown on Figure 2, Aerial Photograph, the project site is currently occupied by the Mountain View Police Department building, a 42-stall public parking lot, a 110-stall restricted-access parking lot/garage, a pump station, and a K-9 training area.

1.3.2 Surrounding Land Use
As shown on Figure 2, Aerial Photograph, the project site is mainly surrounded by single-family and multifamily residential, commercial and institutional land uses. According to the land use designation map, low density residential neighborhoods are to the north, downtown mixed use is to the east, low density residential neighborhoods are to the south, and medium-density residential and office uses are to the west.2 The project site is surrounded by one and two-story residential buildings to the north across the Caltrain railroad tracks and then Central Expressway, two four-story apartment buildings and two-story offices to the east, one- and two-story residential buildings to the south, and one- and two-story residential buildings directly west with the Kahn Lab School located west across South Shoreline Boulevard. The Khan Lab School is approximately 0.15 miles west of the project site. The Mountain View Fire Department Station No 1 is 0.1 miles southwest of the project site along Oak Street. 2 Mountain View Land Use Designation, 2020, https://mountainview.prod.govaccess.org/home/showdocument?id=2268. 101
Figure 2
Local Vicinity
Source: PlaceWorks 2023
-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
Los Altos
Sunnyvale
Mountain View
0 2,000
Feet
Palo Alto
Sunnyvale
Fremont
San Jose
Cupertino
Santa
Clara
Menlo Park
Mountain
View
Los Altos
Hills
Los
Altos
Atherton East
Palo Alto
Newark
Portola
Valley
0 5
Miles
PlaceWorks
Figure 1 – Regional and Local Vicinity

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Source: Generated using ArcMap 2023.
0 Scale (Feet)
2,000
Note: Unincorporated county areas are shown in white.

Project Boundary
0 Scale (Miles)
5 85

CALIFORNIA
237

CALIFORNIA
101 Permanente Creek
Villa St
Franklin St
S Shoreline Blvd
Central Expy
Castro St
Easy St
E Middlefield Rd
Miramonte Ave
El Camino Real
Springer Rd
S El Monte Ave
Rengstorff Ave
N Shoreline Blvd
California St
Cuesta Dr
Stevens Creek
SP Railroad
Grant Rd
San Francisco
Bay
Project Site
Los Altos
101
101
85 CALIFORNIA
237

CALIFORNIA
87 CALIFORNIA
280
•1 ~~==- II
'
"' ~~- s
, •• , • .J,. •~1~1~. ~ ..• , ..
-... ~,.~s s•-■ ~~--- - --------i!L_~ 1
PlaceWorks
Figure 2 – Aerial Photograph

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Source: Nearmap, Inc., 2023; SVA Architects 2022.
0 Scale (Feet)
80 Project Boundary
W Evelyn Ave
Villa St
Franklin St
Oak St
W Dana St
Bryant St
S Shoreline Blvd
Central Expy
Central Expy
Washington St
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Mountain View
Fire Station #1
Khan Lab School
SP Railroad
Oak St

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

1. Introduction
December 2024 Page 9

1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.4.1 Proposed Project
The City of Mountain View is the lead agency for the proposed project to build a new Public Safety Building.

The proposed project would remove the existing Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) building and associated parking lot and K-9 training area, and construct a new Public Safety Building, parking garage, indoor shooting range, surface parking, and K-9 training area at the same location. In the eastern corner of the project site, 0.6-acre would remain undeveloped for future potential uses by the City (see Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan).

1.4.1.1 PROPOSED PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
The current MVPD building is 44,914 square feet, and the proposed Public Safety Building would be approximately 75,000 grosssquare feet, three-stories high and a floor are ratio (FAR) of 0.49. The proposed Public Safety Building would have a variety of offices and associated service rooms for police and fire activities. Some of the designated areas include an auditorium, offices, sleep quarters, lockers, and a fitness room. All new facilities would meet current state building standards and would be LEED Gold certified, as required in the Mountain View Municipal Code Section 8.20.12. Once built, the proposed Public Safety Building would have an immediate personnel increase of thirteen (13) environmental health staff who would be relocated to the proposed project. At maximum capacity, the proposed public safety building could contain up to 242 personnel, however this number is not the staffing level that is proposed as part of the project.

1.4.1.2 VEHICULAR PARKING
The proposed project includes a three-story parking garage to include approximately 168 parking spaces.

At the top of the parking garage, an indoor shooting range would be installed (see Section 1.4.1.4, Indoor Shooting Range). The existing, 152-spaces surface parking lots would be reconfigured/relocated to other surface parking spaces for City personnel and a surface lot for future visitors to the Public Safety Building.

Currently, the MVPD building site accommodates 152 parking spaces in total, including public/visitor parking and restricted-access employee parking areas. With the addition of the parking garage and surface parking lot reconfigurations, the Public Safety Building would accommodate approximately 244 parking spaces, including the public/visitor parking lot. Out of the 244 total parking spaces across the site, 210 parking spaces would be secured and 34 spaces would be open to the public. Of the total parking spaces, 168 would be garage parking and the remaining 76 parking spaces would be dedicated to surface parking.

See Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan, for the proposed location and allocation of parking on the project site.

UP

PUMP HOUSE
TXFR
TANK
DW
VAN
VAN

3.3%
K9 TRAINING
SITE
OAK ST

VILLA ST

FRANKLIN ST

PUBLIC SAFETY

BUILDING
75,000 SF

REMAINDER
PARCEL
26,000 SF
(0.6 ACRES)
3-STORY
GARAGE
(168 SPACES

VISITOR PARKING
(34 SPACES)

SECURE PARKING
(42 SPACES)
PlaceWorks
Source: SVA Architects 2024.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Scale (Feet)
0 45
Figure 3 - Proposed Site Plan
Project Boundary

RESIDENTIAL

SHOOTING
RANGE
@ 3RD LEVEL
IL -----=========2.!

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

1. Introduction
December 2024 Page 11

1.4.1.3 SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
The proposed project would have two vehicular access points; one would occur along Oak Street and be secured while the other access point would be along Franklin Street, and would be open to the public.

