Mountain View City Council
March 24, 2026

4.14 4.14.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 123 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 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. T he City adopted its most recent update to the Housing Element on Aprill 11, 2023 . 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.

Existing Conditions
As of January 202 3, the City of Mountain View had an approximate population of 86,535 with an average of 2.32 persons per household.100 The City recently adopted an update to its Housing Element in April 202 3. With the adoption of the Housing Element, the buildout of the General Plan would result in 67,100 dwelling units, 142,200 residents, and 133,000 jobs in the City by 2040.

The project site currently contains an office/R&D building and two occupied single-family residences.

4.14.2 Impact Discussion

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

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

100 California Department of Finance. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2024.” May 2024. Accessed December 18, 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing- estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/.

4.14.1.2 □ □ □
□ □ □

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 124 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
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)?

A project can induce substantial population growth by proposing new housing beyond projected or planned development levels, generating demand for housing as a result of new businesses, extending roads or other infrastructure to previously undeveloped areas , or removing obstacles to population growth (e.g., expanding capacity of a wastewater treatment plant beyond that necessary to serve planned growth).

The project site currently has a General Plan designation of General Industrial, which does not allow residential development and, therefore, was not projected to accommodate any population or housing growth at the buildout of the General Plan and Housing Element. The proposed project would construct 38 rowhome units, which would result in approximately 89 new residents more than what was assumed in the buildout detailed in the City’s most recent Housing Element (an approximate increase of 0.06 percent compared to the estimated 2040 buildout ). 101 Although the project would
result in an incremental increase in population beyond what was anticipated in the Housing Element, the 0.06 percent increase in population would not be a substantial increase in unplanned population.

As discussed in Section 4.17 Transportation and Section 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems, the project would be adequately served by existing infrastructure and would not extend roads or other infrastructure. For these reasons, the project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned growth in the area. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

The project would demolish all existing improvements on-site, including two single-family residences, to construct 38 rowhome units. Implementation of the project would displace the existing residents on-site. However, the project would result in a net increase of 36 residential units on-site compared to existing conditions. For these reasons , the project would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of existing people, and replacement housing would not need to be constructed elsewhere. (Less than Significant Impact)

101 The number of residents was estimated assuming a citywide average 2.32 residents per household. California Department of Finance. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020 -2024.” May 2024. Accessed December 18, 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties- and-the-state-2020-2024/.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 125 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Public Services

4.15.1 Environmental Setting
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 c ounty’s regional open space resources, County parks to other County parks, and the northern and southern urbanized regions of the County. The plan identifies regional trail routes, sub -regional trail routes, connector trail routes, and historic trails.

4.15 4.15.1.1

4.15 .1.2

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 126 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
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.

Policy Description
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.

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 7.5 Library services. Provide high-quality library services and resources that address community needs and goals.

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.

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.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 127 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Existing Conditions
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection in the City is provided by the MVFD. The MVFD serves a population of approximately 83,000 and an area of 12 square miles , providing 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. 102 The MVFD has an established response time of six minutes for “Medical Code Three” calls (i.e., those requiring expedited transport).103

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.

The closest fire station is Mountain View Fire Station No. 4, approximately one mile southeast of the project site. Fire Station No. 1 is also within the vicinity of the project site, approximately one mile southwest of the project. 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 employed 143.5 full-time positions.
104 Officers patrolling the area are dispatched
from police headquarters, located at 1000 Villa Street, approximately 0.9- miles south 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.
105 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.

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

102 Mountain View Fire Department. Fire Department Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2022 -23. Accessed December 18 , 2024. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8329/638423818087870000. 103 City of Mountain View. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report.

SCH #2011012069. September 2012. Page 477.
104 Mountain View Police Department. 2023 Annual Report . Accessed December 20, 2024. file:///C:/Users/krai/Downloads/MVPD%202023%20Annual%20Report.pdf. 105 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.

4.15.1.3 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 128 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
eighth grade and MVLAS services high-school age students. The project site is assigned to Theuerkauf Elementary School located at 1625 San Luis Ave (approximately 0.63 miles east from the project site), Crittenden Middle School located at 1701 Rock Street (approximately 0.63 miles northeast from the project site), and Mountain View High School located at 3535 Truman Avenue (approximately 3.1 miles south from the project site).106, 107 The existing capacity and enrollment of the local schools is shown in Table 4.15-1 below.

Table 4.15-1: School Enrollment and Existing Capacity (2023 to 2024) School Capacity1,2 2023-2024 Enrollment3 Remaining Capacity Theuerkauf Elementary School 673 315 358
Crittenden Middle School 1008 582 426
Mountain View High School 2,694 2,202 492
Sources:
1 Mountain View Whisman School District. Level I Developer Fee Study. Appendix E. May 5, 2022. 2 De La Cruz , Daisy. Assistant to the Associate Superintendent -Business Services, Mountain View Los Altos High School District. Personal Communication. January 16, 2025. 3 California Department of Education. “Data Quest.” Accessed January 2, 2025. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/dataquest.asp.

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).
108 The City also maintains 10 parks under joint -use
agreements with local school districts. The nearest public park to the project site is San Vernon Park, located 0.25 miles southwest of the site. The park contains a multitude of amenities including a basketball court, open lawn space, walking paths, and playground equipment. Other nearby park facilities include Stevenson Park approximately 0.6 7-mile southwest of the site and Whisman Park approximately 0.45-mile southeast of the site. Rengstorff Park, approximately 1.3 5 miles southwest 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 1.30 miles south of the project site.

106 PowerSchool. “Mountain View Whisman School District”. Accessed December 20, 2024. https://locator.pea.powerschool.com/?StudyID=214830
107 PowerSchool. “Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District”. Accessed December 20, 2024. https://locator.pea.powerschool.com/?StudyID=187720
108 City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. 2014. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4758/637981632206970000

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 129 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025

4.15.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
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:

a) Fire Protection?
b) Police Protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other Public Facilities?

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 project site is in an area that is currently served by the MVFD. Compared to existing conditions, the addition of 38 residential units (which would generate approximately 89 new residents) would incrementally increase demand for fire protection services in the City. Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 4 are the nearest fire station s to the project site, and the site is less than 1.5 miles from two other MVFD fire stations. In addition, 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. Based on this discussion, the project would not result in the need to expand any existing or construct any new fire protection facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)

□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 130 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
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?

As discussed under checklist question a) above, the project would result in an increase of 38 residential units and approximately 89 new residents on-site. The addition of approximately 89 new residents would result in an incremental increase in the demand for police protection services in Mountain View. The project site is located in an area that is currently served by the MVPD. In addition, the project would include nighttime security lig hting to minimize and deter the opportunity for criminal activity. The City’s General Plan policies (PSA 1.1 and PSA 2.7) ensure that the City maintains adequate police staffing and performance levels while continually exploring ways to improve police effectiveness. Based on this discussion, the project would not result in the need to expand any existing or construct any new police protection facilities in the City. (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 project would construct 38 residential units, which would generate approximately seven elementary and middle school students and four high school students. 109 As shown in Table 4.15-1,
there is existing capacity at Theuerkauf Elementary School, Crittenden Middle School, and Mountain View High School to accommodate the students generated by the project.

