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

Attachment 1
-1-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2025

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

CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT, A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,

AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MIXED-USE PROJECT AT 749 WEST EL CAMINO REAL (APN 193-02-049 AND 193-02-050)

WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project (Project) was issued by the City of Mountain View (City) on May 9, 2023; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 , et seq. , and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Code Regs., Section 15000, et seq.) (CEQA Guidelines), the City certified the 2014 El Camino Real Precise Plan Final EIR (SCH No. 2014032002) (2014 EIR), which identified the potentially significant impacts of the El Camino Real Precise Plan. The El Camino Real Precise Plan allows 788 residential units and 880 new jobs for a total of 2,660 residential units and 6,550 jobs in the plan area; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City certified the City of Mountain View Housing Element Update EIR (SCH No. 2022020129) (Housing Element EIR), which identified the potentially significant impacts of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element that included a Housing Element Site Inventory, which is a summary of residential capacity to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirement; and

WHEREAS, the Project was evaluated and analyzed under the 2014 EIR and the Housing Element EIR, and it was determined that a n SEIR to the previously certified EIRs was required; and

WHEREAS, a n SEIR scoping meeting was held on May 24, 2023 to receive comments regarding the scope of issues to be addressed in the SEIR; and

WHEREAS, a Draft SEIR was prepared and issued by the City for agency and public review and comment on March 11, 2025 for a 45-day review period that ended on April 25, 2025; and

WHEREAS, six comment letters and emails were received on the Draft SEIR from agencies, organizations, and private individuals; and

-2-
WHEREAS, a Final SEIR incorporating all comments received on the Draft SEIR and responses to comments was issued on August 19, 2025; and

WHEREAS, the complete Final SEIR consists of the March 2025 Draft SEIR , comments received on the document, and responses to comments contained in the Final SEIR, modifications made to the text of the Draft SEIR that are also included in the Final SEIR, appendices to the Draft and Final SEIRs, and all documents and resources referenced and incorporated by reference in the SEIR; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified certain significant effects and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identified various mitigation measures that would substantially lessen or avoid the Project’s significant effects on the environment as well as a reasonable range of feasible alternatives, which would provide some environmental advantages ove r the Project; and

WHEREAS, the City is required, pursuant to CEQA, to adopt all feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental effects of a proposed project; and

WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a), requires a public agency, before approving a project for which an EIR has been prepared and certified, to adopt findings specifying whether mitigation measures and, in some instances, alternatives discussed in the EIR, have been adopted or rejected as infeasible; and

WHEREAS, Exhibit B to this Resolution is a set of Findings of Fact prepared in order to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (a); and

WHEREAS, as the Findings of Fact explain, the City Council, reflecting the advice of City staff, and input from the community, has expressed its intention to approve the proposed Project despite its significant environmental impacts; and

WHEREAS, in taking this course, the City Council has acted consistently with the CEQA mandate to consider feasible Project mitigations and/or alternatives as a means of substantially lessening or avoiding the environmental effects of the Project as proposed; and

WHEREAS, some of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects associated with the Project, as approved, can either be substantially lessened or avoided through the inclusion of mitigation measures proposed in the Final SEIR; and

-3-
WHEREAS, the City Council , in approving the Project as proposed , intends to adopt all mitigation measures set forth in the Findings of Fact; and

WHEREAS, those significant effects that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures will necessarily remain significant and unavoidable; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, based on the reasons and substantial evidence set forth in the Findings of Fact, that none of the alternatives analyzed in the Final SEIR are feasible and environmentally superior to the Project, except Full Preservation Alternative B was determined to be environmentally superior but is not feasible based on the findings set forth in Exhibit B; and

WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081, subdivision (b), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 require the City to adopt a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” before approving a project with significant unavoidable environmental effect; and

WHEREAS, the City Council desires, in accordance with CEQA, to declare that, despite the significant unavoidable environmental effects associated with the Project as mitigated and adopted, there exist certain overriding economic, social, and other considerations for approving the Project that the City Council, in its legislative capacity, believes justify the occurrence or potential occurrence of those impacts and render them acceptable; and

WHEREAS, Section 6 of Exhibit B attached hereto is a Statement of Overriding Considerations specifying the economic, social, and other benefits that render acceptable the significant unavoidable environmental effects associated with the mitigated Project; and

WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the City’s obligation , pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subdivision (a), to ensure the monitoring of all adopted mitigation measures necessary to substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects of the Project; and

WHEREAS, Exhibit C to this Resolution is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared in order to comply with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subdivision (a); and

WHEREAS, the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) held a duly noticed public hearing on the Final SEIR and the Project on September 17, 2025 and October 15, 2025 and recommended that the City Council certify the Final SEIR, adopt findings as set forth in this Resolution in accordance with CEQA , and approve the Project based on the required findings; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Final SEIR and the Project on November 18, 2025 and received and considered all evidence presented at said hearing, including all associated staff reports, meeting minutes, testimony, and evidence constituting the record of proceedings (as defined in the CEQA Findings) and the recommendation for approval from the EPC; now, therefore, be it -4-

RESOLVED: that the City Council of the City of Mountain View makes the following findings:

1. The City Council c ertifies that the Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

2. The City Council hereby finds that the Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21082.1.

3. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final SEIR and considered the information contained therein and all comments, written and oral, received prior to adopting this Resolution.

4. The City Council, therefore, hereby certifies the Final SEIR for the Project.

5. In approving this Resolution, the City Council adopts Sections 1 through 5 of Exhibit B attached hereto in order to satisfy its obligations under Public Resources Code Sections 21002 and 21081, subdivision (a).

6. In approving this Resolution , the City Council adopts Sections 6 and 7 of Exhibit B attached hereto in order to satisfy its obligations under Public Resources Code Sections 21081, subdivision (b), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093.

7. In approving this Resolution, the City Council a dopts Exhibit C attached hereto to satisfy its obligations under Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subdivision (a); and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Council hereby approves the Project and directs City staff to file with the County Clerk and the Office of Planning and Research a Notice of Determination commencing the 30 -day statute of limitations for any legal challenge to the Project based on alleged noncompliance with CEQA.

– – – – – – – – – – –

CDD/MN-11-18-25r-1

Exhibits: A. Final SEIR
B. CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
SCH #2023050251
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
March 2025
In ConsultaƟon with
Prepared by
~ Cityof
'1•~ Mountain View
imE nAvm J. PoWERs
B~~ & ASSOCIATES, INC.

EXHIBIT A

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project i Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Table of Contents
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ...................................................................... 1

1.2 EIR Process ........................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Final EIR/Responses to Comments ....................................................................................... 6 Section 2.0 Project Information and Description .......................................................................... 7

2.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Background Information .................................................................................................... 11

2.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 13

2.4 Project Objectives .............................................................................................................. 24

2.5 Uses of the EIR ................................................................................................................... 25 Section 3.0 New Significant Environmental Effects ..................................................................... 26

3.1 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 28 Section 4.0 Previously Identified Effects ..................................................................................... 43

4.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................... 44

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................... 54

4.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 58

4.4 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................... 84

4.5 Energy ................................................................................................................................ 92

4.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 100

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 109

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 122

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 135

4.10 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 147

4.11 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 152

4.12 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 154

4.13 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 168

4.14 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 172

4.15 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 182

4.16 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 187

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 205

4.18 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 208

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

4.19 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 225 Section 5.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts ....................................................................................... 227 Section 6.0 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ............................................... 228

6.1 Commitment of Future Generations to Similar Uses ........................................................ 228

6.2 Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents ........................................................ 228

6.3 Irreversible Use and Irretrievable Commitments of Nonrenewable Resources ................ 229 Section 7.0 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ...................................................................... 230 Section 8.0 Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 231

8.1 Factors in Selecting and Evaluating Alternatives .............................................................. 231

8.2 Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 233 Section 9.0 References .............................................................................................................. 254 Section 10.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ................................................................................. 260

10.1 Lead Agency ..................................................................................................................... 260

10.2 Consultants ...................................................................................................................... 260 Section 11.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................. 261

Figures
Figure 2.1-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2.1-2: Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2.1-3: Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Area ..................................................................... 10 Figure 2.3-1: Proposed Ground-Floor Site Plan ................................................................................. 15 Figure 2.3-2: Proposed Project Elevations ......................................................................................... 16 Figure 2.3-3: Approximate Locations of Off-Site Improvements ....................................................... 21 Figure 4.1-1: Location within a TPA ................................................................................................... 51 Figure 4.3-1: Location of Project Site, Off-Site Sensitive Receptors, and MEI .................................... 72 Figure 4.3-2: Locations of Project Site, Stationary Sources, and MEI ................................................ 81 Figure 4.16-1: Location of Existing Transit Facilities ........................................................................ 194 Figure 4.16-2: Location of Existing Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................ 196 Figure 8.2-1: Project and No Project, No New Development Alternative ........................................ 236 Figure 8.2-2: Full Preservation Alternatives .................................................................................... 237 Figure 8.2-3: Partial Preservation Alternatives ................................................................................ 238

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project iii Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Photos
Photo 1 & Photo 2 ............................................................................................................................. 48 Photo 3 & Photo 4 ............................................................................................................................. 49 Photo 5 & Photo 6 ............................................................................................................................. 50

Tables
Table 3.1-1: Current Projects in the Downtown and El Camino Precise Plan Areas ........................... 40 Table 4.3-1: Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants ........ 59 Table 4.3-2: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ................................................................ 64 Table 4.3-3: BAAQMD Health Risks and Hazards Thresholds ............................................................ 64 Table 4.3-4: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions ...................................................................... 68 Table 4.3-5: Operational Period Criteria Pollutant Emissions ............................................................ 69 Table 4.3-6: Construction Risk Impacts at the Off-Site MEI and School Receptors ............................ 71 Table 4.3-7: Cumulative Health Risk Impacts at the Off-Site MEI ...................................................... 80 Table 4.3-8: Impacts from Cumulative TAC Sources at the Project Site ............................................. 83 Table 4.7-1: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Consistency .............................................................. 120 Table 4.9-1: Approximate Existing and Proposed Impervious/Pervious Surfaces ............................ 144 Table 4.12-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria ..................................................................... 155 Table 4.12-2: General Plan Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines ............................................... 157 Table 4.14-1: 2022-2023 School Enrollment and Capacity .............................................................. 175 Table 8.2-1: Development Details for Project and Alternatives ....................................................... 235 Table 8.2-2: Impact Comparison for Project and Alternatives ......................................................... 250

Appendices
Appendix A: NOP and Comments Received
Appendix B: Historic Resource Evaluation and Peer Review Memorandum Appendix C: Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment
Appendix D: Preliminary Arborist Report
Appendix E: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation Report Appendix F: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G: Traffic Noise Assessment
Appendix H: Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis
Appendix I: Utility Impact Memorandum

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project iv Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Summary
The City of Mountain View, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed -Use project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

As the CEQA Lead Agency for this project, the City of Mountain View is required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to approve the project. The basic requirements for an EIR include discussi ons of the environmental setting, significant environmental impacts (including growth -inducing impacts and cumulative impacts), mitigation measures, and alternatives. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend either approval or denial of a project.

This EIR tiers from the certified 2014 El Camino Real Precise Plan Final EIR (2014 EIR, State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2014032002) and the City of Mountain View Housing Element Update EIR (Housing Element EIR, SCH# 2022020129), both of which are specifically incorporated by reference into this EIR.

Summary of the Project
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 two new buildings on-site: (1) a two- story, up to 11,500 square foot bank and ( 2) a six-story, mixed-use building with 299 multi-family residential units (33 of which would be reserved for low - to very-low- income households), up to 13,465 square feet of ground-floor commercial uses, and two levels of underground parking. A more detailed project description is provided in Section 2.3 Project Description.

Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section summarizes (1) new significant impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project, which were not previously disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR (which only pertain to cultural resources and transportation), and (2) impacts and mitigation measures previously disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR that are applicable to the project (identified as 2014 EIR MM or Housing Element EIR MM).

A detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation measures is provided in Section 3.0 New Significant Environmental Effects and Section 4.0 Previously Identified Effects of this EIR.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project v Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
Air Quality
2014 EIR Impact AIR -1:

Construction of new projects
associated with implementation
of the El Camino Real ( ECR)
Precise Plan could result in
exposure of sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations. (Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
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 PM

2.5 increase greater than 0.3 μg/m3.

Housing Element EIR Impact
AIR-3: Implementation of the
Housing Element Update (HEU)
would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations (Less
than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
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.
2014 EIR Impact AIR -2:

Implementation of the ECR
Precise Plan could result in
exposure of sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations. (Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
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 PM

2.5 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.

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
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 f or history, architectural

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project vi Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
historic resource on -site. (New
Impact [Significant and
Unavoidable Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated])
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 f
ormats 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 Places and National Historic Landmarks Program Consolidated and Updated Photograph Policy 2024. Th e
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

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

• 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 the outline format with a statement of significance of the building and a description of the building’s architectural features and artwork.

• 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, s elected 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 co nstruction 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 Qualifi cation 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.

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.

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

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.

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. (Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
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.

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. (Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
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 con tractor 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 geotech
nical 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).

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project ix Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
• The project contractor shall avoid using vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas whenever possible.

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. (Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
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 upgra des and improvements to the City’s water and/or wastewater infrastructure, as necessary.
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. (Less
than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
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 responsibility to project applicants for upgrades and improvements to the City’s stormwater infrastructure, as necessary.

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.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project x Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Summary of Project Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to a project as it is proposed. The CEQA Guidelines specify that 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 signific ant effects of the project.” The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to determine whether there are alternatives of design, scope, or location which would substantially lessen the significant impacts, even if those alternatives “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives” or are more expensive (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6).

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.

As mentioned above, the project would result in a new significant and unavoidable impact to cultural resources – specifically to a historic resource. As discussed in detail in Section 3.1 Cultural Resources, the primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) is individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources and is eligible for listing in the Mountain View Register. Therefore, the bank building is considered a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. For this reason, a reasonable range of full and partial preservation alternatives
1 with the intent to avoid or reduce the project’s significant unavoidable historic impact are evaluated.

While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of meeting all of the project objectives, their ability to meet most of the objectives is considered relevant to their consideration.

The project objectives are identified in Section 2.4 Project Objectives of this EIR. A summary of the six project alternatives considered and evaluated in this EIR is provided below. The EIR considered six other alternatives but rejected them for further analysis. Refer to Section 8.0 Alternatives for the full discussion of each considered alternative and an explanation why certain alternatives were considered but rejected for further analysis.

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 with the impacts of not approving the project. The CEQA Guidelines specifically advis e that the No Project Alternative shall address both the existing conditions and “what would be reasonably 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).

1 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.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project xi Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
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 . The No Project Alternative would avoid the project’s significant impacts but would not meet any of the project objectives.

Full Preservation Alternative A – C ontinued Use as Bank and 211 Units The purpose of Full Preservation Alternative A is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable cultural resources impact resulting from the demolition of the existing bank building and associated artwork. This alternative would retain the existing, historic 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.

This alternative would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable cultural resources impact and result in the same or similar impacts to all other environmental factors as the project. This alternative would fully meet four of the project objectives but would only partially meet the other two project objectives regarding the provision of a new bank building and 299 residential units.

Full Preservation Alternative B – A daptive Reuse of Bank and 200 Units The purpose of Full Preservation Alternative B is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable cultural resources impact resulting from the demolition of the existing bank building and associated artwork. This alternative 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. 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.

This alternative would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable cultural resources impact and result in the same or similar impacts to all other environmental factors as the project. This alternative would fully meet five of the project objectives but would only partially meet the remaining project objective regarding the provision of 299 residential units.

Full Preservation Alternative C – Continued Use of Bank and 299 Units The purpose of Full Preservation Alternative C is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable cultural resources impact resulting from the demolition of the existing bank building and associated artwork. This alternative would retain the existing, historic 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.

This alternative would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable cultural resources impact; however, the larger building and alternative construction techniques and timeline could result in greater, though similar less than significant with mitigation, air quality impacts as the project . This alternative would result in similar or the same impacts to all other environmental factors. This

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project xii Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
alternative would fully meet five of the project objectives but would not meet the remaining project objective regarding the construction of a new bank building on-site.

Partial Preservation Alternative A – A daptive Reuse of Bank and 251 Units The purpose of Partial Preservation Alternative A is to reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable cultural resources impact resulting from the demolition of the existing bank building and associated artwork. This alternative would retain the front half of the existing, historic 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.

This alternative would result in a lesser, though still significant and unavoidable, impact to a historic resource than the project and would result in similar or the same impacts to all other environmental factors. This alternative would fully meet four of the project objectives but would only partially meet the other two project objectives regarding the facilitation of continued bank operation on-site during construction and the provision of 299 residential units.

Partial Preservation Alternative B
– Adaptive Reuse of Bank and 299 Units
The purpose of Partial Preservation Alternative B is to reduce the project’s significant and unavoidable cultural resources impact resulting from the demolition of the existing bank building and associated artwork. This alternative would retain the existing, historic 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.

This alternative would result in a lesser, though still significant and unavoidable, impact to a historic resource than the project. In addition, the larger building and alternative construction techniques and timeline could result in greater, though similar less than significant with mitigation, air quality impacts as the project . Th is alternative would result in similar or the same impacts to all other environmental factors. This alternative would fully meet all six of the project objectives.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project xiii Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Areas of Concern
Environmental concerns expressed thus far from local residents, property owners, organizations, and/or agencies about the project include the following:

• Impacts to historic resources
• Impacts to unknown archaeological resources
• Impacts to the transportation system
• Pedestrian and bicyclist safety
• Increases in lighting/glare
• Flooding concerns
• Compatibility with surrounding residential areas

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose

1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
The City of Mountain View, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 749 West El Camino Real Mixed -Use project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is an informational document that assesses potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, as well as identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines 15121(a)). As the CEQA Lead Agency for this project, the City of Mountain View is required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to appr ove the p roject. The basic requirements for an EIR include discussions of the environmental setting, significant environmental impacts including growth- inducing impacts , cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and alternativ es. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend either approval or denial of a project.

This EIR is a focused , Supplemental EIR to the certified 2014 El Camino Real Precise Plan Final EIR (2014 EIR, State Clearinghouse [SCH] # 2014032002). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21158, a focused EIR is an EIR on a subsequent project identified in a master EIR. The focused EIR shall analyze only the subsequent project’s additional significant effects on the environment and need not examine those effects which were mitigated or avoided as a result of mitigation measures identified in the master EIR and required as part of the approval of the subsequent project. As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(a), a Supplemental EIR can be prepar ed if any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) (discussed further below) would require preparation of a subsequent EIR and only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. The supplement to the EIR need only contain the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project.

The primary purpose of the El Camino Real Precise Plan (Precise Plan) was to facilitate the development of the El Camino Real corridor with a diverse range of building densities and land uses.

Implementation of the Precise Plan, which was evaluated in the certified 2014 EIR, would result in the addition of 788 residential units and 880 new jobs for a total of 2,660 residential units and 6,550 jobs. The land use and character of the project (i.e., mixed-use residential development near transit services) is in line with what was envisioned in the Precise Plan for the project site; however, the proposed FAR of 3.04 would surpass the maximum FAR of 2.3 allowed for Tier 2 Process projects in the Precise Plan Village Centers designation. In order to be granted the additional density, the project

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 2 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
would utilize a 43.1 percent State Density Bonus and apply for various waivers related to maximum building height, required setbacks, pedestrian facilities, and ground floor commercial space.2

In addition, the total number of residential units envisioned for the buildout of the Precise Plan has been surpassed by constructed and recently entitled development projects. Since the certification of the 2014 EIR, 315 additional residential units have been constructed beyond what was anticipated in the 2014 EIR. The project would add an additional 299 residential units beyond what has been constructed and entitled previously, which would result in a Precise Plan buildout with more residential units than evaluated in the 2014 EIR. The amount of net-new commercial square footage proposed as part of the project is within the amount anticipated for the Precise Plan area that was evaluated in the 2014 EIR.

While the 2014 EIR did not evaluate the project’s additional 299 residential dwelling units, the Housing Element EIR did. The City recently adopted its 6 th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 (Housing
Element) and certified the Housing Element EIR. The Housing Element identifies the City’s current housing conditions and future housing needs while outlining initiatives to improve available housing for populations with various income levels within the City. The Housing Element includes a Housing Element Site Inventory, which is a summary of residential capacity to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements. The Housing Element includes a map that identifies provisional and official capacity for opportunity sites and pipeline projects. The project site is identified as a pipeline project in the Housing Element with capacity for 299 residential units.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), when an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

2 Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1) allows for unlimited waivers to development standards in order to build State Density Bonus projects.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 3 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Based on the analysis contained in this document , the project’s significant impact to a historic resource is a new significant impact not previously disclosed in the 2014 EIR or the City of Mountain View Housing Element Update EIR (Housing Element EIR, SCH# 2022020129) , requir ing this subsequent, Supplemental EIR.

1.1.1 Tiering of the Environmental Review
As discussed in Section 1.1 , this document is a focused Supplemental EIR to the 2014 EIR and tiers from the 2014 EIR and the Housing Element EIR . The CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 contains the following information on tiering an environmental document:

(a) “Tiering” refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project.

(b) Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analysis which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actual issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy or program of lesser scope, or to a site -specific EIR or negative declaration. Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant environmental effects of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed.

The 2014 EIR evaluated the development of the site with the proposed land use at the proposed density in terms of its physical effects. The 2014 EIR also evaluated the operational and construction effects of the amount of commercial square footage proposed on-site. For these reasons, the

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 4 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
project’s impact analysis tiers from the 2014 EIR for all the environmental factors. The 2014 EIR did not, however, evaluate the operational and construction effects of the proposed 299 residential units. These effects are evaluated in the Housing Element EIR. For this reason, the project’s residential operational and construction effects tier from the Housing Element EIR for the following environmental factors:

• Air Quality
• Energy
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems

1.1.2 Focus of the Supplemental EIR
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d), this EIR focuses on the new effects which had not been considered before in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR . The City of Mountain View determined that the project’s effects on the following environmental resources were previously addressed and adequately covered in the 2014 EIR and/or Housing Element EIR:

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

That is, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to those resources listed above when compared to those disclosed in the 2014 EIR and/or Housing Element EIR. However, the City of Mountain View found that the project would result in a new significant effect on a historic resource which was not previously disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR. A discussion of the project’s new significant and unavoidable historic resource impact is included in Section 3. 0 New Significant Environmental Effects and a discussion of the project’s previously disclosed environmental effects is included in Section 4.0 Previously Identified Effects of this EIR.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 5 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

1.1.3 Incorporation by Reference
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, Section 15130(d) and (e), and Section 15168(d)(2), this EIR incorporates by reference the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. These documents are available for public review at the Community Development Department at City Hall, located at 500 Castro Street in Mountain View, and at the Public Library, located at 585 Franklin Street in Mountain View.

The Housing Element EIR can also be reviewed online at:
• h ttps://www.mountainview.gov/our -city/departments/community- development/planning/regulations/housing-element

1.2 EIR Process

1.2.1 Notice of Preparation and Scoping
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Mountain View prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR. The NOP was circulated to local, state, and federal agencies on May 9, 2023. The standard 30-day comment period concluded on June 8, 2023. The NOP provided a general description of the project and identified possible environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the project. The City of Mountain View also held a public scoping meeting on May 24, 2023 to discuss the project and solicit public input as to the scope and contents of this EIR. The meeting was held at Mountain View City Hall. Appendix A of this EIR includes the NOP and comments received on the NOP.

1.2.2 Draft EIR Public Review and Comment Period
Publication of this Draft EIR will mark the beginning of a 45 -day public review period. During this period, the Draft EIR will be available to the public and local, state, and federal agencies for review and comment. Notice of the availability and completion of this Draft EIR will be sent directly to every agency, person, and organization that commented on the NOP, as well as the Office of Planning and Research. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period should be sent via email or mail to:

Margaret Netto, Consulting Senior Planner
[email protected]
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 6 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

1.3 Final EIR/Responses to Comments
Following the conclusion of the 45-day public review period, the City of Mountain View will prepare a Final EIR in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. The Final EIR will consist of:

• Revisions to the Draft EIR text, as necessary;
• List of individuals and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • Responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15088);
• Copies of letters received on the Draft EIR.

Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates that 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. If the lead agency approves a project despite it resulting in significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing .

This Statement of Overriding Considerations must be included in the record of project approval.

1.3.1 Notice of Determination
If the project is approved, the City of Mountain View will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office and available for public inspection for 30 days. The NOD will also be filed with the SCH. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094(g)).

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 7 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Section 2.0 Project Information and Description

2.1 Project Location
The approximately 3.05-acre project site is 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 project site is L-shaped and bound by El Camino Real to the north, Castro Street to the west, Lane Avenue to the east, and Victor Way and residential uses to the south. The project site is 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.

Surrounding land uses include commercial uses on the north side of El Camino Real, commercial and residential uses to the west and east of the project site, and residential uses south of the project site.

Additional information about the existing site conditions is provided in Section 3.0 and Section 4.0.

Regional and vicinity maps of the site are shown below on Figure 2.1-1 and Figure 2.1-2, respectively, and an aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 2.1-3.

101
101
82 82
35 84
85 237
280
280
280
Foothill Expressway
Central Expressway
Woodside Road
San
Francisco
Bay
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Mountain View
Menlo Park
Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
Woodside
Stanford
Project Site
FIGURE 2.1-1REGIONAL MAP
San Francisco Bay
Pacific Ocean
Monterey Bay
01 2 3 4.5 5 Miles
San José
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Morgan Hill
San José
Fremont
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Morgan Hill
Project SiteProject Site
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
8DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
&KXUFK 6W
W
+RSH 6
W
0RXQWD
LQ
9LHZ $YH
5D \PXQ GR$ Y H
6RQLD :D\
%RUDQGD $YH
<RVHPLWH $Y
H
0DULO\Q 'U 0D ULO\Q 'U
7RGG 6W
(UQHVWLQH /Q
*LOPRUH 6W
)DLUPRQW $YH
$UUR\R 5G
/OR\G :D\
/DQH $YH
9 L V W D* U D Q G H$ Y H
&D
VWUR 6W
0HUF\ 6W$Q
]D 6
W
%
9HODUGH 6W
1LOGD $YH
3DX
O$ Y H
2DN /Q
%XVK 6W
&KX
UFK 6W
3K\OOLV $YH
&HQWUH
6W
(KUKRUQ $YH
Miramonte AveMiramonte Ave
El Camino RealEl Camino Real
S Shoreline BlvdS Shoreline Blvd
High School WayHigh School Way
Castro StCastro St
Bo
nita A
ve
Bo
nita
Av
e
Camille Ct
CamilleC
t
Calderon AveCalderon Ave
Park
Dr
Park
Dr
Park DrPark Dr
82 82
Perma
ne
nte Cre
ek
Perma
nent
eCr
eek
Hale Creek
Victor WayVictor Way
Rustic LnRustic Ln
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 150 600 900 1,200 Feet
Project Site
Projec
t
True
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.1-2
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
9DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
~!
7 ,-- a
-==== J, ~ I
7 t .. - - • .. • ---------------~ :
<
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Office
Office
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Victor Way
Sonia Way
Sonia Way
Stamm Court
Lane Avenue
Boranda Avenue
Bonita Avenue
Castro Street
Castro Street
Hope Street
View Street
Bush Street
Fairmont Avenue
Yosemite Avenue
Sierra Avenue
El Camino Real
Park
Drive
Harpster Drive
Miramonte Avenue
Victor Way
Sonia Way
Sonia Way
Stamm Court
Lane Avenue
Boranda Avenue
Bonita Avenue
Castro Street
Castro Street
Hope Street
View Street
Bush Street
Fairmont Avenue
Yosemite Avenue
Sierra Avenue
El Camino Real
Park
Drive
Harpster Drive
Miramonte Avenue
82 82
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Nov. 30, 2022. Photo Date: Mar. 2022 0 50 200 300 500 Feet
Project Boundary
Project
T rue
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING AREA FIGURE 2.1-3
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
10DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 11 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

2.2 Background Information
The proposed mixed-use project at 749 West El Camino Real was initiated by the applicant based on the desire to relocate the current Chase bank operations to a facility that better suited their needs.

According to the applicant, the existing bank building was deemed to provide excessive space and the antiquated facilities were determined to be poorly suited for modern commercial banking. The project, as described below and throughout this EIR, would provide a new, smaller bank building on- site that would be situated closer to the intersection of El Camino Real and Castro Street. The new bank location would allow for minimal disruption to bank operations during construction activities while providing adequate space for a mixed-use building and allowing the project to maximize development potential consistent with the underlying zoning and development standards in the El Camino Real Precise Plan.

As described in Section 1.1.1 Tiering of the Environmental Review, the primary purpose of the Precise Plan was to facilitate the development of the El Camino Real corridor with a diverse range of building densities and land uses near existing transit services. Implementation of the Precise Plan was estimated to result in the addition of 788 housing units, 1,500 new residents, and 880 new jobs along the evaluated stretch of El Camino Real.

On January 7, 2022, the applicant submitted a preliminary application under Senate Bill 330, which was deemed complete by the City on February 7, 2022. The preliminary application included a letter of intent to proceed under the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915) and an explanation of the project’s eligibility for protections under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5) and corresponding limitations on the City’s discretion during the review process. On June 30, 2022, the applicant submitted the formal project application which the City initially deemed incomplete on July 29, 2022. The applicant resubmitted project materials on November 3, 2022, which the City deemed incomplete on December 2, 2022. The final, formal submittal for the project was provided to the City on March 2, 2023, and the City deemed the project application complete on March 31, 2023.

During this process and without waiving its rights under the state housing laws, the applicant voluntarily made numerous concessions and modifications in response to the City’s requests including incorporation of off-site transportation improvements.

Throughout the pre -application and formal application review timeline, meetings were organized with members of the community to gather insight and feedback on the existing buildings on-site and the project. These meetings included:

• A virtual community meeting on May 11, 2022, which introduced the project to the community and provided an overview of the project and schedule. • A virtual meeting with Louise Katz and Mary Hodder on June 29, 2022 to discuss the history of the building and potential recommendations regarding preservation opportunities, reuse of the existing brick materials, and the bank building’s Richardsonian Romanesque arches.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 12 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
• A virtual meeting with 10 members of the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning on September 2, 2022, which included a presentation on the proposed development and a general question and answer session.
• A second meeting with eight members of the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning on March 9, 2023 , which provided a presentation and discussion on the potential reuse of the on-site artwork.
• A second community meeting on April 20, 2023, at the City’s Performing Arts Center , which was attended by 27 community members, provided an updated overview of the project and gathered community input on the proposed traffic circulation of the project and the potential preservation of the on-site artwork.
• A virtual meeting with eight members of the Mountain View Historical Association on January 8, 2024, which included a presentation and discussion on the reuse of the existing artwork on-site.
• A separate, virtual meeting with eight members of Livable Mountain View on January 8, 2024, which included a presentation and discussion on the reuse of the existing artwork on-site. • A third meeting with eight members of the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning on January 16, 2024, which provided a presentation and discussion on the artwork preservation concepts that had been evaluated by the applicant team. Another community group, Green Spaces Mountain View, was also in attendance for a presentation and discussion regarding the civic plaza.

The City commenced the environmental review for the project in November 2022. As part of the environmental review, the City commissioned a peer review of the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) prepared by the applicant team to confirm whether any of the structures on-site qualified as a historic resource under CEQA. The HRE and corresponding peer review are included in Appendix B and the findings are summarized in Section 3.1 Cultural Resources. Based on the analyses completed, it was determined that the primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) is eligible for individual listing in the California Register and the Mountain View Register and, therefore, would be considered a historic resource under CEQA. The artwork associated with the bank building includes three artwork pieces (1. mosaic mural, 2. stained -glass window, and 3. canvas mural) attributed to the studio of Millard Sheets, who was the original architect when the bank building was constructed. A fourth artwork piece, which is a bronze seagull sculpture set in a brick planter designed by John Edward Svenson of Millard Sheets Studio, is located in front of the bank building in the public plaza adjacent to the Castro Street/El Camino Real intersection.

After the eligibility determination was made, the applicant’s preliminary exploration of potential preservation strategies for the artwork became critical for the environmental review of the project as it would lessen the project’s historic resource impact. As part of the due -diligence process for identifying the most appropriate manner of preserving the artwork, off - and on-site reuse option s were evaluated by the applicant team.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 13 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
The applicant team’s off -site reuse considerations included moving the mosaic mural and stained - glass window and reinstalling them at nearby public facilities. This preliminary evaluation of off -site relocation options for the se two pieces of artwork did not include an analysis of the structural feasibility of relocating these artwork pieces; it was limited to identifying nearby public facility locations with suitable dimensions for relocating the artwork. Three off-site locations were evaluated for the relocation of the mosaic mural:

• The south wall of the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts, • The amphitheater wall of the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts, and • The History Center Wall inside the Mountain View Public Library.

Originally, three interior locations throughout the Mountain View Public Library were evaluated as potential locations for reinstalling the stained-glass window. No off-site location was considered for the bronze seagull sculpture. Given the larger size of the canvas mural ( approximately 17 feet, five inches tall and 22 feet, eight inches wide), the applicant team could not find a suitable off-site location and considered removing and preserving the artwork until a suitable location was identified where it could be installed.

The above-described off-site reuse option s were ultimately dismissed by the applicant team given the determination by City Staff and the City’s consulting historian that preserving the artwork on-site would be preferred. Retaining as many pieces as possible on -site would allow for a more successful preservation of the original context in which they were installed. As a result, the applicant has proposed preservation of all the artwork pieces on -site. A description of the proposed on -site preservation of the artwork pieces is included in Section 2.3.5.1 below.

2.3 Project Description
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, up to 11,500 square foot bank and (2) a six-story, mixed-use building with 299 multi-family residential units (33 of which would be reserved for low - to very-low- income households), up to 13,465 square feet of ground- floor commercial uses, and two levels of underground parking. The commercial square footage would be located adjacent to El Camino Real on the northern portion of the project site. The new bank would be located on the northwest corner of the project site and a public plaza is proposed on El Camino Real between the propo sed bank building and mixed-use building’s ground-floor commercial uses.

The project would meet Tier 2 development standards per the El Camino Real Precise Plan and have a maximum structure height of up to 75 feet and a floor -area-ratio (FAR) of approximately 3.04 (98 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]). The project would utilize the State Density Bonus Law to exceed the allowed zoning density of 2.3 FAR with a 43.1 percent density bonus as calculated based on Mountain View’s Density Bonus Program Guidelines and Municipal Code Section 36.48.75; therefore, the project would not require a General Plan amendment or rezoning. Pursuant to State Density Bonus

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 14 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Law and the City’s Density Bonus Program Guidelines, the project is eligible for the following concession and waivers:

• A concession regarding the required upper floor setback along Castro Street; • A waiver regarding the setback standard for ground floor retail on El Camino Real; • A waiver regarding the setback standard for upper floors on El Camino Real; • A waiver regarding the special upper floor setbacks along El Camino Real for Tier 2 Development;
• A waiver regarding sidewalk and access requirements along El Camino Real; • A waiver regarding the special upper floor setbacks from residential zones for Tier 2 Development;
• A waiver regarding the maximum height allowed for development adjacent to residentially zoned properties;
• A waiver regarding the maximum height allowed across the street from residentially zoned properties;
• A waiver regarding the maximum height allowed for development across the street from residentially zoned properties on Lane Avenue; and
• A waiver regarding the ground floor commercial space requirement along El Camino Real.

The primary project components are described below. A conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2.3-1 and conceptual building elevations are shown in Figure 2.3-2.

Source: Studio T-SQ, Inc., August 23, 2024.
6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

6(7%$&.