Major arterials that can be used to access the project site are Highway 101 and the Central Expressway to the north, State Route 85 to the east, and West El Camino Real and Interstate 280 to the south.

Additionally, the site can be accessed via the Caltrain railroad, which is directly north of the site with a station located 0.2 miles east.

1.4.1.4 K-9 TRAINING AREA
The K-9 training area would be reinstalled in the northern corner of the project site. The K-9 training area would be located in the same location as the existing K-9 training area and would be similar in size. The K9 training area would be designed and utilized in a very similar fashion to its existing use, and no large upgrades would occur.

1.4.1.5 INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE
The proposed project includes an indoor shooting range on the top level of the parking garage. The shooting range would be approximately 12,215 square feet and would follow industry standards and regulations to address noise, reverberation, and echoes.

1.4.1.6 LANDSCAPE
The proposed project would include improved landscaping around the project site. Site improvements would include ornamental landscaping and benches, outdoor event space, shade structures, hardscape areas, and utility upgrades. During development of the project site several heritage trees would need to be removed, these include Coast redwood and Raywood ash trees. This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, and potential impacts will be analyzed in the EIR.

1.4.2 Project Phasing
The project is preliminarily scheduled to start in September 2025 and be completed in Spring 2028. The project would be completed in three development phases. In the first phase the site would be prepared and selective demolition would occur, in the second phase the Public Safety Building would be constructed, and the third phase of development would remove the existing MVPD building and install the parking garage and shooting range.

Construction activities would include building and asphalt demolition and excavation, site preparation and rough grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction would take place from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, as allowed by the Mountain View Municipal Code, Section 8.70, Construction Noise. The active construction and staging areas would be on the project site.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

1. Introduction

1.5 CITY ACTION REQUESTED
A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for the project, the government agency is the City of Mountain View) that calls for an exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The City is the lead agency under CEQA and has the principal approval authority over the project.

The discretionary actions and approvals required for project implementation are (1) certification of the environmental document and (2) approval of the proposed project.  Approval and issuance of grading and building permits

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

2. Environmental Checklist
December 2024 Page 13

2. Environmental Checklist

2.1 PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Mountain View Public Safety Building

2. Lead Agency:

City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

David O. Printy
650-903-6162

4. Project Location: 1000 Villa St, Mountain View, CA 94041

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Nathan Herrero, Principal
SVA Architects, Inc.
2030 Franklin St, Suite 210
Oakland, California 94612

6. General Plan Designation: Parks, Schools and City Facilities

7. Zoning: Public Facility (PF)

8. Description of Project:

The proposed project involves the removal of the existing Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) building, associated parking lot, and K-9 training area and the installation of a new Public Safety Building, parking garage, shooting range, surface parking, and K-9 training area. The current MVPD building is 44,914 square feet and the proposed Public Safety Building would be approximately 75,000 gross square feet. The proposed Public Safety Building would relocate 13 to the proposed project environmental health staff and would provide an auditorium, offices, sleep quarters, lockers, and a fitness room. A 0.6-acre portion of the project site in the eastern corner would remain undeveloped for future potential uses by the City.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

2. Environmental Checklist

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is mainly surrounded by residential, mixed-use, and office space. According to the land use designation map, low and medium density residential neighborhoods are to the north, downtown mixed use is to the east, low density residential neighborhoods are to the south, and office uses are to the west. To the north of the project is the Caltrain railroad and the Central Expressway; to the west of the project site is the Khan Lab School. The Mountain View Fire Department Station No 1 is 0.1 miles southwest of the project site along Oak Street.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participating agreement):

Approval and issuance of grading and building permits

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.? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.94 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

The proposed project would comply with tribal consultation requirements pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52).

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

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

2. Environmental Checklist
December 2024 Page 15

2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY 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
□

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

2. Environmental Checklist

2.4 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 would 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 on-site, 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 appropriate 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.

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 Analyses 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

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

2. Environmental Checklist
December 2024 Page 17

outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

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.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

2. Environmental Checklist

This page was intentionally left blank.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 19

3. Environmental Analysis
Section 2.4 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This chapter provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable.

3.1 AESTHETICS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In nonurbanized 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?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Mountain View offers scenic views of the San Francisco Bay to the north and the Santa Cruz mountains to the south and west. Views of other natural features such as the Diablo Mountain Range to the southeast, Mission Peak to the east, San Francisco Bay to the north, and Stevens Creek in the eastern portion of the City are available from various locations within Mountain View. 3
Views of the San Francisco Bay are generally only available from Shoreline Park in the North 3 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 581.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

Bayshore Area.4 While there is a officially designated state scenic highway in Santa Clara County, State Route 9, this highway is not located or easily visible within Mountain View.

The General Plan has goals and policies in place in the Land Use and Design (LUD) Element that address community character and context-sensitive development. Goal LUD 10 enforces high-quality, sustainable and healthful building design and development, and policies such as LUD 10.1 encourage the use of highquality and sustainable design and materials. 5 Furthermore, the City has established a development
review process in the Mountain View Municipal Code, Section 36.44.45. This review process ensures that development fits into the visual fabric of the city and applies to all new construction and modifications to building exteriors or development sites.
6 The project site is in a developed area, and views within the project site vicinity are largely constrained by existing development (generally ranging between one and two stories), landscaping, and vegetation.

Existing buildings on-site range between one and three stories. Intermittent and partial views of the Santa Cruz Mountains can be seen in the distance looking south along a public right-of-way near the project site (along Franklin Street) and potentially from the project site. No significant or unobstructed views of the Santa Curz or Diablo Mountain Range mountains exist in the vicinity of the project site.

Development of the proposed project would construct a new Public Safety Building, parking garage, shooting range, surface parking, K-9 training area, and associated site improvements. The building would be three stories tall, and development of the project site would be similar to and consistent with the height, scale, and massing of surrounding developments. While construction of a new, three-story building on-site may further constrain views of the Santa Cruz Mountainsto the south along rights-of-way near the project, as discussed above, no significant or unobstructed viewsheds of the hillsides exist in the vicinity of the project site, and development of the proposed project would not hinder significant views.

