Mountain View City Council
November 4, 2025

PHOTO ESSAY
Client Name: SVA Architects
Site Location: Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Project No.: SVA-01
Photo No: Date:
1 4/29/2024
Description:

View looking to the north of
the entrance to the Police
Services-Fire Administration
building
Photo No: Date:
2 4.29.2024
Description:

View looking to the
northeast of the sign and
flagpole at the southwest
corner of the property.
(@ PLACEWORKS

PHOTO ESSAY
Client Name: SVA Architects
Site Location: Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Project No.: SVA-01
Photo No: Date:
3 04/29/2024
Description:

View of entrance door to
armory, where weapons and
ammunition are stored.

Photo No: Date:
4 04/29/2024
Description:

Inside view of armory.
(@ PLACEWORKS

PHOTO ESSAY
Client Name: SVA Architects
Site Location: Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Project No.: SVA-01
Photo No: Date:
5 04/29/2024
Description:

Fire resistant safety cabinet
is located outside and
disconnected from the rest
of the building. It contains
fireworks, ammunition,
black powder, and lighter
fluid. The gasoline cans on
top of the safety cabinet are
mostly empty.

Photo No: Date:
6 04/29/2024
Description:

Janitor closet with storage
of cleaning supplies
(@ PLACEWORKS

PHOTO ESSAY
Client Name: SVA Architects
Site Location: Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Project No.: SVA-01
Photo No: Date:
7 04/29/2024
Description:

Photo of emergency
standby diesel generator
located on the north side of
the rear parking lot.
8 04/29/2024
Description:

Photo of electrical
transformer on the western
side of the main building.
~ PLACEWORKS

PHOTO ESSAY
Client Name: SVA Architects
Site Location: Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Project No.: SVA-01
Photo No: Date:
9 04/29/2024
Description:

Photo of pump station in
the northwest corner of the
property that houses the
City’s municipal
groundwater well No. 22.
(!;] PLACEWORKS

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PROJECT

SVA ARCHITECTS
Appendix
June 2024
Appendix D. Questionnaire

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PROJECT

SVA ARCHITECTS
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Site Assessment Questionnaire
for Owner
The following information is requested to evaluate the potential for environmentally-related impacts and property contamination. This questionnaire is to be completed by the owner of the property, or its authorized representative.

PART I

1. Project description: The Client requested the preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) as part of the environmental scope of work for the proposed project.

2. Property address(es) and Assessor Parcel Number(s) (APN): The project site is 1000 Villa Street in the City of Mountain View. The APN for the property is 158-150-27.

3. Current property owner (name, address, telephone number):

City of Mountain View

4. Current property development/improvements: The project site is currently developed with a two-story building which is home to the City of Mountain View Fire Department and City of Mountain View Police Department administration offices.

5. Date(s) of current property development/improvements: Based on a review of aerial photographs and topographic maps, the current two-story building has been located on the site since at least 1982.

6. Past property use, development/improvements: Based on aerial photographs, topographic maps and Sanborn maps, The site was developed with residential dwellings from about 1897 to about 1974, and the Mountain View Water Works was located on the site from at least 1907 to about 1956. A building which started as a grain warehouse in 1897 on the northeastern portion of the site was expanded into the Mountain View Fruit Exchange in 1904 until around 1921. The Cal Supply Tomato and Pickle Products warehouses were located on the northeast portion of the site from at least 1921 until about 1956.

7. Neighboring property uses: The property is in a mixed residential and commercial area. There are railroad tracks to the northeast, multi-family residential and commercial buildings to the southeast, single-family dwellings to the southwest, and Shoreline Boulevard to the northwest. [tl) PLACEWORKS
2850 Inland Empire Boulevard, Suite B I Ontario, California 91764 I 909.989.4449 I PlaceWorks.com

PART II

1. Are you aware of any environmental cleanup liens against the property that are filed under federal, tribal, local or state law?
Yes No

2. Are you aware of any activity and land use limitations, such as engineering controls, land use restrictions, or institutional controls that are in place at the property and/or have been filed or recorded in a registry under federal, tribal, state or local law? Yes No

3. Do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes used by this type of business? Yes No

4. Are you aware of any commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property that would help the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases? For example,
Yes No
(a) do you know of specific chemicals that are present at the property? (b) do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property? (c) do you know of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property?

5. Based on your knowledge and experience related to the property, are there any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property? Yes No

6. If a property transaction is occurring in conjunction with this environmental assessment, does the purchase price of this property reasonably reflect the fair market value of the property? If you conclude that there is a difference, have you considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property? Yes No

7. Are you aware of any past or present above ground or underground storage tanks on the property? To your knowledge, has there ever been any hazardous substances or wastes stored on the property?
Yes No
If a “Yes” response was provided to Questions 1 – 5 or a “No” response was provided to Question 6, please provide details below:

I certify that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge as of the date signed below.

Name (Printed/Typed):

Signature: Date:

Naveen Govind
5/20/24
~ PLACEWORKS

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PROJECT

SVA ARCHITECTS
Appendix
June 2024
Appendix E. Qualifications

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PROJECT

SVA ARCHITECTS
Appendix
PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

CATHLEEN M. FITZGERALD, DEnv, PE
Principal Engineer
Cathy has over 30 years of academic and professional experience in the areas of hydrology studies, health risk assessments, safety hazard assessments, air quality studies, hazardous waste investigations, remedial action plans, and installation of groundwater and soil vapor extraction systems. She has worked with various publicand private sector clients in the United States, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea on licensing and environmental assessments for nuclear and fossil fuel power plants, hazards associated with solar thermal power projects, and the development of alternative energy sources. In addition, she has worked on numerous water projects in Africa, South America, and Central America.

Cathy conducts Phase I ESAs, Preliminary Endangerment Assessemnt reports, baseline health risk assessments, develops site-specific soil cleanup levels, uses vadose zone modeling to evaluate the potential threat to groundwater from soil contaminants, conducts groundwater modeling to evaluate natural attenuation of chemical plumes, and develops innovative groundwater remediation systems. In addition, she has prepared air quality and hydrology sections for numerous CEQA documents. Cathy is a Registered Professional Engineer in the state of California.

HIGHLIGHTS OF EXPERIENCE

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE, AIR QUALITY PERMITTING, AND

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENTS
» Construction Risk Assessment for Breuner Marsh Restoration | Richmond CA » West Roseville High School Health Risk Assessment | Roseville CA » Permit Acquisition and Compliance Evaluation for Cogeneration and Waste-toEnergy Projects | Bechtel Power Corporation » Licensing and Permitting Acquisition for Nuclear and Fossil Fuel Power Plants in the United States and International Clients | Bechtel Power Corporation » South Coast AQMD Permit to Construct/Permit to Operate Application for Chemical Fixation of Hyperion Treatment Plant Sludge | Submitted to SCAQMD » Numerous Air Emission Risk Assessments | Los Angeles Unified School District » Air Toxics Health Risk Assessment | Irvine CA
» Irvine Technology Center Health Risk Assessment | Irvine CA » Air Emissions/Risk Assessment, Puente Hills Intermodal Facility EIR | Industry CA

HAZARD SAFETY ASSESSMENTS
» Palo Alto USD Pipeline Safety Hazard Assessment | Palo Alto CA » 5th Street Alternative School Rail Safety Study | Redwood City CA » Numerous Pipeline Safety Hazard Assessments | Los Angeles USD » Rail Safety Study, Fresno El Paseo EIR | Fresno CA
» Ramona Elementary School CNG and Propane Risk Assessment | Moreno Valley USD
» Former ordnance facility, soil cleanup (for explosives) and screening level health risk assessment | Chino Hills CA
» Rail Safety Study, John Glenn High School | Norwalk-La Mirada USD

EDUCATION
» DEnv, Environmental Science &
Engineering, University of California,
Los Angeles
» MA, Marine Biology, University of
California, Santa Barbara
» BA, Biology, University of California,
Los Angeles

REGISTRATIONS
» State of California Professional
Engineer No. 39541

Team member since 1986
~ PLACEWORKS

CATHLEEN FITZGERALD
Principal Engineer
[email protected]

SITE INVESTIGATION
» Phase I ESAs and field investigations at numerous commercial and industrial sites | Reno and Sparks NV
» Phase I ESAs and Preliminary Endangerment Assessments for numerous school districts
» Water Quality Management Plan, Mixed Use Development Project | Huntington Park CA
» Hydrology Calculations and Report, Flying M Ranch | Long Beach CA » Hydrology Report | San Marcos USD
» Vadose zone and groundwater modeling to support closure of a former UST site |Lancaster CA
» Soil vapor extraction pilot test | Huntington Park CA » Vacuum-enhanced recovery pilot test | Los Angeles CA
» Former oil field site, development of risk-based cleanup levels | Bakersfield CA » Site removal action, excavation and disposal of lead-impacted soil | Commerce CA
» Former dry-cleaning facility, vapor intrusion modeling | Northridge CA