As required by state law (Government Code Section 65996), the project proponent shall pay the appropriate school impact fees to offset and mitigate the increased demands on school facilities caused by the project. Based on this, the project would result in a less than significant impact to school facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)

109 Based on the following student generation rates: Elementary and middle school students per market-rate rowhouse unit =

0.049 (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 rowhouse unit = 0.018 (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.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 131 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
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 addition of approximately 89 new residents on -site would result in an incremental increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities. This demand would partially offset by the 10,094 square feet of private open space and 19,621 square feet of common open space that would be available to residents on-site. In addition, as discussed further in Section 4.16 Recreation below and consistent with state law (Quimby Act), the project would also pay parkland fees to offset increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities and contribute toward the City’s development of new parks and open spaces in the project area. Therefore, potential impacts to parks that would result from the project would be reduced to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact)

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?

Implementation of the proposed 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 popula tion of 86,535 , and the addition of the approximately 89 project residents would result in a potential increase in patrons of approximately

0.1 percent. This incremental increase in demand would not require the construction or expansion of new library facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 132 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Recreation

4.16.1 Environmental Setting
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
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.

Existing Conditions
As discussed under Section 4.15 Public Servies, 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). 110 The City also maintains 10 parks under joint-use agreements with local school districts.

The nearest public park to the project site is San Vernon Park, located 0.25 miles southwest of the site. The park contains a multitude of amenities including a basketball court , open lawn space, walking paths, and playground equipment . Other nearby park facilities include Stevenson Park

110 City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. 2014. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4758/637981632206970000

4.16 4.16 .1.1

4.16.1.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 133 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
approximately 0.67-mile southwest of the site and Whisman Park approximately 0.45-mile southeast of the site. Rengstorff Park, approximately 1.35 miles southwest 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.

4.16.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

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 will occur or
be accelerated?

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

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?

As discussed in Section 4.15 Public Services, the project would result in an increase of 38 residential units and approximately 89 new residents on-site which would result in an incremental increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities. This demand would partially offset by the 10,094 square feet of private open space and 19,621 square feet of common open space that would be available to residents on-site. In addition, the project would also pay parkland fees to offset increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities and contribute toward the City’s development of new parks and open spaces in the project area, consistent with state law (Quimby Act).

City Standard Condition of Approval:

COA REC-1: Park Land Dedication Fee: Pay the Park Land Dedication Fee ( approximately $62,400) for each new residential unit in accordance with Chapter 41 of the Municipal Code prior to the issuance of the building permit. No credit against the Park Land Dedication Fee will be allowed for private open space and recreational facilities. Provide the most current appraisal or escrow closing statement of the property with the following information to assist the City in determining the current market value of the land: (1) a brief description of the existing use of the property; (2) square footage of the lot; and (3) size and type of each building located on the property at the time the property was acquired. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall either: (1) pay the Park Land □ □ □
□ □ □

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 134 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Dedication Fee; or (2) sign an agreement to defer the payment of the fee in accordance with Section 66007.a of the Government Code and submit a certificate of deposit made payable to the City as security guaranteeing payment of the fee. Guidelines for cert ificates of deposit are available from the Public Works Department.

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. In addition, the inclusion of the private and common open space on-site would partially offset the project’s demand on City park and recreation facilities. With the implementation of the above standard COA , the project would not substantially increase the deterioration of existing recreational facilities because fees would be used to maintain existing parks. As a result, the project would result in a less than significant impact to recreational facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)

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 project would include 19,621 square feet of common open space that would be available to residents on-site, and would be comprised primarily of landscaped areas and a central courtyard with seating areas, an herb garden, and an open lawn area.

The construction impacts of the common open space 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 common open space and payment of fees per COA REC-1 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. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 135 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Transportation

4.17.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
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 multimodal 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 ma y 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.

Regional and Local
Regional Transportation Plan
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area, 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 2 050 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.

Co
ngestion 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.

4.17 4.17.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 136 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
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
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 4.4 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 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.

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.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 137 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
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
• Presence and type of bicycle facilities
• Presence of traffic signals

Shoreline Boulevard Transportation Corridor Study
In November 2014, the Mountain View City Council approved the Shoreline Boulevard Transportation Corridor Study which determined the feasibility of, and developed a conceptual design for, integrated transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the Shoreline Boulevard Corridor from the Downtown Transit Center to North Bayshore. The Corridor Study provided a phasing program for the transportation improvements to achieve the North Bayshore commute mode -share goals and identified recommended Shoreline Boulevard bus lane and utility improvements.

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 II bike lanes along Castro Street and new bicycle facilities along El Camino Real.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 138 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
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.

Existing Conditions
Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided by US 101 and SR 85. Local access to the project site is provided via Shoreline Boulevard, Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, and San Leandro Avenue. These roadways are briefly described below.

• US 101 is an eight-lane highway with three mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction in the vicinity of the project site. US 101 provides access to the study area via a full interchange at Shoreline Boulevard. • SR 85 is a freeway that begins at US 101, east of North Shoreline Boulevard, extends south towards San José, and terminates at US 101 east of the Silicon Valley Boulevard and Bernal Road interchange. SR 85 is six lanes wide (two mixed -flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction) in the vicinity of the project site. SR 85 provides access to the project site via an interchange at Moffett Boulevard.
• Shoreline Boulevard is a north-south, four-lane arterial road in the vicinity of the project site.

It begins near Shoreline Lake in the north and extends to El Camino Real in the south, where it becomes Miramonte Avenue. Shoreline Boulevard has left -turn pockets at intersections.

Access to the project site from Shoreline Boulevard is provided via Terra Bella Avenue. • Middlefield Road is an east-west, four-lane arterial road that runs parallel to US 101. It begins at the intersection of Central Expressway in Mountain View and traverses westward through Redwood City. Middlefield Road has landscaped medians with left-turn pockets at signalized intersections. Access to the project site from Middlefield Road is via Linda Vista Avenue and Terra Bella Avenue.
• Moffett Boulevard is a north-south, four-lane arterial that begins from R T Jones Road in the north and extends to Central Expressway in the south, where it becomes Castro Street.

Moffett Boulevard has landscaped medians with left-turn pockets at signalized intersections.

Access to the project site from Moffett Boulevard is via Middlefield Road. • Terra Bella Avenue is a two-lane east-west roadway that turns into San Leandro Avenue north of the project site. Terra Bella Avenue has on-street parking on both sides of the street. • Linda Vista Avenue is a two-lane dead end, north-south roadway. Linda Vista Avenue provides access to the project site from San Leandro Avenue via Terra Bella Avenue. • San Leandro Avenue is a two-lane north-south roadway with on-street parking on one side of the street. San Leandro Avenue turns into Terra Bella Avenue north of the project site and San Pablo Drive south of the project site. Three driveways on San Leandro Avenue provide access to the existing structures on-site.

4.17.1.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 139 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Existing Transit Facilities
Existing transit services in the area are provided by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MVTMA). The closest bus stops serviced by the VTA and the MVTMA are located along Shoreline Bouleva rd, approximately 1, 850 feet west of the project site. The VTA operates bus and light rail transit services in Santa Clara County, and the TMA provides free MVgo shuttle service between the Mountain View Transit Center (MVTC) and corporate campuses in the North Bayshore and East Whisman areas.

VTA Bus Service
VTA Local Route 40 serves the project vicinity with bus stops in each direction on Shoreline Boulevard.

Local Route 40 runs between Foothill College and the MVTC. The MVTC provides connections to Caltrain, VTA light rail transit, several VTA bus routes (21 , 40, and 52), MV community shuttle, and MVgo shuttle routes.

Mountain View Transportation Management Association Shuttles The MVTMA operates the MVgo shuttle system. This shuttle system is provided through the collection of TMA member dues. MVgo operates four shuttle routes that provide service to employment areas from the MVTC. Three routes serve the North Bayshore area, and one route serves the East Whisman area. MVgo shuttle Route s B and C provide service to the project area, with one bus stop within the vicinity of the project site at the intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue.