Since the proposed project would be similar to the existing developments in the vicinity of the project site and would not substantially create an adverse effect on scenic vistas, impacts 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 California State Scenic Roadways Program, established in 1963 by the state legislature, identifies key roadways in California that contribute to the state’s scenic resources by providing viewsheds with aesthetic value. The program establishes the state’s responsibility for the protection and enhancement of California’s natural scenic beauty through regulations pertaining to scenic roadways and 4 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 581. 5 City of Mountain View, 2012, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, 53 6 Mountain View Municipal Code, Section 36.44.45, Development Review Process.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 21
their function. There are no officially designated State Scenic Highways in Mountain View, and no portions of Mountain View encompass the viewshed of a State Scenic Highway.7 Therefore, no scenic resources along a state scenic highway would be impacted as part of the proposed project, and no impacts relating to scenic highways would occur upon implementation of the proposed project. c) In nonurbanized 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? No impact. For an incorporated city, “urbanized area” means a city that has a population of at least 100,000 persons, either by itself or in combination with two contiguous incorporated cities. The City of Mountain View has a population of approximately 81,059 persons and in combination with the adjacent cities of Los Altos, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale 8 Therefore, the project site is in an urbanized area as defined by CEQA Guidelines 15191(m)(1).

While there are no large parks or public views area around the project site, the proposed project is near a gateway area leading into downtown. The LUD Element contains Policy 8.1, which pertains to the city’s gateways and emphasizes that city gateways should create a distinct and positive impression. In the 2012 General Plan, this area was categorized as part of the Central Planning Area, and some of the key policy direction for this area included enhancing the small-town character and respecting the scale of surrounding lower-density residential neighborhoods.
9 Currently the design of the proposed project has not been finalized, but the options being considered draw from studying neighboring buildings throughout downtown Mountain View so the proposed project complements existing buildings. The proposed project would be approximately three-stories in height would taller than the adjacent one- and two-story residential buildings to the south and west, and provides some transitional scall between the four-story buildings to the east in the downtown area. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the proposed project is 0.49, while in the surrounding area the FAR ranges from a maximum of 2.75 in the east, 0.5 in the south, and 2.3 in the west of the project site.10, 11, 12 7 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 587. 8 US Census Data, 2022, “Quick Facts, Mountain View, city California” https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/mountainviewcitycalifornia. 9 City of Mountain View, 2012, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, 22. 10 City of Mountain View, 2022, Downtown Precise Plan. 11City of Mountain View, Code of Ordinances, Single-Family (R1) Residential District, https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV3 SIMIR1ZODIST. 12 City of Mountain View, Code of Ordinances, Multiple-Family (R3) Residential District, https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTIVREZO_DIV5 MUMIR3ZODIST.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

Due to the factors described above, the proposed project would respect the scale and density of the surrounding area and would be designed to be consistent with the surrounding character. Consistent with these policies, the proposed project would not conflict with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality in a nonurbanized area, therefore there would be no impact. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effects of a development’s exterior lighting upon adjoining uses and areas. Light reflecting off passing cars and large expanses of glass or other reflective surfaces can also generate glare. Excessive light and/or glare can impair vision, cause annoyance, affect sleep patterns, and create safety hazards for drivers. Daytime glare is caused by sunlight reflecting off reflective surfaces such as parked cars and cars traveling on adjacent roadways, light-colored building material, and windows.

Existing sources of light on-site include typical uses associated with an office building—security/building lighting, parking lot lights, and light emanating from windows. Existing sources of glare on-site include windows on the existing buildings on-site, parked cars, and cars traveling along adjacent roadways. Existing sources of light in the surrounding community include vehicle headlights, streetlights, security lights, and residential lighting (both exterior lighting and light emanating from windows). Existing sources of daytime glare in the surrounding community include vehicles parking and traveling on existing roadways, lightcolored building material, and windows.

The proposed project would replace the existing building and would construct a new Public Safety Building that would be three stories tall, which would introduce new sources of light and glare. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with the Mountain View Municipal Code Section 8.252, Nonresidential Building Security,
13,
In addition, the proposed project would need to comply with Mountain View’s General Plan Policy 9.6, Light and Glare, which seeks to minimize light and glare from new development.

Following these regulations would reduce the light intensity level on the project site and therefore development under the proposed project would not create new sources of substantial light or glare. The light and glare from the proposed project would be less than significant. 13 City of Mountain View, Municipal Code SEC. 8.252. - Nonresidential building security, https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH8BU_ARTXIBUSE_DIV3N OBUSE_S8.252NOBUSE, accessed on March 13, 2024.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 23

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. 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. 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 nonagricultural use? X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
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))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X
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?
X
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.

Would the project:

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

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?
No Impact. The project site is mapped as “Urban and Built-Up Land” on the California Important Farmland Finder.14 Therefore, the project site does not include Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project site is currently developed with the existing Mountain View Police Department Building and does not contain any agricultural uses. Development of the proposed project would not convert mapped farmland to a nonagricultural use; therefore, no impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is zoned Public Facility (PF). The project site is largely developed and does not contain any agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts. Zoning is not changing on the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an existing zone for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. 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))? No Impact. Forest land is defined as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.15 Timberland is defined as land which is available for and capable of growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.16
The project site is currently developed and does not contain any forest land or timberland production. The project site is not zoned for timberland production and would not conflict with existing zoning or cause the rezoning of forest land or timberland. As such, no impact would occur. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The project site is in an urbanized area within the City of Mountain View. The project site is currently developed with a building and parking lot. Development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to nonforest use, and no impact would occur. 14 California Department of Conservation, “California Important Farmland Finder”, accessed June 29, 2023, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/. 15 California Public Resources Code § 12220(g). 16 California Public Resources Code § 4526.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 25
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
No Impact. One area of Mountain View is considered Unique Farmland and it is located at 247 North Whisman Road, which is approximately 1.1 miles east of the project site. The project site and surrounding area are identified as Urban and Built-Up land.
17 Development of the proposed project would remove the existing police building and build a Public Safety Building, parking garage, shooting range, surface parking, and K-9 training area at the same location. These activities would not conflict with the existing farmland in Mountain View; therefore, the proposed project would not involve changes to the existing environment that could result in the conversion of Farmland or forest land to nonagricultural or nonforest uses, respectively. No impact would occur.