CEQA/NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
» State Superfund Site Third-Party Review of field investigations, removal actions, and groundwater remediation activities | Nevada
» Walltown Quarry, Air Quality Impact Analysis EIR Review | Sacramento CA » Puente Hills Intermodal Facility EIR | Industry CA
» Citrus Heritage Middle School IS/MND | Riverside USD
» AZ Winter Mesa Towing Site Subdivision EIR, Hydrology Section | Malibu CA » Crummer Site Subdivision EIR | Malibu CA

HYDROLOGY STUDIES AND NPDES PERMITTING
» Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) | Mission Viejo, CA » Water Quality Management Plan, Mixed-Use Development Project | Huntington Park CA
» Storm Water Management Plan and Drainage Study | Rancho Santa Fe CA » Hydrology Calculations and Report, Flying M Ranch | Long Beach CA » Hydrology Study | San Marcos USD
» AZ Winter Mesa Towing Site Subdivision EIR, Hydrology Section | Malibu CA » Third Party Review Santiago Creek Study | City of Orange, CA » NPDES Permit Wastewater Discharge, Clairol Facility | Camarillo CA » Report of Waste Discharge, Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant | Sacramento Municipal Utility District

ARTICLES & PUBLICATIONS
» A Practical Guide to Environmental Risk: Perception, Assessment, Communication, The Planning Center, 2009

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
» “CEQA Responsibilities in Assessing and Managing Risk from Alternative VOC Compounds” | South Coast Air Quality Management District Symposium, October 2014 | Diamond Bar CA
» “Health Risk Challenges of Siting Housing Near High Volume Roadways” | 2014 APA State Conference | Anaheim CA
» “Air Quality for Dummies” | 2014 AEP State Conference | Huntington Beach CA » “Health Risk Challenges of Siting Housing Near High Volume Roadways” | 2014 AEP State Conference | Huntington Beach CA
» “Near Roadway Mitigation Measures” | South Coast Air Quality Management District Symposium, November 2013 | Diamond Bar CA
» Guest Lecturer | “A Practical Guide for Obtaining Environmental Clearance for New & Expanding School Sites,” Educational Facilities Certificate Program | UC Riverside Extension
» “Environmental Protection or Smart Growth? Conflicts between Infill Development and Local Environmental Regulation” | 2006 AEP State Conference | Newport Beach CA
APPENDIX E:

Noise Data
This page is intentionally left blank.
a.
b.
c.
d.

ARTICLE VI. - CONSTRUCTION NOISE
SEC. 8.70. - Construction noise.

Hours of construction. 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 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.

Modification. At any time before commencement of or during construction activity, the chief building official may modify the permitted hours of construction upon twenty-four (24) hours written notice to the contractor, applicant, developer or owner. The chief building official can reduce the hours of construction activity below the 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. time frame or increase the allowable hours.

Sign required. If the hours of construction activity are modified, then the general contractor, applicant, developer or owner shall erect a sign at a prominent location on the construction site to advise subcontractors and material suppliers of the working hours. The contractor, owner or applicant shall immediately produce upon request any written order or permit from the chief building official pursuant to this section upon the request of any member of the public, the police or city staff.

Violation. Violation of the allowed hours of construction activity, the chief building official order, required signage or this Section shall be a violation of this code. (Ord. No. 15.22, § 1, 12/13/22.)
SEC. 8.70.1. - Reserved.

SECS. 8.71—8.112. - Reserved.
a.
b.
c.

SEC. 21.26. - Stationary equipment noise.

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, said measurement to utilize a sound level meter equal to or better than an ANSI Standard S 1.4-1971 Type 2 noise level meter.

Any plans submitted for building, plumbing, electrical or mechanical/heating permit for any stationary equipment shall be accompanied by documentation of the equipment noise level when available and by noise mitigating devices or buffers appropriate to achieve the above noise limit.

Initial granting of a permit for such equipment shall not affect the obligation of each person owning or operating such equipment for continued compliance with these noise level requirements.

Operation of any equipment, as specified in this section, above the 55 dB(A) limit (50 dB(A) nighttime), may occur only if the owner or operator has obtained a conditional use permit. A permit to operate equipment which exceeds the limit may be granted by the zoning administrator only if it has been demonstrated that such operation will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of residents subjected to such noise. The manner of obtaining said permit and the rules governing its issuance and revocation shall be as specified in Mountain View City Code Sec. 36.43 and following, all relating to the issuance of conditional use permits.
(Ord. No. 11.81, 8/31/81.)
chap ter 7
Noise
157
CHAPTER 7
Noise
CHAPTER 7
Noise
Protecting the community from excessive or harmful noise is an important par t of sustaining a high quality of life. The purpose of this Noise Element is to guide policies for addressing exposure to current and projected noise sources in Mountain View. The Element covers State Government Code requirements and the State Office of Noise Control Guidelines.

The Element begins with a Context section, followed by a Land Use Compatibility section which outlines acceptable noise standards for the City’s land use categories (page 162). Then, a Looking Forward section highlights oppor tunities, challenges and key strategies (page 165). The final section sets for th the specific goal and policies (page 166) for each topic area.

Context
To help guide decisions on land use, this Element outlines policies to decrease noise and reduce its ef fects. Noise contour maps in this section show areas of the city exposed to freeway, railway and other major noise sources. By highlighting these areas and establishing noise and land use compatibility standards, the City can reduce conflicts between noise and land use and lessen noise sources that reduce the quality of life.

The Context section is organized according to these topics:
ƒ Noise Terms and Definitions (page 158)
ƒ Existing Noise Conditions (page 159)
ƒ City Noise Ordinances (page 162)
158
Noise Terms and Definitions
This section includes some background technical terms and definitions describing noise and how it is perceived
and measured. Additional technical
information is in the General Plan Environmental Impact Repor t (EIR).

Ambient Noise Level – The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time, usually
a composite of nearby and far-away
sound from many sources coming from
many directions.

Decibel (dB) – A decibel is a unit of
measurement that indicates the relative
amplitude of a sound. The 0 point on
the dB scale is the lowest sound level
that the healthy, unimpaired human ear
can detect. People can hear changes of
3dB or more; changes of less than 3dB
can only be perceived in a laboratory.

Sound levels in decibels are calculated logarithmically. Each 10 decibel increase sounds like the noise has
approximately doubled.

A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) – The
human ear is not equally sensitive to
all sound frequencies, so there is a
special frequency-dependent decibel
rating scale to relate noise to human
sensitivity. It is a process called
“A-weighting,” expressed as “dBA.”
An A-weighted decibel scale approximates the range of human sensitivity to sounds of dif ferent frequencies. All
sound levels discussed in this Element
are A-weighted, unless repor ted otherwise (Figure 7.1).

Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) – Leq
represents an average of the sound
energy over a specified period. It is
useful because sound levels can vary
substantially in a shor t time.

Day-Night Level (Ldn) – Ldn is the
energy average of A-weighted sound
levels occurring over an entire day, with
a 10 dB penalty added to A-weighted
sound levels occurring during nighttime
hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Community Noise Equivalent Level
(CNEL) – The 24-hour A-weighted
average sound level from midnight to
midnight, obtained after adding 5 dBA
to sound levels occurring during the
evening from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. and
after adding 10 dBA to sound levels at
night between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 110

NOISE LEVEL
dB(A)
Rock band
Commercial jet flyover
at 1000 ft.

Gas lawn mower at 3 ft.

Diesel truck at 50 ft.

Concrete mixer at 50 ft.

Air compressor at 50 ft.

Lawn tiller at 50 ft.

Quiet urban daytime
Quiet urban nighttime
Quiet suburban nighttime
Quiet rural nighttime
Common outdoor sound levels Common indoor sound levels
Inside subway train (NY)
Food blender at 3 ft.

Garbage disposal at 3 ft.

Shouting at 3 ft.

Vacuum cleaner at 10 ft.

Normal speech at 3 ft.

Large business office
Dishwasher next room
Library
Threshold of hearing
Bedroom at night
Concert hall (background)
Broadcast and Recording
Studio
Small theater, large
conference room (background)
Figure 7.1: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels
Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc., 2009
-
159
CHAPTER 7
Noise
Existing Noise Conditions
The existing noise environment in
Mountain View was documented
through shor t-term and long-term, or
24-hour, noise measurements of noisesensitive locations throughout the city with nearby stationary noise sources.

Complete noise-monitoring locations
and results are documented in the
General Plan Current Conditions Repor t,
August 2009 (Chapter 12, Section 12.8
Noise).

The noise-monitoring results show that
existing noise levels throughout the
city ranged from 51.2 to 72.1 dBA Leq.

The calculated Ldn at the long-term
24-hour noise monitoring location is 65
dBA Ldn. This range of noise level is
typical of an urbanized setting that is
not located near busy streets. In addition to roadway traffic, aircraft flights, landscaping maintenance equipment,
construction, loading and unloading,
commercial activities and everyday
neighborhood activities contribute to
the ambient noise environment.

Transportation Noise Sources
Primary transpor tation noise sources
include major roadways, railways and
airpor ts, all major noise contributors in
Mountain View.

Vehicle Noise
Motor vehicles and their distinctive
sounds are a dominant noise source
in Mountain View. The amount of noise
varies according to many factors such
as traffic volume, the percentage of
cars and trucks, average traffic speed
and the distance from a noise source.