3523(57</,1( &200(5&,$/86(675((7)5217$*(

*5281'/(9(/

5(6,'(17,$/86( $0(1,7<6(7%$&./,1(
%,.(5287(
%,.(3$5.,1*6+2577(50&/$66
,,,,,
6((/)25/$<287$1'&2817

1'/(9(/32',80
75((672%(35(6(59('
1'/(9(/&87/,1(
1'/(9(/&87/,1(
5(6,'(17,$/86( 81,76
9(+,&8/$5(175<
,1*5(66(*5(66
3('(675,$15287(
75$6+67$*,1*$5($ 0$,17(1$1&(6(59,&($&&(66
1'/(9(/&87/,1(
1'/(9(/&87/,1(
%866+(/7(5
(;,67,1*'5<87,/,7<
,1)5$6758&785(
6((&,9,/6+((7
&)25025(,1)2

6&5((1:$//$/21*3523(57</,1(
6&5((1:$//$/21*3523(57</,1(
)(1&(/,1(
)(1&($1'*$7(
)(1&($1'*$7(
$775$16)250(56
)(1&($1'*$7(
%866+(/7(5
&+$6(%$1.
05 0 25 100 Feet
PROPOSED GROUND-FLOOR SITE PLAN FIGURE 2.3-1
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
15DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
□
□
□
~ ◄

EL CAMINO REAL

VICTOR WAY
Source: Studio T-SQ, Inc., August 23, 2024.
15' - 0"
10' - 2"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2"

RETAIL GARAGE
ENTRY
48-DEGREE ANGLED ELEVATION

EXISTING CHASE BANK
(REMOVED)

EXISTING BUILDING
(REMOVED)

STRUCTURE H
EIGHT
±74'

GRADE C
HANGE
1' - 0
"

TO TOP OF C
ANOPY
±85'

MID BLOCK
ENTRY
16' - 0
"
10' - 2"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2"
48-DEGREE ANGLED ELEVATION

GRADE CHANGE
2' - 0"

STRUCTURE HEIGHT
±70'

STRUCTURE HEIG
HT
±73'

GRADE CHANGE
1' - 0"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2"
10' - 2
"
14' - 0"
ROOF

PROFILE
BEYOND
14' - 0"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2"

COMMERCIAL/LEASING

SHARED GARAGE ENTRY TRANSFORMERS

STRUCTURE H
EIGHT
±70'

GRADE C
HANGE
2' - 0
" TO P
ODIU
M
P
ARAPET
18' - 6
"
47' - 6" 59' - 6"

GRADE C
HANGE
1' - 0"

STRUCTURE H
EIGHT
70' - 0"
PL
ROOF

PROFILE
BEYOND
ROOF

PROFILE
BEYOND
15' - 0
"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2"
10' - 2
"
10' - 2"
10' - 2
"

RESIDENT
GARAGE
ENTRY

COURTYARD
EGRESS
STAIR

LOADING
AREA

GRADE CHANGE
1' - 0"

STRUCTURE H
EIGHT
±72'
TO P
ODIUM

PARAPET
19' - 0"29' - 4
"
49' - 4
"
59' - 6
"

STRUCTURE HEIGHT
±70'

EXISTING TREES

TO PRESERVE

TRASH STAGING
AREA
ROOF

PROFILE
BEYOND
ROOF

PROFILE
BEYOND

VIEW FROM EL CAMINO REAL

VIEW FROM CASTRO STREET

VIEW FROM VICTORY WAY

VIEW FROM LANE AVENUE
PROPOSED PROJECT ELEVATIONS FIGURE 2.3-2
49 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
16DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 17 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

2.3.1 Project Phases
The project would be built in the three phases described below.

2.3.1.1 Phase 1 – New Bank Building
Phase 1 includes the construction of the new, two -story bank on the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the El Camino Real and Castro Street intersection. The new bank building would be constructed in front of the existing bank building, which would r emain in operation during Phase 1 construction activities. The new bank building would be up to 11,500 square feet and have a maximum height of up to 41 feet to the highest element. During construction of the new bank building, parking for the existing bank building (which would remain in operation during construction of the new bank) would continue to be provided by the 40 existing surface parking stalls located on- site.

2.3.1.2 Phase 2 – Demolition of Existing Bank Building and Construction of Interim Parking Lot
Once the new bank building is completed, the existing bank building would be demolished and an interim surface parking area with 20 stalls would be constructed in its place. Parking for the new bank building would continue to be provided by the existing surface parking lot on-site until the completion of the interim parking lot. This interim parking lot would be accessed via a new, two -way driveway on El Camino Real. This interim parking lot would remain in use until the completion of the mixed - use building on the remainder of the site in Phase 3. After the interim parking lot is completed, the remaining improvements on-site including the vacant 1,487 square foot restaurant building, surface parking areas, and landscaping would be demolished.

2.3.1.3 Phase 3 – Construction of the New Mixed-Use Building After completion of Phase 2, the proposed six-story (up to 75 feet to the top of roof and up to 86 feet to the top of the canopy) mixed -use building would be constructed. The components of the mixed- use building and the proposed amenities (i.e., public pla za and residential amenities) are described below.

Ground Floor Commercial Uses
The mixed -use building would include up to 13,465 square feet of ground -floor commercial uses along the project frontage on El Camino Real. This square footage would include space for a leasing office for the residential units, retail space, and restaurant uses. The restaurant uses would utilize the outdoor seating area provided in the public plaza, which is described in additional detail below.

Residential Units
Most of the residential units within the mixed-use building would be located on the second through sixth floors of the building, with the ground- floor level containing five residential units on the

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 18 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
southwest side of the building along Victor Way. The building would contain a total of 299 units including 39 studio apartments, 191 one-bedroom apartments, 62 two -bedroom apartments, and seven three-bedroom apartments. A total of 31 of the units would be reserved for very -low-income households and two would be reserved for low -income households. These below-market-rate units would be dispersed throughout the building and be comprised of a compa rable mix of unit-types to the market-rate units.

Public Plaza and Residential Amenities
Upon completion of the mixed-use building, the project would demolish the interim surface parking area and convert the space to a public plaza that would be accessible to pedestrians via the sidewalk along El Camino Real. This public plaza would contain newly planted trees, seating areas, accent lighting, and planter areas. The plaza would also contain restaurant seating areas for the commercial uses located on the ground -floor of the mixed -use building. The mixed- use building would include amenities on the ground-floor level such as a fitness center, mail room, and a lounge area for residents. Each unit would have personal storage units in the underground parking garage.

The second floor of the mixed-use building (on top of the podium parking garage) would include three courtyards and a club room. The three courtyard areas would be buffered from El Camino Real and Castro Street by the residential units on floors two through six. The courtyards would include amenities such as lounge furniture, landscaping, a pool and spa, barbeque areas, and raised planter beds. All three courtyards would be accessible to residents from the second floor of the mixed -use building. The rooftop of the building would include amenities such as a dining and kitchen areas, lounge chairs, an edible garden, and a game area.

2.3.2 Site Access and Parking
The mixed use -building would contain one level of ground floor podium parking reserved for the commercial uses on-site, and two levels of underground parking reserved for residents. The podium parking garage level would provide a total of 117 parking stalls, including 42 stalls reserved for the new bank building, 11 stalls reserved for the leasing office, and 64 stalls reserved for the ground-floor commercial uses. Four of the stalls would be ADA accessible spaces, 25 would be electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces, and 88 of the spaces would be standard stalls. Access to commercial stalls in the ground-floor level podium parking garage would be provided via two new, two -way driveways: ( 1) access from the north side of the property would be provided via the driveway on El Camino Real (approximately 22 feet wide) and (2) access to the south side of the property would be provided via the driveway on Victor Way (approximately 22 feet wide).

A third, two-way driveway would be located on Lane Avenue that would provide access to the two levels of below ground parking reserved for residents and guests. The first level of below -ground parking would provide 158 parking stalls (107 stalls reserved for residents and 51 stalls for guests) and the second level of below-ground parking would provide 186 stalls all reserved for residents. In summary, a total of 344 parking stalls would be provided in the two below-ground parking levels, 293 would be reserved for residents and 51 would be available for guests. Of these parking stalls, 11 of

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 19 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
the stalls would be ADA accessible spaces, 62 would be EV charging spaces, and 271 of the spaces would be standard stalls.

The project would include a loading dock area and associated driveway adjacent to the driveway leading to the below ground parking levels on Lane Avenue. Both the loading dock and below ground parking driveways would be accessible via a curb cut approximately 33.6 feet wide. The se two driveways would be separated by a landscaping strip that would be approximately 2.5 feet wide .

Removeable bollard (s) would be installed on -site at the mouth of the loading dock driveway to prevent parking and ensure adequate site distance for vehicles exiting the adjacent driveway to the below ground parking levels. The driveway to the below ground parking levels would also include a gate with a raisable arm to ensure vehicles come to a complete stop before entering Lane Avenue.

During operation of the project, the use of the loading dock would be allowed by appointment only and would be controlled by apartment management staff. This scheduling system would include established blackout times aligned with school drop- off/pickup windows (i.e., no usage of loading dock between 7:00 AM to 9:30 AM and 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM on school days). Apartment management staff would also be required to be present when the loading dock is reserved for moving trucks to provide access and prevent conflicts with pedestrians and/or bicyclists. These regulations and usage limitations would be clearly outlined on signage near/on the exterior of the loading dock.

The project also includes a total of 424 long-term bicycle parking spaces on-site, 412 of which would be reserved for residents and 12 of which would be available to customers of the commercial uses on-site. The long-term residential bicycle parking spaces would be in secure storage rooms on each of the two underground parking levels. The long-term commercial bicycle parking spaces would be in a secure room within the podium parking garage level. The secure storage rooms would be accessible through doorways within each of the parking levels. The project would also provide 30 short -term bicycle parking spaces for residents and four short -term bicycle parking spaces for the customers of the commercial uses on -site. These short -term spaces would be provided on racks outside of the building adjacent to Victor Way, Castro Street, El Camino Real, and Lane Avenue.

Pedestrian access to the new bank building would be provided via sidewalks along Castro Street and El Camino Real. Pedestrian access to the mixed -use building would be provided via sidewalks on Victor Way, Castro Street, El Camino Real, and Lane Avenue, wh ich would provide access to the various entry points surrounding the building.

2.3.3 Utility and Right of Way Improvements
The project would make lateral connections to the existing utility systems. The project would construct new lateral connections to the existing water, storm drain, fire water, and sanitary sewer mains in Victor Way, Castro Street, El Camino Real, and Lane Avenue. The project would also construct new irrigation water lateral connections to the existing water mains in Lane Avenue and Castro Street. Two new, lateral recycled water connections would be constructed on the north side of the project site that would ultimately connect to the future recycled water system.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 20 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
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; however, the existing natural gas main line on Victor Way wo uld be protected in place during project construction. The sidewalks along the project frontages on Lane Avenue, El Camino Real, and Castro Street would be reconstructed. Two new crosswalks and associated stop bars would be striped as part of the project, one at the intersection of Castro Street and Victor Way and the other at the intersection of Lane Avenue and El Camino Real. To improve bicycle facilities adjacent to the site, the project would construct a new buffered bike lane along the project frontage on El Camino Real. This new bike lane would run between the proposed bus island and the project frontage . The project would also paint 25 to 26 feet of red curbs on both sides of the driveways on Lane Avenue and Victor Way to prevent on-street parking that could obstruct the views of oncoming vehicles. In addition, the project would paint red curbs along the entire project frontage on Lane Avenue and on Victor Way between the project driveways and Castro Street.

The project would include several off -site improvements on Lane Avenue and Victor Way, including installation of four speed humps along Lane Avenue between El Camino Real and the Graham Middle School parking lot, construction of a median island on Victor W ay on the western side of the intersection with Lane Avenue, painting red curbs on a portion of the east side of Lane Avenue south of El Camino Real to remove two street parking spaces north of the adjacent alleyway, and installing two new speed limit signs on Lane Avenue. See Figure 2.3-3 below for the approximate location of these off-site improvements. In addition, the project would provide five years of funding to be used by the City for provision of a dedicated school crossing guard that would be stationed at the intersection of Lane Ave and the alleyway south of El Camino Real during drop- off and pickup times for nearby schools.

Victor Way
Sonia Way
Stamm Court
Lane Avenue Boranda Avenue
Bonita Avenue
Castro Street
El Camino Real
Victor Way
Sonia Way
Stamm Court
Lane Avenue Boranda Avenue
Bonita Avenue
Castro Street
El Camino Real
82 SPEED
LIMIT
25 SPEED
LIMIT
25 Alleyway
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Nov. 30, 2022. Photo Date: Mar. 2022 0 25 150 200 300 Feet
Project Boundary
Proposed Speed Hump
Median Island
20’ Long x 2’ Wide
ProjectTrue
SPEED
LIMIT
25 25 MPH Speed Limit Sign
APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 2.3-3 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
21DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
u u
c::::r:::::I:J
I □
-

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 22 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

2.3.4 Landscaping, Heritage Trees, and Stormwater Treatment The project site currently contains 89 trees (including 1 8 street trees), 28 of which are protected Heritage trees under Section 32.25 of the City’s Municipal Code. 3 The project would remove a total of 80 trees, including 27 Heritage trees and 53 non-Heritage trees. The nine trees that would remain are located on the southern portion of the project site adjacent to the residential development. The project would plant approximately 1 23 replacement trees in areas surrounding the buildings and within the courtyards on -site. In addition to the replacement trees, the project would plant other new landscaping, including new shrubs and groundcover, around the perimeter of the site, within the public plaza, in the second- floor courtyards, and on the roof of the mixed- use build ing. The landscaping would incorporate low to moderate water use plants and California native species throughout the project site.

The proposed improvements would result in an increase in impervious area of approximately 26,003 square feet (or 19 percent) compared to existing conditions due to the addition of the mixed -use building and associated hardscaping.

2.3.5 Demolition, Grading, and Construction
Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving. As discussed previously in Section 2.3.1 Project Phases, the project would be completed in three phases. Phase 1 of construction includes the demolition of the existing landscaped areas on the northwest corner of the project site and the construction of the new bank building. The construction materials required for this phase would be staged on-site. It is estimated that this phase would take a total of approximately seven months and require excavation at a maximum depth of two feet below ground surface (bgs). Excavation and removal of approximately 10 cubic yards of soil would be necessary to accommodate the proposed building foundations, footings, and utilities.

Phase 2 would include demolition of the existing bank building, the vacant restaurant building, surface parking areas, and landscaping, and construction of the interim, 20-stall surface parking area.

It is estimated that Phase 2 would be completed in one month. No excavation or off -haul of soil is required for Phase 2.

Phase 3 of the project, which would include the construction of the mixed- use building on the remainder of the property, would take a total of approximately 22 months to complete and require excavation at a maximum depth of 24 feet. The construction materials required for this phase would

3 A “Heritage Tree” is any tree that has a trunk with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured at 54 inches above natural grade. Multi- trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork. Three species, quercus (oak), sequoia (redwood) or ce drus (cedar) are considered “Heritage” if they have a circumference of 12 inches measured at 54 inches above natural grade.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 23 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
be staged on -site. Excavation and removal of approximately 90,000 cubic yards of soil would be necessary to accommodate the proposed building foundations, footings and utilities.

2.3.5.1 Preservation of Existing Artwork On-Site
The current bank building includes four artwork pieces attributed to the studio of Millard Sheets: (1) a large mosaic mural located on the exterior of the northern façade, (2) a canvas mural located inside the bank lobby, ( 3) a stained-glass window above the bank’s southern entrance facing the parking lot, and (4) a bronze seagull sculpture set in a brick planter located in front of the bank building in the public plaza adjacent to the Castro Street/El Camino Real intersection.

The project would preserve these four artwork pieces prior to demolition of the bank building and plaza, and would incorporate all four of the pieces into the project design. 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. This entrance would face the public plaza and be visible from the entry to the main parking garage. The bronze seagull sculpture would be reinstalled in the proposed public plaza and integrated into the landscaping. The interior canvas mural would be reinstalled in the fitness center on the ground floor of the mixed-use building, where it would be visible to residents of the building. 4 The relocation of
the interior canvas mural would include installation of a museum -style glass railing in front of the mural to protect it from accidental damage.

2.3.6 Green Building and Emissions Reduction Features
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. The two buildings would be 100 percent electric and no natural gas appliances or fixtures would be used.

2.3.7 General Plan Designation and Zoning District
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) land use designation for the project site is Mixed-Use Corridor, which allows for a mix of multi-family residential, office, commercial, and lodging uses in addition to public spaces that would serve surro unding neighborhoods and visitors.

Development in this land use designation is allowed a maximum FAR of 1.85 (or approximately 60 du/ac), of which up to 0.50 FAR can be for office or commercial uses. Development adjacent to El Camino Real is allowed an FAR of up to 3.0 depending on the location, public benefits, and/or amenities proposed by the project. Development with an FAR above 1.85 can include office or commercial development densities greater than 0.50. Development under this General Plan

4 The interior canvas mural has an approximate height of 17 feet, five inches and an approximate width of 22 feet, eight inches. Due to the height of the mural, there are limited interior locations in the project that would be able to accommodate the canvas mural. An exterior location would not be suitable for the canvas mural due to the sensitivity of the material.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 24 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
designation can have a maximum height of up to four stories (or six stories for projects with an FAR above 1.85).

The project site is zoned (P38) El Camino Real Precise Plan. The project site is within the Village Centers area of the Precise Plan, which allows a variety of land uses including residential, commercial, office, and lodging. The Village Centers designation requires all ground floor building areas to be commercial except for lobbies, parking areas, and service areas. With the provision of public open space, developments within the Village Centers area are allowed a maximum FAR of 2.3 and a maximum building height of six stories (or 75 feet). The Precise Plan includes other development standards applicable to development in the Village Centers areas such as setbacks, height bonuses, parking, and landscaping.

2.4 Project Objectives
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the EIR must include a statement of the objectives of the project. The following objectives for the project were developed by the project applicant:

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.

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. 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.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 25 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
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 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 p roject and surrounding neighborhood, including facilitating a detached bus island and added bikeway along El Camino Real consistent with VTA and regional objectives.

2.5 Uses of the EIR
This EIR provides decision makers in the City of Mountain View and the general public with environmental information to use in considering the project. It is intended that this EIR be used for the discretionary approvals necessary to implement the project, as proposed. These discretionary actions may include, but are not limited to, the list below. This list also includes ministerial permits and approvals.

• Building Permits
• California State Density Bonus Law
• Development Review Permit
• Heritage Tree Removal Permit
• Planned Community Permit

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 26 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Section 3.0 New Significant Environmental
Effects
The project would be mostly consistent with the development that was envisioned in the Precise Plan and analyzed in the 201 4 EIR and the amount of housing proposed would be consistent with the development envisioned in the recent Housing Element update and analyzed in the Housing Element EIR. Per Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, where an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines that substantial changes are proposed in the project which will involve new or more severe impacts; new circumstances involve new or more severe impacts; or new information of substantial importance is available, requiring new analysis or verification.

This section includes a discussion of the additional significant effect of the project on a historic resource, which was not previously disclosed in the 201 4 EIR or Housing Element EIR. The cultural resources discussion includes the following subsections:

• Environmental Setting – This subsection ( 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project , and (2) describes the existing, physical environmental conditions at the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant.

• Impact Discussion – This subsection includes the recommended checklist questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to assess impacts.

o Project Impacts – This subsection summarizes the impact conclusions from the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR (as applicable) and discusses the project’s impact on the environmental subject as related to the checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified. “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Each impact is numbered to correspond to the checklist question being answered. For example, item a) answers the first checklist question in the Cultural Resources section. Mitigation measures are also numbered to correspond to the impact they address. For example, MM CUL-1.1 refers to the first mitigation measure for the first impact in the Cultural Resources section. As explained in Section 1.1.1 Tiering of the Environmental Review, this EIR tiers from the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. If the impact analysis determines the project would result in the same impacts as those disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR, it will be concluded that the project would have the “Same Impact as Approved Project.” In addition, if the impact discussion concluded that the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EI R, the discussion will also conclude “Same Impact as Approved Project.” Conversely, if new impacts are identified that were not previously disclosed

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 27 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR, it would be determined that the project would result in a “New Potentially Significant Impact”, “New Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated”, or “New Less than Significant Impact.” o Cumulative Impacts – This subsection discusses the project’s cumulative impacts. “Cumulative impacts,” as defined by CEQA, refer to two or more individual effects, which when combined, compound or increase other environmental impacts.

Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor, but collectively significant, effects taking place over a period of time. CEQA Guideline s Section 15130 states an EIR should discuss cumulative impacts “when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” The discussion does not need to be in as great detail as is necessary for project impacts, but is to be “guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.” The purpose of the cumulative analysis is to allow decision makers to better understand th e impacts that might result from approval of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, in conjunction with the project addressed in this EIR.

The CEQA Guidelines advise that a discussion of cumulative impacts should reflect both their severity and the likelihood of their occurrence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[b]). To accomplish these two objectives, the analysis should include either a list of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projections from an adopted general plan or similar document (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[b][1]).

This EIR uses both approaches. For example, for cumulative air quality impacts, a list of historic projects was used to assess the potential for new cumulative impacts and the project’s contribution to existing cumulative air quality impacts. For cumulative transportation impacts, analysis from the adopted Precise Plan is used. In addition, the cumulative analysis tiers from the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR where applicable.

The analysis must determine whether the project’s contribution to any cumulatively significant impact is cumulatively considerable, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3). The cumulative impacts discussion for each environmental issue accordingly addresses the following issues: ( 1) would the effects of all past, present, and probable future (pending) development result in a significant cumulative impact on the resource in question , and if that cumulative impact is likely to be significant, and (2) would the contribution from the project to that significant cumulative impact be cumulatively considerable. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130(d) and (e), this EIR incorporates by reference the cumulative analysis in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 28 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

3.1 Cultural Resources
The discussion in this section is based in part on a Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by Ascent Environmental, Inc. in December 2021 and a Peer Review Memorandum of the Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull in March 2023. Copies of these reports are attached as Appendix B.

3.1.1 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.

3.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
National Historic Preservation Act
Federal protection is legislated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. These laws maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Section 106 of the NHPA and related regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) constitute the primary federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Impacts to properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

California Register of Historical Resources
The guidelines for identifying historic resources during the project review process under CEQA are set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). These provisions of CEQA create three categories of historical resources: mandatory historical resources; presumptive historical resources; and resources that may be found historical at the discretion of the lead agency. These categories are described below.

• Mandatory Historical Resources. A resource the State Historical Resources Commission lists on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the State Historical Resources Commission determines to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, is defined by CEQA to be a historical resource. Resources are formally listed or determined eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in the provisions of state law relating to listing of historical resources.
5 If a resource has been listed in the CRHR, or formally

5 Set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 4850, et. seq.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 29 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission under these procedures, it is conclusively presumed to be a historical resource under CEQA.
• Presumptive Historical Resources. A resource included in a local register of historic resources as defined by state law 6 or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of state law, 7 shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. The lead agency must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
• Discretionary Historical Resources . A resource that is not determined to be a significant historical resource under the criteria described above, may, in the discretion of the lead agency, be found to be a significant historical resource for purposes of CEQA, provided its determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The CEQA Guidelines further provide that generally, a lead agency should consider a resource historically significant if the resource is found to meet the criteria for listing on the CRHR, including the following:
o C
riterion 1 (Events): The resource is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history and cultural heritage of California or the United States; or o Criterion 2 (Persons): The resource is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or o Criterion 3 (Architecture ) : The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or o Criterion 4 (Information Potential): The resource has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.8

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

6 Set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), a local register of historical resources is a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution.
7 Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g), a resource can be identified as significant in a historical resource survey and found to be significant by the State Office of Historic Preservation (i.e., listed in the CRHR) if three criteria are met: (1) th e survey has or will be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory; (2) the survey and documentation were prepared in accordance with State Office of Historic Preservation procedures and requirements; and (3) the State Office of Historic Preservation has determined the resource has a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on Form 523.
8 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%202011%20update.pdf.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 30 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance.” The process of determining integrity is similar for both the California and National Registers, and the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. These seven characteristics include: ( 1) location, ( 2) design, (3) setting, (4) materials, (5) workmanship, (6) feeling, and (7) association.

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

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

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

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 31 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts to cultural resources. The following policies are applicable to the project.

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 11.1 Historical preservation. Support the preservation and restoration of structures and cultural resources listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the California Register of Historic Places or National Register of Historic Places.

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

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

City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance
The City’s Zoning Ordinance is in Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code and consists of land use regulations, based on policies of the General Plan, that have been enacted in order to promote the public health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare throughout the City of Mountain View.

Section 36.54.45 et seq . of the City’s Zoning Ordinance , Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources, includes a process for recognizing, preserving, and protecting historical resources. Section

36.54.55 of the Municipal Code establishes the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (Mountain View Register) as the City’s official list of historically significant buildings, structures, objects, and sites that are considered during the development review process. The Mountain View Register has similar criteria for listing as the State of California Register and consists of historic resources that meet one or more of the following criteria (refer to Municipal Code Section 36.54.65):

1. Is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization which, significantly contributed to the culture, history or development of the City of Mountain View;

2. Is the site of a significant historic event in the City’s past;

3. Embodies distinctive characteristics significant to the City in terms of a type, period, region, or method of construction or representative of the work of a master or possession of high artistic value; and/or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the City’s prehistory or history.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 32 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

3.1.1.2 Existing Conditions
Historic Resources
The 2014 EIR determined that the Precise Plan area includes numerous buildings, some of which may have historical value and may not be formally registered in the Mountain View Register, CRHR , or National Register. The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan has the potential to directly or indirectly impact historical buildings and structures that qualify as historical resources under CEQA, and that historic resource impacts must be determined on a project specific basis.9

The project site currently contains an operational bank building that was constructed in 1977 and a vacant restaurant building that was constructed in 1954. To be considered a historic resource, a site must meet certain sets of criteria including relevance to local and regional history, its association with historic figures, and the distinctiveness of its architecture. Both structures were evaluated in the Historic Resource Evaluation and the Peer Review Memorandum of the Historic Resource Evaluation (Appendix B). The vacant restaurant building was found to not be eligible for listing in the National Register, CRHR, or Mountain View Register and would , therefore, not be considered a historical resource under CEQA.

The bank building on-site is less than 50 years old, and, therefore, would have to be found to possess “exceptional” significance to meet the National Register Criterion Consideration G for properties less than 50 years of age. However, the bank building does meet the CRHR Special Consideration for properties less than 50 years of age, and can be evaluated for individual listing in the CRHR without needing to meet the NRHP threshold of “exceptional” significance.

The bank building was designed by the Millard Sheets Studio, which was an atelier-style design studio headed by Millard Sheets, a master designer, and is the product of a decades-long collaboration with the Home Savings & Loan Association. The bank building on-site was found to exemplify the evolution of the Home Savings & Loan Association style, including new uses of form and material that reflect both experimentation and adaptation to local design review demands and history. In addition, the building can be considered a total work of art designed in concert by the Millard Sheets Studio that includes the building itself, the landscaped plaza, and the integrated art program (including the bronze seagull sculpture in front of the building, exterior mosaic, interior mural, and stained -glass window on the rear façade). The bank building also retains all seven aspects of integrity outlined in the NHPA, as the location and setting of the building at the intersection of El Camino Real and Castro Street has remained unchanged, the property has undergone only minor exterior alterations, and all building character-defining features and art components are intact.

Based on these findings, 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)

9 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Initial Study. August 2014. SCH #: 2014032002. Pages 30-31.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 33 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
is individually eligible for listing in the CRHR 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. For additional discussion regarding the property’s eligibility, refer to the Peer Review Memorandum of the Historic Resource Evaluation (Appendix B).

Prehistoric Resources
Although only one historic archaeological deposit has been identified within the City’s sphere of influence, additional deposits likely exist. 10 Areas that are near natural water sources (e.g., riparian corridors and tidal marshland) are considered highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological deposits and human remains. The project site is located approximately 3.4 miles south of the San Francisco Bay, and the nearest waterway is Permanente Creek, which is located approximately 0.3-mile east of the project site.

3.1.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on cultural resources, would the project:

1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
3) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

3.1.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

The 2014 EIR determined that while there are no historic resources in the Precise Plan area listed in the NRHP, CRHR, 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 tha t historic resource impacts generally must be determined on a project specific basis.
11 10 City of Mountain View. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2011012069. September 2012. Page 469. 11 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Initial Study. August 2014. SCH #: 2014032002. Pages 29 to 31.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 34 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
As discussed in Section 3.1.1.2 Existing Conditions, the existing bank building is a distinctive local example of the New Formalist style which possesses high artistic value, exhibits the characteristics of the second phase of the Home Savings & Loan Association style, and is the work of a master designer.

Based on these factors, the primary structure on-site (i.e., the bank building and associated artwork) is individually eligible for listing in the CRHR 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.

Therefore, the bank building would be considered a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b), a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Substantial adverse change is defined as: “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a n historical resource would be materially impaired.” 12 The significance of a
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 and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.”
13 Based on the above, a project could cause a substantial change in a historic resource but would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as defined by CEQA as long as the impact of the change on the historic resource is determined to be less than significant, negligible, neutral, or even beneficial.

As described in Section 2.3 Project Description, the project would demolish the existing bank building and associated plaza on-site to allow for the construction of the new mixed -use building and public plaza. Prior to demolition, the project would salvage the individual artwork 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 demolition of the bank building would result in the property losing its historic integrity as the building, artwork, and plaza all contribute to the historical significance of the property. Because the primary structure on-site would no longer be eligible for listing in the CRHR as a result of the project demolition, the impact on the historical resource according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be considered significant.

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 Potentially Significant Impact)

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. As

12 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(1).
13 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2)(A).

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 35 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
discussed in Section 2.3.5.1, 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 significant and unavoidable impact to the historical resource on-site.

To further reduce this impact, the project would implement the project-specific mitigation measures below to document and provide interpretation and/or commemoration of the resources to be demolished.

New Project Mitigation Measure:

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 architect ure (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 f ormats 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.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 36 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
• 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 Consolid ated 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.

• 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.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 37 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
• 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.

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) o f 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 p roject, and inspected by Planning Division staff or a qualified historic consultant to confirm its adherence to mitigation measure requirements.

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.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 38 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
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.

These two mitigation measures would document and provide interpretation and/or commemoration of the resources to be demolished which would lessen impacts to the historic bank. However, the impacts to the historic bank on-site after mitigation would remain significant and unavoidable. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact])

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

The 2014 EIR determined that, although implementation of the Precise Plan has the potential to significantly impact unique archaeological deposits, this potential impact would generally be reduced to a less than significant level with adherence to General Plan Policy LUD 11.5 and City standard conditions of approval (see below) that protect archaeological resources by halting work if resources or human remains are discovered, notifying and consulting appropriate parties, and implementing measures to avoid significantly impacting the resource or human remains. 14 City S tandard Condition of Approval:

COA CUL-2.1: Discovery of Archaeological Resources: If prehistoric or historic- period cultural materials are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities, it is recommended that all work within 100’ of the find be halted until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert -flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool- making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered -stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.

Discovery of Human Remains: In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction or demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50’ radius of the location of such discovery, or any

14 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Initial Study. August 2014. SCH #: 2014032002. Pages 31 to 33.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 39 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to their authority, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation programs and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing resources analysis methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director.

Although it is unlikely that buried historic or prehistoric buried archaeological resources are present on-site or at the off -site locations of the right -of-way improvements given the distance from waterways and the presence of existing development, these resources could be encountered during construction of the project. In compliance with General Plan Policies LU-11.5 and LU-11.6, the project would implement the above standard conditions of approval from the 2014 EIR related to the discovery of archaeological resources and human remains, should they be encountered on the site, and result in the same less than significant impact disclosed in the 2014 EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

The 2014 EIR determined that although implementation of the Precise Plan has the potential to significantly impact human remains interred outside formal cemeteries, this potential impact would generally be reduced to a less than significant level with adherence to General Plan Policy LUD 11. 6 and City standard conditions of approval that protect archaeological resources and any associated human remains.
15 See discussion under checklist question b), t he project would implement the standard condition of approval (COA) CUL-2.1 and result in the same impact to human remains as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

15 Ibid. Page 33.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 40 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

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

Historic Resources
To evaluate the project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact on historic resources, the City has determined that the appropriate geographic boundaries to evaluate would include the area within the El Camino Real Precise Plan and the area within the Downtown Precise Plan (which is centered around the Castro Street commercial corridor). These boundaries were chosen because the project site is located at the intersection of these two Precise Plan areas and the bank building on - site is visible from both Castro Street and El Camino Real. To evaluate whether the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact on historic resources, this analysis will evaluate whether any other cumulative projects underway in the two Precise Plan areas could result in potentially significant impacts to historic resources and whether those potential impacts would contribute to a similar impact as the project by adversely affecting other Home Savings & Loan Association banks, Millard Sheets designs, examples of New Formalist architecture, or late 20 th century bank buildings. Current projects in these Precise Plan areas are listed below in Table

3.1-1.16

Table 3.1-1: Current Projects in the Downtown and El Camino Precise Plan Areas Under Review Approved Under Construction
• 194-198 Castro Street • 701 West Evelyn Avenue • 231 - 235 Hope Street • 881 Castro Street • 705 W Dana Street • 855 - 1023 West El Camino Real • 969 Hope Street and 679
Fairmont Avenue
• 747 West Dana Street
• 756 California Street • 2300 West El Camino Real
• 1313 and 1347 West El
Camino Real

• 601 Escuela Avenue and 1873
Latham Street

• City Lot 12
• 590 Castro Street
• 870 East El Camino Real
• 96 West El Camino Real

16 City of Mountain View. “Development Update – April 2024.” Accessed April 18, 2024. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8985/638482559627130000.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 41 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Of the projects listed in Table 3.1-1, only two have the potential to impact historic resources: (1) the project at 194-198 Castro Street, which is currently under review , and (2) the project at 96 West El Camino Real, which was approved in June 2023.

The existing building at 194-198 Castro Street is not listed on the Mountain View Register; however, it is eligible for listing at the NRHP and CRHR. 17 The project at 194- 198 Castro Street, if approved, would construct a three-story, 5,694 square foot addition with rooftop amenity space to an existing two-story, 7,608 square foot historic building with existing office space and ground-floor restaurant.

This project would obtain a Historic Preservation Permit, which requires that the proposed alterations enhance the appearance of the community and do not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource.

The approved project at 96 West El Camino Real will demolish an existing mortuary building and associated parking lot and construct a six-story, 79-unit affordable apartment building with one-story below-grade parking. The existing building at 96 West El Camino Real is not listed on the Mountain View Register, NRHP, or CRHR. The building is an example of Neo- Colonial Revival architecture that represents an increasingly rare property type as there are limited examples of long -running, local mortuary businesses in the City . The property at 96 West El Camino Real is currently undergoing evaluation for its potential eligibility as a historic resource ; however, the determination will not impact the approved development project.

Neither of the existing buildings at 194-198 Castro Street and 96 West El Camino Real are former Home Savings & Loan Association banks, Millard Sheets designs, examples of New Formalist architecture, or late 20
th century bank buildings. Also, a survey report prepared for the City in 2020 determined that the Downtown Precise Plan area has a variety of architectural styles that are most commonly found throughout the Precise Plan area, but these common styles do not include the New Formalist style.18 A separate reconnaissance survey was completed along the El Camino Real corridor in March 2024 to determine whether there were other properties in the El Camino Real Precise Plan area that may require additional evaluation to determine whether they are eligible for consideration as historic resources. This survey identified several structures along the corridor that could potentially qualify as historic resources (including 96 West El Camino Real) ; however, none of those structures are New Formalist style buildings, bank buildings, or buildings that were constructed in the 1970’s. 19 There are no other Home Savings & Loan Association banks or Millard Sheets designs within the Downtown Precise Plan or El Camino Real Precise Plan areas.

17 City of Mountain View. Historic Resources List. January 9, 2024. 18 TreanorHL. City of Mountain View Downtown Precise Plan Area Historic Resource Survey Report. June 2020. 19 Page & Turnbull. Potential Historic Resources in El Camino Real Precise Plan Area Memorandum. March 14, 2024.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 42 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
None of the other current projects within the El Camino Real Precise Plan and Downtown Precise Plan areas would result in cumulative impacts to Home Savings & Loan Association banks, Millard Sheets designs, examples of New Formalist architecture, or late 20th century bank buildings. Based o n this discussion, the demolition of the bank building under the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to historic resources. That is, the project’s impact is an isolated impact within the El Camino Real and Downtown Precise Plan areas. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

Archaeological Resources and Human Remains
The 2014 EIR did not identify a significant cumulative impact to archaeological resources and human remains that would result from implementation of the Precise Plan. 20 As discussed in the 2014 EIR, all future projects within the Precise Plan area would be required to implement conditions of approval or mitigation measures that would avoid impacts to prehistoric resources or reduce them to a less than significant level. As discussed under checklist questions b) and c), the City’s standard conditions of approval include measures to limit impacts to these resources should any previously undiscovered archaeological resources or human remains be discovered on-site. For this reason, the project would result in the same cumulative impact to archaeological resources and human remains as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

20 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Initial Study. August 2014. SCH #: 2014032002. Page 101.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 43 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Section 4.0 Previously Identified Effects
The City of Mountain View as the CEQA Lead Agency has determined that, based on the analysis in this section, the impacts of the project on the following environmental factors were adequately addressed in the 2014 EIR and/or Housing Element EIR. That is, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts for the environmental factors listed below than disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. The following discussion of the below environmental factors includes the same environmental setting and impact discussion subsections as provided in Section

3.0 for cultural resources.

4.1 Aesthetics

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

4.3 Air Quality

4.4 Biological Resources

4.5 Energy

4.6 Geology and Soils

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.10 Land Use and Planning

4.11 Mineral Resources

4.12 Noise

4.13 Population and Housing

4.14 P ublic Services

4.15 Recreation

4.16 Transportation

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.18 Utilities and Service Systems

4.19 Wildfire

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 44 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.1 Aesthetics

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

4.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 and requires lead agencies to use alternatives to level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts, specifically vehicle miles traveled (VMT). SB 743 also included changes to CEQA that apply to transit-oriented developments, as related to aesthetics and parking impacts. Under SB 743, a project ’s aesthetic impacts will no longer be considered significant impacts on the environment if:

• The project is a residential or mixed -use residential project, or employment center project and
• The project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area (TPA).21

SB 743 also clarifies that local governments retain their ability to regulate a project’s aesthetics impacts outside of the CEQA process.

