ATT 1 - Supplemental Environmental Report Resolution — Mountain View City Council, November 18, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 207 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?

Refer to discussion under checklist question a). The project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

4.17.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant tribal cultural resources impact?

All cumulative projects within Mountain View or neighboring cities would be required to implement conditions of approval or mitigation measures that would avoid impacts to cultural resources (including TCRs) or reduce them to a less than significant level. The project would implement conditions of approval COA CUL-2.1 to reduce impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level. For this reason, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impact to tribal cultural resources than disclosed in the 2014 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 208 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.18 Utilities and Service Systems
The following is based, in part, on a utility impact memorandum prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers dated April 21, 2023. This report is attached to this EIR as Appendix I.

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR and the Housing Element EIR. A summary of key regulatory framework and existing conditions is provided below.

4.18.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
State Water Code
Pursuant to the State Water Code, water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (approximately 980 million gallons) of water annually must prepare and adopt an urban water management plan (UWMP) and update it every five years. As part of a UWMP, water agencies are required to evaluate and describe their water resource supplies and projected needs over a 20 -year planning horizon, water conservation, water service reliability, water recycling, opportunities for water transfers, and contingency plans for drought events. Subsequent to the certification of the 2014 EIR, the City of Mountain View adopted its most recent UWMP in June 2021.

Assembly Bill 939
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or AB 939, established the Integrated Waste Management Board, required the implementation of integrated waste management plans, and mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated (from 1990 levels), beginning January 1, 2000, and divert at least 75 percent by 2010. Projects that would have an adverse effect on waste diversion goals are required to include waste diversion mitigation measures.

Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 sets forth the requirements of the statewide mandatory commercial recycling program.

Businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of garbage per week and multi- family dwellings with five or more units in California are required to recycle. AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 209 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Senate Bill 610
SB 610 amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 requires preparation of a WSA containing detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to the decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects that also require a General Plan Amendment. This WSA must be included in the administrative record that serves as the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the city or county on such projects. Under SB 610, WSAs must be furnished to local governments for inclusion in any environmental documentation for certain projects subject to CEQA. Pursuant to the California Water Code (Section 1 0912[a]), projects that require a WSA include any of the following:

• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space; • A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space;
• A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; • A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects identified in this list; or • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.

Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The bill grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that at least 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. CalRecycle released an analysis titled “Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals” in August of 2020, which recommended maintaining the disposal reduction targets set forth in SB 1383. 213

California Green Building Standards Code
In January 2010, the State of California adopted the California Green Building Standards Code, establishing mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code covers five

213 CalRecycle. Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals. August 18, 2020. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1693#:~:text=Analysis%20of%20the%20Progress%20Toward, (DRRR%2D2020%2D1693)&text=SB%201383%20establishes%20targets%20to,75%20percent%20reduction%20by% 202025.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 210 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. These standards include the following mandatory set of measures, as well as more rigorous voluntary guidelines, for new construction projects to achieve specific green building performance levels:

• Reducing indoor water use by 20 percent;
• Reducing wastewater by 20 percent;
• Recycling and/or salvaging 50 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris; and
• Providing readily accessible areas for recycling by occupants.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to utilities impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the project.

Policy Description
Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 1.3 Utilities for new development. Ensure adequate utility service levels before approving new development.

INC 1.4 Existing capital facilities. Maintain and enhance existing capital facilities in conjunction with capital expansion.

INC 4.1 Water supply. Maintain a reliable water supply.

INC 5.2 Citywide water conservation. Reduce water waste and implement water conservation and efficiency measures throughout the city.

INC 8.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Comply with requirements in the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (MRP).

INC 8.4 Runoff pollution prevention. Reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and stormwater pollution entering creeks, water channels and the San Francisco Bay through participation in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.

INC 8.5 Site-specific stormwater treatment. Require post -construction stormwater treatment controls consistent with MRP requirements for both new development and redevelopment projects.

INC 8.7 Stormwater quality. Improve the water quality of stormwater and reduce flow quantities.

INC 11.1 Waste diversion and reduction. Meet or exceed all federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning solid waste diversion and implementation of recycling and source reduction programs.

INC 11.2 Recycling. Maintain and expand recycling programs.

INC 11.3 Composting. Provide productive reuse or composting services or both for all discarded organic materials in the city, including all food and green waste.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 211 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Policy Description
INC 11.4 Solid waste. Ensure all municipal solid waste generated within the city is collected, transported and disposed of in a manner that protects public health and safety.

Public Safety
PSA 3.5 Peak water supply. Ensure sufficient peak-load water supply to address fire and emergency response needs when approving new development.

2022 Water Master Plan
The City prepared a Water Master Plan (WMP) in August 2022 in order to review and update the City’s hydraulic model, evaluate the City’s water storage and supply, develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and time schedule to address system deficiencies and support system reliability, evaluate the City’s water distribution system, and evaluate the City’s water distribution system under water shortage conditions. The WMP contains a prioritized list of CIPs that are designed to ensure the continued reliability of the City’s water system.

4.18.1.2 Existing Conditions
Water Supply and Demand
The City of Mountain View provides water service to the project site. The City is the water retailer for the area and purchases water from two wholesale water suppliers, the SFPUC and Valley Water. In 2020, the City’s water supply production was 84 percent SFPUC, 10 percent Valley Water, two percent groundwater, and four percent recycled water. As of 2020, the City’s existing water supply is 10,456 acre-feet per year (AFY) and the City’s water demand is 9,856 AFY. 214 When accounting for recent
updates to the plumbing code, the UWMP has a projected citywide water demand of 12,058 AFY in 2025 and 14,163 AFY in 2045.215

The project site is currently developed with a vacant restaurant building and an operational bank .

The operational land uses on-site have an estimated water demand of approximately 3,859 gallons per day (gpd). Water is supplied to the project site by an existing 12-inch water main in El Camino Real and a six-inch water main in Castro Street.

Water System
Hydraulic Conveyance
The water system must meet minimum allowable pressure levels under the Peak Hour Demand (PHD) scenario. The minimum allowable pressure for the PHD scenario is 40 pound -force per square inch (psi). Mountain View is split into three different pressure zones, and the project site is located in Pressure Zone 2. Under existing conditions, the pressure near the project site meets the performance criteria of 40 psi under the PHD scenario.

214 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 34. 215 Ibid. Page 18.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 212 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Fire Flow
Based on existing conditions, the fire flow rate required for the project site is approximately 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm). This planning-level fire flow requirement is met along West El Camino Real and along Castro Street under existing conditions. There are two CIPs from the WMP adjacent to the project site, one CIP proposed is a portion of the City’s annual replacement projects, AR 1-5, and the other is CIP 16. City annual replacement project CIP AR 1 -5 is proposed to replace the six- inch main line in Castro Street with a new eight-inch main line.

Wastewater Treatment and Sanitary Sewer System
Wastewater Treatment
The City of Mountain View maintains its own wastewater collection system. Sanitary drains in the City are operated and maintained by the Wastewater Section of the Public Works Department. The City pumps its wastewater to the Palo Alto Regional Water Qualit y Control Plant (PARWQCP) for treatment. The PARWQCP has an overall 40 million gallons per day (mgd) average annual treatment capacity. The City has an average annual flow treatment allocation of 15.1 mgd at the PARWQCP. In 2020, approximately 6.9 mgd of wastewater from Mountain View was collected and treated by the PARWQCP.
216

Sanitary Sewer System
The operational building on -site is estimated to generate approximately 986,000 gallons of wastewater per year, or 2,702 gpd. The project site is served by an eight-inch sewer main in El Camino Real and a 10-inch sewer main in Castro Street.

The performance criteria of the sanitary sewer system is calculated by dividing the maximum flow depth of the sewage by the diameter of the pipe (d/D). Based on the City’s standard design guidelines, for pipes with a diameter equal to or less than 12 inches, a d/D performance criteria ratio of 0.50 or less is considered adequate, and any ratio higher than that would be considered deficient. Pipes with a diameter greater than 12 inches would have to meet a d/D performance criteria ratio of 0.75 or lower to be considered adequate, and any ratio higher than that would be considered deficient.

The sewer system meets the City’s d/D performance criteria along the project flow path. There are no pipes along the flow path that are at risk of surcharging. The system meets d/D performance criteria in all pipes downstream of the project site.

Stormwater Drainage
The storm drainage system that serves the project site is owned and maintained by the City of Mountain View. The project site currently consists of approximately 88,117 square feet (or 66 percent) of impervious area, including the rooftops of the existing buildings and surface parking

216 Ibid. Page 31.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 213 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
areas. The remaining 45,194 square feet (or 34 percent) of the site consists of pervious area, which is comprised of landscaping and other permeable surfaces.

Stormwater runoff from the project site is collected by a municipal storm drain system consisting of storm drain inlets, conveyance pipes, culverts, channels and retention basins. Drainage into the City system generally flows north towards the San Francisco Bay. The project site is served by existing 48- inch storm drain lines in Castro Street, Victor Way, and Lane Avenue.

Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and recycling services for residents and businesses in Mountain View are provided by Recology Mountain View. Once collected, solid waste and recyclables are transported to the SMaRT Station
® in Sunnyvale for sorting, and commercial compostable are transported to a composting facility in Vernalis, California. Non-recyclable waste is transported and landfilled at Kirby Canyon Sanitary Landfill in south San José. Kirby Canyon Landfill has an estimated remaining capacity of approximately 13.8 million tons and a closing date of approximately January 1, 2060. 217

It is estimated that the uses on-site generate approximately 17.1 tons of solid waste per year. 218

Electric Power and Telecommunications Systems
The project site is served by existing phone and electrical services. Phone service is provided to the site by AT&T, and electrical service is provided by SVCE and delivered over PG&E’s existing utility lines. The site is served by existing electrical infrastructure on Victor Way.

4.18.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on utilities and service systems, would the project:

1) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant enviro nmental effects?
2) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? 3) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

217 Azevedo, Becky. Technical Manager, Waste Management. Personal Communications. May 23, 2023. 218 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 749 W. El Camino Real Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment, Mountain View, California. August 16, 2023

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 214 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
4) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? 5) Be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

4.18.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expa nded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?

The 2014 EIR concluded that future, site -specific development projects associated with implementation of the Precise Plan could result in impacts to the existing water, wastewater, and storm drainage infrastructure (Impact UTL-1 and Impact UTL-2 in the Initial Study [Appendix A of the 2014 EIR]). The 2014 EIR provided two mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level, 2014 EIR MM UTL-1 and 2014 EIR MM UTL-2, which are described in additional detail below. Implementation of these measures would requ ire project -specific capacity and condition analyses to determine whether improvements to water, wastewater, or stormwater infrastructure would be required. Further, to fund recommended sewer infrastructure upgrades, the City established proportional improvement costs that the project applicant is responsible for if any improvements are required.219

2014 EIR Mitigation Measures

As a condition of approval, and prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the Public Works Department will determine and assign responsibility to project applicants for upgrades and improvements to the City’s water and/or wastewater infrastructure, as necessary.

2014 EIR MM UTL-2: As private properties within the Precise Plan area are proposed for development, project-specific analyses of stormwater infrastructure adjacent and downstream of the project sites shall be performed to identify any impacts to the system. As a condition of approval, and prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the Public Works Department will determine and assign

219 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002.

Pages 97 to 99.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 215 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
responsibility to project applicants for upgrades and improvements to the City’s stormwater infrastructure, as necessary.

Consistent with the requirements outlined in the 2014 EIR, a project -specific capacity confirmation analysis was conducted to evaluate the project’s impacts on water and wastewater infrastructure (see Appendix I ). The results are summarized below. The Housing Element EIR determined that implementation of the Housing Element update, including construction of the project, would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. 220 The Housing
Element EIR concluded that utility impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the below mitigation measure.

Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure:

Housing Element EIR MM UTL-1: Fair- Share Contributions Toward Utility Improvements.

Subsequent development projects shall contribute the fair share amount identified by the City of Mountain View Public Works Department to fund capital improvements to the water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater drainage systems prior to issuance of a building permit.

Water System
Hydraulic Conveyance
The analysis in the project-specific capacity confirmation analysis concluded that under existing plus project conditions, the pressure in the project vicinity under the PHD scenario would meet the performance criteria of 40 psi and would have a less than significant impact on pressure levels. The project would not contribute to any new or existing deficiencies; therefore, it would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Fire Flow
As discussed in Section 4.18.1.2, the required planning-level fire flow at the project site is 3,500 gpm under existing conditions. Based on the proposed building sizes and construction type, as defined in the CBC, the project required fire flow would be 2,941 gpm. Fire flow water is provided via a six-inch main in Castro Street, which has a pre - and post-project available fire flow of 5,893 gpm. Based on the available fire flow adjacent to the site, the project would not contribute to any new or existing deficiencies in the fire flow rates available in the vicinity of the project site and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

220 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report.

SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.15-18.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 216 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
There are two CIPs from the WMP adjacent to the project site, one CIP proposed is a portion of the City’s annual replacement projects, AR 1-5, and the other is CIP 16. City annual replacement project CIP AR 1-5 is proposed to replace the six-inch main line in Castro Street with a new eight-inch main line. Consistent with the requirements of Housing Element EIR MM UTL-1, the project would contribute a fair share portion of funding for these CIPs.

Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
The existing buildings on-site generate a sewer flow of approximately 986,000 gallons of wastewater per year ( or 2,702 gpd). Under existing conditions, t here are no deficiencies along the conveyance pathway from the project site. The estimated sewer flow for the project is approximately 9.7 million gallons per year (or 26,725 gpd), which is an increase of 8.7 million gallons per year (or 19,599 gpd) compared to existing conditions. The increase in estimated sewer flow from the project would not generate new deficiencies or contribute to existing deficiencies; however, the project would still pay sewer capacity fees consistent with the requirements outlined in the Housing Element EIR. Based on this discussion, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact to sanitary sewer infrastructure than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
As discussed in Section 4.18.1.2, the project site contains 88,117 square feet (or 66 percent) of impervious area and 45,194 square feet (or 34 percent) of impervious area. The project would result in an increase of impervious area by approximately 26,003 square feet (or 19 percent) on-site due to the addition of the new buildings and associated hardscaping. This increase in impervious surface area on-site could result in a corresponding increase in stormwater runoff. To limit the amount of additional runoff generated, the project would install new landscaping areas around the perimeter of the site, within the public plaza, in the second -floor courtyards, and on the roof of the mixed- use building. The runoff from the site would continue to flow into 48-inch storm drain line s in Castro Street, Victor Way, and Lane Avenue under project conditions . There are no storm drain capacity issues adjacent to or downstream of the project site, and the existing stormwater infrastructure would continue to have adequate capacity after construction of the project. 221 Based on the above discussion, a project-specific analyses of stormwater infrastructure adjacent and downstream of the site as described in 2014 EIR MM UTL-2 would not be required. The project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

221 Eguilos, Tony. Assistant Engineer, City of Mountain View – Public Works Department. Personal Communication.

November 15, 2022.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 217 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Electric Power and Telecommunications Facilities
Existing electricity and telecommunications utility infrastructure currently serve the project site and would continue to serve the site under the project. Electric lines would connect to an existing electrical infrastructure on Victor Way, and existing overhead lines would be undergrounded on Lane Avenue. No connections to natural gas are proposed as the project would be 100 percent electric .

The existing natural gas main line in Victor Way would be protected in place during project construction. All construction-related impacts from these improvements are discussed throughout the document and would be less than significant with implementation of COAs and compliance with existing regulations (such as those described in Section 3.1 Cultural Resources, Section 4.3 Air Quality, and Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality. The project, therefore, would not result in new or substantially more significant impacts than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

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

The 2014 EIR determined that employment and population increases that would occur with implementation of the Precise Plan would not create demand for water that would exceed the existing water supply. The 2014 EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan policies and actions and conditions of approval, impacts to water supplies would be less than significant, and the City’s water system would be able to meet projected water demand during normal, single dry, and multiple dry year scenarios through the year 2035.
222

Subsequent to the 201 4 EIR, the City adopted an updated UWMP in 2020. This current UWMP accounts for the water demand from buildout of the Precise Plan and determined that although the City had adequate water supplies to meet demand through 2045 in normal years, there could be potential shortfalls up to 20 percent due to c uts in supply from SFPUC in dry years. 223 To maintain
adequate water supply during dry and multiple dry years where there may be shortfalls in supply, the City would institute a mix of voluntary and mandatory conservation measures, with escalating levels of conservation requirements as the shortages in water supply increase. The 2020 UWMP determined that compliance with mandatory conservation measures in the City would ensure that sufficient water supply is maintained in normal, single dry, and multiple dry years.

The Housing Element EIR determined that 2020 UWMP did not capture the additional housing units that could be constructed in the City (including the proposed dwelling units) as a result of the buildout associated with the Housing Element update. To analyze the impact that these additional housing units would generate, an updated WSA was prepared that concluded the City’s water system has sufficient existing water supply to fully support development under the Housing Element update (including the project ) in addition to existing and planned development in the City under normal,

222 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study . August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Page

99. 223 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page ES-7.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 218 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
single dry, or multiple dry water years. In addition, the Housing Element EIR concluded that future development (including the project) would comply with state and local regulations related to water- efficient fixtures and water conservation measures to reduce the demand for water. This would reduce any potential impacts related to water supply to a less than significant level. 224

Since the project is accounted for in the Housing Element and its associated WSA, the project would result in the same less than significant impact to water supply as disclosed in the Housing Element EIR. Both new buildings proposed for development on-site would achieve LEED Silver certification and incorporate water reducing measures such as drought tolerant landscaping , high-efficiency irrigation, and water efficient interior fixtures. In addition, the project would comply with Municipal Code ordinances that set standards for permanent water-use restrictions by regulating landscape and indoor water-use efficiency. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

The 2014 EIR determined that implementation of the Precise Plan would not exceed the treatment capacity at the PARWQCP. With implementation of General Plan policies and actions and standard conditions of approval , the 2014 EIR concluded that impacts to wastewater treatment capacity associated with implementation of the Precise Plan would be less than significant.225

The Housing Element EIR determined that buildout of the development included in the City’s Housing Element update (including the project) would not result in inadequate capacity at the City’s wastewater treatment provider because the PARWQCP would continue to have adequate capacity to handle wastewater generated in the City and future projects would be constructed to include high- efficiency fixtures and comply with the City’s water conservation requirements. Therefore, it was concluded that development of projects assumed in the Housing Element EIR would result in a less than significant impact.
226

As discussed in Section 4.18.1.2 Existing Conditions, the PARWQCP has an average annual treatment capacity of 40 mgd, 15.1 mgd of which is allocated to the City. In 2020, the City sent approximately

6.9 mgd of wastewater to the PARWQCP for treatment. 227 This results in an available capacity of approximately 8.2 mgd for the City for treatment at the PARWQCP. With implementation of the project, the sewer flow on-site would increase from approximately 2.6 million gallons of wastewater per year ( or 7,126 gpd) to approximately 9.7 million gallons per year (or 26,725 gpd), which is an

224 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.15-20.
225 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study . August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Page

99. 226 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.15-21.
227 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 31.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 219 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
increase of 7.1 million gallons per year (or 19,599 gpd) compared to existing conditions. This increase would equate to approximately 0.02 mgd. This incremental increase in sewage sent to the PARWQCP would result in a remaining allocated treatment capacity of 8.18 mgd at the PARWQCP. Based on this discussion, the PARWQCP would continue to have adequate capacity to treat the existing demand in addition to the increase in wastewater resulting from the project. In addition, as discussed under checklist question b), the project includes water efficient and water reducing measures. The project, therefore, would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure , or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

The 2014 EIR determined that solid waste generated by new development in the Precise Plan area would be disposed of at Kirby Canyon Landfill and implementation of General Plan policies and actions would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to the capacity of local infrastructure to a less than significant level.
228

The Housing Element EIR determined that buildout of the development included in the City’s Housing Element update (including the project) would not generate solid waste in excess of the local infrastructure or impair the attainment of state or local waste reduction goals because future projects would not generate enough waste to exceed capacity at Kirby Canyon Sanitary Landfill and would comply with existing policies and regulations.229

The project would comply with CALGreen requirements by recycling and/or salvaging for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris resulting from construction activities. The project would also limit the amount of operational waste disposed of through the provision of on-site recycling collection as required by AB 341 , and by providing on-site composting collection as required by SB 1383. Solid waste generated during operation of the project would be diverted and disposed of in accordance with the state requirements and General Plan Policies INC 11.1 to INC 11.4.

As discussed in Section 4.18.1.2 Existing Conditions, Kirby Canyon Sanitary Landfill has an estimated remaining capacity of approximately 13.8 million tons and a closing date of approximately January 1, 2060.
230 Currently, the existing bank building on-site generates approximately 17.1 tons of waste

228 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Pages 99 to 100.
229 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.15-22.
230 Azevedo, Becky. Technical Manager, Waste Management. Personal Communications. December 27, 2021.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 220 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
each year.231 The project would generate an additional 226.7 tons of solid waste compared to existing conditions, for an annual total of approximately 243.8 tons. Based on the remaining capacity at Kirby Canyon Landfill and the estimated amount of waste generated by the project, the landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the project.

Because the project can be served by a landfill with capacity and would be required to comply with existing local and state programs and regulations, the project’s impacts related to solid waste and landfill capacity and attainment of solid reduction goals would be less than significant. The project, therefore, would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

e) Would the project be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

The 2014 EIR concluded that solid waste generated from development within the Precise Plan area would be required to comply with state regulations, local policies, and General Plan policies and actions, including Policies INC 11.1, INC 11.2, INC 11.3, and INC 11.4. Implementation of these General Plan policies and actions and compliance with other regulation would minimize solid waste generation and divert a significant portion of waste from landfills; therefore, the Precise Plan would be in compliance with solid waste regulations.
232

The Housing Element EIR determined that buildout of the development included in the City’s Housing Element update (including the project) would not conflict with applicable waste reduction policies because future projects would comply with existing regulations such as CALGreen, AB 341, SB 1383, and the City’s Green Building Code.
233

As discussed under checklist question d) above, the project would comply with state and local regulations related to solid waste reduction by:

• Recycling and/or salvaging for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition debris resulting from construction activities per CALGreen; • Diverting and disposing of waste during operation in accordance with the state requirements and General Plan Policies INC-11.1 to INC-11.4;
• Providing on-site recycling collection (as required by AB 341); and

231 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 749 W. El Camino Real Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment, Mountain View, California. August 16, 2023
232 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Page 100.
233 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report.

SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.15-22 to 4.15-23.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 221 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
• Providing on-site composting collection (as required by SB 1383 and the City’s Mandatory Organic Waste Disposal Reduction Ordinance).

Therefore, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

4.18.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant utilities and service systems impact?

The 2014 EIR did not identify any significant cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems that would result from implementation of the Precise Plan (including this project). Future cumulative projects within the Precise Plan area would be subject to 2014 EIR MM UTL-1 and 2014 EIR MM UTL- 2, which require project- specific capacity and condition analyses of applicable water, wastewater , and stormwater infrastructure adjacent to and downstream of the project sites. Project-specific capacity and condition analyses were completed for the project under cumulative conditions and summarized below.

The Housing Element EIR determined that because future cumulative development would be subject to applicable development and utilities fees and would pay fair- share contributions to utility improvements (as required by Housing Element EIR MM UTL-1), implementation of the Housing Element Update would result in less than significant cumulative impacts to the City’s utility system.234

Water System
The geographic area for cumulative water system impacts is the City boundaries because the City is responsible for providing water service citywide. Cumulative plus project conditions include buildout of the General Plan (including the Housing Element and Precise Plan CIPs).

Hydraulic Conveyance
The analysis in the project- specific capacity confirmation analysis concluded that, under the future cumulative condition, no hydraulic deficiencies would occur near the site. With implementation of the project, the system would maintain sufficient capacity to meet increased project demand while also meeting the performance criteria of 40 psi. Therefore, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on pressure levels within the system because the project would not result in any new hydraulic performance deficiencies. The project would not result in a new or more substantially severe impact than disclosed in the 201 4 EIR or Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

234 Ibid. Page 4.15-23.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 222 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Fire Flow
The required planning -level fire flow on -site in the WMP is 2,500 gpm for future cumulative conditions. Based on the proposed building size s and construction type as defined in the California Building Code, the project-required fire flow is 2,941 gpm. Assuming all CIPs outlined in the WMP are constructed, including CIP AR 1 -5 and CIP 16 that are adjacent to the site, the planning- level and project-specific fire flow requirements under future cumulative conditions would be met at the site as there would be no deficiencies in the vi cinity pre- or post-project. Therefore, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on fire flow rates at the site because the project would not result in any new deficiencies. The project would not result in a new or more substantially severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
Under future cumulative conditions, t he project site is assumed to generate a sewer flow of approximately 4.3 million gallons of wastewater per year ( or 11,758 gpd). There are no pre- project deficiencies along the conveyance pathway under future cumulative conditions. The estimated sewer flow for the project is approximately 9.7 million gallons per year (or 26,725 gpd), which is an increase of approximately 5.4 million gallons per year (or 14,967 gpd). Under future cumulative conditions, the increase in estimated sewer flow from the project would not generate new deficiencies or contribute to existing deficiencies. The CIPs identified previously by the City would be adequately sized to convey anticipated flows in the future cumulative scenario. Based on this discussion, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact on the sanitary sewer system because the project would not result in any new deficiencies. The project would not result in a new or more substantially severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
As discussed in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and under checklist question a), the project would result in an increase of impervious area on-site by approximately 26,003 square feet (or 1 9 percent) due to the addition of the new buildings and associated hardscaping. The installation of new landscaping areas around the buildings, within the public plaza, in the second- floor courtyards, and on the roof of the mixed -use building would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff reaching the City’s stormwater infrastructure. In addition, the project and all future cumulative projects in the area would implement the same conditions of approval (COA HYD-1.1 and COA HYD-1.2), comply with the NPDES and MRP requirements , and undergo review from the City’s Public Works Department (consistent with 2014 EIR MM UTL -2) prior to approval. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more substantially severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 223 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Electric Power and Telecommunications Facilities
The project would connect to the e xisting electricity and telecommunications utility infrastructure currently serving the project site. The project would be 100 percent electric, and new connections to the existing natural gas infrastructure would not be required. No relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities would be required for the project, therefore, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to construction of such improvement to these utilities. The project would not result in a new or more substantially severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Water Supply and Demand
The project-level impact discussion for water supply and demand under checklist question b) is the same for the cumulative impact discussion. The discussion concluded that the City’s water system has sufficient existing water supply to fully support development under the Housing Element update (including the project). The project, therefore, would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impact than disclosed in the 201 4 EIR or the Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Wastewater Treatment Capacity
The 2014 EIR concluded that cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment capacity associated with implementation of the Precise Plan (which included the proposed commercial uses) would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and actions and standard conditions of approval. The Housing Element EIR concluded that , while the buildout of the General Plan (which includes the Precise Plan and Housing Element update ) would likely result in the need for a future engineering study to evaluate the potential need for expansion of the PARWQCP, the development allowed by the Housing Element update (including the proposed residences) would result in a relatively minimal contribution to cumulative demand (0.4 mgd) and would not contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact on wastewater treatment capacity. 235

As discussed under checklist question c) , the project would comply with the same General Plan policies, actions, and standard conditions of approval detailed in the 2014 EIR. In addition, the project was evaluated as part of the Housing Element EIR which determined that the Housing Element update, including the project, would not contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact on wastewater treatment capacity. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

235 Ibid. Page 4.15-25.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 224 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Solid Waste Landfill Capacity and Waste Reduction
The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of General Plan policies and actions would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to the capacity of local infrastructure to a less than significant level and no significant cumulative impact was identified. The Housing Element EIR concluded that future development under the Housing Element update, including the project, would comply with federal, state, and local solid waste standards which would reduce cumulative solid waste-related impacts to a less than significant level.236

As discussed under checklist question d), the project would comply with General Plan policies and other regulations to reduce solid waste generation, consistent with the 2014 EIR findings. The project, therefore, would result in the same less than significant cumulative impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

Compliance with Solid Waste Regulations
As discussed under checklist question e), the 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would minimize solid waste generation and divert a significant portion of waste from landfills through comply with state regulations, local policies, and General Plan policies and actions, including Policies INC 11.1, INC 11.2, INC 11.3, and INC 11.4. The Housing Element EIR concluded that future development under the Housing Element update, including the project, would comply with federal, state, and local solid waste standards which would reduce cumulative solid waste-related impacts to a less than significant level.237

As discussed under checklist question e) above, the project would comply with General Plan policies and other federal, state, and local regulations related to generation of solid waste, consistent with the 2014 EIR findings. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impact than disclosed in the 201 4 EIR or Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

236 Ibid. Page 4.15-25.
237 Ibid. Page 4.15-25.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 225 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.19 Wildfire

4.19.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR and the Housing Element EIR.