Major contributing roadway noise
sources in Mountain View include
Highway 101, Highway 237, Highway
85, Central Expressway, El Camino Real
and other ar terial and collector roadways throughout the city.

Rail Noise
Mountain View has two Caltrain
stations, one at San Antonio and the
other Downtown. There are four Valley
Transpor tation Authority (VTA) light
rail stations. They are Middlefield,
Whisman, Evelyn and Downtown Mountain View. The NASA/Bayshore station is next to city limits. The Caltrain and
VTA light rail operate daily service on
separate tracks, sharing the rail corridor
along Central Expressway between
Whisman Road and Downtown.

The Caltrain rail line passes through
the city along the south side of Central
Expressway and is the dominant noise
source along this corridor. The nearest
land uses to this corridor include residential and commercial uses south of the rail line. On weekdays, the Caltrain
line includes many commuter trains
traveling nor th and south.

Trains and their track noise, engines
and horns are intermittent. Buildings
are close to the tracks with no sound
walls. All of this influences the overall
ef fect of train noise. Light rail service
is not as noisy because its trains are
electric and travel more slowly.

Mountain View used guidelines in
the FTA publication “Transit Noise
and Vibration Impact Assessment”
to calculate noise levels from trains
along the Caltrain rail line. The calculation assumes that trains have one diesel locomotive and about four cars
traveling at up to 70 miles per hour.

Without warning horns, the noise level
at 50 feet from the center of the rail
line is approximately 85 dBA Ldn. This
level goes up to about 86 dBA when
trains sound their warning horns before
passing street-level railroad crossings.

High-Speed
Rail
As of 2011,
preliminary plans
show high-speed
trains operating
through Mountain
View on or near
the Caltrain rightof-way. New trains
could eliminate
some current sources
of noise because
two street-level
crossings would need
to be removed to
accommodate highspeed trains. This
would reduce the
noise from current
train horns.

The high-speed
trains also would
likely use electric
cars, which would
eliminate the
low-frequency
sounds from
diesel locomotives.

However,
aerodynamic effects
may make highspeed trains noisier
than conventional
trains. Ground
vibration caused by
high-speed trains
is expected to be
similar to vibration
from conventional
trains with steel
wheels on steel rails.
160
Figure 7.2: Aircraft Noise Contours, 2022, and Airport Influence Area N Shoreline Blvd Miramonte Ave Central Expy
Grant Rd
W Middlefield Rd
N Whisman Rd
W El Camino Real
El Camino Real
Castro St
Rengstorff Ave
Mathilda Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
Caribbean Dr
San Antonio Rd

NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER
City of
Sunnyvale
City of
Los Altos
City of
Palo Alto
San Francisco Bay

RUNWAYS
85 237
101
101
N
.5.250 1 mile
Map is for planning purposes only. See the
Comprehensive Land Ue Plan for Moffett Federal
Airfield (Santa Clara County) for more information.

Source: Santa Clara County Planning Office, Airport Land Use Commission LEGEND
75 dB (CNEL) Noise Contour
70 dB (CNEL) Noise Contour
60 dB (CNEL) Noise Contour
65 dB (CNEL) Noise Contour
c::::::::I Airport Influence Area
-
-
-
-
E9
161
CHAPTER 7
Noise
Airpor t Noise
Aircraft flights over Mountain View
contribute to local ambient noise levels
and af fect which land uses are appropriate in dif ferent areas. Airpor ts near Mountain View include Mof fett Federal
Airfield, Palo Alto Airpor t, San Jose
International Airpor t and San Francisco
International Airpor t.

Mof fett Federal Airfield is immediately
nor theast of Mountain View. Par ts of
the city are within its 60 dBA CNEL
noise contour, including open space,
business parks and industrial land, all
of which are compatible uses for airpor t
noise levels. Santa Clara County’s
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
has detailed background information,
policy guidance, and a noise contour
map for Mof fett Federal Airfield (Figure

7.2). The CLUP also includes noise
restrictions and land use compatibility standards for surrounding cities, including Mountain View.

Mountain View does not have much
airpor t noise. The city is outside the
55 dBA CNEL noise contour of the
Palo Alto Airpor t, the San Jose International Airpor t and the San Francisco International Airpor t. These last two
occasionally produce aircraft noise, but
not a significant amount.

Stationary Noise Sources
Construction, cooling and heating
systems, parking lots and special
events are among the stationary noise
sources in Mountain View.

Construction Noise
Construction noise includes demolition, excavation, delivery of materials, grading and building construction on a
project site or staging area. Construction noise is typically louder than background noise, but shor t-term noise
stops when construction is finished.

All construction activity is required to
comply with the City’s noise ordinance
standards.

Section 8.23 of the City Code restricts
the hours of operation for noiseproducing construction equipment. The operation of pile drivers, steam shovels
and pneumatic hammers used in
construction, demolition or other repair
work is restricted to the hours of 7 a.m.
to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. No
noise-producing construction activity is
permitted on Saturday, Sunday or holidays without written approval from the City. If the hours of construction activity
change, then the general contractor,
applicant, developer or owner is
required to erect a sign at a prominent
location on the construction site to let
subcontractors and material suppliers
know of the working hours.

Other Stationary Noise
Mechanical systems for heating, ventilation and air conditioning; delivery trucks idling and loading and unloading; and
recreation activities and parking lot
operations produce stationary noise.

Service and delivery truck activities
are the loudest. Loading and unloading
delivery trucks can produce maximum
noise levels from 75 dBA to 85 dBA Ldn
at 50 feet. Typical parking lot activities
generate approximately 60 dBA to 70
dBA Ldn at 50 feet.

Stationary noise sources also include
business or industrial operations such
as storage facilities and lumber yards.

General business activity and noise
from special events or festivals are also
stationary sources. Seasonal concer ts
at Shoreline Amphitheatre produce
noise in the surrounding area, including
neighboring Palo Alto. As a result,
the Amphitheatre has an agreement
162
with the City of Palo Alto to identify
measures to reduce noise levels when
necessary.

City Noise Ordinances
The City’s codes address noise issues
and protect the community from exposure to excessive noise from sources such as construction activity, animals,
amplified sound and stationary equipment. These codes specify how noise is measured and regulated. The City’s
Zoning Ordinance also includes noise
regulations and standards for uses
such as drive-in and drive-through sales,
commercial and industrial land uses
and sensitive uses such as child-care
centers. Noise is also regulated through
project conditions of approval. The
Mountain View Police Depar tment and
the City Attorney’s office enforce noise
violations.

Land Use Compatibility
The State of California identifies homes,
hotels, schools and hospitals as
par ticularly sensitive to noise. Housing
is highly sensitive because noise can
inter fere with residents’ rest and relaxation. Acceptable noise levels can also vary among dif ferent residential land
uses. In general, single-family neighborhoods are considered to be the most sensitive to noise. Cities may identify
other uses as noise sensitive, such as
parks, libraries and child-care centers.

Other land uses such as commercial,
industrial and office uses are generally
not as sensitive to noise as housing.

These uses can generate significant
noise themselves, and some have lower
human occupancy. Examples of these
land uses include manufacturing, utilities, parking lots and transit stations.

The City has established outdoor noise
environment guidelines for dif ferent
land use categories (Table 7.1). These
guidelines are based on sound levels
that do not inter fere with people’s activities or threaten their well-being. The four categories are: normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable and clearly unacceptable.

The City has projected the future noise
impacts from roadway, rail, airpor t
and other sources in the community to
2030 (Figure 7.3). These projections
can be used to suppor t design considerations in new land use projects and to inform decisions on land use changes.

For example, projections identify locations where new residential might be “normally unacceptable” under future
conditions.

Using the Outdoor Noise Environment Guidelines (Table 7.1, next page) ƒ This chart provides general guidance for siting new land uses, given future noise environments. ƒ If a site’s noise environment is in the “normally acceptable” range, conventional construction should be adequate to achieve interior noise levels compatible with activities characteristic of the land use. Figure 7.3 provides guidance for the approximate location of “normally acceptable” noise environments in 2030. ƒ The Noise Policies contain specific standards for noise levels in residential developments. These policies ensure that noise levels for housing are limited, both indoors and in outdoor active-use areas. 163
CHAPTER 7
Noise
Table 7.1 Outdoor Noise Environment Guidelines
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure in Decibels (CNEL)
Day/Night Average Noise Level in Decibels (Ldn)
55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Residential–Single-Family,
Duplex, Mobile Homes
Residential–Multi-Family
Transient Lodging–Motels,
Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes
Auditoriums, Concer t Halls,
Amphitheaters, Spor ts Arenas,
Outdoor Spectator Spor ts
Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation, Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture

NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon
the assumption that any buildings involved are
of normal conventional construction, without any
special noise insulation requirements.

CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise
insulation features included in the design.

NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements must be made and needed noise
insulation features included in the design.

CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE
New construction or development clearly should not
be under taken.