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY. 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. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X
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?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? X
The Air Quality section addresses the impacts of the proposed project on ambient air quality and the exposure of people, especially sensitive individuals, to unhealthful pollutant concentrations.

The primary air pollutants of concern for which ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established are ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb). Areas are classified under the federal and California Clean Air Act as either in attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the AAQS have been achieved. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is managed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD or Air 17 California Department of Conservation, “California Important Farmland Finder”, accessed June 29, 2023, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

District), is nonattainment area for California and National O3, California and National PM2.5, and California PM10 AAQS.

Furthermore, BAAQMD has identified thresholds of significance for criteria pollutant emissions and criteria air pollutant precursors, including ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Development projects below the regional significance thresholds are not expected to generate sufficient criteria pollutant emissions to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Where available, the significance criteria established by BAAQMD may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. BAAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources in the SFBAAB to achieve National and California AAQS. In April of 2023, BAAQMD updated their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which updated the best practices for using performance-based standards requiring guidance on evaluating the climate impacts of land use projects and plans. BAAQMD’s most current air quality plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan. In April of 2017 BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, which is a regional and multiagency effort to reduce air pollution in the SFBAAB. Regional growth projections are used by BAAQMD to forecast future emission levels in the SFBAAB. For the Bay Area, these regional growth projections are provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and transportation projections are provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and are partially based on land use designations in city/county general plans. Typically, only large, regionally significant projects have the potential to affect regional growth projections. The proposed project would involve the removal an existing MVPD building and development of a new building, and would result in an increase in employment, from 169 personnel with a projection of 198 personnel in 2030. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 (2)(C), the proposed project would not be considered to cause potential significant impacts as it would fall below the threshold of 1,000 employees in the building. The proposed project is not considered a regionally significant project under CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 that would affect regional vehicle miles traveled or VMT and warrant intergovernmental review by ABAG and MTC.

Based on the scope and nature of the project in that it would increase employment to an additional 29 personnel, the proposed project would not exceed the level of employment projected in City or regional planning efforts (Plan Bay Area) through 2040, and it would not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the region, which is the basis of the 2017 Clean Air Plan projections. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan and impacts would be considered less than significant.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 27
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Potentially Significant Impact. The SFBAAB is designated nonattainment for ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under the California AAQS, nonattainment for particulate matter (PM10) under the California AAQS, and unclassified/attainment for lead (Pb) under the National AAQS. 18 , 19 Projectrelated construction or operational phases of the proposed project have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD’s regional significance thresholds and cumulatively contribute to the nonattainment designations of the SFBAAB. Any project that produces a significant project-level regional air quality impact in a nonattainment area adds to the cumulative impact. Air quality impacts of the proposed project will be examined further in the EIR.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially Significant Impact. Air pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project would occur over the short term from construction activities, and over the long term from project-generated vehicle trips and stationary sources. During construction activities, off-road equipment exhaust and fugitive dust have the potential to elevate concentrations of air pollutants at on- and off-site sensitive receptors. Air pollutant emissions generated by the proposed project would be evaluated against BAAQMD’s localized significance thresholds. During operation, on-road emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the project site have the potential to generate elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) at congested intersections. Localized impacts from project-related construction and operational activities will be examined further in the EIR.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Potentially Significant Impact. Air pollutant emissions would occur over the short term for site preparation and construction activities, and over the long term associated with project-related vehicle trips generated during operation. The EIR will evaluate the increase in air pollutant emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed project against BAAQMD’s regional significance thresholds. Mitigation measures will be recommended, if applicable, to minimize the proposed project’s contribution to air pollutant emissions in the SFBAAB.
18 California Air Resources Board, 2022, “Maps of State Area Designations”, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations. 19 California Air Resources Board, 2022, “Maps of Federal Area Designations”, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
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?
X
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? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is the location of the existing MVPD building and is currently developed with buildings and paved surfaces. According to “Tree Data Report” by Woodreeve Consulting, there are a number of heritage trees on the project site that could support sensitive species or their habitats. Potential impacts will be analyzed in the EIR.20 20 Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service, “Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species,” accessed October 23, 2023, https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 29
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?
No Impact. The proposed project would be developed on the site of an existing building and associated parking lot. There are no wetlands or critical habitat that exist onsite. 21,22 Therefore, the proposed project
would not result in a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and no impact would occur.
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?
No Impact. As discussed under Section 3.4(b), the project site is currently developed and no wetlands exist on-site or in the vicinity of the project site.23 Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on protected wetlands, and no impact would occur. 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. Within Mountain View, the primary movement corridors and nursery sites are Permanente and Stevens Creeks. 24 The project site is 0.68 miles west of Stevens Creek and 0.59 miles east of Permanente Creek. Implementation of the proposed project would not affect either creek. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on migratory wildlife corridors or nursery sites, and no impact would occur.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Potentially Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project could conflict with local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources, such as the Mountain View Tree Ordinance and the Heritage Tree Program. This issue will be analyzed in the EIR.
21 Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service, “National Wetlands Inventory,” accessed October 25, 2023, https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/, 22 Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service, “Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species,” https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77, accessed on October 25, 2023. 23 Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service, “National Wetlands Inventory,” accessed October 25, 2023, https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. 24 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 451.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