4.19.1.1 Existing Conditions
According to the CAL FIRE, the project site is not located in a very high, high, or moderate fire hazard zone.
238 The site is also not within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).239

4.19.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on wildfire, if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 2) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the un controlled spread of a wildfire?
3) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? 4) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

4.19.2.1 Project Impacts
The 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR did not identify any wildfire impacts. 240, 241 The wildfire classification on the site has not changed since the certification of the EIRs. The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, the project would not result in wildfire impacts . (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

238 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection . “FHSZ Viewer.” Webmap. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
239 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). December 2019. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf. 240 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022.
241 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 226 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.19.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
As mentioned above, the wildfire classification on the site has not changed since the certification of the EIRs. The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, the project would not result in cumulative wildfire impacts. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Cumulative Impact])

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 227 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Section 5.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Would the project foster or stimulate significant economic or population growth in the surrounding environment?

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, a project is considered to be growth inducing if it would “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment” (Section 15126.2[e]) . The growth associated with the proposed commercial uses at the project site was evaluated in the 2014 EIR and the growth associated with the proposed residential units at the project site was evaluated in the Housing Element EIR.

The 2014 EIR determined that future development within the Precise Plan area would result in an increase in the mix of uses on El Camino Real, improve pedestrian and bicycle connections along the corridor, and revitalize and reinvest in the public space and properties along El Camino Real which would enable the area to become more attractive, pedestrian friendly, and multi-modal. The 2014 EIR concluded implementation of the Precise Plan would not significantly induce growth because the growth resulting from implementation of the Precise Plan would be within an urban corridor and would support and be near a variety of transit options. In addition, the 2014 EIR determined that the development of residential and mixed -use land uses near transit facilities would represent an environmentally-sound method for accommodating a growing population and reducing sprawl, which would also result in a beneficial effect on both the local and regional level. 242

The Housing Element EIR determined that implementation of the City’s Housing Element update would not induce unplanned growth in the City or broader area due to extension of urban services , infrastructure, or extension of transportation corridors. The Housing Element EIR concluded that development included in the City’s Housing Element update (including the proposed residences) would not cause a new impact related to a substantial increase in population growth and would be in line with the projected growth planned for the area as defined in the City’s General Plan, Precise Plans (including the El Camino Real Precise Plan), and applicable regional planning directives (e.g., Plan Bay Area).
243

The combined growth of the proposed commercial and residential uses together compared to what was analyzed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR is nominal and would not result in substantially greater growth inducing impacts than what was disclosed in the prior EIRs given the extent of development evaluated in each EIR. Therefore, the project would not result in a new or more severe growth-inducing impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or the Housing Element EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Growth Inducing Impact)]

242 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report . Page 90. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Page 164.
243 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 6-5.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 228 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Section 6.0 Significant and Irreversible
Environmental Changes
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), an EIR must identify significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project being analyzed. Significant irreversible changes include the following: (1) commitment of future generations to similar uses, (2) irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents associated with the project , and (3) irreversible use and irretrievable commitments of resources.

6.1 Commitment of Future Generations to Similar Uses
The 2014 EIR concluded that although the Precise Plan would commit future generations to more intense development in the Precise Plan area, the new development would benefit the City by providing housing, jobs, and transit-oriented development within an existing urban area which would help future generations avoid the less environmentally -sound development pattern of urban sprawl.244

The redevelopment of the project site as proposed was accounted for in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. The combined effect of the proposed commercial and residential uses together compared to what was analyzed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR is nominal and would not result in substantially greater commitment of future generations to similar uses than disclosed in the prior EIRs given the extent of development evaluated in each EIR.

6.2 Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents
The 2014 EIR determined that although it is unlikely that implementation of the Precise Plan would result in a major hazardous waste release, a release of that magnitude would constitute a significant irreversible change from an environmental action. The 2014 EIR conc luded that the mitigation measures, General Plan policies and conditions of approval identified in the Draft EIR would reduce any irreversible or nearly irreversible effects to less than significant levels. 245 The Housing Element EIR determined that the use and storage of hazardous materials associated with the construction and operation of future projects would be regulated through federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Housing Element EIR concluded that compliance with these existing requirements would ensure that the potential to cause significant irreversible environmental damage from an accident or upset of hazardous materials would be less than significant. 246

244 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report . Page 90. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Page 165.
245 Ibid. Page 165.
246 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 6-2.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 229 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
As discussed throughout this document, the project would be required to implement the same conditions of approval and mitigation measures identified in the 201 4 EIR. In addition, the project would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding the safe use and storage of hazardous materials. Implementation of these measures, in addition to the newly identified conditions of approval and mitigation measures, and compliance with relevant federal, state, and local laws and regulations would reduce any potential irreversible or nearly irreversible environmental changes to a less than significant level, consistent with the findings of the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR.

6.3 Irreversible Use and Irretrievable Commitments of
Nonrenewable Resources
As discussed in the 2014 EIR, consumption of nonrenewable resources would include conversion of agricultural lands, loss of access to mining reserves, and non -renewable energy use. The 2014 EIR concluded that no active agricultural or mineral uses would be impacted by the Precise Plan, and that development of dense residential and mixed-use development near transit facilities would encourage transit ridership and reduce consumption of fossil fuels.247

The Housing Element EIR determined that construction of projects included in the Housing Element update would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels, natural gas, and gasoline for auto mobiles and construction equipment.

However, the Housing Element EIR concluded that compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as Housing Element EIR mitigation measures, would ensure that all natural resources are conserved to the maximum extent practicable and that the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts or the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources.
248

The project would occur in an infill location near transit facilities and would comply with the same standards, guidelines, and regulations described in the 2014 EIR to support sustainability, encourage the use of transit services, and result in the efficient use of non -renewable energy sources. In addition, the project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable building codes and would not result in unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources, consistent with the findings of the Housing Element EIR.

The combined use and commitment of nonrenewable resources from the proposed commercial and residential uses together compared to what was analyzed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR is nominal and would not result in substantially greater use or commitment of nonrenewable resources than what was disclosed in the prior EIRs given the extent of development evaluated in each EIR.

247 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report . Page 90. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Page 165.
248 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 6-2.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 230 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Section 7.0 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
As discussed in Section 3.1 Cultural Resources, the project would result in a new significant and unavoidable impact related to the demolition of a historical resource.

• Impact CUL-1: The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 by demolishing a historic resource on-site. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact])

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 231 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Section 8.0 Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR identify a range of reasonable alternatives to a project as it is proposed.

The CEQA Guidelines specify the EIR should identify alternatives which “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a].) The purpose of the alternatives discussion is to determine whether there are alternatives of design, scope, or location which would substantially lessen the significant impacts, even if those alternative s “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives” or are more expensive (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[b]).

In order to comply with the purposes of CEQA, it is important to identify alternatives that reduce the significant impacts anticipated to occur if the project is implemented and try to meet as many of the project’s objectives as possible. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize a commonsense approach – the alternatives should be reasonable, “foster informed decision making and public participation,” and focus on alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts. The range of alternatives selected for analysis is governed by the “rule of reason” which requires the EIR to discuss only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.

The two critical factors to consider in selecting and evaluating alternatives are, therefore: (1) the significant impacts from the project which could be reduced or avoided by an alternative, and (2) the project objectives. These factors are discussed below.

8.1 Factors in Selecting and Evaluating Alternatives

8.1.1 Significant Impacts of the Project
As explained above, the CEQA Guidelines state an alternatives analysis in an EIR should be limited to alternatives that are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and achieve most of the basic project objectives. In addition to those identified in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR, the project would result in new, significant and unavoidable impacts due to the demolition of a historic resource on-site which has been identified in the EIR as the following:

8.1.2 Project Objectives
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the EIR must include a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of meeting

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 232 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
all of the project objectives, their ability to meet most of the basic objectives is considered relevant to their consideration. As identified in Section 2.4 Project Objectives, the applicant’s objectives for the project are as follows:

1. With the support of Chase Bank, develop the 3.05 -acre project site on the corner of Castro Street and West El Camino Real in Mountain View into an economically viable, community- enhancing mixed-use project incorporating a robust affordable housing program, vibrant and neighborhood-serving commercial components, and a public plaza to encourage community gathering.

2. Increase the supply of residential units in an economically viable manner through the innovative, efficient redevelopment of an underutilized infill site by developing 299 new multi-family residential units including 33 affordable units to provide a range of product types that will support the diversity of the City of Mountain View and assist in meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation numbers.

3. Develop the on-site commercial uses to support the continuous operation of Chase Bank by providing a more efficient commercial space meeting modern standards while maintaining a minimum 10,000 square feet of leasable space, two ATMs, and 40 dedicated, permanent parking spaces, and by ensuri ng a seamless transition to the new facility with minimal disruption to operations through phased development and the provision of temporary parking spaces during construction.

4. Consistent with the City’s vision in the El Camino Real Precise Plan and General Plan, create a higher intensity and mixed-use node on the El Camino Real Corridor in an underutilized site located in a Village Center as contemplated in the City’s Housing Element. a. General Plan:
i. LUD 5.1: Land use and village centers. Encourage and promote centers that people can reach by bicycling or walking with a focus on areas identified in the Village Center Strategy Diagram.
ii. LUD 5.2: Village center uses and character. Encourage a mix of residential, commercial or other neighborhood-serving uses in village centers, with active ground-floor uses and public space to create an inviting pedestrian environment and a center of activity.
iii. LUD 5.3: Community gathering. Encourage community-gathering destinations such as plazas, open space or community facilities within village centers. iv. LUD 5.4: Connections. Encourage pedestrian, bicycling and public transit connections and amenities between village centers and surrounding neighborhoods.
b. Housing Element:
i. Goal 1: An increase in the quantity and diversity of housing options, focusing on active nodes, and walkable neighborhoods with amenities and services. To achieve this goal, the City will acquire/preserve existing housing units; address, remove, or mitigate constraints to housing production; and produce new affordable units.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 233 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
ii. Policy 1.1. Ensure that adequate residential land is available to accommodate the City’s RHNA, with special focus on Precise Plan areas near transit, employment centers, and services.

5. Provide a prominent ground- floor leasing office and adequate on -site parking to ensure marketability as well as robust amenities to the on -site residential community including access to the public plaza, generous outdoor and amenity spaces on the podium courtyard and roof deck.

6. Create a transit-oriented, economically viable development that supports alternative modes of transportation with close linkages to rapid bus and Caltrain, facilitating access to major employment areas of the South Bay and the Peninsula and with improved bicycle and pedestrian connectivity for the project and surrounding neighborhood, including facilitating a detached bus island and added bikeway along El Camino Real consistent with VTA and regional objectives.

8.1.3 Feasibility of Alternatives
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and case law interpreting CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines have found that feasibility can be based on a wide range of factors and influences. The CEQA Guidelines state that such factors can include (but are not limited to) the suitability of an alternate site, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, consistency with a general plan or with other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent can “reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site” (Section 15126.6[f][1]).

8.2 Project Alternatives
The project proposes to develop a prominent location within the City’s adopted El Camino Real Precise Plan, which prescribes the land uses to be developed within the Plan area. Therefore, decisions regarding the appropriate land use types and densities in this location have recently been made by the City.

To evaluate the potential impact that the selected alternatives would have on the historical resource, this analysis will utilize T he Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards). These are standards developed by the National Park Service within the United State Department of the Interior to provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties. They are accompanied by the illustrated guidelines, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (SOI Guidelines), that offer general design and technical recommendations in applying the SOI Standards.

The Secretary of the Interior offers four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Typically, one set of standards is chosen for a project based on the project scope. For the purposes of this alternatives analysis, the Standards for Rehabilitation would be the appropriate treatment, as it addresses

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 234 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
adaptive reuse of historic buildings. There are 10 individual standards within the Standards for Rehabilitation.

As discussed in Section 3.1 Cultural Resources, substantial adverse change is defined by CEQA as:
“physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][1].) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance” ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2].) and that justify or account for its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(1), if a project complies with the Standards for Rehabilitation, the project’s impact “will generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant.” In other words, if a project or preservation alternative complies with all 10 of the standards within the Standards for Rehabilitation, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource as defined by CEQA.

In the following discussions, a “Full Preservation” alternative means that the exterior of the bank building and the associated artwork would be preserved largely as is, and a “Partial Preservation” alternative means that the exterior of the bank building and at least some of the associated artwork would be substantially altered or relocated.

8.2.1 Selected Alternatives
A reasonable range of full and partial preservation alternatives with the intent to avoid or reduce the project’s significant unavoidable historic impact are evaluated below. They include three full preservation alternatives and two partial preservation alternatives. A summary of the development assumptions for each alternative in comparison to the project is provided in the table below.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 235 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Table 8.2-1: Development Details for Project and Alternatives Project No
Project
Full Preservation Partial Preservation

A B C A B
Preservation of
Historic Resources
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial Partial
Bank Square
Footage
11,500 18,302 18,300 10,000 18,300 10,000 10,000
Other Commercial
Square Footage
13,465 1,487 10,800 13,000 10,800 9,800 13,000
Total Number of
Residential Units
(Number of BMR
Units)
299 (33) 0 211 (26) 200 (26) 299 (33) 251 (26) 299 (33) Total New Building
Square Footage
406,643 0 324,900 283,000 430,900 364,400 379,600
Maximum Height
(Stories)
74 feet (6) 30 (2) 74 feet (6) 74 feet (6) 95 feet (8) 74 feet (6) 105 feet (9)

Site plans and massing diagrams for the project and each of the alternatives, including the No Project, No New Development Alternative, are shown on the figures below. The Proposed Project and No Project, No New Development Alternative are shown on Figure 8.2-1, the Full Preservation Alternatives are shown on Figure 8.2-2, and the Partial Preservation Alternatives are shown on Figure

8.2-3. In addition, Table 8.2-2, which compares the impacts of the alternatives to the project and determines whether the alternatives meet each project objective, is provided at the end of this section.

'1 '1
'1
(*5(6667$,52))32',80
(*5(6667$,52))32',80 (*5(6667$,52))32',80
&2857<$5'
&2857<$5' &2857<$5'

6((/)25&2857<$5'
/$1'6&$3('(6,*1

1 5TH FLOOR STEPBACK 5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK 6TH FLOOR STEPBACK
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK
5TH FLOOR STEPBACK

SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE BOUNDAY
(N) BANK
LEASING @
LEVEL 1
RETAIL @
LEVEL 1
RETAIL @
LEVEL 1
((

))

2 CY COMPOST

CONT AI NE R
P200 CO MPACTOR
52 675((7
67 '1
'1
83 83
83

5(7$,/
5(7$,/
)22' %(9(5$*(
029(,1/2%%<
81,7$ 81,7$ 81,7$
67$,5
%2+
$&&(66
9(+,&8/$5
$&&(66
0$,1(/(&5220
/2%%<
&200(5&,$/75$6+
5220
*$5$*(
(;+$8676+$)7
&200(5&,$/'(',&$7('3$5.,1*

&200(5&,$/*8(67
*$5$*(
&+$6('(',&$7('3$5.,1*

727$/$7*5$'(3$5.,1*3529,'(

67$,5
/($6,1*
'(',&$7('
3$5.,1*

/2$',1*
67$,5
67$,5(/(9$725

322/50
),5(380350
:$7(56(59,&(50

75$16)250(550
&200(5&,$/

%,.(6725$*(
72
20
.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.=21(
3523(57</,1(
6(7%$&./,1(
75$6+67$*,1*$5($

6((75)25758&.
0$1(89(5,1*(;+,%,7

6(($ /)25,17(5,03$5.,1*
/$1'6&$3(/$<287$1'/)25),1$/%8,/'
2873/$=$/$1'6&$3('(6,*1

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

1$1&(
(66

5(6,'(17/281*(

1'(/(&5220
(*5(663$7+

(/(9$725

9(+,&8/$5
$&&(66

5(675$6+5220

75$6+
67$*,1*

(*5(663$7+75$16)250(5
0$,17(1$1&($&&(66

63(('5$03
'1723/(9(/

75$6+67$*,1*

/$1'6&$3(%8))(5
/$1'6&$3(
%8))(5
(*5(663$7+
75$6+758
$&&(66

0,'%/2&.
(175<
3/$=$
81,7$

81,7$

&+$6(
032(5220

DN
DN

6,%/(

RAMP 16% TRANSITION
RAMP 8%

7(/(&20
%2+
*$5$*(,17$.(6+$)7
*$5$*(,17$.(6+$)7

.,7&+(1(;+$8676+$)76

'&)&
(9

6(&85,7<*$7(72%(/2&.('$)7(5+2856

9,6,217
5,$1*/(
9,6,2175,$1*/(
9,6,2175,$1*/(
9,6,2175,$1*/(
9,6,2175,$1*/(
9,6,217
5,$1*/(
. .12;%2;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3/$1/(*(1'
$8',2$
/,*+76
/,(82)
2)6,*+
*$7(
%05/2:
6)
%05/2:
6)
5(675$6+5220
/2%%<
(/(9$725
0$,/ 3$&.$*(
&20+($'50
3$&.$*(5220
%,.(/281*(

6((6+((775
%,.(63$&(6
6((6+((775
6((6+((775
(E) BANK
Source: Studio T-SQ, Inc., October 3, 2023.

PROPOSED PROJECT NO PROJECT , NO NEW DEVELOPMENT

BANK USE

RESIDENTIAL USE

RETAIL USE

UPPER-STORY SETBACK LINE
PROJECT AND NO PROJECT, NO NEW DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE FIGURE 8.2-1 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
236DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
,.,.-··--------- ----·-,·
//
i
i I
i
i I
i
i I
i i i
\ i i i
i I
i i
i i i
i
1 i
i ! I
i
i I
i i i i
\
\, .........
--
\
i)
-
----- --·-=====, ----------=----·--·- ..... ,\
i i i i i i i i i i i i
RETALfil
LEVEL1
\ i i
i
i
1 i
1 i
i
1 : i
...... , ..... ,_,.,..., ....... : ·-·~
i I
i i i
i I
i
\
---- --------------------- --·-·-·-·-·-·
i i i i
i I
i
1 i i
\ i
j
.... _\
\ i
i ! I
i
\ i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
Source: Studio T-SQ, Inc., October 3, 2023.

STUDIO T-SQUARE INC GREYSTAR | 749 W EL CAMINO REAL, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: NEW ALTERNATIVE 2  


















  









 

 











  













 


 




 





































 

















































































 

5TH FLOOR STEPBACK 5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK 6TH FLOOR STEPBACK

LEASING &
RETAIL
RETAIL @
LEVEL 1
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK
5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
(N) BANK
10,000 SF
// 10/03/2023
02/21/2024 PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: NEWER ALTERNATIVE 2:

FULL PRESERVATION A

FULL PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE C
STUDIO T-SQUARE INC GREYSTAR | 749 W EL CAMINO REAL, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES 2: FULL PRESERVATION A  


















  









 

 











  













 


 




 





































 



































 

















































5TH FLOOR STEPBACK 5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK 6TH FLOOR STEPBACK
(E) BANK
RETAIL @
LEVEL 1
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK
5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
RETAIL @
LEVEL 1
LEASING @
LEVEL 1
// 10/03/2023

FULL PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE A
STUDIO T-SQUARE INC GREYSTAR | 749 W EL CAMINO REAL, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: NEW ALTERNATIVE 1  


















  









 

 











  













 


 



 























 




























































 

(N) BANK
5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK
RETAIL @
LEVEL 1

RETAIL & LEASING
@ LEVEL 1

SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE BOUNDAY
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK
5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK
// 10/03/2023

FULL PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE B

BANK USE

RESIDENTIAL USE

RETAIL USE

UPPER-STORY

SETBACK LINE
LEGEND
FULL PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES FIGURE 8.2-2
49 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
237DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
--==-----==-------------------------------------------- ------------
/✓-✓-,,./
/ I
i
i i i i i
\
\ I
i i i
\
\ I
i i
\
\
\ I
i i i
\ I
i i i
\
I
i i i i
\
\
\
'\ ______ _ ..... ____________ _
I •-•-•---------------- r ------
.
'
i i i i i i i
i i i i i
\ I
i
i
I
i
i ______ _j
/
/
,,. ------ --------------------------------- ,-
/
I i
i
i i i
\
I
i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i
\
\ I
i i i
\
I
i i i i
\
\ I
i i
\,
'·, ....... __
i,--- I
'
\
,-----
i i
\
\
I
i i i
\
I
i i i
i
i
i
i
i
I ______ _j I •-•-•-•-• ----- +-------
' '
------
------------- ...... ,
\
\
i i i i i i
\
\ I
i i
--·-\
i i i i i i i
\
\ I ------------ ----------·
---------- ...... ,
·--- -- -- ·-·
\
\ I
i i i i i i i i i i
-----\
\ I
i i i i i i
i i ----·
STUDIO T-SQUARE INC GREYSTAR | 749 W EL CAMINO REAL, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: NEW ALTERNATIVE 2  


















  









 

 











  













 


 




 





































 

















































































 

5TH FLOOR STEPBACK 5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK 6TH FLOOR STEPBACK

LEASING &
RETAIL
RETAIL @
LEVEL 1
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK
5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
(N) BANK
10,000 SF
// 10/03/2023
STUDIO T-SQUARE INC GREYSTAR | 749 W EL CAMINO REAL, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: NEW ALTERNATIVE 2  


















  









 

 











  













 


 




 





































 

















































































 

5TH FLOOR STEPBACK 5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK 6TH FLOOR STEPBACK

LEASING &
RETAIL
RETAIL @
LEVEL 1
6TH FLOOR STEPBACK
5TH FLOOR STEPBACK
(N) BANK
10,000 SF
// 10/03/2023
02/21/2024 PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES: NEWER ALTERNATIVE 3:

PARTIAL PRESERVATION A
Source: Studio T-SQ, Inc., October 3, 2023.

PARTIAL PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE A PARTIAL PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE B

BANK USE

RESIDENTIAL USE

RETAIL USE

UPPER-STORY SETBACK LINE
PARTIAL PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVES FIGURE 8.2-3
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
238DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
--
i i
\
\
I
i
\ ! I
I
·,\
r---... - ...... \
I·····-·····-·····. \
i i i
i I
i i
.... ----- -!···~
i i i i i i i i i
·----------- ·-·-·-\
I I
\ I
i
\
\
\
\
I
\
i
\ '._ ··-·~·

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 239 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

8.2.1.1 No Project Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines specifically require consideration of a “No Project” Alternative. The purpose of including a No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project versus the impacts of not approving the project. The CEQA Guidelines specifically advise the No Project Alternative shall address both the existing conditions and “what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (Section 15126.6(e)(2)). 249

Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain as it is today. Under existing conditions, the site is developed with a vacant 1,487 square foot restaurant building, an operational 18,302 square foot bank building, a vacant undeveloped parcel, and surface parking areas (see Figure

8.2-1).

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
The No Project Alternative would avoid all impacts associated with the project, including the project’s significant and unavoidable cultural resource impact related to demolition of the existing bank building, because it would not change existing conditions. The existing bank building would continue to operate as it currently does, and no changes would occur to the building or the associated artwork on-site.

Relationship to Project Objectives
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the applicant’s project objectives because it would not redevelop the site consistent with the Precise Plan vision of a high-density mix of uses (including affordable residential units and neighborhood -serving commercial uses) and a publicly accessible plaza (Project Objectives 1 and 4). In addition, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the following project objectives: increase the supply of residential units in the City (Project Objective 2), provide a new, more efficient commercial space meeting modern standards for the bank (Project Objective 3), provide residential amenities (Project Objective 5), or create a transit -oriented, economically viable development that supports alternative modes of transportation (Project Objective 6).