Source: State of California General Plan Guidelines, 2003. - -
-
-
164
City of
Sunnyvale
City of
Los Altos
City of
Palo Alto

MOFFETT FEDERAL

AIRFIELD

NASA AMES

RESEARCH CENTER
N Shoreline Blvd
Miramonte Ave
Moffett Blvd
Central Expy
Evelyn Ave
Cuesta Dr
Calderon Ave
Bernardo Ave
Grant Rd
W Middlefield Rd
E Middlefield Rd
N Whisman Rd
California St
W El Camino Real
E El Camino Real
Castro St
Rengstorff Ave
S Shoreline Blvd
San Antonio Rd
Charleston Rd
Old Middlefield Way
Ellis St
El Monte Ave

CALTRAIN

LIGHT RAIL
101
101
85 237
Amphitheatre Pkwy
60 dBA CNEL/LDN Contours
70 dBA CNEL/LDN Contours
LEGEND
Figure is not to scale; site specific review required
for project level noise analysis, as necessary. .

The noise contour lines on this figure generally show
areas exposed to mobile sources of noise within the
City of Mountain View.

N
.5.250 1 mile
Figure 7.3: Noise Contours, 2030
-
-
EB
165
CHAPTER 7
Noise
Looking Forward
Following are some distinct opportunities and challenges the City of Mountain View is likely to face over
the life of the General Plan, and key
strategies for addressing them. These
strategies should be top priorities to
advance the Noise Element goal and
policies described in the next section,
and inform decision making over the life
of the General Plan.

City noise regulating codes. The City
will update as necessary and continue
enforcing City Codes regulating noise to
help contribute to Mountain View’s high
quality of life.

Land use compatibility. During planning
and development decisions, the City will
continue to rely on the Outdoor Noise
Environment Guidelines to ensure land
use compatibility (Table 7.1).

Protection of noise-sensitive uses.

Noise-sensitive uses such as residential development, schools, child-care facilities and hospitals must continue
to be protected from noise and vibration impacts from freeways, ar terials, railroads and airpor t use.

NASA Ames coordination. Coordinating
with NASA Ames on development plans
for the NASA Ames Research Center
and continuing use of the Mof fett
Federal Airfield are impor tant steps in
addressing and mitigating existing and
potential noise sources.

California High-Speed Rail. Construction of a proposed high-speed train system in California that would link
Los Angeles to the San Francisco Bay
Area could create noise and vibration
impacts in Mountain View. As more
information on this project becomes
available, it should be used accordingly
when conducting noise and vibration
studies and land use planning along
this corridor.
166
Goal and Policies
The Noise (NOI) goal is a broad statement describing the City’s future direction. Policies provide more specificity for achieving this goal. Actions for implementing this goal and these policies are detailed separately in the General Plan’s Action Plan.

Goal NOI-1: Noise levels that support a high quality of life in Mountain View.

Policies
NOI 1.1: Land use compatibility. Use the Outdoor Noise Environment Guidelines as a guide for planning and development decisions (Table 7.1).

NOI 1.2: Noise-sensitive land uses. Require new development of noise-sensitive land uses to incorporate measures into the project design to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to the following acceptable levels:
• New single-family developments shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA Ldn for exterior noise in private outdoor active use areas. • New multi-family residential developments shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA Ldn for private and community outdoor recreation use areas. Noise standards do not apply to private decks and balconies in multi-family residential developments.
• Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dBA Ldn in all new single-family and multi-family residential units.
• Where new single-family and multi-family residential units would be exposed to intermittent noise from major transpor tation sources such as train or airpor t operations, new construction shall achieve an interior noise level of 65 dBA through measures such as site design or special construction materials. This standard shall apply to areas exposed to four or more major transpor tation noise events such as passing trains or aircraft flyovers per day.

NOI 1.3: Exceeding acceptable noise thresholds. If noise levels in the area of a proposed project would exceed normally acceptable thresholds, the City shall require a detailed analysis of proposed noise reduction measures to determine whether the proposed use is compatible. As needed, noise insulation features shall be included in the design of such projects to reduce exterior noise levels to meet acceptable thresholds, or for uses with no active outdoor use areas, to ensure acceptable interior noise levels.

NOI 1.4: Site planning. Use site planning and project design strategies to achieve the noise level standards in NOI 1.1 (Land use compatibility) and in NOI 1.2 (Noise-sensitive land uses). The use of noise barriers shall be considered after all practical design-related noise measures have been integrated into the project design.

NOI 1.5: Major roadways. Reduce the noise impacts from major ar terials and freeways.
167
CHAPTER 7
Noise
NOI 1.6: Sensitive uses. Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, schools, hospitals and child-care facilities.

NOI 1.7: Stationary sources. Restrict noise levels from stationary sources through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance.

NOI 1.8: Moffett Federal Airfield. Suppor t ef for ts to minimize noise impacts from Mof fett Federal Airfield in coordination with Santa Clara County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

NOI 1.9: Rail. Reduce the effects of noise and vibration impacts from rail corridors.

SVA-01.0 - Construction Noise Modeling Attenuation Calculations Levels in dBA Leq
Phase
RCNM
Reference
Noise Level
Residences to
the South
Residences to
the West
Residences to the
East
Distance in feet 50 130 100 115
Demolition 85.0 76.7 79.0 77.8
Site Prep 83.0 74.7 77.0 75.8
Grading 85.0 76.7 79.0 77.8
Distance in feet 50 120 125 160
Building Construction 83.0 75.4 75.0 72.9
Architectural Coating 74.0 66.4 66.0 63.9
Distance in feet 50 205 110 95
Paving 83.0 70.7 76.2 77.4
Attenuation calculated through Inverse Square Law: Lp(R2) = Lp(R1) - 20Log(R2/R1) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 04/19/2023
Case Description: SVA‐01
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐              ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐Architectural Coating Residential 60.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐         ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 50.0 0.0 Results
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐Compressor (air) 77.7 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 77.7 73.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 04/19/2023
Case Description: SVA‐01
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐                        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐Building and Asphalt Demolition Residential 60.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐         ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 50.0 0.0Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0 Results
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐Concrete Saw 89.6 82.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 84.0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 89.6 85.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 04/19/2023
Case Description: SVA‐01
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐              ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐Building Construction Residential 60.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐         ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Front End Loader No 40 79.1 50.0 0.0 Generator No 50 80.6 50.0 0.0Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0 Results
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐Front End Loader 79.1 75.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Generator 80.6 77.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 84.0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 84.0 82.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 04/19/2023
Case Description: SVA‐01
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐Paving Residential 60.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐             ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 50.0 0.0 Pavement Scarafier No 20 89.5 50.0 0.0Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0 Results
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐Concrete Mixer Truck 78.8 74.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pavement Scarafier 89.5 82.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 84.0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 89.5 84.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 04/19/2023
Case Description: SVA‐01
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐Rough Grading Residential 60.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐         ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Grader No 40 85.0 50.0 0.0 Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐Grader 85.0 81.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Dozer 81.7 77.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 84.0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 85.0 84.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 04/19/2023
Case Description: SVA‐01
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐         ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐        ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐Site Preparation Residential 60.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐         ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Grader No 40 85.0 50.0 0.0 Scraper No 40 83.6 50.0 0.0Tractor No 40 84.0 50.0 0.0
Results
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Noise Limits (dBA) Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐     ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐    ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐  ‐‐‐‐‐‐Grader 85.0 81.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Scraper 83.6 79.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tractor 84.0 80.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 85.0 85.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SVA-01 - Vibration Damage Attenuation Calculations
Levels, PPV (in/sec)
Single-Famly to the
South
Multi-Family to the
West
Single-Family to the
East
Distance in feet 80 35 70
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
Vibration
Reference Level
at 25 feet
I
City of Mountain View

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
October 2025 | Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2024120444

EXHIBIT B
This page is intentionally left blank.

October 2025 | Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2024120444

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING
for the City of Mountain View
City of Mountain View
Public Works Department
Contact: Naveen Govind, Senior Project Manager
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, California 94041
650.903.6527
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
510.848.3815
www.placeworks.com
In Association with:

Forget Me Not History
Woodreeve Consulting
This page is intentionally left blank.

OCTOBER 2025 1

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

INTRODUCTION
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Sections 15000 et seq.).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies comments on the draft EIR. (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the lead agency.

This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. This document and the circulated Draft EIR comprise the Final EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132.

According to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project, and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

A Draft EIR was prepared for the proposed project to provide an assessment of the potential environmental consequences of adoption and implementation of the proposed project. A Notice of Preparation of an EIR was issued by the City of Mountain View (City) on December 1, 2024, for a 30- day-review period. A Notice of Availability (NOA) was issued by the City on July 1, 2025, and the Draft EIR was made available for public review for a 45-day public review period through August 15, 2025.

No comments were submitted to the City during the 45-day public review period, and no revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

This EIR, which is comprised of the Draft and Final EIRs, will be presented at a City Council hearing and staff will advise the City Council on certification of the EIR. The City Council will consider staff recommendations on the EIR and the proposed project during a noticed public hearing and will take final action with regard to certification of the EIR. The City Council will consider certification of the EIR at a public hearing in Fall 2025.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
2 PlaceWorks

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
The following revisions represented by underlined text that represents language that has been added to the EIR and text with strikethrough that has been deleted from the Draft EIR, do not constitute significant new information as defined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5; therefore, the Draft EIR does not need to be recirculated.