Streets and Highway Code Sections 260 through 263
The California Scenic Highway Program (Streets and Highway Code, Sections 260 through 263) is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The program is intended to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment.

21 An “infill site” is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right- of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.” A “transit priority area” is defined as “an area within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program or applicable regional transportation plan.” A “major transit stop” means “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Source: 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=.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 45 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant aesthetic impacts. The following policies are applicable to the project.

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 6.1 Neighborhood character. Ensure that new development in or near residential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character.

LUD 6.3 Street presence. Encourage building facades and frontages that create a presence at the street and along interior pedestrian paseos or pathways.

LUD 9.1 Height and setback transitions. Ensure that new development includes sensitive height and setback transitions to adjacent structures and surrounding neighborhoods.

LUD 9.3 Enhanced public space. Ensure that development enhances public spaces:
• Encourage strong pedestrian- oriented design with visible, accessible entrances and pathways from the street.
• Encourage pedestrian-scaled design elements such as stoops, canopies and porches. • Encourages connections to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Locate buildings near the edge of the sidewalk.
• Encourage design compatibility with surrounding uses. • Locate parking lots to the rear or side of buildings. • Encourage articulation and use of special materials to provide visual interest. • Promote and regulate high-quality sign materials, colors and design that are compatible with site and building design.
• Encourage attractive water-efficient landscaping on the ground level.

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

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

LUD 20.4 Residential design transitions. Require sensitive design transitions between El Camino Real development and surrounding residential neighborhoods.

El Camino Real Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains standards and guidelines to avoid significant aesthetic impacts. Chapter 2:

Development Standards and Guidelines of the Precise Plan includes development standards and guidelines regarding physical character, form, building height, frontage requirements, and other topics that regulate the visual quality of projects along the El Camino Real Corridor.

City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance
The City Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code) sets forth specific design guidelines, building design and landscaping standards, architectural features, sign regulations, and open space and setback requirements.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 46 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
The Zoning Ordinance promotes careful planning of development projects to enhance the visual environment. The City’s development review process includes the review of preliminary plans, the consideration of public input at and by the Development Review Committee (DRC), Zoning Administrator, Environmental Planning Commission (EPC), and the City Council. The City’s Planning Division reviews private development applications for conformance with City plans, ordinances, and policies related to zoning, urban design, subdivision, and CEQA.

The Zoning Administrator makes recommendations to the City Council for development projects located in some Precise Plan areas and makes final decisions for development, variance, and use permits. The DRC reviews the architecture and site design of new development and provides project applicants with design comments/direction. The development review process ensures the architecture and urban design of new developments would protect the City’s visual environment.

4.1.1.2 Existing Conditions
Scenic Vistas
The term scenic vista typically refers to an expansive view of an area that is visually or aesthetically pleasing, usually as seen from an elevated point or open area. The scenic quality of the City is characterized by extensive views to the Santa Cruz Mou ntains to the south and west and views of other natural features such as the Diablo Mountain range to the southeast, Mission Peak to the east, and Stevens Creek in the eastern portion of the City.
22 Views of San Francisco Bay are generally
available only from Shoreline Park in the North Bayshore Area. Limited views of surrounding ridgelines are available along the City’s edges, streets, and other open areas; however, most of these views are impeded by built structures.
23 The project site is located in a highly developed area of the City. It is located on relatively flat land , which limits the amount of expansive views from the project site. Obstructed views of the Santa Cruz Mountains can be seen in the project vicinity, looking south on Castro Street.

There are no state-designated scenic highways in Mountain View. There is only one state-designated scenic highway in Santa Clara County: SR 9 from the Santa Cruz County line to the Los Gatos City limit.

The nearest officially designated scenic highway is the segment of I-280 beginning at the San Mateo County line, which is approximately 6.3 miles northwest of the project site. 24 Project Site
The project site is located in an urban area of the City and is currently developed with a vacant, single- story, 1,487 square foot restaurant building on the northeast corner of the property and an

22 City of Mountain View. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2011012069. September 2012. Page 477. 23 Ibid. Page 477.
24 California Department of Transportation. “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” Accessed April 24, 2023. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 47 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
operational, two -story, 18,302 square foot bank on the northwest corner of the property. Both buildings on-site are surrounded by landscaping and there is a large surface parking area between the two structures. The front half of the restaurant building is constructed of wood, while the rear wing is constructed of concrete. The building has a gabled roof over the primary façade and the side and rear wings have a flat roof. The primary façade is symmetrical and has a painted white brick chimney at the center with wood -framed windows on either side. Two sets of fixed, vinyl- trim windows are located adjacent to the wood-frame windows.

The bank building is rectangular in shape and has a flat roof, symmetrical façades constructed with brick cladding, and a series of evenly spaced archways around the ground -floor level on all sides of the building. The façade contains three horizontal lines that wrap around the entirety of the building between the roofline and the archways. The bank building is rotated 45 degrees from the intersection of El Camino Real and Castro Street and the primary entrance faces the corner of that intersection. A landscaped plaza sets the building back from the street. There is a large mosaic mural on the primary façade of the building that faces this intersection. For additional details regarding the existing buildings on-site, refer to Appendix B.

There is also an undeveloped parcel on -site south of the restaurant building that is fenced off from the remainder of the property. There are no structures on this parcel, just unmaintained landscaping.

The project site currently contains 89 trees (including 1 8 street trees), 28 of which are protected Heritage trees under Section 32.25 of the City’s Municipal Code. 25 Additional information regarding
the trees on-site can be found in Section 4.4 Biological Resources.

Surrounding development includes a four -story, mixed-use development to the west, single -story commercial buildings to the north and east, and one - to two-story residential buildings to the south of the project site. The northern boundary of the project site is adjacent to El Camino Real, which is a six-lane road with landscaped medians in the center.

Views of the project site and the surrounding area are shown in Photos 1-6 below.

Location within a Transit Priority Area
As shown on Figure 4.1-1, the approximately 3.05-acre project site is located in a transit priority area, as defined by SB 743, because it is within one-half mile of an existing, major transit stop that is served by a fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.26

25 A “Heritage Tree” is any tree that has a trunk with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured at 54 inches above natural grade. Multi- trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork. Three species, quercus (oak), sequoia (redwood) or ce drus (cedar) are considered “Heritage” if they have a circumference of 12 inches measured at 54 inches above natural grade.

Source: City of Mountain View. “Municipal Code: Section 32.23 – Definitions.” Accessed April 24, 2023 . https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH32TRSHPL 26 The bus stop on West El Camino Real between Castro Street and Lane Avenue on the north side of the project site qualifies as a major transit stop.

Photo 1: View from El Camino Real and Castro Street intersection looking southeast towards the existing bank building on-site.

Photo 2: View from the eastern portion of the site looking northwest towards the existing bank building.

PHOTO 1 & PHOTO 2
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
48 DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
Photo 3: View from the northern portion of the site looking east towards the vacant restaurant building.

Photo 4: View from the Castro Street and Victory Way intersection looking south.

PHOTO 3 & PHOTO 4
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
49 DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
Photo 5: View from the eastern boundary of the site looking north towards El Camino Real.

Photo 6: View from the northern project boundary looking west down El Camino Real.

PHOTO 5 & PHOTO 6
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
50 DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
6QRZ 6W
3HWWLV $Y
H
/DWKDP
6W
/DWKDP
6W
2DN 6W
2DN 6W
9LOO D 6W
0DULS
RVD $YH
(VFXHOD $YH
)UDQNOLQ 6W
0DULFK :D
\
%U\DQW 6W
: 'DQD 6
W
+ROOLQJVZRUWK 'U
: (Y
HO\Q $YH
3LOJ ULP $YH
6 6K
RUHO
LQH
%OYG
ఁ௻
(DJOH 3DUN
0DULDP &DVWUR
(OHPHQWDU\
6FKRRO
0LUDPRQWH
6FKRRO
0RXQWDLQ
9LHZ
+DOH &
UH
HN
&DVWUR 6W
%R
QLWD $YH
%RQLWD $YH
:DOQ
XW 'U
6 6SU
LQJHU 5
G
$OPRQG $YH
0LUDPRQWH $YH
0LUDPRQ
WH
$YH
1 6SULQJHU 5G
0H

DGRZ /Q
/OR\G :D\
)RUGKD
P
:D\
0R
XQ
WDL
Q
9LHZ $
YH
%DUED UD $YH
5RVH $Y H
6ODGN\ $YH
(UQHVWLQH /Q
7RGG 6W
+RSH 6W-D\ 6W
0DU LO\Q 'U 0DULO\ Q 'U
/DQH $
YH
$UERO HGD ' U
+DQV $YH
6SDU JXU 'U
*LUDOGD 'U
6SULQ JHU 7 HU
&DPHOO LD :D \
5D\PXQGR $YH
*LOPRUH 6W
9LVWD *UDQGH $YH
$UUR\R 5G
%URRNGDOH $YH
,VDE
HOOH
$Y
H
3DFR 'U
&XHVWD 'U
&XHVWD 'U
1 (
O 0RQWH $YH
ఁ௻
&XHVWD 3DUN
,VDDF 1HZWRQ
*UDKDP 0LGGOH
6FKRRO
0LUDPRQWH௸6SULQJHU
5RDG
0DGLVRQ 'U
6WHYHQ
V &U
HHN
&\SU
HVV 3RLQW 'U
9LHZ 6W
&D
OG
HURQ $Y
H
9LOOD 6
W
&HQWUDO $YH
&DVWUR 6W
0HUF\ 6W
3LRQHHU :D\
6WLHUOLQ 5G
: (YH
O\Q $YH
%XV
K
6W
/RUHWR 6W
$Q]D 6W
: 9D
OOH\ )
Z
\
ఁ௾
(GLWK /DQGHOV
(OHPHQWDU\
6FKRRO
0RXQWDLQ 9LHZ
6WDWLRQ
(YHO\Q 6WDWLRQ
6OHHSHU $YH
6XQ
0 RU
$YH
3K
\O
OLV
$Y
H
&KXUFK 6W
(KU
KRU
Q $YH
%XVK 6W
$OL
FH $
YH
2DN /Q <XED 'U
&HQWUH 6W
(OGRUD 'U
*UHWHO /Q
3DXO $YH
0F&D
UW
\ $YH
1LOGD $YH
& DURO $YH
: (O &DPLQR 5HDO
: 9D
OOH\
)Z
\
ఁ௻ ఁ௾
/DQGHOV 6FKRRO
3DUN
$P\ ,PDL
(OHPHQWDU\
6FKRRO *UDQW 5RDG ௸
6\OYDQ 3DUN
(XQLFH $YH
8QWLWOHGPDS
(VUL &RPPXQLW\ 0DSV &RQWULEXWRUV &RXQW\ RI 6DQWD &ODUD &DOLIRUQLD 6WDWH 3DUNV (VUL 7 RP7 RP *DUPLQ 6DIH*UDSK *HR7 HFKQRORJLHV ,QF 0(7, 1$6$86*6%XUHDXRI/DQG0DQDJHPHQW(3$13686&HQVXV%XUHDX 86'$86):6(VUL1$6$1*$86*6)(0$
PL
NP

Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 150 600 900 1,500 Feet
Project Site
Transit Priority Area
LOCATION WITHIN A TPA FIGURE 4.1-1
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
51 DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
I
I
\
®
®

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 52 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.1.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on aesthetics, except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? 27 If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

4.1.2.1 Project Impacts
a) The project would not result in significant aesthetic impacts.

The 2014 EIR found that the build-out of the Precise Plan (which includes the project) would not result in a significant impact to aesthetic resources because future development projects would be required to comply with General Plan Policy LUD 9.6, Precise Plan design standards and guidelines, and City standard conditions of approval.
28 Although the aesthetic impacts would be considered less than significant, the project would be subject to the City’s development review process which would ensure the proposed building design and construction materials would not adversely affect the Precise Plan area’s visual quality or create new sources of light and glare pursuant to General Plan Policy LUD 9.6. In addition, the project design would be reviewed to ensure consistency with the development standards and design guidelines established in the Precise Plan regarding ground floor commercial space, landscaping, public open space, and building articulation. Furthermore, the project’s lighting would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code (CBC), which minimizes light pollution by reducing the amount of backlight, uplight, and glare produced by luminaries. This impact is the same as the impact disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

27 Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points. 28 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Initial Study. August 2014. SCH #: 2014032002. Pages 11 to 13.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 53 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Furthermore, s ince the preparation of the 2014 EIR, SB 743 was adopted. Pursuant to SB 743, “aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed -use residential, or employment center on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” As explained in Section 4.1.1.2 above, the project site is located in a transit priority area. Thus, the aesthetics impacts of the project (which is a mixed-use residential project within a transit priority area) would be less than significant pursuant to SB 743.

4.1.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative aesthetics impact?

The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in a significant cumulative aesthetic impact because cumulative projects in the Precise Plan would also comply with Precise Plan design standards and guidelines and be subject to the City’s development review process. The project would comply with Precise Plan design standards and guidelines (with the exception of the concessions and waivers identified in Section 2.3 permitted by law) and be subject to the City’s development review process. Also, pursuant to SB 743, the project would not result in a significant (cumulative) aesthetic impact . (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 54 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

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

4.2.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) assesses the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural land and conversion of these lands over time. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The best quality land is identified as Prime Farmland. In CEQA analyses, the FMMP classifications and published county maps are used, in part, to identify whether agricultural resources that could be affected are present on-site or in the project area.
29 California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses. In return, landowners receive lower property tax assessments. In CEQA analyses, identification of properties that are under a Williamson Act contract is used to also identify sites that may contain agricultural resources or are zoned for agricultural uses. 30 Fire and Resource Assessment Program
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) identifies forest land, timberland, and lands zoned for timberland production that can (or do) support forestry resources. 31 Programs such as CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program and are used to identify whether

29 California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed April 24, 2023. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx. 30 California Department of Conservation. “Williamson Act.” Accessed April 24, 2023. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.
31 Forest Land is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover and allows for management of forest resources (California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); Timberland is land not owned by the federal government or designated as experimental forest land that is available for, and capable of, growing trees to produce lumber and other products, including Christmas trees (California Public Resources Code Section 4526); and Timberland Production is land used for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (Government Code Section 51104(g)).

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 55 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas that could be affected are located on or adjacent to a project site.32

4.2.1.2 Existing Conditions
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed-Use Corridor and is zoned (P38) El Camino Real Precise Plan. The project site is currently developed with one vacant restaurant building and one operational bank building. The site is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. The Santa Clara County Important Farmlands 20 20 Map designates the project site as “Urban and Built - Up Land”, which is defined as land with at least six structures per 10 acres. Common examples of “Urban and Built-Up Land” are residential, institutional, industrial, commercial, landfill, golf course, airports, and other utility uses.
33 No lands adjacent to the project site are used for agricultural production, forest land, or timberland. Surrounding properties are designated, zoned, and used for urban uses. There are no Williamson Act parcels on or in the vicinity of the project site. 34 4.2.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on agriculture and forestry resources, would the project:

1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as de fined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code S ection 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
4) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

32 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed April 24, 2023. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.
33 California Natural Resources Agency. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2020. Map. 2022. 34 County of Santa Clara. “Williamson Act and Open Space Easement.” September 17, 2018. Accessed April 24, 2023. https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/programs/wa/pages/wa.aspx.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 56 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.2.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

The 2014 EIR found that the build-out of the Precise Plan (which includes the development proposed) would not result in a significant impact to agricultural resources because the Precise Plan area and all surrounding properties are not zoned or used for agriculture or forestry purposes.35

The project would redevelop a site that is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” on maps prepared by the California Resources Agency for Santa Clara County. Therefore, no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be conve rted to non -agricultural use as a result of project implementation and the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

As discussed previously, the project site has a General Plan land use designation of Mixed Used Corridor and is zoned (P38) El Camino Real Precise Plan. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract and would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production?

As discussed previously , the project site is not zoned, or adjacent to land zoned, for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. It is in an urban area surrounded by urban development.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning or require rezoning of forest land or timberland uses and would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

35 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Initial Study. August 2014. SCH #: 2014032002. Page 14.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 57 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
d) Would the project result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?

The project site is in an urbanized area of the City and not used for forest land . Therefore, no forest land would be lost as a result of the project and the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

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

The project would occur in an urbanized area of the City. No agricultural or forestry uses are on -site or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to agricultural lands or forest lands, nor would it result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

4.2.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant agricultural and forestry resources impact?

The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in a significant cumulative agricultural and forestry resources impact. I mplementation of the project would not impact agricultural, forestry, and/or timberland; therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact to those resources (see discussions under checklist questions a) thought e) above) and would result in the same cumulative impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Cumulative Impact])

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 58 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.3 Air Quality
The discussion in this section is based in part on an Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated August 16, 2023. This report is attached to this EIR as Appendix C.

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR except for the adoption of the 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP) and the updated 2022 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The regulatory setting when the Housing Element EIR was certified was the same as it is today. A summary of key regulatory framework and existing conditions is provided below.

4.3.1.1 Background Information
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are pollutants that have established federal or state standards for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. Pursuant with the federal and state Clean Air Act, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established and enforce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), respectively. The NAAQS and CAAQS address the following criteria air pollutants: ozone (O
3), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micros or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. The CAAQS also includes visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic air contaminants (TACs) include airborne chemicals that are known to have short - and long- term adverse health effects. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, diesel fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway). Unlike criteria air pollutants, which have a regional impact, TACs are highly localized and regulated at the individual emissions source level.

DPM is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three -quarters of the cancer risk from TACs. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles.

Medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways.

The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled into the lungs. Most inhaled particles are subsequently exhaled, but some deposit on the lung surface or are deposited in the deepest regions

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 59 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
of the lungs (most susceptible to injury). 36 Chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, are also TACs identified by the CARB.

An overview of the sources of criteria pollutants and TACs, as well as their associated health effects, is provided in Table 4.3-1.

Table 4.3-1: Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants Pollutants Description and Sources Primary Effects
Ozone (O3) O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant that is the result of a photochemical (sunlight) reaction between reactive
organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NO x). Pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, power plants, industrial boilers, refineries, and chemical plants are the common source for this reaction. High O
3 levels are caused by the cumulative
emissions of ROG and NO X. These precursor pollutants
react under certain meteorological conditions to form high O
3 levels. Commons sources of ROG and NO x are vehicles, industrial plants, and consumer products
• Aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases
• Irritation of eyes
• Cardiopulmonary function
impairment
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO
2)
NO2 is a reactive gas that combines with nitric oxide (NO) to form NO x. NO2 the byproduct of fuel combustion with common sources of NO2 being emissions from cars, trucks, buses, power plants, and off -road equipment. Sources of NO2 include motor vehicle exhaust, high temperature
stationary combustion, atmospheric reactions
• Aggravation of respiratory
illness
• Reduced visibility
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
CO is a colorless, odorless, and toxic gas that is the product of incomplete combustion of carbon-containing substances (e.g., when something is burned). Common outdoor
sources of CO include mobile vehicles (passenger cars and trucks) and machinery that burn fossil fuels.
• Interferes with oxygen
delivery to the body’s organ
due to binding with the
hemoglobin in the blood
• Fatigue, headaches,
confusion, and dizziness
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM

2.5)
and Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM
10)
Particulate Matter is any material that is emitted as liquid or solid particles or a gaseous material, such as dust, soot, aerosols, and fumes. PM
10 and PM2.5 are both small enough
particulates to be inhaled into the human lungs, and PM 2.5 is small enough to deposit into the lungs, which poses an increased health risk compared to PM10. Typical sources of particular matter include stationary combustion of solid fuels, construction activities, vehicles, industrial processes, and atmospheric chemical reactions.
• Reduced lung function,
especially in children
• Aggravation of respiratory
and cardiorespiratory
diseases
• Increased cough and chest
discomfort
• Reduced visibility
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
SO2 is a pungent and colorless gaseous pollutant the is part of the sulfur oxides (SO x) group and is the pollutant of greatest concern in the SOx group. SOx can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles.
• Aggravation of respiratory
illness

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

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 60 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Pollutants Description and Sources Primary Effects
These particles contribute to particulate matter pollution.

SO2 is primarily formed from fossil fuel combustion at
power plants and other industrial facilities. Sources of SO 2 include motor vehicles, locomotives, ships, and off-road diesel equipment that are operated with fuels that contain high levels of sulfur. Industrial processes, such as natural gas and petroleum extraction, oil refining, and metal
processing.
• Respiratory irritation such as
wheezing, shortness of
breath and chest tightness
• Increased incidence of
pulmonary symptoms and
disease, decreased
pulmonary function
Lead Lead is a naturally occurring element that can be found in all parts of the environment including the air, soil, and water. As an air pollutant, lead is present in small particles.

The most common historic source of lead exposure was the past use of leaded gasoline in motor vehicles. The exhaust resulting from use of leaded gasoline would release lead emissions into the air. Now, major sources of lead in the air are from ore and metals processing plants and piston -
engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation fuel. Other sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead -acid battery manufacturers. The highest air concentrations of lead are usually found near lead smelters.
• Adversely affect the nervous
system, kidney function,
immune system,
reproductive and
developmental systems and
the cardiovascular system
Toxic Air
Contaminants
(TACs)
TACs include certain air pollutants known to increase the risk of cancer and/or other serious health effects that range from eye irritation, respiratory issues, and neurological damage. Sources of TAC include, but are not limited to, cars and trucks, especially diesel-fueled; industrial sources, such as chrome platers; dry cleaners and service stations;
building materials and products
• Cancer
• Chronic eye, lung, or
skin irritation
• Neurological and
reproductive disorders

Sensitive Receptors
Some groups of people are more affected by air pollution than others. The CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 61 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.3.1.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Clean Air Act
At the federal level, the EPA is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for the six common criteria pollutants (discussed previously): PM, O3, CO, SO2, NO2, and lead.37

CARB is the state agency that regulates mobile sources throughout the state and oversees implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act.

The EPA and the CARB have adopted ambient air quality standards establishing permissible levels of these pollutants to protect public health and the climate. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are determined for each air pollutant. Attainment status for a pollutant means that a given air district meets the standard set by the EPA and/or CARB.

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles.

In addition to requiring
more stringent emission standards for new on -road and off -road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, this plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment to reduce DPM (in additional to other pollutants). Implementation of this plan, in conjunction with stringent federal and CARB -adopted emission limits for diesel fueled vehicles and equipment (including off -road equipment), will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NO X.

Regional
2017 Clean Air Plan
BAAQMD is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) . Regional air quality management districts, such as BAAQMD, must prepare air quality plans specifying how federal and state air quality standards will be met. At the time the 2014 EIR was prepared, the 2010 CAP was in place. The primary goals of the 2010 CAP were to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure to air pollutants, protect public health in the Bay Area, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 CAP focuses on the following two related BAAQMD goals (which are essentially the same as the 2010 CAP goals) and how to achieve them:

37 NOx is the group of nitrogen compounds (NO 2 and nitric oxide [NO]) that typically represents NO 2 emissions because NO2 emissions contribute the majority of NOx exhaust emissions emitted from fuel combustion.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 62 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

• Protect air quality and health at the regional and local scale by attaining all state and national air quality standards and eliminating disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from TAC; and
• Protect the climate by reducing Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2040 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
38 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the Bay Area. Jurisdictions in the Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air quality impacts developed by BAAQMD within their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. The latest CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are the 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines adopted on April 20, 2023 by the Air District Board of Directors.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts to air quality including, but not limited to, the following goals and policies, which are applicable to the project.

Policy Description
Infrastructure and Conservation Element
INC 20.1 Pollution-reduction. Discourage mobile and stationary sources of air pollution.

INC 20.3 Pollution-reduction technologies. Encourage the use of non-fossil fuels and other pollution- reduction technologies in transportation, machinery and industrial processes.

INC 20.5 Truck Access. Plan industrial and commercial development to avoid truck access through residential areas and minimize truck travel on streets designated primarily for residential access by the General Plan.

NC 20.6 Air quality standards. Protect the public and construction workers from construction exhaust and particulate emissions.

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

INC 20.8 Offensive odors. Protect residents from offensive odors.

Mobility
MOB 9.2 Reduced vehicle miles traveled. Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled.

MOB 9.3 Low-emission vehicles. Promote use of fuel- efficient, alternative fuel and low- emission vehicles.

38 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. Page 12.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 63 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.3.1.3 Existing Conditions
The Bay Area Air Basin is designated a non -attainment area for the federal O 3 and PM2.5 standards and for the state O3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.39, 40 The area has attained both NAAQS and CAAQS for CO, SO2, and NO2. As the regional air district, BAAQMD is responsible for attaining the NAAQS and CAAQS for these pollutants. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5, BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors that apply to both construction period and operational period impacts.

Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce O
3 levels. The highest O3 levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys where temperatures are higher, there is less wind circulation, and sources of the precursor pollutants (ROG and NO x) are prominent. In the Bay Area, most particulate matter is generated from the following activities: combustion, factories, construction, grading, demolition, agriculture, and motor vehicles. Motor vehicles are currently responsible for about half of particulates in the Bay Area.

Elevated concentrations of PM
10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide emissions and localized emissions.

4.3.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on air quality, w ould the project:

1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

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

As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Mountain View has considered the air quality thresholds updated by BAAQMD in April 2023 and regards these thresholds to be based

39 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-a ir-quality/research-and-data/air-quality- standards-and-attainment-status.
40 The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. The project does not include substantial new emissions of SO2 or lead. These criteria pollutants are not discussed further.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 64 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
on the best information available for the Bay Area Air Basin and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM 2.5. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality thresholds for criteria air pollutants and fugitive dust used in this analysis are identified in Table 4.3-

2. Table 4.3-2 below lists the BAAQMD health risk and hazards thresholds for single -source and cumulative-sources.

Table 4.3-2: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Criteria Air
Pollutant
Construction Thresholds* Operation Thresholds Operation Thresholds Average Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG and NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (eight-hour) or 20.0 ppm (one-hour) Fugitive Dust Dust Control Measures/Best
Management Practices
Not Applicable
Notes: ROG = reactive organic gases; NO X = oxides of nitrogen; PM 10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5= fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; CO = carbon monoxide
* The Air District recommends for construction projects that require less than 1 year to complete, lead agencies should annualize impacts over the scope of actual days that peak impacts would occur rather than over the full year. Additionally, for phased projects that results in concurrent construction and operational emissions , construction-related exhaust emissions should be combined with operational emissions for all phases where construction and operations overlap.

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines . April 2023. Pages 3-5 and 3-6.

Table 4.3-3: BAAQMD Health Risks and Hazards Thresholds Health Risk Single Source Combined Cumulative Sources
Cancer Risk >10 per one million >100 per one million
Non-Cancer Hazard Index >1.0 >10.0
Annual PM2.5 Concentration >0.3 µg/m3 >0.8 μg/m3 (average) Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; PM 2.5= fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less
Thresholds are applicable to construction and operational activities.

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. April 2023.

Pages 3-5 and 3-6.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 65 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.3.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Plan-Level
The 2014 EIR determined that i mplementation of the Precise Plan would support the primary goals of the 2010 CAP, include applicable control measures, and would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any CAP control measures . Based on these determinations, the 2014 EIR concluded that the Precise Plan would be consistent with the 201 0 CAP because the Precise Plan includes policies and measures in line with the intent of the 2010 CAP and would not increase VMT at a rate faster than population growth.41

The Housing Element EIR concluded that implementation of the Housing Element update would be consistent and support all applicable control measures from the 2017 CAP because individual projects under the Housing Element update would comply with regulations from various agencies and the City, and they would implement Housing Element EIR MM AIR-1. Housing Element EIR MM AIR-1 requires that all future projects under the Housing Element update that exceed BAAQMD screening levels prepare a project -level criteria air pollutant assessment of construction and operational emissions at the time the project is proposed. Under this mitigation measure, if a project’s criteria air pollutant emissions exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, the project would implement emission reduction measures to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 42 The project (e.g., its proposed land use, density, population growth, and VMT) is consistent with the assumptions in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. In addition, the project would comply with local and state regulations and has prepared a project -level criteria air pollutant assessment (which is included in Appendix C and the results are summarized below) to estimate criteria air pollutant emissions and identify any potentially required measures to reduce emissions. For these reasons, the project would not result in new or substantially greater impacts than disclosed in the 201 4 EIR or Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

41 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Pages 118 to 120.
42 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.2-30 to 4.2-35.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 66 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Project-Level
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines set forth separate criteria for determining project -level consistency with a clean air plan. In general, a project is considered consistent with a clean air plan if the project:

a) Supports the primary goals of the clean air plan;
b) Includes relevant control measures; and
c) Does not interfere with implementation of the clean air plan control measures.

As mentioned previously, since the certification of the 2014 EIR, the 2017 CAP was adopted. The project’s consistency with the 2017 CAP based on the above three criteria is discussed below.

Support of 2017 CAP Goals
As discussed in Section 4.3.1, the goals of the 2017 CAP include ( 1) protecting public health by progressing towards attaining air quality standards and eliminating health risk and (2) protecting the climate. If a project exceeds the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for construction and operational criteria air pollutants, its emissions are considered to result in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Similarly, if the project exceeds the BAAQMD community health risk threshold of significance, the project would result in a community health risk.

A project exceeding either of these BAAQMD thresholds is considered to be inconsistent with the 2017 CAP, even if the project meets the CAP goals. An analysis of the project’s construction and operational air pollutant emissions is provided below, as well as a discussion of the project’s community health risk. The project’s consistency with the 2017 CAP climate goal is discussed in Section 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and concluded to be less than significant.

Construction Period Emissions
The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would result in short-term emissions from construction activities and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and construction equipment emission reduction measures (identified as standard conditions of approval below) and MM AIR- 1 in the 2014 EIR ( excerpted below ) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.43

City Standard Conditions of Approval:

COA AQ-1.1: Basic Air Quality Construction Measures : The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures:

43 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Pages 121 to 122.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 67 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site will be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measures Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Mountain View regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

2014 EIR Mitigation Measure:

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 to assess emissions from all construction equipment during each phase of const ruction 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 h azard index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM

2.5 increase greater than 0.3
μg/m3.

Pursuant to 2014 EIR MM AIR- 1, a project -specific construction criteria pollutant and TAC quantification was completed for the project. Modeling was completed to estimate emissions for both on- and off-site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off -site activities include worker and truck traffic. The modeling of

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 68 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
project-generated construction emissions was based on the applicant -provided schedule and equipment usage assumptions for each of the three phases of construction . The total project would be built out over a period of approximately 31 months (or approximately 628 construction workdays).

Table 4.3-4 below shows the project’s estimated average daily construction emissions of ROG, NO x, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust from construction activities and diesel exhaust.

Table 4.3-4: Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions
Year ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust
Average Daily (pounds/day)*
2024 (52 construction workdays) 0.21 3.65 0.07 0.07
2025 (249 construction workdays) 1.45 10.47 0.28 0.23
2026 (261 construction workdays) 15.24 5.33 0.11 0.11
2027 (66 construction workdays) 16.15 1.83 0.06 0.06
Significance Threshold (pounds per day) 54 54 82 54
Significant? No No No No
*Note: Average daily emissions calculated by dividing the construction emissions by the number of construction workdays.

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

August 16, 2023

As shown in Table 4.3-4, predicted construction emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines considers construction criteria air pollutant emissions impacts that are below BAAQMD thresholds to be less than significant with the incorporation of BAAQMD BMPs that are required as a City COA. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Fugitive Dust
Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less than significant if BMPs are implemented to reduce these emissions. The project would implement COA AQ-1.1 (described above) which includes measures consistent with B AAMQD standard BMPs for development projects; therefore, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe fugitive dust impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated])

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 69 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Operational Period Emissions
Operational air emissions from the project would be generated primarily from autos driven by future residents, employees, and customers. Vehicle trips from the project were calculated in the Multi - Modal Transportation Analysis ( MTA) completed for the project and included in Appendix H.

Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products (classified as consumer products) are typical emissions from these types of uses. The operational emissions of the project were modeled, and the results are summarized in Table 4.3-5. Refer to Appendix C for details about the modeling, data inputs, and assumptions.

As shown in Table 4.3-5, the project’s operation emissions would be below the BAAQMD annual tons per year and average pounds per day significance thresholds. The project, therefore, would not result in significant operational criteria air pollutant emissions. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Community Health Risk
The 2014 EIR identified a potentially significant air quality community risk impact from project construction and operations near sensitive uses, specifically from short -term construction air pollutant emissions, including criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and PM2.5. The 2014 EIR concluded that, with the implementation of 2014 EIR mitigation measure MM AIR- 1 (which is outlined above and requires quantification of TAC impacts) and standard construction BMPs, community health risk impacts would be less than significant.44

44 Ibid. Pages 122 to 124.

Table 4.3-5: Operational Period Criteria Pollutant Emissions Emissions Source NOx ROG PM10 PM2.5
Annual Emissions (Tons Per Year)
Annual Project Operational Emissions (2028) 2.89 0.72 1.66 0.43 Existing Use Emissions (2023) 0.3 0.19 0.23 0.06
Net Annual Emissions 2.59 0.54 1.43 0.37
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10
Significant? No No No No
Annual Emissions (Pounds Per Day)
Daily Project Operational Emissions (2028)* 14.18 2.94 4.74 1.21 Significance Threshold 54 54 82 54
Significant? No No No No
* Assumes 365-day operation

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 70 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
The Housing Element EIR determined that buildout of projects associated with the Housing Element update could generate 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 below), 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.45

Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measure:

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.

Construction Health Risk
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. The primary community risk impact issue s associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM 2.5. Community risk impacts are addressed by predicting increased lifetime cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations, and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks. The maximum modeled annual DPM and PM 2.5 concentrations, which includes both the DPM and fugitive PM 2.5 concentrations, were identified at nearby sensitive receptors, including the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The construction off -site residential MEIs were both located at the adjacent multi -family building south of the project site , but on two different levels. The cancer risk MEI was located on the second floor (15 feet above ground) and the PM2.5 concentration MEI was located on the first floor ( five feet above ground). Additionally, modeling was conducted to predict the cancer risks, non-cancer health hazards, and maximum PM2.5 concentrations associated with construction activities at schools proximate to the site, including Graham Middle School and St. Joseph Mountain View which are located approximately 700 feet south

45 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.2-37 to 4.2-38.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 71 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
and 850 feet east of the project site, respectively. Table 4.3-6 summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and HI for project-related construction activities affecting the off-site MEIs and school receptors. Figure 4.3-1 shows the location of off-site sensitive receptors and the MEI.

Table 4.3-6: Construction Risk Impacts at the Off-Site MEI and School Receptors Source
Cancer Risk
(per million)1
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Impact – Off-Site MEI
Project Construction
Unmitigated

15.4 0.89

0.01 Mitigated 5.85 0.25 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold?
Unmitigated Yes Yes No
Mitigated2 No No No
Most Impacted School Receptor – Graham Middle School
Project Construction
Unmitigated

0.77 0.05

<0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Notes: Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. 1 Maximum cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration occur at the same receptor location on different levels. 2 The mitigated condition assumes implementation of COA AQ-1.1, COA AQ-1.2 and COA AQ-1.3.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., August 16, 2023.

Legend
MEI
Oﬀ-Site Receptors
Graham Middle School
St. Joseph
Point Sources
Phase 1 ConstrucƟon
Phase 2 & 3 ConstrucƟon
LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE, OFF-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS, AND MEI FIGURE 4.3-1 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
72DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 73 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
As shown in Table 4.3-6, the unmitigated maximum cancer risks and annual PM2.5 concentration from construction activities at the project residential MEI locations would exceed the single -source significance thresholds. The unmitigated annual non-cancer hazards from construction activities would be below the single- source significance threshold. Consistent with the requirements of 2014 EIR MM AIR-1 and Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2 , the project shall reduce health risk impacts to a less than significant level by implementing COA AQ-1.2 and COA AQ-1.3, as described below.

Conditions of Approval Pursuant to 2014 EIR MM AIR-1 and Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2:

COA AQ-1.2: In in addition to the standard measures required by COA AQ-1.1, the project shall implement the following BAAQMD-recommended enhanced measures to control particulate matter emissions during all phases of construction:
• Limit the simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground - disturbing construction activities.
• Install wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
• Plant vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. • Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site.
• Hydroseed or apply non- toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas, including previously graded areas, that are inactive for at least 10 calendar days.

COA AQ-1.3: Pursuant to 2014 EIR MM AIR-1 and Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2, the project shall implement a feasible plan to reduce DPM emissions by 40 percent such that increased cancer risk and annual PM

2.5 concentrations from construction would
be reduced below TAC significance levels of 10 cases per million and 0.3 µg/m3, respectively, as follows:

1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM (PM
10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise,

a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 2 or 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 74 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
devices that altogether achieve a 40 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in combination).

2. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on- site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 40 percent or greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination of some of the following measures:

• Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 engines or alternatively fueled equipment,
• Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators, welders, and
compressors,
• Use of electrically-powered equipment,
• Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction shall be electric or propane/natural gas powered, • Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases, and • Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel equipment usage.

Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction.

With implementation of 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), the project’s construction cancer risk levels would be reduced to 5.85 per million and the annual PM

2.5 concentration would be reduced to 0.25
μg/m3, which are both under their respective single- source thresholds. As a result, the project’s construction risks and hazards would be reduced below BAAQMD thresholds. The project, therefore, would result in less than significant health risk impacts. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Operational Health Risk
Diesel-powered stationary equipment that could emit substantial TACs (e.g., emergency generators or fire pumps) are not proposed under the project. Generally, projects with the potential to cause or contribute to increased cancer risk from traffic typically consist of those that attract high numbers of diesel-powered on road trucks or use off -road diesel equipment on site, such as a warehouse distribution center, a quarry, or a manufacturing facility. These types of projects may potentially expose existing or future planned receptors to substantial cancer risk levels and/or health hazards.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 75 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
The project would generate 2,009 daily trips, or 1,611 net new daily trips, which would be dispersed on the roadway system and would consist of primarily light- duty vehicles (i.e., passenger automobiles). Since operation of the project would not result in the addition of high numbers of diesel-powered vehicles into the area, emissions from project traffic are considered negligible and additional analysis of operational health risks is not required . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

In addition, t he City requires the following standard condition of approval to address community health risks from interior finishes containing formaldehyde.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA AQ-1.4 Indoor Formaldehyde Reductions : If the project utilizes composite wood materials (e.g., hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for interior finishes, then only composite wood materials that are made with CARB approved, no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins shall be utilized (CARB, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products, 17 CCR Section 93120, et seq., 2009-2013).

Heath Effects from Criteria Air Pollutants
In a 2018 decision (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno), the Supreme Court of California determined that CEQA requires that the potential for the project’s emissions to affect human health in the air basin must be disclosed when a project’s criteria air pollutant emissions would exceed applicable thresholds and contribute a considerably to a significant cumulative impact. Federal and state ambient air quality standards are health-based standards and exceedances of those standards result in continued unhealthy levels of air pollutants. As stated in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, air pollution by its nature is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to result in non- attainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project has a less than significant impact for criteria pollutants, it is assumed not to have an adverse health effect.

As discussed above, the project’s construction and operation criteria air pollutant emissions would be below the BAAQMD criteria air pollutant emissions thresholds, and the project would implement the City’s standard condition of approval COA AQ -1.1, which requires implementation of BAAQMD - recommended standard construction BMPs to control dust, limiting equipment idling, and properly maintain equipment. For these reasons, the project’s criteria air pollutant emissions would not result in a significant health impact. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 76 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Consistency with 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures
Because the project would not exceed the BAAQMD impact thresholds for criteria air pollutant emissions, the project is not required to incorporate project- specific control measures listed in the 2017 CAP. Furthermore, implementation of the project would no t inhibit BAAQMD or partner agencies from continuing progress toward attaining state and federal air quality standards and eliminating health-risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities, as described within the 2017 CAP. Base d on the above discussion, the project would not conflict with 2017 CAP or result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

The 2014 EIR determined that implementation of the Precise Plan would result in a growth in vehicle trips that is similar to population growth and would, therefore, not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase in ozone precursor emissions, consistent with the CAP. Therefore, the 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.46

The Housing Element EIR determined that future projects may exceed criteria pollutant emission thresholds of significance during their construction and/or operation. To mitigate this potential impact, Housing Element EIR MM AIR-1 requires that all future projects under the Housing Element update that exceed BAAQMD screening levels prepare a project-level criteria air pollutant assessment of construction and operational emissions at the time the project is proposed and implement emission reduction measures to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The Housing Element EIR concluded that even with implementation of this measure, it was still possible that future projects would not be able to reduce their emissions below the appropriate thresholds. Therefore, it was conservatively concluded that the Housing Element update would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. However, the Housing Element EIR did note that identification of this significant and unavoidable impact would not preclude the finding of a less than significant or less than significant with mitigation impact for subsequent projects that are below the applicable screening criteria or that meet the criteria air pollutant thresholds of significance (such as the project). 47 As discussed previously in above, the Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level O3 and PM 2.5 under both the federal and state Clean Air Act. The area is also considered a non- attainment area for PM10 under the state act, but not the federal act. The Bay Area has attained both

46 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Pages 120 to 122.
47 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.2-34 to 4.2-38.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 77 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for O 3 and PM10, BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors, which are listed in Table 4.3-2. These thresholds are for O3 precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, and PM2.5, and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts.

As discussed under checklist question a), the construction period and operational period criteria air pollutant emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, and the project would implement the City’s standard condition of approval COA AQ-1.1, which requires implementation of BAAQMD-recommended standard and enhanced construction BMPs to control dust, limiting equipment idling, and properly maintain equipment. For these reasons, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of BMPs, construction equipment emission reduction measures (identified as standard conditions of approval) , 2014 EIR MM AIR-1 (as shown in checklist question a)), and 2014 EIR MM AIR-2 (which requires an evaluation of potential health risk exposure) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and ensure that future residents of the project site would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. 48 The Housing Element EIR concluded that implementation of Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2 (as shown in checklist question a)) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and ensure that future residents of the project site would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations.49

As discussed under checklist question a) above, the project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors near the project site to TAC emissions in excess of BAAQMD risk thresholds for excess cancer cases and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction emissions with the implementation of conditions of approval COA AQ -1.1, COA AQ -1.2, and COA AQ -1.3. These conditions of approval are standard conditions of approval and required pursuant to mitigation measures identified in the prior EIRs. The project, therefore, would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

48 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Pages 123 to 127.
49 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.2-36 to 4.2-38.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 78 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

The 2014 EIR concluded that although various diesel- powered vehicles and equipment used during construction activities associated with development of the Precise Plan would create localized odors, these odors would be temporary and limited to specific construction areas. In addition, the new land uses included in the Precise Plan would not be expected to create objectionable odors. Therefore, the implementation of the Precise Plan was found to result in a less than significant impact related to odors.50

The Housing Element EIR concluded that land uses associated with implementation of the Housing Element would not be anticipated to generate odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people; therefore, the impact would be less than significant.51

The project proposes residential and commercial uses are consistent with the land uses assumed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR , which are not land uses identified by BAAQMD as causing objectionable odors. Therefore, the project’s odor impact would be less than significant, consistent with the findings of the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

4.3.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative air quality impact?

The geographic area for cumulative air quality impacts is the Bay Area Air Basin. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollution, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s air quality conditions.
52 That is, if a project exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.
53 The 2014 EIR concluded the Precise Plan would not result in significant cumulative air quality impacts because implementation of the Precise Plan would result in vehicle trip growth that is less than population growth and would result in less than significant impacts related to construction activity, exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

50 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report . August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Page 127.
51 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.2-38 to 4.2-39.
52 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017.

Page 2 ends

53 Ibid.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 79 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
concentrations, and exposure of residents to odors at the cumulative level. 54 The Housing Element EIR concluded that implementation of the Housing Element update would not result in cumulate air quality impacts with implementation of Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2.

Implementation of the 2017 CAP
As described above under checklist question a) , the project would be consistent with the 2017 CAP goals because it would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants nor would it exceed the BAAQMD community health risk threshold of significance with the implementation of the 2014 EIR mitigation measure AIR-1, Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2, and the conditions of approval pursuant to those mitigation measures (COA AQ -1.1, COA AQ -1.2, and COA AQ-1.3). T he project, therefore, would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to the implementation of the 2017 CAP. (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants
As discussed under checklist questions a) and b), the 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in a cumulative considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. As discussed under checklist question b), while the Housing Element EIR concluded that some projects under the Housing Element update could result in a significant and unavoidable impact , other projects could result in a finding of a less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated impact.55 As discussed under checklist questions a) and b), the construction period and operational period criteria air pollutant emissions for the project would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, and the project would implement City standard condition of approval COA AQ-1.1. The project, therefore, would not result in a cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant impact. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations The 2014 EIR concluded that cumulative exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with implementation of the Precise Plan would be less than significant with implementation 2014 EIR mitigation measures MM AIR-1 and MM AIR-2, which would reduce health risks to future sensitive receptors. The Housing Element EIR concluded that future development under the Housing Element update would not cause a significant contribution to existing health risk levels and would be less than significant with incorporation of Housing Element EIR MM AIR-2 which requires project-level health risk assessments at the time the project is proposed to evaluate health risk impacts and identify measures to reduce those impacts as needed. 56 54 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report . August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Page 127.
55 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.2-34 to 4.2-38.
56 Ibid. Pages 4.2-39.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 80 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
A cumulative health risk assessment was conducted for the project that evaluated all substantial sources of TACs affecting sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of a project site. These sources included El Camino Real and a stationary source identified by BAAQMD. Table 4.3 -7 below summarizes the cumulative health risk impacts at the project MEIs and Figure 4.3-2 shows the locations of stationary sources and the MEI.

Table 4.3-7: Cumulative Health Risk Impacts at the Off-Site MEI Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)
PM2.5
concentration
(μg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction
Unmitigated
Mitigated*

15.40 5.85

0.89 0.25

0.01 <0.01
Cumulative Operational Sources
El Camino Real, ADT 31,839 2.31 0.15 <0.01
Silicon Valley Intervention (Facility ID #22878, Generator) MEI at +1,000 feet
<0.01 - -
Cumulative Total
Unmitigated
Mitigated*

<17.72
<8.17

1.04 0.40

<0.02
<0.02
BAAQMD Cumulative-Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold?
Unmitigated
Mitigated*

No
No

Yes
No

No
No
Notes: Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. * Mitigated assumes the implementation of COA AQ-1.1, COA AQ-1.2, and COA AQ-1.3.

As shown in Table 4.3 -7, the cumulative health risk (specifically excess cancer risk and annual PM 2.5 concentration) is less than significant with the project’s implementation of COA AQ-1.1, COA AQ-1.2, and COA AQ -1.3 (which are standard conditions of approval and required pursuant to mitigation measures in the prior EIRs). The Hazard Index is below the cumulative threshold of significance. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., August 16, 2023.

Legend
1,000-Ō Inﬂuence Area
Project Site
StaƟonary Sources
El Camino Real Model
MEI
LOCATIONS OF PROJECT SITE, ON-SITE RECEPTORS, STATIONARY SOURCES, AND MEI FIGURE 4.3-2 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
81DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 82 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Odor
The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in any cumulative odor impacts because the mix of land uses was not expected to create any objectionable odors other than temporary diesel exhaust from construction activities. 57 As discussed under checklist question d) , the project would result in the same odor impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. The project, therefore, the project’s contribution to a cumulative odor impact would be the same as assumed in both EIRs and would result in the same cumulative odor impact . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

4.3.3 Non-CEQA Effects
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4 th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD), effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts.

The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of Mountain View requires health risk assessments for new residential developments near sources of air pollution pursuant to the following 2014 EIR mitigation measure:

2014 EIR Mitigation Measure:

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 PM

2.5 increase is less than 0.3 μg/m 3.

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.

The same TAC sources identified to evaluate project impacts under Section 4.3.2.2 above were used to assess on- site health risks. The maximum impacts from roadway emissions along El Camino occurred at the second -floor receptor in the northeast corner of the proposed mixed -use building.

Additional details about the on-site health risk modeling, data inputs, and assumptions are included

57 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 83 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
in Appendix C. Table 4.3-8 summarizes the results of the health risk assessment for on -site sensitive receptors and shows traffic emissions would pose the highest health risks on-site.

Table 4.3-8: Impacts from Cumulative TAC Sources at the Project Site Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(μg/m3)2
Hazard
Index
El Camino Real, ADT 31,839 2.92 0.19 <0.01
Silicon Valley Intervention (Facility ID #22878, Generator) Project Site at 990 feet <0.01 - -
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Cumulative Total <2.93 0.19 <0.01
BAAQMD Cumulative-Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 749 W. El Camino Real Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment, Mountain View, California.

August 16, 2023.

As shown in Table 4.3-8, the on-site health risks for future residents would be below the single-source and cumulative-source BAAQMD thresholds.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 84 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.4 Biological Resources
The discussion in this section is based in part on a Preliminary Arborist Report prepared by HortScience|Bartlett Consulting dated April 2022. This report is attached to this EIR as Appendix D.

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

4.4.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Endangered Species Act
Individual plant and animal species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under state and federal Endangered Species Acts are considered special-status species. Federal and state endangered species legislation has provided the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Permits may be required from both the USFWS and CDFW if activities associated with a proposed project would result in the take of a species listed as threatened or endangered. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the State of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attemp t to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” these species. Take is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include harm of a listed species.

In addition to species listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts, Sections 15380(b) and (c) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that all potential rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, must be considered as part of the environmental review process. These may include plant species listed by the California Native Plant Society and CDFW -listed Species of Special Concern.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, capture, possession, or trade of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

Hunting and poaching are also prohibited. This includes direct and indirect acts, except for harassment and habitat modification, which are not included unless they result in direct loss of birds, nests, or eggs. The CDFW also protects migratory and nesting birds under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800. The CDFW defines taking as causing abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts through disturbance.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 85 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Sensitive Habitat Regulations
Wetland and riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats under CEQA. They are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act (e.g., Sections 303, 304, 404) and State of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Fish and Game Code Section 1602
Streambeds and banks, as well as associated riparian habitat, are regulated by the CDFW per Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Work within the bed or banks of a stream or the adjacent riparian habitat requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.

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

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 10.2 Low-impact development. Encourage development to minimize or avoid disturbing natural resources and ecologically significant land features.

Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
POS 12.1 Heritage trees. Protect trees as an ecological and biological resource.

POS 12.2 Urban tree canopy. Increase tree canopy coverage to expand shaded areas, enhance aesthetics and help reduce greenhouse gases.

POS 12.3 Planter strip. Require tree planter strips be wide enough to support healthy trees and well - maintained public infrastructure.

POS 12.4 Drought-tolerant landscaping. Increase water- efficient, drought -tolerant and native landscaping where appropriate on public and private property.

Mountain View Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance
Section 32.25 of the Municipal Code contains Heritage tree preservation standards that require maintenance and preservation of Heritage trees, tree removal permits for the removal of Heritage trees, and conditions for preservation during construction or grading activity. Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 32, Article II defines a “Heritage Tree” as a tree with any of the following characteristics:

• A tree which has a trunk with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more measured at fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade;

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 86 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
• A multi -branched tree which has major branches below fifty- four (54) inches above the natural grade with a circumference of forty- eight (48) inches measured just below the first major trunk fork.
• Any Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), or Cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of twelve (12) inches or more when measured at fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade; • A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit.

4.4.1.2 Existing Conditions
There are two waterways, Permanente Creek and Stevens Creek, which run through portions of the Precise Plan area. As discussed in the 2014 EIR, there are three special status species, the steelhead trout, California red-legged frog, and the western pond turtle that may utilize these creek channels.58 Permanente Creek is located approximately 0.3-mile east and Stevens Creek is located approximately

0.8-mile southeast of the project site. Both waterways are separated from the project site by existing development. The project site is mostly developed and is located in an urban area. There are no sensitive habitat areas or waterways on -site or in the adjacent right -of-way, therefore, no rare, threatened, endangered, or special-status species are known to inhabit the project site. The primary biological resources on -site are trees, which provide habitat and foraging opportunities for urban - adapted birds. The project site currently contains 89 trees (including 18 street trees), 28 of which are protected Heritage trees under Section 32.25 of the City’s Municipal Code.

58 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Initial Study. SCH No. 2014032002. August 2014. Page 23.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 87 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.4.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on biological resources, would the project:

1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS? 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

4.4.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?

The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would have a less than significant impact on special-status species because no changes are proposed to or within the vicinity of creeks or their habitat and future projects would comply with stormwater policies and conditions of approval.59

The conditions on -site have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR. As discussed in Section 4.4.1.2, the project site and the off -site locations of the right -of-way improvements are not directly adjacent to any waterways that may serve as habitat for special-status species, and the project does not propose any modifications to off-site waterways or sensitive habitat areas. In addition, as discussed further in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would comply with City and state policies regarding stormwater runoff prevention and would implement

59 Ibid. Page 23.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 88 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
COA HYD -1.1 to reduce the risk of polluted stormwater runoff impacting Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek, consistent with the findings of the 2014 EIR.

With implementation of COA HYD-1.1, the project would reduce impacts to special status species that may be present within or adjacent to site to a less than significant level . This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

For details regarding the potential for nesting birds on- site, see the discussion included in checklist question d) below.

b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?

The 2014 EIR concluded that the implementation of the Precise Plan would have a less than significant impact on riparian habitat and other sensitive habitat because no development would be proposed within or adjacent to those habitats.60

The conditions on-site have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR. There is no riparian habitat on or adjacent to the site. The nearest waterway is Permanente Creek, which is located approximately 0.3 -mile east of the project site and is separated from the site by existing development.
61 Therefore, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

The 2014 EIR concluded that the implementation of the Precise Plan would have a less than significant impact on wetlands because no development would be proposed within or adjacent to state or federally protected wetlands.62

The conditions on-site have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR. There is no wetland habitat on or adjacent to the site. The nearest waterway is Permanente Creek, which is located approximately 0.3 -mile east of the project site and is separated from the site by existing development. Therefore, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

60 Ibid. Pages 23 to 24.
61 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory, Surface Waters and Wetlands. Map. May 2021.
62 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Initial Study. August 2014. SCH #: 2014032002. Page 24.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 89 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

The 2014 EIR concluded that the implementation of the Precise Plan would have a less than significant impact on migratory wildlife corridors and nursery sites because development would be focused along El Camino Real, no changes to creeks or their associated riparian areas would occur, and future projects would protect nesting birds by implementing the below City standard condition of approval.63

City S tandard Condition of Approval:

COA BIO-1.1: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey: To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, p reconstruction surveys will be performed no more than two days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests as follows:

The applicant shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the project site , locations of the off -site improvements, and surrounding 500’ for active nests—with particular emphasis on nests of migratory birds—if construction (including site preparation) will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31. If active nests are observed on either th e project site , locations of the off -site improvements, or the surrounding area, the applicant, in coordination with the appropriate City staff, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (usually 100’ for perching birds and 300’ for raptors). The no -disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction ceases for two days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present.

The conditions on-site have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR. There are 89 trees (including 18 street trees) on-site, in addition to the buildings and other vegetation on- site, that could provide foraging and nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species. The project would remove a total of 80 trees throughout the site and preserve nine trees on the southern portion of the site. The project would protect nesting birds through implementation of COA BIO-1.1. No trees adjacent to the off -site right-of-way improvements would be affected by the project. The project, therefore, would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

63 Ibid. Page 24.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 90 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

General Plan Policies
The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not conflict with any General Plan policies because future development would comply with General Plan Policy 12.1.64

The project would integrate native and drought -tolerant landscaping (consistent with General Plan Policy POS 12.4) and) comply with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance (consistent with General Plan Policy POS 12.1) by preserving eight existing Heritage Trees. In addition, the project would widen the adjacent sidewalks along the project frontage to support trees and other landscaping and increase the number of trees on- site (consistent with General Plan Policies POS 12.3 and POS 12.2, respectively).

Based on this discussion, the project would comply with General Plan policies related to biological resource protection and would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact to biological resources due to conflict with General Plan policies than disclosed in the 201 4 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact]).

Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance
The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not conflict with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance because future development would implement City standard conditions of approval related to tree protection and replacement.
65 The project would remove a total of 80 trees, including 27 Heritage trees, and preserve nine trees on the southern portion of the project site. Of the nine trees to be preserved, eight are Heritage Trees.

No trees adjacent to the off -site right-of-way improvements would be affected by the project. The project would plant 123 replacement trees in areas surrounding the proposed buildings and within the courtyards of the residential building on -site. A City of Mountain View Heritage tree removal permit is required before any Heritage trees are removed. The project would implement standard conditions of approval identified in the 2014 EIR regarding tree replacement, protection, mitigation and preservation, and relocation. As a result, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact to trees or conflicts with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance than previously disclosed in the 2014 EIR.

City S
tandard Condition of Approval:

COA BIO-5.1: Replacement: The applicant shall offset the loss of each Heritage/street tree with a minimum of two new trees and the loss of all non -Heritage trees with a

64 Ibid. Pages 24 to 25.
65 Ibid. Pages 24 to 25.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 91 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
minimum of one new tree, for a total of 107 onsite trees. Each replacement tree shall be no smaller than a 24-inch box and shall be noted on the landscape plans submitted for building permit review as Heritage or street replacement trees.

Tree Protection Measures: The tree protection measures listed in the arborist’s report prepared by HortScience/Bartlett Consulting dated April 22, 2021 and revised in April 2022 shall be included as notes on the title sheet of all grading and landscape plans. These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, six-foot chain link fencing at the drip line, a continuous maintenance and care program, and protective grading techniques. Also, no materials may be stored within the drip line of any tree on the project site.

With implementation of COA BIO-5.1, the project would not conflict with the City’s tree preservation ordinance. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

The 2014 EIR concluded that the Precise Plan area (which includes the project site) is not part of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, implementation of the Precise Plan would not conflict with a habitat conservation plan.66 These conditions have not changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR. For this reason, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

4.4.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative biological resources impact?

The 2014 EIR concluded that the Precise Plan area is within an already-urbanized area of the City and would not have the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a rare or endangered plant or animal significant cumulative biological resources impact. The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR.

Because the project would result in the same impact to biological resources as disclosed in the 2014 EIR, its contribution to cumulative impacts is also the same as assumed in the 2014 EIR. For th is reason, the project would result in the same cumulative impact to biological resources as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

66 Ibid. Pages 25 to 26.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 92 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.5 Energy

4.5.1 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.

4.5.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Energy Independence and Security Act
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was adopted in December 2007 with goals to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, increase the production of clean renewable fuels, increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and increase U.S. energy security, develop renewable fuel production, and improve vehicle fuel economy.
67 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020 . That mandate was updated in April 2022 to require that all cars and light duty trucks achieve an overall industry average fuel economy of 49 mpg by model year 2026.

Energy Star and Fuel Efficiency
At the federal level, energy standards set by the EPA apply to numerous consumer products and appliances (e.g., the EnergyStar™ program). The EPA also sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation.

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2010.

Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S-3- 05, requiring statewide emissions reductions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2008, EO S- 14-08 was signed into law, requiring retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy goals. A key provision of SB 350 requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. SB 100, passed in 2018, requires 100 percent of electricity in California to be provided by 100 percent renewable and carbon-free sources by 2045.

67 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Summary of the Energy Independence and Security Act .” Accessed May 8, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy-independence-and-security-act.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 93 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Executive Order B-55-18 To Achieve Carbon Neutrality
In September 2018, Governor Brown issued an executive order, EO -B-55-18 To Achieve Carbon Neutrality, setting a statewide goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions therea fter.” The executive order requires CARB to “ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality goal.” EO -B-55-18 supplements EO S -3-05 by requiring not only emissions reductions, but also that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of CO2 from the atmosphere through sequestration.

California Building Standards Code
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years.
68 Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.69

California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen establishes mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was developed to reduce GHG emissions from buildings, promote environmentally responsible and healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consumption, and respond to state environmental directives. CALGreen covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.

Advanced Clean Cars Program
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars program in 2012 in coordination with the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for vehicle model years 2015 through 2025. The program promotes development of environmentally superior passenger cars and other vehicles, as well as saving the consumer money through fuel savings. 70 68 California Building Standards Commission . “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.
69 California Energy Commission. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-t opics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building- energy-efficiency.
70 California Air Resources Board. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 94 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to energy impacts. The following policies are applicable to the project.

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 10.5 Building energy efficiency. Incorporate energy-efficient design features and materials into new and remodeled buildings

2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
The City of Mountain View certified the General Plan Program EIR (SCH #2011012069) and adopted the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) in July 2012.

The GGRP is a separate but complementary document to the General Plan that implements the long- range GHG emissions reduction goals of the General Plan. The GGRP includes goals, policies, performance standards, and implementation measures for achieving GHG emissions reductions, to meet the requirements of AB 32. The program includes a goal to improve communitywide emissions efficiency by 15 to 20 percent over 2005 levels by 2020 and by 30 percent over 2005 levels by 2030.

Mountain View Green Building Code

The Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC) amends the state mandated CalGreen standards to include local green building standards and requirements for private development. The MVGBC does not require formal certification from a third -party organization but requires projects to be designed and constructed to meet the intent of a third-party rating system.71 For residential projects proposing over five units, the MVGBC requires those buildings meet the intent of 70 GreenPoint Rated points from the Build it Green certification program, as well as compliance with mandatory CalGreen requirements. For non-residential projects proposing buildings between 5,000 and 25,000 square feet, the MVGBC requires those buildings meet the intent of LEED Certified and mandatory CalGreen requirements. For buildings over 25,000 square feet, the MVGBC requires those buildings to meet the intent of LEED Silver and mandatory CalGreen requirements. Additionally, development projects subject to CalGreen requirements are required to divert at least 65 percent of construction debris from landfills.

In 2019, the Mountain View City Council approved amendments to Chapters 8, 14, and 24 of the MVGBC, referred to as Reach Code amendments. The Reach Code amendments are applicable to any project submitted after December 31, 2019.

71 City of Mountain View. Mountain View Green Building Code. 2019. Accessed September 19, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/2019_mountain_view_green_building_and _reach_codes.asp

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 95 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
On April 9, 2024, the Mountain View City Council suspended enforcement of all City of Mountain View local laws and regulations imposing all-electric requirements for new construction or otherwise prohibiting use or installation of gas appliances, including, but not limited to, City of Mountain View Code Sections 8.20.8, 8.20.9, 8.20.10, 8.20.12 and 8.20.14.

4.5.1.2 Existing Conditions
Total energy usage in California was approximately 7,359 trillion British thermal units (Btu) in the year 2021, the most recent year for which this data was available. 72 Out of the 50 states, California is ranked second in total energy consumption and 49 th in energy consumption per capita. The breakdown by sector was approximately 20 percent (1,473 trillion Btu) for residential uses, 19 percent (1,397 trillion Btu) for commercial uses, 23 percent (1,704 trillion Btu) for industrial uses, and 38 percent (2,785 trillion Btu ) for transportation. 73 This energy is primarily supplied in the form of natural gas, petroleum, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power.

Electricity
In 2022, California produced approximately 80 percent of the electricity it consumed and the rest was imported from outside the state, including from Mexico. 74 California’s non-carbon dioxide emitting
electric generation (from nuclear, large hydroelectric, solar, wind, and other renewable sources) accounted for more than 50 percent of total in -state generation for 2022. 75 Electricity from natural
gas-powered plants makes up 42 percent of the state electricity generation and the remaining eight percent of the state’s electricity generation is from nuclear power.

California’s total system electric generation in 2021 was approximately 197,165,106 megawatt-hours (MWh), which was down three percent from 2020’s total generation of approximately 201,784,204 MWh.76 In 2022 nonhydroelectric renewables represented the largest portion of the state’s electricity sources (at 42 percent). Natural gas generation accounted for more than 42 percent of all electricity generation.
77 Electricity in Santa Clara County in 2022 was consumed primarily by the non-residential sector (7 5 percent), followed by the residential sector consuming 2 5 percent. In 2022 a total of approximately 17,101 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity was consumed in Santa Clara County.78

72 United States Energy Information Administration. “California State Energy Profile.” Accessed May 8, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.
73 Ibid.
74 U.S. Energy Information Administration. California State Energy Profile. Accessed May 8, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA
75 Ibid.
76 U.S. Energy Information Administration. California State Energy Profile. Accessed May 8, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA
77 California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed May 8, 2024. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. 78 Ibid.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 96 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
The community-owned Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the electricity provider for the City of Mountain View. 79 SVCE sources the electricity, and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) delivers it to customers over their existing utility lines. Customers are automatically enrolled in the GreenStart plan and can upgrade to the GreenPrime plan. Both options are considered 100 percent GHG-emission free.

Natural Gas
PG&E provides natural gas services within the City of Mountain View. In 2023, California’s natural gas supply came from a combination of in -state production and imported supplies from other western states and Canada.80 In 2021, residential and commercial customers in California used 33 percent of the state’s natural gas, power plants used 0.01 percent, the industrial sector used 33 percent. 81 In 2021, Santa Clara County used less than one percent of the state’s total consumption of natural gas.82

Fuel for Motor Vehicles
In 2022, California produced 122 million barrels of crude oil and in 2019, 19.2 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California.
83,84 The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles) in the United States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles per gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 25.4 mpg in 2021.85 Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007. That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020, was updated in April 2022 to require all cars and light duty trucks achieve an overall industry average fuel economy of 49 mpg by model year 2026. 86,87

79 Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.
80 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2023 California Gas Report. Accessed May 8, 2024. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Biennial_California_Gas_Report_2023_Supplement.pdf 81 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.
82 California Energy Commission. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed April 26, 2023. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.
83 U.S. Energy Information Administration. “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 84 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. 85 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “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 86 United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed April 26, 2023. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.
87 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-re leases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle- fuel-economy-standards-model-year-2024-2026

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 97 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.5.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on energy, would the project:

1) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 2) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

4.5.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?

The Housing Element EIR determined that implementation of the Housing Element update would consume energy during both construction and operation of future projects. However, the energy consumed during construction activities would not be unusual compared to overall local and regional demand for energy resources and would not involve less energy- efficient equipment than at comparable construction sites in the region or state. Therefore, the Housing Element EIR concluded that implementation of the Housing Element update would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy during future construction activities. 88 Implementation of the project would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the project site (e.g., demolition and grading), and the construction of the buildings, including the two levels of below -ground parking. Construction processes are generally designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. In addition, as noted in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the project would implement measures consistent with BAAQMD standard BMPs which would restrict equipment idling times and require the applicant to post signs on the project site reminding workers to shut off idle equipment, thus reducing energy waste. The project would also comply with CALGreen to divert a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from landfills, thus minimizing energy impacts from the creation of excessive waste. For these reasons, the project would not use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner during construction activities.

The Housing Element EIR concluded that future housing development would require electricity for building operations (e.g., appliances, lighting, air conditioning, space and water heating) which would increase demand for electricity. The Housing Element EIR concluded that future projects would be constructed to comply with Title 24 requirements and the City’s Reach Codes which would maximize the energy efficiency of future development and prevent wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation.
89 88 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.5-14 to 4.5-15.
89 Ibid. Pages 4.5-15 to 4.5-16.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 98 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
The operation of the project would consume energy for building heating and cooling, lighting, and appliance use. Vehicles used to travel to and from the project site by residents, employees, and customers would use gasoline and electricity. Energy consumption for the project was estimated to be approximately 2.85 million kWh of electricity annually, which is an increase of approximately 2.65 million kWh compared to existing conditions.

The project would be built in compliance with CALGreen requirements, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and the MVGBC, all of which would improve the efficiency of the overall project. The project would comply with the MVGBC requirement to meet the intent of becoming a 70 GreenPoint Rated building by being constructed to achieve LEED Silver certification . The project would incorporate energy and emissions reduction features such as installing drought tolerant landscaping and high -efficiency irrigation fixtures, water efficient interior plumbing fixtures and EnergyStar appliances, solar panels on the rooftop of the residential mixed -use building, EV charging stations and EV-ready spaces, and voluntarily omitting natural gas fixtures in both buildings even though the City of Mountain View has suspended enforcement of local laws imposing all-electric requirements for new cons truction. In addition, the project is serviced by public transit and bicycle facilities that would promote alternative modes of transportation, and would provide bicycle parking spaces on - site. The project would also plant approximately 123 trees which would provide shade and further reduce energy use. Based on this discussion, the project would not result in the inefficient or wasteful use of energy or resources and would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than disclosed in the Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

The Housing Element EIR concluded that future projects would be constructed to comply with Title 24 requirements (including both the Green Building Standards Code and the Energy Efficiency Standards) and the City’s General Plan Policies and Reach Codes. Therefore, future projects under the Housing Element update would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.90

The project would obtain electricity from Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), which provides 100 percent GHG-emission free energy from renewable and hydroelectric sources, consistent with the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard program and SB 350. In addition, the project would be designed per building standards and include features like on-site solar generation for the residential mixed-use building that meet or exceed state mandated Title 24 energy efficiency standards, CALGreen standards, and MVGBC standards. The project would utilize energy efficient appliances and water efficient appliances and fixtures (which would reduce energy consumption associated with provision of potable water) consistent with General Plan Policy LUD-10.5. In addition, as further discussed in Section 4 .7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would be consistent with the 2030

90 Ibid. Pages 4.5-15 to 4.5-16.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 99 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
GGRP by implementing measures such as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the mixed-use building and planting shade trees throughout the project site. Based on this discussion, the project would not obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

4.5.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
a) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact?

The Housing Element EIR concluded that future housing development facilitated by the Housing Element update would be subject to compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements for energy efficiency, including the California Energy Code Building Energy Efficiency Standards, CALGreen, Title 24, and SB 743. Therefore, this development would not result in cumulatively considerable contributions to significant cumulative environmental impacts from the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during construction or operation; and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. 91 The project is included in the cumulative analysis in the Housing Element EIR. The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the Housing Element EIR. For these reasons, the project would result in the same cumulative energy impact as disclosed in the Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

91 Ibid. Pages 4.5-17 to 4.5-18.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 100 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.6 Geology and Soils
The discussion in this section is based, in part, on the Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical dated April 8, 2022. This report is attached as Appendix E.

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

4.6.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The act regulates development in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. Alquist-Priolo maps are distributed to affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new construction. Areas within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone require special studies to evaluate the potential for surface rupture to ensure that no structures intended for human occupancy are constructed across an active fault.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was passed in 1990 following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The SHMA directs the California Geological Survey (CGS) to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake -induced landslides, and amplified groun d shaking. CGS has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, landslides, and ground shaking, including the central Bay Area. The SHMA requires that agencies only approve projects in seismic hazard zones following site-specific geotechnical investigations to determine if the seismic hazard is present and identify measures to reduce earthquake-related hazards.

California Building Standards Code
The CBC prescribes standards for constructing safe buildings. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, soil and rock profile, ground strength, and distance to seismic sources. The CBC requires that a site -specific geotechnical investigation report be prepared for most development projects to evaluate seismic and geologic conditions such as surface fault ruptures, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and slope stability. The CBC is updated every three years.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 101 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations Excavation, shoring, and trenching activities during construction are subject to occupational safety standards for stabilization by the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Excavation Rules. These regulations minimize the potential for instability and collapse that could injure construction workers on the site.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. They range from mammoth and dinosaur bones to impressions of ancient animals and plants, trace remains, and microfossils. These materials are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies that unauthorized removal of a paleontological resource is a misdemeanor. Under the CEQ A Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

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

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
PSA 4.2 Natural disasters. Minimize impacts of natural disasters.

PSA 5.1 New development. Ensure new development addresses seismically induced geologic hazards.

PSA 5.2 Alquist-Priolo zones. Development shall comply with the Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

PSA 5.4 Utility design. Ensure new underground facilities, particularly water and natural gas lines, are designed to meet current seismic standards.

Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 2.3 Emergency-prepared infrastructure design. Require the use of available technologies and earthquake-resistant materials in the design and construction of all infrastructure projects, whether constructed by the City or others.

Mountain View Municipal Code
The City of Mountain View has adopted the CBC, with amendments, as the reference building code for all projects in the City under Chapter 8 of the City’s Municipal Code. The City’s Building Inspection Division, which is part of the Community Development Department, is responsible for reviewing

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 102 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
plans, issuing building permits, and conducting field inspections. Geotechnical investigation reports, as required by the CBC, would be reviewed by the City’s Building Inspection Division prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance. Based on the CBC, Mountain View requires geotechnical reports as conditions of approval for projects in the City. Section 8.20.36 contains erosion and sediment control BMPs that projects are required to implement during construction activities.

4.6.1.2 Existing Conditions
Regional Geology
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, an alluvial basin bounded by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, the Diablo Range to the east, and the San Francisco Bay to the north. The Valley was formed when sediments derived from both mountain ranges were exposed by tectonic uplift and regression of the inland sea which previously inundated the area. The Upper Quaternary sediments that comprise most of this basin consist of up to 1,000 feet of poorly sorted gravel, sand, and clay which were deposited in alluvial fan and deltaic depositional environments.

On-Site Geology
Soils
The soil on-site is predominately clay, with layers of sand and gravel that extends to an approximate depth of 60.5 bgs. The clay is stiff to hard, and the sand and gravel layers are medium dense to very dense, which results in soil layers that are not susceptible to liquefaction. The near surface clay soil has a plasticity index between 18 and 23 which means that it has a moderate expansion potential.