Mountain View Community Shuttle
The Mountain View Community Shuttle is a free shuttle service operate by the City 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 north of the intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road.

Existing Bicycle Facilities
The bicycle facilities near the project site consist of a multi-use trail (Class I bikeway) along Stevens Creek and striped bike lanes (Class II bikeways) along North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road.111 There are no existing facilities immediately adjacent to the project site. Based on the BLTS map, the following streets in the project vicinity have a BLTS greater than 2, which is undesirable:

• Shoreline Boulevard (BLTS 3)
• Middlefield Road (BLTS 3)
• Moffett Boulevard (BLTS 4)

111 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.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 140 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities near the project site consist of sidewalks along one side of San Leandro Avenue, and sidewalks on both sides of surrounding streets, including along San Pablo Drive, Terra Bella Avenue, and Linda Vista Avenue. Crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads are present at the following intersections:

• West leg of the Shoreline Boulevard and US 101 Southbound Ramps intersection; and • All legs of the Shoreline Boulevard and Terra Bella Avenue intersection.

In addition, crosswalks are provided at all legs of the Linda Vista Avenue and Terra Bella Avenue intersection and at the north leg of the Linda Vista Avenue and Middlefield Road intersection. Sources of pedestrian activity in the project vicinity include office buildings and bus stops along Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road.

Based on the PQOS map, the following streets in the project vicinity have a PQOS greater than 2:

• San Leandro Avenue (PQOS 4)
• Terra Bella Avenue (PQOS 3)
• Linda Vista Avenue (north of San Ardo Way) (PQOS 3)
• Linda Vista Avenue (south of San Ardo Way (PQOS 5)
• Middlefield Road (between Shoreline Boulevard and Moffett Boulevard) (PQOS 4 & 5) • Shoreline Boulevard (north of Middlefield Road (PQOS 5)

4.17.2 Impact Discussion

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

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

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

d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 141 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
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
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 unsi gnalized intersections. Compared to existing conditions, the project is estimated to generate a net increase of nine AM peak hour vehicle trips and 18 PM peak hour vehicle trips . Based on the screening criteria outlined in the City’s Multi -Modal Transportation Analysis (MTA) Handbook, projects that generate less than 20 net new peak-hour trips do not require preparation of an MTA as they are presumed to result in less than significant transportation impacts. Because the project would not generate more than 20 net new peak -hour trips, an MTA was not prepared, and the project would not result in any significant impacts at the surrounding signalized or unsignalized intersections. (Less than Significant Impact)

Transit Facilities
As described in Section 4.17.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is currently served by transit routes with existing bus stops proximate to the site that facilitate travel to the MVTC (which provides access to Caltrain and VTA light rail service) and nearby employment centers. It is possible that some of the residents on -site would choose to utilize the transit services in the area; however, that potential increase would be minimal and existing transit services would be able to accommodate the additional riders. The City identified Shoreline Boulevard bus lane and utility improvements in the Shoreline Boulevard Transportation Corridor Study that would construct several improvements at the intersection of Terra Bella Avenue and North Shoreline Boulevard, including four new bus sto ps and dedicated bus lanes in with direction. Implementation of the project would not interfere with these planned improvements. Based on this discussion, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing transit. (Less than Significant Impact)

Bicycle Facilities
As described in Section 4.17.1.2 Existing Conditions, existing bicycle facilities near the project site are limited to Class II striped bike lanes on North Shoreline Boulevard and lanes that are available part - time on Middlefield Road. Shoreline Boulevard, Middlefield Road, and Moffett Boulevard have a BLTS score of 3 or more, and the project could add bicyclist demand to these roadways . The City’s 2015 BTP and AccessMV propose Class IV cycle tracks along Shoreline Boulevard and Moffett Boulevard and a Class II full time bike lane along Middlefield Road. In addition, t he City’s Shoreline Boulevard Bus Lane and Utility Improvements project, currently in implementation, would upgrade the bicycle facilities along Shoreline Boulevard, between US 101 and Montecito Avenue with protected bike lanes. These planned improvements by the City of Mountain View would increase bicyclist comfort and safety while improving the B LTS and are consistent with the guidelines described in the City’s Comprehensive Modal Plan. Implementation of the project would not interfere with any of these identified improvements or result in the need for additional improvements.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 142 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
The project would provide four short-term bicycle parking spaces next to the surface parking area and each residence would have long -term storage space in the garages . The amount 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. (Less than Significant Impact)

Pedestrian Facilities
As described in Section 4.17.1.2 Existing Conditions, existing pedestrian facilities proximate to the project site include sidewalks on the surrounding street network and crosswalks and/or pedestrian signal heads at select intersections. Based on the City’s PQOS map, San Leandro Avenue, Terra Bella Avenue, Linda Vista Avenue, and Middlefield Road and Shoreline Boulevard have a PQOS score of 3 or more, and the project would add pedestrian demand to these roadways.

However, the project would improve pedestrian facilities in the area by dedicating a five -foot-wide section of right-of-way to the City along the eastern property boundary to provide space for adequate sidewalk width along San Leandro Avenue. In addition, the project would include a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway on -site parallel to the southern boundary of the site . This walkway would connect to the future, planned City park west of the site and would allow pedestrians to avoid walking along the adjacent streets to reach the park. These improvements would increase pedestrian comfort and safety while improving the pedestrian quality of service. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the pedestrian circulation system. (Less than Significant Impact)

b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

As discussed in Section 4.17.1.1 Regulatory Framework , 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 Map -Based Screening in the City’s VMT Policy as the project would be located in an area of low VMT that is already 15 percent below the established baseline, would be compatible with the surrounding development and would not require significant new utility improvements, and would not lead to residential displacement of units that are naturally affordable. Based on this discussion, consistent with the City’s VMT Policy, the project would not be required to complete a detailed VMT analysis and assumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 143 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
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)?

Site Access and Driveway Design
The project would construct one, 20-foot two-way driveway on the southeast corner of the site that would be accessed via San Leandro Avenue and provide access to the three internal streets /drive aisles. These internal streets would provide access to the trash enclosure on the southwestern corner of the site and the private garages on the ground floor of each unit. The driveway width would meet the required width of 18 feet for a two -way driveway, as described in the City of Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance. To ensure adequate sight distance for vehicles entering and exiting the driveway on San Leandro Avenue , the project would dedicate a five -foot-wide section of right -of-way to the City along the eastern property boundary to provide space for adequate road width and allow for adequate pedestrian vision triangles for vehicles exiting the proposed project driveway and driving on to San Leandro Avenue. In addition, the design of the driveway and internal streets meet all of the requirements outlined in the City’s Municipal Code. Based on this discussion, the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature , and impacts would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)

Land Use Compatibility
Although the development surrounding the project site to the north and west consists primarily of office and industrial uses, there are already residences on-site and there are residential land uses adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site. 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). For this reason, the project would not result in a significant impact due to incompatible uses. (Less than Significant Impact)

d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

Access to the project site for emergency vehicles would be provided via the new two -way driveway on the southeast corner of the site. The project would comply 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. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 144 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Tribal Cultural Resources

4.18.1 Environmental Setting
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 California Register of Historic Resources, 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.

Senate Bill 18
The intent of SB 18 is to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places through local land use planning by requiring city governments to consult with California Native American tribes on projects which include adoption or amendment of general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code Section 65450 et seq.). SB 18 requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process.