The first sentence of the second paragraph in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 shown on pages 1-12 and

4.2-9 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

In addition, a Tree Protection and Replacement Program (Program) shall be developed by a Certified Arborist prior to project approval issuance of building permits and implemented during project construction to provide for adequate protection and replacement of “heritage” trees, as defined by the City’s Municipal Code. The Program shall include, but is not limited to, the following provisions:

The second sentence of the first paragraph in Mitigation Measure CUL-1.1 shown on pages 1-17 and

4.3-11 of the Draft EIR is hereby amended as follows:

Mitigation Measure CUL-1.1: The City shall have Historic American Building Survey Level II documentation completed for the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building and its setting. To ensure public access, the City shall submit copies of the documentation to Mountain View Historical Association’s History Center in the Mountain View Library and the California Historical Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. This documentation shall include drawings, photographs, and a historical narrative:

MITIGATION AND MONITORING REPORT
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the proposed Mountain View Public Safety Building project (proposed project). The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure the implementation of mitigation measures identified as part of the environmental review for the proposed project. The MMRP includes the following information:
 The full text of the mitigation measures;
 The party responsible for implementing the mitigation measures;  The timing for implementation of the mitigation measure;  The agency responsible for monitoring the implementation; and  The monitoring action and frequency.

The mitigation measures in this MMRP shown in Table 1, Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, shall be applied to all future development anywhere in the EIR Study Area. The City of Mountain View must adopt this MMRP, or an equally effective program, if it approves the proposed project with the mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
OCTOBER 2025 3
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The project contractor shall comply with the Bay Area Air District’s basic best management practices for reducing construction-related emissions of uncontrolled fugitive dust (coarse inhalable particulate matter [PM10] and fine inhalable particulate matter [PM2.5]):
 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
 Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measures Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
 All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.  Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.  Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Project contractor Prior to submittal of
grading permit
City of Mountain
View Community
Development
Department
Building Division

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
4 PlaceWorks
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
These measures shall be noted on grading plans prepared by the applicant submitted to the City of Mountain View Building Division. The construction contractor shall implement these measures during ground disturbing activities. The City shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The City of Mountain View shall specify in the construction bid that the project construction contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) comply with the following requirements for all off-road equipment used over the entire duration of the construction activities at the site:
 Use engines that meet either US EPA or California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Final emission standards for engines that are greater than 25 horsepower. Ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Mountain View Building Division clearly show the selected emission reduction strategy for construction equipment over 25 horsepower.  If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available for use for the project for a specific piece of offroad construction equipment, documentation shall be provided to the City of Mountain View demonstrating that such equipment is not available for the project. If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available, the construction contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) affected shall use Tier 4 Interim equipment instead. If Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available for use for the project for a specific piece of off-road construction equipment, documentation shall be provided to the City demonstrating that such equipment is not available for the project. If Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available, the construction contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) affected shall use Tier 3 equipment outfitted with a level 3 diesel particulate filter instead.
 Prohibit the use of generators except for electric alternatives. The City shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Mountain View Building Division clearly show the requirement to use power storage equipment or electric generators in lieu of fossil fuel powered generators.
 Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City or their designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, fuel type, and number of construction equipment on-site. All equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

City of Mountain
View Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
construction bid
City of Mountain
View Community
Development
Department
Building Division

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
OCTOBER 2025 5
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and construction documents that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this requirement is met.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code.

The construction contractor shall indicate the following on all construction plans, if construction activities and any required tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31). Preconstruction surveys shall:
 Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or grading, demolition, or construction activities. Note that preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction, grading, or demolition activities outside the nesting period.  Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction.  Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped.
 Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds.

Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall include:
 Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.  Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.  An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced Project contractor
and qualified
biologist
Prior to submittal of
construction permit
applications
City of Mountain
View Community
Development
Department
Building Division

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
6 PlaceWorks
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
by the qualified biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The proposed project shall comply with the City of Mountain View’s Municipal Code requirements for the provision of the removal of heritage trees in Chapter 32, Trees, Shrubs and Plants, Article II, Protection of The Urban Forest. A tree removal permit shall be obtained for the removal of any “heritage” tree, and replacement plantings shall be provided as approved by the City. If permitted, any replacement trees be placed off-site or an appropriate in-lieu tree replacement fee may be paid to the City of Mountain View as compensation for “heritage” trees removed by the proposed project, where sufficient land area is not available onsite for adequate replacement and when approved by the City.

In addition, a Tree Protection and Replacement Program (Program) shall be developed by a Certified Arborist prior to issuance of building permits and implemented during project construction to provide for adequate protection and replacement of “heritage” trees, as defined by the City’s Municipal Code. The Program shall include, but is not limited to, the following provisions:
 Adequate measures shall be defined to protect all trees to be preserved. These measures should include the establishment of a tree protection zone (TPZ) around each tree to be preserved, in which no disturbance is permitted. For design purposes, the TPZ shall be located at the dripline of the tree or 10 feet, whichever is greater. If necessary, the TPZ for construction-tolerant species (i.e., coast live oaks) may be reduced to 7 feet.  Temporary construction fencing shall be installed at the perimeter of TPZs prior to demolition, grubbing, or grading. Fences shall be 6-foot chain link or equivalent, as approved by the City of Mountain View. Fences shall remain until all construction is completed. Fences shall not be relocated or removed without permission from the consulting arborist.
 No grading, excavation, or storage of materials shall be permitted within TPZs. Construction trailers, traffic, and storage areas shall remain outside fenced areas at all times. No excess Project contractor
and Certified
Arborist
Prior to issuance of
building permits
City of Mountain
View Community
Development
Department
Building Division

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
OCTOBER 2025 7
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
soil, chemicals, debris, equipment, or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the TPZ.
 Underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be routed around the TPZ. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the TPZ.  Construction activities associated with structures and underground features to be removed within the TPZ shall use the smallest equipment and operate from outside the TPZ. The consulting arborist shall be on-site during all operations within the TPZ to monitor demolition activity.
 All grading, improvement plans, and construction plans shall clearly indicate trees proposed to be removed, altered, or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree information on grading and development plans should indicate the number, size, species, assigned tree number, and location of the dripline of all trees that are to be retained/preserved. All plans shall also include tree preservation guidelines prepared by the consulting arborist.
 The demolition contractor shall meet with the consulting arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection. Prior to beginning work, the contractor(s) working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved shall be required to meet with the consulting arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.
 All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots shall be monitored by the consulting arborist. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the consulting arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.  Any plan changes affecting trees shall be reviewed by the consulting arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, site improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and demolition plans.  Trees to be preserved may require pruning to provide construction clearance. All pruning shall be completed by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
8 PlaceWorks
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the current Best Management Practices for Pruning published by the International Society of Arboriculture, and adhere to the current editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Section Z133.1) and Pruning (Section A300).  Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the consulting arborist.
 Any demolition or excavation, such as grading, pad preparation, excavation, and trenching, within the dripline or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be approved and monitored by the consulting arborist. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive prior approval of, and by supervised by, the consulting arborist. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a sharp saw.
 Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by construction contractors. The qualified arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Tree stumps shall be ground 12 inches below ground surface.  All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 through 3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible, tree pruning, and removal shall be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys shall be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists shall be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests. (See Mitigation Measure BIO-1.)  The vertical and horizontal locations of all the trees identified for preservation shall be established and plotted on all plans. These plans shall be forwards to the consulting arborist for review and comment.
 Foundations, footings, and pavements on expansive soils near trees shall be designed to withstand differential displacement to protect the soil surrounding the tree roots.  Any liming within 50 feet of any tree shall be prohibited, as lime is toxic to tree roots. Any herbicides placed under paving materials shall be safe for use under trees and labeled for that use.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
OCTOBER 2025 9
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
 Brush from pruning and trees removal operations shall be chipped and spread beneath the trees within the TPZ. Mulch shall be between 2 inches and 4 inches in depth and kept at a minimum of 3 feet from the base of the trees.

All recommendations for tree preservation made by the applicant’s consulting arborist shall be followed.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1.1: The City shall have Historic American Building Survey Level II documentation completed for the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building and its setting. To ensure public access, the City shall submit copies of the documentation to Mountain View History Center in the Mountain View Library and the California Historical Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. This documentation shall include drawings, photographs, and a historical narrative:
 Drawings: Existing historic drawings of the historical resource shall be photographed with large-format negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar. In the absence of existing drawings, full-measured drawings of the building’s plan and exterior elevations shall be prepared prior to demolition.
 Photographs: Photo-documentation of the historical resource shall be prepared to Historic American Building Survey standards for archival photography, prior to demolition. Historic American Building Survey standards require large-format black-and-white photography, with the original negatives having a minimum size of four inches by five inches. Digital photography, roll film, film packs, and electronic manipulation of images are not acceptable. All film prints, a minimum of four inches by five inches, must be handprocessed according to the manufacturer’s specifications and printed on fiber-base, singleweight paper and dried to a full gloss finish. A minimum of 12 photographs shall be taken, detailing the site, building exterior, building interior, and character-defining features.