Conclusion
The No Project Alternative would avoid the project’s impacts but would not meet any of the Project Objectives that call for development of a higher intensity and mixed-use node on the El Camino Real Corridor.

249 Considering the allowances provided by the State Density Bonus Law, the project as proposed is an example of what would reasonably be expected to occur under the current General Plan/Housing Element. The project is consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The impacts of the project are discussed throughout this EIR.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 240 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

8.2.1.2 Full Preservation Alternative A – Continued Use as Bank and 211 Units Full Preservation Alternative A would retain the existing, historic bank building for continued use as a branch bank. A new, six-story, mixed-use building of approximately 324,900 square feet would be constructed behind the existing bank building, with a setback of at least 15 feet at the rear.

Commercial space would be located on the ground floor frontage along the El Camino Real of the new mixed-use building, as well as in the corner of the mixed -use building fronting Castro Street. A public plaza would be located on the El Camino Real frontage of the site, east of the existing bank building. All integrated artworks that are part of the historic bank would be retained in place. See Figure 8.2-2 for a representative site plan and massing diagram. With these development assumptions, the site would include the existing 18,300-square foot bank building, a total of 211 new multi-family residential units (including 26 BMR units), and 10,800 square feet of new commercial space.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
The primary significant spatial relationship between the angled building and the plaza at the corner of El Camino Real and Castro Street would be retained under Full Preservation Alternative A. The rear surface parking lot would be demolished, and a new mixed-use building would be constructed behind the historic bank with at least a 15-foot setback at the rear. While surface parking was typical of mid- twentieth century banks, the former Home Savings & Loan Association building was not constructed with any specific drive-thru, automobile-oriented features, or exterior ATMs (which were eventually added at a later date). As such, the loss of the surface parking lot would not substantively alter any significant spatial relationships. The building’s architectural character and significance would be retained and preserved. Based on this discussion, Full Preservation Alternative A would be consistent with all 10 of the Standards for Rehabilitation. The primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) would remain eligible for listing in the CRHR , so the impact to the historic resource would be less than significant and the project’s significant, unavoidable impact would be avoided.

Compared to the p roject, this alternative would retain the existing bank building and construct a smaller mixed-use building which would result in a shorter construction period and less demolition on-site. Therefore, this alternative would likely generate fewer construction criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions during construction. Similarly, a smaller mixed -use building with fewer residential units would generate less vehicle trips than the project, resulting in fewer vehicle-related operational criteria air pollutant emissions than the project. While this alternative would result in lesser impacts to these resources than the project, the impact conclusion would be the same (i.e., less than significant with implementation mitigation measures).

This alternative could be constructed to comply with applicable design standards and guidelines and designed to minimize light and glare. For this reason, this alternative would result in a similar less than significant aesthetic impact as the project. Further, the site would still be located in a TPA under this alternative and pursuant to SB 743, aesthetic impacts are less than significant. This alternative would result in similar energy impacts as the project because it would also be constructed efficiently

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 241 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
and in compliance with existing energy efficient regulations. It is acknowledged that, because the existing bank would continue to operate under this alternative, it is operationally less energy efficient than a new bank building because it is not built to current energy efficient standards.

This alternative would develop the same site as the project and, therefore, result in the same or similar impacts to the on -site, physical environmental factors related to biological resources, archaeological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, and TCRs.

This alternative would still meet the screening criteria for Transit Screening in the City’s VMT Policy; therefore, it would result in the same less than significant VMT impact as the project. This alternative would construct a smaller building with fewer dwelling units; therefore, impacts related to vehicle trips generated (i.e., roadway congestion, traffic noise), construction noise, public services (i.e., demand for police, fire, and library services), and utility system demand would be lessened but remain at a similar level (less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated).

Impacts related to population and housing and recreation would also be lessened. This alternative would result in a similar land use and planning impact as the project because it would also comply with the applicable land use regulations and would not divide an established community.

Relationships to Project Objectives
Full Preservation Alternative A would meet Project Objective 1 by developing a residential mixed-use project on-site that would include affordable units and a public plaza. This alternative would meet the intent of Project Objective 2 by providing residential units, however, it would provide 88 fewer residential units (including seven fewer BMR units) than the applicant’s desired amount of 299 new multi-family units (including 33 BMR units) identified in Project Objective 2. The existing historic bank building is approximately 18,300 square feet, or 6,800 square feet larger than the proposed new bank (11,500 square feet) and 8,300 square feet larger than the minimum required size of the bank (10,000 square feet) identified in Project Objective 3 . However, Full Preservation Alternative A would not meet the portion of Project Objective 3 that specifies a “more efficient commercial space meeting modern standards” in a “new facility.” Since the Full Preservation Alternative A would retain the historic building in full, as well as the front plaza and all integrated artworks, and the building would continue operating as a bank, there would be no disruption to bank operations (which is stipulated in Project Objective 3). This alternative would meet Project Objective 4 by constructing a new, high - intensity development on an underutilized site in an El Camino Real Precise Plan Village Center. This alternative would meet Project Objective 5 by including a ground -floor leasing office and amenity space for the new residenc es. This alternative would meet Project Objective 6 by constructing a transit-oriented development near transit services and improving the transit facilities adjacent to the site with the construction of a bus island and striping of a bike lane along El Camino Real.

Conclusion
Full Preservation Alternative A would avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable impact to a historic resource and result in similar or the same impacts to all other environmental factors. This alternative

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 242 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
would only partially meet Project Objectives 2 and 3 as it would not provide 299 residential units or a new bank building on-site. This alternative would meet the other four project objectives.

8.2.1.3 Full Preservation Alternative B – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 200 Units Full Preservation Alternative B would retain the existing, historic bank building for adaptive reuse as a commercial space which would be used for the residential leasing office and other retail. A new mixed-use building would be constructed behind the existing bank building, with a setback of at least 15 feet at the rear. Additional commercial space would be located along the El Camino Real frontage of the new building. Compared to the Full Preservation Alternative A, this alternative would include 11 fewer residential units, 2,200 square feet of additional commercial space, and a bank that would be 8,000 square feet smaller. In addition, this alternative includes a new, stand-alone bank building at the corner of El Camino Real and Lane Avenue. The intent of having a stand-alone bank building is to provide a more efficient, modernized bank facility that would be able to maintain operation throughout the construction of the remaining improvements. The space around the existing historic bank would serve as publicly accessible open space. All integrated artworks that are part of the historic bank would be retained in place. See Figure 8.2-2 for a representative site plan and massing diagram. With these development assumptions, the site would include a new, standalone, 10,000- square foot bank building, a total of 200 new multi-family residential units (including 26 BMR units), and 13,000 square feet of commercial space.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
Unlike Full Preservation Alternative A, Full Preservation Alternative B would include extensive renovation within the existing bank building interior to convert the space from a bank use to other commercial uses. While the building would have new tenants, it would continue to be used as a commercial building , and minimal exterior alterations are anticipated to accommodate the new tenants. Potential exterior alterations could include new signage and possibly additional or reconfigured doorways within the existing arched storefronts. Full Preservation Alternative B would retain the materials, spaces, and features that characterize the property, including the integrated artworks, exterior cladding materials, and arched windows. The primary significant spatial relationship between the angled building and the plaza at the corner of El Camino Real and Castro Street would also be retained. Based on this discussion, Full Preservation Alternative B would be consistent with all 10 of the Standards for Rehabilitation. The primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) would remain eligible for listing in the CRHR , so the impact to the historic resource would be less than significant and the project’s significant, unavoidable impact would be avoided.

This alternative would modify the interior of the existing bank building and construct a smaller mixed- use building which would result in a shorter construction period and less demolition on -site.

Therefore, it is possible that this alternative would generate fewer construction criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions during construction and require less energy to operate. Similarly, a smaller mixed- use building with fewer residential units would generate less vehicle trips than the project. However, impacts from the project related to these resource areas were already determined to be less than

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 243 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval, so, Full Preservation Alternative B would result in the same determination for these resource areas.

Because this alternative would construct a smaller building with fewer dwelling units, impacts related to vehicle trips generated (i.e., roadway congestion, traffic noise), construction noise, public services (i.e., demand for police, fire, and library services), and utility system demand would be lessened but remain at a similar level (less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated).

Impacts related to population and housing and recreation would also be lessened, similar to the discussion under Full Preservation Alternative A.

Relationships to Project Objectives
Full Preservation Alternative B would meet Project Objective 1 by developing a residential mixed-use project on-site that would include affordable units and a public plaza. This alternative would meet the intent of Project Objective 2 by providing residential units, however, it would pr ovide 99 fewer residential units (including seven fewer BMR units) than the applicant’s desired amount of 299 new multi-family units (including 33 BMR units) identified in Project Objective 2. The new bank building in this alternative would meet the minimum required size (10,000 square feet) identified in Project Objective 3 and it would meet the portion of Project Objective 3 that specifies a “more efficient commercial space meeting modern standards” in a “new facility.” Other than some potential additions to the exterior of the building (e.g., new signage), Full Preservation Alternative B would retain the exterior of the historic building, as well as the front plaza and all integrated artworks, and renovate the interior of the building so that it can be repurposed for commercial use. Because a new bank would be constructed on the northeastern portion of the site prior to renovation of the existing bank, there would be no disruption to bank operations (which is stipulated in Project Objective 3).

This alternative would meet Project Objective 4 by constructing a new, high- intensity development on an underutilized site in an El Camino Real Precise Plan Village Center. This alternative would meet Project Objective 5 by including a ground-floor leasing office and amenity space for the new residences. This alternative would meet Project Objective 6 by constructing a transit -oriented development near transit services and improving the transit facilities adjacent to the site with the construction of a bus island and striping of a bike lane along El Camino Real.

Conclusion
Full Preservation Alternative B would avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable impact to a historic resource and result in similar or the same impacts to all other environmental factors. This alternative would fully meet five of the six Project Objectives. This alternative would only partially meet Project Objective 2 as it would not provide 299 residential units.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 244 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

8.2.1.4 Full Preservation Alternative C – Continued Use of Bank and 299 Units Full Preservation Alternative C is the same as Full Preservation Alternative A except in Full Preservation Alternative C, the new mixed-use building would be up to 95 feet tall with eight stories (rather than six stories) and accommodate an additional 88 units for a total of 299 new residential units (including 33 BMR units) and approximately 106,000 square feet of additional building area .

Consistent with Full Preservation Alternative A, the existing bank building would remain in place and continue to be used for bank operations on-site. See Figure 8.2-2 for a representative site plan and massing diagram. With these development assumptions, the site would include the existing 18,3 00- square foot bank building, a total of 299 new multi-family residential units (including 26 BMR units), and 10,800 square feet of commercial space.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
Similar to the discussion of Full Preservation Alternative A , Full Preservation Alternative C would maintain the primary significant spatial relationship between the angled building and the plaza at the corner of El Camino Real and Castro Street. The bank building’s architectural character and significance would be retained and preserved, as would the associated artwork. Based on this discussion, Full Preservation Alternative C would be consistent with all 10 of the Standards for Rehabilitation. The primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) would remain eligible for listing in the CRHR , so the impact to the historic resource would be less than significant and the project’s significant, unavoidable impact would be avoided.

This alternative would construct a larger, though similarly sized, mixed-use building as the project. In addition, the larger and taller mixed -use building in this alternative would require different construction techniques and could require different materials, equipment, and timelines. As a result, this alternative may result in greater, though similar less than significant with mitigation, construction criteria air pollutant emissions and community health risk impacts as the project. Aesthetic impacts would continue to be less than significant since the project would still be located in a TPA. Similar to the project, this alternative would require a density bonus waiver to allow the maximum building height; however, the waiver for this alternative would allow two additional stories above what is included in the project.

This alternative would construct a larger building with additional square footage than the project, therefore, it is likely that operation of the building in this alternative would require higher energy use.

Similar to Full Preservation Alternative A, this alternative would develop the same site as the project; therefore, impacts to aesthetic resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, and TCRs would be the same as discussed previously. In addition, this alternative would still meet the screening criteria for Transit Screening in the City’s VMT Policy and result in a less than significant VMT impact. This alternative would include the same number of dwelling units as the project; therefore, impacts related to population and housing, publi c services, recreation, traffic , noise, and utilities would remain at a similar level, similar to the discussion under Full Preservation Alternative A.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 245 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Relationships to Project Objectives
Full Preservation Alternative C would meet Project Objective 1 by developing a residential mixed-use project on-site that would include affordable units and a public plaza. This alternative would meet Project Objective 2 by providing residential units at the density desired by the applicant. The existing historic bank building is approximately 18,300 square feet, or 6, 800 square feet larger than the proposed new bank (11, 500 square feet) and 8,3 00 square feet larger than the minimum required size of the bank (10,000 square feet) identified in Project Objective 3. However, Full Preservation Alternative C would not meet the portion of Project Objective 3 that specifies a “more efficient commercial space meeting modern standards” in a “new facility.” Since the Full Preservation Alternative C would retain the historic building in full, as well as the front plaza and all integrated artworks, and the building would continue operating as a bank, there would be no disruption to bank operations (which is stipulated in Project Objective 3). This alternative would meet Project Objective 4 by constructing a new, high-intensity development on an underutilized site in an El Camino Real Precise Plan Village Center. This alternative would meet Project Objective 5 by including a ground- floor leasing office and amenity space for the new residences. This alternative would meet Project Objective 6 by constructing a transit -oriented development near transit services and improving the transit facilities adjacent to the site with the construction of a bus island and striping of a bike lane along El Camino Real.

Conclusion
Full Preservation Alternative C would avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable impact to a historic resource. Although the larger building and alternative construction techniques and timeline could result in greater, though similar less than significant with mitigation, construction criteria air pollutant emissions and community health risk impacts as the project, this alternative would result in similar or the same impacts to all other environmental factors. Full Preservation Alternative C would fully meet five of the six Project Objectives; however, it would not provide a new bank building on -site consistent with Project Objective 3.

8.2.1.5 Partial Preservation Alternative A – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 251 Units Partial Preservation Alternative A would retain the front half of the existing, historic bank building for adaptive reuse as a commercial space for the residential leasing office and other retail uses . A new, six-story mixed-use building of approximately 364,400 square feet would be constructed as an addition behind the existing bank building and would require the demolition of most of the rear half of the bank building. Commercial space would be located on the ground floor frontage on El Camino Real of the new, mixed -use building. The space around the existing historic bank would serve as publicly accessible open space. All integrated artworks that are part of the historic bank would be retained in place, except the stained-glass window (due to the demolition of the rear half of the bank building), which would be salvaged and relocated at a separate location on -site. With these development assumptions, a total of 251 multi -family residential units (including 26 BMR units) ,

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 246 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
10,000 square feet of space for a new bank, and 9,800 square feet of commercial space for other retails uses would be provided. See Figure 8.2-3 for a representative site plan and massing diagram.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
Partial Preservation Alternative A would retain the front half of the historic building, including associated materials, spaces, and features that characterize the property and most of the integrated artworks. However, all exterior cladding materials and arched windows at the rear of the building would be demolished. While a portion of the historic building would be retained, the overall form and massing of the original building would no longer be legible, and a significant portion of the exterior cladding and distinctive arched windows would be removed. The overall historic character would be diminished, and the building would no longer have integrity for listing in the CRHR . In addition, the construction of the new mixed -use building around and over the bank building would introduce an architectural style which would be incompatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale , proportion, and massing of the original building. Based on this discussion, Partial Preservation Alternative A would be in compliance with only six of the 10 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Partial Preservation Alternative A would not meet the Standards for Rehabilitation, and the primary structure on -site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) would no longer be eligible for listing in the CRHR. This alternative would result in the bank building losing its integrity of setting, feeling, and design, and the integrity of the materials and workmanship would be diminished. Therefore, while this alternative would result in a lesser impact to the historic resource than the project because it would preserve a portion of the buildi ng and most of the associated artwork, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Similar to the discussion for Full Preservation Alternatives A and B, all impacts resulting from the project as discussed in Section 4.0 Previously Identified Effects of this EIR would remain the same under Partial Preservation Alternative A. This alternative would retain a portion of the existing bank building and construct a smaller mixed-use building with a ground-floor level bank which would likely result in a shorter construction period and less demolition on -site. Therefore, it is possible that this alternative would generate fewer construction criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions during construction and require less energy to operate. Similarly, a smaller mixed -use building with fewer residential units would generate less vehicle trips than the project. However, impacts from the project related to these resource areas were already determined to be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval, so, Partial Preservation Alternative A would result in the same determination for these resource areas.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 247 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
remain at a similar level (less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated).

Impacts related to population and housing and recreation would also be lessened, similar to the discussion under Full Preservation Alternative A.

Relationships to Project Objectives
Partial Preservation Alternative A would meet Project Objective 1 by developing a residential mixed- use project on-site that would include affordable units and a public plaza. This alternative would meet the intent of Project Objective 2 by providing residential units, however it would prov ide 48 fewer residential units (including seven fewer BMR units) than the 299 new multi-family units (including 33 BMR units) identified in Project Objective 2 . Partial Preservation Alternative A would meet Project Objective 3 of providing a minimum of 10,000 square feet for a new, stand-alone Chase Bank facility.

The development of this alternative, however, could not be phased in a way to minimize disruption of bank operations (which is identified as part of Project Objective 3) to the same extent as the project. Because this alternative would include the new bank facility at the ground -floor level of the mixed-use building, construction of the bank cannot be phased like the project to allow for continuous bank operations during construction. For these reasons, the project would only partially meet Project Objecti ve 3. This alternative would meet Project Objective 4 by constructing a new, high-intensity development on an underutilized site in an El Camino Real Precise Plan Village Center.

This alternative would meet Project Objective 5 by including a ground-floor leasing office and amenity space for the new residences. This alternative would meet Project Objective 6 by constructing a transit-oriented development near transit services and improving the transit facilities adjacent to the site with the construction of a bus island and striping of a bike lane along El Camino Real.

Conclusion
Partial Preservation Alternative A would result in a lesser, though still significant and unavoidable, impact to a historic resource than the project. Although this alternative would construct a smaller mixed-use building than the project, it would result in similar or the same impacts to all other environmental factors. This alternative would meet Project Objectives 1, 4, 5, and 6. It would partially meet Project Objective 2 as it would not provide 299 residential units on -site and partially meet Project Objective 3 because it would disrupt bank operations on-site during construction activities.

8.2.1.6 Partial Preservation Alternative B – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 299 Units Partial Preservation Alternative B would retain the existing, historic bank building for adaptive reuse as a commercial space which would be used for the residential leasing office and other retail uses. A new, nine-story (105 feet tall), mixed-use building would be constructed as an addition, attached to the rear of the historic bank building by a “hyphen” connector. A majority of the rear wall of the historic bank building would be demolished, and the stained -glass window would be salvaged and relocated o n-site. All other artworks that are part of the historic bank would remain in place .

Commercial space would be located at the south end of the new building, fronting El Camino Real, and a new, stand-alone bank space and surface parking area would be developed at the corner of El Camino Real and Lane Avenue. The space around the existing historic bank would serve as publicly

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 248 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
accessible open space. With these development assumptions, the site would include the existing 18,300-square foot bank building adaptively reused as other commercial space, 13,000 square feet of additional, new commercial space, and a total of 299 new multi-family residential units (including 33 BMR units). See Figure 8.2-3 for a representative site plan and massing diagram.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
Similar to Partial Preservation Alternative A, Partial Preservation Alternative B would retain a portion of the bank building, including the associated materials, spaces, and features that characterize the property and most of the integrated artworks, However, most of the rear façade , including the associated distinctive materials, features, and finishes (i.e., the brick cladding, corbelling and arched windows) of the historic building would be demolished. In contrast to Partial Preservation Alternative A, the overall cubic form and massing of the original building would still be legible as the overall symmetry and a significant portion of the exterior cladding and distinctive arched windows would be retained. Similar to Partial Preservation Alternative A, the addition of a nine-story, mixed-use building to the existing bank building would not be compatible with the pedestrian scale, brick material, or simple symmetrical design of the existing bank building. Based on this discussion, Partial Preservation Alternative B would be consistent with six out of 10 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. While Partial Preservation Alternative B would result in the demolition of fewer historic materials and features and is generally more compatible with the Standards for Rehabilitation than Partial Preservation Alternative A, Partial Preservation Alternative B would not be consistent with the Standards for Rehabilitation and the primary structure on -site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) would no longer be eligible for listing in the CRHR . Therefore, while this alternative would result in a lesser impact to the historic resource than the project because it would preserve a portion of the building and most of the artwork, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Similar to the discussion regarding Full Preservation Alternative C, this alternative would construct a taller mixed-use building than the project to accommodate 299 dwelling units. The taller mixed-use building in this alternative would require different construction techniques, materials, and equipment that would lengthen the construction period compared to the project and could result in greater, though similar less than significant with mitigation, construction criteria air pollutant emissions and community health risk impacts as the project. Aesthetic impacts would continue to be less than significant since the project would still be located in a TPA and a density bonus waiver for maximum building height would still be required for this alternative.

This alternative would construct a slightly smaller building in terms of square footage than the project, therefore, it is likely that operation of the building in this alternative would require less energy use. Similar to Full Preservation Alternative A, this alternative would develop the same site as the project; therefore, impacts to aesthetic resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, and TCRs would be the same as discussed previously. In addition, this alternative would still meet the screening criteria for Transit Screening in the City’s VMT Policy and result in a less than significant VMT impact.

This alternative would include the same number of dwelling units as the project; therefore, impacts

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 249 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
related to population and housing, public services, recreation, traffic noise, and utilities would remain at a similar level, similar to the discussion under Full Preservation Alternative C.

Relationships to Project Objectives
Partial Preservation Alternative B meets all six of the p roject objectives. Due to the new , nine-story mixed-use building, Partial Preservation Alternative B would provide 299 new residential units, including 33 BMR units, which meets Project Objectives 1 and 2. This alternative would also meet Project Objective 3 since it would construct a new, stand-alone bank building of at least 10,000 square feet on-site. In addition, consistent with the other portions of Project Objective 3, the construction of this alternative would be phased in a way to allow the existing bank to continue operating in the existing building (and continue parking in the existing parking lot) while the new bank is being constructed. This alternative would meet Project Objective 4 by constructing a new, high -intensity development on an underutilized site in an El Camino Real Precise Plan Village Center. This alternative would meet Project Objective 5 by including a ground-floor leasing office and amenity space for the new residences. This alternative would meet Project Objective 6 by constructing a transit -oriented development near transit services and improving the transit facilities adjacent to the site with the construction of a bus island and striping of a bike lane along El Camino Real.

Conclusion
Partial Preservation Alternative B would not avoid the project’s significant impact to a historic resource. Although the taller building and alternative construction techniques and timeline could result in greater, though similar less than significant with mitigation, construction criteria air pollutant emissions and community health risk impacts as the project, this alternative would result in similar or the same impacts to all other environmental factors. This alternative would meet all six Project Objectives as it would provide 299 residential units on-site and also construct a new, standalone bank building on-site.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 250 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Table 8.2-2: Impact Comparison for Project and Alternatives Impacts Project
No
Project
Full Preservation Partial Preservation

A B C A B
Aesthetics LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Agricultural/Forestry Resources NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Air Quality LTSM NI LTSM LTSM LTSM LTSM LTSM
Biological Resources LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Cultural Resources SU NI LTS LTS LTS SU SU
Energy LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Geology and Soils LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTSM NI LTSM LTSM LTSM LTSM LTSM Hazards and Hazardous
Materials LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Hydrology and Water Quality LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Land Use LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Mineral Resources NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Noise LTSM NI LTSM LTSM LTSM LTSM LTSM
Population and Housing LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Public Services LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Recreation LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Transportation LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Tribal Cultural Resources LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS LTS
Utilities and Service Systems LTSM NI LTSM LTSM LTSM LTSM LTSM Wildfire NI NI NI NI NI NI NI
Meets Project Applicant Objectives?
Objective 1 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Objective 2 Yes No Partially Partially Yes Partially Yes Objective 3 Yes No Partially Yes Partially Partially Yes Objective 4 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Objective 5 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Objective 6 Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
NI = No Impact ; LTS = Less than Significant Impact ; LTSM = Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated; SU = Significant and Unavoidable Impact
Bolded impacts represent impacts that are environmentally superior compared to the project

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 251 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

8.2.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. Based on the discussion of project alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative to the project is the No Project Alternative because it would avoid all of the project’s significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) states that “ [i]f the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Therefore, in addition to the No Project Alternative, Full Preservation Alternative B would be the environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce the project’s impact to a historic resource to a less than significant level, as shown in Table 8.2-2, and require the least amount of new construction which would reduce air quality and GHG emission - related impacts. In addition, because this alternative would construct a smaller building with fewer dwelling units, impacts related to vehicle trips generated (i.e., roadway congestion, traffic noise), construction noise, public services (i.e., demand for police, fire, and library services), and utility system demand would be lessened compared to the project.

8.2.3 Project Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Analysis

8.2.3.1 Location Alternative
An alternative site may be considered when impacts of the project might be avoided or substantially lessened, and the project proponent can feasibly attain control of the site. Only alternative locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the impacts of the project and meet most of the basic project objectives need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.6[f] and 15126.6[f][2][A]).

One of the primary, basic objectives of the project is to provide the on-site Chase Bank with a new , more modern and efficient bank building while maintaining the branch location (Project Objective 3).

There is not a nearby alternative location that is owned by the applicant team or can reasonably be acquired by the applicant team. Therefore, a location alternative for the project was not considered further.

8.2.3.2 New Mixed-Use Addition with Rooftop Amenity Space on Bank Building An additional partial preservation alternative was considered that would have included a new mixed- use building as an addition to the historic bank, stepping back from the bank building at the third story. In this potential alternative, the new mixed-use building would have used at least a portion of the roof of the historic bank as a residential amenity roof deck. However, this alternative would have resulted in fewer residential units than desired by the applicant and the other partial alternatives evaluated in Section 8.2.1, and the additional residential amenity space on the site was not needed to equal the residential amenity space included in the project. In addition, constructing amenities on the roof of the bank building could further impact the degree of preservation of the building as

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 252 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
improvements on the roof would add a visual element that was not included in the building’s original design. As such, this alternative was not evaluated further.