Existing Conditions
A records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) was conducted to identify all recorded archaeological sites on and within one-quarter mile of the project site. The records search revealed that two previously recorded cultural resources are located within the project area and that four previously recorded cultural resources are located within a quarter mile radius of the project area. All of these resources are built environment resources. On January 14, 2025 the NAHC reported that the Sacred Lands File search was positive. A positive result does not necessarily indicate that a TCR is present on -site; rather, it

4.18 4.18 .1.1

4.18 .1.2

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 145 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
indicates that a TCR may be present in the project area. On March 3, 2025, the City of Mountain View mailed certified letters to 23 tribal representatives to begin the consultation process. Four tribes, including Tamien Nation, Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, responded to the City’s request for consultation. A meeting was held on April 15 , 2025, between the City and representatives of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of San Francisco , and the meeting did not result in any additional requests. On April 28, 2025, a meeting was held between the City and representatives of Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, and the meeting did not result in any additional requests. On May 7, 2025, a meeting was held between the City and representatives of Tamien Nation. Upon request of Tamien Nation, a copy of the Phase I Cultural Resource Inventory was provided for their review. No comments or additional requests were provided by Tamie n Nation regarding the project or provided Phase I Cultural Resource Inventory report. The Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista did not respond to requests to schedule a consultation meeting with the City. There are no known TCRs on-site.

4.18.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
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:

a) 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)?

b) 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.

□ □ □
□ □ □

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 146 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
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)?

There are no known TCRs on site. As discussed above, the City contacted tribes identified by the NAHC to invite them to initiate tribal consultation with the City, pursuant to AB 52, and four tribes responded with a request to initiate consultation on the project.

As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, redevelopment of the site could disturb unknown archaeological resources (including TCRs).

Impact TCR-1: Construction activities associated with the project could disturb unknown TCRs. (New Potentially Significant Impact)

The project would implement mitigation measure MM CUL -1.1, identified in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, to reduce the potential for adverse impacts to buried cultural resources (including TCRs) to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure would require that the testing for unknown cultural resources be completed on-site prior to construction of the project . In addition, the project would implement the City standard condition of approval (COA CUL -1) identified in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources that would ensure that any objects encountered during ground -disturbing activities are appropriately evaluated for cultural significance and protected if significant, and if human remains are found, determine if the remains are Native American. Based on t his discussion, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCRs.

Based on this discussion, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCRs. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1?

Please refer to the discussion under checklist question a) above. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

922-950
San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 147 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
U tilities and Service Systems
The following is based, in part, on a Utility Im pact Study Me morandum prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers dated May 21, 2025. This report is attached as Appendix G to this Initial Study.

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

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

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

Businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of garbage per week and multi -family dwellings with five or more units in California are required to recycle.

Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The bill grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that at least 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. CalRecycle released an analysis titled “Analysis of the

4.19 4.19 .1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 148 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals” in August 2020 (revised November 2020), which recommended maintaining the disposal reduction targets set forth in SB 1383.112

California Green Building Standards Code
In January 2010, the State of California adopted the California Green Building Standards Code, establishing mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water e fficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. These standards include the following mandatory set of measures, as well as more rigorous voluntary guidelines, for new construction projects to achieve specific green building performance levels:
• Reducing indoor water use by 20 percent;
• Reducing wastewater by 20 percent;
• Recycling and/or salvaging 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris; and
• Providing readily accessible areas for recycling by occupants.

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

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

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

INC 4.1 Water supply. Maintain a reliable water supply.

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

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

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

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

112 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. “Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals (DRRR-2020-1693).” Accessed March 21, 2025. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1693.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 149 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Policy Description
INC 8.7 Stormwater quality. Improve the water quality of stormwater and reduce flow quantities.

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

INC 11.2 Recycling. Maintain and expand recycling programs.

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

INC 11.4 Solid waste. Ensure all municipal solid waste generated within the city is collected, transported and disposed of in a manner that protects public health and safety.

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

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

Existing Conditions
Water Supply and Demand
The City of Mountain View provides water service to the project site. The City is the water retailer for the area and purchases water from two wholesale water suppliers, the SFPUC and Valley Water. In 2020, the City’s water supply production was 84 percent SFPUC, 10 percent Valley Water, two percent groundwater, and four percent recycled water. As of 2020, the City’s existing water supply is 10,456 acre-feet per year (AFY) and the City’s water demand is 9,856 AFY. 113 When accounting for recent updates to the plumbing code, the UWMP has a projected citywide water demand of 12,058 AFY in 2025 and 14,163 AFY in 2045.114

The existing uses on-site have an estimated water demand of 2,074 gallons per day (gpd).115 Water is supplied to the project site by an existing eight-inch water main in San Leandro Avenue.

113 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 34. 114 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 18. 115 Schaaf & Wheeler. Utility Impact Study Memorandum. March 10, 2025. Table 2.

4.19 .1.2

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 150 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Water System
Hydraulic Conveyance
The water system must meet minimum allowable pressure levels under the Peak Hour Demand (PHD) scenario. The minimum allowable pressure for the PHD scenario is 40 pound -force per square inch (psi). Mountain View is split into three different pressure zones, and project site is in Pressure Zone

1. Under existing conditions, the pressure near the project site meets the performance criteria of 40 psi under the PHD scenario.

Fire Flow

Based on existing conditions, the required fire flow identified in the 2022 WMP for the project site is 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm). There are multiple existing deficiencies in the system to the north, east, and west of the project site.

Wastewater Treatment and Sanitary Sewer System
Wastewater Treatment
The City of Mountain View maintains its own wastewater collection system. Sanitary drains in the City are operated and maintained by the Wastewater Section of the Public Works Department. The City pumps its wastewater to the Palo Alto Regional Water Qualit y Control Plant (PARWQCP) for treatment. The PARWQCP has an overall 40 million gallons per day (mgd) average annual treatment capacity. The City has an average annual flow treatment allocation of 15.1 mgd at the PARWQCP. In 2020, approximately 6.9 mgd of wastewater from Mountain View was collected and treated by the PARWQCP.116

Sanitary Sewer System
The project site is currently served by a 15 -inch sewer main in San Leandro Avenue. The existing improvements on site are estimated to generate 501,145 gallons of wastewater per year, or, 1,373 gpd.117

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

116 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 31. 117 Schaaf & Wheeler. Utility Impact Study Memorandum. March 10, 2025. Table 5.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 151 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
The sewer system meets the City’s d/D performance criteria along the project flow path. There are no pipes along the flow path that are at risk of surcharging. The system meets d/D performance criteria in all pipes downstream of the project site.

Stormwater Drainage
The storm drainage system that serves the project site is owned and maintained by the City of Mountain View. The current project site consists of approximately 42,077 square feet of impervious area, including the rooftops of the existing buildings and surface parking areas. The remaining 32,708 square feet o f the site consists of pervious area , which is comprised of landscaping and other permeable surfaces. Storm water runoff from the project site is collected by a municipal storm drain system consisting of storm drain inlets, conveyance pipes, culverts, channels and retention basins operated by the City of Mountain View Public Works Department. Drainage into the City system generally flows north towards the San Francisco Bay. The project site is served by existing inlets that lead to 30-inch storm drain line in San Leandro Avenue.

Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and recycling services for residents and businesses in Mountain View are provided by Recology Mountain View. Once collected, solid waste and recyclables are transported to the SMaRT Station® in Sunnyvale for sorting, and commercial compostable s are transported to a composting facility in Vernalis, California. Non-recyclable waste is transported and landfilled at Kirby Canyon Sanitary Landfill in south San José. Kirby Canyon Landfill has an estimated remaining capacity of approximately 16.2 million cubic yards and a closing date of 2059. 118

Electric Power and Telecommunications Systems
The project site is served by existing telecommunications systems and electrical services, including a transformer on the southeast corner of the site.