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. Within Mountain View, there are no areas that are subject to approved local, regional, or State conservation plans.25 Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved plans, and no impact would occur.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact. Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered “historically significant” if it meets one of the following criteria:
i) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;
25 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 453.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 31
iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Construction of the proposed project would result in the removal of the MVPD building, which is recommended as eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion iii. 26 Architect Goodwin
Steinberg is recognized as a master architect, and the Mountain View Police Services–Fire Administration Building is an example of the large-scale civic projects that he designed during his 50-year career. 27 Although it is less than 50 years old, the building meets the threshold for special consideration for listing in the California Register because a sufficient amount of time has passed to understand Steinberg’s exemplary career and the history and significance of Shed architecture and experimental solar technology of its era.28 The impact of the proposed project on the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 will be analyzed in the EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would require ground-disturbing activities and the construction of a new building and parking garage. Within Mountain View ten archaeological resources have been recorded and additional prehistoric archaeological resources may be undiscovered. 29 Therefore, it is unlikely but not impossible that archaeological resources would be discovered during excavation or grading. This impact will be analyzed further in the EIR. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if previously interred human remains were disturbed during excavation of the project site. Given the project site was previously disturbed, it is unlikely to support conditions conducive to the discovery of human remains. However, there is a remote possibility that human remains could be encountered during excavation and grading activities associated with the proposed project. This topic will be analyzed further in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be recommended, as applicable, to minimize the proposed project’s effect. 26 Forget Me Not History, 2023, Draft Historic Resource Evaluation, Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Mountain View, California. 27 Forget Me Not History, 2023, Draft Historic Resource Evaluation, Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Mountain View, California. 28 Forget Me Not History, 2023, Draft Historic Resource Evaluation, Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Mountain View, California. 29 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 467.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

3.6 ENERGY
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. ENERGY. 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?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
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? Less Than Significant Impact. The following discusses the potential energy demands from short-term construction and long-term operational energy consumption associated with the new Public Safety Building, parking garage, shooting range, surface parking, and K-9 Training Unit.

Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would create temporary increased demands for electricity and vehicle fuels compared to existing conditions and would result in short-term transportation-related energy use. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily create an increased demand for electricity and vehicle fuels. It is not anticipated that construction equipment used for the proposed project would be powered by natural gas and no natural gas demand is anticipated during construction. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would require electricity use to power construction equipment. The electricity used during construction would vary during different phases of construction.

Construction equipment during demolition, site preparation, trenching, and grading would be gaspowered or diesel-powered, and the later construction phases, such as architectural coatings, could require electric-powered equipment. Overall, the use of electricity would be temporary in nature and would fluctuate according to the phase of construction. Additionally, it is anticipated that the majority of electric-powered construction equipment would be hand tools (e.g., power drills, table saws, compressors) and lighting, which would result in minimal electricity usage during construction activities.

Transportation energy use depends on the type and number of trips, vehicle miles traveled, fuel efficiency of vehicles, and travel mode. Transportation energy used during construction would come from the transport and use of construction equipment, delivery vehicles, and construction employee vehicles that would use diesel fuel and/or gasoline. The use of energy resources by these vehicles would fluctuate

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 33
according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. Upon completion of project construction, all construction equipment would cease. Furthermore, construction contractors are anticipated to minimize non-essential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with Section 2449 of the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9 as well as BAAQMD’s BMP.

Construction trips would also not result in unnecessary use of energy since the project site is centrally located and is served by numerous regional freeway systems (e.g., US-101 and SR-82) that provide the most direct routes from various areas of the region.

In addition, the proposed project would comply with Section 16.65, Recycling/Diversion Requirement, as outlined in the Mountain View Municipal Code. This section requires that 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste on the project site be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.30 Following this regulation will reduce energy impacts from the creation of excessive waste.

Thus, energy use during construction of the project would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Impacts would be less than significant.

Long-Term Impacts During Operation
Electrical and natural gas services to the proposed project would be by provided Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) which partners with Pacific Gas and Electric to connect to existing offsite electrical lines and new onsite infrastructure.31 During operation, energy would be used for heating, cooling, and ventilation of the building; water heating; onsite equipment; appliances; indoor, outdoor, and perimeter lighting; and security systems. The proposed project involves the demolition and reconstruction of the existing MVPD building onsite and a parking garage. While the overall total building square footage would increase from 44,914 square feet to 75,000 square feet, the proposed new building would be required to comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) and be LEED Gold Certified. Some of the features that may be part of the proposed project due to these requirements include installing Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations, photovoltaic panels, and using electric water and heating systems.32
The existing building, built in 1980, does not include the same level of energy efficient standards under the CALGreen and LEED Certification standards. Thus, due to the following CALGreen and LEED Certified standards, the new building developed under the proposed project would be more energy efficient per 30 City of Mountain View, Municipal Code – SEC. 16.65. - Recycling/diversion requirement, https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH16GARUWE_ARTIIICODE DEDI_S16.65REDIRE, accessed on March 14, 2024. 31 City of Mountain View, “Renewable Energy,” accessed October 23, 2023, https://www.mountainview.gov/ourcity/departments/city-managers-office/sustainability/energy/renewable-energy?locale=en. 32 City of Mountain View, Commercial 2022 Mountain View Green Building Code, https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7364/638284859545330000, accessed on March 14, 2024.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

square foot than the existing building and would not result in wasteful or unnecessary electricity or natural gas demands.

Once built, the proposed Public Safety Building would have an immediate personnel increase of thirteen (13) environmental health staff who would be relocated to the proposed project. This increase in staff is not substantial and is only a 7 percent increase from existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would generate a nominal increase in vehicle trips and would not result in significant additional vehicle fuel usage compared to existing conditions.

Thus, operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy compared to existing conditions and impacts would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. The state’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s Renewable Energy Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. Electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral. Executive Order S-14-08, signed in November 2008, expanded the state’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. This standard was adopted by the legislature in 2011 (Senate Bill [SB] X1-2). SB 350 (de Leon) was signed into law September 2015 and establishes tiered increases to the RPS—40 percent by 2024, 45 percent by 2027, and 50 percent by 2030. SB 350 also sets a new goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas through energy efficiency and conservation measures. On September 10, 2018, SB 100 (SB 100) was signed and raised California’s RPS requirements to 60 percent by 2030, with interim targets, and 100 percent by 2045. The bill also established a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under SB 100, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100-percent carbon-free electricity target.