Expansive soils possess a “shrink -swell” characteristic. Shrink -swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine -grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying. Structural damage may result over a long period of time, usually the result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils. The project site is not located within a Santa Clara County Compressible Soils Hazard Zone. 92 Site Topography
The project site is relatively flat with some areas graded slightly for draining, and as a result, the risk of erosion or landslide is low. There are no hillsides or steep embankments within the project site.

Approximate ground surface elevations on -site range from approximately 107 to 110 feet above mean sea level.

Groundwater
The City of Mountain View overlies the Santa Clara Subbasin (DWR Basin 2 -9.02), a groundwater subbasin that is 297 square miles in area. Approximately three percent of Mountain View’s drinking water comes from local groundwater supply, while the rest is supplemented by water purchases from

92 County of Santa Clara. “Geologic Hazard Zones.” Accessed April 26, 2023. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ef8100336234fbdafc5769494cfe373.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 103 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Valley Water and the SFPUC. Valley Water conducts an artificial groundwater recharge program that involves releasing locally conserved or imported water to in -stream and off -stream facilities to augment groundwater supplies in the Santa Clara groundwater basin.

Groundwater was measured on -site at depths between 45 to 49 feet bgs; however, it is estimated that the historic high ground water level is 35 feet bgs. 93 Water levels on-site may vary depending on
seasonal precipitation, irrigation practices, and other climate conditions.

Seismic and Seismic-Related Hazards
Earthquake Faults
The project site is located within the Bay Area, which is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Major faults in the vicinity include the Monte Vista- Shannon, San Andreas, and Hayward faults which are approximately two, six, and 11 miles away from the project site, respectively. The project site is not located in a fault rupture hazard zone or the Alquist-Priolo special study zone on the California Geological Survey fault zone map. 94 95

Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction can be defined as ground failure or loss of strength that causes otherwise solid soil to take on the characteristics of a liquid. This phenomenon is triggered by earthquakes or ground shaking that causes saturated or partially saturated soils to lose strength, potentially resulting in the soil’s inability to support structures. The project site is not located in a fault rupture hazard zone or a liquefaction hazard zone.
96 Based on the soil composition and absence of shallow groundwater below the project site, there Is a very-low risk of seismically induced liquefaction on-site.97

Other Geologic Hazards
There are no open faces near the project site where lateral spreading could occur; therefore, the potential for lateral spreading on-site is low.

Paleontological Resources
Geologic units of Holocene age are generally not considered sensitive for paleontological resources, because biological remains younger than 10,000 years are not usually considered fossils. These

93 Rockridge Geotechnical. Final Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Mixed-Use Development 749 W. El Camino Real, Mountain View, California. Page 5. April 8, 2022. 94 County of Santa Clara. “Geologic Hazard Zones.” Accessed December 16, 2022. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ef8100336234fbdafc5769494cfe373. 95 Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Map. 2019.
96 County of Santa Clara. “Geologic Hazard Zones.” Accessed December 16, 2022. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ef8100336234fbdafc5769494cfe373. 97 Rockridge Geotechnical. Final Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Mixed-Use Development 749 W. El Camino Real, Mountain View, California. Page 9. April 8, 2022.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 104 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
sediments have low potential to yield fossil resources or to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. 98 These recent sediments, however, may overlie older Pleistocene sediments with high potential to contain paleontological resources. Pleistocene sediments, often found at depths greater than 10 feet bgs , have yielded the fossil remains of plants and extinct terrestrial vertebrates.

There have been no recorded fossils discovered within the City of Mountain View; however, two fossils have been discovered within two miles of the City’s sphere of influence and the presence of geological formations known to contain fossils indicates some paleontological sensitivity. 99 4.6.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on geology and soils, w ould the project:

1) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
- Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fau lt (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)?
- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? - Landslides?
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 6) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

98 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 99 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Initial Study. SCH No. 2014032002. August 2014. Page 32.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 105 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.6.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides?

The 2014 EIR determined that the Precise Plan area is located in a seismically active region and moderate to severe ground shaking would be expected to occur within the Precise Plan area.

However, with adherence to General Plan Policies PSA 4.2, PSA 5.1, PSA 5.2, PSA 5.3, PSA 5.4, and INC 2.3, City standard conditions of approval, the CBC, and recommendations in site-specific geologic investigations, adverse impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 100

As discussed in Section 4.6.1.2, the project site is not located in an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, no known faults cross the site, and the project site is located outside of the fault rupture zones for nearby active faults. Although the site is outside of those fault zones, strong to very strong ground shaking is expected on- site during the life of the project. The project site is not located in a state - designated or c ounty-identified liquefaction hazard area and there is a very- low risk of seismically induced liquefaction on-site. The project site is located on flat topography and there are no adjacent bodies of water, channels, or excavations in the vicinity of the site that would increase the potential for lateral spreading or landslides, therefore, the project would not exacerbate such conditions off - site.

Consistent with the 2014 EIR, the project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements and above identified General Plan policies. 101 Additionally, the project would
implement the following standard COA identified in the 2014 EIR.

City S tandard Condition of Approval:

COA GEO-1.1: Geotechnical Report: The applicant shall have a design- level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117, Guideli nes for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report shall be submitted to the City during building plan check, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report shall be implemented as part

100 Ibid. Pages 37 to 39.
101 General Plan Policy PSA 4.2 state to minimize impacts of natural disasters. General Plan Policies PSA 5.1 – 5.4 state to ensure new development addresses seismically induced geologic hazards, comply with Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, ensure City uses effective technology to inform the community about potential hazards, and ensure new underground utilities are designed to meet current seismic standards. General Plan Policy INC 2.3 requires the use of available technology and earthquake resista nt materials in the design and construction of all infrastructure projects.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 106 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
of the project and included in building permit drawings and civil drawings as needed. Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below-grade walls to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures caused by seismic activity, and traffic loads; method for backdraining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure; considerations for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design.

A copy of a design-level geotechnical investigation report completed for the project pursuant to COA GEO-1.1 is included in Appendix E. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

The 2014 EIR concluded that future development (including the project) would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil with the implementation of standard conditions of approval pertaining to stormwater management (which are identified as COA HYD-1.1 and COA HYD-

1.2 in Section 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality) and the erosion and sediment control BMPs listed in Municipal Code Section 8.20.36, which include practices such as covering storm drain inlets, creating a sediment trap, and constructing drainage swales.102

The project would implement the same standard conditions of approval regarding stormwater management and BMPs listed Municipal Code Section 8.20.36 as identified in the 2014 EIR to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. For these reasons, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

The 2014 EIR determined that earthquake induced slope stability is generally not an issue in the Precise Plan area due to the low relief of the local topography. The 2014 EIR concluded that adherence to General Plan policies, the CBC, and implementation of City standard conditions of approval would reduce the risk of liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, and collapse to less than significant levels.
103

As explained in under Section 4.6.1.2 and checklist question a) above, the project would comply applicable General Plan policies, the CBC, and recommendations in the site -specific geotechnical report (as required by COA GEO -1.1) regarding ground improvements and construction methods would reduce the risk of liquefaction and lateral spreading at the project site to a less than significant level. The project, therefore, would result in the same less than significant impact disclosed in the

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

38. 103 Ibid. Pages 38 to 39.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 107 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
2014 EIR. In addition , the 2014 EIR disclosed that the Precise Plan area (which includes the project site) does not contain steep slopes subject to landslide potential. This condition has not changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?

Although expansive soils can be a hazard, the 2014 EIR determined that this would be mitigated to a less than significant level through implementation of standard engineering and building practices and techniques specified in the CBC and adherence to the recommendations in the site -specific geotechnical report.
104

Soils with moderate expansion potential occur on-site, which can cause heaving and cracking of slabs- on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. As required by COA GEO -1.1 above, the project shall implement all structural recommendations provided in the design -level geotechnical investigation report. With adherence to these recommendations and the CBC, the project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property due to expansive soils, consistent with the findings in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

The 2014 EIR determined that, since the Precise Plan area is serviced by a sanitary sewer system operated by the City of Mountain View, there would be no impacts related to alternative wastewater disposal systems resulting from implementation of the Precise Plan. 105

Consistent with the findings of the 2014 EIR, the project would connect to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system . Therefore, the project would not need to support septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems on-site. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

104 Ibid. Page 39.
105 Ibid. Page 39.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 108 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would have the potential to significantly impact unique paleontological resources and adherence to General Plan policies and implementation of City standard conditions of approval would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
106 Consistent with the 2014 EIR, t he project would implement the following City standard COA (required by the 2014 EIR) to reduce impacts to unknown paleontological resources.

City S tandard Condition of Approval:

COA GEO-6.1: Discovery Of Paleontological Resources: In the event a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

With the i mplementation of th e above COA, the proposed would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact])

4.6.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant geology and soils impact?

The 2014 EIR concluded the Precise Plan would not result in any cumulatively significant geology and soils impact because future cumulative projects would implement the same conditions of approval and adhere to the same CBC requirements to avoid and/or reduce impacts from geology and soils hazards to a less than significant level. These projects would also be subject to federal, state, City, or county laws for building and construction in seismic hazard areas. The cumulative geology and soil conditions have not changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR and the project results in the same impacts as disclosed in the 2014 EIR, the project would result in the same less than significant cumulative impact as disclosed in the 201 4 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

106 Ibid. Page 32.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 109 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR except for the adoption of the 2017 CAP.

The regulatory setting when the Housing Element EIR was certified was the same as it is today. A summary of key regulatory framework and existing conditions is provided below.

4.7.1.1 Background Information
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its global warming potential (GWP) and is measured in units of CO
2 equivalents (CO2e). The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO 2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities.

Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:

• CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion
• N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops • CH4 is commonly created by off -gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents, but their production has been stopped by international treaty • HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling • PFCs and SF
6 emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing

An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently causing changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend.

Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur.

Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 110 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.7.1.2 Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 32 and State Bill 32
Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32, CARB established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, adopted mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHGs, and adopted a comprehensive plan, known as the Climate Change Scoping Plan, identifying how emission reductions would be achieved from significant GHG sources.

The first Scoping Plan was
approved by CARB in 2008 and must be updated at least every five years. Since 2008, there have been two updates to the Scoping Plan.

In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law, amending the California Global Warming Solution Act. SB 32, and accompanying Executive Order B -30-15, require CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. CARB updated its Climate Change Scoping Plan in December of 2017 to express the 2030 statewide target in terms of million metric tons of CO 2e
(MMTCO2e). Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 MMTCO2e.

2022 Scoping Plan
On December 15, 2022, CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan. The 2022 Scoping Plan provides a sector-by-sector guide on how to reduce man -made (i.e., anthropogenic) GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 over a 25 -year horizon. 107 The primary focus of the 2022 Scoping Plan is to reduce the usage of fossil fuels by electricizing the transportation sector, procuring electricity from renewable resources, phasing out natural gas in land use developments, and building transit -oriented c ommunities that encourage multi -modal transportation. If implemented successfully, the 2022 Scoping Plan would not only reduce GHG emissions but also reduce smog -forming air pollution (NO x) by 71 percent and reduce fossil fuel
demand by 94 percent. The 2022 Scoping Plan also details natural carbon capture and storage process along with mechanical carbon capture programs to address the remaining 15 percent of anthropogenic GHG emissions that will remain post-2045. To meet these goals, CARB also includes a revised goal of reducing state GHG emissions 48 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Senate Bill 375 and Plan Bay Area 2050
SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. SB 375 builds upon AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets for automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 an d 2035. The per capita GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.

107 California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. November 16, 2022. Page 5.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 111 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) partnered with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), BAAQMD, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to prepare the region’s Sustainable Comm unities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan process. The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area 2050.

Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long -range plan for the nine- county Bay Area that provides strategies that increase the availability of affordable housing, support a more equitable and efficient economy, improve the transportation network, and enhance the region’s environmental resilience. Plan Bay Area 2050 promotes the development of a variety of housing types and densities within identified priority development areas (PDAs). PDAs are areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified for housing and job growth. 108

Play Bay Area 2050 includes a goal to increase the number of households that live within 0.5 mile of frequent transit by 2050. Plan Bay Area 2050 promotes strategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land use patterns, which together are forecasted to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from 50 percent in 2015 to 33 percent in 2050, resulting in a decrease in GHG emissions. Plan Bay Area 2050 also includes goals to expand TDM initiatives that support and augment employers’ commute programs, providing a path to emissions reductions.

SB 100
SB 100, known as The 100 Precent Clean Energy Act of 2018, was adopted on September 10, 2018.

The overall goal is to have all retail electricity sold in California be procured from 100 percent renewable and zero -carbon resources by the year 2045. SB 100 al so modified the renewables portfolio standard to 50 percent by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030.

Executive Order B-55-18 and Assembly Bill 1279
Executive Order B-55-18 was issued in September 2018. It ordered a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality no later than 2045 and to maintain net negative emissions thereafter.

Assembly Bill 1279, also known as the California Climate Crisis Act, was approved on September 16, 2022 and codifies the statewide goal set by Executive Order B -55-18 of achieving net zero GHG emissions no later than the year 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. In addition, this bill has a statewide goal of reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2045. The bill requires CARB to work with relevant state agencies to ensure that updates to the scoping plan identify and recommend measures to achieve these policy goals and strategies that enable CO 2 removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies in California are implemented. The bill requires CARB to submit an annual report.

108 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050 .

October 21, 2021. Page 20.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 112 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Advanced Clean Cars II Regulation
To continue reducing air pollutants and GHG emissions in the transportation sector, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations (Resolution 22 -12) on August 25, 2022. The new regulation requires that by 2035 all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California will be zero emissions.

This regulation bans the sale of new gasoline or diesel passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs in California from automakers. Beginning in 2026, 35 percent of new vehicle sales must be zero-emission vehicles and plug-in hybrid EVs, and that percentage will increase per year. By 2030, 70 percent of new vehicle sales will be zero- emissions vehicles and by the 2035 model year 100 percent of new vehicle sales will be zero-emissions. CARB will limit the use of plug- in hybrid EVs in the percentage requirements to keep the manufacturing of zero-emissions as the primary goal. Existing gasoline cars can continue to be driven and sold as used cars beyond 2035. CARB is required to track and report on the zero - emissions vehicle market development annually.

California Building Standards Code – Title 24 Part 11 and Part 6 The CALGreen Code is part of the California Building Standards Code under Title 24, Part 11. The CALGreen Code encourages sustainable construction standards that incorporate planning/design, energy efficiency, water efficiency resource efficiency, and envi ronmental quality. These green building standard codes are mandatory statewide and are applicable to residential and non - residential developments. The most recent CALGreen Code (2022 CALGreen Code) was effective as of January 1, 2023. However, projects are subject to the building code in effect at the time of building permit submittal.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code) is under Title 24, Part 6 and is overseen by the California Energy Commission (CEC). This code includes design requirements to conserve energy in new residential and non -residential developments. This Energy Code is enforced and verified by cities during the planning and building permit process. The 2022 Energy Code replaced the 2019 Energy Code as of January 1, 2023. There are new 2022 standards for single- family residences, multi-family residences, and non-residential uses. 109,110,111 Major changes include
electric-ready single-family and multi- family residence and solar photovoltaic systems and energy storage systems for residential and commercial developments.

Requirements for EV charging infrastructure are set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and are regularly updated on a three-year cycle. The CALGreen standards consist of a set of mandatory standards required for new development, as well as two more voluntary standards

109 California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for Single -Family Residential.” Revised July 15, 2022 . Accessed June 27, 2024 . https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 08/2022_Single-family_Whats_New_Summary_ADA.pdf.
110 California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for Multifamily.” Revised August 4, 2022. Accessed June 27, 2024 . https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 08/2022_Multifamily_Whats_new_Summary_ADA.pdf.
111 California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for Nonresidential.” Revised August 4, 2022. Accessed June 27, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022- 08/2022_Nonresidential_Whats_New_Summary_ADA.pdf.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 113 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
known as Tier 1 and Tier 2. The 2022 CALGreen standards require deployment of additional EV chargers in various building types, including multi- family residential, hotel, and non-residential land uses. They include requirements for both EV capable parking spaces and the installation of EV supply equipment for multi -family residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2022 CALGreen standards also include requirements for both EV readiness and the actual installation of EV chargers. The 2022 CALGreen standards include both mandatory requirements and more aggressive voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 provisions:

• CALGreen Tier 1 standards require multi-family developments and hotels with less than 20 units to have 35 percent of the total number of parking spaces EV ready; if there are more than 20 units, 10 percent of the parking spaces must be provided with EV supply equipment.

These standards also require 30 percent of total parking spaces to be EV capable and 33 percent of parking spaces to be EV capable with EV supply equipment for non-residential and non-hotel uses.
• CALGreen Tier 2 standards require multi-family developments and hotels with less than 20 units to have 40 percent of the total number of parking spaces EV ready; if there are more than 20 units, 15 percent of the parking spaces must be provided with EV supply equipment.

For non-residential and non-hotel uses, 45 percent of total parking spaces require EV capable spaces and 33 percent of parking spaces require EV capable spaces provided with EV supply equipment.

CALGreen also requires new construction and demolition projects to have a diversion of at least 65 percent of the construction waste generated. CALGreen also allows a disposal reduction option that can be met when the project’s disposal rate is 2.0 pounds per square foot or less for non -residential and high-rise residential construction or 3.4 pounds per square foot or less for low -rise residential construction.

Regional and Local
2017 Clean Air Plan
To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP prepared by BAAQMD includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super -GHGs that are potent climate pollutants in the near - term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 114 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to GHG emissions impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the project.

Policy Description
Mobility
MOB 9.1 Greenhouse gas emissions. Develop cost -effective strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in coordination with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program.

MOB 9.2 Reduced vehicle miles traveled. Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled.

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

INC 5.5 Landscape efficiency. Promote water -efficient landscaping including drought- tolerant and native plants, along with efficient landscape irrigation techniques.

INC 12.1 Emissions reduction target. Maintain a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.

INC 12.2 Emissions reduction strategies. Develop cost -effective strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

INC 12.3 Adaptation strategies. Develop strategies for adapting to climate change in partnership with local and regional agencies.

Land Use and Design
LUD 3.1 Land use and transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within half-mile of public transit service, and along major commute corridors.

City of Mountain View 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy The City of Mountain View certified the General Plan Program EIR (SCH #2011012069) and adopted the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and GGRP in July 2012. The GGRP is a separate but complementary document to the General Plan that implements the long -range GHG emissions reduction goals of the General Plan and serves as a programmatic GHG reduction strategy for CEQA tiering purposes. The GGRP includes goals, policies, performance standards, and implementation measures for achieving GHG emissions reductions, to meet the requirements of AB 32. The program includes a goal to improve communitywide emissions efficiency by 15 to 20 percent over 2005 levels by 2020 and by 30 percent over 2005 levels by 2030. Since adoption of the GGRP, the state passed SB 32 which updated GHG emissions targets to be 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030.

City of Mountain View Climate Protection Roadmap
The City’s Climate Protection Roadmap (CPR), completed in 2015, presents a projection of GHG emissions through 2050 and several strategies that would help the City reduce absolute communitywide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 115 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
City of Mountain View Reach Building Code
In 2019, the Mountain View City Council approved amendments to Chapters 8, 14, and 24 of the City of Mountain View Green Building Code, referred to as reach code amendments. The reach code amendments are applicable to any project submitted after December 31, 2019.

On April 9, 2024, the Mountain View City Council suspended enforcement of all City of Mountain View local laws and regulations imposing all-electric requirements for new construction or otherwise prohibiting use or installation of gas appliances, including, but not limited to, City of Mountain View Code Sections 8.20.8, 8.20.9, 8.20.10, 8.20.12 and 8.20.14.

4.7.1.3 Existing Conditions
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have regional and local impacts, emissions of GHGs have a broader, global impact. Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the upper atmosphere contribute to an increase in the te mperature of the earth and changes in weather patterns.

4.7.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions, would the project:

1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?

4.7.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Construction
The 2014 EIR determined that construction activities from implementation of the Precise Plan would be a temporary condition and would not result in a permanent increase in emissions that would interfere with the implementation of the City’s GGRP or AB 32. Therefore, the 2014 EIR concluded that the impact from construction emissions associated with the project would be less than significant.112 The Housing Element EIR concluded that d irect GHG emissions would be generated during construction that would include emissions from the combustion of fuel (e.g. , gasoline and

112 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Pages 43 to 44.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 116 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
diesel) in construction equipment and vehicles ; however, these emissions would be temporary and not significant.113

There is nothing atypical or unusual about the project’s construction and the project’s GHG construction emissions are accounted for in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR analyses. For these reasons, the project’s construction GHG emissions are less than significant and would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact ]) In addition, the project would implement COA AQ -1.1 and COA AQ -1.3 to restrict idling of construction equipment and utilize equipment which generates less emissions, which would in turn further reduce GHG emissions.

Operation
The 2014 EIR determined that future projects within the Precise Plan area would be required to implement a series of reduction measures identified in the City’s GGRP which would allow the City to achieve its GHG reduction goals. These mandatory measures would include TDM measures that encourage transit, carpooling, walking, and bicycling as alternatives to driving. The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in a significant operational GHG emission impact because the mandatory measures and TDM measures within the Precise Plan would be consistent with the requirements in the City’s GGRP.114

The Housing Element EIR determined that future development under the Housing Element update would reduce GHG 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 the mitigation measures below.

Housing Element EIR Mitigation Measures:

Housing Element EIR MM GHG-1: 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.

Housing Element EIR MM TRA-1: Implement VMT Reduction Measures . Individual multifamily housing development proposals that do not screen out from VMT impact analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis using the methods outlined by the City’s most recent VMT guidelines. Projects that result in a significant impact shall

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

SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.7-31 to 4.7-32.
114 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002.

Pages 43 to 44.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 117 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
include travel demand management measures and/or physical measures (i.e. improving multi-modal transportation network, improving street connectivity) to reduce VMT. The City’s VMT guidelines identify four tiers of mitigation measures, all of which can be quantified within the VTA VMT tool:

• Tier 1— Project Characteristics. Although it may be difficult to revise a project during environmental review, Tier 1 strategies allow the user to increase the project density, diversity of land uses, and add affordable and/or below -market-rate housing to the residential and employment projects to reduce VMT.
• Tier 2 —Multi-Modal Network Improvements. These improvements include implementing bicycle lanes, improving the pedestrian network, implementing traffic calming, increasing transit accessibility, and improving network connectivity. These improvements require coordination with Mountain View staff and additional studies (signal warrant studies, traffic calming studies, etc.) to determine feasibility.

Consultants should prioritize public improvements included in the City’s approved plans which contain various transportation improvements to bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway facilities as VMT mitigation. (See above for list of adopted plans and policies.) • Tier 3—Parking. Parking strategies shown to effectively reduce VMT include reduced parking, increased bike parking or end -of-trip bike facilities. In order to be most effective, the areas surrounding the projects with reduced parking should have parking permit programs. • Tier 4—Travel Demand Management (TDM) There are a multitude of TDM measures to reduce VMT. The VMT Tool includes all allowable TDM measures and their relative effectiveness. Based on the percentage of participation selected by the user, the VMT Tool calculates the resulting VMT reduction. The various TDM measures in the VMT Tool include school carpool programs, bike-sharing programs, car- sharing programs, trip reduction
marketing/educational campaigns, parking cashout, subsidized transit, telecommuting, alternative work schedules, shuttles, pay to park, ride-sharing, unbundled parking, and subsidized vanpools.

The Housing Element EIR concluded that compliance with Housing Element EIR MM GHG-1 and Housing Element EIR MM TRA-1 would reduce the levels of GHG emissions generated by future projects to a less than significant level.
115

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

SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.7-34 to 4.7-35.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 118 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
The project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR because:

• The project is consistent with the GGRP as discussed under checklist question b) below. • The project would comply with the Precise Plan requirement to implement a TDM program. • The project would not include any natural gas infrastructure in the new buildings and would be 100-percent electric.
• The project would comply with the current CALGreen Tier 2 and City’s Green Building Code EV requirements for off -street electric vehicle parking. 116 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). • The project would meet the locally adopted SB 743 VMT target. As discussed in Section 4.16 Transportation, the City’s VMT policy includes screening criteria for projects which are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. The project would meet the Transit Screening criteria; therefore, it would have a less than significant transportation impact and would not be required to implement Housing Element EIR MM TRA-1.

For these reasons, operation of the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?

The 2014 EIR determined that future projects within the Precise Plan would be required to implement the mandatory measures within the GGRP, which would ensure the project’s consistency with the GGRP. The 2014 EIR concluded that projects consistent with the GGRP would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions adopted by the CARB, BAAQMD or the City of Mountain View, and would result in a less than significant impact.117

The Housing Element EIR determined that future projects under the Housing Element update would be consistent with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, and local policies such as the City’s Sustainability Action Plan and MVGBC. In addition, The Housing Element EIR concluded that implementation of Housing Element EIR MM GHG-1 would ensure that future projects are consistent with the updated GHG thresholds recommended by the BAAQMD to meet the state’s GHG reduction and carbon neutrality goals in SB 32, EO B-55-13 and the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. 118

116 Current CALGreen Tier 2 requires 20 percent of residential parking spaces to be EV-ready. The City’s Green Building Code requires every space without a physical electric vehicle charger to be EV-ready. 117 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002.

Pages 43 to 44.
118 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report.

SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.7-39.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 119 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area 2050 encourages development of a variety of housing types and densities within identified PDAs and includes a goal to increase the number of households that live within 0.5 mile of frequent transit by 2050. The project site is within a PDA identified in Plan Bay Area 2050 and would result in the addition of 299 residential units along a valuable, regional transit corridor.119 In addition, the project would comply with CALGreen and MVGBC requirements by including bicycle facilities that would promote alternative modes of transportation in an area frequently serviced by local transit routes. The project would also receive its energy from SVCE, who provide electricity generated from carbon free sources. Based on this discussion, the project would be consistent with the development envisioned in Plan Bay Area 2050 and would therefore result in a less than significant impact , consistent with the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

CARB Scoping Plan
As described in the Housing Element EIR, CARB’s Scoping Plan includes a broad array of regulations, policies, and state plans designed to reduce GHG emissions. Projects under the Housing Element Update, including the project, would be consistent with the Scoping Plan by receiving electricity from SVCE, complying with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, complying with the current CALGreen Tier 2 EV parking requirements consistent Housing Element EIR MM GHG-1, and developing a housing site on an infill location with access to public transportation which would reduce reliance on automobiles. Therefore , the project would be consistent with the most recent CARB Scoping Plan update and would result in a less than significant impact, consistent with Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

2017 Clean Air Plan
The Housing Element EIR concluded that implementation of the Housing Element update would be consistent and support all applicable control measures from the 2017 CAP because individual projects under the Housing Element update would comply with regulations from various agencies and the City, and they would implement Housing Element EIR MM AIR-1. The BAAQMD 2017 CAP focuses on two goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. The 2017 CAP includes air quality standards and control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane, carbon dioxide, and other super-GHGs. Consistent with Housing Element EIR MM AIR-1, a project level analysis was prepared to evaluate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the project. As discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality under checklist question a), the project is consistent with the 2017 CAP because the project would not exceed BAAQMD criteria air pollutant emissions thresholds during construction or during operation and implement COA AQ -1.1, which requires implementing BAAQMD- recommended standard measures to restrict idling of equipment and properly maintaining and tuning construction equipment (thereby reducing GHG emissions), and COA AQ -1.3, which requires using cleaner

119 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments. Plan Bay Area 2050.

October 21, 2021. Page 21.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 120 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
construction equipment (which would also reduce GHG emissions). For these reasons, the project would not conflict with the 2017 CAP goal to reduce GHG emissions. The project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

General Plan
The project would be consistent with General Plan P olicies INC -5.2, INC- 5.5, and LUD -3.1 by complying with Title 24, CALGreen, and the City’s Green Building Code and Reach Code . The project would comply with these regulations by installing drought tolerant landscaping with high -efficiency irrigation and water efficient interior fixtures, and intensifying development on an infill site near existing public transit services and a major commute corridor (El Camino Real). In addition, the project would be consistent with General Plan Policy MOB 9.2 by constructing a new bus island and protected bike lane along El Camino Real, which would help contribute to an overall reduction in VMT. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with General Plan policies meant to reduce GHG emissions. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The GGRP identifies a series of GHG emissions reduction measures to be implemented by development projects that would help the City achieve its GHG reduction goals. T he project would comply with the applicable GGRP mandatory measures and would not be in conflict with the City’s GHG reduction goals, as discussed in Table 4.7-1 below. Furthermore, as discussed under checklist question a), the project would result in a less than significant GHG emissions impact. For these reasons, the project would not be in c onflict with the GGRP or result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Table 4.7-1: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Consistency
Mandatory Measure Consistency
Measure E -1.4: Residential Energy
Star Appliances
The project would demolish the existing improvements and a new, mixed-use residential building that would be constructed to meet Title 24, CALGreen, and the City’s Green Building Code requirements. The new building would be furnished with energy-efficient appliances.

Measure E -1.6: Exceed State Energy
Standards in New Residential
Development
The proposed mixed-use residential building would be constructed to meet the City’s Green Building Code requirements, which exceed state standards.

Measure E -1.7: Exceed State Energy
Standards in New Non -Residential
Development
The proposed bank building would be constructed to meet the City’s Green Building Code requirements, which exceed state standards.

Measure E -1.8: Building Shade Trees
in Residential Development
The project would include landscaping trees throughout the site and along the sidewalks along the project frontages.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 121 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Mandatory Measure Consistency
Measure E -2.3: Residential Solar
Photovoltaic Systems
The project would include solar photovoltaic panels o n the rooftop of the mixed-use residential building.

Measure W- 1.1: Urban Water
Management Plan Conservation
Strategies
The project would comply with City requirements by installing water- efficient appliances and irrigation fixtures and planting drought - tolerant landscaping.

Measure T -1.1: Transportation
Demand Management
As discussed in Section 4.1 6 Transportation, the project would have a less than significant VMT impact. Nevertheless, the proposed mixed- use residential building would implement a TDM plan to comply with this measure, consistent with Precise Plan requirements.

4.7.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG emissions impact?

The 2014 EIR did not identify a significant cumulative GHG impact from implementation of the Precise Plan. T he Housing Element EIR determined that future development facilitated by the Housing Element update (would incrementally contribute to significant cumulative GHG emissions; however, that contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact of GHG emissions generated by the Housing Element update would be less than significant with implementation of Housing Element EIR MM GHG-1 and Housing Element EIR MM TRA-1. 120

As described previously under checklist question a) , the project would comply with the current CALGreen Tier 2 and City’s Green Building Code EV requirements for off -street EV parking, which would be consistent with Housing Element EIR MM GHG-1. As discussed in Section 4.16 Transportation, the project would meet the screening criteria for Transit Screening in the City’s VMT Policy as the project is within one -half mile of a major transit service on El Camino Real, has an FAR over 0.75, is consistent with the Plan Bay Area 2050 (Sustainable Communications Strategy), provides less parking than required in the Municipal Code, and does not replace affordable units with fewer moderate or higher-income residential units. Therefore, Housing Element EIR MM TRA-1 would not be applicable to the project.

Based on this discussion , the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant cumulative GHG emissions impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR and the Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

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

SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.7-40.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 122 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment completed by Ramboll Environment & Health dated March 2020. This report is included as Appendix F.

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

4.8.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Overview
The storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste are highly regulated under federal and state laws. In California, the EPA has granted most enforcement authority over federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). In turn, local agencies have been granted responsibility for implementation and enforcement of many hazardous materials regulations under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program.

Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials.

Proper handling and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction. Cal/OSHA enforces state worker health and safety regulations related to construction activities. Regulations include exposure limits, requirements for protective clothing, and training requirements to prevent exposure to hazardous materials. Cal/OSHA also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and asbestos investigations and abatement.

Federal and State
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures and minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above the ground.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 123 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA accomplished the following objectives:

• Established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites;
• Provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and
• Established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.

The law authorizes two kinds of response actions:

• Short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response; and
• Long-term remedial response actions that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life-threatening. These actions can be completed only at sites listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List.

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986. 121

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976, is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste. RCRA gives the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the “ cradle to the grave. ” This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes.

The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that focused on waste minimization, phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste, and corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority

121 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 124 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
for the EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.122

Government Code Section 65962.5
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires CalEPA to develop and update a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
123

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. The TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program aims to prevent accidental releases of regulated hazardous materials that represent a potential hazard beyond the boundaries of a property. Facilities that are required to participate in the CalARP Program use or store specified quantities of toxic and flammable substances (hazardous materials) that can have off -site consequences if accidentally released. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health reviews CalARP risk management plans as the CUPA.

Asbestos-Containing Materials
Friable asbestos is any asbestos-containing material (ACM) that, when dry, can easily be crumbled or pulverized to a powder by hand, allowing the asbestos particles to become airborne. Common examples of products that have been found to contain friable asbestos include acoustical ceilings, plaster, wallboard, and thermal insulation for water heaters and pipes. Common examples of non - friable ACMs are asphalt roofing shingles, vinyl floor tiles, and transite siding made with cement. The EPA began phasing out use of friable asbestos products in 1973 and issued a ban in 1978 on manufacture, import, processing, and distribution of some asbestos- containing products and new uses of asbestos products.
124 The EPA is currently considering a proposed ban on on- going use of

122 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/laws-re gulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery- act.
123 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed April 19, 2023. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
124 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-actions-protect-public-exposure-asbestos

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 125 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
asbestos.125 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require that potentially friable ACMs be removed prior to building demolition or remodeling that may disturb the ACMs.

CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead-based paint in 1978.

Removal of older structures with lead -based paint is subject to requirements outlined by the Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, CCR Title 8, Section 1532. 1 during demolition activities.

Requirements include employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. If lead -based paint is peeling, flaking, or blistered, it is required to be removed prior to demolition.

Regional and Local
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
PCBs were produced in the United States between 1955 and 1978 and used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications, including building and structure materials such as plasticizers, paints, sealants, caulk, and wood floor finishes. In 1979, the EPA banned the production and use of PCBs due to their potential harmful health effects and persistence in the environment. PCBs can still be released to the environment today during demolition of buildings that contain legacy caulks, sealants, or other PCB-containing materials.

With the adoption of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 19, 2015, Provision C.12.f requires that permittees develop an assessment methodology for applicable structures planned for demolition to ensure PCBs do not enter municipal storm drain systems.
126 Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are currently modifying demolition permit processes and implementing PCB screening protocols to comply with Provision C.12.f. Buildings constructed between 1950 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Single family homes and wood-frame structures are exempt from these requirements.

Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport, as well as aircraft occupants.127 The CLUP is also intended to ensure that surrounding new land uses do not affect airfield operations. The CLUP identifies the Airfield’s Airport Influence Area (AIA). The AIA is a composite of areas surrounding the Airfield that are affected

125Ibid.
126 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.
127 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

November 2, 2016.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 126 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
by noise, height, and safety considerations. Within the AIA, the CLUP establishes a (1) noise restriction area, (2) height restriction area, and (3) safety restriction area.

Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan The City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, an annex to Santa Clara County’s Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017), performs a full risk assessment on the nine hazards that present the greatest concern in Santa Clara County. The nine hazards focused on for this mitigation plan are climate change/sea-level rise, dam and levee failure, drought, earthquakes, floods, landslides, severe weather, tsunamis, and wildfires.

The City’s annex, Chapter 11 of the document, provides a detailed overview of the City’s response capabilities, the organizational structure of local authorities, risk rating scores that determine which hazards present the greatest risk to Mountain View, and a priority schedule for mitigation measures planned by local and regional agencies.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials. The following goals and policies are applicable to the project or relied upon by the 2014 EIR.

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 2.5 Moffett Federal Airfield. Encourage compatible land uses within the Airport Influence Area for Moffett Federal Airfield as part of Santa Clara County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

Mobility
MOB 10.1 Efficient automobile infrastructure. Strive to maximize the efficiency of existing automobile infrastructure and manage major streets to discourage cut-through traffic on neighborhood streets.

MOB 10.2 Reduced travel demand. Promote effective TDM programs for existing and new development.

MOB 10.4 Emergency response. Monitor emergency response times and review emergency response time standards.

Public Safety
PSA 3.1 Minimized losses. Minimize property damage, injuries and loss of life from fire.

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

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

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

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 127 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Policy Description
PSA 4.1 Emergency response plan. Maintain and update the City’s emergency response plans.

Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 2.1 Emergency preparedness. Ensure that the City is well- prepared for natural and human - induced disasters and emergencies.

INC 18.1 Contamination prevention. Protect human and environmental health from environmental contamination.

INC 18.2 Contamination clean -up. Cooperate with local, state, and federal agencies that oversee environmental contamination and clean-up activities.

4.8.1.2 Existing Conditions
The 2014 EIR identified several hazardous conditions in the Precise Plan area, including a history of agricultural uses that may have involved the use of pesticides, aerially deposited lead from traffic on El Camino Real, historical spills and leaks of hazardous materials from companies working in the area, the presence of ACMs and lead-based paint in older buildings, and proximity to Moffett Federal Airfield.