4.19.2 Impact Discussion

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

118 Azevedo, Becky. Environmental Protection Manager, Waste Management. Personal Communications. March 26, 2025. □ □ □

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 152 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
b) Have insufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?

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

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

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

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

Water System
Hydraulic Conveyance
The proposed project’s impact on the utility system for hydraulic conveyance was analyzed under existing and cumulative conditions. The existing conditions scenario models the project’s impact on the existing condition and configuration of the utility system. The cumulative condition scenario incorporates the projected 2030 General Plan buildout of the City, including the recommended CIPs and other recommended upgrades that have been previously identified.

The analysis in the Utility Impact Study Memorandum prepared for the project concluded that under existing conditions and future cumulative conditions, the performance criteria under the PHD scenario is met system-wide in both the pre- and post-project scenarios. Therefore, the project would not result in any deficiencies and impacts to hydraulic conveyance would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)

□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 153 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Fire Flow
Under existing conditions, the required planning-level flow rate is 3,500 gpm on-site, and the available fire flow would be 4,017 gpm in both the pre - and post-project condition. Based on the design of the proposed project and assuming an approved automatic sprinkler system would be installed, the required fire flow would be 1,875 gpm. There are multiple existing deficiencies to the north, east, and west of the project site; however , the project not make any of these deficiencies more severe or create new deficiencies at these locations.

Under the future cumulative condition, the required planning-level flow rate would be 3,500 gpm on- site, and the available fire flow would be 3,841 gpm in both the pre- and post-project condition. There would be deficiencies to the north and south of the project site in both the pre - and post-project condition; however, the project would meet the planning -level required flow rate of 3,500 gpm on- site and would not contribute to any of the existing deficiencies in the future cumulative condition.

Based on this discussion, the project would have a less than significant impact on required fire flow rates available at the project site. (Less than Significant Impact)

Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
The project site is currently served by a 15-inch sewer main in San Leandro Avenue. The project would construct new lateral connections to that main line and additional sanitary sewer lines to service each building. Under existing plus project conditions, the estimated sewer flow would be 7,600 gpd, which is an increase of 6,227 gpd compared to the existing sewer flow on-site of 1,373 gpd. Under the future cumulative condition, the sewer flow on -site from the existing improvements would be 4,0 70 gpd.

Under the future cumulative plus project condition, the sewer flow from the site would increase by approximately 3,530 gpd, for a total of 7,600 gpd.

Existing Plus Project Impacts
Under existing conditions, the sewer system would meet the City’s d/D performance criteria along the project flow path in both pre - and post -project scenarios. There would be no pipes with deficiencies downstream of the project site under either scenario.

Future Cumulative Plus Project Impacts
Under future cumulative conditions, the sewer system would meet the City’s d/D performance criteria along the project flow path in both pre- and post-project scenarios. There would be no pipes with deficiencies downstream of the project site under either scenario.

Based on this discussion, the project would not result in any new deficiencies to the sanitary sewer system that would require the construction of new infrastructure. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 154 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
As discussed in Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site currently has 42,077 square feet of impervious area and 32,708 square feet of pervious area. The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious area on-site by 12,753 square feet (or 18 percent). To control the amount of stormwater runoff from the site, the project would include 1,685 square feet of silva cells and 160 square feet of bioretention facilities. In addition, landscaped areas would be included throughout the site to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff that would runoff from the site and be collected by the City’s stormwater system. Any runoff from the site would be directed to the 30-inch storm drain line in San Leandro Avenue . There are no storm drain capacity issues adjacent to or downstream of the project site, and the existing stormwater infrastructure would continue to have adequate capacity after construction of the project.

The project would construct lateral connections to the existing storm drain lines in San Leandro Avenue and these improvements would require trenching during construction. Construction related impacts from trenching for the storm drain improvements are discussed throughout this document and would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)

Electrical Power and Telecommunications Facilities
Existing electricity and telecommunications utility infrastructure currently serve the project site. The project would remove the existing transformer on the southeast corner of the site and install two new subsurface transformers on adjacent to the surface parking areas on the south side of the site .

The project would be 100 percent electric and no new natural gas connections are proposed . The construction work required for the electricity infrastructure would be completed within the boundaries of the proj ect area, and construction-related impacts from these improvements would be less than significant with implementation of COAs and mitigation measures, and compliance with existing regulations as described throughout this document. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

As described in 4.19.1.2 Existing Conditions, th e City’s existing water supply is 10,456 AFY (or approximately 9.3 mgd) and the City’s water demand is 9,856 AFY (or approximately 8.8 mgd). With implementation of the project, demand for potable water on -site would be 8,550 gpd, which is an increase of approximately 6,476 gpd ( approximately 7.3 AFY or 0.006 mgd). This increase would account for approximately 0.02 percent of the overall water supply in the C ity. The project would result in an incremental increase in demand for water in the C ity; however, Mountain View would maintain sufficient supply to accommodate the small increase in demand during normal years.

To maintain adequate water supply during dry and multiple dry years where there may be shortfalls in supply, the City would institute mandatory conservation measures, with escalating levels of conservation requirements as the shortages in water supply incr ease. These measures include limiting outdoor water use, encouraging further conservation through outreach programs, and

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 155 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
requiring the rapid repair of leaks. The entire City, including the proposed project, would be subject to these measures during dry and multiple dry years. Compliance with mandatory conservation measures in the City would ensure that sufficient water suppl y in maintained in normal, dry, and multiple dry years. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

Existing Plus Project Impacts
As discussed above in Section 4.19.1.2 Existing Conditions, the PARWQCP treats wastewater from the City and has an overall average annual treatment capacity of 40 mgd. The City has an average annual flow treatment allocation of 15.1 mgd at the PARWQCP. In 2020, approximately 6.9 mgd of wastewater from Mountain View was sent t o the PARWQCP for treatment. 119 This results in an
available capacity of approximately 8.2 mgd of available treatment capacity for the City at the PARWQCP. As discussed under checklist question a) above, the project would generate approximately 6,227 gpd (0.006 mgd) more than the current development on-site under existing conditions. Based on this information, the PARWQCP would have adequate capacity to treat the existing demand in addition to the increase in wastewater resulting from the proposed project. (Less than Significant Impact)

Cumulative Plus Project Impacts
Under the future cumulative condition, the sewer flow on-site from the existing improvements would be 4,070 gpd. Under the future cumulative plus project condition, the sewer flow from the site would increase by approximately 3,530 gpd, for a total of 7,600 gpd. Under future cumulative conditions, it is estimated that the City would generate approximately 14.15 mgd of wastewater, which would account for approximately 93.7 percent of the capacity available to the City at the PARWQCP. With implementation of the project, that total would increase to 14.153 mgd (approximately 93.7 percent of the capacity available to the City), which is an increase of approximately 0.0 035 mgd contributed by the project. Under the Basic Agreement between the City, Palo Alto, and Los Altos, an engineering study to redefine the anticipated future needs of the treatment plant is required once each respective service area reaches 80 percent of their contractual capacity rights. Based on this agreement, the City would be required to conduct this engineering study once the average annual flow to the PARWQCP increases to 12.08 mgd during the buildout of the General Plan. Any recommendations regarding physical improvements to the PARWQCP resulting from this engineering study would be subje ct to separate environmental review. Although the project would contribute to the increased generation of wastewater associated with the buildout of the General Plan, it would only account for less than one-tenth of one percent of the overall capacity need in the City. Based on this discussion, the project’s contribution would considered less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)

119 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Page 31.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 156 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards , or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure , or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

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

As discussed earlier, Kirby Canyon Landfill has an estimated remaining capacity of approximately 16.2 million cubic yards and a closing date of 2059.120 It is estimated that the uses on-site would generate

28.2 tons (or 30.5 cubic yards) of solid waste per a year. 121, 122 Based on the remaining capacity at Kirby Canyon Landfill and the estimated amount of waste generated by the project, the landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the project. Since the project can be served by a landfill with capacity and would be required to comply with existing local and state programs and regulations, the project’s impacts related to solid waste and landfill capacity and attainment of solid reduction goals would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

The proposed project would comply with state and local regulations related to solid waste reduction.