8.2.3.3 New Mixed-Use Building with Additional Stories
Full Preservation Alternative C and Partial Preservation Alternative B both consider increasing the height of the proposed new mixed -use building from six stories up to eight and nine stories, respectively, to accommodate additional residential units on -site. A separate alternative was considered which would have further increased the number of stories for the new mixed-use building beyond eight or nine stories to reduce the project footprint and maintain a wider buffer area around the existing bank building while maintaining the same number of dwelling units. The intent of this alternative would have been to preserve the existing landscaping adjacent to the rear of the bank building which was part of the original landscape design for the property. However, it was determined that this landscaping in the rear of the building was not critical to the integrity and character of the bank building and associated artwork. Therefore, an alternative to maintain a wider buffer and preserve this landscaping was deemed unnecessary to reduce the impact to the historic resource, and this alternative was rejected from further consideration.

8.2.3.4 New Mixed-Use Building with a Deeper Garage
The possibility of constructing a deeper below-grade parking garage was considered but rejected as unnecessary. The purpose of adding an additional below-grade level to the parking garage would be to move the podium -level spaces underground, include additional residential units on the ground - floor level, and reduce the overall height of the mixed -use building by one story. However, it was determined that reducing the building height by one story under this alternative would not avoid any significant impacts. In addition, constructing a deeper below-grade parking garage would result in additional construction -related emissions and add additional complexities to the construction process, including the potential need to conduct construction or permanent groundwater dewatering. Based on these considerations, an alternative that would construct additional below - grade parking levels was not considered further.

8.2.3.5 Off-Site or On-Site Relocation
The possibility of relocating the historic building with all the associated artwork was considered but rejected as infeasible. Although retaining historic resources in their original location is always a preferred treatment, relocation is a better alternative to demolition. The relocation of the historic building to either a different location on -site or to a separate location off -site would be technically challenging and an expensive prospect due to its size. Additionally, relocation of the historic building would result in the loss of the spatial relationship of the building to the front plaza and the prominent corner of El Camino Real and Castro Street. Other placement configurations for the bank building, including rotation of the building to fit it more effectively in a corner of the site, were considered in order to increase the amount of developable area for the new mixed -use building. This, however, would result in the loss of plaza space and adversely affect the spatial relationship of the building to the intersection. There is no vacant, off-site, receiver site in Mountain View that can be reasonably

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 253 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
acquired or under the control of the City or applicant with a sufficient amount of space where the building could have a viable new use. For the reasons described above, off -site or on-site relocation of the building was not considered further.

8.2.3.6 No Project, Redevelopment Alternative
Under the No Project, Redevelopment Alternative, the project site could eventually be redeveloped with land uses and densities consistent with those allowed within the Village Centers area of the Precise Plan and under the Mixed -Use Corridor General Plan land use designation. This potential development could take many forms, and it is possible that developing the site with the maximum allowable density could still result in conflicts with the existing improvements that would require the full or partial demolition of the existing bank building.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 254 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Section 9.0 References
The analysis in this Environmental Impact Report is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:

A
scent Environmental, Inc. Historic Resource Evaluation Report for Properties between Castro Street and Lane Avenue, Mountain View. December 2021

Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. “Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.” Last Updated August 3, 2023. Accessed August 3, 2023. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about- air- quality/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status.

---. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

---. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017.

California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022.

---. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed August 3, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

---. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm.

California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.

California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Map. 2019.

---. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed April 24, 2023. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx.

---. “Williamson Act.” Accessed April 24, 2023. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 255 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
California Department of Finance. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020- 2023.” May 2023. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-an d-housing- estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “FHSZ Viewer.” Webmap. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.

---. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed April 24, 2023. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

---. Wildland Urban Interface. December 2019. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed May 4, 2023. http://hcd.ca.gov/community- development/housing-element/index.shtml.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals. August 18, 2020.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1693#:~:text=Analysis%20of%20the% 20Progress%20Toward,(DRRR%2D2020%2D1693)&text=SB%201383%20establishes%20targ ets%20to,75%20percent%20reduction%20by%202025.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed April 26, 2023.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist.

California Department of Transportation. “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” Accessed April 24, 2023.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa.

California Energy Commission. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-
and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-
standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency.

---. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed April 26, 2023. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.

---. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed April 26, 2023. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed April 19, 2023. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 256 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2022 California Gas Report. Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Califor nia_Gas_Report_2022.pdf.

California Legislative Information. “Chapter 2.7. Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects [21099- 21099.].” Accessed March 10, 2023. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=13 .&part=&chapter=2.7.&article=.

California Natural Resources Agency. “Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016.” Accessed April 24, 2023. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SantaClara.aspx.

California Office of Historic Preservation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6. Accessed June 6, 2023. http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%2 02011%20update.pdf.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Region. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. May 11, 2022.

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2020-2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). May 11, 2022. Accessed September 2, 2022. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020 _2022_integrated_report.html.

City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. Accessed May 4, 2023. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14762.

---. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.

---. 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031. April 11, 2023.

---. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022.

---. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2011012069. September 2012.

---. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2014032002. August 2014.

---. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. SCH #2014032002. August 2014.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 257 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
---. “Municipal Code: Section 32.23 – Definitions.” Accessed December 16, 2022. https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIIT HCO_CH32TRSHPL.

---. “New Requirement for Demolition Projects.” Accessed December 20, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fire/environment/protection.asp.

---. Mountain View Green Building Code. 2019. Accessed September 19, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/2019_mountain_vie w_green_building_and_reach_codes.asp.

County of Santa Clara. “Geologic Hazard Zones.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ef8100336234fb dafc5769494cfe373.

---. “Williamson Act and Open Space Easement.” September 17, 2018. Accessed April 24, 2023. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/programs/wa/pages/wa.aspx.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C0039H. Effective Date May 18, 2009.

Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 749 W. El Camino Real Mixed-Use Development Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis. December 13, 2024.

Hort Science / Bartlett Consulting. Preliminary Arborist Report – 749 West El Camino Real. Aprill 2022.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 749 W. El Camino Real Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment, Mountain View, California. August 16, 2023

---. 749 W. El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA – Traffic Noise Assessment. June 6, 2023.

Mountain View Fire Department. Fire Department Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2020-21. Accessed July 6, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fire/about/report.asp.

Mountain View Police Department. 2021 Annual Report. Accessed July 6, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=37694.

Mountain View Whisman School District. Level 1 Developer Fee Study. May 5, 2022. Appendix E.

Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - Mountain View High School Expansion Project (SCH #2011092006). November 2018.

---. Level 1 Developer Fee Study. July 27, 2020. Table 1.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 258 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Page & Turnbull. 615 & 749 W. El Camino Real, Mountain View, HRER Peer Review Memorandum.

March 1, 2023.

Ramboll Environment and Health. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – 615-749 West El Camino Real. March 2020.

Rockridge Geotechnical. Final Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Mixed- Use Development 749 W.

El Camino Real, Mountain View, California. April 8, 2022.

Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan. November 18, 2016.

Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan. Accessed April 27, 2023.

Schaaf & Wheeler. 749 West El Camino Real – Utility Impact Study. April 21, 2023.

Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.

United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed April 26, 2023. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.

United States Department of the Interior. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System. July 2016.

Accessed November 24, 2021. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/IM2016- 124_att1.pdf.

United States Department of Transportation. USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2024 -2026.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-r
eleases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy-
standards-model-year-2024-2026.

United States Energy Information Administration. “Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. 2021.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.

---. “Petroleum & Other Liquids, California Field Production of Crude Oil.” February 28, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpca1&f=a

---. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2020.” Accessed March 13, 2023. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.

---. “State Electricity Profiles; California Electricity Profile 2019. November 2, 2020. And Ibid.

California Electricity Profile 2020.” March 13, 2023.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 259 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
United States Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Actions to Protect the Public from Exposure to Asbestos.” Accessed April 19, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/epa-a ctions-protect- public-exposure-asbestos.

---. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act.

---. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.

---. “The 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” November 2021.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1010U68.pdf.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory, Surface Waters and Wetlands.

Map. May 2021.

United States Geological Survey. “Groundwater Quality in the San Francisco Bay Groundwater Basins, California.” March 2013. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3111/pdf/fs20123111.pdf.

---. “Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data.” Accessed April 28, 2023. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map-us.html.

Personal Communication
• Azevedo, Becky. Technical Manager, Waste Management.
• Eguilos, Tony. Assistant Engineer, City of Mountain View – Public Works Department.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 260 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Section 10.0 Lead Agency and Consultants

10.1 Lead Agency
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
Christian Murdock, Community Development Director
Amber Blizinski, Assistant Community Development Director Margaret Netto, Senior Planner

10.2 Consultants
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants and Planners
Kristy Weis, Vice President/Principal Project Manager
Nick Towstopiat, Project Manager
Ryan Osako, Graphic Artist

Ascent Environmental, Inc.

Architectural Historians
Alta Cunningham, Architectural
Historian/Environmental Planner
Emilie Zelazo, Environmental
Planner/Archaeologist

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Transportation Consultants
Gary Black, AICP, President
Kai- Ling Kuo, Senior Associate

HortScience / Bartlett Consulting
Consulting Arborists
Darya Barar, Managing Consulting
Urban Forester
Deanne Ecklund, Registered
Consulting Arborist

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Acoustical and Air Quality Consultants
Michael Thill, Principal
James Reyff, Principal
Casey Divine, Consultant
Jordyn Bauer, Staff Consultant
Page & Turnbull, Inc.

Architectural Historians
Peter Birkholz, Principal
Christina Dikas, Associate Principal,
Senior Architectural Historian
Hannah Simonson, Cultural Resources
Planner

Ramboll Environment & Health
Environmental Consultants
Nick Walchuk, Principal
Jason Kane, Managing Consultant

Rockridge Geotechnical
Geotechnical Consultants
Linda H.J. Liang, Principal Engineer
Krystian P. Samlik, Senior Project
Engineer

Schaaf & Wheeler
Consulting Civil Engineers
Leif Coponen, PE, Vice President
Bimayendra Shrestha, Senior Engineer
Brett F. Crews, Associate Engineer

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 261 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Section 11.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACM Asbestos-Containing Material
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ATCM Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area
Btu British Thermal Unit
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standard
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Standards Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFC Chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 Methane
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 262 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
dBA A-weighted decibel
Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GHGRS Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
GWh Gigawatt Hour
GWP Global Warming Potential
Habitat Plan Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Leq Energy-Equivalent Sound/Noise Descriptor
Lmax Maximum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MMTCO2e Million Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mpg Miles per Gallon
MSL Mean Sea Level
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 263 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCP National Contingency Plan
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOA Naturally Occurring Asbestos
NOD Notice of Determination
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 Ozone
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCF Perfluorocarbon
PDA Priority Development Areas
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less PM2.5 Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less PPV Peak Particle Velocity
R&D Research and Development
RAP Removal Action Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB State Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMGB State Mining and Geology Board

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 264 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
SMP Site Management Plan
SOx Sulfur Oxides
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
Title 24 Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act
WUI Wildland-Urban Interface
ZNE Zero Net Carbon Emission

SCH #2023050251
Final Environmental Impact Report
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
August 2025
In ConsultaƟon with
Prepared by
i Fi
nal EIR 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View August 2025
Table of Contents
Section 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Section 2.0 Draft EIR Public Review Summary ................................................................................ 2 Section 3.0 Draft EIR Recipients ...................................................................................................... 3 Section 4.0 Responses to Draft EIR Comments ............................................................................... 4 Section 5.0 Draft EIR Text Revisions .............................................................................................. 20 A
ppendix A: Draft EIR Comment Letters

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 1 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Section 1.0 Introduction
This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR), constitutes the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use project.

1.1 Purpose of the Final EIR
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, this Final EIR provides objective information regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The Final EIR also examines mitigation measures and alternatives to the project intended to reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. The Final EIR is intended to be used by the City in making decisions regarding the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a), prior to approving a project, the lead agency shall certify that:

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

1.2 Contents of the Final EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 specify that 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 commenting on the Draft EIR; d) The Lead A gency’s responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

1.3 Public Review
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 21092.5[a] and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088[b]) , the City shall provide a written response to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying the EIR. The Final EIR and all documents referenced in the Final EIR are available for public review at the City of Mountain View’s Community Development Department within City Hall (500 Castro Street, 1st Floor ) on weekdays during normal business hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.). The Final EIR is also available for review on the City’s website : https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community- development/planning/active-projects/ceqa-postings.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 2 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Section 2.0 Draft EIR Public Review Summary
The Draft EIR for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed -Use project, dated March 11, 2025, was circulated to affected public agencies and interested parties for a 45 -day review period from March 11, 2025 through April 25, 2025. The City undertook the following actions to inform the public of the availability of the Draft EIR:

• A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was published on the City’s website (https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community- development/planning/active-projects/ceqa-postings) and Daily Post newspaper on March 12, 2025;
• Notification of the availability of the Draft EIR was mailed to project-area residents and other members of the public who had indicated interest in the project; • The Draft EIR was delivered to the State Clearinghouse on March 11, 2025, as well as sent to various governmental agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals (see Section 3.0 for a list of agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals that received the Draft EIR); and • Copies of the Draft EIR were made available at the City of Mountain View City Hall (500 Castro Street), the Mountain View Public Library (585 Franklin Street), and on the City’s website:
o (https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community- development/planning/development-projects/749-w-el-camino-real-avenue o https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community- development/planning/active-projects/ceqa-postings).

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 3 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Section 3.0 Draft EIR Recipients
CEQA Guidelines Section 15086 requires that a local lead agency consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR prepared for a project of this type from responsible agencies (government agencies that must approve or permit some aspect of the project), trustee agencies for resources affected by the project, adjacent cities and counties, and transportation planning agencies.

The NOA for the Draft EIR was sent to owners and occupants within 750 feet of the project site and to adjacent jurisdictions. The following agencies received a copy of the NOA and/or Draft EIR from the City or via the State Clearinghouse:

• Bay Area Air District
• California Department of Transportation, District 4
• City of Palo Alto
• City of Sunnyvale
• Cuesta Park Neighborhood Association
• GreenSpaceMV
• Livable Mountain View
• Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning
• Mountain View Historical Association
• Mountain View Whisman School District
• Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District
• NASA Ames Research Center
• Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association
• Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
• Santa Clara Valley Water District
• Valley Transportation Authority

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 4 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Section 4.0 Responses to Draft EIR Comments
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this document includes written responses to comments on environmental issues received by the City of Mountain View on the Draft EIR .

Responses to comments on the project’s merit are not required under CEQA or included.

Comments are organized under headings containing the source of the letter and its date. The specific comments from each of the letters and /or emails are presented with each response to that specific comment directly following. Copies of the letters and emails received by the City of Mountain View are included in their entirety in Appendix A of this document. Comments received on the Draft EIR are listed below. None of the comments raised represents new significant information that would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).

Comment Letter and Commenter Page of Response

Federal and State Agencies ............................................................................................................. 5 A. California Department of Transportation (dated April 23, 2025) ..................................... 5 B. Department of Toxic Substances Control (dated March 20, 2025) ................................... 9 Regional and Local Agencies .......................................................................................................... 11 C. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (dated April 25, 2025) .............................. 11 D. Santa Clara Valley Water District (dated April 25, 2025) ................................................ 14 Organizations, Businesses, and Individuals ................................................................................... 16 E. Kristina Pereyra (dated April 6, 2025) ............................................................................ 16 F. Mario Lecce (dated March 20, 2025) ............................................................................. 16

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 5 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Federal and State Agencies
A. California Department of Transportation (dated April 23, 2025)

Comment A.1: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the West El Camino Real Mixed -Use Project. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consi stency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the March 2025 DEIR.

Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position or approval by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only.

Project Understanding
The proposed project is a mixed -use commercial and housing development adjacent to State Route 82 (SR 82). The project includes a facility for an existing bank and will have commercial space and 299 multi-family residential units with 33 of those units that are reserved for low - to very-low- income households.

Response A.1: This section introduces the comments below, which are subsequently responded to below.

Comment A.2: Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT) analysis for land use projects, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link).

The project VMT analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the City’s adopted VMT policy. Per the IS/MND, this project is found to have a less than significant VMT impact, therefore working towards meeting the State’s VMT reduction goals.

Response A.2: This comment is acknowledged . The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment A.3: Hydrology
Report states that "There are no storm drain capacity issues adjacent to or downstream of the project site, and the existing stormwater infrastructure would continue to have adequate capacity after construction of the project. "(pg. 221). More information is required to confirm this statement.

Response A.3: In April 2019, the City adopted the Storm Drain Master Plan, which included storm drain capacity modeling based on the land use development

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 6 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
assumptions included in the City’s land use documents (e.g., General Plan and various Precise Plans). This modeling included the development proposed by the project and concluded that there would not be any capacity issues near or downstream of 749 El Camino Real with buildout of the assumed land uses (including the proposed project).

Text has been added to the footnote on page 216 of the Draft EIR to clarify the source of this determination (refer to Section 5.0 Draft EIR Text Revisions).

Comment A.4: Increased runoff should be intercepted by adequate number of Drainage Inlets (if required) so that run-off does not affect Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (ROW) on SR 82. Any increase in storm water runoff to State Drainage Systems or Facilities be treated, contain ed on project site, and metered to preconstruction levels. Any floodplain impacts must be documented and mitigated.

Response A.4: As discussed in Section 4.9 of the Draft EIR (pages 135 to 146), the project would be required to comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP), which would include implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) practices, such as pollutant source control measures and stormwater treatment features, to maintain the site’s natural hydrologic functions and prevent an increase in stormwater runoff from the site after project implementation. The project site is not located within a floodplain; therefore, no floodplain impacts would occur. This comment does not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the Draft EIR.

Comment A.5: Cultural Resources
Should construction activities within Caltrans’ ROW take place in relation to this project, these mitigation measures shall be implemented if there is an archaeological discovery. If there is an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery within Caltrans’ ROW, please immediately contact the Caltrans Office of Cultural Resource Studies at (510) 847-1977. A staff archaeologist will evaluate the finds within one business day after contact. Caltrans requires review of any potential data recovery plans within Caltrans’ ROW.

Response A.5: Text has been added to the conditions of approval on page 39 of the Draft EIR to clarify that archaeological discoveries within Caltrans ROW would require additional coordination with the Caltrans Office of Cultural Resource Studies (refer to Section 5.0 Draft EIR Text Revisions). None of the project impacts, mitigation measures, or impact conclusions warrant revision based on the above comment.

Comment A.6: Construction-Related Impacts
Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link).

Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN).

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 7 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Response A.6: Details regarding construction logistics for the proposed project have not been prepared at this stage of the development process ; however, the project would comply with Caltrans requirements regarding the need for a transportation permit if oversized or excessive load vehicles are required to transport materials on State roadways. In addition, the project applicant would coordinate with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan, if required by Caltrans. For additional discussion regarding project impacts on traffic operation on El Camino Real, see the discussion included under checklist question c) on pages 201 to 203 of the Draft EIR.

Comment A.7: Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

Response A.7: No improvements to El Camino Real or other segments of the State Transportation Network would be required for the project. For additional details regarding the project’s mitigation measures, including details such as scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead agency monitoring requirements, see the Summary section of the Draft EIR (specifically pages v to ix of the Draft EIR) and the Mitigation Monitoring and R eporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the project (which will be available for review as part of the materials packet prepared for the future public hearings for the project).

Comment A.8: Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion.

Response A.8: As discussed on page 199 of the Draft EIR, “the project would improve pedestrian facilities by widening sidewalks on El Camino Real, Castro Street, Victor Way, and Lane Avenue, installing landscaping along the project frontage and in the new public plaza to enhance the pedestrian environment, building curb bulbouts and new high -visibility crosswalks, and installing new ADA -compliant curb ramps. ” Therefore, any new curb ramps providing access to pedestrian facilities on or adjacent to El Camino Real (a Caltrans facility) would be compliant with American s with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

Comment A.9: As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction.

These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Response A.9: Text has been added to page 200 of the Draft EIR to clarify that the project would comply with City standard conditions of approval to prepare traffic control plans and a construction traffic and parking management plan to limit

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 8 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
potential disruptions to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities along El Camino Real during construction activities. R efer to Section 5.0 Draft EIR Text Revisions for additional details regarding these City standard conditions of approval.

Comment A.10: Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any temporary or permanent work including traffic control that encroaches in, under, or over any portion of the State highway Rights -of-Way (ROW) requires a Caltrans- issued encroachment permit.

The Office of Encroachment Permits requires 100% complete design plans and supporting documents to review and circulate the permit application package. The review and approval of encroachment projects is managed through the Encroachment Permits Office Process (EPOP) or the Project Delivery Quality Management Assessment Process (QMAP), depending on project scope, complexity, and completeness of the application. Please use the following resources to determine the appropriate review process:

- TR-0416 Applicant’s Checklist (link)
- Caltrans Encroachment Projects Processes – Information Video (link) - Flowchart, Figure 1.2 in Section 108, Overview of the Encroachment Review Process, of Chapter 100 – The Permit Function, Caltrans Encroachment Permit Manual (link)

The permit approval typically takes less than 60 days, but may take longer depending on the project scope, size, complexity, completeness, compliance with applicable laws, standards, policies, and quality of the permit package submitted. Projects requiring exceptions to design standards, exceptions to encroachment policies, or external agency approvals may need more time to process.

To obtain more information and download the permit application, please visit Caltrans Encroachment Permits (link).

Response A.10: If construction activities will occur in Caltrans ROW, the project applicant would coordinate with Caltrans’ Office of Encroachment Permits as needed to obtain the appropriate Encroachment Permit. The City will include a condition of approval in the findings report for all requested entitlements (including the Development Review Permit and the Planned Community Permit) for the project to obtain the appropriate Encroachment Permit from Caltrans’ Office of Encroachment Permits, if needed.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 9 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
B. Department of Toxic Substances Control (dated March 20, 2025)

Comment B.1: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed -Use Project (Project).

The Project would demolish the existing 1,487 square foot restaurant building, 18,30 2 square foot bank building, and all associated surface parking and landscaping on -site to construct two new buildings on-site: 1) a two -story, 41 feet tall, 11,500 square foot bank and 2) a six -story, mixed-use building with 299 multi-family residential units up to 13,465 square feet of ground-floor commercial uses, and two levels of underground parking.

In March 2020, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Project by Ramboll. The ESA states that former underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the northwestern portion of the site according to a Subsurface Investigation Report conducted prior to 1990 and the report does not provide any information regarding oversight of the UST removals by a regulatory agency. The ESA also states: “Ramboll was not provided with any specific information regarding historical agricultural chemical use, although pesticides or other agricultural chemicals may have been applied on the site, and it is possible that residual concentrations of agricultural chemicals may be present in soil and potentially groundwater.” The City addresses these issues in the SEIR under COA HAZ - 2.1 Toxic Assessment section stating: “A toxic assessment report shall be prepared and submitted as part of the building permit submittal. The applicant must demonstrate that hazardous materials do not exist on the site or that construction activities and the proposed use of this site are approved by: the City’s Fire and Environmental Protection Division (FEPD); the State Department of Health Services; the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and any Federal agency with jurisdiction”.

Response B.1:

This section introduces the comments below, which are subsequently responded to below.

Comment B.2: DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

1. The City’s Fire and Environmental Protection Division (FEPD) is not a certified local agency, therefore, DTSC recommends the City of Mountain View address contamination found to be present within the Project area through oversight from a self -certified local agency, DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note that DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types. Please apply for DTSC oversight using this link: Request for Agency Oversight Application. Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact the relevant Regional Brownfield Coordinator for your Project.

Response B.2:

Text has been added to the City standard conditions of approval included on page 131 of the Draft EIR to clarify which regulatory agencies could provide oversight during preparation of the toxic assessment. R efer to Section 5.0 Draft EIR Text Revisions for additional details regarding the revised City standard condition of approval.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 10 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Comment B.3: 2. When agricultural crops and/or land uses are proposed or rezoned for residential use, a number of contaminants of concern (COCs) can be present. The Lead Agency shall identify the amounts of Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If present, OCPs requiring further analysis are dichloro -diphenyl-trichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin. Additionally, any level of arsenic present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet HHRA NOTE NUMBER 3, DTSC-SLs approved local area baselines or thresholds. If they are not, remedial action must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds. Additional COCs may be found in mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, farmhouses, or any other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed. If smudge pots had been routinely utilized, additional sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons may be required.

Response B.3:

Text has been added to the City standard conditions of approval included on page 131 of the Draft EIR to clarify the various contaminants of concern that shall be included in the toxic assessment. R efer to Section 5.0 Draft EIR Text Revisions for additional details regarding the revised City standard condition of approval.

Comment B.4: 3. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.

Response B.4:

This comment is noted; however, the project would not require the import of any fill for the site. Therefore, no testing for contaminants of concern would be required for the project.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 11 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Regional and Local Agencies
C. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (dated April 25, 2025)

Comment C.1: VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed -Use Project (SCH #2023050251). VTA has reviewed the document and has the following comments:

Response C.1: This section introduces the comments below, which are subsequently responded to below.

Comment C.2: Project Location and Land Use/Transportation Integration VTA supports the proposed land use intensifications in the project area, located within close proximity to VTA bus service lines 22, 51, 52. Rapid 522, and located within one mile of the Mountain View Transit Center. VTA commends the City for proposing up to 299 multi -family residential units (33 being for low- to very-low income), 13,465 sq. ft. of new commercial uses, and new 11,500 sq. ft bank, in addition to two levels of underground parking and a public plaza. The addition of these new uses will signif icantly support transit ridership, and the residential land use will complement the area’s current mixed -land uses. VTA supports a mix of land uses that encourage a live -work-play activity center for Mountain View that offers additional opportunities for residents and employees to incrementally reduce vehicle trips, and greenhouse gas emissions. VTA recommends integrating open space into the adjacent developments wherever possible.

Also, VTA supports policies and plans that target growth around the established cores, transportation corridors, and station areas in the County, as described in VTA’s Community Design & Transportation (CDT) Program and CDT Manual. The CDT Program was developed through an extensive community outreach strategy in partnership with VTA Member Agencies, and has been endorsed by all 15 Santa Clara County cities and the County.

Response C.2: This comment is acknowledged . The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment C.3: Site Plan
VTA appreciates the inclusion of a high-quality public plaza, and significant retail and active uses along both project frontages. VTA reiterates our recommendation from an earlier review of the site plans to tighten the radius of the Castro/El Camino intersection corner. Tightening this radius will add to the public domain and slow vehicles as they turn from Castro Street onto El Camino Real, improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Reclaiming this space for people will also improve public life at this location.