The statewide RPS goal is not directly applicable to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers, such as the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), which is the utility that would provide for all electricity needs for the proposed project. The statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as SVCE, whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the state objective of transitioning to renewable energy. The net increase in power demand associated with the proposed project is anticipated to be within the service capabilities of SVCE and would not impede SVCE’s ability to implement California’s renewable energy goals.

Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct implementation of the California RPS Program.

Additionally, the proposed project would remove the existing MVPD building and development a new facility which would adhere to CALGreen and LEED Certified standards as required in Division III of the

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 35
Mountain View Municipal Code. As part of these standards certain energy efficiency design features could be followed such as installing bicycle parking and photovoltaic cells.

The project would not conflict with the California RPS Program or City of Mountain View Municipal Code.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have less than significant impact related in terms of conflicting with or obstructing plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 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?
X
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?
X
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 waste water? X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
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

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

No Impact. According to the Mountain View General Plan EIR, no known faults or fault traces pass through the project site, and Mountain View is not located in a Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. 33 The proposed project would not have substantial adverse effects involving Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones and surface rupture. No impacts would occur. This issue will not be reviewed further in the EIR. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are a number of faults in the northern California area that are considered active and could cause ground shaking at the project site. Some active faults that are closest to the project site are the San Andreas Fault 6.7 miles southwest of Mountain View, and the Hayward Fault 11.2 miles to the northeast. 34 All proposed structures would be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes and standards. The most recent building standard adopted by the legislature and used throughout the state is the 2022 version of the California Building Code (CBC) (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations). The CBC provides minimum standards to protect property and the public welfare and safety by regulating the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking and adverse soil conditions. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock on-site, and the strength of ground motion with a specified probability of occurring at the site. Also, the CBC requires the preparation of project-specific geotechnical/engineering reports by a certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer prior to construction of proposed structures. The proposed project would be required to comply with the recommendations in these reports. Any structures built for the proposed project would adhere to the most recent version of the CBC. Impacts would be less than significant.

This issue will not be reviewed further in the EIR.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Potentially Significant Impact. According to the City of Mountain View General Plan EIR, most of Mountain View is underlain by materials that have moderate to very high liquefaction potential.35 Due to this, the EIR will evaluate impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. 33 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 339. 34 City of Mountain View, City of Mountain View General Plan EIR, Table IV.G-3: Active Faults in the Mountain View Vicinity, 334. 35 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 336.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 37
iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides can occur during an earthquake in places with unstable slope conditions.36 The City of Mountain View is mapped as Category 1 within the California Seismic Hazard Zones, that is, a stable area that is not underlain by landslide deposits. 37 Furthermore, the project site
is not on a hill and does not have large slopes nearby. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and this issue will not be reviewed further in the EIR. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the removal of development on the site and construction of a Public Safety Building, parking garage, shooting range, surface parking, and K-9 training area. These activities could result in substantial soil erosion and would be required to comply with State and local requirements, such as the Construction General Permit that was adopted by the State Board and covers activities such as clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as grubbing or excavation. 38 In addition, Section 35.32.10 of the City of Mountain View Municipal Code requires an erosion control plan for projects extending into the rainy season.39 Compliance with these measures will reduce impacts to a less than significant level, and this issue will not be reviewed further in the EIR. 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?
Potentially Significant Impact.

Landslide. The project site is generally flat and is not in an area subject to landslides. Therefore, no impacts on people or structures would occur due to landslides.

Lateral Spreading. Lateral spread of the ground surface during an earthquake usually takes place along weak shear zones that have formed within a liquefiable soil layer.

Subsidence. The major cause of ground subsidence is withdrawal of groundwater. The development of the proposed project would not result in substantial changes in the quantity of existing groundwater supplies because no groundwater extraction activities would occur. Therefore, no impacts would occur. 36 City of Mountain View, 2012, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, 337. 37 City of Mountain View, 2012, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, 337. 38 City of Mountain View, 2012, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, 343. 39 City of Mountain View, 2012, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, 343.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

Liquefaction. According to the City of Mountain View General Plan EIR, most of Mountain View is underlain by materials that have moderate to very high liquefaction potential.40 Due to this, the EIR will evaluate if there are any impacts related to liquefaction.

Collapsible Soils. Collapsible soils consist of loose, dry, low-density materials that are weakly cemented and can collapse or be compressed with the addition of water or weight. Collapsible soils include young fine-grained alluvial materials, wind-deposited soils, and soils with salts. The project site is likely to have collapsible soils, as much of Mountain View is made up of alluvial soils. 41 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? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils swell when they become wet and shrink when they dry out, resulting in the potential for cracked building foundations and, in some cases, structural distress of the buildings themselves. The soils of the Mountain View area range from moderate to high shrink-swell potential. 42 Standard grading technologies and compliance with current grading requirements in accordance with the CBC for seismic safety would reduce impacts from expansive soils to a less than significant level. This issue will not be reviewed further in the EIR. 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? No Impact. Development of the proposed project would not require the installation of a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. The proposed project would utilize the local sewer system.

Therefore, no impacts would result from septic tank or other on-site wastewater disposal systems. This issue will not be reviewed further in the EIR.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would require ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, construction of the proposed project and earthwork activities have the potential to unearth unknown paleontological resources.

In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during earthwork activities, the proposed project would be required to comply with regulatory requirements in the California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and the City’s condition of approval (COA) GEO-6.1: Discovery of Paleontological 40 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 336. 41 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 345. 42 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 337.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 39
Resources. Section 21083.2 of the California Public Resources Code requires the lead agency to make reasonable efforts to permit any or all resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state.

Examples of that treatment, in no order of preference, may include but are not limited to (1) Planning construction to avoid archaeological sites, (2) Deeding archaeological sites into permanent conservation easements, and (3) Capping or covering archaeological sites with a layer of soil before building on the sites.