Photographs must be identified and labeled using Historic American Building Survey standards.
 Historical Overview: A professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History or History shall assemble historical background information relevant to the historical resource.

City of Mountain
View Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
demolition permit
City of Mountain
View Community
Development
Department
Building Division

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
10 PlaceWorks
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
The City of Mountain View shall verify compliance with this mitigation measure prior to the initiation of any site or building demolition or construction activities.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1.2: The City shall incorporate an exhibit or display of the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building and a description of its historical significance into a publicly accessible portion of the proposed Public Safety Building. The display shall be developed with the assistance of one or more professionals experienced in creating such historical exhibits or displays.

City of Mountain
View Public Works
Department
Prior to issuance of
occupancy permit
City of Mountain
View Community
Development
Department
Building Division
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Project supervisors, contractors, and equipment operators shall participate in an Archaeological Resource Awareness Training, conducted by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist, to become familiar with the type of artifacts and features that could be encountered during project-related ground disturbing activities, as well as the procedures to follow if archaeological resources are unearthed during construction. If indigenous, prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during grounddisturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find. The City and a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and a Native American representative shall be immediately informed of the discovery. Prehistoric and indigenous materials might include obsidian and chert-flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil [“midden”] containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, shall develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. If avoidance is not feasible, project impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the archeologist, in coordination with the City, Native American representative, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3)(C), which requires implementation of a data recovery plan. Once the recovery plan has been reviewed and approved by the City, implemented, and any appropriate resource recovery completed, project construction activity within the area of the find may resume.

Project contractor
and qualified
archaeologist
Prior to issuance of
first construction
permit allowing
ground-disturbing
activities
City of Mountain
View Community
Development
Department
Building Division

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
OCTOBER 2025 11
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: In the event of the discovery of human remains during demolition, excavation, or construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50-foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains, and the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance. The City and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to their authority, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the landowner, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist, shall formulate an appropriate treatment plan for the find, which might include, but not be limited to, respectful scientific recording and removal, being left in place, removal and reburial on-site, or elsewhere.

Associated grave goods are to be treated in the same manner. A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation programs and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing resources analysis methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director.

Project contractor
and qualified
archaeologist
During construction City of Mountain
View Community
Development
Department
Building Division
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall retain the services of a certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer to prepare a site-specific geotechnical study based on the most recent draft of the conceptual site plans. The geotechnical study shall address, but is not limited to, the effects of seismically induced liquefaction, and include recommendations to ensure any potential hazards related to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction would not occur. The geotechnical study shall be approved by the City of Mountain View's Building Inspection Department prior to the issuance of building permits.

Project contractor
and certified
engineer
Prior to issuance of
building permits
City of Mountain
View Community
Development
Department
Building Division
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.

Project contractor
and qualified
hazardous materials
consultant
Prior to issuance of
demolition or grading
permits
City of Mountain
View Community
Development
Department
Building Division

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
12 PlaceWorks
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
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 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.

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 Project contractor Prior to issuance of
construction permit
City of Mountain
View Community
Development
Department
Building Division

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
OCTOBER 2025 13
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
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 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.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FINAL EIR

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Final EIR
14 PlaceWorks
Table 1 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures
Party Responsible
for
Implementation
Implementation
Timing
Agency
Responsible for
Monitoring
 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.

1 EXHIBIT C
THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW’S FINDINGS FOR THE

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING

REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et seq.)

I INTRODUCTION
The City of Mountain View (the “City”) prepared a Draft and a Final Environmental Impact Report (collectively, the “EIR”) for the Mountain View Public Safety Building (the “project”).

The EIR addresses the potential environmental effects associated with the project. The findings set forth below (the “Findings”) are adopted by this City of Mountain View City Council (“City Council”) as the City’s findings under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) relating to the project based on substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding (administrative record). The Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of this City Council regarding the project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to the project.

II GENERAL FINDINGS
Procedural Background
Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City determined that an EIR would be required for the project. On December 10, 2024, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the EIR, which was circulated to responsible agencies, interested groups, and individuals and to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment. Comments were received by the City during the NOP scoping period, which were taken into account during the preparation of the Draft EIR. A copy of the NOP is included in Appendix A of the Mountain View Public Safety Building Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”).

The Draft EIR was published for public review and comment on July 1, 2025, and was filed with the State Office of Planning & Research under State Clearinghouse No. 2024120444. The Draft EIR was made available for review and comment by interested persons and public agencies from July 1, 2025, to August 15, 2025.

No comments were received on the Draft EIR during the public review period. The City prepared the Mountain View Public Safety Building Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) with revisions to the Draft EIR and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Final EIR was made available for public review in October 2025.

On November 4, 2025, the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the project and associated EIR, CEQA Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and MMRP.

Record of Proceedings and Custodian of Record
The record upon which all findings and determinations related to the approval of the project are based includes the following:

1. The EIR and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the EIR.

2. All information (including written evidence and testimony) provided by City staff to

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
2 the City Council relating to the EIR, the approvals, and the project

3. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to City Council by environmental consultants who prepared the EIR or incorporated into reports presented to the City Council.

4. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the City from other public agencies related to the project or the EIR.

5. All applications, letters, testimony and presentations relating to the project.

6. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented at any public City hearing or City workshop related to the project and the EIR.

7. All City-adopted or City-prepared land use plans, ordinances, including without limitation general plans, specific plans, and ordinances, together with environmental review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring programs, and other documents relevant to land use within the area.

8. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for the project.

9. All other documents composing the record pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e).

The custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the City’s decisions are based is David Printy, Public Works Department, or his designee. Such documents and other material are located at City of Mountain View, Public Works Department, 500 Castro Street, First Floor, Mountain View, CA 94041.

Consideration and Certification of the EIR
In accordance with CEQA, the City Council certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The City Council has independently reviewed the record and the EIR prior to certifying the EIR and approving the project. By these findings, the City Council confirms, ratifies, and adopts the findings and conclusions of the EIR as supplemented and modified by these findings. The EIR and these findings represent the independent judgment and analysis of the City and the City Council. The City Council recognizes the EIR may contain clerical errors. The City Council reviewed the entirety of the EIR and bases its determination on the substance of the information it contains. The City Council certifies that the EIR is adequate to support the City’s decisions regarding the project.

The City Council certifies that the EIR is adequate to support approval of the project described in the EIR.

No Significant New Information
The City Council recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and produced after the Draft EIR was completed, and that the Final EIR contains additions, corrections, and modifications that clarify or amplify the analysis included in the Draft EIR. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of this information, and it finds that the information added in the Final EIR clarifies and makes insignificant changes to an adequate Draft EIR. The new information added to the EIR does not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative considerably different from others previously analyzed that the project applicant declines to adopt and that would

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
3 clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project. No information indicates that the Draft EIR was inadequate or conclusory or that the public was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the EIR. Therefore, the Final EIR does not include any changes or add any new significant information to the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the EIR under CEQA.

Mitigation Monitoring And Reporting Program
The mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP are specific and enforceable and are capable of being fully implemented by the efforts of the City of Mountain View and/or other identified public agencies of responsibility. As appropriate, some mitigation measures define performance standards to ensure no significant environmental impacts will result. The MMRP adequately describes implementation procedures and monitoring responsibility in order to ensure that the project complies with necessary mitigation measures.

The City Council will impose conditions of approval and adopt mitigation measures as set forth in the MMRP as enforceable conditions of approval. As discussed in detail in Sections III and IV below, the City has adopted measures to substantially lessen or eliminate all significant effects to the extent feasible.

The conditions of approval and mitigation measures incorporated into and imposed upon the project approval will not themselves have new significant environmental impacts or cause a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant environmental impact that were not analyzed in the EIR. In the event a mitigation measure recommended in the EIR has been inadvertently omitted from the conditions of approval or the MMRP, that mitigation measure is adopted and incorporated from the EIR into the MMRP by reference and adopted as a condition of approval.

Severability
If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other actions related to the project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.

III FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS As indicated in the EIR, the project would result in one significant and unavoidable impact that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
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.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1.1: The City shall have Historic American Building Survey Level II documentation completed for the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building and its setting. To ensure public access, the City shall submit copies of the documentation to Mountain View History Center in the Mountain View Library and the California Historical Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. This documentation shall include drawings, photographs, and a historical narrative:

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
4  Drawings: Existing historic drawings of the historical resource shall be photographed with largeformat negatives or photographically reproduced on Mylar. In the absence of existing drawings, fullmeasured drawings of the building’s plan and exterior elevations shall be prepared prior to demolition.
 Photographs: Photo-documentation of the historical resource shall be prepared to Historic American Building Survey standards for archival photography, prior to demolition. Historic American Building Survey standards require large-format black-and-white photography, with the original negatives having a minimum size of four inches by five inches. Digital photography, roll film, film packs, and electronic manipulation of images are not acceptable. All film prints, a minimum of four inches by five inches, must be hand-processed according to the manufacturer’s specifications and printed on fiber-base, single-weight paper and dried to a full gloss finish. A minimum of 12 photographs shall be taken, detailing the site, building exterior, building interior, and character-defining features.