Site History and Potential On-Site Source of Contamination Prior to the mid-1940s, the project site and other sites throughout the Precise Plan area were used for agricultural purposes. Due to this, soils on the project site may contain residual pesticide contamination from past agricultural activities. The project site is directly adjacent to El Camino Real, which has historically been a heavily trafficked roadway. The 2014 EIR acknowledged that this may result in exposed surface soils on-site having elevated levels of aerially deposited lead.

As discussed in Section 3.1 Cultural Resources, the bank building on-site was constructed in 1977 and the restaurant building was constructed in 1954. During the 1960s, a car dealership and an associated fueling station (which likely utilized underground storage tanks) were located on the northwestern corner of the project site. In addition, three residential buildings were previously located on the southwestern portion of the project site between the 1950s and 1980s.

Based on the construction dates of the existing buildings, ACMs, lead -based paint, and PCBs may be present in the building materials and transformers on -site. 128 There was no evidence of hazardous
materials spills noted during the site visit conducted at the project site; however, a number of hazardous materials were noted as potentially being present such as the ACMs, lead -based paint, PCBs, and Radon.

128 Ramboll Environment and Health. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – 615-749 West El Camino Real. March 2020. Pages 17 to 20.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 128 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and there are no recorded hazardous materials releases on the project site.129 Additional information about on-site conditions and history is provided in Appendix F.

Potential Off-Site Sources of Contamination
Based on review of regulatory agency databases, there are no off -site hazardous materials spill incidents that appear likely to impact soil, soil vapor, or groundwater beneath the project site.

Previous land uses on the surrounding properties include agricultural, residential, and commercial uses.

Airport Safety
The project site is approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the Moffett Federal Airfield and it is not located within the A irfield’s AIA, 65 dBA noise contour area, or airport safety zones. 130 FAR Part 77 requires the FAA be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above ground. The project site is located within the mapped Part 77 3 82-foot above mean sea level (amsl) horizontal surface. Elevations on- site range from 107 to 110 feet amsl; therefore, any structure exceeding 272 feet in height above grade would require submittal to the FAA for airspace safety review.

Wildland Fire Hazards
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the project site is not located in a very high, high, or moderate fire hazard zone.131 The site is also not within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).132

129 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed November 30, 2023. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist.
130 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

November 18, 2016.
131 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “FHSZ Viewer.” Webmap. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
132 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.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 129 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.8.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on hazards and hazardous materials, would the project:

1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard t o the public or the environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? 6) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
7) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

4.8.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

The 2014 EIR concluded that projects that comply with federal, state, and local requirements, General Plan policies and actions (such as General Plan Policy PSA 3.3) , and standard conditions of approval (such as conditions related to proper storage of hazardous materials) would reduce the potential for hazardous materials impacts to existing residents and businesses in and near the Precise Plan area to a less than significant level because those regulations require proper handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes.
133

Consistent with General Plan Policy PSA 3.3, the project would be reviewed by City staff prior to approval to ensure that any potential use or storage of limited amounts of hazardous materials would comply with appropriate regulations. In addition, the project would comply with the follow City standard COA.

133 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Pages 48 to 49.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 130 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
City Standard Conditions of Approval:

COA HAZ-1.1: Hazardous Materials : If hazardous materials will be stored or used on -site (including paints, thinners, compressed gases, propane, diesel, gasoline, etc.), complete an Environmental Compliance Plan (ECP) application. Attach a copy of the completed ECP to your building plan submittal.

The project would include a new bank building , commercial uses, and a multi -family residential.

Unlike an industrial or manufacturing use that would routinely transport, use, or dispose large quantities of hazardous materials subject to regulatory oversight, these land uses would routinely use only limited amounts of fuels and oils for landscaping and maintenance activities, in addition to cleaning materials. The quantities used would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and the project would prepare an Environmental Compliance Plan (ECP) application that would be reviewed by the City to confirm the proper storage and handling of any potentially hazardous materials, consistent with the findings disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

The 2014 EIR concluded that future projects under the Precise Plan would adhere to General Plan policies and actions (such as General Plan Policy PSA 3.2), and existing regulatory programs at the federal, state, and local levels to reduce potential impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions to a less than significant level.134

The project site soil could be contaminated with agricultural chemicals due to its historical use as agricultural land. Although the potential presence of agricultural chemicals within the soil is likely minimized based on the past development in the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., leveling and grading activities), the project would excavate soils to a maximum depth of 24 feet, which would require off haul of potentially contaminated soils. Based on the estimated age of the existing on -site buildings, ACM, lead -based paint, and PCBs may be present in some building materials on -site. Building demolition could result in the release of these materials to the environment . The project would comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, described below, to ensure the project does not result in significant hazardous materials impacts from on- site contamination (if present) during construction activities by complying with existing regulations.

City S
tandard Condition s of Approval:

COA HAZ-2.1: Discovery of Contaminated Soils: If contaminated soils are discovered, the applicant shall ensure the contractor employs engineering controls and Best

134 Ibid. Page 49

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 131 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize human exposure to potential contaminants. Engineering controls and construction BMPs shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) contractor employees working on- site shall be certified in OSHA’s 40 -hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training; (b) contractor shall stockpile soil during redevelopment activities to allow for proper characterization and evaluation of disposal options; (c) contractor shall monitor area around construction site for fugitive vapor emissions with appropriate field screening instrumentation; (d) contractor shall water/mist soil as it is being excavated and loaded onto transportation trucks; (e) contractor shall place any stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds; and (f) contractor shall cover the bottom of excavated areas with sheeting when work is not being performed.

Toxic Assessment: 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. No building permits shall be issued until e ach agency and/or department with jurisdiction has released the site as clean or a site toxics mitigation plan has been approved.

Hazardous Materials Contamination: To reduce the potential for construction workers and adjacent uses to encounter hazardous materials contamination from ACMs and lead -based paint, the following measures are to be included in the project:
a) In conformance with local, State, and Federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead -based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint on the structures proposed for demolition. The surveys shall be completed prior to demolition work beginning on the structures. b) A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos- containing materials, in accordance with the NESHAP guidelines, prior to building demolition that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations.
c) During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead -based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any de bris or soil containing lead -based

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 132 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.

Building Demolition PCB Control: Nonwood -frame buildings constructed before 1981 that shall be completely demolished are required to conduct representative sampling of priority building materials that may contain PCBs. If sample results of one or more priority building materials show PCBs concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm, the applicant is required to follow applicable Federal and State notification and abatement requirements prior to demolition of the building.

Submit a completed “Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Screening Assessment Applicant Package” with the building demolition plans for the project. A demolition permit shall not be issued until the completed “PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package” is submitted and approved by the City Fire and Environmental Protection Division (FEPD). Applicants are required to comply with applicable Federal and State regulations regarding notification and abatement of PCBs-containing materials. Contact the City’s FEPD at 650- 903-6378 to obtain a copy of the “PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package” and related guidance and information.

Consistent with General Plan Policy PSA 3.2, the City would enforce existing fire and life safety codes to prevent accidental release. In addition, the project would implement the above standard conditions of approval, therefore, the project would not result in significant hazards to the public (including construction workers) or environment by complying with existing regulations. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

The 2014 EIR concluded that compliance with existing regulatory requirements would reduce the potential for school children to be exposed to hazardous or acutely hazardous materials to a less than significant level.135

The two closest schools to the project site are Graham Middle School and St. Joseph Mountain View, which are located approximately 700 feet south and 850 feet east of the project site, respectively.

While the project would be within 0.25 -mile of two schools, the project would not emit substantial hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste with implementation of the standard conditions of approval identified under checklist question b) requiring compliance with existing regulatory requirements. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

135 Ibid. Pages 49 to 50

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 133 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

As detailed in Section 4.8.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is not located on the Cortese List; therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to being included on the lists and would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

The 2014 EIR determined that compliance with existing FAA regulations and applicable General Plan policies and actions (including General Plan Policy LUD 2.5) would reduce potential impacts related to airport safety operations for Moffett Federal Airfield to a less than significant level. 136

While Moffett Federal Airfield is approximately 2.5-miles northeast of the site, the project site is not located within its AIA, safety zone, or the 65 dB noise contour of the Moffett Federal Airfield. 137 The
project site, however, is located within the mapped Part 77 382- foot amsl horizontal surface, which means any structure exceeding 272 feet in height above grade (given the site’s elevation of 107 to 110 feet amsl) would require submittal to the FAA for airspace safety review. The proposed maximum building height of 75 feet and the project’s construction equipment (e.g., cranes) would not exceed 140 feet in height; therefore, the project would not be subject to FAA’s review. In addition, General Plan policies pertaining to compliance with the CLUP are not applicable to the project since it is located outside the AIA. Based on this discussion, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not impair or interfere with an adopted Mountain View emergency response or evacuation plan due to the project’s consistency with General Plan Policies MOB 10.1, MOB 10.2, and MOB 10.4.138 The project is consistent with the Precise Plan and would not interfere with an adopted Mountain View emergency response or evacuation plan because the project would incorporate relevant fire code requirements, would not

136 Ibid. Page 52.
137 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

November 18, 2016.
138 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002.

Pages 52 to 53

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 134 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
interfere with specified evacuation or emergency routes, and would implement a TDM plan to limit the amount of vehicle trips added to the surrounding streets. This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

The project site is located in a developed , urban area and is not located in a fire hazard zone or the WUI. For these reasons, the project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires and would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

4.8.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant hazards and hazardous materials impact?

The 2014 EIR did not find that implementation of the Precise Plan would result in any cumulatively considerable hazards and hazardous materials impact because future cumulative projects would implement the same conditions of approval and comply with the same federal, state, and local regulations that would avoid or reduce impacts from hazards and hazardous materials to a less than significant level. The cumulative hazards and hazardous materials conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR. As discussed under checklist questions a) through g) above, the project would result in the same impacts as disclosed in the 2014 EIR . Therefore, its contribution to cumulative impacts would also be the same as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 135 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

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

4.9.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality in California. Regulations set forth by the EPA and the SWRCB have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. EPA regulations include the NPDES permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project site is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, the SWRCB and RWQCBs are required to identify impaired surface water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for contaminants of concern. The list of the state’s identified impaired surface water bodies, known as the “303(d) list” can be found on the on the SWRCB’s website.

National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce impacts of flooding on private and public properties. The program provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations protecting development in floodplains. As part of the program, FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). An SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the one-percent annual chance flood, which is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood.

Statewide Construction General Permit
The SWRCB has implemented an NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California (Construction General Permit). For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared by a qualified professional prior to commencement of construction and filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor. The Construction General Permit includes requirements for training, inspections, record keeping, and, for projects of certain risk levels, monitoring. The general purpose of the requirements is to minimize the discharge of pollutants and to protect beneficial uses and receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction-related storm water discharges.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 136 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Regional and Local
San Francisco Bay Basin Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates water quality in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements, including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. The Basin Plan also describes watershed management programs and water quality attainment strategies.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB re -issued the MRP in May 2022 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies (co -permittees) in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo.139 Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, new and redevelopment projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID)- based stormwater treatment controls to treat post -construction stormwater runoff. LID-based treatment controls are intended to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions, maximizing opportunities for infiltration and evapotranspiration, and using stormwater as a resource (e.g. rainwater harvesting for non -potable uses). The MRP also requires that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Provision C.12.f of the MRP requires co-permittee agencies to implement a control program for PCBs that reduces PCB loads by a specified amount during the term of the permit, thereby making substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff PCBs wasteload allocation in the Basin Plan by March 2030.140 Programs must include focused implementation of PCB control measures, such as source control, treatment control, and pollution prevention strategies. Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are updating their demolition permit processes to incorporate the management of PCBs in demolition building materials to ensure PCBs are not discharged to storm drains during demolition.

Buildings constructed between 1950 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Single-family residential and wood frame structures are exempt.

139 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. 140 Ibid.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 137 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance Valley Water operates as the flood control agency for Santa Clara County. Valley Water also provides stream stewardship and is the wholesale water supplier throughout the county, which includes the groundwater recharge program. Well construction and deconstruction permits, including borings 45 feet or deeper, are required under Valley Water’s Well Ordinance 90-1. Under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, projects within Valley Water property or easements are required to obtain encroachment permits.

2021 Groundwater Management Plan
The 2021 Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) describes Valley Water’s comprehensive groundwater management framework, including existing and potential actions to achieve basin sustainability goals and ensure continued sustainable groundwater management. The GWMP covers the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins, which are located entirely in Santa Clara County. Valley Water manages a diverse water supply portfolio, with sources including groundwater, local surface water, imported water, and recycled water. About h alf of the county’s water supply comes from local sources and the other half comes from imported sources. Imported water includes the Valley Water’s State Water Project and Central Valley contract supplies and supplies delivered by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to cities in northern Santa Clara County. Local sources include natural groundwater recharge and surface water supplies. A small portion of the county’s water supply is recycled water.

Lo
cal groundwater resources make up the foundation of the county’s water supply, but they need to be augmented by Valley Water’s comprehensive water supply management activities to reliably meet the county’s needs. These include the managed recharge of imported and local surface water and in- lieu
groundwater recharge through the provision of treated surface water and raw water, acquisition of supplemental water supplies, and water conservation and recycling.141

City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to hydrology and water quality impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the project.

Policy Description
Infrastructure and Conservation Element
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.

141 Valley Water. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2021.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 138 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Policy Description
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 8.6 Green streets. Seek opportunities to develop green streets and sustainable streetscapes that minimize stormwater runoff, using techniques such as on -street bio-swales, bio-retention, permeable pavement or other innovative approaches.

INC-8.7 S tormwater quality. Improve the water quality of stormwater and reduce flow quantities.

Mountain View Municipal Code
Chapter 8 (Buildings) of the Municipal Code includes the currently adopted Green Building Code , which details the stormwater management best management practices and regulations required by the City. Chapter 35 (Water, Sewage, and other Municipal Services) of the Municipal Code outlines the City policies surrounding water infrastructure, including requirements for the discharge of stormwater into the City’s stormwater infrastructure.

4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions
Stormwater Drainage
The municipal storm drain system serving the project site consists of storm drain inlets, conveyance pipes, culverts, channels and retention basins operated by the City of Mountain View Public Works Department. Drainage into the City system generally flows south to north towards San Francisco Bay.

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 areas. The remaining approximately 45,194 square feet (or 34 percent) of the si te consists of pervious area, which is comprised of landscaping and other permeable surfaces.

Runoff from the site flows into 48-inch
storm drain lines in Castro Street, Victor Way, and Lane Avenue.

Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as nonpoint source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.

While there are no streams, creeks, ponds, or other surface water bodies located directly on the project site, Permanente Creek is approximately 0. 3-mile west of the site. Permanente Creek is on the 2022 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list due to impairment from toxicity, trash, metallic

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 139 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
(Selenium), and pesticide (Diazinon) pollution. The California Water Board is in the process of examining the current status of impairment for the 2024 California Integrated report.

Groundwater
The City of Mountain View is located within the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin 2-9.02).142 Hydrologically, the groundwater basin is separated into recharge and confined zones. Geological conditions in the recharge areas allow precipitation, stream flow, and water diverted into percolation areas to recharge the deeper aquifers. The confined zones include areas of the valley where low permeability clays and silts overlie the major groundwater aquifers which impedes the vertical flow of groundwater into the deeper aquifers. The City of Mountain View, including the project site, lies entirely within the area of the confined zone. 143

Groundwater was measured on -site at depths between 45 to 49 feet bgs; however, it is estimated that the historic high ground water level is 35 feet bgs. 144 Water levels on-site may vary depending on seasonal precipitation, irrigation practices, and other climate conditions.

Flooding
The project site is located within Flood Zone X, which is not a Special Flood Hazard Area as identified by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).145 Flood Zone X is defined as an area determined to be outside the one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplains, indicative of a minimal flood hazard.

Seiches and Tsunamis
A seiche is the oscillation of a body of water, typically caused by changes in atmospheric pressure, strong winds, earthquakes, tsunamis, or tidal movements. Seiches occur most frequently in enclosed or semi- enclosed basins such as lakes, bays, or harbors. There are no enclosed or semi -enclosed bodies of water near the project site. The project site is not close enough to San Francisco Bay to be affected in the event of a tsunami.
146

142 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. 143 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://s3.us- west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.valleywater.org/2021_GWMP_web_version.pdf. 144 Rockridge Geotechnical. Final Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Mixed -Use Development 749 W. El Camino Real, Mountain View, California. Page 5. April 8, 2022. 145 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C0039H .

Effective Date May 18, 2009.
146 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Tsunami & Additional Hazards .” Accessed May 15, 2024. Available at:
https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/data-research/tsunami-additional-hazards

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 140 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.9.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on hydrology and water quality, would the project:

1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
2) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
- result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; - substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
- create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
- impede or redirect flood flows?
4) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? 5) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

4.9.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

The 2014 EIR determined that compliance with General Plan Policies (such as INC 8.2, INC 8.4, and INC 8.5), the NPDES General Construction Permit, City standard conditions of approval pertaining to water quality, and the MRP would ensure that future project construction and post -construction runoff would not result in substantial sources of polluted runoff and that impacts would be less than significant.147

Construction
Implementation of the project would require demolition, excavation, grading, and paving of the project site, which could result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. Since the project would

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

Pages 59 to 61.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 141 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
disturb more than one acre, it is required to comply with the State of California General Construction Permit and submit a SWPPP and NOI to the SWRCB. Compliance with the General Construction Permit would ensure that all BMPs related to stormwater pollution prevention for construction projects are implemented.

Further, the project is required to comply with the MRP Provision C.12.f and submit a PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package consistent with the City’s Environmental Protection requirements, which require applicants to screen the buildings proposed for demolition to determine whether it is appropriate to conduct additional testing on building materials.148 The project would also implement the following City standard conditions of approval.

City S tandard Condition of Approval:

COA HYD-1.1: State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit: A “Notice of Intent” and “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” shall be prepared for construction projects disturbing one (1) acre or more of land. Proof of coverage under the State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit shall be attached to the building plans.

Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan: The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls to be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan shall include installation of the following items where appropriate: (a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter fabric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high -erosion areas. The plan shall also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning.

Construction Best Management Practices: All construction projects shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, polluted water, and sediments to the storm drain system

High-Erosion Storage Areas: High-erosion areas (areas paved with loose sand/gravel, areas used for storage of high -sediment-producing materials, such as rock or sand, or areas designated for high traffic or heavy equipment traffic) shall be designed to prevent the run-on of stormwater and runoff of spills by one of the following: (a) covering the area and either sloping the area inward (negative slope) or providing a berm or curb around its perimeter; or (b) retrofitting the

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

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 142 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
area with a treatment system to intercept and remove sediments from storm drain runoff.

With implementation of COA HYD -1.1, the project would reduce construction impacts to the same less than significant level disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact])

Post Construction
The project would replace more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces and would be required to comply with the MRP, consistent with General Plan Policy INC-8.2.149 The MRP requires regulated projects to include Low Impact Development (LID) practices, such as pollutant source control measures and stormwater treatment features aimed to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions. Development of the project, in compliance with existing regulations and best management practices (including the MRP and Municipal Code), would reduce water quality impacts.

In addition, the project would be required to include the following measures, based on RWQCB requirements, to reduce stormwater runoff impacts from project implementation.

City S
tandard Condition of Approval:

COA HYD-1.2: Stormwater Treatment (C.3): This project will create or replace more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of impervious surface; therefore, stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the City’s guidance document entitled, “Stormwate r Quality Guidelines for Development Projects.” Runoff from portions of the public right of way (e.g., sidewalks, curb extensions, pavement replacement, and curb and gutter replacement in the street frontage) that are constructed or reconstructed as part of Regulated Projects will also need to be treated using Low-Impact Development (LID) measures. The City’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select LID types of stormwater treatment controls; the types of projects that are exempt from this requirement; and the Infeasibility and Special Projects exemptions from the LID requirement.

The “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects” document requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing calculations of the treatment controls that will be installed. In clude three stamped and signed copies of the Final Stormwater Management Plan with the building plan submittal. The Stormwater Management Plan must include a stamped and signed certification by a qualified Engineer, stating that the Stormwater Management Plan complies with the City’s guidelines and the State NPDES Permit. Stormwater treatment

149 Policy INC-8.2: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Comply with requirements in the Municipal Regional Storm water NPDES Permit (MRP).

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 143 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
controls required under this condition may be required to enter into a formal recorded Maintenance Agreement with the City.

Landscape Design: Landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. Examples include: (a) No steep slopes exceeding 10 percent; (b) Using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; (c) Installing plants with low water requirements; and (d) Installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones. Identify which practices shall be used in the building plan submittal.

Efficient Irrigation: Common areas shall employ efficient irrigation to avoid excess irrigation runoff. Examples include: (a) Setting irrigation timers to avoid runoff by splitting irrigations into several short cycles; (b) Employing multi-programmable irrigation controllers; (c) Employing rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after significant precipitation; (d) Use of drip irrigations for all planter areas which have a shrub density that would cause excessive spray interference of an overhead system; and (e) Use of flow reducers to mitigate broken heads next to sidewalks, streets and driveways. Identify which practices shall be used in the building plan submittal.

Because the project would comply with the MRP and General Plan P olicy INC-8.2, the project would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, consistent with the findings of the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

The 2014 EIR determined that new development under the Precise Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with sustainable groundwater management because there is minimal undeveloped land in the Precise Plan area that facilitates groundwater recharge. 150 These conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR.

Groundwater recharge occurs when surface water percolates through the soil to recharge groundwater aquifers. The project would result in an increase of impervious area by approximately 26,003 square feet (or 19 percent). Table 4.9-1 summarizes the impervious and pervious surfaces on- site under existing and project conditions.

150 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Pages 61 to 62.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 144 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Table 4.9-1: Approximate Existing and Proposed Impervious/Pervious Surfaces Existing Proposed
Square footage Percent of site Square footage Percent of site Impervious 88,117 66 114,120 85
Pervious 45,194 34 19,191 15
Total 133,311 100 133,311 100

As shown in Table 4.9-1, the project would result in an increase of impervious area by approximately 26,003 square feet (or 1 9 percent) on-site due to the addition of the new buildings and associated hardscaping. Although the project would reduce the amount of surface water that is allowed to percolate on-site, the project site is not located in a recharge area as identified by the 2021 GWMP.151 In addition, the project would plant new landscaping, including new shrubs and groundcover, around the perimeter of the site, within the public plaza, in the second- floor courtyards, and on the roof of the mixed-use building. These new landscape areas would be placed strategically to maximize the amount of surface water percolation on-site.

Implementation of the project would require a maximum excavation depth of 24 feet, which is less than the estimated historic high ground water level on -site of 35- feet bgs that was identified in Section 4.6 Geology and Soils. Based on this information, no dewatering would be required during construction activities and the project would not substantially decrease groundwater supply.

Therefore, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than those described in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows?

The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes redevelopment of the project site) would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area and would not result in significant impacts related to off -site erosion, siltation , hydro -modification changes, and flooding because future development would comply with the General Construction Permit, City standard conditions of approval, the MRP, and General Plan policies INC-8.2, INC 8.4, INC 8.5, INC 8.6

151 Valley Water. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2021. Page 2-1.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 145 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
and INC 8.8. However, the 2014 EIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan could result in the need for new/improved stormwater infrastructure and required the following mitigation measure.152

2014 EIR Mitigation Measure:

2014 EIR MM UTL-2: As private properties within the 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 responsibility to project applicants for upgrades and improvements to the City’s stormwater infrastructure, as necessary.

There are no streams or rivers on -site, therefore, the project would not affect the existing drainage pattern of any streams or rivers. Consistent with the requirements of 2014 EIR MM UTL-2 described above, the C ity’s Public Works Department has reviewed the project and confirmed that there is adequate capacity in the storm drain system to continue servicing the project site and that no additional improvements are needed .
153 The project would also comply with General Construction Permit requirements, City standard conditions of approval, and General Plan policies regarding stormwater management. Based on this discussion, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

d) Would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones?

The 2014 EIR concluded that the Precise Plan area is not located within an area that would be subject to inundation from flood hazards, seiches, or tsunamis, therefore, the risk of releasing pollutants during a flood event would be less than significant.154 As described in Section 4.9.1.2, these conditions have not changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR. In addition, a s discussed in Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed residential and commercial buildings would not use or store substantial quantities of hazardous materials on -site. Therefore, the project would not risk release of substantial pollutants due to inundation, consistent with the findings disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

152 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Pages 62 to 65.
153 Personal Communication. Toni Eguilos, Assistant Engineer – City of Mountain View Public Works Department.

November 15, 2022.
154 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study . August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Page

66. 749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 146 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

The San Francisco Basin Plan provides a framework for state and local governments to meet water quality objectives and criteria to protect the beneficial uses of local aquifers, streams, marshes, and San Francisco Bay. Consistent with the San Francisco Basin Plan, the project would comply with the MRP requirement to install LID treatment controls to treat stormwater runoff and implement the standard conditions of approval identified under checklist question a) above. Valley Water prepared a Groundwater Management Plan in 2021, establishing recharge facilities, recycled water systems, and conservation strategies to proactively manage groundwater and surface water resources within its jurisdiction. There are no recharge facilities, pump plants, or drinking water treatment plants in the Precise Plan area
155; therefore, the implementation of the Precise Plan (including redevelopment of the project site) would not impact any of these facilities and would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts than disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

4.9.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant hydrology and water quality impact?

The 2014 EIR did not find that implementation of the Precise Plan would result in any cumulatively significant hydrology and water quality impact because future cumulative projects would implement the same conditions of approval and comply with the NPDES and MRP requirements , which would avoid cumulative impacts to on -site hydrology and water quality and reduce them to a less than significant level. The cumulative projects would also comply with 2014 EIR MM UTL -2 and undergo review from the City’s Public Works Department prior to approval to confirm that the City’s storm drain system has adequate capacity to accommodate additional development.

The cumulative hydrology and water quality conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR and as discussed under checklist questions a) through e) above, the project would result in the same impacts as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. For this reason, the project would result in the same less than significant cumulative hydrology and water quality impact as disclosed in the 201 4 EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

155 Valley Water. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2021.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 147 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.10 Land Use and Planning

4.10.1 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.

4.10.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Regional and Local
Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP, adopted by the Santa Clara County ALUC, is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport, as well as aircraft occupants.156 The CLUP is also intended to ensure that surrounding new land uses do not affect airfield operations. The CLUP identifies the Airfield’s AIA. The AIA is a composite of areas surrounding the Airfield that are affected by noise, height, and safety considerations. Within the AIA, the CLUP establishes a (1) noise restriction area, (2) height restriction area, and (3) safety restriction area.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to land use and planning impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the project or relied upon in the 2014 EIR.

LUD 3.1 Land use and transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a half - mile of public transit service, and along major commute corridors.

LUD 3.2 Mix of land uses. Encourage a mix of land uses, housing types, retail and public amenities and public neighborhood open spaces accessible to the community.

LUD 3.4 Land use conflict. Minimize conflicts between different land uses.

LUD 3.8 Preserved land use districts. Promote and preserve commercial and industrial districts that support a diversified economic base.

LUD 20.1 Increased redevelopment . Encourage private properties along El Camino Real to be redeveloped and enhanced.

LUD 20.2 Focused intensive development. Allow more intensive development in key locations based on factors such as lot size, character of surrounding land uses, distance to transit facilities and opportunities to improve a site.

156 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

November 2, 2016.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 148 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Policy Description
LUD 20.4 Building height variation. Support a variety of building heights along El Camino Real to create a wide-ranging and interesting street.

LUD 20.5 Landscaped pedestrian amenities. Encourage development to provide landscaped pedestrian amenities and gathering places

The Housing Element is one of the seven required elements of the General Plan. As discussed in Section 1.1, the City recently adopted its updated Housing Element . The Housing Element identifies the City’s current housing conditions and future housing needs while outlining initiatives to improve available housing for populations with various income levels within the City. The Housing Element includes a Housing Element Site Inventory, which is a summary of residential capacity to meet the City’s RHNA requirements. The Housing Element includes a map that identifies provisional and official capacity for opportunity sites and pipeline projects. The project site is identified as a pipeline project in the Housing Element with capacity for 299 residential units.

El Camino Real Precise Plan
The Precise Plan, which was the subject of the 2014 EIR, was adopted by City Council on November 17, 2014. The Precise Plan encompasses approximately 287 acres and extends the entire 3.9 -mile length of the El Camino Real corridor in Mountain View. The Precise Plan is intended to facilitate the development of the El Camino Real corridor with a mix of residential, commercial, and open space land uses that are serviced by improved transportation facilities.

The Precise Plan includes development standards and design criteria that have been adopted to function along with the standards in the Municipal Code to limit land use conflicts and provide for compatibility with surrounding properties and neighborhoods. Standards are requirements that must be followed by project applicants, unless an exception to a standard is otherwise noted. Guidelines are the City’s expectations for how site, building, and infrastructure design and improvements should be designed. Projects should demonstrate how they address each guideline, however, there is flexibility in how projects meet each guideline depending on project specific design and location. The Precise Plan includes standards and design guidelines for the following Corridor Character Areas:

• Village Centers • Corridor Areas
• Castro/Miramonte Area • Residential Areas
• Neighborhood Corners

Each character area supports a range of uses, development intensities, urban design strategies. The Precise Plan discusses the applicable development standards and guidelines for each character area in Chapter 2: Development Standards and Guidelines.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 149 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.10.1.2 Existing Conditions
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Mixed -Use Corridor, which allows for a mix of multi-family residential, office, commercial, and lodging uses in addition to public spaces that would serve surrounding neighborhoods and visitors. The project site is zoned (P38) El Camino Real Precise Plan and is within the Village Centers area of the Precise Plan, which allows a variety of land uses including residential, commercial, office, and lodging.

The project site is currently developed with a vacant restaurant building and an operational bank building. Surrounding land uses include commercial uses on the north side of El Camino Real, commercial and residential uses to the west and east of the project site, and residential uses south of the project site.

4.10.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on land use and planning, would the project:

1) Physically divide an established community?
2) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

4.10.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project physically divide an established community?

The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes redevelopment of the project site as proposed) would not physically divide an established community because the Precise Plan would not include the construction of large- scale infrastructure that could divide an established community.157

The project would be consistent with the Precise Plan , including its vision of increased commercial intensities near residential uses, focused growth of residential uses near transit facilities, and developing underutilized parcels to provide a mix of land uses. The project would not construct any infrastructure that would physically divide an existing community (i.e., highways or railways). For these reasons, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

Pages 67 to 68.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 150 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

The 2014 EIR did not identify any significant impacts from implementing the Precise Plan due to a conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations include General Plan policies, Precise Plan policies, and the Moffett CLUP. The 2014 EIR acknowledged that specific developments proposed under the Precise Plan may not meet every policy within the 2030 General Plan; however, the 2014 EIR concluded that the Environmental Planning Commission and City Council have the ability to decide whether each specific development is generally consistent with the General Plan.
158

General Plan
The land uses proposed as part of the project are consistent with what is allowed under the Mixed - Use Corridor General Plan land use designation; however, the proposed FAR of 3.04 would exceed the allowable FAR of up to 3.0 for development adjacent to El C amino Real. The proposed density beyond what is typically allowed is permissible through implementation of the State Density Bonus Law. In addition, the project would be consistent with the General Plan land use policies for the El Camino Real Change Area including LUD 20.1, LUD 20.2, and LUD 20.5, which call for the redevelopment and enhancement of properties along El Camino Real, more intensive development in key locations, and the provision of landscaped pedestrian amenities and gathering places.

Precise Plan
The land uses proposed as part of the project are consistent with what is allowed within the Village Centers area of the Precise Plan; however, the proposed FAR of 3.04 would surpass the maximum FAR of 2.3 allowed for Tier 2 Process projects in this area of the Precise Plan. Similar to the discussion above, this exceedance would be allowed through implementation of the State Density Bonus Law.

The project would be consistent with most of the Precise Plan and Zoning Code requirements ; however, various waivers would be required to implement the project desi gn. These waivers would be granted under the State Density Bonus Law and would allow for several exceptions regarding maximum building height, required setbacks, pedestrian facilities, and ground floor commercial space. Refer to Section 2.3 Project Description for a list of the project’s waivers and concessions.

Moffett Field CLUP
As discussed in Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not located within the Moffett Federal Airfield AIA, safety zone s, or 65 dB noise contour. However, t he project site is located within the mapped Part 77 382- foot amsl horizontal surface, which means any structure exceeding 272 feet in height above grade (given the project site’s existing elevation of 107 to 110 feet

158 Ibid. Page 68.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 151 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
amsl) would require submittal to the FAA for airspace safety review. Since t he maximum building height of the project would be 75 feet and the project’s construction equipment (i.e., cranes) would not exceed 140 feet in height, the project would not require notification and review by the FAA to determine potential aviation hazard.

Based on this discussion, the project would not conflict with the General Plan, Precise Plan, or CLUP and result in the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

4.10.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant land use and planning impact?

The cumulative conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the 2014 EIR and as discussed under checklist questions a) and b) above, the project would result in the same impacts as disclosed in the 2014 EIR. For these reasons, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cumulative land use and planning impact than disclosed in the 201 4 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 152 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.11 Mineral Resources

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

4.11.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted by the California legislature in 1975 to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. As mandated under SMARA, the State Geologist has designated mineral land classifications in order to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), after receiving classification information from the State Geologist, to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance.

4.11.1.2 Existing Conditions
According to the U.S. Geologic Service (USGS), the project site and the surrounding area do not contain any mineral resources or mineral resource production areas.159

4.11.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on mineral resources, w ould the project:

1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

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

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 153 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.11.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state?

The 2014 EIR determined that implementation of the Precise Plan would have no impact upon mineral resources because none are located within the Precise Plan area. 160 As discussed in Section

4.11.1.2 Existing Conditions, there are no minerals or aggregate resources of statewide importance located within Mountain View (including the project site). Implementation of the project, therefore, would not result in an impact to mineral resources. This would be consistent with the findings of the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

The 2014 EIR determined that implementation of the Precise Plan would have no impact upon mineral resources because none are located within the Precise Plan area. 161 Implementation of the
project, therefore, would not result in an impact to mineral resources. This would be consistent with the findings of the 2014 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

4.11.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant mineral resources impact?

Since there are no minerals or aggregate resources of statewide importance located in Mountain View, implementation of the project, combined with other future cumulative projects, would not contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Cumulative Impact])

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

69. 161 Ibid. Page 69.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 154 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.12 Noise
The following discussion is based upon a Traffic Noise Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated June 6, 2023. The Assessment is attached to this document as Appendix G.

4.12.1 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.

4.12.1.1 Background Information
Noise
Factors that influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, include the actual level of sound, period of exposure, frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a decibel scale, which serves as an index of loudness. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Because the human ear cannot he ar all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA.

Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. Noise guidelines are generally expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, including L
eq, Ldn, or CNEL. 162 These descriptors are used to measure a location’s overall noise exposure, given that there are times when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from an airport or when a leaf blower is operating) and times when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on freeways or in the middle of the night). Lmax is the maximum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period.

Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Vibration amplitude can be quantified using Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. PPV has been routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne construction vibration. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 inches/second (in/sec) PPV.

162 Leq is a measurement of average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time. Day-Night Level (Ldn) is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) includes an additional five dB applied to noise occurring between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and Ldn are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 155 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.12.1.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Vibration Limits
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed vibration impact assessment criteria for evaluating vibration impacts associated with transit projects. The FTA has proposed vibration impact criteria based on maximum overall levels for a single event. The impact criteria for groundborne vibration are shown in Table 4.12-1 below. These criteria can be applied to development projects in jurisdictions that lack vibration impact standards.

Table 4.12-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria
Land Use Category
Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels
(VdB inch/sec)
Frequent
Event
Occasional
Events
Infrequent
Events

Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations
65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use 75 78 83 Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. September 2018.

State and Local
California Building Standards Code
The CBC establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings housing people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartments, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 Ldn/CNEL in any habitable room. Exterior windows must have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 40 or Outdoor- Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) of 30 when the property falls within the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour for a freeway or expressway, railroad, or industrial source.

For commercial uses, CalGreen ( Section 5.507.4.1 and 5.507.4.2) requires that wall and roof -ceiling assemblies exposed to the adjacent roadways have a composite STC rating of at least 50 or a composite OITC rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 when the commercial property falls within the 65 dBA L dn or greater noise contour for a freeway
or expressway, railroad, or industrial or stationary noise source. The state requires interior noise levels to be maintained at 50 dBA L
eq(1-hr) or less during hours of operation at a proposed commercial use.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 156 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP, adopted by the Santa Clara County ALUC, is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport, as well as aircraft occupants.163 The CLUP includes noise exposure maps and guidelines intended to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. The CLUP identifies the AIA. The AIA is a composite of areas surrounding the Airfield that are affected by noise, height, and safety considerations. Within the AIA, the CLUP establishes a (1) noise restriction area, (2) height restriction area, and (3) safety restriction area.