Response C.3:

The City has reviewed the El Camino Real/ Castro Street intersection and identified it for a future (funded) protected intersection project independent of

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 12 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
the proposed 749 West El Camino Real Mixed -Use project. In order to support this future improvement, the intersection must maintain a certain width. Moving the curbs in to tighten the radius in advance of the protected intersection project would require moving the curbs back out as part of the improvements. The City agrees with the above comment that tighter curb radii with this project would be beneficial. The future, funded protected intersection improvements at this location will provide a tighter curb radius via the corner islands that will be constructed within the protected intersection. The comment does not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the Draft EIR. The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment C.4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
The inclusion of 424 long-term bicycle parking spaces, 34 short-term bicycle parking spaces, and tree- planting to provide shade is appreciated. The proposed new buffered bike lane along the project frontage on El Camino Real, which would eliminate conflict s between buses and bicyclists is also appreciated. While this DEIR does not include in- depth detail on bicycle parking in the project, VTA reiterates our comments regarding bike lounges on the site plan from early 2022, which is attached to this letter as Attachment A.

VTA appreciates the project’s inclusion of active transportations accommodations that support sustainable transportation for all employees, customers, and residents of the development, and helps to reduce the project’s automobile trips and vehicle miles traveled.

Note that Attachment A referenced in the above comment is provided in Appendix A of this document.

Response C.4: The referenced Attachment A that was included as part of this comment letter was reviewed by City staff and considered by the project team as part of the project design. The City and project applicant will consider the suggestions that VTA has made regarding the inclusion of short-term floor racks and kick plates on-site within the proposed bike lounge . The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment C.5: Transit Accommodations
VTA appreciates the City’s efforts to work with the developer to improve and relocate the existing bus stops along the project frontages. In September 2022, BKF Engineers, at the request of City Mountain View staff, reached out to VTA staff to approve suggested project bus stop improvements via a formal letter. BKF’s requested clearance to vacate two transit shelter easements located on El Camino Ral and Castro Street. VTA provided approval via formal letter in February 2025 – this letter has been attached as Attachment B.

These improvements include:

Eastbound El Camino Real east of Castro Street:
• Bus stop relocation west

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 13 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
• 10’ wide bus boarding island
• 17’ shelter with AC power connection
• 10’ x 150’ Bus pad

Northbound Castro Street south of El Camino Real:
• Bus stop relocation south
• 13’ shelter with AC power connection

Note that Attachment B referenced in the above comment is provided in Appendix A of this document.

Response C.5:

This comment is acknowledged and does not provide any new information that would change the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR . The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment C.6: VTA requests that City of Mountain View staff include a condition of approval for the developer to coordinate with VTA on the future implementation of these improvements, and for the developer to provide advance notice to VTA of any work affecting these bus stops.

Response C.6:

The City will include a condition of approval in the findings report for all requested entitlements ( including the Development Review Permit and the Planned Community Permit) for the project to comply with VTA design guidelines and standards and to provide advanced notice to VTA if any construction activities will affect adjacent bus stops. The project applicant will coordinate with VTA on the future implementation of these improvements . The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment C.7: VTA Bus Stop and Passenger Facility Design Criteria and Standards VTA has numerous requests informed and supported by VTA’s Bus Stop & Facility Design Criteria and Standards. These requests are attached as Attachment C.

Note that Attachment C referenced in the above comment is provided in Appendix A of this document.

Response C.7:

Requests included in the referenced Attachment C are related to specific design details for the project to ensure compliance with the design criteria and standards established by VTA , and are not required to address or reduce any impacts identified under CEQA. The City will include a condition of approval for the project to comply with VTA design guidelines and standards, including those noted in the referenced Attachment C that was included as part of this comment letter . The project applicant will coordin ate with VTA on the future implementation of these improvements. Specific design details (such as delineator placement and striping improvements) would be finalized during the review of the Off- Site Improvement Plans by the City, VTA and Caltrans. The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 14 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Comment C.8: Travel Demand Management (TDM) program
VTA appreciates the document's acknowledgement that a TDM program must be implemented for this project. VTA would like additional details on these TDM measures as well as a stronger commitment on what aspects will be funded by the project.

Response C.8: The City will include a condition of approval for the project to submit the final TDM program to the City’s Public Works Department as part of the building permit process. The applicant would be responsible for funding the project -specific TDM measures. The applicant will coordinate with VTA as necessary upon completion of the final TDM program and its submittal to the City. The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

D. Santa Clara Valley Water District (dated April 25, 2025)

Comment D.1:

The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use project in Mountain View and has the following comments:

Response D.1: This section introduces the comments below, which are subsequently responded to below.

Comment D.2: 1. There is no estimation of potential water use stated in the DEIR by the development.

Response D.2: As discussed in Section 1.1.1 (page 3) of the Draft EIR, the analysis in the Draft EIR tiers from the certified 2014 El Camino Real Precise Plan Final EIR (2014 EIR, State Clearinghouse [SCH] # 2014032002) and City of Mountain View Housing Element Update EIR (Housing Element EIR, SCH# 2022020129) . Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15152, the Draft EIR relies upon and incorporates by reference the analysis already completed in these broader EIRs to eliminate repetitive discussions. As such, the impact analysis in Section 4.10 (pages 140 to 146) and Section 4.18 of the Draft EIR (pages 213 to 224) summarizes the findings disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR and confirms that the proposed project would be consistent with the assumptions in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR and would implement the same measures identified in those documents to result in a less than significant impact to hydrology and water quality and utilities and service systems (including groundwater supply and potable water infrastr ucture). Based on the tiered impact discussion, inclusion of the potential water use for the proposed project was not required to determine that the project would result in a less than significant impact to hydrology and water quality and utilities and service systems.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 15 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Although an estimate for the potential water use for the proposed project is not required for the impact discussion in the Draft EIR, an estimate was included in the Utility Impact Study prepared for the project (Appendix I of the Draft EIR). As shown in Table 1 of the Utility Impact Study (page 2 of Appendix I), it is estimated that the project would have a daily potable water demand of 35,565 gallons per day.

Comment D.3: To meet its fair share of water conservation assumptions in the Urban Water Management Plans for Valley Water and the City of Mountain View all available water conservation measures should be incorporated into the project, including submeters for all resid ential units to encourage efficient water use. Studies have shown that adding submeters can reduce water use by 15 to 30 percent.

Response D.3: As discussed in Section 2.3.6 (page 23) of the Draft EIR, “The proposed buildings would achieve LEED Silver certification by incorporating green building measures including landscaped bioretention areas, drought tolerant landscaping with high-efficiency irrigation, water efficient interior fixtures, energy efficient appliances, and solar panels on the rooftop.” In addition, the project would install submeters for each residential unit in the multi- family residential building to assist with tracking water use and identifying potential opportunities for conservation and increasing efficiency. The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment D.4: 2. Valley Water has no right of way or facilities at this location. No encroachment permit is required in accordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance. The project is in an area of reduced flood risk (Zone X), and away from any creeks or water channels.

Response D.4: This comment is acknowledged, and the description of the site in the comment is consistent with what is described in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no revisions to the Draft EIR text are necessary.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 16 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Organizations, Businesses, and Individuals
E. Kristina Pereyra (dated April 6, 2025)

Comment E.1: I was out on the walk when I noticed the development placard and took a look - hoping it was going to be at least residential and not office space, as we have a desperate housing shortage in this community. I was delighted to see that the plan is for apartment units, not ownership units which are even more desperately in need.

I'm sure most of the mail you get is against new development, but I wanted to make sure you got one that is in favor. This looks like an excellent addition to our community.

Response E.1: This comment is acknowledged and will be considered by the lead agency during the decision-making process for the project’s approval. The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

F. Mario Lecce (dated March 20, 2025)

Comment F.1: I am most vehemently opposed to the development of the property known as 749 El Camino Real, 94040.

The people and city of Mountain View need more single-family home owner residents that make long term commitments to join and actively contribute to the community with personal and financial participation. What the People and City of Mountain View DO NOT need is another foreign/out of city/out of county/out of state business identity of some corporate hedge fund whose only concern is maximum profit for minimum investment. These corporate interests come into our city only to feed off our booming economy. Just like any parasite they feed off the host and contribute nothing other than drive prices higher and higher to what the “market will bear”. They are the main force of inflation and will transform our community into a subset of migrant workers, fixed income employees living in corporate housing unable to afford to purchase a h ome in the city they work, where their children might attend school.

As we see and as it has been proven in studies conducted by the University of California with Walmart stores. In ALL cases those communities that allowed Walmart to do business believing the promised income of increased sales tax see after a few years the small businesses failing and closing down and moving out. Walmart sub -par salaries cause extra strain in county funded programs for welfare, healthcare and social services. All the while Walmart made record windfall profits.

The same can be said for large corporate housing developers.

Response F.1: This comment is acknowledged and will be considered by the lead agency during the decision-making process for the project’s approval. The comment

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 17 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment F.2: Specifically, the intersection at Castro Street and El Camino is presently crowded and frustrating. The left turn lane for Northbound traffic to Castro West is overflowing and blocking the #1 lane of El Camino. As the school day ends cars and children traveling east from Castro Street floods the crosswalks and traffic has been blocked from as far North to Shoreline and South as far and Grant Road.

Response F.2: Details regarding potential transportation impacts of the proposed project are included in Section 4.16 of the Draft EIR , and a full analysis is provided in the Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis (MTA) prepared for the project (Appendix H of the Draft EIR) . A detailed discussion regarding intersection queuing impacts associated with the additional vehicle trips generated by the project is included on pages 202 to 203 of the Draft EIR.

As detailed in that discussion, the project would exacerbate existing deficiencies at two intersections, including the El Camino Real to southbound Castro Street left turn movement. Under existing conditions, the left turn queue from El Camino Real to southbound Castro Street exceeds the storage capacity of the lane by one vehicle during the afternoon peak -hour; however, this deficiency was not found to have a significant effect on through traffic in either direction, as there are sufficient through lanes for vehicles travelling to the east and west on El Camino Real and traffic is able to move around the queuing vehicles. Implementation of the project would add one vehicle to the queue at the El Camino Real/Castro Street intersection during the afternoon peak-hour. Based on the analysis in the project -specific MTA, the small increase in vehicles queuing at the El Camino Real/Castro Street intersection during the afternoon peak-hour would not be expected to affect the westbound through traffic, as there are t hree westbound through lanes that would continue to operate adequately.

The comment does not provide new information that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the Draft EIR. The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment F.3: An additional 299 resident homes there at 749 is plainly unsupportable. This development will destroy the peace and quiet enjoyed by the people at Victor Way and the area several blocks around. It will cause greater traffic jams, introducing more air and sound pollution, greater confusion and stress. Sooner or later accidents will happen.

Even with a maximum physical effort of widening the streets and synchronizing the traffic lights and recessing the bus stops as to not block the traffic lanes the situation will not be resolved with such high density living.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 18 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Response F.3: The Draft EIR includes analysis regarding construction and operational air quality impacts, construction and operational noise impacts, and transportation impacts in Section 4.3, Section 4.12, and Section 4.16 of the Draft EIR, respectively. As described in the impact discussion under Section 4.3 (pages 63 to 83 of the Draft EIR), the project would generate air pollutant emissions during construction activities and during operation of the completed project; however, these emissions and the associated health risk effects to surrounding receptors would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of conditions of approval COA AQ-1.1, COA AQ-1.2 and COA AQ -1.3 (which are required pursuant to 2014 EIR MM AIR -1 and Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2), and COA AQ-1.4.

The impact discussion under Section 4.12 (pages 160 to 167 of the Draft EIR), discloses the project’s potential construction and operational noise impacts. The Draft EIR acknowledged that construction activities on -site would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the site; however, implementation of condition of approval COA NOI-1.1 would reduce those temporary impacts to a less than significant level.

To evaluate the impact of the project on traffic noise in the area, a Traffic Noise Assessment was prepared and included as Appendix G to the Draft EIR. The Traffic Noise Assessment and Draft EIR concluded that noise levels at nearby receptors would not be substantially increased by the additional vehicle trips generated by the project.

As detailed in Response F.2 above, potential transportation impacts of the proposed project are included in Section 4.16 of the Draft EIR (pages 197 to 204) , and a full analysis was provided in the MTA prepared for the project (Appendix H of the Draft EIR). Intersection queuing impacts associated with the additional vehicle trips generated by the project is included on pages 202 to 203 of the Draft EIR and were detailed further in Response F.2 above. In addition to the discussion regarding intersection queueing, the Draft EIR included a discussion on the project’s potential impact to the roadway system (see pages 197 to 198 of the Draft EIR) and the level of service at intersections around the project site. This discussion was based on an analysis in the project specific MTA (Appendix H of the Draft EIR). The analysis determined that although implementation of the project would result in additional vehicle trips in the project vicinity, all study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels during both the morning and afternoon peak hours of traffic based on the thresholds outlined in the certified 2014 El Camino Real Precise Plan Final EIR (2014 EIR, State Clearinghouse [SCH] # 2014032002) and the City’s General Plan Action Item MOB 8.1.3.

The project specific MTA (Appendix H of the Draft EIR) also evaluated the project design, including the off -site safety improvements proposed by the project on Lane Avenue and Victor Way (as detailed on page 20 of the Draft EIR) to determine whether the project design would generate any new significant conflict points for vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. As summarized in Section 4.16 of the Draft EIR (specifically on page 202) , the project driveways, when considered with the off -site safety

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 19 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
improvements, would not generate any new significant conflict points for vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists.

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

Comment F.4: There should be no high- density residential construction near the downtown area west of El Camino. To do so will turn this great community of Mountain View where I am living for 25+ years into a New York City borough and destroy what Mountain View is today.

A city of pioneering high-tech innovation, great schools and parks full of shops and restaurants and free downtown parking, a great public transportation hub, a legendary farmers market and a most competent police, fire and safety organization.

Please. I beg you. Do not dilute our community with this type of massive project that only benefits private interests.

Response F.4: This comment is acknowledged and will be considered by the lead agency during the decision-making process for the project’s approval. The comment does not raise any specific issues about the adequacy of the Draft EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 20 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
Section 5.0 Draft EIR Text Revisions
This section contains revisions to the text of the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed -Use project Draft EIR, dated March 11, 2025. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the text.

Page 39 ends

Discoveries within Caltrans Right -of-Way (ROW): If there is an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery that occurs within Caltrans’ ROW, the project sponsor shall immediately contact the Caltrans Office of Cultural Resource Studies at (510) 847-1977. A Caltrans staff archaeologist shall evaluate the find(s) within one business day after receiving contact from the project sponsor, and Caltrans shall be provided a copy of any potential data recovery plans that cover resources within Caltrans’ ROW for review.

Page 131 ends

Toxic Assessment: A toxic assessment report shall be prepared and submitted as part of the building permit submittal. Specifically for the 749 West El Camino Rela Mixed-Use project, the toxic assessment shall disclose whether any pesticides and/or organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) were known to have been used on -site, and summarize the results of soil sampling and testing to be completed on-site to disclose the concentrations of dichloro- diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), toxaphene, and dieldrin, if present. The toxic assessment shall also determine the concentration of arsenic in the soil and any other contaminants of concern related to the historic uses on -site (e.g., Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons ). Subsurface sampling shall be compared to current DTSC, Water Board, or U.S. EPA screening levels for the proposed land uses and background levels to determine if a risk is present. If elevated levels of contamination are found and remediation and/or management measures are required, this information would be included in the toxic assessment and the toxic assessment shall be reviewed and approved by a regulatory oversight agency, such as the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The applicant must demonstrate that hazardous materials do not exist on the site or that construction activities and the proposed use of this site are approved by the appropriate regulatory oversight agency: the City’s Fir e and Environmental Protection Division (FEPD); the State Department of Health Services; the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and any Federal agency with jurisdiction . No building permits shall be issued until each agency and/or department with jurisdiction has released the site as clean or a site toxics mitigation plan has been approved.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 21 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025

Page 200 ends

heading:

The improvements would also be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Modal Plan and General Plan Policies LUD 8.5, MOB 1.6, and MOB 2.1 by ensuring that roadway improvements address the needs of pedestrians, provide traffic calming, and improve universal access.

In addition, the project would comply with the following City standard conditions of approval to ensure limited interruptions to pedestrian facilities during construction of the project.

City Standard Conditions of Approval:

COA TRN-1.1: Traffic Control Plans : Upon first submittal of the building permit and improvement plans, the applicant shall submit traffic control plans for any off-site and on-site improvements or any work that requires temporary lane closure, shoulder closure, bike lane closure, and/or side walk closure for review and approval. Sidewalk closures are not allowed unless reconstruction of sidewalk necessitates temporary sidewalk closure. In these instances, sidewalk detours should be shown on the Traffic Control Plans. Traffic control plans shall show and identify, at a minimum, work areas, delineators, signs, and other traffic -control measures required for work that impacts traffic on existing streets and shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). A completed Traffic Control Checklist shall be included with each traffic control plan submittal.

Construction Management Plan: Upon first submittal of the building permit and improvement plans, the applicant shall provide a construction traffic and parking management plan with the building plans and within the improvement plans identified “For Reference Only.” The plan must be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit, including demolition. The plan must show the following:

1. Truck Route: Truck route (to and from project site) for construction and delivery trucks pursuant to City Code Sections

19.58 and 19.59 and which do not include neighborhood
residential streets;

2. Construction Phasing, Equipment, Storage, and Parking: Show and identify construction vehicle and equipment parking area, material storage and lay- down area, sanitation facilities, and construction trailer location for each phase of construction. All construction vehicles, equipment, and trailers shall be located on- site or at a site nearby (not on a public street or public parking)

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 22 Final EIR
City of Mountain View August 2025
arranged by the permittee/contractor. Construction equipment, materials, or vehicles shall not be stored or parked on public streets or public parking lots, unless approved by the Public Works Director due to special conditions. Construction
contractors/workers are required to park on -site or at a private property arranged by the permittee/contractor and shall not be allowed to use neighboring streets for parking/storage;

3. Sidewalks: Sidewalk closure or narrowing is not allowed during any on-site construction activities; and

4. Traffic Control and Detour Plans: Traffic control plans, including detour plans, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval for any on -site improvements and work related to the phases of the construction management plan, which requires temporary roadway closu re, lane closure, shoulder closure, and/or bike lane closure. Pedestrian detour plans shall be provided when necessary.

Traffic control plans shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). A completed Traffic Control Checklist shall be included with each traffic control plan submittal. A separate Excavation Permit from the Public Works Department will be required prior to the issuance of the building permit.

For these reasons, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the pedestrian circulation system, consistent with the findings in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant])

Page 216 ends

The City’s adopted Storm Drain Master Plan, dated April 2019, included storm drain capacity modeling based on established land use s and development assumptions in the City and concluded that there would not be any storm drain capacity issues adjacent to or downstream of 749 El Camino Real with buildout of the assumed land uses. Source: Eguilos, Tony. Assistant Engineer, City of Mountain View – Public Works Department. Personal Communication. November 15, 2022.

Appendix A: Draft EIR Comment Letters

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov

April 23, 2025 SCH #: 2023050251
GTS #: 04-SCL-2023-01394
GTS ID: 29765
Co/Rt/Pm: SCL/82/19.83

Margaret Netto, Consulting Senior Planner
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540

Re: 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project ─ Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Margaret Netto:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the March 2025 DEIR.

Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position or approval by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only.

Project Understanding
The proposed project is a mixed-use commercial and housing development adjacent to State Route 82 (SR 82). The project includes a facility for an existing bank and will have commercial space and 299 multi-family residential units with 33 of those units that are reserved for low- to very-low- income households.

Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis for land use projects, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide (link).

Margaret Netto, Consulting Senior Planner
April 23, 2025

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” The project VMT analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the City’s adopted VMT policy. Per the IS/MND, this project is found to have a less than significant VMT impact, therefore working towards meeting the State’s VMT reduction goals.

Hydrology
Report states that "There are no storm drain capacity issue s adjacent to or
downstream of the project site, and the existing stormwater infrastructure would continue to have adequate capacity after construction of the project. "(pg. 221).

More inf
ormation is required to confirm this statement. Increased runoff should be interc
epted by adequate number of Drainage Inlets (if required) so that run-off does not affect Caltrans’ Right-of-Way (ROW) on SR 82. Any increase in storm water runoff to State Drainage Systems or Facilities be treated, contained on project site, and metered to preconstruction levels. Any floodplain impacts must be documented and mitigated.

Cultural Resources
Shou
ld construction activities within Caltrans’ ROW take place in relation to this project, these mitigation measures shall be implemented if there is an archaeological discovery. If there is an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery within Caltrans’ ROW, please immediately contact the Caltrans Office of Cultural Resource Studies at (510) 847-1977. A staff archaeologist will evaluate the finds within one business day after contact. Caltrans requires review of any potential data recovery plans within Caltrans’ ROW.

Construction-Related Impacts
Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, please visit Caltrans Transportation Permits (link).

Prior to construction, coordination may be required with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to the State Transportation Network (STN).

Lead Agency
As
the Lead Agency, the City is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the STN. The p
roject’s fair share contribution, financing,
scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the Margaret Netto, Consulting Senior Planner
April 23, 2025

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any temporary or permanent work including traffic control that encroaches in, under, or over any portion of the State highway Rights-of-Way (ROW) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit.

- TR-0416 Applicant’s Checklist (link)

- Caltrans Encroachment Projects Processes – Information Video (link)

- Flowchart, Figure 1.2 in Section 108, Overview of the Encroachment Review Process, of Chapter 100 – The Permit Function, Caltrans Encroachment Permit Manual (link)

To obtain more information and download the permit application, please visit Caltrans Encroachment Permits (link).

T
hank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Marley Mathews, Associate Transportation Planner, via [email protected]. For future early coordination opportunities or project referrals, please visit Caltrans LDR website (link) or contact [email protected].

Sincerely,

Margaret Netto, Consulting Senior Planner
April 23, 2025

Page 4 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”

YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse

dtsc.ca.gov

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
March 20, 2025
Margaret Netto
Consulting Senior Planner
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
[email protected]
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 749 WEST EL CAMINO REAL MIXED-USE PROJECT DATED MARCH 6, 2025, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2023050251
Dear Margaret Netto,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) reviewed the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project (Project). The Project would demolish the existing 1,487 square foot restaurant building, 18,302 square foot bank building, and all associated surface parking and landscaping on-site to construct two new buildings on-site: 1) a two-story, 41 feet tall, 11,500 square foot bank and 2) a six-story, mixed-use building with 299 multi-family residential units up to 13,465 square feet of ground-floor commercial uses, and two levels of underground parking.

Page 2 ends

agricultural chemical use, although pesticides or other agricultural chemicals may have been applied on the site, and it is possible that residual concentrations of agricultural chemicals may be present in soil and potentially groundwater.” The City addresses these issues in the SEIR under COA HAZ -2.1 Toxic Assessment section stating: “A toxic assessment report shall be prepared and submitted as part of the building permit submittal. The applicant must demonstrate that hazardous materials do not exist on the site or that construction activities and the proposed use of this site are approved by: the City’s Fire and Environmental Protection Division (FEPD); the State Department of Health Services; the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and any Federal agency with jurisdiction”.

DTSC recommends and requests consideration of the following comments:

1. The City’s Fire and Environmental Protection Division (FEPD) is not a certified local agency, therefore, DTSC recommends the City of Mountain View address contamination found to be present within the Project area through oversight from a self-certified local agency, DTSC or Regional Water Quality Control Board. If entering into one of DTSC’s voluntary agreements, please note that DTSC uses a single standard Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application for all agreement types. Please apply for DTSC oversight using this link: Request for Agency Oversight Application. Submittal of the online application includes an agreement to pay costs incurred during agreement preparation. If you have any questions about the application portal, please contact the relevant Regional Brownfield Coordinator for your Project.

2. When agricultural crops and/or land uses are proposed or rezoned for residential use, a number of contaminants of concern (COCs) can be present.

The Lead Agency shall identify the amounts of Pesticides and Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) historically used on the property. If present, OCPs requiring further analysis are dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, toxaphene, and dieldrin. Additionally, any level of arsenic present would require further analysis and sampling and must meet HHRA NOTE NUMBER 3, DTSC-SLs approved local area baselines or thresholds. If they are not, remedial action Margaret Netto
March 20, 2025

Page 3 ends

must take place to mitigate them below those thresholds.

Additional COCs may be found in mixing/loading/storage areas, drainage ditches, farmhouses, or any other outbuildings and should be sampled and analyzed. If smudge pots had been routinely utilized, additional sampling for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and/or Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons may be required.

3. DTSC recommends that all imported soil and fill material should be tested to assess any contaminants of concern meet screening levels as outlined in DTSC's Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual.

Additionally, DTSC advises referencing the DTSC Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material Fact Sheet if importing fill is necessary. To minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil and fill material there should be documentation of the origins of the soil or fill material and, if applicable, sampling be conducted to ensure that the imported soil and fill material are suitable for the intended land use. The soil sampling should include analysis based on the source of the fill and knowledge of prior land use. Additional information can be found by visiting DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) webpage.

DTSC would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the SEIR for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project. Thank you for your assistance in protecting California’s people and environment from the harmful effects of toxic substances. If you have any questions or would like clarification on DTSC’s comments, please respond to this letter or via our CEQA Review email for additional guidance.

Sincerely,

Tamara Purvis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit

Margaret Netto
March 20, 2025

Page 4 ends

Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
cc: (via email)
Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation
State Clearinghouse
[email protected]
Nick Towstopiat
Project Manager
David J. Powers & Associates
[email protected]
Tyler Evje
Senior Director, Development
Greystar Real Estate Partners
[email protected]
Dave Kereazis
Associate Environmental Planner
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]
Scott Wiley
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
HWMP - Permitting Division – CEQA Unit
Department of Toxic Substances Control
[email protected]

April 25th, 2025

City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Attn: Margaret Netto

Dear Margaret,

VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project (SCH #2023050251).