The project would comply with CALGreen standards for construction waste recycling and divert at least 65 percent of construction waste resulting from const ruction activities on -site. The proposed project would comply with AB 341 by utilizing the City’s garbage service, which commercially sorts recyclable material at the SMaRT Station. Furthermore, as discussed under checklist question d), solid waste from the project site would be disposed of at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in San José.

The project would not result in a substantial increase in waste landfilled at Kirby Canyon, nor would it be served by a landfill without sufficient capacity. In compliance with the City Code and General Plan policies, the project would not conflict with st ate and federal solid waste regulations and statutes. (Less than Significant Impact)

120 Azevedo, Becky. Environmental Protection Manager, Waste Management. Personal Communications. March 26, 2025. 121 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 922- 950 San Leandro Avenue Construction Emissions & Health Risk Assessment , Mountain View, California. April 10, 2025.
122 Cubic yards based on a compaction rate of 1,850 pounds per cubic yard.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 157 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Wildfire

4.20.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
According to CAL FIRE, the project site is outside the State Responsibility area.123 No very high fire hazard severity zones for local responsibility areas or any fire hazards severity zones for State Responsibility areas are within or adjacent to the City.124 The site is also not within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).125

4.20.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

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

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

The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, the project would not result in wildfire impacts. (No Impact)

123 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area.” Webmap.

Accessed December 9, 2024 . https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire- hazard-severity-zones.
124 City of Mountain View. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report.

SCH #2011012069. September 2012. Page 398.
125 United States Forest Service. “Wild Urban Interface: 2020 (Map Service).” Webmap. Accessed January 3, 2025. Wildland Urban Interface: 2020 (Map Service) | U.S. Forest Service - Geospatial Data Discovery.

4.20 4.20 .1.1
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 158 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal, or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?

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

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

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal co mmunity, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

As discussed in Section 4.0 of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment with implementation of City standard conditions of approval and the identified mitigation measure. As discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources, the project would not impact sensitive habitats or special-status species. The project would implement City standard condition of approval COA BIO-1 to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level. As discussed in Sections 4.5 Cultural Resources and 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources, there are no known pre -historic, historic, or tribal cultural resources on- site. The project would implement mitigation measure MM CUL-1.1 and City standard condition of approval COA CUL-1 to reduce potential impacts to unknown resources (if encountered on -site during construction) to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

4.21 □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 159 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?

Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limit ed, but cumulatively considerable.” As defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”

As discussed in Sections 4.2, 4.12, and 4.20 , the project would not impact agricultural or forestry resources, mineral resources, or wildfire. Therefore, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact to these resources.

The project’s impacts to cultural resources and TCRs are specific to the site, and as discussed in Sections 4.5 and 4.18, implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL -1.1 and City s tandard condition of approval COA CUL-1 would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level.

The geographic area for cumulative aesthetic, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials , and noise impacts is generally the immediate vicinity of the project site because it would affect common resources and impacts would be limited to the immediate vicinity. In regard to cumulative aesthetic impacts, there are two cumulative projects in the immediate vicinity of the project: 1) a General Plan Map Amendment and residential project located 1020 Terra Bella Avenue that proposes to construct a 108-unit multi-family residential development, and 2) a General Plan Map Amendment and commercial project located 1040 Terra Bella Avenue that proposes to construct two personal storage building that are four- to six-stories tall.

These cumulative projects would not result in a significant cumulative aesthetics impact because the cumulative projects are required to undergo the same DRC review process to ensure compliance with General Plan p olicies and City Code regulations regarding view preservation, minimization of light and glare, and neighborhood compatibility. Cumulative project s are subject to the same existing state, regional, and local regulations including the MBTA, Fish and Game Code, City Tree Preservation Ordinance, CBC, MRP provisions, PC B/ACM/lead-based paint regulatory screening requirements, NPDES permit requirements, General Plan p olicies, and City Code regulations identified in Sections

4.4, 4.7, 4.9, and 4.10. Compliance with these regulations, in addition to implementation of City standard conditions of approval (such as COAs, BIO -1.1, BIO-5.1, GEO-1.1, GEO-6.1, HAZ-2.1, HYD-

1.1, and HYD-1.2) would ensure significant individual and cumulative impacts to biological resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality, are reduced to a less than significant level. Cumulative projects within 500 feet of the project site have the ability to contribute to a cumulative noise or vibration impact with the project. There are no cumulative projects within 500 feet of the project site. For this reason, the project would not result in a significant cumulative noise or vibration impact. As discussed above, there are cumulative projects within 1,000 feet that could have construction periods that overlap with the project. However, the cumulative

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 160 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
projects would be subject to the same measures listed in COA NOI -1 to reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant impact.

In general, an individual project’s impact on broader resources including air quality, energy, GHGs, and VMT are evaluated at a cumulative level. That is, if a project results in a significant impact to air quality (specifically criteria air pollutants), energy, GHGs, and VMT, the project would be considered to have a significant cumulative impact to those resources. As discussed in Sections 4.3, 4.6, 4.8, and

4.17, the project would not result in significant (individual , and therefore cumulative) impacts to those resource areas with the implementation of the identified City standard condition of approval (COA AIR-1). Cumulative health risk impacts are discussed in Section 4.3.2 and found to be less than significant with the implementation of City standard condition of approval COA AIR-1.

Other than 100 percent affordable housing projects, any cumulative residential development s are required to pay park land dedication fees required by the City. Cumulative residential projects are also required to pay school impact fees in accordance with California Government Code Section 65996 and comply with General Plan Polic y MOB 10.4, which would ensure adequate emergency response times . For these reasons, cumulative projects would not contribute to a cumulative significant recreation or public services impact.

Land uses in the City are regulated through the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and depending on the location of the site, the Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP. The project requires a General Plan amendment and rezoning to allow for construction of residential uses at the proposed density on- site. As discussed in Section 4.11 , the project would not conflict with the Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP because the structures and construction equipment would not exceed the established maximum heights allowed in the Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP. Cumulative projects in the area would comply with the same requirements.

As discussed in Section 4.14, the proposed project would result in up to 38 residential units (and approximately 89 new residents) that were not accounted for in the 2030 General Plan buildout or the Housing Element Update that was adopted in April 2023. The project’s number of residential units and estimated residents represents an approximate increase of 0.06 percent compared to the estimated 2040 buildout. Given this incremental increase and the projected City growth, the project would not result in a cu mulatively considerable significant cumulative population and housing impact.