The Santa Clara County ALUC has jurisdiction over new land uses in the vicinity of airports, and establishes 65 dBA CNEL as the maximum allowable noise level considered compatible with residential uses. Recommendations made by the ALUC are advisory in nature to the local jurisdictions, not mandatory.

City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The purpose of the General Plan Noise Element is to guide policies for addressing exposure to current and projected noise sources in Mountain View. The Noise Element includes a land use compatibility section which outlines acceptable outdoor noise environment standards for land use categories, as shown below in Table 4.12-2.

163 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

November 18, 2016.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 157 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Table 4.12-2: General Plan Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines

ure In Decibels {CNEL)
Land U e Category D Le el In
Aesidenuat-Single-fam1ly.

Duple . obile Homes
Aesidentia ulli-Fam1Jy
Transient Lodging- otels,
Hotels
Schools. Libraries. Churches.

Hosoitals. ursmg Homes
Auditoriums. Concert Halls.

Amphitheaters. $parts enas.

Outdoor Soectator Soorts
Playgrounds. eighborhood
Palks
Golf Courses, Aiding Stables,
ter Recrea -on. Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and Professional
lndustnal. Manufactunng.

Utilities. riculture
- ORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
S5
Specified land use i satJs.f ory, based upon
the assumption tha any bu1ldi~s involved are
of nonn convenlJonal constructJon, thou 8ny
soecial noise insulation requirements.

CONDfflONALLY ACCEPTABLE
60 e constru on or development should be under
aken only after a detai ed alySIS of the noise
reducuon requirements is made and needed 1101se
insulation features included in the desrgn.

Source: Stats of Caffarnia a-ra1 Plan Q/mlrnes, 2003.
6S 70 85
- ORM.ALLY UNACCEPTABLE
ew a>n ction or develOl)ITlent should be d,scour-
aged If construction or deve opmen does
proceed, a deta led analysis of lhe noise reduction
requirements must be made and needed noise
insulation features included m the design.
- CLEARLY UNACCEPrABLE
New construction or devetopmen clearly should no
be undertaken .

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 158 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
The following General Plan policies are intended to reduce noise impacts and would be applicable to the project.

Policy Description
Noise
NOI 1.1 Land Use Compatibility . Use the Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines as a guide for planning and development decisions.

NOI 1.2 Noise-sensitive land uses. Require new development of noise- sensitive land uses to incorporate measures into the project design to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to the following acceptable levels:
• New single-family developments shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA Ldn for exterior noise in private outdoor active use areas.
• New multi-family residential developments shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA L dn for private and community outdoor recreation use areas. Noise standards do not apply to private decks and balconies in multi-family residential developments. • Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dBA L dn in all new single -family and multi- family residential units.

Where new single-family and multi-family residential units would be exposed to intermittent noise from major transportation sources such as train or airport operations, new construction shall achieve an interior noise level of 65 dBA through measures such as site design or special construction materials. This standard shall apply to areas exposed to four or more major transportation noise events such as passing trains or aircraft flyovers per day.

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

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

NOI 1.5 Major roadways. Reduce the noise impacts from major arterials and freeways.

NOI 1.6 Sensitive uses. Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, schools, hospitals and child-care facilities.

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

El Camino Real Precise Plan
The Precise Plan does not contain any specific noise-related standards, but it does acknowledge that new residential development along the El Camino Real corridor may require special construction features to mitigate noise conditions. This is consistent with General Plan Policy NOI 1.2 which requires that projects incorporate specific design features in residential buildings to maintain acceptable interior and exterior noise levels.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 159 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Mountain View Municipal Code
The City of Mountain View addresses noise regulations and goals in the Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code. These regulations help protect the community from exposure to excessive noise and also specify how noise is measured and regulated. Noise is also regulated through project conditions of approval. The Mountain View Police Department and City Attorney’s office enforce noise violations.

Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residences), and/or when construction duration lasts over an extended period of time. Section 8.70 of the Municipal Code restricts the hours of construction activity to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturda y, Sunday, or holidays without written approval from the City. Construction activities are defined to include any physical activity on the construction site or in the project’s staging area, including the delivery of materials.

The City of Mountain View also identifies limits on noise from stationary equipment (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning mechanical systems, delivery truck idling, loading/unloading activities, recreation activities, and parking lot operatio ns) in Section 21.26 of the Code. The maximum allowable noise level is 55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM), unless it has been demonstrated that such operation will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of residents subjected to such noise, and the use has been granted a permit by the Zoning Administrator.

4.12.1.3 Existing Conditions
The existing noise environment in the Precise Plan area results primarily from vehicular traffic along roadways and freeways (including El Camino Real, SR 85, and SR 237) and aircraft associated with Moffett Federal Airfield. The project site is located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the Moffett Federal Airfield. The nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses to the west, east, and south of the project site.

4.12.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on noise, w ould the project result in:

1) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
2) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 160 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

4.12.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Construction Noise
The 2014 EIR determined that construction activities associated with implementation of the Precise Plan could result in substantial temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels near construction sites throughout the Plan area; however, compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and the following standard conditions of approval would reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level.164

City S tandard Condition of Approval:

COA NOI-1.1: Work Hours : No work shall commence on the job site prior to 7:00 AM nor continue later than 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, nor shall any work be permitted on Saturday or Sunday or any holiday unless prior approval is granted by the Chief Building Official. At the discretion of the Chief Building Official, the general contractor or the developer may be required to erect a sign at a prominent location on the construction site to advise subcontractor and material suppliers of the working hours. Violation of this condition of approval may be subject to the penalties outlined in Section 8.6 of the Municipal Code and/or suspension of building permits.

Notice of Construction: The applicant shall notify neighbors within 750 feet of the project site of the construction schedule in writing, prior to construction. A copy of the notice and the mailing list shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits.

Construction Noise Reduction: The following noise reduction measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby properties: a. comply with manufacturer’s muffler requirements on all construction equipment engines; b. turn off construction equipment when not in use, where applicable; c. locate stationary equipment as far as practicable from receiving properties; d. use temporary sound barriers or sound curtains around loud stationary equipment if

164 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report . August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Pages 145 to 148.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 161 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
the other noise reduction methods are not effective or possible; e. and shroud or shield impact tools and use electric powered rather than diesel- powered construction equipment.

Disturbance Coordinator: The applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator (who may be an employee of the general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notifi cation sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. The sign must also list an emergency after- hours contact number for emergency personnel.

Construction activities for the project would be completed between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, consistent with the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 8). In addition, the project would implement the same standard conditions of approval identified in the 2014 EIR.

Consistent with the findings in the 2014 EIR , the project’s adherence to the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of the above conditions of approval would reduce temporary construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Operational Noise
Traffic Noise
The 2014 EIR determined that a significant permanent noise level increase would occur if project - generated traffic would result in a noise level increase of five dBA Ldn or greater in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Based on modeling completed in the 2014 EIR, it was estimated that traffic noise levels on El Camino Real would increase by 0.5 dBA CNEL and range from 70 dBA to 71 dBA CNEL with implementation of the Precise Plan. Because the increase was less than five dBA L
dn, it was concluded that traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.165

The Housing Element EIR concluded that additional vehicle trips generated by future development under the Housing Element update, including the project, would result in an ambient noise increase of less than one decibel along analyzed roadways which would be lower than the significance threshold of three dBA. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. 166

165 Ibid. Pages 143 to 147.
166 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.11-13.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 162 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
To evaluate the impact of the project on traffic noise in the area, a Traffic Noise Assessment was prepared for the project to confirm if there would be substantial increase on other streets that were not specifically evaluated in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR . An approximate doubling (100 percent increase) of worst-hour traffic volumes would roughly equate to a three dBA Ldn increase in traffic noise, and an approximate 50 percent increase in worst -hour traffic volumes would roughly equate to a two dBA Ldn increase in traffic noise.

The Traffic Noise Assessment determined that only two intersections, Castro Street/Victor Way and Lane Avenue/Victor Way, would have traffic volumes increase by 50 percent or more. Therefore, the only potentially affected roadway segment would be Victor Way, between Castro Street and Lane Avenue. During the PM peak hour, traffic volumes on Victor Way, east of Castro Street, would increase from 77 to 227 vehicles, and traffic volumes on Victor Way, west of Lane Avenue, would increase from 31 to 59 vehicles. The existing Ldn noise level at receptors along Victor Way is 57 dBA, and the predicted noise level on Victor Way from the project -generated traffic would be approximately 55 dBA. Adding the project L dn (55 dBA) to the existing L dn (57 dBA) would result in a background plus project noise level of 59 dBA L dn. Therefore, the increased traffic along Victor Way due to the project would be less than the significance threshold s used in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR, and Ldn noise levels at nearby receptors would not be substantially increased. Based on this discussion, the project would result in the same less than significant ambient noise increase on noise-sensitive receptors in the area as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Mechanical Equipment Noise
The 2014 EIR determined that implementation of the Precise Plan would result in increased ambient noise levels from new stationary noise sources such as mechanical equipment. The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of standard conditions of approval would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.167

City S tandard Condition of Approval:

COA NOI-1.2: Mechanical Equipment: The noise emitted by any mechanical equipment shall not exceed a level of 55 dB(A) during the day or 50 dB(A) during the night, 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM, when measured at any location on the adjoining residentially used property.

The Housing Element EIR concluded that stationary noise sources, such as mechanical equipment, that would be included in future development under the Housing Element update would be subject to the noise limits identified in Municipal Code Section 21.26, therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
168

167 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report . August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Pages 143 to 147.
168 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.11-11.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 163 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

The proposed mixed -use and commercial building would include mechanical systems (i.e., HVAC, exhaust fans, intake ventilation, condensing units) on the rooftops of the proposed buildings.

Consistent with the 2014 EIR , Housing Element EIR, and the stationary equipment noise limits identified in Municipal Code Section 21.26, the project would implement the same standard COA identified above.

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

b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

The 2014 EIR determined that there were no existing permanent sources of groundborne vibration or noise within the Precise Plan area and that no permanent noise sources would be proposed as part of the Precise Plan that could expose employees or residents to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. However, the 2014 EIR did identify the potential for a temporary vibration noise impact during construction activities that would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure 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. 169

2014 EIR Mitigation Measure

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 structu ral 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 whe re the combined vibrations would potentially impact sensitive areas.

169 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report . August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Pages 145 to 146.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 164 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
• 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.

The Housing Element EIR concluded that construction of future development under the Housing Element update would generate temporary increases in groundborne vibration levels; however, those temporary impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of a standard condition of approval requiring vibration BMPs. 170

City S tandard Condition of Approval:

COA NOI-2.1: Vibration Best Management Practices Construction Measures:

• Avoid impact pile driving and drill piles instead where possible. Drilled piles cause lower vibration levels where geological conditions permit their use. • Avoid using vibration rollers and tampers near sensitive areas. • In areas where project construction is anticipated to include vibration generating activities, vibration studies shall be conducted to determine the areas of impact and to present appropriate mitigation measures that may include the following:
o Identification of sites that would be exposed to project vibration compaction activities and could result in vibration impacts to structures;
o Develop a vibration monitoring and contingency plan;
o Construction contingency plan; and
o Conduct post-survey on structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage have been made.

Consistent with the findings in the 2014 EIR, the project would not include any permanent sources of groundborne vibration or noise. The project would implement 2014 EIR mitigation measure MM NOISE-1 and COA NOI -2.1 during construction activities; therefore, the project would result in the same less than significant impact construction -vibration impact as identified in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

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

SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Pages 4.11-12 to 4.11-13.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 165 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
c) For a project locate d within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Moffett Federal Airfield is a joint civilian/military airport located approximately 2.5 -miles northeast of the project site. As discussed in Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour from the Airfield. Therefore, the project would not expose future employees or residents to excessive noise levels and impacts would be less than significant.

This is the same impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact])

4.12.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant noise impact?

The Housing Element EIR concluded that cumulative noise impacts related to operation of mechanical equipment and construction noise and vibration would be less than significant with compliance with the Municipal Code and implementation of the City standard conditions of approval discussed in checklist questions a) and b) above. The Housing Element EIR also concluded that future development under the Housing Element update would only result in an increase in traffic noise of less than one decibel, therefore, the cumulative increase in roadside noise levels would be less than significant. 171

The cumulative noise conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the Housing Element EIR, and as discussed under checklist questions a) through c) above, the project would result in the same impacts as disclosed in the Housing Element EIR. For this reason, the project would result in the same less than significant cumulative noise impact as disclosed in the Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

4.12.3 Non-CEQA Effects
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD), effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts.

The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of Mountain View has policies (including General Plan Policies NOI 1.1 and NOI 1.2) that address existing noise conditions affecting a proposed project.

171 Ibid. Pages 4.11-18 to 4.11-19.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 166 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Future Interior Noise Environment
General Plan Policy NOI 1.2 and the CBC’s interior noise level standard of 45 dBA L dn apply to the residential portion of the project. Interior noise levels would vary depending upon the design of the buildings (relative window area to wall area) and the selected construction materials and methods.

Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA Ldn, forced-air mechanical ventilation systems are normally required. Where exterior noise levels exceed 70 dBA L dn, special sound rated construction systems are normally required.

To further reduce potential noise impacts resulting from implementation of the Precise Plan, the 2014 EIR concluded that any new residential development within the Precise Plan area would be required to incorporate noise reduction features into the design of the project and prepare a project -specific acoustical analysis to confirm that interior noise levels would be reduced to 45 dBA L dn or lower.

Conformance with these standard City conditions would ensure that increases in traffic noise associated with the project would have a less than significant impact on future residents.

City Standard Condition of Approval:

COA NOI-3.1: Interior Noise Levels: Construction drawings must confirm that measures have been taken to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB(A) L dn that shall be reviewed
and approved by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to building permit submittal.

Site-Specific Building Acoustical Analysis: A qualified acoustical consultant will review final site plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to construction to calculate expected interior noise levels as required by State noise regulations.

Project-specific acoustical analyses are required by the California Building Code to confirm that the design results in interior noise levels reduced to 45 dB(A) L dn or
lower. The specific determination of what noise insulation treatments are necessary will be completed on a unit -by-unit basis. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, will be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Building sound insulation requirements will include the provision of forced -air mechanical ventilation for all residential units as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant, so that windows can be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise. Spe cial building techniques (e.g., sound-rated windows and building facade treatments) will be implemented as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant to maintain interior noise levels at or below acceptable levels. These treatments will include, bu t are not limited to, sound -rated windows and doors, sound-rated wall construction, acoustical caulking, protected ventilation openings, etc.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 167 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Future Exterior Noise Environment
As established by General Plan Policy NOI-1.2, exterior noise environments at private and community outdoor recreation use areas should be maintained at or below 65 dBA L dn to be considered acceptable by the City of Mountain View. The noise standards do not apply to private decks and balconies in multi- family residential developments. A s part of the City’s building permit review process, the applicant shall be responsible for having a qualified acoustical specialist prepare a detailed analysis of exterior noise levels at outdoor recreational areas and construction drawings would confirm measures have been taken to achieve the City’s exterior noise standards for community outdoor recreation use areas.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 168 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.13 Population and Housing

4.13.1 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.

4.13.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Housing-Element Law
State requirements mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as housing -element law. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is the state - mandated process to identify the total number of housing units (by affordability level) that each jurisdiction must accommodate in its housing element. California housing-element law requires cities to: (1) zone adequate lands to accommodate its RHNA; ( 2) produce an inventory of sites that can accommodate its share of the RHNA; (3) identify governmental and non-governmental constraints to residential development; (4) develop strategies and a work plan to mitigate or eliminate those constraints; and (5) adopt a housing element and update it on a regular basis. 172

Regional and Local
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long -range plan for the nine- county Bay Area that provides strategies that increase the availability of affordable housing, support a more equitable and efficient economy, improve the transportation network, and enhance the region’s environmental resilience. Plan Bay Area 2050 promotes the development of a variety of housing types and densities within identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs). PDAs are areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified for housing and job growth.173

ABAG allocates regional housing needs to each city and county within the Bay Area, based on statewide goals. These allocations are designed to lay the foundation for Plan Bay Area 2050’s long - term envisioned growth pattern for the region. ABAG also develops a series of forecasts and models to project the growth of population, housing units, and jobs in the Bay Area. ABAG, MTC, and local jurisdiction planning staff created the Forecasting and Modeling Report, which is a technical overview of the growth forecasts and land use models upon which Plan Bay Area 2050 is based.

172 California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed May 4, 2023 . http://hcd.ca.gov/community-de velopment/housing- element/index.shtml.
173 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050. October 21, 2021. Page 20.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 169 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
City of Mountain View 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031 The Housing Element is one of the seven required elements of the City’s General Plan. As discussed in Section 1.1, the City recently adopted its updated Housing Element. The Housing Element identifies the City’s current housing conditions and future housing needs while outlining initiatives to improve available housing for populations with various income levels within the City. The Housing Element includes a Housing Element Site Inventory, which is a summary of residential capacity to meet the City’s RHNA requirements.

4.13.1.2 Existing Conditions
As of January 202 3, the City of Mountain View had an approximate population of 83,601 with an average of 2.3 2 persons per household. 174 The project site is currently developed with a vacant restaurant building and an operational bank. There are no existing residential units on-site; however, there are residential developments adjacent to the project site.

The City recently adopted an update to its Housing Element in April 2024. With the adoption of the Housing Element, the buildout of the General Plan (which includes the Precise Plan) would result in 67,100 dwelling units, 142,200 residents, and 133,000 jobs in the City by 2040.

4.13.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on population and housing, would the project:

1) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

174 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- and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 170 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.13.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

The 2014 EIR estimated that implementation of the Precise Plan would increase the population within the Precise Plan area by 1,500 residents by 2030. The 2014 EIR stated that this population growth would be consistent with General Plan policies and actions which encourage the development of mixed-uses, affordable housing, and transit -oriented development within the El Camino Real corridor. The 2014 EIR concluded that because this development would occur in a highly developed urban area, the development of any new utility and transportation infrastructure would not indirectly induce unanticipated population growth and impacts would be less than significant. 175 The amount
of commercial development included in the project was evaluated in the 2014 EIR and is planned growth pursuant to the adopted Precise Plan.

The development of the project site with 299 residential units was analyzed in the Housing Element EIR and included in the City’s adopted Housing Element. The Housing Element EIR concluded that any infrastructure improvements required would be designed to serve only the planned housing and would not enable growth or facilitate unplanned growth beyond that housing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
176 Because the project is accounted for in the adopted El Camino Precise Plan and Housing Element , development of the project is considered planned growth, as would the required infrastructure to serve it. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.14 Public Services, Section 4.16 Transportation, and Section 4.18 Utilities and Service Systems, the project would be adequately served by existing public services and infrastructure and does not propose to extend roads or other infrastructure in a manner that would result in indirect population growth. For these reasons, the project would result in the same impacts as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

There are no housing units or habitable residences on -site. The project would demolish the existing improvements on-site and replace them with a new, mixed-use building and bank building. Based on this information, implementation of the project would not displace individuals from the project site that would necessitate the construction of housing elsewhere and the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR. (Same as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

175 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Pages 71 to 73.
176 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.12-6.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 171 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.13.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant population and housing impact?

The geographic area for cumulative population and housing impacts is the City boundaries and can be extended further to Santa Clara County and the San Francisco Bay region. Past, present, and pending development projects contribute to the City’s, County’s, and region’s population and housing impact.

The project’s proposed residences are planned growth included in the City’s adopted Housing Element. T he Housing Element EIR determined that development consistent with the Housing Element is planned growth and would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable effect related to unplanned growth and implementation of the Housing Element update. 177

The cumulative population and housing conditions have not substantially changed since the certification of the Housing Element EIR, and as discussed under checklist questions a) and b) above, the project would result in the same impacts as disclosed in the Housing Element EIR. For this reason, the project would result in the same less than significant cumulative population and housing impact as disclosed in the Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

177 Ibid. Page 4.12-8.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 172 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.14 Public Services

4.14.1 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.

4.14.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

Government Code Section 65995 through 65998
California Government Code Section 65996 specifies that an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities is the payment of a school impact fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. Government Code Sections 65995 through 65998 set forth provisions for the payment of school impact fees by new development by “mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur (as a result of the planning, use, or development of real property” (Section 65996[a]). The legislation states that the payment of school impact fees “are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” under CEQA (Section 65996[b]).

Developers are required to pay a school impact fee to the school district to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed residential development project. The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.

Regional and Local
Countywide Trails Master Plan
The Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan Update is a regional trails plan approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. It provides a framework for implementing the County’s vision of providing a contiguous trail network that connects cities to one another, cities to the County’s regional open space resources, County parks to other County parks, and the northern and southern

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 173 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
urbanized regions of the County. The plan identifies regional trail routes, sub- regional trail routes, connector trail routes, and historic trails.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to public services impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the project or relied upon in the 2014 EIR.

Policy Description
Public Safety
PSA 1.1 Adequate staffing. Maintain adequate police and fire staffing, performance levels and facilities to serve the needs for the community.

PSA 1.2 Design for safety. Support and promote crime prevention and fire safety strategies in the design of new developments.

PSA 2.7 Police service levels and facilities. Ensure Mountain View Police Department service levels and facilities meet demands from new growth and development.

PSA 3.1 Minimized losses. Minimize property damage, injuries and loss of life from fire.

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

Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
POS 1.1 Additional parkland. Expand park and open space resources to meet current City standards for open acreage and population in each neighborhood.

POS 1.2 Recreation facilities in new residential developments. Require new development to provide park and recreation facilities.

POS 5.2 Schools and open space. Collaborate with the school district on new school development and intensification to accommodate population growth while preserving and protecting public parks and playgrounds.

POS 7.5 Library services. Provide high-quality library services and resources that address community needs and goals.

Mobility
MOB 10.4 Emergency response. Monitor emergency response times and where necessary consider appropriate measures to maintain emergency response time standards. Measures to ensure provisions of adequate response times may include the expanded use of emergency vehicle signal preemption, evacuation route modifications, or the construction of new facilities (e.g., fire stations).

Mountain View Municipal Code
Chapter 41 of the Municipal Code contains a Park Land Dedication Ordinance, which sets requirements for park land dedication or in-lieu fees. The City requires developers to dedicate at least three acres of park land for each 1,000 persons who will live in a new housing project (owned or rented), or to pay an in-lieu fee that would be used to offset the increased demands on park facilities.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 174 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
by the development. Section 41.11 of the Municipal Code exempts affordable housing units from being counted towards the total number of dwelling units used to calculate the park land dedication requirement.

4.14.1.2 Existing Conditions
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection in the City is provided by the City of Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD), which serves a population of approximately 83,000 and an area of 12 square miles. The MVFD provides fire suppression, rescue response, hazard prevention and education, and disaster preparedness services.

In fiscal year 2022/2023, out of 11,497 emergency calls made to the MVFD, 7,977 of the calls were for medical aid and 552 were for fire.178 The MVFD has an established response time of six minutes for “Medical Code Three” calls (i.e., those requiring expedited transport).179

The City of Mountain View also participates in a mutual aid program with neighboring cities, including Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale. Through this program, one or more of the mutual aid cities would provide assistance to Mountain View in whatever capacity was needed.

Fire Station Two is closest to the project site at 160 Cuesta Drive, approximately 0.78-mile southeast of the project site. The MVFD reviews applications for new projects to ensure that they comply with the City’s current fire codes and standards.

Police Protection Services
Police protection in the project area is provided by the City of Mountain View Police Department (MVPD). MVPD consists of authorized staff of 143 full -time, part -time, and limited -period personnel.
180 Officers patrolling the area are dispatched from police headquarters, located at 1000 Villa Street, approximately 0.66-mile north of the project site.

The MVPD has a goal to respond to Priority E and Priority 1 calls in less than four minutes at least 55 percent of the time. Priority E and Priority 1 calls are considered the highest priority calls and signal emergency dispatch from the MVPD. Priority E calls are of higher importance because they are often associated with violent crime incidents.
181 MVPD has a mutual aid agreement with the surrounding jurisdictions, under which the other agencies would assist the MVPD in responding to calls when needed.

178 Mountain View Fire Department. Fire Department Annual Report, Fiscal Year 202 2-23. Accessed May 16, 2024. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8329/638423818087870000. 179 City of Mountain View. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2011012069. September 2012. Page 477. 180 Mountain View Police Department. 2021 Annual Report. Accessed July 6, 2022. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=37694 181 City of Mountain View. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2011012069. September 2012. Page 483 and 484.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 175 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Schools
The project site is located within Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District (MVLASD). MVWSD serves grades kindergarten through eighth grade and MVLAS services high -school age students. Students in the project site area attend Benjamin Bubb Elementary School located at 525 Hans Avenue (approximately 0.37-mile southeast of the project site), Isaac Newton Graham Middle School located at 1175 Castro Street (approximately 700 feet south of the project site) , and Mountain View High School located at 3535 Truman Avenue (approximately 1.8 miles south of the project site).

Table 4.14-1 shows the existing school capacities and recent enrollment data at Benjamin Bubb Elementary School, Isaac Newton Graham Middle School, and Mountain View High School.

Table 4.14-1: 2022-2023 School Enrollment and Capacity
School Capacity1,2 Enrollment3 Remaining Capacity
Benjamin Bubb Elementary School 432 339 93
Isaac Alexander Graham Middle School 1,176 881 295
Mountain View High School 1,546 2,220 (674)4
Sources:
1 MVWSD. Level I Developer Fee Study. Appendix E. May 5, 2022. 2 Aguilar, Irene. Assistant to the Associate Superintendent -Business Services, Mountain View Los Altos High School District.

Personal Communication. July 7, 2022.
3 California Department of Education. “Data Quest.” Accessed August 4, 2023 . Available at:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/dataquest.asp.
4 The school currently utilizes portable classrooms in addition to permanent education facilities to accommodate the additional students over capacity. The construction of permanent classroom facilities is underway through Measure E bond program funding.

Parks and Open Space
The City of Mountain View currently owns or manages approximately 993 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks and the Stevens Creek Trail. The urban parks are divided among 18 mini-parks, 13 neighborhood/school parks (under joint -use agreements with local school districts), five neighborhood parks not associated with school sites, two community parks, and one regional park (Shoreline at Mountain View).
182 The City also maintains 10 parks under joint -use
agreements with local school districts.

The nearest public park to the project site is Eagle Park, located approximately 0.25-mile northwest of the site on Franklin Street. The park includes grass areas, a public pool, and walking paths. Other

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

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 176 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
nearby park facilities include McKelvey Park , Cuesta Park, and Rengstorff Park. Rengstorff Park, approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the project site, is one of two large community parks in the City. The park is 16.92 acres in size and includes the City’s Community Center and a number of sports fields and other facilities.

Libraries
The Mountain View Public Library, located at 585 Franklin Street, is the City’s only library. It is located approximately 0.31-mile north of the project site.

4.14.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on public services, would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?

4.14.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services?

The 2014 EIR determined that impacts related to the increase in demand for fire protection and emergency medical services associated with implementation of the ECR Precise Plan (which includes the proposed commercial development) would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with General Plan Policies PSA 1.1 and PSA 3.1. Compliance with these policies would allow the City to maintain adequate fire staffing, performance levels and facilities to serve the needs of the community while minimizing property damage, injuries, and loss of life due to fire. 183

183 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Pages 81 to 82.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 177 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
The Housing Element EIR determined that future development facilitated by the Housing Element update (including the proposed residences) would not require the construction of additional fire facilities to serve the population. However, if the construction or expansion of facilities to accommodate additional personnel or equipment should become necessary in the future, CEQA review, General Plan provisions, Municipal Code regulations, and payment of impact fees would all be required which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 184

The project’s demand on fire protection services was accounted for in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. The project would be constructed to comply with current Fire Code standards as adopted by the City of Mountain View, and MVFD would review project plans to ensure adequate fire safety and prevention measures on -site. For these reasons, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than disclosed in 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR . (Same as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

b) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services?

The 2014 EIR concluded that the population and employment growth resulting from implementation of the Precise Plan (included the proposed commercial development) would increase the demand for police services, which could in turn impact emergency response times. However, this potential impact would be reduced through compliance with General Plan Policies PSA 1.1, PSA 1.2, PSA 2.7, and PSA

3.3. The City’s compliance with these policies would maintain adequate police staffing, performance levels and facilities, incorporate crime prevention strategies in the design of new development, ensure police service levels and facilities meet demands from new growth and development, and implement development review procedures that prioritize the protection of public and environmental health and safety.
185 The 2014 EIR estimated that the full implementation of the Precise Plan could require the addition of two sworn officers based on current staffing ratios; however, the 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not require any expansion of the Police headquarters at 1000 Villa Street.

The Housing Element EIR determined that future development facilitated by the Housing Element update (including the proposed residences ) would not require the construction of additional police facilities to serve the population. However, if the construction or expansion of facilities to accommodate additional personnel or equipment should become necessary in the future, CEQA

184 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.13-13.
185 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Pages 82 to 84.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 178 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
review, General Plan provisions, Municipal Code regulations, and payment of impact fees would all be required which would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.186

The project’s demand on police protection services was accounted for in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. The project would be reviewed by MVPD to ensure safety features are incorporated to minimize the opportunity for criminal activity, consistent with General Plan policies PSA 1.2 and PSA

3.3. The project would include nighttime security lighting and locked g ates to the residential spaces and parking areas. These safety features would minimize and deter the opportunity for criminal activity. For these reasons, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than disclosed in the 2014 E IR and Housing Element EIR . (Same as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

c) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools?

The Housing Element EIR determined that future development facilitated by the Housing Element update (including the proposed residences) could contribute to the need for new school facilities in Mountain View due to population and student increases. The Housing Element EIR concluded that the City’s adherence to General Plan Policies POS-5.3 and POS-5.4 would reduce the potential effects to school facilities associated with increased enrollment as a result of population growth. In addition, the Housing Element EIR concluded that payment of development fees consistent with SB 50 and California Government Code Section 65996 would fully mitigate the potential effect on public school facilities from the new student population, and potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
187

The project would construct 299 residential units, which would generate approximately 51 elementary and middle school students and 23 high school students. 188 The existing capacity and enrollment of the local schools is shown in Table 4.14-1 above. As shown in Table 4.14-1, there is existing capacity at Bubb Elementary School and Graham Middle School to accommodate the students generated by the project. As of the end of the 2021 to 2022 school year, Mountain View High School is over capacity by 674 students. The construction of permanent classroom facilities is underway through Measure E bond program funding and has undergone separate environmental review. The construction of these additional facilities would result in an overall capacity of 2,379

186 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.13-14.
187 Ibid. Page 4.13-16.
188 Based on the following student generation rates: Elementary and middle school students per market-rate multi- family unit = 0.124 (0.555 per below market-rate unit) Source: Mountain View Whisman School District. Level 1 Developer Fee Study. May 5, 2022. Appendix E.

High school students per market-rate multi-family unit = 0.047 (0.312 per below market-rate unit) Source: Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Level 1 Developer Fee Study. July 27, 2020. Table 1.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 179 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
students189, which would be sufficient to accommodate the currently enrolled students in addition to the approximately 23 new students that would be generated by this project.

As required by state law (Government Code Section 65996), the project would pay the appropriate school impact fees to offset and mitigate the increased demands on school facilities caused by the project which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, consistent with the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

d) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks?

The 2014 EIR concluded that although implementation of the Precise Plan would result in a population increase that could increase demand for parks, open space, and recreational facilities in and around the Precise Plan area, potential impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of General Plan policies and payment of park land dedication fees consistent with state law (Quimby Act). 190

The Housing Element EIR determined that while future development under the Housing Element update would increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities, individual projects would be subject to the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance, which requires land dedication or payment of a fee in lieu thereof. In addition, Housing Element EIR determined that the open space developed as a result of requirements for individual projects would also absorb a small portion of the demand for parks and recreational facilities by new residents. Based on these two factors, the Housing Element EIR concluded that implementation of future projects under the Housing Element update, including the project, would result in less than significant impacts to park facilities. 191

Consistent with the findings of the Housing Element EIR, t he increase in demand for recreational facilities resulting from the project would be partially offset by the construction of the on-site public plaza and residential amenity space as part of the project. In addition, the project would pay the required in lieu fees outlined in the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance (see Section 4.15 Recreation for additional detail), which would further reduce park impacts to a less than significant level, consistent with state law (Quimby Act) and the findings of the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR . (Same as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

189 Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration - Mountain View High School Expansion Project (SCH Number 2011092006). November 2018. Page 10. 190 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study . August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Page

86. 191 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.13-17.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 180 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
e) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities?

The 2014 EIR concluded that although implementation of the Precise Plan would increase the population in the City, General Plan Policy POS 7.5 would require the City to ensure adequate library facilities continue to be provided. In addition, the 2014 EIR determined that any potential new community facilities in the future would be located within urbanized areas and would not be likely to have significant environmental effects beyond those already identified in the 2014 EIR. 192

Implementation of the project would contribute to an incremental increase in demand for other public facilities, such as libraries, because it would add new residents to the City. The single library in the City currently serves the existing population of 83,601, and the addition of the approximately 694 project residents would result in a potential increase in patrons of approximately 0.8 percent. This incremental increase in demand would not require the construction or expansion of new library facilities, therefore, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than disclosed in the 2014 EIR or Housing Element EIR. (Same as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

4.14.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant public services impact?

The Housing Element EIR determined that cumulative projects, including future development facilitated by the Precise Plan and Housing Element update (including the project) , would have less than significant cumulative impacts regarding fire protection services, emergency medical response services, and police protection services. In addition, the Housing Element EIR determined that payment of fees and compliance with the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance would reduce impacts to schools and park facilities to a less than significant level. Therefore, cumulative impacts were determined to be less than significant.193

The cumulative conditions within the City have not substantially changed since the certification of the Housing Element EIR. The project is consistent with the development assumptions in the cumulative Housing Element EIR discussion. The project would pay the applicable school and park fees and comply with standard conditions of approval. Therefore, the project would result in the

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

86. 193 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.13-16.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 181 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
same less than significant cumulative public services impact as disclosed in the Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 182 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.15 Recreation

4.15.1 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.

4.15.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to recreation impacts.

The following goals and policies are applicable to the project.

Policy Description
Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
POS 1.1 Additional parkland. Expand park and open space resources to meet current City standards for open acreage and population in each neighborhood.

POS 1.2 Recreation facilities in new residential developments. Require new development to provide park and recreation facilities.

POS 2.6 Diverse park amenities. Design parks to address a range of activities for diverse populations.

POS 4.2 Park design. Implement high-quality park amenities and design.

POS 6.1 Citywide network of pathways. Develop a citywide network of pedestrian and bicycle pathways to connect neighborhoods, employment centers, open space resources and major destinations within the city.

Land Use and Design
LUD 16.6 Open space amenities. Encourage development to include open space amenities, plazas and parks that are accessible to the surrounding transit, bicycle and pedestrian network.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 183 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
El Camino Real Precise Plan
The Precise Plan includes several guidelines and standards related to recreational facilities that encourage s treet-facing open areas that are publicly accessible , such as plazas, parks, gardens, courtyards, extended sidewalk zones, or covered arcade frontages. It also encourages usable open areas within residential developments that could include plazas, courtyards, parks, forecourts, rooftop amenities, and other open spaces designed for pedestrian and bicycle circulation, outdoor gatherings, recreation or passive activities. Public plazas are specifically encouraged in Village Center areas and should be fully visible from El Camino Real while also using space or landscaping to act as a buffer for the street’s impacts.

The City also allows developers to propose, for City Council consideration, a POPA space within a residential development site for park land credit, reducing the land or in-lieu fee obligation generated by the development. Section 41.11 of the Municipal Code exempts affordable housing units from being counted towards the total number of dwelling units used to calculate the park land dedication requirement.

4.15.1.2 Existing Conditions
As discussed under Section 4.14 Public Services, the City of Mountain View currently owns or manages approximately 993 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks and the Stevens Creek Trail.
194 The City also maintains 10 parks under joint -use agreements with local school districts. As shown in the City’s 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan, the project site is located within the Miramonte Planning Area, which contains approximately 62 acres of open space across three school sites, two mini-parks, one neighborhood park, and one community park. The Precise Plan area currently does not meet the City’s standard of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents as there are no parks within the El Camino Real Precise Plan area.

The recreational facilities within one mile of the project site include McKelvey Park, Eagle Park, and Cuesta Park. These parks contain facilities such as baseball fields, public pools, tennis courts, and walking paths.