VTA has reviewed the document and has the following comments:

Project Location and Land Use/Transportation Integration VTA supports the proposed land use intensifications in the project area, located within close proximity to VTA bus service lines 22, 51, 52. Rapid 522, and located within one mile of the Mountain View Transit Center. VTA commends the City for proposing up to 299 multi-family residential units (33 being for low- to very-low income), 13,465 sq. ft. of new commercial uses, and new 11,500 sq. ft bank, in addition to two levels of underground parking and a public plaza.

The addition of these new uses will significantly support transit ridership, and the residential land use will complement the area’s current mixed-land uses. VTA supports a mix of land uses that encourage a live-work-play activity center for Mountain View that offers additional opportunities for residents and employees to incrementally reduce vehicle trips, and greenhouse gas emissions. VTA recommends integrating open space into the adjacent developments wherever possible.

Site Plan
VTA appreciates the inclusion of a high-quality public plaza, and significant retail and active uses

Page 2 of 2 ends

along both project frontages. VTA reiterates our recommendation from an earlier review of the site plans to tighten the radius of the Castro/El Camino intersection corner. Tightening this radius will add to the public domain and slow vehicles as they turn from Castro Street onto El Camino Real, improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Reclaiming this space for people will also improve public life at this location.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
The inclusion of 424 long-term bicycle parking spaces, 34 short-term bicycle parking spaces, and tree-planting to provide shade is appreciated. The proposed new buffered bike lane along the project frontage on El Camino Real, which would eliminate conflicts between buses and bicyclists is also appreciated. While this DEIR does not include in-depth detail on bicycle parking in the project, VTA reiterates our comments regarding bike lounges on the site plan from early 2022, which is attached to this letter as Attachment A. VTA appreciates the project’s inclusion of a
ctive transportations accommodations that support sustainable transportation for all employees, customers, and residents of the development, and helps to reduce the project’s automobile trips and vehicle miles traveled.

Tr
ansit Accommodations
VTA appreciates the City’s efforts to work with the developer to improve and relocate the existing bus stops along the project frontages. In September 2022, BKF Engineers, at the request of City Mountain View staff, reached out to VTA staff to approve suggested project bus stop improvements via a formal letter. BKF’s requested clearance to vacate two transit shelter easements located on El Camino Ral and Castro Street. VTA provided approval via formal letter in February 2025 – this letter has been attached as Attachment B.

These improvements include:

Eastbound El Camino Real east of Castro Street:
• Bus stop relocation west
• 10’ wide bus boarding island
• 17’ shelter with AC power connection
• 10’ x 150’ Bus pad

Northbound Castro Street south of El Camino Real:
• Bus stop relocation south
• 13’ shelter with AC power connection

Page 3 of 2 ends

VTA requests that City of Mountain View staff include a condition of approval for the developer to coordinate with VTA on the future implementation of these improvements, and for the developer to provide advance notice to VTA of any work affecting these bus stops.

VTA Bus Stop and Passenger Facility Design Criteria and Standards VTA has numerous requests informed and supported by VTA’s Bus Stop & Facility Design Criteria and Standards. These requests are attached as Attachment C.

Travel Demand Management (TDM) program
VTA appreciates the document's acknowledgement that a TDM program must be implemented for this project. VTA would like additional details on these TDM measures as well as a stronger commitment on what aspects will be funded by the project.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected], or the VTA Land Use and Development Review team at [email protected]

Sincerely,

Triana Crighton
Senior Transportation Planner
MV2203

CC: Diana Pancholi, Chong Hong

Site Plan
VTA appreciates the inclusion of a high-quality public plaza, and significant retail and active uses along both project frontages. VTA recommends tightening the radius of the Castro/El Camino intersection corner. Tightening this radius will add to the public domain and slow vehicles as they turn from Castro Street onto El Camino Real, improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Reclaiming this space for people will also improve public life at this location.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations
The inclusion of multiple short term bike rack locations is appreciated. Adding one rack near the bank could improve access for those customers. The large bike lounge along Castro will help activate the frontage. VTA recommends all bike lounge access doors include ADA accessible kick plates to accommodate all users. Having a door in the vehicle entrance for the bike lounge could pose some safety challenges. VTA recommends relocating this to another location. All bike lounges should be equipped with several short-term floor racks to accommodate larger bikes like cargo or trikes. Including long term bike parking in the commercial bike storage room is a very important transportation demand management strategy. This will allow for sustainable modes of transportation options for all workers.

Transit Accommodations
The Floor Area Loss diagram on sheet X-002 unfortunately does not depict the gains from having multimodal improvements along El Camino Real. Right of Way is always about tradeoffs, and using space along the frontage to support biking, walking and transit users will improve the overall project and experience along El Camino. A small loss of developable space could yield significant improvements for transportation. VTA is open to moving the bus stop on the El Camino Real frontage closer to Castro Street, provided that the phasing with the temporary bank parking can be resolved (see further discussion below). Ultimately, VTA recommends that a bus stop closer to Castro Street will better support transit riders and operations. By relocating the bus stop closer to Castro Street, VTA believes that loss of developable space could be moved to the plaza area, without much impact to the public space if so desired. Depending on how much space is available in the curb side travel/parking lane, there might be minimal impacts to the development along El Camino Real to accommodate all proposed transportation enhancements.

The new bus stop location proposed on sheet A-110 will conflict with the interim surface parking access plans on sheet A-180. Having a temporary parking plan for the bank will pose a challenge to building out permanent floating bus stop facility with separation of bike lanes on El Camino Real. A detailed phasing plan should be included which documents the interim parking plan, full build out of development and City of Mountain View’s schedule for separated bike lanes on El Camino Real. VTA’s standard shelter specs are attached for the Castro Street bus stop. In the renderings for the plaza and transit shelter along the plaza and El Camino, there is a larger shelter that matches the aesthetic of the plaza. VTA allows custom shelters at their bus stops but does not assume maintenance. VTA would require further review of the shelter structure and that a maintenance agreement be put in place with the entity that will maintain the plaza for the custom shelter.

The following details should be considered for permanent build out of the bus stop along El Camino Real as discussed with Mountain View staff on 01/27/2022:
- A floating island bus platform to accommodate two 60’ articulated buses, this platform should span 150’ to allow for buses to safely merge from the platform. - A bike lane that bends around the platform and includes ADA raised crossings from curb to platform
- Platform should be a minimum of 10’ wide
- VTA could accommodate a minimum of 4’ for the bike lane around the platform, current VTA guidance shows 5’ - VTA is using 4’ for design of the Central Bikeway along El Camino Real in Santa Clara; this slows bikes as they travel around the platform and interact with pedestrians - Include one 16’ shelter on the boarding platform
- VTA’s recommendation of tree locations along bus stops will need to be adjusted as plans develop and the bus stop location is settled
VTA requests the following for the bus stop on Castro Street:
- VTA is open to relocating the stop closer to the intersection, this would require modifying the curb side lane to a straight through/right-hand turn lane - Include one 13’ shelter, which can be located behind the sidewalk provided that an easement can be granted (VTA specs attached)
- VTA’s recommendation of tree locations along bus stops will need to be adjusted as plans develop and the bus stop location is settled

2/25/2025

Ruben Mendoza
BKF Engineers
1730 N First Street, Suite 600
San Jose, CA 95112

Mr. Mendoza,

Staff reviewed the final plans for the development on 749 W. El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA 94040, and approved the improvements shown on the plans.

Bus stop improvements on eastbound El Camino Real east of Castro Street. • Bus stop relocation west
• 10’ wide bus boarding island
• 17’ shelter with AC power connection
• 10’ x 150’ Bus pad

Bus stop improvements on northbound Castro Street south of El Camino Real. • Bus stop relocation south
• 13’ shelter with AC power connection

Prior to construction, please reach out to [email protected] for any bus operations impacts affecting this stop at least 3 business days in advance. A minimum of two weeks is required for a Construction Access Permit for the construction of the bus pad. Reach out to [email protected].

Sincerely,

Michael Catangay
Transit Service Development Supervisor
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Docusign Envelope ID: 1D7B6E73-E855-4CA1-8966-A98CC180C3BA

CITY FORMAL APPLICATION
749 W EL CAMINO REAL
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040
Sheet Title:

Scale:

Job No.

Drawn By:

Date:

Sheet No:
19063
08/23/2024

THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED

IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS

CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER

PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR

DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,
COPYRIGHT 2010.
: Architecture
: 1970 Broadway , Suite 615
: Oakland, California 94612
: (510) 451 - 2850
: Planning
: Urban Design

AS SHOWN
RM
C2.0

PRELIMINARY

SITE PLAN
Draft Print
12/13/2024 10:11:16 AM
For Review
12/13/2024 10:11:27 AM

Good afternoon,
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use project in Mountain View and has the following comments:

1. There is no estimation of potential water use stated in the DEIR by the development. To meet its fair share of water conservation assumptions in the Urban Water Management Plans for Valley Water and the City of Mountain View, all available water conservation measures should be incorporated into the project, including submeters for all residential units to encourage efficient water use.

Studies have shown that adding submeters can reduce water use by 15 to 30 percent.

2. Valley Water has no right of way or facilities at this location. No encroachment permit is required in accordance with Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance.

The project is in an area of reduced flood risk (Zone X), and away from any creeks or water channels.

Please provide Valley Water the opportunity to review any future environmental reports on this project,
Thank you,
Shree Dharasker
Associate Engineer Civil
Community Projects Review Unit
(408)630-3037
I was out on the walk when I noticed the development placard and took a look - hoping it was going to be at least residential and not office space, as we have a desperate housing shortage in this community. I was delighted to see that the plan is for apartment units, not ownership units which are even more desperately in need.

I'm sure most of the mail you get is against new development, but I wanted to make sure you got one that is in favor. This looks like an excellent addition to our community.

Kristina
25y+ MV resident
From:

Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2025 4:02 PM
To: Netto, Margaret <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: APNs 193-02-049 and 193-02-050
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

RE: APNs 193-02-049 and 193-02-050
Dear Sirs and Ms Margaret Netto,
I am most vehemently opposed to the development of the property known as 749 El Camino Real, 94040.

What the People and City of Mountain View
DO NOT need is another foreign/out of city/out of county/out of state business identity of some corporate hedge fund whose only concern is maximum profit for minimum investment. These corporate interests come into our city only to feed off our booming economy. Just like any parasite they feed off the host and contribute nothing other than drive prices higher and higher to what the “market will bear”. They are the main force of inflation and will transform our community into a subset of migrant workers, fixed income employees living in corporate housing unable to afford to purchase a home in the city they work, where their children might attend school.

As we see and as it has been proven in studies conducted by the University of California with Walmart stores. In ALL cases those communities that allowed Walmart to do business believing the promised income of increased sales tax see after a few years the small businesses failing and closing down and moving out. Walmart sub-par salaries cause extra strain in county funded programs for welfare, healthcare and social services. All the while Walmart made record windfall profits.

The same can be said for large corporate housing developers.

Specifically, the intersection at Castro Street and El Camino is presently crowded and frustrating. The left turn lane for Northbound traffic to Castro West is overflowing and

blocking the #1 lane of El Camino. As the school day ends cars and children traveling east from Castro Street floods the crosswalks and traffic has been blocked from as far North to Shoreline and South as far and Grant Road.

An additional 299 resident homes there at 749 is plainly unsupportable. This development will destroy the peace and quiet enjoyed by the people at Victor Way and the area several blocks around. It will cause greater traffic jams, introducing more air and sound pollution, greater confusion and stress. Sooner or later accidents will happen.

There should be no high-density residential construction near the downtown area west of El Camino. To do so will turn this great community of Mountain View where I am living for 25+ years into a New York City borough and destroy what Mountain View is today.

Please. I beg you. Do not dilute our community with this type of massive project that only benefits private interests.

Sincerely
Mario Lecce

EXHIBIT B

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR THE
749 WEST EL CAMINO REAL MIXED-USE PROJECT

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
September 2025

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings

To support a decision on a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or Supplemental EIR (SEIR), is prepared, the lead or responsible agency must prepare written findings of fact (Findings) for each significant effect on the environment identified in the EIR (Public Resources Code Section 21081). The City of Mountain View, as the lead agency, has prepared these Findings for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use project (Project), located at 749 West El Camino Real in the City of Mountain View (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 193-02-049 and 193-02-050) on the southeast corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Castro Street. The Findings must be adopted by the Mountain View City Council, which the City Council hereby elects to do as detailed more fully herein.

Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines state that:

(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of a project. For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a) states:

1 Public Resources Code Section 21081(b).

If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”

1.2 Record of Proceedings

For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project consists of: a) matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, federal, state and local laws and regulations; and b) the following documents which are in the custody of the City:

• Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project (See Appendix A of the Draft SEIR for the Notice of Preparation); • The Public Review Draft SEIR and supporting documentation prepared for the Project (Draft SEIR published in March 2025 and all attached Appendices), and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred to therein; • All written and verbal comments and documents submitted to the City by agencies, organizations, and members of the public on the Project and the Final SEIR (before, during, and after the close of the public comment period up through the close of the public testimony portion of the City Council’s public hearing on the Project); • The Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP); • The Public Review Final SEIR and supporting documentation prepared for the Project (Final SEIR published in August 2025), and all decisions, determinations, documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referenced to therein; • All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, referred to therein; • All locally adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, General Plan, Precise Plan and ordinances, findings, mitigation monitoring and reporting programs, and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area, such as the City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program adopted by the City Council on July 10, 2012, the City’s Climate Action Plan (Climate Protection Roadmap adopted in 2015), and the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update adopted by the City Council on January 24, 2023; • The City of Mountain View 2014 El Camino Real Precise Plan Final EIR (SCH No. 2014032002) (“2014 EIR”), including all appendices attached thereto, certified by the Mountain View City Council on November 17, 2014, and all findings, decisions, determinations, and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the 2014 EIR;

• The City of Mountain View 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Final EIR (SCH No. 2022020129) (“Housing Element EIR”), including all appendices attached thereto, certified by the Mountain View City Council on January 24, 2023, and all findings, decisions, determinations, and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Housing Element EIR;
• All staff reports, presentation materials, and other documents prepared by the City with respect to the Final SEIR and the Project, and any minutes or verbatim transcripts of all information and Study Sessions, workshops, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; and
• Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6 subdivision (e).

The location and custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings are:

City of Mountain View Community Development Department
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Contact: Margaret Netto, [email protected], or 650-903-6306

1.3 Incorporation by Reference

The Final SEIR is hereby incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the comparative analysis of alternatives, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the scope and nature of mitigation measures, and the reasons for approving the Project despite the conclusion regarding associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

1.4 Findings

The Findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence contained in the Record of Proceedings, including, without limitation, the Final SEIR, including relevant technical studies, reports, and evaluations supporting the Final SEIR’s analysis. As previously stated, the Draft SEIR (including, without limitation, all appendices attached thereto) addresses the potential effects on the environment that are associated with the Project as required under CEQA, and the Final SEIR and written response to the public comments received on the Draft SEIR and minor text and graphic revisions to the Draft SEIR. See Section 1.2 above for information regarding the location and custodian of the documents that comprise the Record of Proceedings.

SECTION 2: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
This section provides a brief description of the Project, lists the objectives of the proposed Project, and lists the Project alternatives evaluated in the Draft SEIR.

2.1 Brief Project Description

The approximately 3.05-acre Project site is located at 749 West El Camino Real in the City of Mountain View on the southeast corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Castro Street. The Project site is L-shaped and currently developed with a vacant, 1,487 square foot restaurant building on the northeast corner of the site and an operational, 18,302 square foot bank on the northwest corner of the site. The Project proposes to demolish the existing restaurant building, bank building, and all associated surface parking and landscaping on-site to construct a mixed-use development comprised of 299 Residential Rental Units, utilizing State Density Bonus Law, in a six-story building with 10,830 square-feet of ground-floor commercial space and at-grade podium parking above two levels of underground parking; and a two-story 8,483 square-foot bank building and a 5,149 rooftop deck.

2.2 Project Objectives

1. With the support of Chase Bank, develop the 3.05-acre project site on the corner of Castro Street and West El Camino Real in Mountain View into an economically viable, community-enhancing mixed-use project incorporating a robust affordable housing program, vibrant and neighborhood-serving commercial components, and a public plaza to encourage community gathering.

2. Increase the supply of residential units in an economically viable manner through the innovative, efficient redevelopment of an underutilized infill site by developing 299 new multi-family residential units, including 33 affordable units, to provide a range of product types that will support the diversity of the City of Mountain View and assist in meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation numbers.

3. Develop the on-site commercial uses to support the continuous operation of Chase Bank by providing a more efficient commercial space meeting modern standards while maintaining a minimum 10,000 square feet of leasable space, two ATMs, and 40 dedicated, permanent parking spaces, and by ensuring a seamless transition to the new facility with minimal disruption to operations through phased development and the provision of temporary parking spaces during construction.

a. General Plan:
i. Policy LUD 5.1: Land use and village centers. Encourage and promote centers that people can reach by bicycling or walking with a focus on areas identified in the Village Center Strategy Diagram. ii. Policy LUD 5.2: Village center uses and character. Encourage a mix of residential, commercial or other neighborhood-serving uses in village centers, with active ground-floor uses and public space to create an inviting pedestrian environment and a center of activity. iii. Policy LUD 5.3: Community gathering. Encourage community-gathering destinations such as plazas, open space or community facilities within village centers.
iv. Policy LUD 5.4: Connections. Encourage pedestrian, bicycling and public transit connections and amenities between village centers and surrounding neighborhoods.
b. Housing Element:
i. Goal 1: An increase in the quantity and diversity of housing options, focusing on active nodes, and walkable neighborhoods with amenities and services. To achieve this goal, the City will acquire/preserve existing housing units; address, remove, or mitigate constraints to housing production; and produce new affordable units.
ii. Policy 1.1. Ensure that adequate residential land is available to accommodate the City’s RHNA, with special focus on Precise Plan areas near transit, employment centers, and services.

5. Provide a prominent ground-floor leasing office and adequate on-site parking to ensure marketability as well as robust amenities to the on-site residential community including access to the public plaza and generous outdoor amenity spaces within the podium courtyards and roof deck.

6. Create a transit-oriented, economically viable development that supports alternative modes of transportation with close linkages to rapid bus and Caltrain, facilitating access to major employment areas of the South Bay and the Peninsula and with improved bicycle and pedestrian connectivity for the project and surrounding neighborhood, including facilitating a detached bus island duckout and added bikeway along El Camino Real consistent with Valley Transporation Authority (VTA) and regional objectives.

2.3 Alternatives

The SEIR is a Supplemental EIR to the 2014 EIR (SCH No. 2014032002) and tiers from the 2014 EIR and the Housing Element EIR and is incorporated here by reference. Because the SEIR tiers

off the prior certified 2014 EIR, the alternatives analysis completed for the Precise Plan in the 2014 EIR is incorporated in the Draft SEIR by reference.

The Draft SEIR considered 12 Project alternatives. Six of these alternatives (Location; New Mixed-Use Addition with Rooftop Amenity Space on Bank Building; New Mixed-Use Building with Additional Stories; New Mixed-Use Building with a Deeper Garage; Off-Site or On-Site Relocation; and No Project, Redevelopment) were not further considered because of infeasibility, inability of the alternative(s) to reduce the impacts further, or inconsistency with the Project objectives. Based on the Project objectives and anticipated environmental consequences, and pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following Project alternatives were selected for analysis:

• No Project Alternative: Under the No Project Alternative, the project site would remain as it is today and would include a vacant 1,487 square foot restaurant building, an operational 18,302 square foot bank building, a vacant undeveloped parcel, and surface parking areas.
• Full Preservation Alternative A – Continued Use as Bank and 211 Units: This alternative would retain the existing, historic structure (bank building) for continued use as a branch bank and construct a new, six-story, mixed-use building with 211 multi- family residential units and 10,800 square feet of commercial space behind the existing bank building.
• Full Preservation Alternative B – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 200 Units: This alternative would retain the existing, historic structure (bank building) for adaptive reuse as a commercial space, which would be used for the residential leasing office and other retail. In addition, this alternative would construct a new, standalone, 10,000- square-foot bank building and a new, mixed-use building with 200 multi-family residential units and 13,000 square feet of commercial space behind the existing bank building.
• Full Preservation Alternative C – Continued Use of Bank and 299 Units: This alternative would retain the existing, historic structure (bank building) for continued use as a branch bank and construct a new, eight-story, mixed-use building with 299 multi-family residential units and 10,800 square feet of commercial space behind the existing bank building.
• Partial Preservation Alternative A – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 251 Units: This alternative would retain the front half of the existing, historic structure (bank building) (9,800 square feet) for adaptive reuse as a commercial space for the residential leasing office and other retail uses, and would construct a new, six-story mixed-use building with 251 multi-family residential units and 10,000 square feet on the ground floor for a new bank.

• Partial Preservation Alternative B – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 299 Units: This alternative would retain the existing, historic structure (bank building) for adaptive reuse as a commercial space for the residential leasing office and other retail uses, and would construct a new, nine-story, mixed-use building with 299 multi-family residential units and 13,000 square feet of new commercial space. These additions would be attached to the rear portion of the bank building by a “hyphen connector” and a new, standalone bank building with surface parking would be constructed on the northeast portion of the site.

A more detailed description of these alternatives, and required findings, are set forth in Section 5: Feasibility of Project Alternatives, of this Exhibit B The detailed description of the alternatives is also provided in Section 8.0 of the Draft SEIR.

SECTION 3: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS

The Final SEIR includes references to impacts and mitigation measures that were identified in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. The Final SEIR indicated that significant effects on the environment to the following environmental resources would occur if the Project, as part of the Precise Plan and Housing Element, were implemented:

• Air Quality (2014 EIR Impact AIR-1 and AIR-2, and Housing Element EIR Impact AIR-3 regarding exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations); • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Housing Element EIR Impact GHG-1 regarding generation of greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment); • Noise and Vibration (2014 EIR Impact NOISE-1 regarding significant short-term vibration); and
• Utilities and Service Systems (2014 EIR Impact UTL-1 regarding impacts to the existing water and/or wastewater infrastructure; 2014 EIR Impact UTL-2 regarding impacts to existing stormwater infrastructure; and Housing Element EIR Impact UTL-1 regarding the relocation or construction of new utilities).

The environmental impacts listed above would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures into the Project. The mitigation measures are listed under each of the impacts below and are included in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which has been prepared separately from these findings.

3.1 Air Quality

2014 EIR Impact AIR-1: Construction of new projects associated with implementation of the ECR Precise Plan could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

2014 EIR MM AIR-1: All new development projects, associated with implementation of the Precise Plan, which include buildings within 1,000 feet of a residential dwelling unit, shall conduct a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to assess emissions from all construction equipment during each phase of construction prior to issuance of building permits. Equipment usage shall be modified as necessary to ensure that equipment use would not result in a carcinogenic health risk of more than 10 in 1 million, an increased noncancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 μg/m3.

Findings

The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan (including the Project) would result in short-term emissions from construction activities and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and construction equipment emission reduction measures (which would be required as standard conditions of approval for subsequent development projects), and 2014 EIR MM AIR-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Pursuant to 2014 EIR MM AIR-1, a project-specific construction criteria pollutant and TAC quantification was completed for the Project during preparation of the Draft SEIR. Modeling was completed to estimate emissions for both on- and off-site construction activities. The analysis found that the predicted construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality significance thresholds, and that construction criteria air pollutant emissions impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of Bay Area Air Quality BMPs that are required as a City condition of approval.

As described herein, the above mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Project to avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure described above is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval.

Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR, and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less-than- significant level. Adoption of the condition of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

Housing Element EIR Impact AIR-3: Implementation of the HEU would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Less than Significant with Mitigation).

Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2: Project applicants within the HEU area proposing projects within 1,000 feet of existing or approved sensitive receptors shall prepare a project-level HRA of construction impacts at the time the project is proposed. The HRA shall be based on project-specific construction schedule, equipment and activity data and shall be conducted using methods and models approved by the BAAQMD, CARB, OEHHA and U.S. EPA. Estimated project-level health risks shall be compared to the BAAQMD’s health risk significance thresholds for projects.

In the event that a project-specific HRA finds that the project could result in significant construction health risks that exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1’s requirement for the use of all Tier 4 Final construction equipment to reduce project-level health risks to a less than significant level. In addition, all tower cranes, forklifts, man- and material- lifts shall be electric powered.

Findings

The Housing Element EIR determined that buildout of projects associated with the Housing Element update (such as the Project) could generate Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) during their construction and operation. The Housing Element EIR concluded that this potential health risk impact could be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2 (described above), which would require individual projects within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors to prepare a project-level health risk assessment at the time the project is proposed to evaluate health risk impacts and identify measures to reduce those impacts as needed.

Pursuant to Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2, a project-specific health risk assessment was completed for the Project during preparation of the Draft SEIR. Modeling was completed to estimate health risk effects associated with construction activities and found that the unmitigated maximum cancer risks and annual PM2.5 concentration from construction activities at the maximally exposed individual at residential locations adjacent from the sites would exceed the single-source significance thresholds. Consistent with the requirements of 2014 EIR MM AIR-1 (discussed above) and Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2, the Project was required to reduce health risk impacts to a less than significant level by implementing applicable conditions of approval. The Draft SEIR identified measures that would reduce potential health risk effects at sensitive receptors to a less than significant level, and these measures are summarized in conditions of approval COA AQ-1.2 and COA AQ-1.3 that are described in Section 4.3.2 of the Draft SEIR.

As described herein, the above mitigation measure and associated conditions of approval have been incorporated into the Project to avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than- significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure described above is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less-than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

2014 EIR Impact AIR-2: Implementation of the ECR Precise Plan could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

2014 EIR MM AIR-2: For residential or other sensitive use projects proposed within 500 feet of El Camino Real, SR 87 or SR 287, and/or any permitted stationary sources, including those identified in Table IV.B-6, the City of Mountain View shall require an evaluation of potential health risk exposure. The applicant for a sensitive use project within the ECR Precise Plan area shall prepare a report using the latest BAAQMD permit data and roadway risk estimates to determine impacts to future residents or sensitive receptors. The report shall outline any measures that would be incorporated into the project necessary to reduce carcinogenic health risk of to less than 10 in 1 million, reduce the non-cancer risk of to less than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), and ensure the annual average ambient PM2.5 increase is less than 0.3 μg/m3. Measures to reduce impacts could include upgrading air filtration systems of fresh air supply, tiered plantings of trees, and site design to increase distance from source to the receptor.