Photographs must be identified and labeled using Historic American Building Survey standards.  Historical Overview: A professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History or History shall assemble historical background information relevant to the historical resource.

The City of Mountain View shall verify compliance with this mitigation measure prior to the initiation of any site or building demolition or construction activities.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1.2: The City shall incorporate an exhibit or display of the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building and a description of its historical significance into a publicly accessible portion of the proposed Public Safety Building. The display shall be developed with the assistance of one or more professionals experienced in creating such historical exhibits or displays.

Findings
Due to the inherent design of the proposed project, implementation of the proposed project would remove the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration building. While Mitigation Measure CUL-1.1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-1.2 would offset this impact to the extent feasible, they would not prevent removal of this historical resource. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The City finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-1.1 and Mitigation Measure CUL-1.2 are feasible, and are hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact CUL-1 to the extent feasible, although this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

IV FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH ARE MITIGATED TO A LESS-THANSIGNIFICANT LEVEL As indicated in the EIR, the project would result in significant impacts that can be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR.

By adopting and incorporating these mitigation measures into the project, it is hereby determined that the following significant impacts will be avoided or substantially lessened to a less-than-significant level.

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
5 Air Quality
Impact AIR-1: Without mitigation, construction activities for the proposed project could generate fugitive dust that exceeds State standards.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The project contractor shall comply with the Bay Area Air District’s basic best management practices for reducing construction-related emissions of uncontrolled fugitive dust (coarse inhalable particulate matter [PM10] and fine inhalable particulate matter [PM2.5]):
 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
 All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measures Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
 All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
 All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.  Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.  Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

These measures shall be noted on grading plans prepared by the applicant submitted to the City of Mountain View Building Division. The construction contractor shall implement these measures during ground disturbing activities. The City shall verify compliance that these measures have been implemented during normal construction site inspections.

Findings
Mitigation Measure AIR-1 contains the Bay Area Air District’s basic best management practices in the bullet points listed above, which are recommended by the Air District to ensure construction fugitive

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
6 dust emissions and fine inhalable particulate matter are less than significant. As such, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. The City finds that Mitigation Measure AIR-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact AIR-1 to a less-than-significant level.

Impact AIR-2: Construction activities for the proposed project could generate cancer risks above acceptable levels for the maximally exposed residential receptor.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2: The City of Mountain View shall specify in the construction bid that the project construction contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) comply with the following requirements for all off-road equipment used over the entire duration of the construction activities at the site:
 Use engines that meet either US EPA or California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Final emission standards for engines that are greater than 25 horsepower. Ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Mountain View Building Division clearly show the selected emission reduction strategy for construction equipment over 25 horsepower.  If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available for use for the project for a specific piece of off-road construction equipment, documentation shall be provided to the City of Mountain View demonstrating that such equipment is not available for the project. If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available, the construction contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) affected shall use Tier 4 Interim equipment instead. If Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available for use for the project for a specific piece of off-road construction equipment, documentation shall be provided to the City demonstrating that such equipment is not available for the project. If Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available, the construction contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) affected shall use Tier 3 equipment outfitted with a level 3 diesel particulate filter instead.  Prohibit the use of generators except for electric alternatives. The City shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Mountain View Building Division clearly show the requirement to use power storage equipment or electric generators in lieu of fossil fuel powered generators.
 Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City or their designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, fuel type, and number of construction equipment on-site. All equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
 Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and construction documents that all nonessential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this requirement is met.

Findings
As shown in Table 4.1-7, Construction Health Risk Assessment Result – Mitigated, of the EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would reduce emissions for sensitive receptors to a lessthan-significant level. The City finds that Mitigation Measure AIR-2 is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact AIR-2 to a less-than-significant level.

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
7 Biological Resources
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.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nests of raptors and other birds shall be protected when in active use, as required by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. The construction contractor shall indicate the following on all construction plans, if construction activities and any required tree removal occur during the breeding season (February 1 and August 31).

Preconstruction surveys shall:
 Be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to tree removal or grading, demolition, or construction activities. Note that preconstruction surveys are not required for tree removal or construction, grading, or demolition activities outside the nesting period.  Be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the start of tree removal or construction.  Be repeated at 14-day intervals until construction has been initiated in the area after which surveys can be stopped.
 Document locations of active nests containing viable eggs or young birds.

Protective measures for active nests containing viable eggs or young birds shall be implemented under the direction of the qualified biologist until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds. Protective measures shall include:
 Establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the qualified biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.
 Monitoring active nests within an exclusion zone on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status.  An increase in the radius of an exclusion zone by the qualified biologist if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife.  The protection measures shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.

Findings
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for nesting birds, followed by avoidance efforts if nests are found. The survey, as well as any subsequent protective measures, would ensure that project implementation would avoid any significant impact on nesting birds that may be on the project site at the time of tree removal or demolition activities. The City finds that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact BIO-1 to a less-than-significant level.

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
8 Impact BIO-2: The proposed development would result in removal of trees protected under City’s Municipal Code.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: The proposed project shall comply with the City of Mountain View’s Municipal Code requirements for the provision of the removal of heritage trees in Chapter 32, Trees, Shrubs and Plants, Article II, Protection of The Urban Forest. A tree removal permit shall be obtained for the removal of any “heritage” tree, and replacement plantings shall be provided as approved by the City.

If permitted, any replacement trees be placed off-site or an appropriate in-lieu tree replacement fee may be paid to the City of Mountain View as compensation for “heritage” trees removed by the proposed project, where sufficient land area is not available on-site for adequate replacement and when approved by the City.

In addition, a Tree Protection and Replacement Program (Program) shall be developed by a Certified Arborist prior to project approval and implemented during project construction to provide for adequate protection and replacement of “heritage” trees, as defined by the City’s Municipal Code. The Program shall include, but is not limited to, the following provisions:
 Adequate measures shall be defined to protect all trees to be preserved. These measures should include the establishment of a tree protection zone (TPZ) around each tree to be preserved, in which no disturbance is permitted. For design purposes, the TPZ shall be located at the dripline of the tree or 10 feet, whichever is greater. If necessary, the TPZ for construction-tolerant species (i.e., coast live oaks) may be reduced to 7 feet.
 Temporary construction fencing shall be installed at the perimeter of TPZs prior to demolition, grubbing, or grading. Fences shall be 6-foot chain link or equivalent, as approved by the City of Mountain View. Fences shall remain until all construction is completed. Fences shall not be relocated or removed without permission from the consulting arborist.  No grading, excavation, or storage of materials shall be permitted within TPZs. Construction trailers, traffic, and storage areas shall remain outside fenced areas at all times. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment, or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the TPZ.  Underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be routed around the TPZ.

Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the TPZ.  Construction activities associated with structures and underground features to be removed within the TPZ shall use the smallest equipment and operate from outside the TPZ. The consulting arborist shall be on-site during all operations within the TPZ to monitor demolition activity.  All grading, improvement plans, and construction plans shall clearly indicate trees proposed to be removed, altered, or otherwise affected by development construction. The tree information on grading and development plans should indicate the number, size, species, assigned tree number, and location of the dripline of all trees that are to be retained/preserved. All plans shall also include tree preservation guidelines prepared by the consulting arborist.  The demolition contractor shall meet with the consulting arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection. Prior to beginning work, the contractor(s) working in the

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
9 vicinity of trees to be preserved shall be required to meet with the consulting arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.  All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots shall be monitored by the consulting arborist. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the consulting arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
 Any plan changes affecting trees shall be reviewed by the consulting arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, site improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and demolition plans.  Trees to be preserved may require pruning to provide construction clearance. All pruning shall be completed by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the current Best Management Practices for Pruning published by the International Society of Arboriculture, and adhere to the current editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Section Z133.1) and Pruning (Section A300).
 Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the consulting arborist.
 Any demolition or excavation, such as grading, pad preparation, excavation, and trenching, within the dripline or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be approved and monitored by the consulting arborist. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive prior approval of, and by supervised by, the consulting arborist. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a sharp saw.  Tree(s) to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s) to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by construction contractors. The qualified arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Tree stumps shall be ground 12 inches below ground surface.
 All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 through 3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible, tree pruning, and removal shall be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys shall be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists shall be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests. (See Mitigation Measure BIO-1.)
 The vertical and horizontal locations of all the trees identified for preservation shall be established and plotted on all plans. These plans shall be forwards to the consulting arborist for review and comment.
 Foundations, footings, and pavements on expansive soils near trees shall be designed to withstand differential displacement to protect the soil surrounding the tree roots.  Any liming within 50 feet of any tree shall be prohibited, as lime is toxic to tree roots. Any herbicides placed under paving materials shall be safe for use under trees and labeled for that use.

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
10  Brush from pruning and trees removal operations shall be chipped and spread beneath the trees within the TPZ. Mulch shall be between 2 inches and 4 inches in depth and kept at a minimum of 3 feet from the base of the trees.
 All recommendations for tree preservation made by the applicant’s consulting arborist shall be followed.