194 City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. Accessed May 5, 2023 . https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14762

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 184 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.15.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on recreation:

1) Would the project i ncrease the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility wo uld occur or be accelerated?
2) Does the project i nclude recreational facilities or require the construction o r expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

4.15.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

The Precise Plan is comprised of developed urban parcels adjacent to El Camino Real, and there are no parks located within the Precise Plan boundaries. Residents within the Precise Plan area rely on parks and open space that lie outside of the Precise Plan boundaries. The 2014 EIR concluded that although implementation of the Precise Plan would result in a population increase that could increase demand for parks, open space, and recreational facilities in and around the Precise Plan area, potential impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of General Plan policies and payment of park land dedication fees consistent with state law (Quimby Act).
195

The Housing Element EIR determined that while future development under the Housing Element update would increase the use of existing recreational facilities and worsen existing parkland deficiencies, individual projects would be subject to the City’s Parkland Dedication Ordinance, which requires land dedication or payment of a fee in lieu thereof. The Housing Element EIR concluded that compliance with the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance and associated City standard condition s of approval would reduce impacts to recreation facilities to a less than significant level.196

The increase in demand for recreational facilities resulting from the project would be offset by the on-site public plaza and residential amenity space proposed as part of the project. The project would also construct a public plaza along El Camino Real that would be open to the public and contain landscaping, seating areas, and accent lighting. The mixed-use building would include amenities on the ground-floor level such as a fitness center and lounge area for residents. In addition, the project would include three courtyards for residents on the second level of the building that would include

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

90. 196 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.13-18 to 4.13-19.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 185 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
amenities such as lounge furniture, landscaping, a pool and spa, barbeque areas, and raised planter beds. The rooftop of the building would include additional amenities such as dining and kitchen areas, lounge chairs, an edible garden, and a game area for residents.

In addition, the project would pay standard in lieu fees as required by the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance which would further reduce park impacts to a less than significant level, consistent with state law (Quimby Act). These fees would, in part, contribute towards the City’s policies and plans to provide adequate park land and open space for residents throughout the City, including within the Precise Plan area. In addition, the inclusion of the public plaza and amenity space for residents on - site would offset the project’s demand on City park and recreation facilities. Based on this discussion, the project would not substantially increase the deterioration of existing recreational facilities because it would pay fees that would be used to maintain existing parks. As a result, the project would result in a less than significant impact to recreational facilities and would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant])

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction o r expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

The 2014 EIR concluded implementation of General Plan policies such as POS 1.2 and LUD 16.6 would ensure that sufficient park space is available to accommodate the anticipated population growth that would result from implementation of the Precise Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Precise Plan would result in less than significant impacts to recreation facilities.197

As discussed in Section 2.3.1.3, the project would include outdoor, common amenity space on-site in the form of the public plaza, courtyard areas, and rooftop deck. These amenities total approximately 42,237 square feet and include lounge furniture, landscaping, a pool and spa, barbeque areas, and raised planter beds. The construction impacts of the se on-site amenity space s are evaluated throughout this document and found not to result in significant impacts with the implementation of identified conditions of approval and mitigation measures. As discussed under checklist question a) , the inclusion of on-site amenity spac e and payment of fees consistent with the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance would offset the project’s incremental increase in demand for park and recreation facilities to a less than significant level. For these reasons, the project would not require the expansion of existing recreational facilities. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant])

197 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Initial Study. August 2014. SCH No.: 2014032002. Pages 89 to 90.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 186 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.15.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant recreation impact?

The 2014 EIR concluded the implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in a significant cumulative recreation impact. The 2014 EIR determined that future projects would be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring payment of park land dedication fees consistent , which would reduce park impacts to a less than significant level, consistent with state law (Quimby Act).

The Housing Element EIR concluded that compliance with the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance and associated City standard conditions of approval would reduce cumulative impacts to recreation facilities to a less than significant level .
198 As discussed in Section 4.15.2.1, the project would result in the same impacts as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. The project would comply with the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance . Therefore, the project would result in the same cumulative impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

198 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.13-18 to 4.13-19.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 187 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.16 Transportation
The following is based, in part, on a Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis (MTA) prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. dated December 13, 2024. This report is attached to this EIR as Appendix H.

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the certification of the 2014 EIR, with the exception of the implementation of SB 743 and adoption of the City’s VMT Policy 2020. The regulations at the time of the Housing Element EIR are the same as they are today. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

4.16.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Regional Transportation Plan
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county Bay Area, including Santa Clara County. MTC is charged with regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the region. MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 in October 2021, which includes a Regional Transportation Plan to guide regional transportation investment for revenues from federal, state, regional and local sources through 2050.

Senate Bill 743
SB 743 establishes criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts using a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric intended to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multi-modal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Specifically, SB 743 requires analysis of VMT in determining the significance of transportation impacts. Local jurisdictions were required by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to implement a VMT policy by July 1, 2020.

SB 743 did not authorize OPR to set specific VMT impact thresholds, but it did direct OPR to develop guidelines for jurisdictions to utilize. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) describes factors that might indicate whether a development project’s VMT may be significant. Notably, projects located within 0.50 mile of transit should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact based on OPR guidance.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 188 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Regional and Local
Congestion Management Program
VTA oversees the Congestion Management Program (CMP), which is aimed at reducing regional traffic congestion. The relevant state legislation requires that urbanized counties in California prepare a CMP in order to obtain each county’s share of gas tax revenues. State legislation requires that each CMP define traffic LOS standards, transit service standards, a trip reduction and transportation demand management plan, a land use impact analysis program, and a capital improvement element.

VTA has review responsibility for proposed development projects that are expected to affect CMP - designated intersections.

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

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 9.4 Enhanced pedestrian activity. Ensure commercial development enhances pedestrian activity through these strategies:
• Encourage the first level of the building to occupy a majority of the lot’s frontage, with exceptions for vehicle and pedestrian access
• Allow for the development of plazas and dining areas
• Encourage the majority of a building’s ground floor frontage to provide visibility into the building by incorporating windows and doors
• Require that ground floor uses be primarily pedestrian-oriented • Ensure pedestrian safety and access when designing parking areas and drive-through operations
• Minimize driveways
LUD 17.1 Connectivity. Improve connectivity and integrate transportation services between North Bayshore, Downtown, NASA Ames and other parts of the city.

LUD 17.2 Transportation Demand Management strategies. Require development to include and implement Transportation Demand Management strategies.

Mobility
MOB 1.4 Street design. Ensure street design standards allow a variety of public and private roadway widths.

MOB 1.5 Public accessibility. Provide traffic calming, especially in neighborhoods and around schools, parks, and gathering places.

MOB 1.6 Traffic calming. Provide traffic calming, especially in neighborhoods and around schools, parks, and gathering places.

MOB 2.1 Broad accessibility. Improve universal access within private developments and public and transit facilities, programs and services.

MOB 3.1 Pedestrian network. Provide a safe and comfortable pedestrian network.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 189 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Policy Description
MOB 3.2 Pedestrian connections. Increase connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, village centers, and other destinations.

MOB 3.3 Pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings at key locations across physical barriers.

MOB 3.4 Avoiding street widening. Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian connectivity by limiting street widening as a means of improving traffic.

MOB 4.1 Bicycle network. Improve facilities and eliminate gaps along the bicycle network to connect destinations across the City.

MOB 4.3 Public bicycle parking. Increase the amount of well -maintained, publicly accessible bicycle parking and storage throughout the City.

MOB 4.4 Bicycle parking standards. Maintain bicycle parking standards and guidelines for well -sited bicycle parking and storage in private developments to enhance the bicycle network.

MOB 5.5 Access to transit services. Support right-of-way design and amenities consistent with local transit goals to facilitate access to transit services and improve transit as a viable alternative to driving.

MOB 7.1 Parking codes. Maintain efficient parking standards that consider reduced demand due to development conditions such as transit accessibility.

MOB 7.2 Off-street parking. Ensure new off-street parking is properly designed and efficiently used.

MOB 7.3 Public parking management. Manage parking so that adequate parking is available for surrounding uses.

MOB 8.3 Multi-modal transportation monitoring. Monitor the effectiveness of policies to reduce VMT per service population by establishing transportation mode share targets and periodically comparing travel survey data to established targets.

MOB 9.2 Reduced vehicle miles traveled. Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita VMT.

MOB 10.3 Avoiding street widening. Limit widening of streets as a means of improving traffic and focus instead on operational improvements to preserve community character.

Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 3.4 Right-of-way regulations. Ensure that right -of-way regulations comply with relevant street and highway codes while still prioritizing multi- modal transportation in all right- of-way design.

Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
POS 2.2 Connectivity and transit access. Improve connectivity and transit accessibility to parks.

POS 2.3 Pedestrian and bicycle access. Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, and create new connections to parks to minimize pedestrian and bicycle travel distances.

El Camino Real Precise Plan
Chapter 3: Mobility and Streetscapes in the Precise Plan outlines the typical design that streets within the Precise Plan should implement, identifies important pedestrian areas, and highlights the importance of the existing and planned bicycle and transit network. Chapter 3 also provides design guidelines for sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, landscaping, lighting, furnishings, and bicycle and transit facilities.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 190 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
2030 General Plan Action Item MOB 8.1.3
General Plan Action Item MOB 8.1.3 established interim LOS standards for the City to use based on the LOS standards from the 1992 General Plan. These standards include a target peak hour LOS policy of LOS D for all intersections and roadway segments, except for intersections and street segments within the Downtown Core and San Antonio areas and intersections and street segments on CMP designated roadways in Mountain View, which have a target of LOS E.

Mountain View VMT Policy
The Mountain View City Council adopted a Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy on June 30, 2020, which replaces LOS with VMT as the metric for determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA, consistent with SB 743. The City’s VMT P olicy includes screening criteria for projects which are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. Specifically, the City’s VMT Policy states that projects would have a less than significant VMT impact and do not require further project- specific VMT analysis if the project meets the screening criteria for small project screening, map - based screening, transit screening, or affordable housing screening. Projects determined by the City to be local-serving retail would also be assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and be exempt from being required to conduct a detailed CEQA VMT analysis.

Mountain View Comprehensive Modal Plan
The City identifies the level of comfort for pedestrians on any given roadway using the Pedestrian Quality of Service (PQOS) metric. The Mountain View Comprehensive Modal Plan (AccessMV) identifies the continuity or gaps in the City’s pedestrian facilities and identifies PQOS scoring ranging from 1 to 5. A higher PQOS score indicates a low quality of service. The PQOS metric covers the following factors:

• Proximity to a variety of destinations and amenities
• Street connectivity and directness of routes to destinations • Presence of a continuous network of pedestrian facilities • Motor vehicle traffic speed; and
• Street width and intersection conditions

The City also identifies the perceived comfort and safety of existing roads and bikeway facilities from the perspective of cyclists using the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) metric. AccessMV identifies the BLTS scoring ranging from 1 to 4. A higher BLTS score indicates that the bikeway is comfortable for a more confident adult. A BLTS score of 1 is comfortable for all ages and abilities, a BLTS score of 2 is comfortable for an average adult, while a BLTS score of 4 indicates that the streets are comfortable only for highly confident riders. The metric (ranging from 1 to 4) in the AccessMV document covers the following factors:

• Number of through lanes or street width
• Posted speed limit or prevailing vehicle speed

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 191 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
• Presence and type of bicycle facilities
• Presence of traffic signals

2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan
The 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) provides a vision, strategies, and actions for improving and encouraging bicycle travel in and through the City. The 2015 BTP also expands on the City’s 2030 General Plan mobility goals by more specifically addressing bicycle-related needs of the community.

The 2015 BTP proposes Class I I bike lanes along Castro Street and new bicycle facilities along El Camino Real.

Safe Routes to School Program
In 2011, the City launched a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program to promote walking and bicycling to school for Mountain View students and families by identifying suggested routes to schools that are located along streets with improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

4.16.1.2 Existing Conditions
Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided by SR 85 and SR 237. Local access to the project site is provided via El Camino Real (SR 82), El Monte Avenue, Shoreline Boulevard, Miramonte Avenue, Castro Street, Calderon Avenue, Lane Avenue, and Victor Way. These roadways are briefly described below.

• SR 85 is a six -lane freeway in the vicinity of the project site that extends from US 101 in Mountain View to US 101 in San Jose. SR 85 provides access to the project site via SR 237 and the interchange at El Camino Real.
• SR 237 is a four- to six-lane freeway that extends west in Mountain View from El Camino Real and east to I-880 in Milpitas. In the project vicinity, SR 237 has two mixed -flow lanes in each direction and ends at El Camino Real, transitioning into Grant Road. SR 237 provides access to the project site via El Camino Real.
• El Camino Real (SR 82) is a six-lane arterial that extends from Santa Clara County to San Mateo County. El Camino Real is oriented in an approximately east -west direction in the project vicinity. Near the project site, El Camino Real has a raised, landscaped median with left -turn pockets provided at some intersections.
• El Monte Avenue is a north-south residential collector between Elena Road/Moody Road in the south and El Camino Real in the north. El Monte Avenue continues southwesterly south of Jay Street to the City of Los Altos. El Monte Avenue has four lanes north of Jay Street, and two lanes south of Jay Street.
• Shoreline Boulevard is a north-south arterial that extends northward from El Camino Real (SR 82) across US 101 to Shoreline Park. Shoreline Boulevard is a four- to six-lane roadway with a

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 192 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
landscaped median and left-turn pockets at some intersections between El Camino Real and Stierlin Road. North of Stierlin Road, Shoreline Boulevard is an undivided, four-lane roadway. • Miramonte Avenue is a north-south collector that extends southward from El Camino Real to Fremont Avenue. Miramonte Avenue has four lanes between El Camino Real and Amalfi Way, where it transitions into a two-lane roadway. Miramonte Avenue provides access to the project site via its intersection with Castro Street.
• Castro Street is a two-lane north-south collector street starting from Miramonte Avenue in the south and transitioning into Moffett Boulevard at Central Expressway in the north. Castro Street has a landscaped median with left -turn pockets at intersections south of El C amino Real and north of Church Street. Castro Street is permanently closed to vehicular traffic between California Street and Evelyn Avenue in the northbound direction and between Central Expressway and California Street in the southbound direction. Two cross streets (Dan Street and Villa Street) remain open to eastbound and westbound vehicular traffic. Access to the project site would be provided via its intersection with El Camino Real. • Calderon Avenue is a north -south, two-lane collector between El Camino Real and Evelyn Avenue. Calderon Avenue provides access to the project site via its intersection with El Camino Real.
• Lane Avenue is a two -lane, north-south, local street between El Camino Real and Graham Middle School.
• Victor Way is a two-lane, east-west, local street between Castro Street and Lane Avenue.

Existing Transit Facilities
Existing public transit services in the vicinity are provided by VTA and the City of Mountain View. VTA operates bus services in Santa Clara County and Google, partnering with Mountain View, provides free community shuttle service in the City. The VTA bus routes and Mountain View Community Shuttle routes and stops near the project site are shown on Figure 4.16-1. The Mountain View Transit Center (MVTC) is located approximately 0.8- mile north of the project site and provides connections to Caltrain, VTA light rail service, several VTA bus routes, MVgo shuttle routes, and the Mountain View Community Shuttle.

VTA Bus Service
The project vicinity is served by VTA Frequent Routes 22 and 522 and VTA Local Routes 21, 51, and

52. The Frequent Routes have weekday peak period headways of 15 minutes, and the Local Routes have weekday peak period headways ranging from 22 to 60 minutes. There are two bus stops located adjacent to the project frontage, one is located on the El Camino Real frontage and the other is located on the Castro Street frontage. These stops are served by Frequent Routes 22 and 522, and Local Route 51, respectively.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 193 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Mountain View Community Shuttle
The Mountain View Community Shuttle is a free shuttle service with 50 stops within Mountain View operating during the weekdays from 7 :00 AM to 7:00 PM and on weekends and holidays between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM The shuttles have weekday peak period headways of 30 minutes. The nearest stop is located on the Castro Street frontage of the project site.

Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 8, 2023.

Los
Altos
22 22
522
522
52 51
52 21
51 52
82 85
237
22,52,22,52,
522522
22,52,
522
21,51,
52 22,52222,52222,522
21,51,21,51,
5252
21,51,
52 51,52,
MVCS
51,
MVCS
51 51,52
El Monte AveEl Monte Ave
S El Monte AveS El Monte Ave
VictorVictor
WyWy
Victor
Wy
El Monte Ave
S El Monte Ave
Castro St
Bush StBush St
W El Camino Real Church St
Central Expy
Evelyn StEvelyn St
Central Central
Ave Ave
Pioneer WayPioneer WayView St
Barbara Ave
Rainbow DrRainbow Dr
Moorpark WyMoorpark Wy
Alice AveAlice Ave
Calderon Ave
W Dana St
California StCalifornia St
Bush St
Hope StHope St
Evelyn St
Hope St
Central
Ave
Pioneer Way
Rainbow Dr
Moorpark Wy
Alice Ave
California St
Easy St
S Shoreline Blvd
Ada Ave
Grant Rd
Miramonte Ave
Sylvan Ave
Phyllis
Ave
N Whisman Rd
LaneLaneAveAveLaneAve
Camellia Way
Escuela Ave
Springer Rd
= Site Location
LEGEND
Mountain ViewMountain View
Caltrain StationCaltrain Station
XXX
522
XX = Local Bus Route
= Frequent Bus Route
= Rapid Bus 522
= Mountain View Community Shuttle
= Light Rail: Mountain View - Alum Rock
= Bus Stop
Mountain View
Caltrain Station
LOCATION OF EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES FIGURE 4.16-1
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
194DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025
I
- -
I •
•••••••••

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 195 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Existing Bicycle Facilities
The bicycle facilities proximate to the project site (see Figure 4.16-2) consist of a multi-use trail (Class I bikeway), striped bike lanes (Class II bikeway), shared bike routes (Class III bikeway), and protected bike lanes (Class IV bikeway).199 Striped bike lanes are present along the following street segments:

• El Monte Avenue, south of Marich Way
• Springer Road, for the entire street
• Shoreline Boulevard, for the entire street
• Miramonte Avenue, south of Harpster Drive
• Calderon Avenue, for the entire street
• Phyllis Avenue, for the entire street
• California Street, west of Castro Street

Bike routes are indicated with signs along the following streets:

• Escuela Avenue between El Camino Real and California Street • Miramonte Avenue north of Harpster Drive
• Hans Avenue, for the entire street
• Church Avenue, for the entire street

Castro Street provides protected bike lanes south of El Camino Real along both sides of the street.

Other nearby bicycle facilities include the Stevens Creek trail, which runs from the North Bayshore Area north of US 101 to Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way in the south. The trail is shared between pedestrians and bicyclists and is separated from motor vehicle traffic. The trail includes an overcrossing at SR 237 and an underpass at El Camino Real near the project site. Access to the trail is available via El Camino Real, approximately 0.8-mile southeast of the project site.

Based on the BLTS map produced by the City, the following streets in the project vicinity have a BLTS greater than 2, which is undesirable:
200

• El Camino Real (BLTS 4)
• El Monte Avenue north of Hollingsworth Drive (BLTS 4) • Shoreline Boulevard/Miramonte Avenue (BLTS 3)

199 Class I bikeways are shared between pedestrians and bicyclists and are separated from motor vehicle traffic.

Class II bikeways are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Class III bikeways are signed bike routes where bicyclists share a travel lane with motorists.

Class IV bikeways are lanes on roadways that provide physical separation between bicyclists and vehicles. 200 A BLTS score of 1 is comfortable for all ages and abilities, a BLTS score of 2 is comfortable for an average adult, a BLTS score of 3 indicates a roadway with a higher volume of traffic compared to a BLTS 2 roadway, and a BLTS score of 4 indicates that the streets are comfortable only for highly confident riders.

Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., June 8, 2023.

Mountain
View
Los
Altos
82 85
237
El Monte AveEl Monte Ave
S El Monte AveS El Monte Ave
VictorVictor
WyWy
Victor
Wy
El Monte Ave
S El Monte Ave
Castro St
Bush StBush St
W El Camino Real Church St
Central Expy
Central Central
Ave Ave
Pioneer WayPioneer Way
Gladys AveGladys Ave
View St
Barbara Ave
Rainbow DrRainbow Dr
Moorpark WyMoorpark Wy
Alice AveAlice Ave
Calderon Ave
W Dana St
California StCalifornia St
Bush St
Central
Ave
Pioneer Way
Gladys Ave
Rainbow Dr
Moorpark Wy
Alice Ave
California St
Easy St
S Shoreline Blvd
Ada Ave
Grant Rd
Miramonte Ave
Sylvan Ave
Phyllis Ave
N Whisman Rd
LaneLaneAveAveLaneAve
Camellia Way
Escuela Ave
Springer Rd
= Site Location
LEGEND
Stevens Creek Trail
= Class II Bike Lane
= Class III Bike Route
= Class I Multi-Use Trail
= Class II Buffered Bike Lane
= Class IV Protected Bikeway
Mountain ViewMountain View
Caltrain StationCaltrain Station
Mountain View
Caltrain Station
LOCATION OF EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES FIGURE 4.16-2
749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
196DraŌ Environmental Impact Report
March 2025

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 197 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities near the project site consist of sidewalks along all surrounding streets, including El Camino Real, Castro Street, Victor Way, and Lane Avenue. Pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are present at the signalized intersections near the project site. Crosswalks exist across Victor Way at Castro Street and Lane Avenue, and the crosswalk at Castro Street and Victor Way is a high - visibility crosswalk. Continuous pedestrian facilities are present between the project site and the surrounding land uses, which include restaurants, retail shops, bus stops, and offices.

Based on the PQOS map produced by the City, the following streets in the project vicinity have a PQOS greater than 2, which is not desirable:

• El Camino Real (PQOS 5)
• El Monte Street (PQOS 4-5)
• Shoreline Boulevard north of El Camino Real (PQOS 4-5) • Miramonte Avenue south of Harpster Drive (PQOS 4-5)
• Castro Street between El Camino Real and Miramonte Avenue (PQOS 3-4)

4.16.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on transportation, would the project:

1) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities? 2) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? 3) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 4) Result in inadequate emergency access?

4.16.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance , or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities?

Roadway System
The 2014 EIR concluded that the implementation of the Precise Plan would not conflict with existing LOS policies for any of the studied intersections and freeway segments. Subsequent to the certification of the 2014 EIR, SB 743 was passed, and vehicle congestion and delay (including LOS deficiencies) can no longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA. As such, the project’s

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 198 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
consistency with the City’s LOS policy is not relevant under CEQA and the following discussion about LOS is for informational purposes only.201

Per 2030 General Plan Action Item MOB 8.1.3, the City’s interim standard for signalized intersections is LOS D. The City does not have an adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersections; however, the City strives to maintain LOS D for unsignalized intersections. Compared to existing conditions, the project is estimated to generate 1,611 net new daily vehicle trips, with 128 trips during the AM peak hour, and 149 trips during the PM peak hour. As discussed in additional detail in the project-specific MTA (see Appendix H), 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 AM and PM peak hours of traffic based on the thresholds outlined in the 2014 EIR and General Plan Action Item MOB 8.1.3. The project -specific MTA also analyzed potential impacts to freeway segments and concluded that the additional trips generated by the project would represent less than one percent of the capacity of the freeway segments on SR 237 and SR 85 in the project vicinity; therefore, the project would not have an adverse effect on the traffic operations on nearby freeway segments. Based on this discussion, the project would result in a similar effect on LOS as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant])

Transit Facilities
The 2014 EIR concluded that the implementation of the Precise Plan would only create a minor increase in transit riders during AM and PM peak periods and would result in improvements to transit facilities, such as improving access to transit services for pedestrian s and bicyclists and enhanced transit station amenities. The identified increase in ridership would not be instantaneous, but instead it would occur gradually over time as the Precise Plan was built out, resulting in a less than significant impact.
202 The Housing Element EIR concluded that because future projects under the Housing Element update would be subject to all applicable City guidelines (such as General Plan Policy MOB -

5.5), standards, and specifications, those projects, including the project, would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs for transit facilities and would result in a less than significant impact to transit facilities.
203

As described in Section 4.16.1.2, the project site is currently served by both VTA and Mountain View Community Shuttle bus routes. There are existing bus stops for these services on the El Camino Real and Castro Street frontages on -site. The MTA prepared for the project concluded that the project would generate approximately two new transit riders during the AM and PM peak hours, which can be accommodated by existing services.

201 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report . Page 90. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Pages 78 to 86.
202 Ibid. Page 86.
203 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.14-18 to 4.14-19.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 199 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
To accommodate the proposed site design, the project would relocate the existing bus shelter/stop along the project frontage on Castro Street approximately 30 feet south. In addition, the project would relocate the existing bus stop along the project frontage on El Camino Real approximately 120 feet west. The relocated El Camino Real bus stop would be redesigned to include a bus island, which would reduce conflicts between bicycles and buses traveling on El Camino Real. These improvements are in line with w hat was anticipated in the 2014 EIR, which included improvements to enhance transit station amenities. In addition, these improvements would be consistent with General Plan Policy MOB 5.5 by improving access to transit facilities. Based on this discussion, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressin g transit facilities, resulting in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant])

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The 2014 EIR determined that implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes several improvements to streetscape elements, pedestrian amenities, and bicycle facilities) would not conflict with the Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan, Mountain View Pedestrian Master Plan, General Plan, or Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan. Because the Precise Plan would not disrupt the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, nor conflict with adopted pedestrian and bicycle plans, guidelines, policies, or standards, the 2014 EIR conc luded that implementation of the Precise Plan would result in less than significant impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 204 The Housing Element EIR concluded that because future projects under the Housing Element update would be subject to all applicable City guidelines (such as General Plan Policies MOB 1.6, MOB 2.1, and MOB

4.1), standards, and specifications, those projects, including the project, would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs for bicycle or pedestrian facilities, and therefore, would result in a less than significant impact to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 205

Pedestrian Facilities
As discussed in Section 4.16.1.2, pedestrian facilities near the project site consist of continuous sidewalks along all surrounding streets, including El Camino Real, Castro Street, Victor Way, and Lane Avenue. There are pedestrian signal heads at the signalized intersections near the project site and crosswalks at all surrounding intersections except for at Lane Avenue/El Camino Real. Based on the City’s PQOS map, several streets in the project vicinity have a high PQOS score, indicating low levels of pedestrian comfort on surrounding streets. The project would generate additional vehicle trips along these street segments with poor PQOS, which could result in an adverse effect on pedestrian operations. However, 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. These

204 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report . Page 90. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002. Pages 86 to 90.
205 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.14-18 to 4.14-19.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 200 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
improvements would increase pedestrian comfort and safety while improving the PQOS. 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. 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])

Bicycle Facilities
As discussed in Section 4.16.1.2, bicycle facilities near the project site include a multi-use trail, striped bike lanes, shared bike routes, and protected bike lanes. According to the City’s BLTS map, El Camino Real has a BLTS of 4, which indicates a low level of comfort for bicyclists along the corridor. The project would add bicycle demand to the existing facilities and result in the generation of additional vehicle trips in the vicinity, which could result in adverse effects on bicycle operations.

The 2015 BTP proposes Class I I bike lanes along Castro Street and the Precise Plan proposes to implement buffered bike lanes on El Camino Real as part of the improvements identified to close existing gaps in the bicycle network. To improve bicycle facilities adjacent to the site, the project would construct a new buffered bike lane along the project frontage on El Camino Real. This new bike lane would run between the proposed bus island and the project frontage, which would eliminate conflicts between bus es and bicyclists. Consistent with General Plan Policy MOB 4.1, the new buffered lane would i mprove the quality and connectivity of the bicycle network in the area. In addition, the improvement would reduce adverse effects created by the additional vehicle trips generated by the project and be consistent with the proposed improvements outlines in the Precise Plan and 2015 BTP.

The project would provide 424 long -term bicycle parking spaces and 34 short -term bicycle parking spaces on-site for residents and customers of commercial uses on-site. The long-term bicycle parking spaces would be located in the underground parking levels and podium parking garage level. The short-term spaces would be provided on racks outside of the building adjacent to Victor Way, Castro Street, El Camino Real, and Lane Avenue. The number of provided bicycle parking spaces would comply with City requirements. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with any programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing bicycle facilities, consistent with the findings of the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant])

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

At the time the 2014 EIR was prepared, SB 743 and the City’s VMT Policy were not adopted.

Therefore, the Precise Plan’s consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) was not evaluated in the 2014 EIR. The Housing Element concluded that, if needed for future projects that

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 201 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
do not screen out of VMT analysis, implementation of Housing Element EIR MM TRA-1 would reduce VMT impacts to a less than significant level.206

As discussed in Section 4.16.1.1, the City’s VMT policy includes screening criteria for projects which are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. The project would meet the screening criteria for Transit Screening in the City’s VMT Policy as the project is within one-half mile of a major transit service on El Camino Real, has a n FAR over 0.75, is consistent with the Plan Bay Area 2050 (Sustainable Communications Strategy), provides less parking than required in the Municipal C ode, and does not replace affordable units with fewer moderate or higher- income residential units. Based on this discussion, consistent with the City’s VMP Policy, the project would not be required to complete a detailed VMT analysis and assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant])

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

The 2014 EIR did not identify any impacts due to a design feature or incompatible use from implementation of the Precise Plan.207 The Housing Element EIR concluded that compliance with City standards and the preparation of project -specific MTAs for future development under the Housing Element update would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.208 Consistent with the findings of the Housing Element EIR, an MTA was prepared for the project to evaluate site -specific conditions and the project design.

Sight Distance at Project Driveways
The project would be designed consistent with City standards (including City Standard detail A-22) to ensure that no building features or landscaping would be within the pedestrian triangles.

The project-specific MTA (which is included in Appendix H of this document) evaluated the proposed driveways and determined that the proposed driveway on El Camino Real would have an adequate sight distance within the vehicle triangles. In addition , it concluded that the driveways on Lane Avenue and Victor Way leading to the parking garage levels would provide adequate sight distance within the respective vehicle triangles. Therefore, adequate sight distance would be provided at all project driveways. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

206 Ibid. Page 4.14-23 to 4.14-24.
207 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report . Page 90. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002
208 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.14-24.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 202 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Site Access and Driveway Design
Vehicle access to the project site would be provided via new driveways on El Camino Real, Victor Way, and Lane Avenue. The project would provide one driveway on El Camino Real (access to the commercial/retail garage), two driveways on Victor Way (access to the commercial/retail garage and transformer maintenance/service area), and three driveways on Lane Avenue (access to the commercial loading and residential moving area, residential garage, and garbage staging/pick-up area from north to south). According to the Precise Plan, the m aximum allowed curb-cut width is 20 feet and the maximum allowed width for garage entrances at grade facing the street is 22 feet. The project would comply with these Precise Plan design standards.

Based on the estimated number of trips generated by the project and the amount of traffic volume on surrounding streets, significant operational issues related to vehicle queueing and vehicle delay for outbound traffic are not expected to occur at any of the three main driveways on-site (i.e., El Camino Real Driveway for commercial visitors, Victor Way driveway for commercial visitors, and Lane Avenue driveway for residents and guests of residents) . Therefore, conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists on the surrounding sidewalks and streets would be limited, as inbound vehicles would have sufficient space to enter the garage, and vehicles would not block pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks or queue in the street.

In addition, the project-specific MTA evaluated the location of each of the project driveways and the proposed off-site improvements (as detailed in Section 2.3.3 Utility and Right-of-Way Improvements) and determined that the project driveways would not generate any new significant conflict points for vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists. Based on this discussion, the project design would not substantially increase hazards for vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Intersection Queuing
The 2014 EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would result in less than significant impacts to intersections within the Precise Plan area. 209 The project would add additional turning vehicles at multiple intersections in the vicinity of the project site. To evaluate the potential impact of these additional turning vehicles, the following turn movements were evaluated in the project - specific MTA:

• Southbound left turn from Shoreline Boulevard to eastbound El Camino Real • Westbound left turn from El Camino Real to southbound Castro Street • Eastbound left turn from El Camino Real to northbound SR 237 • Southbound left turn from Castro Street to Victor Way • Westbound Victor Way at Castro Street

209 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Environmental Impact Report . Page 86. August 2014. SCH #:
2014032002

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 203 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
Of these turn movements, the project would exacerbate existing deficiencies at two intersections: 1) the El Camino Real to southbound Castro Street left turn movement and 2) the El Camino Real to northbound SR 237 left turn movement. Under existing conditi ons, the left turn queue from El Camino Real to southbound Castro Street exceeds the storage capacity of the lane by one vehicle during the PM peak-hour, and the left turn queue from El Camino Real to northbound SR 237 exceeds the storage capacity of the lanes by 18 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 19 vehicles during the PM peak -hour. These deficiencies do not 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 PM peak-hour and four vehicles to the AM and PM peak-hour queues at the El Camino Real/SR 237 intersection. The small increase in vehicles queuing at the El Camino Real/Castro Street intersection during the PM peak -hour is not expected to affect the westbound through traffic, as there are three westbound through lanes that would continue to operate adequately. The additional queuing v ehicles during the AM and PM peak -hours at the El Camino Real/SR 237 intersection would not significantly affect the existing deficiency at the intersection as the existing queue is already spilling out of the storage lane and the project would only add four additional vehicles. Through-traffic would continue to utilize the three eastbound through lanes to avoid the queue at the left turn lanes. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Land Use Compatibility
As discussed in Section 4.10 Land Use and Planning, the land use and character of the project is in line with what was envisioned in the Precise Plan for the project site. In addition to being consistent with the Precise Plan and General Plan/Housing Element land use assumptions evaluated in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR, these land uses would also be compatible with the surrounding area, which consists primarily of commercial and residential land uses. The project, therefore, does not propose a use that is incompatible with the existing mix of uses in the project area or propose a use that would bring unusual equipment on the roadways (e.g., farm equipment). (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

The Housing Element EIR concluded that compliance with General Plan policies and other City standards and regulations (including the City standard conditions of approval) would ensure that efficient circulation and adequate emergency access are provided in the City. 210 Emergency response
vehicles would access the project site from El Camino Real, Lane Avenue, Victor Way, Castro Street, and all project driveways. The project site would be reviewed by the MVFD and be required to comply

210 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.14-24.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 204 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025
with all City standards set forth in the General Plan and the City’s fire code to ensure the project includes the appropriate fire building safety design features and adequate emergency access. As a result, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access and would not result in a new or substantially more severe impact than disclosed in the Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

4.16.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant transportation impact?

The 2014 EIR concluded that under cumulative conditions, implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in any significant transportation impacts.
211 T he Housing Element EIR concluded that
compliance with existing City policies, plans, regulations, and standards and implementation of Housing Element EIR MM TRA -1 (as needed) would reduce cumulative transportation impacts to a less than significant level.
212

As discussed in in checklist questions a) through d) above, the project would result in the same impacts as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. Therefore, the project would result in the same cumulative transportation impact as disclosed in the 2014 EIR and Housing Element EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Cumulative Impact])

211 City of Mountain View. El Camino Real Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2014032002. August 2014. Pages 90 to 99.
212 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Housing Element Update Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2022020129. July 2022. Page 4.13-25 to 4.13-26.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 205 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.17.1 Environmental Setting
The regulatory framework and existing conditions have not changed substantially since the certification of the 2014 EIR, with the exception of the adoption of AB 52 in 2015. The regulations at the time of the Housing Element EIR are the same as they are today. Key regulations and project site conditions are described below.

4.17.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52, effective July 2015, established a new category of resources for consideration by public agencies called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice of projects to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified. Where a project may have a significant impact on a TCR , consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a TCR or until it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

Under AB 52, TCRs are defined as follows:

• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are also either:
o Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, or o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
• A resource determined by the lead agency to be a TCR.

4.17.1.2 Existing Conditions
Per the requirements of AB 52, t he NAHC was contacted on January 11, 2023, to initiate tribal consultation and complete a Sacred Lands File search. On January 31, 2023, the NAHC responded and determined the results of the search were negative and provided a list of 12 Native American organization contacts to reach out to for additional information. These organization contacts were contacted on June 2, 2023 by certified mail and email , and the AB 52 30 -day consultation window ended on July 3, 2023. No responses to initiate tribal consultation have been received to date , and there are no known TCRs on-site.

749 West El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project 206 Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Mountain View March 2025

4.17.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on TCRs, would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:

1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

4.17.2.1 Project Impacts
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?

Following the certification of the 2014 EIR, AB 52 was instituted. Therefore, no Native American tribes were consulted during preparation of the 2014 EIR. Although consultation was not conducted for the 2014 EIR, and no Native American cultural resources w ere identified within or near the Precise Plan area in the 2014 EIR . Outreach was conducted for the Housing Element EIR; however, no tribes responded to request consultation.

As noted in Section 4.17.1.2, no known TCRs are located on-site. As discussed in Section 3.1 Cultural Resources under checklist question b), the project would implement the same conditions of approval as identified in the 201 4 EIR for cultural resources. Implementation of the conditions of approval outlined in COA CUL-2.1 would reduce potential impacts to TCRs to a less than significant level should they be identified during ground disturbing activities by halting work on -site and establishing procedures to protect the resources. The project, therefore, would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the 201 4 EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Mountain View City CouncilNovember 18, 2025

Mountain View City Council
November 18, 2025