Findings

The 2014 EIR determined that implementation of the Precise Plan would result in new sensitive receptors in the Precise Plan area that could be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations from stationary and mobile sources of air pollutant emissions. The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of 2014 EIR MM AIR-2 (described above) would ensure that future residents of project sites within the Precise Plan area would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations because potential health risks to future sensitive receptors would be evaluated and mitigated prior to project approval.

Pursuant to 2014 EIR MM AIR-2, a project-specific evaluation of potential health risk exposure to future residents of the proposed Project was completed. The evaluation found that the on- site health risks for future residents of the Project would be below the single-source and cumulative-source thresholds established by the Bay Area Air District. Therefore, no Project- specific measures would be required to further reduce health risk effects to future residents on- site.

As described herein, the above mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Project to avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure described above is feasible, and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval.

Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less-than- significant level. Adoption of the condition of approvals will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Housing Element EIR Impact GHG-1: Implementation of the HEU would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2: Require Compliance with EV Requirements in CALGreen Tier 2. Subsequent development projects proposed as part of the Housing Element Update shall comply with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2 at the time that a building permit application is filed.

Findings

The Housing Element EIR determined that future development under the Housing Element update (including the Project) would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by avoiding the use of natural gas in residential developments, avoiding wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage by complying with Title 24 energy efficiency standards and the City’s Reach Codes, complying with Tier 2 EV Requirements in CALGreen, and by being consistent with the SB 743 VMT Reduction Target of 15 percent below the regional average. To ensure that future projects under the Housing Element update were consistent with these requirements, the Housing Element EIR included Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2 and Housing Element EIR MM TRA-1 (which is not applicable to the proposed Project).

Pursuant to Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2, the Project would comply with the current CALGreen Tier 2 and City’s Green Building Code Electric Vehicle (EV) requirements for off-street electric vehicle parking. The mixed-use building would include 87 electric vehicle charging stations (approximately 18 percent of total parking spaces) and the remaining 372 spaces (82 percent of total parking spaces) would be pre-wired to be converted into electric vehicle charging stations in the future (EV-ready).

As described herein, the above mitigation measure and associated conditions of approval have been incorporated into the Project to avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-

significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure described above is feasible and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less-than-significant level. Adoption of the condition of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

3.3 Noise

2014 EIR Impact NOISE-1: Construction activities associated with implementation of the ECR Precise Plan could create significant short-term vibration impacts on nearby sensitive land uses.

2014 EIR MM NOISE-1: The following language shall be included as a Condition of Approval for new projects associated with implementation of the Precise Plan:
• In the event that pile driving would be required for any proposed project within the Precise Plan area, all residents within 300 feet of the project site shall be notified of the schedule for its use a minimum of one week prior to its commencement. The contractor shall implement “quiet” pile driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles, the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration, or the use of portable acoustical barriers) where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions.
• To the extent feasible, the project contractor shall phase high-vibration generating construction activities, such as pile-driving/ground-impacting operations, so they do not occur at the same time with demolition and excavation activities in locations where the combined vibrations would potentially impact sensitive areas.
• The project contractor shall select demolition methods not involving impact, where possible (for example, milling generates lower vibration levels than excavation using clam shell or chisel drops).
• The project contractor shall avoid using vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas whenever possible.

Findings

The 2014 EIR identified the potential for a temporary vibration noise impact during construction activities that would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of 2014 EIR MM NOISE-1, which calls for notifying surrounding residents when pile driving is proposed, using “quiet” impact pile driving methods, avoiding use of vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive uses, and phasing high-vibration generating construction activities. The Project would implement the measures outlined in 2014 EIR MM NOISE-1 and any standard City conditions of approval which would reduce potential temporary vibration noise impacts at surrounding receptors to a less than significant level.

As described herein, the above mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Project to avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure described above is feasible, and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval.

Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less-than- significant level. Adoption of the condition of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

3.3 Utilities and Service Systems

2014 EIR Impact UTL-1: Future development associated with implementation of the ECR Precise Plan could result in impacts to the existing water and/or wastewater infrastructure.

Proposed new development may require upsizing or improvements to nearby water distribution and/or sewer mains and other infrastructure.

2014 EIR MM UTL-1: As private properties within the Precise Plan area are proposed for development, project-specific capacity and condition analyses of applicable water and wastewater infrastructure adjacent to and downstream of the project sites shall be performed to identify any impacts to the water and wastewater system. As a condition of approval, and prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the Public Works Department will determine and assign responsibility to project applicants for upgrades and improvements to the City’s water and/or wastewater infrastructure, as necessary.

Findings

Consistent with the requirements outlined in 2014 EIR MM UTL-1, a Project-specific capacity confirmation analysis was conducted to evaluate the Project’s impacts on water and wastewater infrastructure. It was determined that the Project would not contribute to any new or existing deficiencies in the water or wastewater system adjacent to the Project site.

However, the Project would still contribute a fair share portion of funding for two capital improvement projects (CIPs) and pay the applicable sewer capacity fees, as determined by the City.

As described herein, the above mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Project to avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measure described above is feasible, and is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as a condition of approval.

Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less-than- significant level. Adoption of the condition of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

2014 EIR Impact UTL-2: Future development associated with implementation of the ECR Precise Plan could result in the need for new and/or improved stormwater infrastructure.

Findings

During preparation of the Draft SEIR, City staff reviewed the adjacent stormwater infrastructure at the Project site and determined that there are no storm drain capacity issues adjacent to or downstream of the Project site, and that existing stormwater infrastructure would continue to have adequate capacity after construction of the Project. Based on this determination and the Project’s compliance with other standard conditions of approval and design requirements, a Project-specific capacity confirmation analysis consistent with the requirements outlined in

2014 EIR MM UTL-2 was not required for the Project, as impacts were presumed to be less than significant.

Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less-than- significant level. Adoption of the condition of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

Housing Element EIR Impact UTL-1: Implementation of the HEU would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

Housing Element EIR MM UTL-1: Fair-Share Contributions Toward Utility Improvements. Subsequent development projects shall contribute the fair share amount identified by the City of Mountain View Public Works Department to fund capital improvements to the water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater drainage systems prior to issuance of a building permit.

Findings

It was determined that the Project would not contribute to any new or existing deficiencies in the water or wastewater system adjacent to the Project site. However, the Project would still contribute a fair share portion of funding for two water system CIPs and pay the applicable sewer capacity fees, as determined by the City. Provision of fair share funding and payment of the applicable sewer capacity fees would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level, as required by Housing Element EIR MM UTL-1.

into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final EIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less-than-significant level. Adoption of the condition of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

SECTION 4: SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN

SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
A significant unavoidable impact is an impact that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level if the Project is implemented. Except for the impact described below, all significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR. The Project would result in the following significant unavoidable impact:

4.1 Cultural Resources

Impact CUL-1: The project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 by demolishing a historic resource on-site.

MM CUL-1.1: Documentation. Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading, or construction permits for the site, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified professional to undertake documentation of the bank building at 749 West El Camino Real. The documentation shall be funded by the project sponsor and undertaken by a qualified professional(s) who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for history, architectural history, or historic architecture (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 61, Appendix A), and be submitted for review and approval by the City of Mountain View Planning Division staff or a qualified historic consultant retained by the City prior to issuance of demolition permits. The documentation package shall consist of the items listed below:
• CUL-1.1a: Digital Photography
• CUL-1.1b: Historical Report
• CUL-1.1c: Site Plan & Drawings
The documentation materials shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, the local repository for the California Historical Resources Information System. The documentation shall also be offered to state, regional, and local repositories, as deemed appropriate, including the City of Mountain View Planning Division, the Mountain View Public Library, and Santa Clara County Historical & Genealogical Society. Materials shall be provided in archival digital and/or hard copy formats depending on the capacity and preference of each repository. This measure would create a collection of reference materials that would be available to the public and inform future research. While the documentation utilizes some of the guidelines and specifications developed for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), the

documentation package does not need to be delivered as HABS documentation to the Library of Congress.

o CUL-1.1a: Digital Photography. Digital photographs will be taken of the historic building, integrated artwork, plaza landscaping, and the overall character and setting of the former Home Savings & Loan Bank designed by Millard Sheets at 749 West El Camino Real. All digital photography shall be conducted according to current National Park Service (NPS) standards as specified in the National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks Program Consolidated and Updated Photograph Policy 2024. The photography shall be undertaken by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in documentation photography. Large format negatives are not required.

Photograph views for the data set shall include:
o Photographs of all four exterior facades of the building o At least two oblique views of the building exterior
o Detail views of character-defining features, including but not limited to:
▪ Exterior mosaic mural
▪ Round stained-glass window
▪ Interior painted mural
▪ Front plaza sculpture
▪ Representative interior views of the bank lobby
▪ Contextual views of the site and plaza.

All photographs shall be referenced on a photographic key map or site plan. The photographic key shall show the photograph number with an arrow to indicate the direction of the view. Digital photographs shall be taken in uncompressed RAW file format and saved as TIFF files. The size of each image shall be a minimum of 1600x1200 pixels at 300 pixels per inch or larger and in color format. The file name for each electronic image shall correspond with the index of photographs and photograph label. If repositories request hard copy prints, the photographs shall be printed on archival paper and labeled.

o CUL-1.1b: Historical Report. A written historical narrative and report that meets the HABS Historical Report Guidelines shall be produced for the historic bank at 749 W. El Camino Real. This HABS-Style Historical Report may be based on the documentation provided in the “615 & 749 West El Camino Real, Mountain View

HRER Peer Review Memorandum” (Page & Turnbull, 2023) and shall include historic photographs and drawings, if available. The HABS-Style Historical Report shall follow the outline format with a statement of significance of the building and a description of the building’s architectural features and artwork.

o CUL-1.1c: Site Plan & Drawings. Original architectural drawings or as-built measured drawings of the historic building and plaza shall be submitted as part of the documentation package. Reasonable efforts shall be made to locate original drawings of the historic building. If located, selected representative drawings (such as site plans, elevations, sections, and relevant key details) shall be photographed or scanned at high resolution, reproduced, and included in the dataset. If original architectural or construction drawings of the historic bank building dating to the period of significance cannot be located, then measured drawings shall be prepared according to HABS guidelines by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architecture or Historic Architecture. The measured drawings shall be reviewed by the professional retained to prepare the written historical report. At minimum, the measured drawings shall include:
o A site plan, showing the location of the building in relation to El Camino Real, Castro Street, and the plaza landscaping o Elevation drawings of each of the four building elevations o Floor plans
o (Optional) Sections and detail drawings.

The Interpretive Display Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Mountain View Planning Division or a qualified historic consultant retained by the City prior to the issuance of permits for any demolition, grading, or construction on the site. The Plan shall include the proposed display type(s) and location(s) of the content, as well as high- quality graphics and written narratives that will be incorporated. The interpretive display(s) shall be fully installed prior to issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the project and inspected by Planning Division staff or a qualified historic consultant to confirm its adherence to mitigation measure requirements.

The interpretive content shall include the history and architectural and artistic significance of the Millard Sheets-designed former Home Savings & Loan Association

bank. The interpretive display(s) shall also contextualize and tell the story of the specific artists working within the Millard Sheets studio who were involved with the artwork that is salvaged and reinstalled as part of the project. In addition to narrative text, the interpretative display(s) may include, but are not limited to, a display of photographs, news articles, and drawings. The interpretive display(s) may use source materials from the historical report prepared as part of MM CUL-1.1.

The permanent, high-quality interpretive display(s) shall be installed within the project site boundaries, made of durable materials (all-weather, if outdoors), and positioned to allow for high public visibility and interactivity. It is preferred that the interpretive displays with content associated with the artworks be positioned near the salvaged and relocated artworks.

Findings

The 2014 EIR determined that while there are no historic resources in the Precise Plan area listed in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources, or Mountain View Register, the Precise Plan area includes numerous buildings which may have historical value that are not formally registered and it is possible that future development could have the potential to directly or indirectly impact historical buildings and structures that qualify as historical resources under CEQA. The 2014 EIR concluded that adherence to General Plan policies, Municipal Code requirements, and City standard conditions of approval would reduce impacts to historic resources to a less than specific level on a program-level basis; however, the 2014 EIR acknowledged that historic resource impacts generally must be determined on a project specific basis.

Based on an evaluation of the existing structures on-site, the bank building was found to be a distinctive local example of the New Formalist style, exhibit the characteristics of the second phase of the Home Savings & Loan Association style, be the work of a master designer (Millard Sheets and his studio), and possess high artistic value. Therefore, the primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) was found to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design) with a local level of significance and is eligible for listing in the Mountain View Register under local Criterion

3. To reduce the Project’s impact to the historical resource, the Project would salvage and reuse the individual artwork pieces associated with the bank building (i.e., the exterior mosaic, interior mural, exterior sculpture, and round stained-glass window) as part of the new construction on-site. The mosaic mural would be reinstalled on the western façade of the new

bank building facing Castro Street, the stained-glass window would be reinstalled above the southern entrance of the new bank building, the bronze seagull sculpture would be reinstalled in the proposed public plaza, and the interior canvas mural would be relocated to the fitness center within the new mixed-use building. While the salvage and reuse of these items would help preserve a portion of the historical resource on-site, the demolition of the bank building would still result in the permanent loss of the property’s historic integrity. Therefore, the Project would result in a new significant and unavoidable impact to the historic resource on- site. To further reduce this impact, the Project would implement the project-specific mitigation measures above to document and provide interpretation and/or commemoration of the resources to be demolished.

As described herein, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that reduce this significant impact to the extent feasible. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval for the Project.

Accordingly, adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect; however, not to a less than significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

SECTION 5: FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Draft SEIR included 12 project alternatives. Six of these alternatives (Location; New Mixed- Use Addition with Rooftop Amenity Space on Bank Building; New Mixed-Use Building with Additional Stories; New Mixed-Use Building with a Deeper Garage; Off-Site or On-Site Relocation; and No Project, Redevelopment) were not further considered because of infeasibility, inability of the alternative(s) to reduce the impacts further, or inconsistency with the City’s vision for the area, as described in Section 8.2.3 of the Draft SEIR. Therefore, the City evaluated six Alternatives (No Project, Full Preservation Alternative A – Continued Use as Bank and 211 Units, Full Preservation Alternative B – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 200 Units, Full Preservation Alternative C – Continued Use of Bank and 299 Units, Partial Preservation Alternative A – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 251 Units, and Partial Preservation Alternative B – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 299 Units) for further analysis.

The City hereby concludes that the Final SEIR sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project so as to foster informed public participation and informed decision making. For the reasons set forth in the Final SEIR and summarized below, and in other relevant evidence in the Record of Proceedings, the City hereby rejects each of the alternatives and approves the Project.

The basis for rejecting each of these Alternatives is summarized below and detailed more fully in the Final SEIR (see Section 8.0 of the Draft SEIR) and other relevant materials in the Record of Proceedings.

5.1 No Project Alternative

Under the No Project Alternative, the Project site would remain as it is today. Under existing conditions, the site is developed with a vacant 1,487 square foot restaurant building, an operational 18,302 square foot bank building, a vacant undeveloped parcel, and surface parking areas.

Findings

The No Project Alternative would avoid all impacts associated with the project, including the project’s significant and unavoidable cultural resource impact related to demolition of the existing bank building, because it would not change existing conditions. The existing bank building would continue to operate as it currently does, and no changes would occur to the building or the associated artwork on-site.

The No Project Alternative is rejected as infeasible because it would not meet any of the applicant’s project objectives as it would not redevelop the site consistent with the Precise Plan vision of a high-density mix of uses (including affordable residential units and neighborhood- serving commercial uses) and a publicly accessible plaza (Project Objectives 1 and 4). In addition, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the following project objectives:
increase the supply of residential units in the City (Project Objective 2), provide a new, more efficient commercial space meeting modern standards for the bank (Project Objective 3), provide residential amenities (Project Objective 5), or create a transit-oriented, economically viable development that supports alternative modes of transportation (Project Objective 6).

5.2 Full Preservation Alternative A – Continued Use as Bank and 211 Units

The purpose of Full Preservation Alternative A – Continued Use as Bank and 211 Units, is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact to the identified historic resource on- site. Full Preservation Alternative A would retain the existing, historic structure (bank building) for continued use as a branch bank. A new, six-story, mixed-use building of approximately 324,900 square feet would be constructed behind the existing bank building, with a setback of at least 15 feet at the rear. Commercial space would be located on the ground floor frontage along the El Camino Real of the new mixed-use building, as well as in the corner of the mixed- use building fronting Castro Street. A public plaza would be located on the El Camino Real frontage of the site, east of the existing bank building. All integrated artworks that are part of the historic bank would be retained in place. With these development assumptions, the site would include the existing 18,300-square foot bank building, a total of 211 new multi-family residential units (including 26 BMR units), and 10,800 square feet of new commercial space.

Findings

Under this alternative, the primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) would remain eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (as described in more detail in the SEIR), so the impact to the historic resource would be less than significant and the Project’s significant, unavoidable impact would be avoided.

Compared to the Project, this alternative would retain the existing bank building and construct a smaller mixed-use building which would result in a shorter construction period and less demolition on-site. Therefore, this alternative would likely generate fewer construction criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions during construction. Similarly, a smaller mixed-use building with fewer residential units would generate less vehicle trips than the Project, resulting in fewer vehicle-related operational criteria air pollutant emissions than the Project. While this alternative would result in lesser impacts to these resources than the Project, the impact

conclusion would be the same (i.e., less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures). This alternative would still meet the screening criteria for Transit Screening in the City’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Policy; therefore, it would result in the same less than significant VMT impact as the Project. This alternative would construct a smaller building with fewer dwelling units; therefore, impacts related to vehicle trips generated (i.e., roadway congestion, traffic noise), construction noise, public services (i.e., demand for police, fire, and library services), and utility system demand would be lessened but remain at a similar level (less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated). Impacts related to population and housing and recreation would also be lessened. This alternative would result in a similar land use and planning impact as the project because it would also comply with the applicable land use regulations and would not divide an established community.

All other impacts (aesthetics, biological resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, and recreation) would be the similar to the Project given this alternative would result in development of the same site and in accordance with the regulations (including those pertaining to energy efficiency).

Full Preservation Alternative A would meet Project Objective 1 by developing a residential mixed-use project on-site that would include affordable units and a public plaza. This alternative would meet the intent of Project Objective 2 by providing residential units, however, it would provide 88 fewer residential units (including seven fewer below market rate [BMR] units) than the applicant’s desired amount of 299 new multi-family units (including 33 BMR units) identified in Project Objective 2. The existing historic bank building is approximately 18,300 square feet, or 6,800 square feet larger than the proposed new bank (11,500 square feet) and 8,300 square feet larger than the minimum required size of the bank (10,000 square feet) identified in Project Objective 3. However, Full Preservation Alternative A would not meet the portion of Project Objective 3 that specifies a “more efficient commercial space meeting modern standards” in a “new facility.” Since the Full Preservation Alternative A would retain the historic building in full, as well as the front plaza and all integrated artworks, and the building would continue operating as a bank, there would be no disruption to bank operations (which is stipulated in Project Objective 3). This alternative would meet Project Objective 4 by constructing a new, high-intensity development on an underutilized site in an El Camino Real Precise Plan Village Center. This alternative would meet Project Objective 5 by including a ground-floor leasing office and amenity space for the new residences. This alternative would meet Project Objective 6 by constructing a transit-oriented development near transit services and improving the transit facilities adjacent to the site with the construction of a bus island and striping of a bike lane along El Camino Real.

This alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it does not meet the Project objectives as well as the proposed Project.

5.3 Full Preservation Alternative B – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 200 Units

The purpose of Full Preservation Alternative B – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 200 Units, is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact to the identified historic resource on- site. Full Preservation Alternative B would retain the existing, historic structure (bank building) for adaptive reuse as a commercial space which would be used for the residential leasing office and other retail. A new mixed-use building would be constructed behind the existing bank building, with a setback of at least 15 feet at the rear. Additional commercial space would be located along the El Camino Real frontage of the new building. In addition, this alternative includes a new, stand-alone bank building at the corner of El Camino Real and Lane Avenue.

The space around the existing historic bank would serve as publicly accessible open space. All integrated artworks that are part of the historic bank would be retained in place. With these development assumptions, the site would include a new, standalone, 10,000-square foot bank building, a total of 200 new multi-family residential units (including 26 BMR units), and 13,000 square feet of commercial space.

Findings

Under this alternative, the primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) would remain eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (as detailed in the SEIR), so the impact to the historic resource would be less than significant and the Project’s significant, unavoidable impact would be avoided.

This alternative would modify the interior of the existing bank building and construct a smaller mixed-use building which would result in a shorter construction period and less demolition on- site. Therefore, it is possible that this alternative would generate fewer construction criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions during construction and require less energy to operate.

Similarly, a smaller mixed-use building with fewer residential units would generate less vehicle trips than the Project. However, impacts from the project related to these resource areas were already determined to be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval, so, Full Preservation Alternative B would result in the same determination for these resource areas. This alternative would develop the same site as the project; therefore, impacts to aesthetic resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, and tribal cultural resources would be the same as discussed previously. In addition, this alternative would still meet the screening criteria for Transit Screening in the City’s VMT Policy while constructing a smaller building with fewer dwelling units. Because this alternative would construct a smaller building with fewer dwelling units, impacts related to vehicle trips generated (i.e., roadway congestion, traffic noise), construction noise, public services (i.e., demand for police, fire, and library services), and utility system demand would be lessened but

remain at a similar level (less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated).

Full Preservation Alternative B would meet Project Objective 1 by developing a residential mixed-use project on-site that would include affordable units and a public plaza. This alternative would meet the intent of Project Objective 2 by providing residential units, however, it would provide 99 fewer residential units (including seven fewer BMR units) than the applicant’s desired amount of 299 new multi-family units (including 33 BMR units) identified in Project Objective 2. The new bank building in this alternative would meet the minimum required size (10,000 square feet) identified in Project Objective 3 and it would meet the portion of Project Objective 3 that specifies a “more efficient commercial space meeting modern standards” in a “new facility.” Other than some potential additions to the exterior of the building (e.g., new signage), Full Preservation Alternative B would retain the exterior of the historic building, as well as the front plaza and all integrated artworks, and renovate the interior of the building so that it can be repurposed for commercial use. Because a new bank would be constructed on the northeastern portion of the site prior to renovation of the existing bank, there would be no disruption to bank operations (which is stipulated in Project Objective 3).

This alternative would meet Project Objective 4 by constructing a new, high-intensity development on an underutilized site in an El Camino Real Precise Plan Village Center. This alternative would meet Project Objective 5 by including a ground-floor leasing office and amenity space for the new residences. This alternative would meet Project Objective 6 by constructing a transit-oriented development near transit services and improving the transit facilities adjacent to the site with the construction of a bus island and striping of a bike lane along El Camino Real.

This alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it does not meet the Project objectives as well as the proposed Project.

5.4 Full Preservation Alternative C – Continued Use of Bank and 299 Units

The purpose of Full Preservation Alternative C – Continued Use of Bank and 299 Units, is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact to the identified historic resource on- site. Full Preservation Alternative C would retain the existing, historic structure (bank building) for continued use as a branch bank. A new, eight-story, mixed-use building feet would be constructed behind the existing bank building. Commercial space would be located on the ground floor frontage along the El Camino Real of the new mixed-use building, as well as in the corner of the mixed-use building fronting Castro Street. A public plaza would be located on the El Camino Real frontage of the site, east of the existing bank building. All integrated artworks that are part of the historic bank would be retained in place. With these development

assumptions, the site would include the existing 18,300-square foot bank building, a total of 299 new multi-family residential units (including 26 BMR units), and 10,800 square feet of commercial space.

Findings

Under this alternative, the primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) would remain eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources, so the impact to the historic resource would be less than significant and the Project’s significant, unavoidable impact would be avoided.

This alternative would construct a larger, though similarly sized, mixed-use building as the Project. In addition, the larger and taller mixed-use building in this alternative would require different construction techniques and could require different materials, equipment, and timelines. As a result, this alternative may result in greater, though similar less than significant with mitigation, construction criteria air pollutant emissions and community health risk impacts as the Project. This alternative would construct a larger building with additional square footage than the Project, therefore, it is likely that operation of the building in this alternative would require higher energy use. This alternative would develop the same site as the Project; therefore, impacts to aesthetic resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, and tribal cultural resources would be the same as discussed previously. In addition, this alternative would still meet the screening criteria for Transit Screening in the City’s VMT Policy and result in a less than significant VMT impact. This alternative would include the same number of dwelling units as the Project; therefore, impacts related to population and housing, public services, recreation, traffic, noise, and utilities would remain at a similar level.

Full Preservation Alternative C would meet Project Objective 1 by developing a residential mixed-use project on-site that would include affordable units and a public plaza. This alternative would meet Project Objective 2 by providing residential units at the density desired by the applicant. The existing historic bank building is approximately 18,300 square feet, or 6,800 square feet larger than the proposed new bank (11,500 square feet) and 8,300 square feet larger than the minimum required size of the bank (10,000 square feet) identified in Project Objective 3. However, Full Preservation Alternative C would not meet the portion of Project Objective 3 that specifies a “more efficient commercial space meeting modern standards” in a “new facility.” Since the Full Preservation Alternative C would retain the historic building in full, as well as the front plaza and all integrated artworks, and the building would continue operating as a bank, there would be no disruption to bank operations (which is stipulated in Project Objective 3). This alternative would meet Project Objective 4 by constructing a new, high-intensity development on an underutilized site in an El Camino Real

Precise Plan Village Center. This alternative would meet Project Objective 5 by including a ground-floor leasing office and amenity space for the new residences. This alternative would meet Project Objective 6 by constructing a transit-oriented development near transit services and improving the transit facilities adjacent to the site with the construction of a bus island and striping of a bike lane along El Camino Real.

This alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it does not meet the Project objectives as well as the proposed Project, and it could result in greater, though similar less than significant with mitigation, construction criteria air pollutant emissions and community health risk impacts as the Project.