Findings
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires development and adherence to a Tree Protection and Replacement Program. The program would ensure the replacement of heritage trees and the implementation of a number of tree protection measures during project construction. The program, and its protective measures, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The City finds that Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact BIO-2 to a less-than-significant level.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
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.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Project supervisors, contractors, and equipment operators shall participate in an Archaeological Resource Awareness Training, conducted by a Secretary of Interior-qualified archaeologist, to become familiar with the type of artifacts and features that could be encountered during project-related ground disturbing activities, as well as the procedures to follow if archaeological resources are unearthed during construction. If indigenous, prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find. The City and a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and a Native American representative shall be immediately informed of the discovery. Prehistoric and indigenous materials might include obsidian and chert-flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil [“midden”] containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, shall develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. If avoidance is not feasible, project impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the recommendations of the archeologist, in coordination with the City, Native American representative, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3)(C), which requires implementation of a data recovery plan. Once the recovery plan has been reviewed and approved by the City, implemented, and any appropriate resource recovery completed, project construction activity within the area of the find may resume.

Findings
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires appropriate procedures to minimize potential impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources during ground-disturbing activities; as such, impacts to

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
11 archaeological resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. The City finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-2 is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact CUL-2 to a less-than-significant level.

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.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: In the event of the discovery of human remains during demolition, excavation, or construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50- foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains, and the area shall be secured to prevent further disturbance. The City and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to their authority, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the landowner, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist, shall formulate an appropriate treatment plan for the find, which might include, but not be limited to, respectful scientific recording and removal, being left in place, removal and reburial on-site, or elsewhere. Associated grave goods are to be treated in the same manner. A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation programs and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing resources analysis methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director.

Findings
Mitigation Measure CUL-3 requires appropriate procedures to be followed in the event that human remains are discovered during construction activities; as such, impacts to human remains would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. The City finds that Mitigation Measure CUL-3 is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact CUL-3 to a less-than-significant level.

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.

Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Implement Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3.

Findings
Mitigation Measure CUL-4 requires implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3, which require appropriate procedures to be followed in the event that previously undiscovered archaeological resources and human remains are discovered during construction activities; as such, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. The City finds that Mitigation Measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact CUL-4 to a less-than-significant level.

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
12 Geology and Soils
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.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall retain the services of a certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer to prepare a site-specific geotechnical study based on the most recent draft of the conceptual site plans. The geotechnical study shall address, but is not limited to, the effects of seismically induced liquefaction, and include recommendations to ensure any potential hazards related to the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction would not occur. The geotechnical study shall be approved by the City of Mountain View's Building Inspection Department prior to the issuance of building permits.

Findings
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires the development of a site-specific geotechnical study to be approved the City’s Building Inspection Department prior to the issuance of building permits. With adherence to the final design-level geotechnical report, the proposed building would be constructed in a way that eliminates significant effects associated with seismically induced liquefaction. The City finds that Mitigation Measures GEO-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact GEO-1 to a less-than-significant level.

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.

Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1.

Findings
Mitigation Measure GEO-2 requires implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires a sitespecific geotechnical study to be approved the City’s Building Inspection Department prior to the issuance of building permits; as such, the proposed building would be constructed in a way that eliminates significant effects associated with unstable soils due to seismically induced liquefaction. The City finds that Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact GEO-2 to a less-than-significant level.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The proposed project could create a hazard to future site occupants due to 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.

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
13 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 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.

Findings
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires site testing and appropriate agency oversight and management in the event that concentrations exceed environmental screening levels. With agency oversight, remedial measures, and management practices, potential hazards would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The City finds that Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact HAZ-1 to a less-than-significant level.

Noise
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

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
14 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 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.

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
15 Findings
With implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, particularly the use of equipment silencers and mufflers, construction noise would not represent a substantial increase over ambient noise levels at surrounding noise sensitive uses. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, his impact would be less than significant. The City finds that Mitigation Measures NOI-1 is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the project to mitigate significant effects from Impact NOI-1 to a less-than-significant level.

V FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
Section 21100(b)(2)(B) of CEQA requires that an EIR identify any significant effect on the environment that would be irreversible if the project were implemented. Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines identifies irreversible environmental changes as those involving a large commitment of nonrenewable resources, secondary impacts that would commit future generations, or irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents.

The project’s significant and irreversible changes are discussed in the Draft EIR beginning at page 6-4.

The Draft EIR explains that, based on the analysis in Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, the project would not result in land use changes that would commit future generations, or result in irreversible damage from environmental accidents. In addition, 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 Draft EIR finds that the proposed project would not represent a large commitment of nonrenewable resources.

VI FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR should discuss “…the ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including through elimination of obstacles to growth, through the stimulation of economic activity within the region, or through precedent-setting action.

The project’s potential growth-inducing impacts are discussed in the Draft EIR beginning at page 6-5.

The Draft EIR explains that 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. Accordingly, the construction and operation of the project would not directly or indirectly induce growth.

VII PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Background - Legal Requirements
CEQA requires that EIRs assess feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that may substantially lessen the significant effects of projects prior to approval (Public Resources Code Section 21002). With the exception of the “no project” alternative, the specific alternatives or types of alternatives that must be assessed are not specified. CEQA “establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts, which in turn must be reviewed in light of the statutory purpose (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
16 Cal.3d. 553, 556). The legislative purpose of CEQA is to protect public health, welfare and the environment from significant impacts associated with all types of development, by ensuring that agencies regulate activities so that major consideration is given to preventing environmental damage while providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian (Public Resources Code Section 21000). In short, the objective of CEQA is to avoid or mitigate environmental damage associated with development.

Identification of Project Objectives
The CEQA Guidelines state that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one of more of the significant effects” of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2)). Thus, an evaluation of the project objectives is key to determining which alternatives should be assessed in the EIR.

The project’s objectives include the following:
 General Plan Consistency. Provide for the development of the site consistent with City’s General Plan.
 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.
 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.
 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.  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.
 Preserve Flexibility for Future City Uses. Reserve 0.6 acres of the project site for potential future municipal development to accommodate evolving community needs.  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.

Alternatives Analyzed in EIR:

The CEQA Guidelines state that the “range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects” of the project. The EIR analyzed two alternatives, examining the environmental impacts and feasibility of each alternative, as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet project objectives summarized above. Each of the alternatives are described in detail starting on page 5-4 of the Draft EIR. Summaries of the alternatives are provided below, and a brief discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative follows the summaries of the

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
17 alternatives. The findings in this Section are based on the EIR, the discussion and analysis of which are hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

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 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.

Findings
Alternative A: 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.

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.

The City finds Alternative A infeasible as it would fail to meet nearly all of the project objectives.

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.

Findings
Alternative B: 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.

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

EXHIBIT C

CEQA FINDINGS
18 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.

The City finds Alternative B infeasible as it would not meet the operational needs of the proposed project or allow for the size and mix of facilities envisioned for the proposed project.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
Findings
As shown in Table 5-1, Comparison of Project Alternative Impacts, of the Draft EIR, 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.

VIII INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These findings incorporate the text of the EIR for the project, including the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the Final EIR, City staff reports relating to the project and other documents relating to public hearings on the project, by reference, in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, project and cumulative impacts, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparison of the alternatives to the project, the determination of the environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the project. 1 EXHIBIT D

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Mountain View adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant, unavoidable impacts of the Mountain View Public Safety Building (“project”) and the anticipated benefits of the proposed project.

GENERAL
CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable, and the agency must state the specific reasons to support the action in a “statement of overriding considerations” supported by substantial evidence in the record (CEQA Guidelines Section 15903, Statement of Overriding Considerations). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project in connection with approval of the proposed project.

The City Council finds that, even with mitigation, implementation of the project carries with it significant and unavoidable environmental effects, as identified in the EIR and summarized below.

Approval of the proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impact:

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.

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council has carefully considered the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable project impact in reaching its decision to approve the project. Even with mitigation, the City Council recognizes that implementation of the proposed project could carry with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects, as identified in the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (collectively, the “EIR”).

The City Council specifically finds that, to the extent that the identified significant adverse impact for the proposed project have not been reduced to acceptable levels through feasible mitigation or alternatives, there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits that outweigh the project’s significant unavoidable impact and support approval of the proposed project. Any one of these benefits, as set forth below, is sufficient to justify approval of the proposed project. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits is in the record as a whole.

The following statements identify the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits of the proposed project outweigh the possibility of the significant and unavoidable effect. The City finds that each of the proposed project benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the EIR and other information in the administrative record.

EXHIBIT D

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
2 Economic Benefits

1. The project would provide critical services for local shops, businesses, and services.

Social Benefits

2. The project would provide critical services for local households and visitors.

3. The project would provide facilities that enhance the functionality and efficiency of police and fire department operations.

Technological Benefits

4. The project would construct a modern, state-of-the art Public Safety Building.

Environmental Benefits

5. The project would enhance site access and circulation, providing secure public pedestrian access points and maintaining connectivity to major transportation routes.

6. The project would reuse the project site in a central location.

7. The project would be designed as an all-electric building and would not utilize any natural gas.