Meanwhile, the City’s COA GEO-6.1 outlines how if a fossil is found, excavations will be halted until the remain can be examined by a qualified paleontologist, and if the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with General Plan Goal LUD-11 and Policy 11-5, which seek to preserve and protect paleontological deposits.
43 Therefore, through compliance with PRC Section 21083.2, the proposed project’s potential for adverse impacts to unknown paleontological or a unique geological resource would be less than significant. This issue will not be examined further in the EIR.

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The EIR will discuss potential climate change impacts from GHG emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed project. Mitigation measures will be recommended, as applicable, to minimize the proposed project’s contribution to GHG emissions. 43 City of Mountain View, 2012, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, page 54.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially Significant Impact. The California Air Resources Board adopted the Scoping Plan in conformance with Assembly Bill (AB) 32. In addition, SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, was adopted by the legislature to reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled and associated GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. The Association of Bay Area Governments adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 on October 21, 2021.44 Plan Bay Area 2050 provides transportation and environmental strategies to continue to meet the regional transportation-related GHG reduction goals of SB 375.

Construction of the proposed project has the potential to conflict with GHG reduction strategies and goals of Plan Bay Area 2050 and the California Air Resources Board’s Scoping Plan. The EIR will discuss consistency of the proposed project with Plan Bay Area 2050 and the GHG reduction strategies of the Scoping Plan. Mitigation measures will be recommended, as applicable, to minimize the proposed project’s contribution to GHG emissions.

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
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?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
§ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
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?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
44 Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, “Plan Bay Area 2050,” https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_October_2021.pdf.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 41
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? X 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. Construction of the proposed project would require small amounts of hazardous materials, such as vehicle fuels, lubricants, grease, and transmission fluids in construction equipment, and paints and coatings. The handling, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by the construction phase of the project would comply with existing regulations of several agencies—the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and US Department of Transportation.

Operation of the proposed project would transport, use, store, and dispose of small amounts of hazardous materials typical of office buildings, such as cleaning and maintenance supplies (cleaners, gasoline, paint, and pesticides). The proposed project is a Public Safety Building and would use cleaners, other chemicals, and ammunition in relatively small quantities; these are not typically considered hazardous materials that could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

All on-site activities during construction and operation would be required to adhere to federal and state regulations for the handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials. With the exercise of normal safety practices, the proposed project would not create substantial hazards to the public or the environment. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. 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? Potentially Significant Impact. The project site currently houses the MVPD. According to Table 3.9-1, Hazardous Material Sites, there are three cleanup sites near the property and one is active.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

Table 3.9-1 Hazardous Materials Sites
Name Address Status Distance from Project Site
Evelyn Avenue Parking Lot 954 Villa Street No Further Action 0.2 miles south Fremont Laundry 990 Villa Street Certified/Operations & Maintenance 0.2 miles south
954 Villa Street 954 Villa Street Active 0.2 miles south Classic Communities Bryant & West Evelyn St. Completed – Case Closed Source: EnviroStor Database, accessed June 30, 2023, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=1000+villa+street.

The project site has not been identified on any of the regulatory databases as a hazardous waste generator, or as a facility that treats, stores or disposes of hazardous waste on-site. A Phase I Site Assessment is currently being conducted for the project site and the results for the Phase I Site Assessment will be further evaluated in the EIR. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed under Section 3.9(a), construction and operation of the proposed project would handle small amounts of hazardous materials typical of construction activities and those used in the operation of office buildings. The use, transport, and storage of such hazardous materials would be required to comply with all applicable State and federal regulations that would ensure the proper handling of such materials. As discussed under Section 3.9(b), the site has not been identified on any of the regulatory databases as a hazardous waste generator, or as a facility that treats, stores, or disposes of hazardous waste on-site. No significant hazard from hazardous materials is expected at the project site.

Therefore, impacts 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. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the compiling of lists of the following types of hazardous materials sites: hazardous waste facilities; hazardous waste discharges for which the State Water Quality Control Board has issued certain types of orders; public drinking water wells containing detectable levels of organic contaminants; underground storage tanks with reported unauthorized releases; and solid waste disposal facilities from which hazardous waste has migrated.

Five environmental lists were searched for hazardous materials sites on the project site:
 GeoTracker. State Water Resources Control Board
 EnviroStor. Department of Toxic Substances Control

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 43
 EJScreen. US Environmental Protection Agency
 EnviroMapper. US Environmental Protection Agency
 Solid Waste Information System (SWIS). California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling As shown in Table 3.9-1, based on a search of these lists, four properties with potential hazardous materials are near the project site, however, the project site was not listed on any of the beforementioned lists. Due to the project site not being listed as a hazardous materials site, a hazardous substance release site, or a hazardous waste disposal site, the proposed project would not create a hazardous impact to the public because of a hazardous materials site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or 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 closest airport to the project site is the Moffett Field Airport, which is 3.3 miles northeast from the project site. The Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission has adopted a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for areas surrounding Santa Clara County public-use airports, which incorporates the airspace protection criteria provided in FAR Part 77.45 While portions of the City of Mountain View are within protected airspace zones defined by the airport commission for the Moffett Field Airport, the project site is outside the Airport Influence Area for the Moffett Field Airport. 46 While there is one personal use
heliport within the City of Mountain View at Google Inc, it is not listed in the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).47 Due to this, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area, and no impact would occur.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. There is one plan that is relevant to the project site, the Emergency Response Plan, which is was created by the Mountain View Fire Department Office of Emergency Services. According to the Emergency Plan, the commuter train (VTA Light Rail and Caltrain), U.S. 101, Central Expressway, and State Highways 85 and 237 could be used as evacuation routes.48 The proposed project would not interfere with these routes and 45 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 397. 46 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, December 2018, Moffett Federal Airfield, https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf, accessed on March 14, 2024. 47 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, October 2015, Heliports, https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ALUC_CLUP_Heliport.pdf, accessed on March 14, 2024. 48 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 398.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

would comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. As discussed in Section 3.20, Wildfire, neither the project site nor the surrounding community are in a very high fire hazard severity zone. The closest area designated as a very high fire hazard severity zone is at the Rancho San Antonio Open Space, approximately 7.2 miles south of the project site. 49 Development of the proposed project would comply with all applicable local and state building guidelines.