As discussed in Section 4.19, a Utility Impact Study Memorandum was prepared which evaluated the project’s potential contribution to cumulative utility impacts on the water and sanitary sewer system in the City. This cumulative analysis determined that the project would have a less than significant impact on the water and sanitary sewer system under future cumulative conditions. Future cumulative projects would be required to confirm sufficient water supply, wastewater treatment capacity, and solid waste disposal capacity. Therefore, cumulative projects would not result in a significant cumulative utility and service impact.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 161 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Given the above considerations, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impact s. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

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

Consistent with Section 15065(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Under this standard, a change to the physical environmental that might otherwise by minor must be treated as significant if it would cause substantial adverse effects to humans, either directly or indirectly. This factor relates to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not effects on particular individuals.

The potential for the proposed project to result in changes to the environment that could directly or indirectly affect human beings is evaluated in each section of this Initial Study using the CEQA Checklist. In particular, the resource areas that could directly affect human beings include air quality, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. The potential project-related impacts discussed in Sections 4.3, 4.7, 4.9, and 4.13 would all be reduced to a less than significant level with adherence to existing regulations, implementation of City standard conditions of approval (COAs AIR-

1.1, GEO-1.1, HAZ-2.1, NOI-1.1, NOI-1.2, and NOI -4.1), and implementation of mitigation measure MM HAZ-1.1. No other direct or indirect adverse effects of the project on human beings have been identified. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 162 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Section 5.0 References
The analysis in this Initial Study is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:

Albion Environmental, Inc. Phase I Cultural Resource Inventory for the 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project, Mountain View, California. March 2025.

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

October 21, 2021.

Bay Area Air District. “Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status.” Last Updated January 5, 2017.

Accessed March 5, 2025. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/air- quality-standards-and-attainment-status.

---. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines Appendix E: Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards.

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

California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed March 3, 2025. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. December 2022.

---. “Advanced Clean Cars II.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean- cars-ii

---. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed December 6, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.

California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed December 6, 2024. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx.

---. “Williamson Act.” http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.

---. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2020. Map. April 2023.

California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed December 18, 2024.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/#data_s=id%3AdataSourc e_4-191d8e4b825-layer-21%3A200.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 163 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
California Department of Education. “Data Quest.” Accessed January 2, 2025. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/dataquest.asp.

California Department of Finance. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020 -2024.” May 2024. Accessed December 18, 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates- for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “FHSZ Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area.” Webmap. Accessed March 3, 2025. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what -we-do/community- wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.

---. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed December 6, 2024. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

---. “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area.” Webmap. Accessed December 9, 2024. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire- hazard-severity-zones.

---. “Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.” Webmap. Accessed March 3, 2025. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed December 9, 2024. http://hcd.ca.gov/community - development/housing-element/index.shtml.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. “Analysis of the Progress Toward the SB 1383 Organic Wase Reduction Goals (DRRR -2020-1693).” Accessed March 21, 2025. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1693.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed December 10, 2024.
https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist.

California Energy Commission. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency- standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency.

---. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for Single-Family Residential.” Revised July 15, 2022. Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022 - 08/2022_Single-family_Whats_New_Summary_ADA.pdf.

---. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for Multifamily.” Revised August 4, 2022.

Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022 - 08/2022_Multifamily_Whats_new_Summary_ADA.pdf.

---. “2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards What’s New for Nonresidential.” Revised August 4, 2022.

Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022 - 08/2022_Nonresidential_Whats_New_Summary_ADA.pdf.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 164 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
---. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed December 10, 2024. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.

---. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed December 10, 2024. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2023 California Gas Report. Accessed December 10, 2024.

California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Map. Accessed December 23, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/.

California Legislative Information. “Chapter 2.7. Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit- Oriented Infill Projects [21099 - 21099.].” Accessed December 6, 2024. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=13.&p art=&chapter=2.7.&article=.

California Office of Historic Preservation. “CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6.” Accessed December 6, 2024. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%2 0update.pdf.

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

California State Parks. “California Historical Resources.” Accessed February 27, 2025. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=name&criteria=mountain+view.

California State Water Resources Control Board. “2020-2022 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report).” May 11, 2022. Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/2020_202 2_integrated_report.html.

---. “GeoTracker.” Accessed March 3, 2025.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?page=385&cmd=search&business_name=&main _street_name=&city=&zip=&county=&status=&branch=&site_type=LUFT&npl=&funding=&repo rttitle=PROJECT+SEARCH+RESULTS&reporttype=&federal_superfund=&state_response=&volunt ary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&permitted=&corrective_action=&spec_prog=&national_priorit y_list=&senate=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&searchtype=&hwmp_s ite_type=&cleanup_type=&watershed=&gwbasin=&excludenc=False&orderby=city.

California Department of Transportation. “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” Accessed February 27, 2025.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa.

City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. 2014. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4758/637981632206970000

922-950 S
an Leandro Avenue Residential Project 165 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
---. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.
---. Dr
aft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2011012069. September 2012. ---.
“Environmental Protection.” Accessed February 28, 2025. https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/fire/fire-and-environmental-protection- division/environmental-protection.
---.
“Mountain View Green Building and Reach Codes.” Accessed January 6, 2025. https://developmentpermits.mountainview.gov/about-permits/building-and-fire-codes/green- building-and-reach-codes.
---.
“Mountain View Register of Historic Resources.” September 28, 2022.

Co
rnerstone Earth Group, Inc. Environmental Review 922-950 San Leandro Street Mountain View, California. February 28, 2025.

Co
unty of Santa Clara. “Geologic Hazard Zones”. Accessed December 18, 2024. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ef8100336234fbdafc 5769494cfe373.
---.
“Williamson Act Properties”. Accessed December 16, 2024. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1f39e32b4c0644b091 5354c3e59778ce.

Fed
eral Emergency Management Agency. “FEMA Flood Map Service Center: Search By Address.” Accessed February 28, 2025.
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=922%20san%20lorenzo%20avenue%2C%20 san%20jose%2C%20ca.

Horticultural Associates. Tree Inventory Report – 922 and 944 San Leandro Street. November 29, 2023 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Construction Emissions & Health Risk Assessment, Mountain View, California. April 14, 2025.
---. Arbor Square Project 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Noise Assessment. April 14, 2025.

Mountain View Fire Department. Fire Department Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2022-23. Accessed December 18, 2024.
https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8329/638423818087870000.

Mo
untain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Level 1 Developer Fee Study. July 27, 2020. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Biennial_California_Gas_Report_2023_Sup plement.pdf.

Mo
untain View Police Department. 2023 Annual Report. Accessed December 20, 2024. file:///C:/Users/krai/Downloads/MVPD%202023%20Annual%20Report.pdf.

Mo
untain View Whisman School District. Level 1 Developer Fee Study. May 5, 2022. 922
-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 166 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
National Park Service. “National Register of Historic Places.” Accessed February 27, 2025. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm P
owerSchool. “Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District”. Accessed December 20, 2024. https://locator.pea.powerschool.com/?StudyID=187720
---
. “Mountain View Whisman School District”. Accessed December 20, 2024. https://locator.pea.powerschool.com/?StudyID=214830
Q
uantum Geotechnical Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Assessment/Mountain View. December 11, 2023.

S
anta Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

November 2, 2016.

S
anta Clara County FireSafe Council. “Wildland-Urban Interface.” Webmap. https://sccfiresafe.org/resources/do-you-reside-in-santa-clara-countys-wildland-urban- interface-wui/.

Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2021.

Schaaf & Wheeler. Utility Impact Study Memorandum. May 21, 2025.

Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 922-944 San Leandro Street, Mountain View, California 94043, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. February 9, 2023. Page 6.1. ---. Shallow Soil Sampling 922-944 San Leandro Street, Mountain View, California. May 9, 2023 Treanor. Department of Parks and Recreation 523A Forms. March 2025.

United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed December 10, 2024. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.

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

A
ccessed December 18, 2024. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/IM2016 - 124_att1.pdf
U
nited States Department of Transportation. “USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for Model Year 2024 -2026.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.nhtsa.gov/press - releases/usdot-announces-new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-model-year-2024-2026.

Un
ited States Energy Information Administration. “California State Energy Profile.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 167 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
---. “Petroleum & Other Liquids, California Field Production of Crude Oil.” February 28, 2023. Accessed December 10, 2024.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpca1&f=a.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA Actions to Protect the Public from Exposure to Asbestos.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/epa -actions-protect- public-exposure-asbestos.

---. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act.

---. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview.

---. “The 2024 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” November 2024. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024- 11/420r24022.pdf.

United States Fish & Wildlife Service. Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. Accessed January 6, 2025. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html.

---. National Wetlands Inventory, Surface Waters and Wetlands. Map. May 2021.

United States Forest Service. “Wild Urban Interface: 2020 (Map Service).” Webmap. Accessed January 3, 2025. Wildland Urban Interface: 2020 (Map Service) | U.S. Forest Service - Geospatial Data Discovery.

United States Geological Survey. “Groundwater Quality in the San Francisco Bay Groundwater Basins, California.” March 2013. Accessed February 28, 2025.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3111/pdf/fs20123111.pdf.

---. “Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data.” Accessed December 18, 2024. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map-us.html.

Personal Communications
• Azevedo, Becky. Environmental Protection Manager, Waste Management. • De La Cruz, Daisy. Assistant to the Associate Superintendent -Business Services, Mountain View Los Altos High School District.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 168 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Section 6.0 Lead Agency and Consultants
Lead Agency
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
Christian Murdock, Community Development Director
Amber Blizinski, Assistant Community Development Director Edgar Maravilla, Senior Planner

Consultants
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

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

Albion Environmental, Inc.

Archaeological Consultants
Sarah Peelo, PhD
Brittney Biasi, BA
Stella D’Oro, MA

Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.

Hazardous Materials Consultants
Kurt M. Soenen, P.E., Senior Principal Engineer

Horticultural Associates
Arborists
John C. Meserve

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Acoustical and Air Quality Consultants
Michael Thill, Principal
James Reyff, Principal
Carrie J. Janello, Senior Consultant
Zachary Palm, Consultant
Jordyn Bauer, Staff Consultant

6.1 6.2

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 169 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Quantum Geotechnical, Inc.

Geotechnical Consultants
Simon Makdessi, P.E., G.E., President

Schaaf & Wheeler
Consulting Civil Engineers
Leif Coponen, PE, Vice President
Brett F. Crews, PE

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

Hazardous Materials Consultants
Jim DeWoody, Principal Scientist
Kyle Emerson, CEG, Managing Principal Geologist
Eric Booker, Project Geologist
Alicia Jansen, Senior Scientist

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 170 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Section 7.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACM asbestos-containing material
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ATCM air toxic control measure
Air District Bay Area Air District
Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area
bgs below ground surface
Btu British thermal unit
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standard
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Standards Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFC chlorofluorocarbon
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 171 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
dBA A-weighted decibel
Ldn Day/Night Average Sound Level
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GHG greenhouse gas
GHGRS Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
GWh gigawatt hour
GWP Global Warming Potential
Habitat Plan Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
ibid Same source as previous footnote
Leq Energy-Equivalent Sound/Noise Descriptor
Lmax Maximum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period LBP lead-based paint
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mpg miles per gallon
MSL mean sea level

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 172 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCP National Contingency Plan
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOA naturally occurring asbestos
NOD Notice of Determination
NOx nitrogen oxides
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 ozone
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PFC perfluorocarbon
PDA Priority Development Areas
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less PPV Peak Particle Velocity
R&D Research and Development
RAP Removal Action Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ROG reactive organic gases
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB State Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMGB State Mining and Geology Board
922-950
San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 173 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
SMP Site Management Plan
SOx sulfur oxides
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs Toxic Air Contaminants
Title 24 Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT vehicle miles traveled
Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act
WUI wildland-urban interface
ZNE zero net carbon emission
Appendices are Available Upon
Request
Please Contact Project Planner
Edgar Maravilla at
[email protected]
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP)

DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project
State Clearinghouse No. TBD
This Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program (MMRP) identifies the project-specific mitigation measures required of the project. 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project Administrative Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Mountain View Page 1 of 2 June 2025
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Impact CUL -1: Construction
activities associated with the
project could disturb
unknown archaeological
resources. (Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
Impact TCR -1: Construction
activities associated with the
project could disturb
unknown TCRs. (Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
MM CUL-1.1: Extended Phase I Investigation: Prior to
issuance of a demolition permit, the City shall verify that the project sponsor has retained a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards and, if requested by a tribe
registered with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the City of Mountain View that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as
described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3, a
Native American monitor, to develop and implement an
Extended Phase I Archaeological Assessment of the project site to test for precolonial and historic -era archaeological deposits to the depth of the project's grading, trenching, and excavation. The Extended Phase I Assessment shall
include subsurface testing of the project site through mechanical trenching to allow the archaeologist to observe subsurface conditions and locate any buried cultural
deposits, features, or artifacts. Following demolition of existing buildings and removal of pavement and other
impervious surfaces at the project site and prior to
commencement of grading, trenching, and excavation, the Extended Phase I Assessment shall be completed, and the Project sponsor The project sponsor shall
provide evidence to City of
Mountain View Planning
Division staf f that they have
retained a qualified
archaeologist and, if
requested, a Native American
monitor, to develop and
implement an Extended Phase
I Archaeological Assessment
on-site
The findings of the Extended
Phae I Assessment shall be
submitted for review and
approval by the City of
Mountain View Planning
Division staff
Prior to issuance of
demolition permits
Prior to issuance of
grading permits
922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Mountain View Page 2 of 2 September 2025
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
archaeologist shall document any findings and subsurface conditions in an Extended Phase I report which shall be submitted to the City. If the Extended Phase I Investigation identifies archaeological resources, the archaeologist shall evaluate the find to determine its significance under CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5(f); Public Resources Code Section 20182).

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Impact HAZ-1: Construction
activities associated with the
project could disturb
potentially contaminated
soil near the existing or
historic locations of wood -
framed structures on-site.
(Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
MM HAZ-1.1: Additional Soil Sampling: After demolition of the existing improvements on -site, but prior to the commencement of grading, trenching, and excavation, soil samples shall be collected and analyzed by a qualified
environmental professional to determine if shallow soils near the exist ing or historic locations of wood -framed structures on -site have been impacted by lead and/or
pesticides historically used to control termites. If
contaminants are detected at levels that exceed residential regulatory thresholds, the extent of contamination shall be identified, and a Health and Safety Plan and Soil
Management Plan, shall be implemented. Preparation and
implementation of the Health and Safety Plan and Soil
Management Plan shall be performed under the ove rsight of a regulatory agency, such as the Santa Clara County
Department of Environmental Health, Regional Water
Quality Control Board, or the Department of Toxic
Substances Control, with copies of all documentation
provided to the City.

Project sponsor The project sponsor shall
submit documentation
materials summarizing the
results of the additional
shallow soil sampling on-site
If required, copies of the
Health and Safety Plan and Soil
Management Plan and
documentation of the
regulatory oversight agency’s
approval shall be submitted to
City of Mountain View
Planning Division staff
Prior to the issuance
of grading, permits
SOURCE: City of Mountain View. 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. SCH# TBD. September 2025.