5.5 Partial Preservation Alternative A – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 251 Units

The purpose of Partial Preservation Alternative A – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 251 Units, is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact to the identified historic resource on- site. Partial Preservation Alternative A would retain the front half of the existing, historic structure (bank building) for adaptive reuse as a commercial space for the residential leasing office and other retail uses. A new, six-story mixed-use building of approximately 364,400 square feet would be constructed as an addition behind the existing bank building and would require the demolition of most of the rear half of the bank building. Commercial space would be located on the ground floor frontage on El Camino Real of the new, mixed-use building. The space around the existing historic bank would serve as publicly accessible open space. All integrated artworks that are part of the historic bank would be retained in place, except the stained-glass window (due to the demolition of the rear half of the bank building), which would be salvaged and relocated at a separate location on-site. With these development assumptions, a total of 251 multi-family residential units (including 26 BMR units), 10,000 square feet of space for a new bank, and 9,800 square feet of commercial space for other retails uses would be provided.

Findings

Under this alternative, the primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) would lose its integrity of setting, feeling, and design, and the integrity of the materials and workmanship would be diminished. Therefore, while this alternative would result in a lesser impact to the historic resource than the project because it would preserve a portion of the building and most of the associated artwork, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

This alternative would retain a portion of the existing bank building and construct a smaller mixed-use building with a ground-floor level bank which would likely result in a shorter construction period and less demolition on-site. Therefore, it is possible that this alternative would generate fewer construction criteria air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions during construction and require less energy to operate. Similarly, a smaller mixed-use building with fewer residential units would generate less vehicle trips than the Project. However, impacts from the Project related to these resource areas were already determined to be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval, so, Partial Preservation Alternative A would result in the same determination for these resource areas.

This alternative would develop the same site as the Project; therefore, impacts to aesthetic resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, and tribal cultural resources would be the same as discussed previously. In addition, this alternative would still meet the screening criteria for Transit Screening in the City’s VMT Policy while constructing a smaller building with fewer dwelling units. Because this alternative would construct a smaller building with fewer dwelling units, impacts related to vehicle trips generated (i.e., roadway congestion, traffic noise), construction noise, public services (i.e., demand for police, fire, and library services), and utility system demand would be lessened but remain at a similar level (less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated). Impacts related to population and housing and recreation would also be lessened.

Partial Preservation Alternative A would meet Project Objective 1 by developing a residential mixed-use project on-site that would include affordable units and a public plaza. This alternative would meet the intent of Project Objective 2 by providing residential units, however it would provide 48 fewer residential units (including seven fewer BMR units) than the 299 new multi-family units (including 33 BMR units) identified in Project Objective 2. Partial Preservation Alternative A would meet Project Objective 3 of providing a minimum of 10,000 square feet for a new, stand-alone Chase Bank facility. The development of this alternative, however, could not be phased in a way to minimize disruption of bank operations (which is identified as part of Project Objective 3) to the same extent as the project. Because this alternative would include the new bank facility at the ground-floor level of the mixed-use building, construction of the bank cannot be phased like the project to allow for continuous bank operations during construction. For these reasons, the project would only partially meet Project Objective 3. This alternative would meet Project Objective 4 by constructing a new, high-intensity development on an underutilized site in an El Camino Real Precise Plan Village Center. This alternative would meet Project Objective 5 by including a ground-floor leasing office and amenity space for the new residences. This alternative would meet Project Objective 6 by constructing a transit-

oriented development near transit services and improving the transit facilities adjacent to the site with the construction of a bus island and striping of a bike lane along El Camino Real.

This alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it does not meet the Project objectives as well as the proposed Project, and it does not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact to a historic resource.

5.6 Partial Preservation Alternative B – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 299 Units

The purpose of Partial Preservation Alternative B – Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 299 Units, is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impact to the identified historic resource on- site. Partial Preservation Alternative B would retain the existing, historic structure (bank building) for adaptive reuse as a commercial space which would be used for the residential leasing office and other retail uses. A new, nine-story (105 feet tall), mixed-use building would be constructed as an addition, attached to the rear of the historic bank building by a “hyphen” connector. A majority of the rear wall of the historic bank building would be demolished, and the stained-glass window would be salvaged and relocated on-site. All other artworks that are part of the historic bank would remain in place. Commercial space would be located at the south end of the new building, fronting El Camino Real, and a new, stand-alone bank space and surface parking area would be developed at the corner of El Camino Real and Lane Avenue. The space around the existing historic bank would serve as publicly accessible open space. With these development assumptions, the site would include the existing 18,300-square foot bank building adaptively reused as other commercial space, 13,000 square feet of additional, new commercial space, and a total of 299 new multi-family residential units (including 33 BMR units).

Findings

Under this alternative, the primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) would no longer be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources.

Therefore, while this alternative would result in a lesser impact to the historic resource than the project because it would preserve a portion of the building and most of the artwork, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

This alternative would construct a taller mixed-use building than the Project to accommodate 299 dwelling units. The taller mixed-use building in this alternative would require different construction techniques, materials, and equipment that would lengthen the construction period compared to the project and could result in greater, though similar less than significant with mitigation, construction criteria air pollutant emissions and community health risk impacts

as the Project. This alternative would construct a slightly smaller building in terms of square footage than the Project, therefore, it is likely that operation of the building in this alternative would require less energy use. This alternative would develop the same site as the Project; therefore, impacts to aesthetic resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, and tribal cultural resources would be the same as discussed previously. In addition, this alternative would still meet the screening criteria for Transit Screening in the City’s VMT Policy and result in a less than significant VMT impact. This alternative would include the same number of dwelling units as the Project; therefore, impacts related to population and housing, public services, recreation, traffic noise, and utilities would remain at a similar level.

Partial Preservation Alternative B meets all six of the project objectives. Due to the new, nine- story mixed-use building, Partial Preservation Alternative B would provide 299 new residential units, including 33 BMR units, which meets Project Objectives 1 and 2. This alternative would also meet Project Objective 3 since it would construct a new, stand-alone bank building of at least 10,000 square feet on-site. In addition, consistent with the other portions of Project Objective 3, the construction of this alternative would be phased in a way to allow the existing bank to continue operating in the existing building (and continue parking in the existing parking lot) while the new bank is being constructed. This alternative would meet Project Objective 4 by constructing a new, high-intensity development on an underutilized site in an El Camino Real Precise Plan Village Center. This alternative would meet Project Objective 5 by including a ground-floor leasing office and amenity space for the new residences. This alternative would meet Project Objective 6 by constructing a transit-oriented development near transit services and improving the transit facilities adjacent to the site with the construction of a bus island and striping of a bike lane along El Camino Real.

While this alternative would meet all six Project objectives, this alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it does not avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact to a historic resource, and it could result in greater, though similar less than significant with mitigation, construction criteria air pollutant emissions and community health risk impacts as the Project.

5.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative(s)

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e)(2) states that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

Based on the discussion of Project alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative to the Project is the No Project Alternative because it would avoid all of the Project’s significant environmental impacts. In addition to the No Project Alternative, Full Preservation Alternative B would be the environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce the Project’s impact to a historic resource to a less than significant level and require the least amount of new construction, which would reduce air quality and greenhouse gas emission-related impacts. In addition, because this alternative would construct a smaller building with fewer dwelling units, impacts related to vehicle trips generated (i.e., roadway congestion, traffic noise), construction noise, public services (i.e., demand for police, fire, and library services), and utility system demand would be lessened compared to the Project.

SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City adopts these CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC), (collectively, Findings), as part of the certification of the Final SEIR for the Project. The City is the lead agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Final SEIR. As the lead agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action, which
of those impacts are significant, and which impacts can be mitigated through imposition of feasible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize such impacts to a level of “less than significant”.

CEQA requires the lead agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a
project against its unavoidable adverse impacts when determining whether to approve a project. In particular, Public Resources Code section 21081(a) provides that no public agency may approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out, unless the public agency makes one or more of three findings with respect to each significant effect. Public Resources Code section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an SEIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the lead agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093(a)].

CEQA requires the lead agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a p
roject acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final SEIR or elsewhere in the administrative record [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093(b)]. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If a lead agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. The statement of overriding considerations does not substitute for, and is in addition to, findings required by CEQA Guidelines section 15091.

As required under Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City, having reviewed and considered the Final SEIR, all other written materials within the Record of Proceeding, and all oral testimony presented at public hearings and other public meetings on the Final SEIR, has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the identified unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project, and hereby adopts all feasible mitigation measures with respect to such
impacts, certifies the Final SEIR, and approves the Project. The City has also examined alternatives to the Project, none of which is feasible, meets

the majority of the Project objectives, or is environmentally preferable to the Project for the reasons discussed in the Summary of Alternatives Evaluated (Section 8) and the Final SEIR.

After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Project, the City has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above are acceptable due to the following specific considerations in the record, which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project. Each of the considerations in the record, standing alone, is sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with CEQA.

The Project will result in a project -level cultural resource impact that cannot be fully mitigated.

Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project ; however, these would not fully mitigate the impact under CEQA. This significant, unavoidable impact is identified and discussed in Section 1 of these Findings. The City further specifically finds that the significant unavoidable cultural resource impact is outweighed by the proposed Project’s benefits and is acceptable in light of the benefits of the project, based on the findings below:

• The City has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the project, as described above.

• All Mitigation Measures recommended in the Final SEIR have been incorporated into the Project as enforceable conditions of approval and will be implemented through the MMRP, incorporated by reference herein.

• In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has, in determining whether or not to approve the Project, balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, including regionwide or Statewide environmental benefits of the p roject against these unavoidable environmental risks, and has found that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The following statements specify the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, the benefits of the Proje ct outweigh its unavoidable environmental risks. The City also finds that any one of the following reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the Project.

Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City will stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient.

The substantial evidence supporting the City’s Findings and the benefits described below can be found in the Record of Proceedings.

• The Project will provide needed housing in Mountain View and will assist the City in meeting its RHNA goals for additional housing , including affordable housing, consistent with the adopted General Plan Housing Element. As noted above, the Project would meet approximately 2.7 percent of the City’s new housing fair-share target.

• The Project would also help meet the City’s General Plan land use planning goals and development strategies, including reducing the City’s jobs/housing imbalance, and improving pedestrian and bicycle connections in the Project area.

• The Project is consistent with the applicable greenhouse gas reduction measures in the Mountain View Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program and thus supports the City’s efforts to reduce dependency on fossil fuels and nonrenewable energy, to decrease its share of GHG emissions and contributions to global climate change, and to help make Mountain View a more attractive place to live through implementation of the GGRP by adding density on an underutilized site served by existing transportation and infrastructure including the voluntary agreement not to incorporate any natural gas infrastructure.

• The Project will salvage the individual art pieces associated with the bank building (i.e., the exterior mosaic, interior mural, exterior sculpture, and round stained-glass window) and preserve them for reinstallation in the new development. The salvaged and reuse of the art pieces helps preserve a portion of the historical resource on-site.

The art pieces will still be able to be viewed for the broader community.

• The Project will improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity for the Project and the surrounding neighborhood by constructing new, widened pedestrian sidewalks and a protected bike path on El Camino Real.

• The Project proposes a new public plaza to serve the Project, and the broader community.

• The Project would generate revenue for the City through increased property tax revenue and Community Benefit Contribution from the Project.

• The Project would extend Citywide pedestrian and bicycle pathways to connect neighborhoods, open space resources, and major destinations within the City and across cities.

• The project’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program would be designed to reduce parking, driving, and pollution by at least 7% during peak periods, and would encourage residents to commute using transit and other alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles by maintaining membership in the Mountain View Transportation Management Association and combination of a variety of TDM tools. The project’s TDM program would be enforceable through:

• Conditions of approval adopted and enforced by the City; and • Creation of a third -party monitoring and enforcement mechanism with monetary penalties for nonperformance.

As mentioned above, the foregoing benefits provided to the public and the broader Mountain View community through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project that cannot be mit igated. Each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR, and therefore, the City finds those impacts to be acceptable.

Economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project as set forth in the MMRP.

On balance, the City finds that there are specific considerations associated with the Project that serve to override and outweigh the Project’s significant unavoidable effect. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, this adverse effect is considered acceptable.

For the foregoing reasons and as otherwise supported by substantial evidence in the Record of Proceeding, the City hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations (“SOC”), which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant una voidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching a decision to approve the Project. Each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified in the Final SEIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.

Economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project or further Mitigation Measures beyond those incorporated into the Project. On balance, the City finds that there are specific considerations associated with the Project that serve to override and outweigh the Project’s significant unavoidable effect. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, this adverse effect is considered acceptable.

SECTION 7: CONCLUSION; NO RECIRCULATION OF THE FINAL SEIR IS REQUIRED An EIR is adequate as long as it provides specific response to all specific questions about significant environmental issues, and as long as the EIR, as a whole, reflects a good faith effort at full disclosure. “Recirculation is not required where the new information added to an EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modification in an adequate EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b))

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), new information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect on the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing:

(1) A new significant environmental impact that would result from the Project (or any alternative) or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact toa level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The Draft SEIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

The City finds the SEIR is not inadequate nor did any of the commenters disclose any new “significant information” as defined by CEQA that would require recirculation of the SEIR. No new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts have been identified that would result from the Project or from an alternative or a new mitigation measure proposed as part of the Project. Moreover, no new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified that are considerably different from others previously analyzed and would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project that the City and the applicant have declined to implement. All of the responses to comments contained in this Final SEIR merely provide information that clarifies and amplifies the evaluation of impacts contained in the Draft SEIR.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and the information contained in the record, the City Council has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the Project:

(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by sch other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Final SEIR.

CITATIONS

1. City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.

SCH #2014032002. August 2014.

2. City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022.

3. City of Mountain View. 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2023050251. March 2025.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project - 1 - November 2025 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

EXHIBIT C

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
749 West El Camino Real Project State Clearinghouse
No. 2023050251

AIR QUALITY
Impact AIR-1: During
project construction,
project result in
exposure of sensitive
receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations.
2014 EIR MM AIR-1: All new development projects, associated with implementation of the Precise Plan, which include buildings within 1,000 feet of a residential dwelling unit, shall conduct a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to assess emissions from all construction equipment during each phase of construction prior to issuance of building permits. Equipment usage shall be modified as necessary to ensure that equipment use would not result in a carcinogenic health risk of more than 10 in 1 million, an increased noncancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 μg/m3.

Project applicant
and contractors.

All measures will
be required as part
of demolition and
development
permits. All
measures will be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans prior
to issuance of
permits.

Oversight of
implementation by
the City’s
Community
Development
Department.

Prior to issuance
of demolition
permits and/or
construction
activities, as
specified.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project - 2 - November 2025 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
749 W. EL CAMINO REAL
Environmental
Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Compliance
Responsibility
Compliance
Method and
Implementation
Oversight
Compliance
Timing
Impact AIR-3: During
project construction,
sensitive receptors in
the project area could
be exposed to
substantial PM2.5
concentrations.

Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2: Emission Reduction Measures for Subsequent Projects Exceeding the Significance Thresholds for Health Risks from Construction. Project applicants within the HEU area proposing projects within 1,000 feet of existing or approved sensitive receptors shall prepare a project-level HRA of construction impacts at the time the project is proposed. The HRA shall be based on project-specific construction schedule, equipment and activity data and shall be conducted using methods and models approved by the BAAQMD, CARB, OEHHA and U.S. EPA. Estimated project-level health risks shall be compared to the BAAQMD’s health risk significance thresholds for projects. In the event that a project-specific HRA finds that the project could result in significant construction health risks that exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure AIR-1’s requirement for the use of all Tier 4 Final construction equipment to reduce project-level health risks to a less than significant level. In addition, all tower cranes, forklifts, man- and material- lifts shall be electric powered.

Same as above. Same as above. Same as above.

Impact AIR-3: During
project construction,
sensitive receptors in
the project area could
be exposed to
substantial PM2.5
concentrations.
2014 EIR MM AIR-2: For residential or other sensitive use projects proposed within 500 feet of El Camino Real, SR 87 or SR 287, and/or any permitted stationary sources, including those identified in Table IV.B-6, the City of Mountain View shall require an evaluation of potential health risk exposure. The applicant for a sensitive use project within the ECR Precise Plan area shall prepare a report using the latest BAAQMD permit data and roadway risk estimates to determine impacts to future residents or sensitive receptors. The report shall outline any measures that would be incorporated into the project necessary to reduce carcinogenic health risk of to less than 10 in 1 million, reduce the non-cancer risk of to less than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), and ensure the annual average ambient PM2.5 increase is less than 0.3 μg/m3. Measures to reduce impacts could include upgrading air filtration systems of fresh air supply, tiered plantings of trees, and site design to increase distance from source to the receptor.

Same as above. Same as above. Same as above.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact CUL-1.: During
project construction,
MM CUL-1.1: Documentation. Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading, or construction permits for the site, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified professional to undertake documentation of the bank building at 749 West El Camino Real. The Project applicant
and contractors.

All measures will
be required as part
Prior to and
during any

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project - 3 - November 2025 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

documentation shall be funded by the project sponsor and undertaken by a qualified professional(s) who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for history, architectural history, or historic architecture (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 61,
Appendix A) and be submitted for review and approval by the City of Mountain View Planning Division staff or a qualified historic consultant retained by the City prior to issuance of demolition permits. The documentation package shall consist of the items listed below:

1. CUL-1.1a: Digital Photography

2. CUL-1.1b: Historical Report

3. CUL-1.1c: Site Plan & Drawings

4. The documentation materials shall be submitted to the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University, the local repository for the California Historical Resources Information System. The documentation shall also be offered to state, regional, and local repositories, as deemed appropriate, including the City of Mountain View Planning Division, the Mountain View Public Library, and Santa Clara County Historical & Genealogical Society. Materials shall be provided in archival digital and/or hard copy formats depending on the capacity and preference of each repository. This measure would create a collection of reference materials that would be available to the public and inform future research. While the documentation utilizes some of the guidelines and specifications developed for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), the documentation package does not need to be delivered as HABS documentation to the Library of Congress. CUL-1.1a: Digital Photography. Digital photographs will be taken of the historic building, integrated artwork, plaza landscaping, and the overall character and setting of the former Home Savings & Loan Bank designed by Millard Sheets at 749 West El Camino Real. All digital photography shall be conducted according to current National Park Service (NPS) standards as specified in the National Register of Historic P l a c e s and National Historic Landmarks Program Consolidated and Updated Photograph Policy of the demolition
and development
permits. All
measures will be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans prior
to issuance of
permits.

Oversight of
implementation by
the City’s
Community
Development
Department.
demolition and/or
construction
activities, as
specified.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project - 4 - November 2025 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
749 W. EL CAMINO REAL
Environmental
Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Compliance
Responsibility
Compliance
Method and
Implementation
Oversight
Compliance
Timing
2024. The photography shall be undertaken by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in documentation photography. Large format negatives are not required. Photograph views for the data set shall include:
a. Photographs of all four exterior facades of the building b. At least two oblique views of the building exterior
c. Detail views of character-defining features, including but not limited to:

5. Exterior mosaic mural
i. Round stained-glass window
ii. Interior painted mural
iii. Front plaza sculpture
iv. Representative interior views of the bank lobby
v. Contextual views of the site and plaza.

6. CUL-1.1b: Historical Report. A written historical narrative and report that meets the HABS Historical Report Guidelines shall be produced for the historic bank at 749 W.

El Camino Real. This HABS-Style Historical Report may be based on the documentation provided in the “615 & 749 W. El Camino Real, Mountain View, HRER Peer Review Memorandum” (Page & Turnbull, 2023) and shall include historic photographs and drawings, if available. The HABS-Style Historical Report shall follow 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project - 5 - November 2025 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
749 W. EL CAMINO REAL
Environmental
Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Compliance
Responsibility
Compliance
Method and
Implementation
Oversight
Compliance
Timing
the outline format with a statement of significance of the building and a description of the building’s architectural features and artwork.

7. CUL-1.1c: Site Plan & Drawings. Original architectural drawings or as-built measured drawings of the historic building and plaza shall be submitted as part of the documentation package. Reasonable efforts shall be made to locate original drawings of the historic building. If located, selected representative drawings (such as site plans, elevations, sections, and relevant key details) shall be photographed or scanned at high resolution, reproduced, and included in the historic bank building dating to the period of significance cannot be located, then measured drawings shall be prepared according to HABS guidelines by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architecture or Historic Architecture. The measured drawings shall be reviewed by the professional retained to prepare the written historical report. At minimum, the measured drawings shall include:

8. A site plan, showing the location of the building in relation to El Camino Real, Castro Street, and the plaza landscaping

9. Elevation drawings of each of the four building elevations

10. Floor plans

11. (Optional) Sections and detail drawings.

MM CUL-1.2: Interpretative Program. The project sponsor, in consultation with a qualified historian or architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, shall develop an interpretive program for the site. The Interpretive Display Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Mountain View Planning Division or a qualified historic consultant retained by the City prior to the issuance of permits for any demolition, grading, or construction on the site. The Plan shall include the proposed display type(s) and location(s) of the content, as well as high-quality graphics and written narratives that will be incorporated. The interpretive display(s) shall be fully installed prior to issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the project, and inspected by Planning Division staff or a qualified historic consultant to confirm its adherence to mitigation measure requirements. The interpretive content shall include the history and architectural and artistic significance of the Millard Sheets-designed former 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project - 6 - November 2025 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
749 W. EL CAMINO REAL
Environmental
Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Compliance
Responsibility
Compliance
Method and
Implementation
Oversight
Compliance
Timing
Home Savings & Loan Association bank. The interpretive display(s) shall also contextualize and tell the story of the specific artists working within the Millard Sheets studio who were involved with the artwork that is salvaged and reinstalled as part of the project. In addition to narrative text, the interpretative display(s) may include, but are not limited to, a display of photographs, news articles, and drawings. The interpretive display(s) may use source materials from the historical report prepared as part of MM CUL-1.1.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact Housing
Element EIR Impact
GHG-1:

Implementation of
the HEU would not
generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly.

Housing Element EIR MM GHG-1: Require Compliance with EV Requirements in CALGreen Tier 2. Subsequent development projects proposed as part of the HEU shall comply with EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2 at the time that a building permit application is filed.

Project applicant
and contractors.

All measures will
be required as part
of the demolition
and development
permits. All
measures will be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans prior
to issuance of
permits.

Oversight of
implementation by
Prior to issuance
of an occupancy
permit.
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project - 7 - November 2025 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

NOISE
2014 EIR Impact
NOISE-1:

Construction activities
associated with
implementation
of the ECR Precise
Plan could
create significant
short-term
vibration impacts on
nearby sensitive land
uses.
2014 EIR MM NOISE-1: The following language shall be included as a Condition of Approval for new projects associated with implementation of the Precise Plan:
• In the event that pile driving would be required for any proposed project within the Precise Plan area, all residents within 300 feet of the project site shall be notified of the schedule for its use a minimum of one week prior to its commencement. The contractor shall implement “quiet” pile driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles, the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration, or the use of portable acoustical barriers) where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions.
• To the extent feasible, the project contractor shall phase high vibration generating construction activities, such as piledriving/ ground-impacting operations, so they do not occur at the same time with demolition and excavation activities in locations where the combined vibrations would potentially impact sensitive areas.
• The project contractor shall select demolition methods not involving impact, where possible (for example, milling generates lower vibration levels than excavation using clam shell or chisel drops). The project contractor shall avoid using vibratory rollers and packers
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project - 8 - November 2025 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact: 2014 EIR
Impact UTL-1: Project
constrution could
result in
impacts to the
existing water
and/or wastewater
infrastructure.
2014 EIR MM UTL-1: As private properties within the Precise Plan area are proposed for development, project-specific capacity and condition analyses of applicable water and wastewater infrastructure adjacent to and downstream of the project sites shall be performed to identify any impacts to the water and wastewater system. As a condition of approval, and prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the Public Works Department will determine and assign responsibility to project applicants for upgrades and improvements to the City’s water and/or wastewater infrastructure, as necessary.

Project applicant
and contractors.

All measures will
be required as part
of the demolition
and development
permits. All
measures will be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans prior
to issuance of
permits.

Oversight of
implementation by
the City’s
Community
Development
Department and
Fire Department.

Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit.
2014 EIR Impact UTL-
2: Future
2014 EIR MM UTL-2: As private properties within the Precise Plan area are proposed for development, project-specific analyses of stormwater infrastructure adjacent and downstream of the project sites shall be performed to identify any Project applicant
and contractors.

All measures will
be required as part
of the demolition
Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit.
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project - 9 - November 2025 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
749 W. EL CAMINO REAL
Environmental
Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Compliance
Responsibility
Compliance
Method and
Implementation
Oversight
Compliance
Timing
development
associated with
implementation of
the ECR
Precise Plan could
result in the
need for new and/or
improved
stormwater
infrastructure
impacts to the system. As a condition of approval, and prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the Public Works Department will determine and assign responsibility to project applicants for upgrades and improvements to the City’s stormwater infrastructure, as
necessary.
and development
permits. All
measures will be
printed on all
construction
documents,
contracts, and
project plans prior
to issuance of
permits.

Oversight of
implementation by
the City’s
Community
Development
Department and
Fire Department.

Housing Element EIR
Impact UTL-1:

Implementation of
the
HEU would not
require or result
in the relocation or
construction
of new or expanded
water,
Housing Element EIR MM UTL-1: Fair-Share Contributions Toward Utility Improvements. Subsequent development projects shall contribute the fair share amount identified by the City of Mountain View Public Works Department to fund capital improvements to the water, sanitary sewer, and
stormwater drainage systems prior to issuance of a building permit.

Project applicant
and contractors.

All measures will
be required as part
of the demolition
and development
permits. All
measures will be
printed on all
construction
documents,
Prior to issuance
of a grading
permit.
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project - 10 - November 2025 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
749 W. EL CAMINO REAL
Environmental
Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Compliance
Responsibility
Compliance
Method and
Implementation
Oversight
Compliance
Timing
wastewater
treatment or storm
water drainage,
electric power,
natural gas, or
telecommunications
facilities,
the construction or
relocation of
which could cause
significant
environmental
effects.
contracts, and
project plans prior
to issuance of
permits.

Oversight of
implementation by
the City’s
Community
Development
Department and
Fire Department.

SOURCE: City of Mountain View. Draft Environmental Impact Report, 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project.

Mountain View City CouncilNovember 18, 2025

Mountain View City Council
November 18, 2025