The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildfires, and no impact would occur.

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
X
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
X
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 a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; X ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
X
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
X
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? X 49 Cal Fire, “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas,” 2022, https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4466cf1d2b9947bea1d4269997e86553.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 45
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. Urban runoff from storms or nuisance flows (runoff during dry periods) from development projects can carry pollutants to receiving waters. Runoff can contain pollutants such as oil, fertilizers, pesticides, trash, and sediment. This runoff can flow directly into local streams or into storm drains and continue through pipes until it is released untreated into a local waterway and eventually the ocean. Untreated stormwater runoff degrades water quality in surface waters and groundwater and can affect drinking water, human health, and plant and animal habitats.

The construction and operational phases of the proposed project could have the potential to impact water quality. Construction activities may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils.

Operational-related activities of the proposed project (e.g., runoff from parking areas, solid waste storage areas, and landscaped areas) would generate pollutants that could adversely affect the water quality of downstream receiving waters if effective measures are not used to keep pollutants out of and remove pollutants from urban runoff. The following is a discussion of the potential impacts that the construction and operational phases of the proposed project could have on water resources and quality.

Construction Activities
Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the proposed project may impact water quality through soil erosion and increasing the amount of silt and debris carried in runoff.

Additionally, the use of construction materials such as fuels, solvents, and paints may present a risk to surface water quality. Finally, the refueling and parking of construction vehicles and other equipment onsite during construction may result in oil, grease, or related pollutant leaks and spills that may discharge into the storm drain system.

The EPA establishes national water quality standards. Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has also established regulations under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. Mountain View lies within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Water Board, which enforces compliance with water quality objectives for beneficial uses of surface waters.50
The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) mandates that projects that disturb one or more acres of land must obtain coverage under the Statewide Construction General Permit (CGP). The CGP requires that, prior to the start of construction activities, the project applicant must file Permit Registration Documents (PRD) with the SWRCB, which include a notice of intent, risk assessment, site map, annual fee, 50 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, 366.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

signed certification statement, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and post-construction water balance calculations. The construction contractor is required to maintain a copy of the SWPPP onsite at all times and implement all construction BMPs identified in the SWPPP during construction activities. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant is required to provide proof of filing the PRDs with the SWRCB.

Submittal of the PRDs and implementation of the SWPPP and its associated BMPs throughout the construction phase of the proposed project would address anticipated and expected pollutants of concern due to construction activities. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to follow regulations within the Mountain View Municipal Code, such as in Chapter 35, Division 3, Section 35.33.11 which outlines how all construction projects must implement sediment and erosion control BMPs during construction of a project. The proposed project would comply with all applicable water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.

Operational Phase
Once the proposed project has been constructed, urban runoff could include a variety of contaminants that could impact water quality. Runoff from buildings and parking lots typically contains oils, grease, and fuel; antifreeze; byproducts of combustion (such as lead, cadmium, nickel, and other metals); and fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and other pollutants. Precipitation at the beginning of the rainy season may result in an initial stormwater runoff (first flush) with high pollutant concentrations.

To minimize these potential impacts the proposed project would be required to comply with the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted May 11, 2022) through the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. The NPDES requires the preparation of a Stormwater Management Plan that incorporates best management practices (BMP) to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during post construction. The stormwater management plan should be prepared under the direction of a professional civil engineer and would be reviewed and approved by the Mountain View Fire Department, Fire and Environmental Protection Division.51 A preliminary Stormwater Management Plan showing how the project will incorporate post-construction stormwater controls is required as part of the Planning Permit application. Submittal of a revised Stormwater Management Plan is required as part of the Building Permit application.

The existing conditions at the project site are 105,074 square feet of impervious area and 78,127 square feet of pervious area. Through development of the proposed project, the total impervious area would be 103,738 square feet and the pervious area at the project site would 79,463 square feet. When compared to existing conditions, this would be a reduction of 1,336 square feet of impervious area and an increase 51 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, 369.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 47
of 1,336 square feet of pervious area at the project site. A C.3 form was completed for the proposed project and outlines how the proposed project must comply with the stormwater requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. The C.3 form includes specific stormwater control measures that address pollutant source reduction and provide measures/controls to mitigate potential pollutant sources. These include, but are not limited to site design measures, source control measures, and LID treatment measures. The C.3 form also identified specific stormwater treatment measures for the proposed project which included a bioretention unlined w/ underdrain, flow-through planter concrete lined w/ underdrain, pervious pavement w/ underdrain, and a tree filter w/ bioretention soil. The proposed project is exempt from hydromodification requirements due to the project site being outside of the area of hydromodification applicability.

According to the Mountain View Municipal Code Section 35.33, Permanent Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures Required, permanent stormwater pollution prevention measures are required for redevelopment projects to reduce water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the site for the life of the project.
52 Furthermore, since 2011 stormwater treatment controls must be designed to treat 100 percent of the required runoff with low-impact development measures. 53 With the implementation of BMP features and compliance with State, county, and local regulations and code requirements, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on surface or groundwater quality during the operational phase.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less Than Significant Impact. Approximately 1 percent of City’s water supply comes from groundwater wells.54 The rest of the water is purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), and a recycled water system is in the city’s North Bayshore Area.55 According to the Valley Water Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), Valley Water will be able to meet countywide demands through 2045 under normal, single-dry, and five consecutivedry year conditions.56 The SFPUC UWMP states that if the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented, the SFPUC will be able to meet its projected water use demands in normal years but would experience significant supply shortages in single-dry years and multiple-dry years.57 52 City of Mountain View Municipal Code, Section 35.45 Permanent Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures Required. 53 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 370. 54 City of Mountain View, June 2023, Water Quality 2022 Consumer Confidence Report, https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6727/638231114834070000, accessed on March 14, 2024. 55 City of Mountain View, 2012, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, 120. 56 Valley Water, June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 1. 57 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2021, Urban Water Management Plan, 1-1.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis