Mountain View City Council
March 24, 2026

Attachment 1
-1-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2026

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

ADOPTING AN INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 922-950 SAN LEANDRO AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15064(f)(3) AND 15070, ET SEQ., OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View (City) prepared an Initial Study for the proposed residential project for the property located at 922 -950 San Leandro Avenue (Project) in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act , Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. (CEQA), and the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines); and

WHEREAS, the Project proposes a General Plan map amendment for the property located at 922-950 San Leandro Avenue from General Industrial to Medium-Density Residential, a Zoning Map Amendment to modify the property from the MM (General Industrial) Zoning District to the R3-1.5 ( Multiple-Family Residential) Zoning District , a Planned Unit Development Permit and Development Review Permit for a 38-unit rowhouse development and related site improvements, utilizing State Density Bonus Law, replacing a multi-tenant industrial building and two single-family homes, a Heritage Tree Removal Permit to remove five Heritage trees, and a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes with one common lot, associated with the 38- unit rowhouse development at 922-950 San Leandro Avenue; and

WHEREAS, on September 17, 2025 , the City filed a notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the Santa Clara County Clerk-Recorder’s Office and posted copies of said notice on the City of Mountain View webpage, at the Mountain View Public Library, and at the City of Mountain View Community Development Department . Said notice of intent advertised a 30-day review and comment period starting on September 17, 2025 and ending on October 17, 2025; and

WHEREAS, on September 17, 2025, the City submitted a copy of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse (SCH Number ENV25811); and

WHEREAS, the City provided notice of intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration through direct mailings to the owners and occupants of all properties within 750 ’ of the Project property pursuant to Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines; and

WHEREAS, the City received no comment letters on said Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

-2-
WHEREAS, based upon the Initial Study/environmental checklist, including the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and in light of the whole record, the Project will not individually or cumulatively have a sign ificant adverse impact on environmental resources; and

WHEREAS, the Environmental Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 18, 2026 on the Project and recommended that the City Council adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

WHEREAS, the matter was considered at a City Counci l duly noticed public hearing on March 24, 2026; and

WHEREAS, the City Council believes the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the Project will further General Plan and Housing Element goals and policies by facilitating the construction of medium-density residential uses and by increasing diverse housing opportunities and will support achievement of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) in accordance with the City’s Housing Element; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED: that the City Council of the City of Mountain View hereby finds that:

1. The City Council has reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, including all comments received from the public.

2. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

3. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c)(4), recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required.

4. The City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project along with the Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , including all analysis and mitigation measures as set forth in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

5. City staff is hereby authorized and directed to prepare the necessary Notice of Determination to be filed with the Santa Clara County Clerk -Recorder and the State Office of Planning and Research.

-3-

6. The custodian of the record of proceedings upon which these decisions are based (Record) is the Community Development Director. The Record is available at the Community Development Department at 500 Castro Street, First Floor, Mountain View, California, 94041.

– – – – – – – – – – –

CDD/EM-03-24-26r

Exhibit: A. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
922-950 San Leandro Avenue ResidenƟal Project
September 2025
In ConsultaƟon with
Prepared by
~~ Cityof ..
~'71 Mountain View
imB DAVID 1. PowERs
Bt!l~ & ASSOCIATES , INC.

Exhibit A
Amendment to the 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Permit Number: PL-6773)
February 5, 2026

Subsequent to the circulation of the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration dated September 2025 (which occurred between September 17, 2025 to October 17, 2025), it has been clarified based on updated tree data provided by the applicant that five of the 31 trees that would be removed from the project site are Heritage trees, as defined in the City’s Municipal Code, when the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration stated that none of the trees proposed for removal on-site were Heritage trees. As a result, the project would comply with the City’s Protection of the Urban Forest Ordinance, which requires development projects to obtain Heritage Trees Removal Permits for any Heritage trees removed and the planting of replacement trees.

This clarification about five of the trees proposed for removal being Heritage trees and the standard requirement for their removal to be done in compliance with the City’s Protection of the Urban Forest Ordinance merely clarifies information in the draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration and would not result in any new significant impacts, nor will it increase the severity of any impacts already discussed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, in conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, it is determined that a substantial revision to the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is not warranted and recirculation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
650-903-6306 | MountainView.gov

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential
DRAFT Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project: 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential

Lead Agency:

Edgar Maravilla
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street
P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
Email: [email protected]
Phone Number: (650) 903-6321

Project Proponents:

Kian Malek
City Ventures
444 Spear Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94105
Email: [email protected]
Phone Number: (650) 248-8388

Availability of the Initial Study:

The Initial Study for this Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached and available for review on the City’s website at the following web address:
https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community- development/planning/active-projects/ceqa-postings

Project Location and Description:

The approximately 1.69-acre project site is located at 922-950 San Leandro Avenue, north of the San Leandro Avenue/San Pablo Drive intersection, in the City of Mountain View. (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs]: 153-18-026 and 153-18-031).

The project proposes a General Plan Map Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment, Vesting Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development Permit, and Development Review Permit to demolish the existing improvements on-site and redevelop the project site with a residential development that would include 38 three-story, rowhome units, a central open space area, and a s egment of •• ~ . 4, Cityof
- Mountain View

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
650-903-6306 | MountainView.gov

a pedestrian walkway along the southern site boundary that would connect to a future City park planned to the west of the site.

Refer to the Initial Study for additional details on the project components.

Proposed Findings:

The City has prepared the attached Initial Study and determined that the analysis in the Initial Study identifies potentially significant project effects, but:

1. Mitigation measures required by the City, and agreed to by the applicant, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effects would occur; and

2. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project with implementation of mitigation measures may have a significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelin es Sections 15064(f)(3) and 15070(b), a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project.

Basis of Findings:

Based on the environmental evaluation presented in the attached Initial Study, the project would not cause significant adverse effects related to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities/service systems, and wildfire. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. The environmental evaluation determined the project would have potentially significant impacts on cultural resources and hazards and hazardous materials and implementation of the mitigation measures listed below would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures:

Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
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 E xtended Phase I Archaeological Assessment of the project site to test for precolonial and historic-

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
650-903-6306 | MountainView.gov

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 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 archaeol ogical 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
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 oversight 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.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Table of Contents
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ............................................................................................... 1 Purpose of the Initial Study .................................................................................................... 1 Public Review Period .............................................................................................................. 1 Consideration of the Initial Study and Project ....................................................................... 1 Notice of Determination ......................................................................................................... 1 Section 2.0 Project Information ......................................................................................................... 2 Project Title ............................................................................................................................. 2 Lead Agency Contact .............................................................................................................. 2 Project Applicant .................................................................................................................... 2 Project Location ...................................................................................................................... 2 Assessor’s Parcel Number....................................................................................................... 2 General Plan Designation and Zoning District ........................................................................ 6 Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits ........................................................... 6 Section 3.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 7 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 7 Primary Project Components.................................................................................................. 7 Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Impact Discussion ............................................ 12 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. 13 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................... 21 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 24 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 41 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 48 Energy ................................................................................................................................... 57 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................................. 63 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 72 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 82 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................... 93 Land Use and Planning........................................................................................................ 104 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................. 107 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 109 Population and Housing...................................................................................................... 122

1.1 1.2

1.3 1.4

2.1 2.2

2.3 2.4

2.5 2.6

2.7 3.1

3.2 4.1

4.2 4.3

4.4 4.5

4.6 4.7

4.8 4.9

4.10 4.11

4.12 4.13

4.14 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project ii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Public Services .................................................................................................................... 125 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 132 Transportation .................................................................................................................... 135 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 144 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................. 147 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................... 157 Mandatory Findings of Significance.................................................................................... 158 Section 5.0 References................................................................................................................... 162 Section 6.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ..................................................................................... 168 Lead Agency ........................................................................................................................ 168 Consultants ......................................................................................................................... 168 Section 7.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... 170

Figures

Figure 2.5-1: Regional Map .................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2.5-2: Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2.5-3: Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................ 5 Figure 3.2-1: Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3.2-2: Conceptual Elevations ...................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4.3-1: Location of Project Site, Point Sources, Off-Site Sensitive Receptors, and MEI ............. 35 Figure 4.3-2: Location of Project Site and Nearby TAC and PM2.5 Sources.......................................... 37 Figure 4.13-1: Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................... 115

Photos

Photos 1 and 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Photos 3 and 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Tables

Table 4.3-1: Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants ......... 25 Table 4.3-2: Air District Air Quality Significance Thresholds................................................................ 30 Table 4.3-3: Air District Health Risks and Hazards Thresholds ............................................................ 30 Table 4.3-4: Average Daily Construction Period Criteria Pollutant Emissions ..................................... 32

4.15 4.16

4.17 4.18

4.19 4.20

4.21 6.1

6.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project iii Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Table 4.3-5: Construction Risk Impacts at the Off-Site MEIs ............................................................... 34 Table 4.3-6: Impacts from Combined Sources at Project MEIs ........................................................... 36 Table 4.3-7: Impacts from Cumulative Sources to Project Site Receptors .......................................... 40 Table 4.8-1: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Consistency ................................................................. 81 Table 4.10-1: Approximate Existing and Proposed Impervious/Pervious Surfaces ........................... 102 Table 4.13-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria ...................................................................... 110 Table 4.13-2: General Plan Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines ................................................ 112 Table 4.13-3: Summary of Long-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) ........................................... 114 Table 4.13-4: Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) .......................................... 114 Table 4.15-1: School Enrollment and Existing Capacity (2023 to 2024) ............................................ 128

Appendices

Appendix A: Construction Emissions and Health Risk Assessment Appendix B: Arborist Report
Appendix C: DPR 523A Forms
Appendix D: Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Assessment Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Shallow Soil Sampling Report, and Peer Review Appendix F: Noise Assessment
Appendix G: Utility Impact Study Memorandum

All appendices are incorporated herein by reference.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose
Purpose of the Initial Study
The City of Mountain View, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study for the 922 -950 San Leandro Avenue Residential project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Mountain View, California.

The project proposes to demolish the existing improvements on -site and construct a residential development that would include 38 three -story, rowhome units . This Initial Study evaluates the environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project.

Public Review Period
Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning of a 30-day public review and comment period.

During this period, the Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Initial Study during the 30-day public review period should be sent to:

Edgar Maravilla, Senior Planner
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94041
Email: [email protected]

Consideration of the Initial Study and Project
Following the conclusion of the public review period, the City of Mountain View will consider the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project at a regularly scheduled meeting . The City shall consider the Initial Study/MND together with any comments received during the public review process . Upon adoption of the MND, the City may proceed with project approval actions.

Notice of Determination
If the project is approved, The City of Mountain View will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30 -day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)).

1.1 1.2

1.3 1.4

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Section 2.0 Project Information
Project Title
922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential project

Lead Agency Contact
Edgar Maravilla, Senior Planner
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
[email protected]

Project Applicant
Kian Malek
City Ventures
444 Spear Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94105
[email protected]

Project Location
The 1.69 -acre project site is located at 922 -950 San Leandro Avenue, north of the San Leandro Avenue/San Pablo Drive intersection, in the City of Mountain View. The project site is comprised of two parcels. The southern parcel contains a 14,140 square foot, single-story office/industrial building and surface parking areas. The northern parcel is developed with two single-family residential units, a detached garage, and two accessory structures. Most of the northern parcel is undeveloped and contains grass, shrubs, and trees.

Surrounding land uses include light industrial and office uses to the north and west, and residential uses to the south. San Leandro Avenue and State Route (SR) 85 are directly east of the project site.

Regional and vicinity maps with the project site’s location are shown on Figure 2.5-1 and Figure 2.5-2.

An aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 2.5-3.

Assessor’s Parcel Number
153-18-026 and 153-18-031

2.1 2.2

2.3 2.4

2.5 922-950 San Leandro Avenue ResidenƟal Project
City of Mountain View
3IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
September 2025
101
101
82 82
35 84
85 237
280
280
280
Foothill Expressway
Central Expr
essway
Woodside Road
San
Francisco
Bay
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Mountain View
Menlo Park
Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
Woodside
Stanford
Project Site
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.5-1
0 1 2 3 4 Miles.5
San Francisco Bay
Pacific Ocean
Monterey Bay
San José
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Morgan Hill
San José
Fremont
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Morgan Hill
Project SiteProject Site
922-950 San Leandro Avenue ResidenƟal Project
City of Mountain View
4IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
September 2025
MoffeƩ Boulevard
Emily Drive
Evandale Avenue
San Pablo Drive
San Rafael Avenue
Terra Bella Avenue
Linda Vista Avenue
San Lucas Avenue
West Middlefield Road
North Shoreline Boulevard
Stevens Creek
Stevens Creek Trail Mo
ffeƩ Bo
ulevard
Emily Drive
Evandale Avenue
San Pablo Drive
San Rafael Avenue
San Leandro Ave
San Leandro Ave
Terra Bella Avenue
Linda Vista
Avenue
San Lucas Avenue
WestMiddlefieldRoad
North Shoreline Boulevard
Stevens
Creek
Stevens Cree
k Trail
101
101
85 Project Boundary
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 100 400 600 800 Feet
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.5-2
922-950 San Leandro Avenue ResidenƟal Project
City of Mountain View
5IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
September 2025
Light
Industrial
Light
Industrial
ResidenƟal
ResidenƟal
Office
San Leandro Avenue
San Leandro Avenue
San Pablo Drive
San Carrizo W
ay
San Rafael Avenue
Stevens Creek
Stevens Creek Trail
San Pablo Drive
San Carrizo
Way
San Rafael Avenue
Stevens Creek
Stev
ensCreekTrail
85 Photo Date: Aug. 2023
0 25 100 150 200 Feet
Project Boundary
Boundaries of Proposed
Future City Park
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Dec. 17, 2024.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.5-3

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
General Plan Designation and Zoning District
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) land use designation for the site is General Industrial, which allows for industrial uses including manufacturing and storage, research and development (R&D), administrative offices, and ancillary commercial. This designation has a height guideline of three stories and a maximum allowed floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.35, or 0.55 for uses with a limited number of employees and customers (e.g., warehouse) and up to 2.50 FAR may be permitted for significant publi c benefits in support of affordable housing, where allowed through zoning.

The project site currently has a zoning designation of MM – General Industrial. The MM zone allows for manufacturing and processing, transportation and communication (e.g., public utility services), and services (e.g., data centers, storage, and warehousing) land uses. The designation sets a maximum FAR of 0.35 for industrial, office, and warehouse retail; 0.45 for warehouses; and 0.55 for personal storage facilities.

Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits
• General Plan Map Amendment
• Zoning Map Amendment
• Planned Unit Development
• Development Review Permit
• Vesting Tentative Map

2.6 2.7

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 7 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Section 3.0 Project Description
Overview
The project proposes to redevelop the project site with a residential development that would include 38 three-story, rowhome1 units, a central open space area, and a segment of a pedestrian walkway along the southern site boundary that would connect to a future City park planned to the west of the site.2 The project would set aside 25 percent of the units (i.e., 10 units) as affordable at varying levels of affordability.3

Because residential uses are not an allowed use under the current General Plan and zoning designation for the site, the project includes a request for a General Plan Map Amendment from General Industrial to Medium Density Residential and a Zoning Map Amendment from MM – General Industrial to R3-1.5 (Residential Multiple-Family). The Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation allows for 13 to 25 dwelling units per acre. Construction of 38 units on -site would result in a density of 22.48 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with what is allowed under the proposed Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation.

The R3-1.5 (Residential Multiple-Family) zoning designation includes several development standards, including a maximum height lim it of 45 feet, 15 -foot front, si de, and rear setback requirements, a maximum allowable site coverage of 35 percent, and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.05 when there are more than 20 dwelling units per acre at a site. The maximum proposed height of 39 feet would comply with the development standards for this zoning designation; however, the project would include reduced five-foot side setbacks on the northern site boundary, site coverage of 37.14 percent, and an FAR of 1.06. The project would utilize the allowed design waivers under the State Density Bonus law to achieve the reduced side setback, higher lot coverage percentage, and FAR.

The primary project components are described below.

Primary Project Components

3.2.1 Residential Development
The project proposes 38 rowhome units that would be split between four residential buildings (Buildings A through D). The buildings would reach a maximum height of 39 feet and have a FAR of

1.06. A conceptual site plan is shown on Figure 3.2-1 and conceptual project elevations are shown on Figure 3.2-2.

1 A rowhome is a single-family house that is part of a series of houses that share a common wall or roofline with their neighbors. 2 The development of this future City park is not part of the proposed project and will be undertaken by the City in a separate planning effort with separate environmental review.
3 Three units would be for-sale at 80 percent area median income (AMI), five at 120 percent AMI, and two at 150 percent AMI.

3.1 3.2
922-950 San Leandro Avenue ResidenƟal Project
City of Mountain View
8IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
September 2025
Source: Hunt Hale Jones Architects, January 24, 2025.
30x24 CLR
UP
FIRE
RISER
PGE
PULL
UGPS
MAIN
HOUSE
PANEL
METER
STACK
10 UNIT
PHONE
CATV
SPACER
UP16 RISERS @ 7.75"
15 TREADS @ 10.5"
3080
9070 SECT ROLL-UP
UP
2868
TILE/9'-1"
2040 SH
3068
CONC./9'-1"
UP16 RISERS @ 7.75"
15 TREADS @ 10.5"
FIRE
RISER
PGE
PULL
UGPS
MAIN
HOUSE
PANEL
METER
STACK
10 UNIT
PHONE
CATV
SPACER
212'-6"
344'-11"
20'-0"

SETBACK
44'-0"3'-0"21'-0"3'-0"42'-0"67'-4"42'-0"3'-0"44'-0" 21'-0"24'-71 2" 3'-0"
15'-0"

SETBACK
15'-0"

SETBACK
4'-101
2"
160'-4"
5'-0" SETBACK18'-8" 6'-6"
60'-4"
UP16 RISERS @ 7.75"
15 TREADS @ 10.5"
30x24 CLR
15'-0"
45'-01
2"
9'-71
2"

BLDG LEGEND
BLDG

X UNITS

BLDG NUMBER

TOTAL UNIT
GENERAL NOTE:

FOR ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND GARBAGE TRUCK INFO SEE CIVIL DRAWING.

FOR BIKE PARKING INFO, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWING.

DENSITY BONUS WAIVER USED FOR SETBACK REDUCTION
ADA UNIT NOTE:
10% OF THE TOTAL UNIT WILL BE ACCESSIBLE
x 38 TOTAL UNITS PROPOSED X 10% = 4 ACCESSIBLE UNITS
x INDICATES UNIT DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE
2'-11
2"
7'-11
2"
214'-101
2"
15'-0"

SETBACK
4'-2"
160'-3"
5'-0" SETBACK21'-0" 7'-4"
47'-61
2"
2'-1"
7'-1"
345'-0"
20'-0"

SETBACK
44'-0"40'-6"44'-0"46'-4"44'-0"43'-10" 40'-71
2"19'-8"
15'-0"

SETBACK
27'-0"
61'-9"
145'-6" 6'-3"
BLDG D
10 UNITS
BLDG C
9 UNITS
BLDG B
9 UNITS
BLDG A
10 UNITS
22'-0"

TRASH ENCLOSURE
448 SQ. FT.
15 FT. UPPER LEVEL SETBACK
P3 END
P1 INT
P3 INT
P1 INT
P1 INT
P3 INT
P1 INT
P3 INT
P1 INT
P4 END
P3 END
P1 INT
P3 INT
P1 INT
P1 INT
P3 INT
P1 INT
P3 INT
P1 INT
P4 END
BMR
P3 END
P1 INT
P3 INT
P1 INT
P2 INT
ADA
P3 INT
P1
P4 END
ADA
P3 END
P1 INT
P3 INT
P1 INT
P1 INT
P2 INT
ADA
P3 INT
P1
P4 END
ADA

SAN LEANDRO AVE
*
*
*
BMRBMR
BMRBMR

BMR BMR
BMR
BMRBMR
PI2
2 PI2
2 5'-0" TAKING BY CITY7'-0"
5'-0"
15'-0"
ZONING

SETBACK FOR
3-STORIES
1 23
4 5 6 7 8 91011 12 13 14
A2.1.5
1 A2.1.5
1 PROP. LINE
PROP. LINE
PROP. LINE
PROP. LINE
PROP. LINE
PROP. LINE
PROP. LINE
PROP. LINE
24'-71
2"
5'-3"
@ UPPER
LEVELS
24'-0"
25'-0"

EXISTING
25'-0"
5'-0" RIGHT OF WAY

DEDICATION

EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC

USE AS STREET AND PUBLIC UTILITIES
30'-0"

W/ DEDICTAION

VEHICLE SIGHT

TRIANGLE

PEDESTRIAN SIGHT

TRIANGLE
PROPOSED R.O.W.

AFTER DEDICATION
55'-0"

PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY

EXISTING RIGHT OF
WAY
50'-0"

EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
3 PARKING
STALLS
16'-0"
18'-0"
TYP.
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"
9'-0"
TYP.
24'-0"

SUBSURFACE

TRANSFORMER

SUBSURFACE

TRANSFORMER
6'-0"
2'-8"
2 3
4 5
6 8
9 10
7 11
12 13
15 16
17 18
19 14
20 21
22 23
24 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38 1

BLDG TYPES

RESIDENTIAL ROWHOUSE STYLE CONDOMINIUM

PROPOSED BMR - BELOW MARKET RATE LOCATION
*
P1 INT
25 *
*
**
**
*
*
*
*
0 10 20 40 80 Feet
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.2-1
_I __JI:==

6. 922-950 San Leandro Avenue ResidenƟal Project
City of Mountain View
9 IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
September 2025
Source: Hunt Hale Jones Architects, January 24, 2025.

SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION

NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION

SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION

BUILDINGS A & D

BUILDINGS B & C
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.2-2

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 10 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025

3.2.2 Residential Amenities
The project would provide private porch areas for each unit and a combined total of approximately 10,094 square feet of private open space. The project would also provide approximately 19,621 square feet of common open space. This common open space would include landscaped areas throughout the site and a central courtyard located between Buildings B and C with seating areas, an herb garden, and an open lawn area. This central courtyard would be reserved for residents and their guests.

3.2.3 Site Access and Parking
Vehicle access to the project site is currently provided by three, two -way driveways on San Leandro Avenue. The project would remove these existing driveways and construct one, 20 -foot ingress/egress driveway on the southeast corner of the site on San Lean dro Avenue. The driveway would provide access to three internal streets that 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 project would provide a total of 90 parking spaces, of which, 76 would be for residents4 (two private spaces in the garages of each unit) and 14 would be guest/short -term spaces. The guest/short-term spaces would be provided in a surface parking area along the southern edge of the site. The project would also provide short-term bicycle parking spaces next to the surface parking area.

Pedestrian access to the project site would continue to be provided via sidewalks on San Leandro Avenue. In addition, the project would include a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway on -site parallel to the southern boundary of the site that would eventu ally provide access to the future, planned City park west of the site.

3.2.4 Utility and Right-of-Way Improvements
The proposed project would make lateral utility connections to the existing eight -inch water main, 30-inch storm drain main, and 15-inch sanitary sewer line in San Leandro Avenue. The project would install two subsurface transformers in the southern section of the project site. The project would retain an existing fire hydrant located on San Leandro Avenue.

The project would demolish the existing sidewalk on San Leandro Avenue along the site frontage and construct a new frontage sidewalk. The project also proposes to replace an existing streetlight along 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 sidewalk width, road width, and pedestrian vision triangles for vehicles exiting the proposed project driveway on San Leandro Avenue.

4 The project would include 19 tandem parking units such that 38 parking spaces are tandem (i.e., two vehicles per space).

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 11 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025

3.2.5 Landscaping
There are 31 trees on-site, none of which are Heritage trees as defined in the City’s Municipal Code, and 10 off-site trees with canopies hanging over the site.5 The project would remove all trees on-site and plant 95 replacement trees. No off-site trees would be affected by the project. In addition to the replacement trees, the project would plant other new landscaping, including new shrubs and groundcover. The landscaping would incorporate low to moderate water use plants and California native species.

3.2.6 Stormwater Treatment
The proposed project would result in an increase of impervious area by 12,753 square feet (or 18 percent) compared to existing conditions. 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.6

3.2.7 Green Building and Energy Efficiency Measures
The project would be built in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirements. The project would incorporate green building features, including drought- tolerant landscaping, water -efficient fixtures, EV charging infrastructure, and high -efficiency appliances. The project would be all-electric.

3.2.8 Construction
Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving. It is estimated that the project would take a total of 12 months and require excavation at a maximum depth of eight feet below the ground surface for utility trenching. Construction would require 3,500 cubic yards of fill to be imported on - site to level the site. Construction materials would be staged on-site.

5 Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 32, Article II defines a “Heritage Tree” as a tree with any of the following characteristics:
a tree trunk with a circumference of forty -eight inches or more, measured at fifty -four inches above natural grade. Multi -trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork. Any of the following three species of trees with a circumference of twelve inches or more, measured at fifty-four inches above natural grade: Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), Cedrus (cedar), and groves of trees designated as “heritage” by the City Council. 6 Silva cells are a suspended pavement system that perform biofiltration by moving stormwater through an underdrain to designated sites along the stormwater sewer system, and bioinfiltration by retaining stormwater in the ground by moving it to trees.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 12 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist,
and Impact Discussion
This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in their respective subsections:

4.1 Aesthetics

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

4.3 Air Quality

4.4 Biological Resources

4.5 Cultural Resources

4.6 Energy

4.7 Geology and Soils

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.11 Land Use and Planning

4.12 Mineral Resources

4.13 Noise

4.14 Population and Housing

4.15 Public Services

4.16 Recreation

4.17 Transportation

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.20 Wildfire

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections:

• Environmental Setting – This subsection 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project and 2) describes the existing, physical environmental conditions at the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant.
• Impact Discussion – This subsection 1) includes the recommended checklist questions from Appendix G of the CE QA Guidelines to assess impac ts and 2) discusses the project’s impact on the environmental subject as related to the checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified. “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Mitigation measures are numbered to correspond to the impact they address. For example, MM BIO-1.3 refers to the third mitigation measure for the first impact in the Biological Resources section.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 13 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Aesthetics

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

• The project is a residential or mixed-use residential project, or employment center project and
• The project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area. 7 SB 743 also clarifies that local governments retain their ability to regulate a project’s aesthetics impacts outside of the CEQA process.

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

7 An “infill site” is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins or is separated only by an improved public right -of-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.” A “transit priority area” is defined as “an area within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program or applicable regional transportation plan.” A “major transit stop” means “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Source: California Legislative Information. “Chapter 2.7. Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Infill Projects [21099- 21099.].” Accessed December 6, 2024. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=13.&part=&chapter=2.7.&article=.

4.1 4.1.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 14 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant aesthetic impacts. The following policies are applicable to the project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Zoning Ordinance promotes careful planning of development projects to enhance the visual environment. The City’s development review process includes the review of preliminary plans, the consideration of public input at and by the Development Review Com mittee (DRC), Zoning Administrator, Environmental Planning Commission (EPC), and the City Council. The City’s Planning Division reviews private development applications for conformance with City plans, ordinances, and policies related to zoning, urban design, subdivision, and CEQA.

The Zoning Administrator makes recommendations to the City Council for development projects located in some Precise Plan areas and makes final decisions for development, variance, and use permits. The DRC reviews the architecture and site design of new development and provides project

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 15 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
applicants with design comments/direction. The development review process ensures the architecture and urban design of new developments would protect the City’s visual environment.

Existing Conditions
Scenic Vistas
The term “scenic vista” typically refers to an expansive view of an area that is visually or aesthetically pleasing, usually as seen from an elevated point or open area. The scenic quality of the City is characterized by extensive views to the Santa Cruz Mountains to the south and west and views of other natural features such as the Diablo Mountain range to the southeast, Mission Peak to the east, and Stevens Creek in the eastern portion of the City.
8 Views of San Francisco Bay are generally
available only from Shoreline Park in the North Bayshore Area.9

The project is located within a developed portion of the City that has industrial and residential uses.

The site is relatively flat, which limits the amount of expansive views from the site. Views of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest of the site are obstructed by the existing development surrounding the site.

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

Eligible state scenic highways (not officially design ated) include: SR 17 from the Santa Cruz County line to SR 9, SR 35 from Santa Cruz County line to SR 9, I -280 from the San Mateo County line to SR 17, and the entire length of SR 152 within the County. The nearest officially designated scenic highway is the segment of I -280 in San Mateo County, which is approximately 6.8 miles west of the project site.
10 Visual Character and Quality
As discussed in Section 2.4 Project Location , the area surrounding the project site is primarily developed with industrial and residential uses. SR 85 is located to the east of the project site across from San Leandro Avenue. Views of the highway are blocked from the site with a sound wall. The soundwall is partially screened by trees and other landscaping.

The office/industrial building at 922 San Leandro Avenue is a single -story structure with a flat roof and a façade that is segmented by large columns between the tall glass windows. The portion of the façade below the parapet is designed to mimic wood paneling. The a rea surrounding the office/industrial building includes a surface parking area and landscaping. The single-family residence at 944 San Leandro Avenue is a one-story-over-basement structure that is rectangular in shape with a flat roof. It has a mix of window types and the façade is clad in stucco . The single-family residence

8 City of Mountain View. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH #2011012069. September 2012. Page 581. 9 Ibid.
10 California Department of Transportation . “California State Scenic Highway System Map.” Accessed February 27, 2025. https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

4.1.1.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 16 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
at 950 San Leandro Avenue is also a single-story structure clad in stucco, but it has a detached garage and a gable roof in addition to two small ancillary structures. The undeveloped portion of the project site consists of trees, shrubbery, and a grass field.

Views of the project site and surrounding area are shown below in Photos 1 through 4 below.

Location within a Transit Priority Area
The project site is not located within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop; therefore, it is not located in a Transit Priority Area.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue ResidenƟal Project
City of Mountain View
17 IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
September 2025
Photo 1: View from the southeast corner of the site looking south on San Leandro Avenue.

Photo 2: View from the southeast corner of the site looking north on San Leandro Avenue.

PHOTOS 1 & 2
922-950 San Leandro Avenue ResidenƟal Project
City of Mountain View
18 IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
September 2025
Photo 3: View from the east side of San Leandro Avenue looking west towards the exisƟng office building on-site.

Photo 4: View from the east side of San Leandro Avenue looking west towards the exisƟng residences on-site.

PHOTOS 3 & 4

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 19 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025

4.1.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings?
11 If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?

a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

As discussed in Section 4.1.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site has limited views of scenic resources due to the site’s location and flat topography. The project does not propose development in Shoreline Park, City’s edges, streets, or other open areas. Views of the Santa Cruz Mountains are obstructed by existing development throughout most of the project area. Based on the lack of scenic vistas visible from the site, implementation of the project would result in a less than significant impact to scenic vistas. (Less than Significant Impact)

b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

There are no state-designated scenic highways in Mountain View and the nearest designated scenic highway, a segment of I -280, is approximately 6.8 miles west of the project site. The project site is not visible from that segment of state-designated scenic highway. Therefore, the development of the project would not have an adverse impact on the viewshed from the highway. (No Impact)

11 Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points. □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 20 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

The project would be designed to ensure consistency with the General Plan and would be subject to the DRC review process . This process would ensure that the project would be designed to be compatible with the neighborhood character, minimize light and glare, and have height and setback transitions as appropriate from adjacent structures . For these reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Less than Significant Impact)

d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

The project is in an urbanized area that has various existing light sources including lighting from buildings, streetlights, and vehicles travelling on local roads and SR 85. Sources of d aytime glare include building windows and vehicles. The project would construct 38, three-story, rowhome units on-site. Nighttime lighting sources for the project would consist of interior lighting from residences, exterior safety lighting, lighting from vehicles, and streetlights which would add to the neighborhood nighttime illumination. An existing streetlight on San Leandro Avenue would also be replaced as part of the project.

The development of the project would replace existing light sources and add additional light sources that would incrementally increase the amount of nighttime lighting on the project site compared to existing condition s. However, the project would be subject to the design review process prior to submittal of construction drawings for a building permit. The review process would ensure that project lighting is directed downward and would not spillover onto adjacent properties or otherwise be highly visible, while still providing adequate lighting for safety. The proposed buildings do not contain reflective materials (e.g., large expansive glass) that would introduce new sources of substantial glare. For these reasons, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 21 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) assesses the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural land and conversion of these lands over time. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The best quality land is identified as Prime Farmland. In CEQA analyses, the FMMP classifications and published county maps are used, in part, to identify whether agricultural resources that could be affected are present on-site or in the project area.
12 California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses. In return, landowners receive lower property tax assessments. In CEQA analyses, identification of properties that are under a Williamson Act contract is used to also identify sites that may contain agricultural resources or are zoned for agricultural uses.13

Fire and Resource Assessment Program
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ( CAL FIRE ) identifies forest land, timberland, and lands zoned for timberland production that can (or do) support forestry resources.14 Programs such as CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program are used to identify whether forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas could be affected are located on or adjacent to a project site.15

12 California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed December 6, 2024. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx. 13 California Department of Conservation. “Williamson Act.” http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca. 14 Forest Land is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover and allows for management of forest resources (California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); Timberland is land not owned by the federal government or designated as experimental forest land that is available for, and capable of, growing trees to produce lumber and other products, including Christmas trees (California Public Resources Code Section 4526); and Timberland Production is land used for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (Government Code Section 51104(g)).
15 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed December 6, 2024. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

4.2 4.2.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 22 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Existing Conditions
The General Plan land use designation for the site is General Industrial. The project site is zoned as MM – General Industrial. As discussed in Section 2.0 Project Information, the project site is comprised of two separate parcels. The southern parcel contains an office/industrial building and the northern parcel is developed with two single-family residential units, a detached garage, and two accessory structures. Surrounding land uses include light industrial and office uses to the north and west, and residential uses to the south. The Santa Clara County Important Farmlands 2020 Map designates the project site as “Urban and Built-Up Land”, which is defined as land with at least six structures per 10 acres. Common examples of “Urban and Built -Up Land” are residential, institutional, industrial, commercial, landfill, golf course, airports, and other utility uses.16 There are no Williamson Act parcels on or in the vicinity of the project site.17

4.2.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?

d) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?

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

16 California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2020. Map. April 2023. 17 County of Santa Clara. “Williamson Act Properties”. Accessed December 16, 2024. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1f39e32b4c0644b0915354c3e59778ce.

4.2.1.2 □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 23 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

The proposed project would redevelop a site that is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” on maps prepared by the California Resources Agency for Santa Clara County. Therefore, no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be converted to non-agricultural use as a result of project implementation. (No Impact)

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

As discussed in Section 4.2.1.2 Existing Conditions , the project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Industrial and is zoned MM (General Industrial). The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for an agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. (No Impact)

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

As discussed in Section 4.2.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is not zoned, or adjacent to land zoned, for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. It is in an urban area surrounded by urban development. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning or require rezoning of forest land or timberland uses. (No Impact)

d) Would the project result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

The project site is in an urbanized area of the City and is currently developed with an office/industrial building, two single-family residential structures, a detached garage , and two accessory structures .

Therefore, no forest land would be lost as a result of the project. (No Impact)

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

The proposed development would occur in an urbanized area of the City. No agricultural or forestry uses are on-site or in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to agricultural lands or forest lands. (No Impact)

922-950
San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 24 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Ai r Quality
The discussion in this section is based in part on a Construction Emissions and Health Risk Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated April 14, 2025. This report is included as Appendix A to this Initial Study.

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
B ackground Information
Criteria Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are pollutants that have established federal or s tate standards for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. Pursuant with the federal and state Clean Air Acts, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established and enforce d the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), respectively. The NAAQS and CAAQS address the following criteria air pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micros or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. The CAAQS also includes visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride.

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

D
PM is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three -quarters of the cancer risk from TACs. DPM is comprised of d iesel exhaust which is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. Medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled into the lungs. Most inhaled particles are subsequently exhaled, but some deposit on the lung surface or are deposited in the deepest regions of the lungs (i.e., areas most susceptible to injury).18 Chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, are also TACs identified by the CARB.

A
n overview of the sources of criteria pollutants and TACs, as well as their associated health effects, is provided in Table 4.3-1 below.
18 California Air Resources Board. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed December 6, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

4.3 4.3.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 25 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Table 4.3-1: Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants and Toxic Air Contaminants Pollutants Description and Sources Primary Effects
Ozone (O3) O3 is a secondary criteria air pollutant that is the result of a photochemical (sunlight) reaction between reactive
organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NO x). Pollutants emitted by motor vehicles, power plants, industrial boilers, refineries, and chemical plants are the common sources for this reaction. High O 3 levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of ROG and NO X. These precursor or primary
pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high O
3 levels. Commons sources of ROG and NOx are
vehicles, industrial plants, and consumer products.
• Aggravation of respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases
• Irritation of eyes
• Cardiopulmonary function
impairment
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO
2)
NO2 is a reactive gas that combines with nitric oxide (NO) to form NOx. NO2 is the byproduct of fuel combustion, with common sources of NO2 being emissions from cars, trucks, buses, power plants, and off -road equipment. Other
sources of NO 2 include high temperature stationary
combustion and atmospheric reactions.
• Aggravation of respiratory
illness
• Reduced visibility
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
CO is a colorless, odorless, and toxic gas that is the product of incomplete combustion of carbon-containing substances (e.g., when something is burned). Common outdoor
sources of CO include mobile vehicles (passenger cars and trucks) and machinery that burn fossil fuels.
• Interferes with oxygen
delivery to the body’s organ
due to binding with the
hemoglobin in the blood
• Fatigue, headaches,
confusion, and dizziness
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM

2.5)
and Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM
10)
Particulate Matter (PM) is any material that is emitted as liquid or solid particles or a gaseous material, such as dust, soot, aerosols, and fumes. PM
10 and PM2.5 are both small
enough particulates to be inhaled into the human lungs, and PM

2.5 is small enough to deposit into the lungs, which
poses an increased health risk compared to PM 10. Typical sources of PM include stationary combustion of solid fuels, construction activities, vehicles, industrial processes, and atmospheric chemical reactions.
• Reduced lung function,
especially in children
• Aggravation of respiratory
and cardiorespiratory
diseases
• Increased cough and chest
discomfort
• Reduced visibility
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
SO2 is a pungent and colorless gaseous pollutant. SO2 is part of the sulfur oxides (SO x) group and is the pollutant of greatest concern in the SOx group. SOx can react with other compounds in the atmosphere to form small particles.

These particles contribute to pollution . SO 2 is primarily formed from fossil fuel combustion at power plants and
other industrial facilities. Sources of SO 2 include motor vehicles, locomotives, ships, and off-road diesel equipment that are operated with fuels that contain high le vels of sulfur. Industrial processes, such as natural gas and
petroleum extraction, oil refining, and metal processing. • Aggravation of respiratory
illness
• Respiratory irritation such as
wheezing, shortness of
breath and chest tightness
• Increased incidence of
pulmonary symptoms and
disease, decreased
pulmonary function

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 26 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Pollutants Description and Sources Primary Effects
Lead Lead is a naturally occurring element that can be found in all parts of the environment including the air, soil, and water. As an air pollutant, lead is present in small particles.

The most common historic source of lead exposure was the past use of leaded gasoline in motor vehicles. The exhaust resulting from use of leaded gasoline would release lead emissions into the air. Now, major sources of lead in the air are from ore and metals processing plants and piston -
engine aircraft operating on leaded aviatio n fuel. Other sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead -acid battery manufacturers. The highest air concentrations of lead are usually found near lead smelters.
• Adversely affect the nervous
system, kidney function,
immune system,
reproductive and
developmental systems and
the cardiovascular system
Toxic Air
Contaminants
(TACs)
TACs include certain air pollutants known to increase the risk of cancer and/or a range of other serious health effects.

Sources of TAC include, but are not limited to, cars and trucks, especially diesel -fueled; industrial sources, such as chrome platers; dry cleaners and service stations; and building materials and products.
• Cancer
• Chronic eye, lung, or
skin irritation
• Neurological and
reproductive disorders

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

Worker Receptors
In addition to the sensitive receptors mentioned above, the Air District considers worker receptors when reviewing impacts from air pollution and TACs. Worker receptors are adults (16 years and older) that work indoors and/or outdoors at off -site locations zoned for commercial and industrial uses.

Typical developments that incl ude worker receptors are offices, retail shops, manufacturing uses, light industrial uses, or heavy industrial uses.19

19 Bay Area Air District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines Appendix E: Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Page E-14.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 27 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Clean Air Act
At the federal level, the EPA is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for the six common criteria pollutants, discussed previously; PM, O3, CO, SO2, NO2, and lead.20

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

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

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

In addition to requiring
more stringent emission standards for new on- road and off -road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, this plan involves the application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment to reduce DPM and other pollutants. Implementation of this plan, in conjunction with stringent federal and CARB - adopted emission limits for diesel fueled vehicles and equipment, including off-road equipment, will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX.

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

4.3.1.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 28 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Regional
2017 Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area Air District ( Air District ) (formerly known as BAAQMD) is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes the project area . Regional air quality management districts, such as the Air District, must prepare air quality plans specifying how federal and state air quality standards will be met. The Air District’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan focuses on the following two related Air District goals and how to achieve them:

• Protect air quality and health at the regional and local scale by attaining all state and national air quality standards and eliminating disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from TAC; and
• Protect the climate by reducing Bay Area greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2040 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. 21 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The Air District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air quality impacts developed by the Air District within their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

The guidelines include information on legal requirements, Air District rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. The latest CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are the 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines adopted on April 20, 2023 by the Air District Board of Directors.

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

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

INC 20.8 Offensive odors. Protect residents from offensive odors.

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

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

21 Bay Area Air District. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. Page 12.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 29 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Existing Conditions
The San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) Air Basin is designated a non -attainment area for the federal O3 and PM 2.5 standards and for the state O 3, PM 10, and PM 2.5 standards.22,23 The Bay Area is designated as an attainment area for both the NAAQS and CAAQS for CO , SO 2, and NO 2. As the regional air district, the Air District is responsible for attaining the NAAQS and CAAQS for these pollutants. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5, the Air District has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors that apply to both construction period and operational period impacts. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Air District’s attempts to reduce O3 levels.

The highest O 3 levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys where temperatures are higher, there is less wind circulation, and sources of the precursor pollutant s (i.e., ROG and NO x) are prominent . In the Bay Area , most particulate matter is generated from the following activities: combustion, factories, construction, grading, demolition, agriculture, and motor vehicles. Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide emissions and localized emissions.

4.3.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?

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

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?

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

As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be

22 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. 23 The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. The project does not include substantial new emissions of SO2 or lead. These criteria pollutants are not discussed further.

4.3.1.3 □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 30 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Mountain View has considered the air quality thresholds updated by the Air District in April 2023 and regards these thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM 2.5. The Air District CEQA Air Quality thresholds for criteria air pollutants and fugitive dust used in this analysis are identified in Table 4.3-2. Table 4.3-3 below lists the Air District health risk and hazards thresholds for single-source and cumulative-sources.

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

Construction-related exhaust emissions should be combined with operational emissions for all phases where construction and operations overlap. Source: Bay Area Air District. 2022 California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. April 2023. Pages 3-5 and 3-6.

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

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

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 31 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

The Air District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines set forth criteria for determining consistency with the 2017 CAP. In general, a project is considered consistent if a) it supports the primary goals of the 2017 CAP; b) it includes relevant control measures; and c) it does not interfere with implementation of the 2017 CAP control measures.

Support of Primary 2017 Clean Air Plan Goals
As discussed in Section 4.3.1.1 Regulatory Framework, the goals of the 2017 CAP include 1) protecting public health by progressing towards attaining air quality standards and eliminating health risk and 2) protecting the climate. If a project exceeds the Air District criteria air pollutants thresholds of significance, its emissions are considered to result in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. An analysis of the project’s construction and operational air pollutant emissions, and community health risk, is provided below. The project’s impact on climate in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is discussed in Section 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and found to be less than significant.

Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
Construction Period Emissions
The proposed project would result in short -term emissions from construction activities associated with development, including demolition, site grading, asphalt paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Emissions commonly associated with construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy- duty diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. During construction, fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM
10 and PM2.5 emissions, is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby.

PM10 and PM2.5 emissions can also be generated by the demolition and construction of buildings. In addition to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, off-road construction equipment is often diesel-powered and can be a substantial source of NOx emissions. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment poses both a health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors.

Project-specific equipment and schedule information were provided by the applicant team and were then used to model construction period emissions. Refer to Appendix A for details about the modeling, data inputs, and assumptions.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 32 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Table 4.3-4: Average Daily Construction Period Criteria Pollutant Emissions Year ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust
Construction Emissions Total (Tons)
2026-2027 0.59 0.29 0.01 0.01
Average Daily Construction Emissions
(pounds/day)

2026-2027 (263 construction workdays) 4.46 2.17 0.07 0.07 Air District Significance Thresholds
(pounds per day)
54 lbs/day 54 lbs/day 84 lbs/day 54 lbs/day
Exceed Threshold? No No No No

The Air District considers construction emission impacts that are below the thresholds of significance (such as those of the project) less than significant if Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented. The City requires the BMPs as a standard condition of approval.

City Standard Condition of Approval
COA AIR-1: Basic Air Quality Construction Measures: The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air District ( Air District ) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Emission reduction measures shall include, at a minimum, the following measures:

a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
d) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
e) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measures Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points
f) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 33 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
g) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Mountain View regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

With the implementation COA AIR-1, the project construction period emission would be reduced to a less than significant level by controlling dust, limiting equipment idling, and properly maintaining equipment. (Less than Significant Impact)

Operational Period Emissions
Operational emissions from the project would be generated primarily from vehicles driven by future residents, employees, and customers. However, the project would include less than 637 dwelling units, which is the Air District screening level for potentially significant operational criteria air pollutants. Therefore, no quantification or modeling of operational criteria air pollutant emissions is required, and operational air quality impacts are presumed to be less than significant . (Less than Significant Impact)

Community Health Risk
Development of the proposed project can increase the health risk of existing sensitive receptors during construction. Temporary project construction activity which generates dust and equipment exhaust would affect nearby sensitive receptors. Community risk impacts were addressed by predicting increased cancer risk, the increase in annual PM

2.5 concentrations and computing the
Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks. To evaluate the increased cancer risks from the project, a 30 -year exposure period was used, per Air District guidance, with the sensitive receptors being exposed to p roject construction emissions during this timeframe. Unlike the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual PM 2.5 concentration and HI values are not additive but based on the annual maximum values for the entirety of the project.

Construction Period Emissions
Table 4.3-5 summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM 2.5 concentrations, and HI for project related construction activities affecting the construction maximally exposed individuals (MEI). Further modeling was conducted to predict the cancer risks, non-cancer health hazards, and maximum PM2.5 concentrations associated with construction activities at the nearby Claudia’s Daycare. The uncontrolled risk values at Claudia’s Daycare do not exceed the Air District single-source significance thresholds, as shown in the table below. Figure 4.3-1 shows the location of off-site sensitive receptors and the MEI.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 34 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Table 4.3-5: Construction Risk Impacts at the Off-Site MEIs Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (μg/m3) Hazard Index Maximum Residential Risks
Project Construction (Unmitigated) 3.33 0.04 <0.01
Air District Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceed Threshold? (Unmitigated) No No No
Impacts at Claudia’s Daycare
Project Construction (Unmitigated) 2.39 0.01 <0.01
Air District Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceed Threshold? (Unmitigated) No No No

As shown in Table 4.3-5 above, the project would not exceed the Air District thresholds for single- source cancer risk, PM2.5, or HI at the off-site MEI during construction. In addition, as discussed above, no quantification or modeling of operational criteria air pollutant emissions is required for the project. Therefore, community risk impacts to existing sensitive receptors for operational activities would be less than significant. For these reasons, the project construction and operation would not result in a significant health risk effect to off-site receptors. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue ResidenƟal Project
City of Mountain View
35IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
September 2025
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
85 LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE, POINT SOURCES, OFF-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS, AND MEI FIGURE 4.3-1 MEI
• Claudia's Daycare Receptor
0 Receptors

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 36 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Cumulative Emissions
By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The geographic area for cumulative impacts to sensitive receptors is within 1,000 feet of the project site. This distance is recommended by Air District because adverse effects are the greatest within this distance. At further distances, health risk diminishes. A review of the project area indicates existing sources of TACs within or approximately 1,000 feet of the project site. US 101 and SR 85, and one stationary source , an emergency generator, within the 1,000-foot influence area could have cumulative health risk impacts at the MEI. In addition, the construction emissions from the following development projects could contribute to the cumulative health risk:

• 1020 Terra Bella Avenue (650 feet northwest) – a 108-unit multi-family residential development (approved)
• 1040 Terra Bella Avenue (750 feet northwest) – a commercial project with two personal storage buildings (approved)

Table 4.3-6 depicts the health risk impacts from the stationary sources to the MEI and Figure 4.3-2 shows the location of the project site and nearby sources of TACs and PM2.5. Refer to Appendix A for details regarding modeling, data inputs, and assumptions.

Table 4.3-6: Impacts from Combined Sources at Project MEIs Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (μg/m3) Hazard Index Project Construction (Unmitigated) 3.33 0.04 <0.01
US 101 – ADT 213,200 2.83 0.14 <0.01
SR 85 – ADT 69,680 1.80 0.10 <0.01
Google LLC (Facility ID #201659,
Generator), MEI at 980 feet

1.48 <0.01 -
1020 & 1040 Terra Bella Avenue
Mitigated Construction Risk Impacts

3.52 0.06 <0.01
Cumulative Total (unmitigated) 12.96 <0.35 <0.04
Air District Cumulative Source
Threshold
>100 >0.8 >10.0
Exceed Threshold? (Unmitigated) No No No

As shown in the table above, the project would not exceed the cumulative thresholds established by the Air District for cancer risk, annual PM2.5, or HI at the project MEI. For these reasons, there is a less than significant cumulative health risk from the project’s construction and other cumulative sources. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue ResidenƟal Project
City of Mountain View
37IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
September 2025
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE AND NEARBY TAC AND PM2.5 SOURCES FIGURE 4.3-2 Legend
• MEI
* Stationary Sources
- s.R. 85 Model
, ( =) 1000ft Influence Area
• Project Site

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 38 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Health Effects from Criteria Air Pollutants
In a 2018 decision (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno), the Supreme Court of California determined that CEQA requires that the potential for the project’s emissions to affect human health in the air basin must be disclosed when a project’s criteria air pollutant emissions would exceed applicable thresholds and contribute considerably to a significant cumulative impact. Federal and state ambient air quality standards are health -based standards and exceedances of those standards result in continued unhealthy levels of air pollutants. As stated in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, air pollution by its nature is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to result in non -attainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, the Air District considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project has a less than significant impact for criteria pollutants, it is assumed not to have an adverse health effect.

As discussed above, the project’s construction and operation criteria air pollutant emissions would be below the Air District’s criteria air pollutant emissions thresholds, and the project would implement the City’s standard condition of approval COA AIR-1, which requires implementation of Air District-recommended standard construction BMPs to control dust, limiting equipment idling, and properly maintain equipment. For these reasons, the project’s criteria air pollutant emissions would not result in a significant health impact. (Less than Significant Impact)

Consistency with 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures
The project is not required to incorporate project -specific control measures listed in the 2017 CAP because the project would not exceed the Air District impact thresholds for criteria air pollutant emissions. Furthermore, implementation of the project would not inhibit the Air District or partner agencies from continuing progress toward attaining state and federal air quality standards and eliminating health-risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities, as described within the 2017 CAP. Based on the above discussion, the project would not conflict with 2017 CAP. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

As previously discussed, the Bay Area is considered a non -attainment area for ground -level O3 and PM2.5 under both the federal and state Clean Air Act. The area is also considered a non-attainment area for PM10 under the state act, but not the federal act. The Bay Area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for O3 and PM10, the Air District has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors , refer to Table 4.3-2. These thresholds are for O 3 precursor pollutants (ROG and NO X), PM10, and PM2.5, and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 39 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
The project would not require quantification or modeling of operational criteria air pollutant emissions since the project is below the Air District’s established screening level. As discussed under checklist question a), the project would result in construction criteria air pollutant emissions below the significance thresholds and implement COA AIR -1, which would require that the project implement basic construction BMPs recommended by the Air District . The construction period and operational period criteria for air pollutant emissions would not exceed the Air District thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant cumulative criteria pollutant impact. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

As discussed under checklist question a) above, the project would not exceed the Air District’s single- source or cumulative thresholds for cancer risk, hazard index (HI), or annual PM

2.5 at the project MEI.

In addition, it is presumed that the project would result in less than significant operational health risk impacts as it is below the screening threshold for townhouse units established by the Air District .

Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Less than Significant Impact)

d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

According to the Air District’s CEQA Guidelines, a n odor source with five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years is considered to have a significant impact. Future construction activities on-site could result in odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with construction equipment. Because of the temporary nature of these emissions and highly diffusive properties of diesel exhaust, odorous exposure of sensitive receptors to these emissions would be limited and the impact is considered less than significant.

The Air District has identified a variety of land uses and types of operations that would produce emissions that may lead to odors. Land uses identified include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, food processing facilities, coffee roasters, composting facilit ies, and confined animal facility/feed lot/dairy facility. The project would construct residential use s on-site, which is not one of the identified uses by the Air District that would produce substantial odors. For this reason, the project would have a less than significant impact. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 40 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025

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

The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of Mountain View has policies that address existing air quality conditions affecting a proposed project.

A health risk assessment report (Appendix A) was prepared to analyze the impact existing TAC sources would have on the new proposed sensitive receptors introduced by the project. The analysis for stationary sources was conducted in the same manner for the new project sensitive receptors as it was for the cumulative analysis included under checklist question a). The maximum impacts from the stationary source, roadway emissions associated with US 101 and SR 85, and cumulative construction projects within 1,000 feet of the site would occur at the second floor of a unit on the northeastern corner of the project site.

As shown in Table 4.3-7 below, the existing sources of TAC emissions would not exceed the Air District single-source or cumulative-source thresholds for cancer risk, annual PM

2.5 concentration, or HI for
the new sensitive receptors on-site.

Table 4.3-7: Impacts from Cumulative Sources to Project Site Receptors Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (μg/m3) Hazard Index US 101 – ADT 215,250 4.33 0.22 <0.01
SR 85 – ADT 70,350 2.65 0.17 <0.01
Google LLC (Facility ID #201659,
Generator), MEI at 980 feet

1.33 <0.01 <0.01
1020 & 1040 Terra Bella Avenue
Mitigated Construction Risk Impacts

3.52 0.06 <0.01
Cumulative Total 11.83 <0.46 <0.04
Air District Cumulative Source Threshold >100 >0.8 >10.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 41 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Biological Resources
The discussion in this section is based in part an Arborist Report prepared by Horticultural Associates dated November 29, 2023. This report is attached as Appendix B to this Initial Study.

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

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

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

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

Sensitive Habitat Regulations
Wetland and riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats under CEQA. They are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation by the U nited States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control

4.4 4.4.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 42 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act (e.g., Sections 303, 304, 404) and State of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

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

Regional and Local
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Habitat Plan) covers approximately 520,000 acres, or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County. It was developed and adopted through a partnership between Santa Clara County, the cities of San José, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), USFWS, and CDFW. The Habitat Plan is intended to promote the recovery of endangered species and enhance ecological diversity and function, while accommodating planned growth in southern Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency is responsible for implementing the plan.

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

Policy Description
INC 16.3 Habitat. Protect and enhance nesting, foraging and other habitat for special -status species and
POS 12.2 Urban tree canopy. Increase tree canopy coverage to expand shaded areas, enhance aesthetics and help reduce greenhouse gases.

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

City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance
Section 36.34.10 of the Municipal Code contains general landscaping standards for development within the City. As part of these standards, a 24-inch box replacement tree is required to replace any non-Heritage trees removed on private property. A 36-inch box replacement tree would be required to replace any Heritage trees proposed for removal.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 43 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Existing Conditions
The site is in an urban, infill location. There are no waterways on site. Stevens Creek is approximately 400 feet east of the project site, and the project site is separated from the creek by SR 85. Permanente Creek is 0.9 miles west of the project site and is separated from the site by existing development.

There are no critical habitat areas or waterways on-site; therefore, no rare, threatened, endangered, or special-status species are known to inhabit the project site.24, 25

The primary biological resources on-site are trees, which provide habitat and foraging opportunities for urban-adapted birds. As discussed in Section 3.0 Project Description, there are 31 trees on -site, none of which qualify as Heritage trees as defined in the City’s Municipal Code, and an additional 10 trees with canopies hanging over the site. All 31 trees on-site are non-native, and the predominant species on-site include ornamental species such as London plane, purple leaf plum, glossy privet, shiny xylosma, and evergreen pear. The largest tree identified on -site is a Mexican fan palm tree located in the center of the project site, which has a trunk circumference of approximately 88 inches and is in go od health. For additional information regarding the existing trees on -site, refer to Appendix B.

4.4.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?

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

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?

24 US 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. 25 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory, Surface Waters and Wetlands . Map. May 2021.

4.4.1.2 □ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 44 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:
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?

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

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

As discussed in Section 4.4.1.2 Existing Conditions, given the urbanized nature of the project site and surrounding area, there are no sensitive habitats or special -status species on or adjacent to the project site. All 31 of the existing trees on-site would be removed due to interference with the project design. The trees could provide nesting habitat for birds, including migratory birds and raptors.

Nesting birds are protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 2800.

Construction of the project during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a taking by the CDFW. Any loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment would constitute an impact. Construction activities such as tree removal and site grading that disturb a nesting bird or raptor on -site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone would also constitute an impact.

In compliance with the MBTA and the CDFW code, the proposed project shall implement the following City standard condition of approval , to reduce or avoid construction -related impacts to nesting raptors and their nests.

City Standard Condition of Approval:

COA BIO-1: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey: To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 45 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys will be performed no more than two days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests as follows:

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

With the implementation of the above City standard condition of approval COA BIO -1, the project would result in a less than significant impact to nesting birds because preconstruction surveys would ensure no nesting birds or nests are located on-site during construction, and if they are, buffer zones would be established around nests during construction. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

The project site is located in an urban, infill location. Most of t he project site and adjacent sites are fully developed with existing improvements and, therefore, do not contain sensitive habitats. There is no riparian habitat on or adjacent to the site. The nearest waterway is Stevens Creek, which is approximately 400 feet east of the project site and is separated from the site by San Leandro Avenue, SR 85 , and the Stevens Creek Trail . Therefore, the project would not have an impact on state or federally protected riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans and policies. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

There is no wetland on or adjacent to the site. The nearest wetland to the project site is the riverine habitat located approximately 400 feet east of the project site at Stevens Creek. 26 Therefore, the

26 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory, Surface Waters and Wetlands . Map. May 2021.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 46 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
project would not have an impact on state or federally protected wetlands. (Less than Significant Impact)

d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Because the project site is in an urban, infill area, the site provides minimal dispersal habitat for native wildlife and does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. As discussed above, under checklist questions a) through c), there are no riparian or wetland habitats on or immediately adjacent to the site. However, Stevens Creek is 400 feet east of the site and could be utilized by migrating bird species. To reduce potential impacts to birds who may utilize the trees on-site for nesting, the project would implement the City standard condition of appr oval COA BIO -1 to protect nesting birds, if present during construction. The project would, therefore, not substantially interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife species, nor interfere with established corridors or wildlife nursery sites. (Less than Significant Impact)

e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

General Plan Policies
The General Plan contains policies (General Plan Policies POS 12.2 and POS 12.4) that protect the urban tree canopy and integrate biological resources to the built environment. The project would integrate native and drought-tolerant landscaping (consistent with General Plan Policy POS 12.4) and plant replacement trees beyond the required replacement ratio . In addition, the project would increase the number of trees on-site (consistent with General Plan Policy POS 12.2).

Based on this discussion, the project would be consistent with General Plan policies related to protecting biological resources. (Less than Significant Impact)

Zoning Ordinance
The project would remove a total of 31 trees on-site. The project would plant 95 replacement trees in areas surrounding the proposed buildings and around the perimeter of the site. The proposed project would exceed the number of replacement trees required by the City’s Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio. Based on this discussion , the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Zoning Ordinance. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 47 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

The project site is not part of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Habitat Plan is a conservation program to promote the recovery of endanger ed species in portions of Santa Clara County while accommodating planned development, infrastructure and maintenance activities. The City of Mountain View, including the project site, is located outside the Habitat Plan area and outside of the expanded study area for burrowing owl conservation. Therefore, it would not conflict with any approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (No Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 48 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Cultural Resources
The following discussion is based in part on a Phase I Cultural Resource Inventory prepared by Albion Environmental, Inc., dated March 2025, and Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A Forms prepared by Treanor dated February 2025. A copy of the Phase I Cultural Resource Inventory, which is a confidential report, is on file at the City of Mountain View Community Development Department, and a copy of the DPR 523A Forms is included as Appendix C to this Initial Study.

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

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

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria. 27 The guidelines for identifying historic resources during the project review process under CEQA are set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). These provisions of CEQA create three categories of historical res ources: mandatory historical resources; presumptive historical resources; and resources that may be found historical at the discretion of the lead agency. These categories are described below.

• Mandatory Historical Resources. A resource the State Historical Resources Commission lists on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the State Historical Resources Commission determines to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, is

27 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%20update.pdf.

4.5 4.5.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 49 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
defined by CEQA to be a historical resource. Resources are formally listed or determined eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in the provisions of state law relating to listing of historical resources.28 If a resource has been listed in the CRHR, or formally determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission under these procedures, it is conclusively presumed to be a historical resource under CEQA.
• Presumptive Historical Resources. A resource included in a local register of historic resources as defined by state law
29 or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of state law, 30 shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. The lead agency must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
• Discretionary Historical Resources. A resource that is not determined to be a significant historical resource under the criteria described above, may, in the discretion of the lead agency, be found to be a significant historical resource for purposes of CEQA, provided its determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The CEQA Guidelines further provide that generally, a lead agency should consider a resource historically significant if the resource is found to meet the criteria for listing on the CRHR, including the following:

o Criterion 1 (Events) : The resource is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history and cultural heritage of California or the United States; or o Criterion 2 (Persons ): The resource is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or o Criterion 3 (Architecture ): The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or o Criterion 4 (Information Potential ): The resource has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
31 Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet the significance criteria described previously and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical

28 Set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 and 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 4850, et. seq. 29 Set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), a local register of historical resources is a list of properties offici ally designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution. 30 Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g), a resource can be identified as significant in a historical resource survey an d found to be significant by the State Office of Historic Preservation (i.e., listed in the CRHR) if three criteria are met: (1) the survey has or will be included in the State Historic Resources Inventory; (2) the survey and documentation were prepared in accordance with State Office of Historic Preservation procedures and requirements; and (3) the State Office of Historic Preservation has determined the resource has a significance rating of Category 1 to 5 on Form 523. 31 California Office of Historic Preservation . CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6 . Accessed June 6, 2023. http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%20update.pdf.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 50 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and , therefore, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.” The processes of determining integrity are similar for both the CRHR and NRHP and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity that ar e used to evaluate a resource ’s eligibility for listing. These seven characteristics include 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association.

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.

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

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

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 51 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts to cultural resources. The following policies are applicable to the project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 52 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Existing Conditions
Historic Resources
The City of Mountain View was historically used as ranch land and agricultural land during the 19 th century and into the 20 th century. In the early- to mid - 1900s, the City began to develop more industrial and commercial land uses. World War II brought additional industrial uses to the City, and in the 1960s and 1970s, the rise of technology companies in the region led to the development of corporate campuses throughout the City. The project site was used primarily for agricultural purposes in the late 19th century before it was subdivided for residential use in 1928. By 1931, a residence and ancillary structure were constructed on the southeastern corner of the project site. During the 1960s, the original residence on the southeastern corner of the site was demolished and the existing office- industrial building was constructed on -site in 1980. The single -family residence at 944 San Leandro was constructed before 1948, and the single -family residence at 950 San Leandro Avenue was constructed around 1956.

According to the City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, California Historic Register, and the National Register of Historic Places , there are no listed resources on or adjacent to the site.
32,33,34

To be considered a historic resource, a site must meet certain sets of criteria including relevance to local and regional history, its association with historic figures, and the distinctiveness of its architecture. Both single-family residences on-site are over 50 years old. Due to their age, they were evaluated against the criteria of the NRHP and CRHR in addition to the criteria established by the City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. The evaluation determined that the residence at 944 San Leandro Avenue is comprised of a mixture of architectural styles, while the residence at 950 San Leandro Avenue is a modest example of the Minimal Traditional Dwelling. Neither building was associated with significant historical events or persons, designed by a notable architect, nor do they have the potential to yield information important to prehistory or history of the local area, state, or nation and determined by the Historical Resource Evaluation.

Based on these findings, t he evaluation concluded that the residential structures on -site would not be eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHP, or the City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources because the existing structure does not meet the criteria for historical significance which typically requires the building be constructed with a high level of artistry or be associated with historically significant events or people. For additional information on the evaluation prepared for these residential structures, see Appendix C . Although the project site does not contain any structures eligible for listing, the site has a high sensitivity for buried, historic-era resources due to the land use and development on-site in the early 20
th century.

32 City of Mountain View. “Mountain View Register of Historic Resources.” September 28, 2022. 33 California State Parks. “California Historical Resources.” Accessed February 27, 2025. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/?view=name&criteria=mountain+view. 34 National Park Service. “National Register of Historic Places.” Accessed February 27, 2025. National Register Database and Research - National Register of Historic Places (U.S. National Park Service).

4.5.1.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 53 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Precolonial Archaeological Resources
A records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) 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. No Native American resources were recorded on or near the project site; however, there were several recorded built environment resources that were identified.

As part of the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey completed for the project site, a pedestrian survey of the site wa s conducted. This pedestrian survey did not identify any artifacts or archaeological deposits from the precolonial- or historic-era on-site.

Although only one historic archaeological deposit has been identified within the City’s sphere of influence, additional deposits likely exist.
35 Areas that are near natural water sources (e.g., riparian corridors and tidal marshland) are considered highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological deposits and human remains. Based on the site’s soil profile, topography, and proximity to Stevens Creek, the project site has a moderate sensitivity for buried, precolonial archaeological deposits.

4.5.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

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

c) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

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

As discussed above under Section 4.5.1.2 Existing Conditions, none of the buildings on-site are eligible for listing as historic resources under national, state, or local criteria. There are no resources adjacent to the site that are listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP or the CRHP; nor do they contain any resources listed on the City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. As a result, there would be no impact to historical resources pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (No Impact)

35 City of Mountain View. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report.

SCH #2011012069. September 2012. Page 469.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 54 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?

As discussed above under Section 4.5.1.2 Existing Conditions, t he site has a moderate sensitivity for buried, precolonial archaeological deposits and a high potential for historic -era archaeological resources. Unknown archaeological resources could be discovered on -site during excavation. If any archaeological resources or human remains were discovered as a result of construction activities on- site, the project would be required to implement the following City standard conditions of approval.

City Standard Condition of Approval:

COA CUL-1: Discovery of Archaeological Resources: If prehistoric or historic -period cultural materials are unearthed during ground -disturbing activities, it is recommended that all work within 100 feet of the find be halted until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find.

Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert -flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered -stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.

Discovery of Human Remains: In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction or demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50 foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner de termines that the remains are not subject to their authority, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation programs and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing resources analysis methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 55 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director.

In addition, based on the project site’s high sensitivity for buried, historic-era archaeological resources due to the land uses on-site in the late-1800s and the structures constructed on-site during the early-1900s, redevelopment of the site could disturb unknown archaeological resources.

Impact CUL-1: Construction activities associated with the project could disturb unknown archaeological resources. (New Potentially Significant Impact)

To reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented prior to the beginning of grading, trenching, and excavation on-site.

Mitigation Measure
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 s hall 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 re moval 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 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).

Implementation of mitigation measure MM CUL-1.1 would result in further testing being completed on-site to better determine the presence, or absence of, potential undiscovered resources. Should any be discovered, the project would implement the measures in COA CUL-1 to have them protected and evaluated prior to recommencing construction activities in that area of the site. Therefore, the potential impacts to archaeological resources on-site would be reduced to less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 56 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

As discussed earlier under checklist question b), the project site has moderate to high sensitivity for archaeological resources and ground -disturbing activities during project construction could impact unknown underground resources, including human remains. With implementation of the City standard conditions of approval COA CUL-1 discussed under checklist question b), the project would reduce impacts to human remains to a less than significant level by contacting the Santa Clara County Coroner to determine if the remains are Native American. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 57 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Energy

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

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

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

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

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

California Building Standards Code
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy cons umption. Title 24 is updated approximately

4.6 4.6.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 58 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
every three years. 36 Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.37

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

Advanced Clean Cars Program
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II program in 2022 in coordination with the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for vehicle model years 20 26 through 2035. The program promotes development of environmentally superior passenger cars and other vehicles, as well as saving the consumer money through fuel savings.38

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

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

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

The GGRP is a separate but complementary document to the General Plan that implements the long- range GHG emissions reduction goals of the General Plan. The GGRP includes goals, policies, performance standards, and implementation measures for achieving GHG emissions reductions, to

36 California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.
37 California Energy Commission (CEC). “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.
38 California Air Resources Board. “Advanced Clean Cars II.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/advanced-clean-cars-ii

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 59 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
meet the requirements of AB 32. The program includes a goal to improve communitywide emissions efficiency by 15 to 20 percent over 2005 levels by 2020 and by 30 percent over 2005 levels by 2030.

Mountain View Green Building Code
The Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC) amends the state mandated CalGreen standards to include local green building standards and requirements for private development. The MVGBC does not require formal certification from a third -party organization b ut requires projects to be designed and constructed to meet the intent of a third-party rating system. 39 For residential projects
proposing over five units, the MVGBC requires those buildings meet the intent of 70 GreenPoint Rated points from the Build it Green certification program, as well as compliance with mandatory CalGreen requirements. Additionally, development projects subject to CalGreen requirements are required to divert at least 65 percent of construction debris from landfills.

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

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

Existing Conditions
Total energy usage in California was approximately 6,882 trillion British thermal units (Btu) in the year 2022, the most recent year for which this data was available. 40 Out of the 50 states, California is ranked second in total energy consumption and 4 9th in energy consumption per capita. The breakdown by sector was approximately 18 percent (1, 204 trillion Btu) for residential uses, 17 percent (1,193 trillion Btu) for commercial uses, 22 percent (1,539 trillion Btu) for industrial uses, and 43 percent (2,916 trillion Btu) for transportation.41 This energy is primarily supplied in the form of natural gas, petroleum, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power.

Electricity
Electricity in Santa Clara County in 2022 was consumed primarily by the non-residential sector (75 percent), followed by the residential sector consuming 25 percent. In 2022, a total of approximately 17,101 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity was consumed in Santa Clara County.42

39 City of Mountain View. “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. 40 United States Energy Information Administration. “California State Energy Profile.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA.
41 Ibid.
42 California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed December 10, 2024. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.

4.6.1.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 60 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
The community-owned Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the electricity provider for the City of Mountain View .43 SVCE sources the electricity and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) delivers it to customers over their existing utility lines. Customers are automatically enrolled in the GreenStart plan and can upgrade to the GreenPrime plan. Both options are considered 100 percent GHG-emission free. Electricity is used on-site current to power operations of the buildings on-site.

Natural Gas
PG&E provides natural gas services within the City of Mountain View. In 2023, California’s natural gas supply came from a combination of in-state production and imported supplies from other western states and Canada. 44 In 2022, Santa Clara County used less than four percent of the state’s total consumption of natural gas.45 Natural gas is used on-site at the existing office/industrial building.

Fuel for Motor Vehicles
In 2023, California produced 118 million barrels of crude oil and in 2019, 15.4 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California.46, 47 The average fuel economy for light-duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles) in the United States has steadily increased from about 13 miles per gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 27.1 mpg in 2023.48 Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007. That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020, was updated in April 2022 to require all cars and light duty trucks achieve an overall industry average fuel economy of 49 mpg by model year 2026. 49,50 Gasoline is used by vehicles traveling to and from the project site.

43 Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs. 44 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2023 California Gas Report. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Biennial_California_Gas_Report_2023_Supplement.pdf. 45 California Energy Commission. “Natural Gas Consumption by County .” Accessed December 10, 2024 . http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.
46 United States Energy Information Administration. “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. 47 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. 48 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The 202 4 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.
49 United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed December 10 , 2024. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.
50 United 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.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 61 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025

4.6.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?

b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

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

Construction
Implementation of the project would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the project site (e.g., demolition and grading), and the construction of the buildings. Construction processes are generally designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. Additionally, as noted in Section 4.3 Air Quality, the project would implement Air District BMPs as a City standard condition of approval COA AIR -1, which restricts equipment idling times and require the applicant to post signs on the project site reminding workers to shut off idle equipment, thus reducing energy waste. The project would also comply with CALGreen to divert a minimum of 65 percent of nonhaz ardous construction and demolition waste from landfills, thus minimizing energy impacts from the creation of excessive waste. For these reasons, the proposed project would not use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner during construction activities. (Less than Significant Impact)

Operation
The operation of the project would consume energy for building heating and cooling, lighting, and appliance use. Vehicles used to travel to and from the project site by residents would use gasoline and electricity. Energy consumption for the project is estimated to be approximately 488,000 kWh of electricity annually.

The project would be built in compliance with CALGreen requirements, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and the MVGBC, all of which would improve the efficiency of the overall project. The project would incorporate green building features, including drought -tolerant landscaping, water - efficient fixtures, EV charging infrastructure, and high-efficiency appliances. The project is voluntarily proposing to be all- electric and include solar panels even though the City of Mountain View has suspended enforcement of local laws imposing all -electric requirements for new construction. In □ □ □
□ □ □

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 62 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
addition, the project would provide bicycle parking spaces on -site. The project would also plant 95 trees which would provide shade and further reduce energy use. Based on this discussion, the project would not result in the inefficient or wasteful use of energy or resources. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

The project would obtain electricity from SVCE, which provides 100 percent GHG -emission free energy from renewable and hydroelectric sources, consistent with the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard program and SB 350. In addition, the project would be designed per building standards and include features like on -site solar generation for the building s that meet or exceed state mandated Title 24 energy efficiency standards, CALGreen standards, and MVGBC standards. As discussed above, the project would plant trees throughout the project area. For these reasons, the proposed project would not obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 63 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Geology and Soils
The following discussion is based in part on a Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Assessment completed by Quantum Geotechnical, Inc., dated December 11, 2023. A copy of this report is included as Appendix D of this Initial Study.

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

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

California Building Standards Code
The CB SC prescribes standards for constructing safe buildings. Part 2 of the CBSC contains the California Building Code (CBC), which contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, soil and rock profile, ground strength, and distance to seismic sources. The CBC requires that a site-specific geotechnical investigation report be prepared for most development projects to evaluate seismic and geologic conditions such as surface fault ruptures, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and slope stability. The CBC is updated every three years.

4.7 4.7.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 64 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations Excavation, shoring, and trenching activities during construction are subject to occupational safety standards for stabilization by the California Department of Industrial Relations , Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Excavation Rules. These regulations minimize the potential for instability and collapse that could injure construction workers on the site.

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

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

Policy Description
PSA 4.2 Natural disasters. Minimize impacts of natural disasters.

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

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

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

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

PSA 4.2 Natural disasters. Minimize impacts of natural disasters.

Mountain View Municipal Code
The City of Mountain View has adopted the CBC, with amendments, as the reference building code for all projects in the City under Chapter 8 of the City’s Municipal Code. The City's Building Inspection Division, which is part of the Community Development Department, is responsible for reviewing plans, issuing building permits, and conducting field inspections. Geotechnical investigation reports, as required by the CBC, would be reviewed by the City’s Building Inspection Division prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance. Based on the CBC, Mountain View requires geotechnical

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 65 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
reports as conditions of approval for projects in the City. Section 8.20.36 contains erosion and sediment control BMPs that projects are required to implement during construction activities.

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

On-Site Geology
Soils
The soil on-site is underlain by mostly fine -grained Holocene alluvial fan deposits consisting of silts and clays with intermittent beds of sand and occasional gravel layers. The soil near the surface on - site has high soil expansion characteristics. Stiff clays that have moderate to high plasticity were found between 11 to 16 feet below ground surface (bgs). Below these soils are medium -dense to dense silty, clayey sands until depths of approximately 20 to 24 feet bgs.

Site Topography
The project site is relatively flat and sits approximately 42 feet above mean sea level. There are no hillsides or steep embankments on the project site.

Groundwater
The City of Mountain View overlies the Santa Clara Subbasin (DWR Basin 2 -9.02), a groundwater subbasin that is 297 square miles in area. Approximately three percent of Mountain View’s drinking water comes from local groundwater supply, while the rest is supplemented by water purchases from Valley Water and the SFPUC. Valley Water conducts an artificial groundwater recharge program that involves releasing locally conserved or imported water to in -stream and off -stream facilities to augment groundwater supplies in the Santa Clara groundwater basin. Groundwater was measured on-site at depths between nine to 16 feet bgs.51

51 Quantum Geotechnical Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Assessment/Mountain View. Page 2. December 11, 2023.

4.7.1.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 66 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Seismic and Seismic-Related Hazards
Earthquake Faults
The project site is located within the Bay Area, which is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. The project site is approximately eight miles away from the San Andreas Fault and approximately 10 miles from the Hayward Fault . The project site is not located in a fault rupture hazard zone or the Alquist -Priolo special study zone on the California Geological Survey fault zone map.52, 53, 54

Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction can be defined as ground failure or loss of strength that causes otherwise solid soil to take on the characteristics of a liquid. This phenomenon is triggered by earthquakes or ground shaking that causes saturated or partially saturated soils to lose strength, potentially resulting in the soil’s inability to support structures. The site is in a Santa Clara County liquefaction hazard zone; however, initial investigation of the subsurface soil conditions in the site-specific geotechnical report determined that the potential for liquification on-site is low.55

Other Geologic Hazards
There are no open faces near the project site where lateral spreading could occur; therefore, the potential for lateral spreading on-site is low. The project site is not located within a Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zone for compressible soil or landslides.56

Paleontological Resources
Geologic units of Holocene age are generally not considered sensitive for paleontological resources, because biological remains younger than 10,000 years are not usually considered fossils. These sediments have low potential to yield fossil resources or to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources.
57 These recent sediments, however, may overlie older Pleistocene sediments with high potential to contain paleontological resources. Pleistocene sediments, often found at depths greater than 10 feet bgs , have yielded the fossil remains of plants and extinct terrestrial vertebrates. There have been no recorded fossils discovered within the City of Mountain View; however, two fossils have been discovered within two miles of the City’s sphere of influence

52 Ibid.
53 County of Santa Clara. “Geologic Hazard Zones”. Accessed December 18 , 2024. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ef8100336234fbdafc5769494cfe373. 54 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%3AdataSource_4 -191d8e4b825- layer-21%3A200.
55 Quantum Geotechnical Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Assessment/Mountain View. Page 2. December 11, 2023. 56 California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Map. Accessed December 23, 2024. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/. 57 United States Department of the Interior. Potential Fossil Yield Classification System. July 2016. Accessed December 18, 2024. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/uploads/IM2016-124_att1.pdf

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 67 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
and the presence of geological formations known to contain fossils indicates some paleontological sensitivity.58,59

4.7.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:

- Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault (refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42)?

- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?

- Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?

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

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

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

f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?

58 City of Mountain View. Draft 2030 Gener al Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report .

SCH #2011012069. September 2012. Page 470.
59 Ibid., page 473.

□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 68 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides?

Fault Rupture
The project site is not located in an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known faults cross the site. While existing faults that are currently considered active are located within 10 miles of the site (i.e., the Hayward and San Andreas faults), th e proposed project is located outside of their fault rupture zones. For these reasons, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects from rupture of a known earthquake fault. (No Impact)

Seismic Ground Shaking
There are several major fault lines within approximately 1 0 miles of the project site that have the potential to produce a major earthquake during the lifespan of this project. During a major earthquake, this site is expected to experience very strong to severe ground shaking. The level of intensity of this ground shaking at the project site would depend on a variety of factors such as the magnitude, distance from the site to the fault source, and the site-specific soil conditions. The ground shaking could potentially damage structures and threaten the safety of occupants in the proposed development.

City Standard Condition of Approval
COA GEO-1: Geotechnical Report: The applicant shall have a design -level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117, Guidel ines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report shall be submitted to the City during building plan check, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report shall be implemented as part of the project and included in building permit drawings and civil drawings as needed. Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below-grade walls to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures caused by seismic activity, and traffic loads; method for backdraining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure; considerations for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design.

The project would be required to adhere to the current CBC and recommendations in the site-specific geotechnical report prepared for the project, as described in the above City standard condition of approval COA GEO -1, to reduce seismic and seismic -related hazards (including ground shaking, liquefaction, and expansive soils) to a less than significant level by requiring the project be properly

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 69 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
designed, engineered, and constructed. As such, the existing seismic hazards on the project would not be exacerbated by the project that it would impact (or worsen) off -site conditions. (Less than Significant Impact)

Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
As discussed previously in Section 4.7.1.2 , the project site is located within a county-designated liquefaction hazard zone and groundwater was discovered under the site at a depth of approximately nine to 16 feet bgs. However, based on the preliminary evaluation of the soil profile on-site, the geotechnical analysis determined that the likelihood of on-site liquefaction is low. In the event of a large seismic event, there is still the potential that liquefaction could occur on-site. The potential for liquefaction induced settlement of the proposed project would decrease significantly with the implementation of the recommended ground improvements identified in the geotechnical analysis required under City standard condition of approval COA GEO -1. Adherence to the current CBC and the recommendations in the site-specific geotechnical report would reduce the risk of liquefaction at the project site to a less than significant level.

There are no adjacent bodies of water, channels, or excavations in the vicinity of the site that would increase the potential for lateral spreading, therefore, the project would not exacerbate such conditions off -site. For these reasons, the project would not cause potential substantial adverse effects related to liquefaction and lateral spreading. (Less than Significant Impact)

Landslides
As discussed under Section 4.7.1.2, the project site is not located in a designated landslide hazard zone. The project site is relatively flat and is not located in the vicinity of steep embankments that could increase the risk of landslides affecting the site. Construction of the project would not include substantial earthwork that would create unstable slopes that would exacerbate any existing landslide risks. (No Impact)

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

Ground disturbance related to the demolition of the existing buildings and improvements on-site and excavation and construction of the proposed buildings would occur on -site. Transportation of construction materials and equipment to and from the project site could also result in disturbance of the soils. These activities would increase exposure of soil to wind and water erosion and increase sedimentation.

As discussed in Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would be required to obtain coverage under the State of California Construction General Permit prior to issuance of a demolition permit or a grading permit from the city. This would require preparation of a Stormwat er Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would outline the erosion control and site stabilization BMPs to be implemented on-site. By implementing these best management practices and the recommendations

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 70 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
of the site -specific geotechnical report, erosion and sedimentation impacts would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

As discussed above under checklist question a), adherence to the current CBC and recommendations in the site-specific geotechnical report (as required by City standard condition of approval COA GEO- 1) regarding ground improvements and construction methods would reduce the risk of liquefaction at the project site to a less than significant level.

Valley Water actively monitors for land subsidence through surveying, groundwater elevation monitoring, and data from compaction wells. Valley Water reduces the potential for land subsidence throughout the Santa Clara Valley by recharging groundwater basins with local and imported surface water. The project would be connected to the City’s water system and would not require permanent groundwater extraction wells on -site. For this reason, the project is expected to have a less than significant impact on subsidence.

As discussed under Section 4.7.1.2 and checklist question a) , the project site is not subject to landslide, lateral spreading, or other forms of ground failure. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

Expansive soils possess a “shrink -swell” characteristic. Shrink -swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine -grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying. Structural damage may result over a long period of time, usually the result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils. The site - specific geotechnical analysis completed for the project site found that the near-surface soil on-site has a high degree of expansive potential. Although expansive soils can be a hazard, it is mitigated through adherence with the standard engineering and building practices and techniques specified in the CBC and adherence to the recommendations in the site-specific geotechnical report.

As required by City standard condition of approval COA GEO -1, the project shall implement all structural recommendations provided in the design -level geotechnical investigation report. With adherence to these recommendations and the current CBC, the project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property due to expansive soils. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 71 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

The project would connect to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system. Therefore, the project would not need to support septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems on-site. (No Impact)

f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

No paleontological resources have been identified in the City of Mountain View; however, construction and excavation could result in the disturbance of unknown resources. The project would implement the following City standard condition of approval to reduce impacts to unknown paleontological resources.

City Standard Condition of Approval:

COA GEO-2: Discovery Of Paleontological Resources: In the event a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

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

With implementation of the above standard condition, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to paleontological resources by halting work if a fossil is discovered, examining the significance of the fossil, and avoiding the resource or implement a data recovery plan if avoidance is not feasible. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 72 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
Background Information
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are g ases that trap heat in the atmosphere and regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its global warming potential ( GWP) and is measured in units of CO 2 equivalents (CO2e). The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities (anthropogenic). Natural and anthropogenic s ources of GHGs are generally as follows:

• CO2 exchange between the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface • CO2, CH4, and N2O are emitted from wildfires and volcanic eruptions • CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion
• N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops • CH4 is commonly created by off -gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents, but their production has been stopped by international treaty • HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling • PFCs and SF6 emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing

An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently causing changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. Per the 2022 Scoping Plan from CARB, atmospheric concentrations of CO
2 have increased by 50 percent since the Industrial
Revolution and continue to increase at a rate of two parts per million each year, which will result in increased global temperatures.
60 The climate within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat -related stress; an increase in climate -sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.

60 California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. December 2022. Page 3.

4.8 4.8.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 73 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 32 and State Bill 32
Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, known as AB 32, CARB established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, adopted mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHGs, and adopted a comprehensive plan, known as the Climate Change Scoping Plan, identifying how emission reductions would be achieved from significant GHG sources. The first Scoping Plan was approved by CARB in 2008 and must be updated at least every five years. Since 2008, there have been two updates to the Scoping Plan.

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

2022 Scoping Plan
On December 15, 2022, CARB approved the 2022 Scoping Plan. The 2022 Scoping Plan provides a sector-by-sector guide on how to reduce man- made (i.e., anthropogenic) GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 over a 25 -year horizon. 61 The
primary focus of the 2022 Scoping Plan is to reduce the usage of fossil fuels by electricizing the transportation sector, procuring electricity from renewable resources, phasing out natural gas in land use developments, and building transit -oriented communities that encourage multi -modal transportation. If implemented successfully, the 2022 Scoping Plan would not only reduce GHG emissions but also reduce smog -forming air pollution (NO x) by 71 percent and reduce fossil fuel
demand by 94 percent. The 2022 Scoping Plan also details natural carbon capture and storage process along with mechanical carbon capture programs to address the remaining 15 of anthropogenic GHG emissions that will re main post -2045. To meet these goals, CARB also includes a revised go al of reducing state GHG emissions 48 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

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

61 California Air Resources Board. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. December 2022. Page 5.

4.8.1.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 74 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) partnered with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Air District , and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to prepare the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan process. The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area 2050.

Plan Bay Area 20 50 is a long-range plan for the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area that provides strategies that increase the availability of affordable housing, support a more equitable and efficient economy, improve the transportation network, and enhance the region’s environmental resilience.

Plan Bay Area 2050 promotes the development of a variety of housing types and densities within identified priority development areas ( PDAs). PDAs are a reas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified for housing and job growth. 62 Play Bay Area 2050 includes a goal to increase the number of households that live within 0.5 mile of frequent transit by 2050 . Plan Bay Area 2050 promotes s trategies that support active and shared modes, combined with a transit-supportive land use patterns, which together are forecasted to lower the share of Bay Area residents that drive to work alone from 50 percent in 2015 to 33 percent in 2050, resulting in a decrease in GHG emissions. Plan Bay Area 2050 also provides a path to emissions reductions via goals to expand TDM initiatives that support and augment employers’ commute programs.

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

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

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

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

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

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 75 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Advanced Clean Cars II Regulation
To continue reducing air pollutants and GHG emissions in the transportation sector, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations (Resolution 22 -12) on August 25, 2022. The new regulation requires that by 2035 all new passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles. This regulation bans the sale of new gasoline or diesel passenger cars, trucks, and SUVs in California from automakers. Beginning in 2026, 35 percent of new vehicle sales must be zero-emission vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (EV) and that percentage will increase per year. By 2030, 70 percent of new vehicle sales will be zero -emissions vehicles and by the 2035 model year 100 percent of new vehicle sales will be zero -emissions. CARB will limit the use of plug -in hybrid EVs in the percentage requirements to keep the manufacturing of zero -emissions as the primary goal.

Existing gasoline cars can continue to be driven and sold as used cars beyond 2035. CARB is required to track and report on the zero-emissions vehicle market development annually.

California Building Standards Code – Title 24 Part 11 and Part 6 The CALGreen Code is part of the California Building Standards Code under Title 24, Part 11. 63 The CALGreen Code encourages sustainable construction standards that incorporate planning/design, energy efficiency, water efficiency resource efficiency, and environmental quality. These green building standard codes are mandatory statewide and are appli cable to residential and non - residential developments. The most recent CALGreen Code (2022 CALGreen Code) was effective as of January 1, 2023.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code) is under Title 24, Part 6 and is overseen by the CEC. This code includes design requirements to conserve energy in new residential and non -residential developments. This Energy Co de is enforced and verified by cities during the planning and building permit process. The 2022 Energy Code replaced the 2019 Energy Code as of January 1, 2023. There are new 2022 standards for single -family residences, multi-family residences, and non -residential uses.
64,65,66 Major changes include electric -ready single-family and multi-family residence and solar photovoltaic systems and energy storage systems for residential and commercial developments.

Requirements for EV charging infrastructure are set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and are regularly updated on a three-year cycle. The CALGreen standards consist of a set of mandatory standards required for new development, as well as two more volunt ary standards known as Tier 1 and Tier 2. The 2022 CALGreen standards require deployment of additional EV

63 Refer to https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen.
64 California Energy Commission. “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.
65 California Energy Commission. “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.
66 California Energy Commission. “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 76 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
chargers in various building types, including multi -family residential, hotel, and non-residential land uses. They include requirements for both EV capable parking spaces and the installation of EV supply equipment for multi -family residential and nonresidential buildings. For new one- and two-family dwelling units and townhouses with attached private garages, CALGreen requires installation of a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit that would allow for future installation of an EV charger.

CALGreen also requires new construction and demolition projects to have a diversion of at least 65 percent of the construction waste generated.

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

Air District CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans In April 2022, the Air District Board of Directors adopted the Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. The report includes Air District’s thresholds of significance for use in determining whether a proposed project or plan will have a significant impact on climate change and provides substantial evidence to support these thresholds. The April 2022 GHG thresholds replace the GHG thresholds se t forth in the May 2017 Air Distric t CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and represent what is required of new land use development projects and plans to achieve California’s long -term climate goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

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

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

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

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

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 77 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
City of Mountain View 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy The City of Mountain View certified the General Plan Program EIR (SCH #2011012069) and adopted the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) in July 2012.

The GGRP is a separate but complementary document to the General Plan that implements the long- range GHG emissions reduction goals of the General Plan and serves as a programmatic GHG reduction strategy for CEQA tiering purposes. The GGRP includes goals, policies, performance standards, and implementation measures for achieving GHG emissions reductions, to meet the requirements of AB 32. The program includes a goal to improve communitywide emissions efficiency by 15 to 20 percent over 2005 levels by 2020 and by 30 percent over 2005 levels by 2030. Since adoption of the GGRP, the state passed SB 32 which updated GHG emissions targets to be 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030.

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

City of Mountain View Reach Building Code
The Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC) amends the state mandated CalGreen standards to include local green building standards and requirements for private development. The MVGBC does not require formal certification from a third -party organization b ut requires projects to be designed and constructed to meet the intent of a third-party rating system. 67 For residential projects
proposing over five units, the MVGBC requires those buildings meet the intent of 70 GreenPoint Rated points from the Build it Green certification program, as well as compliance with mandatory CalGreen requirements. Additionally, development projects subject to CalGreen requirements are required to divert at least 65 percent of construction debris from landfills.

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

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

Existing Conditions
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have regional and local impacts, emissions of GHGs have a broader, global impact. Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in

67 City of Mountain View. “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.

4.8.1.3 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 78 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
the upper atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth and changes in weather patterns. The existing uses on-site generate GHG emissions as a result of energy (electricity and natural gas) consumption, vehicle trips to and from the site, solid waste generation, and water usage.

4.8.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?

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

Pursuant with the Air District, for land use projects to result in a less than significant GHG emissions impact, the land use project would need to comply with threshold A or B below.

A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:

1. Buildings
a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

2. Transportation
a. Achieve a reduction in project -generated vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
a. Achieve compliance with off-street EV requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.

B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

□
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 79 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Any new land use project would have to include either section A or B from the above list, not both, to have a less than significant GHG impact.

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

Construction
Construction of the project would generate GHG emissions from on -site operation of construction equipment, vendor and hauling truck trips, and worker trips. Neither the City nor the Air District have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions. There is nothing atypical or unusual about the project’s construction. In addition, the project would comply with CALGreen to divert a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from landfills and would implement City standard condition of approval COA AIR-1 to restrict idling of construction equipment, which would in turn reduce GHG emissions. For these reasons, the project’s construction GHG emissions are less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)

Operation
The project would intensify development on -site; therefore, it would generate new GHG emissions from energy-related emissions, mobile emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the site, and emissions from solid waste generation and water usage. Promoting dense development in urban infill locations and energy efficiency is key to reducing GHG emissions.

A project is determined to have a less than significant GHG emissions impact if it can meet all the qualifications of either Threshold A (or B) described above. The project would meet all the qualifications under Threshold A for the following reasons:

• The project would comply with the City’s Reach Code by voluntarily being 100-percent electric and not including natural gas infrastructure for the proposed buildings. • The project would be required to meet current CALGreen mandatory green building standards and MVGBC standards. MVGBC requires higher standards than the CALGreen minimum requirement. As discussed in Section 4.6 Energy, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during project operation. • The project would meet the locally adopted SB 743 VMT target. As discussed in Section 4.17 Transportation, t he City’s VMT policy includes screening criteria for projects which are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. The proposed project would meet the criteria established for Very Small Projects and would be presumed to result in less than significant VMT impacts.
• Consistent with the requirements of the CALGreen Building Standards Code, each of the 38 residences would install a 208/240 -volt branch EV charging circuit and receptacle in the garage to allow for on-site EV charging.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 80 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
For these reasons, the project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Less than Significant Impact)

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

Plan Bay Area
The project site is not located within a PDA. However, it would not impede implementation of Plan Bay Area 2050 because the project would comply with CALGreen and MVGBC by constructing housing units with the required bicycle parking spaces in an urbanized area serviced by public transit and bicycle facilities that would promote alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, the project would receive its energy from SVCE, who provides electricity generated from carbon free sources. (Less than Significant Impact)

CARB Scoping Plan
The project would be consistent with the Scoping Plan by receiving electricity from SVCE , complying with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, complying with the current CALGreen off-street EV parking requirements , and developing a housing site on an infill location with access to public transportation which would reduce reliance on automobiles. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the most recent CARB Scoping Plan update and would result in a less than significant impact. (Less than Significant Impact)

2017 Clean Air Plan
The Air District’s 2017 CAP focuses on two goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate.

The 2017 CAP includes air quality standards and control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane, carbon dioxide, and other super -GHGs. As discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality under checklist question a), the project is consistent with the 2017 CAP because the project would not exceed Air District criteria air pollutant emissions thresholds during construction or during operation and would implement COA AIR-1, which requires implementing Air District -recommended standard measures to restrict idling of equipment and properly maintaining and tuning construction equipment (thereby reducing GHG emissions). As discussed under checklist question a), the project would not have significant construction or operational GHG emissions. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with the 2017 CAP goal to reduce GHG emissions and would result in a less than significant impact. (Less than Significant Impact)

General Plan
The proposed project would be consistent with General Plan Policies INC 5.2, INC 5.5, and LUD 3.1 by complying with Title 24 and CALGreen, and the MVGBC and Reach Code by installing drought tolerant landscaping with high -efficiency irrigation and water efficient interior fixtures, and intensifying development on an infill within a quarter mile from bus stops (along West Middlefield Road ) served

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 81 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
by existing public transit service and in proximity to major commute corridors (US 101, SR 85, and Shoreline Boulevard). (Less than Significant Impact)

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan

The GGRP identifies a series of GHG emissions reduction measures to be implemented by development projects that would help the City achieve its GHG reduction goals. T he project would comply with the applicable GGRP mandatory measures and would not be in conflict with the City’s GHG reduction goals, as discussed in Table 4.8-1 below. Furthermore, as discussed under checklist question a) , the project would result in a less than significant GHG emissions impact. For these reasons, the project would not be in conflict with the GGRP. (Less than Significant Impact)

Table 4.8-1: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Consistency
Mandatory Measure Consistency
Measure E- 1.4: Residential Energy
Star Appliances
The project would demolish the existing improvements on -site and a new, 38-unit residential development would be constructed that would meet Title 24, CALGreen, and MVGBC requirements. The new residences would be furnished with energy-efficient appliances.

Measure E- 1.6: Exceed State Energy
Standards in New Residential
Development
The proposed residential buildings would be constructed to meet MVGBC requirements, which exceed state standards.

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

Measure E- 2.3: Residential Solar
Photovoltaic Systems
The project would include solar photovoltaic panels on the rooftop of the buildings.

Measure W-1.1: Urban Water
Management Plan Conservation
Strategies
The project would comply with City requirements by installing water - efficient appliances and irrigation fixtures and planting drought - tolerant landscaping.

Measure T -1.1: Transportation
Demand Management
As discussed in Section 4.17 Transportation, the project would have a less than significant VMT impact.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 82 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following discussion is based on the following reports: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Shallow Soil Sampling Report completed by Stantec Consulting Services , Inc., dated February 9, 2023 and May 9, 2023, respectively; and a Cornerstone Earth Group peer review of these reports dated February 28, 2025. Copies of the reports are included as Appendix E of this Initial Study.

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Overview
The storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste are highly regulated under federal and state laws. In California, the EPA has granted most enforcement authority over federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). In turn, local agencies have been granted responsibility for implementation and enforcement of many hazardous materials regulations under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program.

Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials.

Proper handling and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction. Cal/OSHA enforces state worker health and safety re gulations related to construction activities. Regulations include exposure limits, requirements for protective clothing, and training requirements to prevent exposure to hazardous materials. Cal/OSHA also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and asbestos investigations and abatement.

Federal and State
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures an d minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above the ground.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad f ederal authority to respond directly to

4.9 4.9.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 83 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Over five years, $1.6 billion was collected and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. CERCLA accomplished the following objectives:

• Established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites;
• Provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and
• Established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.

The law authorizes two kinds of response actions:

• Short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response; and
• Long-term remedial response actions that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life-threatening. These actions can be completed only at sites listed on the EPA’s National Priorities List.

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986. 68 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976, is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste. RCRA gives the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the "cradle to the grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set s forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes.

The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that focused on waste minimization , phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste , and corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for the EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.
69 68 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview. 69 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 84 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Government Code Section 65962.5
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires CalEPA to develop and update a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. Th e Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).70

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. The TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program aims to prevent accidental releases of regulated hazardous materials that represent a potential hazard beyond the boundaries of a property. Facilities that are required to participate in the CalARP Program use or store specified quantities of toxic and flammable substances (hazardous materials) that can have off -site consequences if accidentally released. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health reviews CalARP risk management plans as the CUPA.

Asbestos-Containing Materials
Friable asbestos is any asbestos-containing material (ACM) that, when dry, can easily be crumbled or pulverized to a powder by hand, allowing the asbestos particles to become airborne. Common examples of products that have been found to contain friable asbestos include acoustical ceilings , plaster, wallboard, and thermal insulation for water heaters and pipes. Common examples of non - friable ACMs are asphalt roofing shingles, vinyl floor tiles, and transite siding made with cement. The EPA began phasing out use of friable asbestos products in 1973 and issued a ban in 1978 on manufacture, import, processing, and distribution of some asbestos -containing products and new uses of asbestos products .
71 The EPA is currently considering a proposed ban on on -going use of asbestos.72 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require that potentially friable ACMs be removed prior to building demolition or remodeling that may disturb the ACMs.

70 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed December 9, 2024. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
71 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. 72Ibid.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 85 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead-based paint in 1978.

Removal of older structures with lead -based paint is subject to requirements outlined by the Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 during demolition activities.

Requirements include employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. If lead -based paint is peeling, flaking, or blistered, it is required to be removed prior to demolition.

Regional and Local
Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport, as well as aircraft occupants.73 The CLUP is also intended to ensure that surrounding new land uses do not affect airfield operations. The CLUP identifies the Airfield’s Airport Influence Area (AIA). The AIA is a composite of areas surrounding the Airfield that are affected by noise, height, and safety considerations. Within the AIA, the CLUP establishes a (1) noise restriction area, (2) height restriction area, and (3) safety restriction area.

Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan The City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan, an annex to Santa Clara County’s Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan (2017), performs a full risk assessment on the nine hazards that present the greatest concern in Santa Clara County. The nine hazards focused on for this mitigation plan are climate change/sea-level rise, dam and levee failure, drought, earthquakes, floods, landslides, severe weather, tsunamis, and wildfires.

The City’s annex, Chapter 11 of the document, provides a detailed overview of the City’s response capabilities, the organizational structure of local authorities, risk rating scores that determine which hazards present the greatest risk to Mountain View, and a priority schedule for mitigation measures planned by local and regional agencies.

Certified Unified Program Agency
The routine management of hazardous materials in California is administered under the Unified Program. The CalEPA has granted responsibilities to the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD) for implementation and enforcement of hazardous material regulations under the Unified Program as a CUPA. Through a formal agreement with the HMCD, the Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) implements hazardous materials programs for the City of Mountain View as a Participating Agency within the Unified Program. The MVFD coordinates with the HMCD to implement the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Management Plan and to ensure that commercial and residential activities involving classified hazardous substances are properly handled, contained, and disposed.

73 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan. November 2, 2016.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 86 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 hazards and hazardous materials. The following goals and policies are applicable to the project.

Policy Description
LUD 2.5 Moffett Federal Airfield. Encourage compatible land uses within the Airport Influence Area for Moffett Federal Airfield as part of Santa Clara County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

MOB 10.1 Efficient automobile infrastructure. Strive to maximize the efficiency of existing automobile infrastructure and manage major streets to discourage cut -through traffic on neighborhood streets.

MOB 10.4 Emergency response. Monitor emergency response times and review emergency response time standards.

PSA 3.1 Minimized losses. Minimize property damage, injuries and loss of life from fire.

PSA 3.2 Protection from hazardous materials. Prevent injuries and environmental contamination due to the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials through enforcement of fire and life safety codes and prevention.

PSA 3.3 Development review. Implement development review procedures that encourage effective identification and remediation of contamination and protection of public and environmental health and safety.

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

PSA 4.1 Emergency response plan. Maintain and update the City’s emergency response plans.

INC 2.1 Emergency preparedness. Ensure that the City is well -prepared for natural and human- induced disasters and emergencies.

INC 18.1 Contamination prevention. Protect human and environmental health from environmental contamination.

INC 18.2 Contamination clean -up. Cooperate with local, state, and federal agencies that oversee environmental contamination and clean-up activities.

Existing Conditions
Site History
As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, the project site was used primarily for agricultural purposes in the late 19 th century before it was subdivided for residential use in 1928. By 1931, a residence and ancillary structure were constructed on the southeastern corner of the project site.

During the 1960s, the original residence on the southeast corner of the site was demolished and the existing office-industrial building was constructed on-site in 1980. The single-family residence at 944 San Leandro was constructed before 1948, and the single -family residence at 950 San Leandro Avenue was constructed around 1956.

4.9.1.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 87 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
On-Site Contamination
As described above, the project site was previously used for agricultural purposes prior to being developed with the existing structures on -site. This included the orchards on the northwestern portion of the project site that were in use until the 1960s . Based on the historical uses of the site, the Phase I ESA determined that there was potential for residual agricultural chemicals (i.e., pesticides and fertilizers) to remain in the soil on-site, and this was identified as a recognized environmental conditi on (REC). To further evaluate this REC , a Shallow Soil Sampling Report was prepared. A total of eight soil samples were collected on -site and tested for concentrations of common contaminants and heavy metals associated with past agricultural use. The level of detected organochlorine pesticides (OCP) concentrations in the soil on-site did not exceed current residential or commercial environmental screening levels (ESLs). Similarly, the detected concentrations of lead and arsenic on -site were found to be with in the range of naturally occurring background concentrations for the region . Therefore, it was determined that the former use of the site for agricultural purposes did not result in substantial concentrations of contaminants in the shallow soil on-site that would require further investigation or remediation. The site is not listed on the Cortese List.74 Given the age of the buildings on-site, it is possible that asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead-based paint are present.

Off-Site Sources of Contamination
The project site is bordered by office and light industrial buildings to the north and west, San Leandro Avenue and SR 85 to the east, and residential uses to the south. Based on available environmental records for the surrounding development , none of the surrounding properties have documented contamination sources that would be expected to impact soil or groundwater quality at the project site.75 The closest documented Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) case to the project site is located approximately 206 feet west of the site; however, the case was closed in March 2001.76

Airport Safety
The project site is approximately one mile east of the Moffett Federal Airfield and it is located within the Airfield’s AIA. The site is not located within the A irfield’s 65 dBA noise contour area or airport safety zones. 77 FAR Part 77 requires that the FAA be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height aboveground. The project site is located within the mapped Part 77 182 -foot above mean sea level

74 California Environmental Protection Agency . “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed March 3, 2025. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
75 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc . 922-944 San Leandro Street, Mountain View, California 94043, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. February 9, 2023. Page 6.1.
76 State Water Resources Control Board. “GeoTracker.” Accessed March 3, 2025. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/search?page=385&cmd=search&business_name=&main_street_name=&city=&zip=&co unty=&status=&branch=&site_type=LUFT&npl=&funding=&reporttitle=PROJECT+SEARCH+RESULTS&reporttype=&federal_supe rfund=&state_response=&voluntary_cleanup=&school_cleanup=&permitted=&corrective_action=&spec_prog=&national_prior ity_list=&senate=&assembly=&critical_pol=&business_type=&case_type=&searchtype=&hwmp_site_type=&cleanup_type=&w atershed=&gwbasin=&excludenc=False&orderby=city.
77 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan. December 19, 2018.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 88 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
(amsl) horizontal surface. The site has an average elevation of 42 feet amsl; therefore, any structure exceeding 140 feet in height above grade would require submittal to the FAA for airspace safety review.

Wildland Fire Hazards
The site is not located in a state responsibility area and is not located in a very high fire hazard zone according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE).78,79 The site is not located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).80

4.9.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, will it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in
the project area?

78 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.
79 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.” Webmap. Accessed March 3, 2025. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/. 80 Santa Clara County FireSafe Council. “ Wildland-Urban Interface.” Webmap. https://sccfiresafe.org/resources/do -you-reside- in-santa-clara-countys-wildland-urban-interface-wui/.
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 89 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:
f) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere
with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?

g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?

a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

The proposed project would construct 38 three-story, rowhome units on-site. Unlike an industrial or manufacturing use that would routinely transport, use, or dispose large quantities of hazardous materials subject to regulatory oversight, the residential use associated with the project would only routinely use limited amounts of fuels, chemicals , and cleaning materials for landscaping and maintenance activities. The quantities used would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Less than Significant Impact)

b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions, shallow soil samples did not identify any elevated levels of contaminants present on-site. However, based on the estimated age of the existing on -site buildings, ACM and lead-based paint may be present in some building materials on -site. Building demolition could result in the release of these materials to the environment. The project would comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, as described below, to ensure the project does not result in significant hazardous materials impacts from on -site contamination during construction activities, if ACM and/or lead-based paint are present.

City Standard Conditions of Approval:

COA HAZ-1: Hazardous Materials Contamination : To reduce the potential for construction workers and adjacent uses to encounter hazardous materials contamination from ACMs and lead -based paint, the following measures are to be included in the project:
a) In conformance with local, State, and Federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead -based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint □
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 90 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
on the structures proposed for demolition. The surveys shall be completed prior to demolition work beginning on the structures. b) A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos -containing materials, in accordance with the NESHAP guidelines, prior to building demolition that may disturb the materials. All construc tion activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to Air District regulations.

During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead -based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any de bris or soil containing lead -based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.

In addition, shallow soil adjacent to the existing or historic locations of wood -framed structures on- site could be impacted with lead as a result of the weathering and/or peeling of painted surfaces. The shallow soil near the existing or historic locations of wood -framed structures on -site could also be impacted by pesticides historically used to control termites.

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. (New Potentially Significant Impact)

To reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented prior to the beginning of grading, trenching, and excavation on-site.

Mitigation Measure
MM HAZ-1.1: Additional Soil Sampling: After demolition of the existing improvements on-site, but p rior 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 existing 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 oversight 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.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 91 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
The project would implement COA HAZ -1 to survey for ACMs and lead -based paint and dispose of them appropriately. In addition, the project would implement mitigation measure MM HAZ -1.1 to determine whether shallow soil on-site has been impacted by lead and/or pesticides historically used to control termites and prepare and implement under regulatory oversight a Health and Safety Plan and Soil Management Plan to remediate conditions on-site, if needed. Therefore, the project would not create significant hazar d to the public, including construction workers, or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)

c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

The project is not within one -quarter mile of a school. The closest school s are the German International School of Silicon Valley and the Yew Chung International School of Silicon Valley, which are approximately 0.45 miles to the south east of the site . Therefore, the project would not emit hazardous emissions within one quarter mile of a school. (No Impact)

d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is not located on the Cortese List; therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to being included on the lists. (No Impact)

e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

Moffett Federal Airfield is approximately one mile east of the project site. The project is within the Airfield’s AIA and the Airfield’s mapped Part 77 182 -foot amsl horizontal surface. Based on the project’s location, any obstruction (permanent or temporary) exceeding 140 feet above grade would require FAA review. T he maximum height o f the rowhomes would be 39 feet, which would not require notification and review by the FAA to determine potential aviation hazard. Additionally, construction equipment is not expected to exceed 140 feet. Compliance with FAA’s regulations would reduce aviation hazards to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 92 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

The City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan outlines the City’s emergency response procedures in the event of natural disasters. The proposed project would not alter evacuation routes and would not result in closure, rerouting, or substantial alteration of streets or property access points during or after construction. Construction would occur within the project s ite. The proposed project would not interfere with an adopted Mountain View emergency response or evacuation plan because the project would incorporate rele vant fire code requirements and would not interfere with specified evacuation or emergency routes. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans. (Less than Significant Impact)

g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

The project site is within a developed area of the City. As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is not located in a very high severity zone or the WUI. For these reasons, the project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires. (No Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 93 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Hydrology and Water Quality

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality in California. Regulations set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. EPA regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project site is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB

Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, the SWRCB and RWQCBs are required to identify impaired surface water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for contaminants of concern. The list of the state’s identified impaired surface water bodies, known as the “303(d) list” can be found on the on the SWRCB’s website. 81 National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce impacts of flooding on private and public properties. The program provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations protecting development in floodplains. As part of the program, FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). An SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the one-percent annual chance flood, which is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood.

Statewide Construction General Permit
The SWRCB has implemented an NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California (Construction General Permit). For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared by a qualified professional prior to commencement of construction and filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor. The Construction General Permit includes requirements for training, inspection s, record keeping, and, for projects of certain risk levels, monitoring. The general purpose of the requirements is to minimize the discharge of pollutants and to protect beneficial uses and receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction-related storm water discharges.

81 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_2022_integrated_report.html.

4.10 4.10 .1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 94 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Regional and Local
San Francisco Bay Basin Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates water quality in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements, including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. The Basin Plan also describes watershed management programs and water quality attainment strategies.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB re-issued the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) in May 2022 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies (co -permittees) in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo.
82 Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, new and redevelopment projects that create or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID) -based stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. LID -based treatment controls are intended to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions, maximizing opportunities for infiltration and evapotranspiration, and using stormwater as a resource (e.g., rainwater harvesting for non -potable uses). The MRP also requires that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained.

In addition to water quality controls, the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface to manage development- related increases in peak runoff flow, volume, and duration, where such h ydromodification is likely to cause increased erosion, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to local rivers, streams, and creeks. Projects may be deemed exempt from these requirements if: (1) the post-project impervious surface area is less than, or the same as, the pre -project impervious surface area; (2) the project is located in a catchment that drains to a hardened (e.g., continuously lined with concrete) engineered channel or channels or enclosed pipes, which extend continuously to the Bay, Delta, or flowcontrolled reservoir, or, in a catchment that drains to channels that are tidally influenced; or (3) the project is located in a catchment or subwatershed that is highly developed (i.e., that is 70 percent or more impervious).
83 82 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. 83 The Hydromodification Applicability Maps developed the permittees under Order No. R2-2009-0074 were prepared using this standard, adjusted to 65 percent imperviousness to account for the presence of vegetation on the photographic references used to determine imperviousness. Thus, the maps for Order No. R2-2009-0074 are accepted as meeting the 70 percent requirement.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 95 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Provision C.12.f of the MRP requires co-permittee agencies to implement a control program for PCBs that reduces PCB loads by a specified amount during the term of the permit, thereby making substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff PCBs wastel oad allocation in the Basin Plan by March 2030.84 Programs must include focused implementation of PCB control measures, such as source control, treatment control, and pollution prevention strategies. Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are updating their demolition permit processes to incorporate the management of PCBs in demolition building materials to ensure PCBs are not discharged to storm drains during demolition.

Buildings constructed between 195 0 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Single-family residential and wood frame structures are exempt.

2021 Groundwater Management Plan

The 2021 Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) describes the Valley Water’s comprehensive groundwater management framework, including existing and potential actions to achieve basin sustainability goals and ensure continued sustainable groundwater management. The GWMP covers the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins, which are located entirely in Santa Clara County. Valley Water manages a diverse water supply portfolio, with sources including groundwater, local surface water, imported water, and recycled water. About half of the county’s water supply comes from local sources and the other half comes from imported sources. Imported water includes the District’s State Water Project and Central Valley contract supplies and supplies delivered by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to cities in northern Santa Clara County. Local sources include natural groundwater recharge and surface water supplies. A small portion of the county’s water supply is recycled water.

L
ocal groundwater resources make up the foundation of the county’s water supply, but they need to be augmented by the District’s comprehensive water supply management activities to reliably meet the county’s needs. These include the managed recharge of imported and local surface water and in- lie
u groundwater recharge through the provision of treated surface water and raw water, acquisition of supplemental water supplies, and water conservation and recycling.85

84 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. 85 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2021.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 96 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to hydrology and water quality impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the project.

Mountain View Municipal Code
Chapter 8 (Buildings) of the Municipal Code includes the currently adopted Green Building Code , which details the stormwater management best management practices and regulations required by the City. Chapter 35 (Water, Sewage, and other Municipal Services) of the Municipal Code outlines the City policies surrounding water infrastructure, including requirements for the discharge of stormwater into the City’s stormwater infrastructure.

Existing Conditions
Stormwater Drainage
The municipal storm drain system serving the project site consists of storm drain inlets, conveyance pipes, culverts, channels and retention basins operated by the City of Mountain View Public Works Department. Drainage into the City system generally flows south to north towards San Francisco Bay.

The project site consists of 42,077 square feet (or 56 percent) of impervious area which is comprised of surface parking areas and rooftops and 32,708 square feet (or 44 percent) of pervious area which is comprised of landscaping and other permeable surfaces . Runoff from the site flows into 30 -inch storm drain lines in San Leandro Avenue.

Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as nonpoint source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and Policy Description
INC-8.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Comply with requirements in the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (MRP).

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

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

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

4.10.1.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 97 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.

While there are no streams, creeks, ponds, or other surface water bodies located within the project site, Stevens Creek is located approximately 395 east of the project site. Stevens Creek is on the 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list due to diazinon pollution, total toxicity levels, the water temperature in the creek, and solid waste pollution.

Groundwater
The City of Mountain View is located within the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin 2-9.02).86 Hydrologically, the groundwater basin is separated into recharge and confined zones. Geological conditions in the recharge areas allow precipitation, stream flow, and water diverted into percolation areas to recharge the deeper aquifers. The confined zone s include areas of the valley where low permeability clays and silts overlie the major groundwater aquifers which impedes the vertical flow of groundwater into the deeper aquifers. The City of Mountain View, including the project site, lies entirely within the area of the confined zone.87

Groundwater was measured on-site at depths between nine to 16 feet bgs.88

Flooding
The project site is located within Flood Zone X, which is not a Special Flood Zone Hazard Area and has a reduced flood risk due to a levee .89 Flood Zone X is an area determined to be outside the one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplains, indicative of a minimal flood hazard.

Seiches and Tsunamis
A seiche is the oscillation of a body of water, typically caused by changes in atmospheric pressure, strong winds, earthquakes, tsunamis, or tidal movements. Seiches occur most frequently in enclosed or semi -enclosed basins such as lakes, bays, or harbors. There are no enclosed or semi -enclosed bodies of water near the project site. The project site is not close enough to San Francisco Bay to be affected in the event of a tsunami.
90 86 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. 87 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan. Accessed February 28, 2025. https://s3.us-west-

2.amazonaws.com/assets.valleywater.org/2021_GWMP_web_version.pdf. 88 Quantum Geotechnical Inc. Preliminary Geotechnical Feasibility Assessment. December 11, 2023. 89 Federal 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%20san%20jose%2C%20ca. 90 Association of Bay Area Governments. “Tsunami & Additional Hazards.” Accessed February 28, 2025. Available at:
https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/data-research/tsunami-additional-hazards

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 98 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025

4.10.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:

- result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;

- substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;

- create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff;
or

- impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?

e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
cg]
cg]
cg]
cg]
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 99 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?

Construction
Construction of the proposed project would involve demolition, excavation, grading, and paving of the project site, which could result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. These construction activities could increase erosion and sedimentation once the disturbed soil is exposed to water and wind. This would increase the potential for soil, sediment, and pollutants to be carried by runoff into local waterways and the San Francisco Bay.

The project would disturb over one acre, so it would be required to comply with the State of California General Construction Permit and submit a SWPPP and NOI to the SWRCB. Compliance with the General Construction Permit would ensure that all BMPs related to stormwater pollution prevention for construction projects are implemented. The project is also required to comply with the MRP Provision C.12.f and submit a PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package consistent with the City’s Environmental Protection requirements, which require applicants to screen the buildings proposed for demolition to determine whether it is appropriate to conduct additional testing on building materials.91 The project would also implement the following City standard conditions of approval.

City Standard Conditions of Approval:

COA HYD-1: State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit: A “Notice of Intent” and “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” shall be prepared for construction projects disturbing one (1) acre or more of land. Proof of coverage under the State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit shall be attached to the building plans.

Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan: The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls to be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan shall include installation of the following items where appropriate: (a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter fabric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel dri veways at points of egress from the site; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high -erosion areas. The plan shall also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning.

91 City of Mountain View. “Environmental Protection.” Accessed February 28, 2025. https://www.mountainview.gov/our- city/departments/fire/fire-and-environmental-protection-division/environmental-protection.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 100 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Construction Best Management Practices: All construction projects shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, polluted water, and sediments to the storm drain system.

High-Erosion Storage Areas: High-erosion areas (areas paved with loose sand/gravel, areas used for storage of high -sediment-producing materials, such as rock or sand, or areas designated for high traffic or heavy equipment traffic) shall be designed to prevent the run-on of stormwater and runoff of spills by one of the following: (a) covering the area and either sloping the area inward (negative slope) or providing a berm or curb around its perimeter; or (b) retrofitting the area with a treatment system to intercept and remove sediments from storm drain runoff.

With implementation of COA HYD- 1, the project would reduce construction impacts to a less than significant level by implementing a plan to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events, implementing best management practices to prevent the release of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, polluted water, and sediments to the storm drain system , and implementing measures to limit erosion from storage areas during project construction. (Less than Significant Impact)

Post-Construction
The project would replace more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces and would be required to comply with the MRP, consistent with General Plan Policy INC 8.2. 92 The MRP requires regulated
projects to include LID practices, such as pollutant source control measures and stormwater treatment features aimed at maintaining or restor ing the site’s natural hydrologic functions.

Development of the project, in compliance with existing regulations and best management practices (including the MRP and Municipal Code), would reduce water quality impacts.

In addition, the project would be required to include the following measures, based on RWQCB requirements, to reduce stormwater runoff impacts from project implementation.

City Standard Condition of Approval:

COA HYD-2: Stormwater Treatment (C.3): This project will create or replace more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of impervious surface; therefore, stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the City’s guidance document entitled, “Stormwate r Quality Guidelines for Development Projects.” Runoff from portions of the public right of way (e.g., sidewalks, curb extensions, pavement replacement, and curb and gutter replacement in the street frontage) that are constructed or reconstructed as part of Regulated Projects will also need to be treated using Low-Impact Development

92 Policy INC-8.2: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Comply with requirements in the Municipal Regional Storm water NPDES Permit (MRP).

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 101 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
(LID) measures. The City’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select LID types of stormwater treatment controls; the types of projects that are exempt from this requirement; and the Infeasibility and Special Projects exemptions from the LID requirement.

The “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects” document requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing calculations of the treatment controls that will be installed. In clude three stamped and signed copies of the Final Stormwater Management Plan with the building plan submittal. The Stormwater Management Plan must include a stamped and signed certification by a qualified Engineer, stating that the Stormwater Management P lan complies with the City’s guidelines and the State NPDES Permit. Stormwater treatment controls required under this condition may be required to enter into a formal recorded Maintenance Agreement with the City.

Landscape Design: Landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. Examples include: (a) No steep slopes exceeding 10 percent; (b) Using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; (c) Installing plants with low water requirements; and (d) Installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones. Identify which practices shall be used in the building plan submittal.

Efficient Irrigation: Common areas shall employ efficient irrigation to avoid excess irrigation runoff. Examples include: (a) Setting irrigation timers to avoid runoff by splitting irrigations into several short cycles; (b) Employing multi- programmable irrigation controllers; (c) Employing rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after significant precipitation; (d) Use of drip irrigations for all planter areas which have a shrub density that would cause excessive spray interference of an overhead system; and (e) Use of flow reducers to mitigate broken heads next to sidewalks, streets and driveways. Identify which practices shall be used in the building plan submittal.

With the implementation of the City standard conditions of approval, which are based on RWQCB requirements, the project’s post-construction water quality impacts would be less than significant by treating surface runoff. (Less than Significant Impact)

b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Groundwater recharge occurs when surface water percolates through the soil to recharge groundwater aquifers. As shown in Table 4.10-1, the project site currently has 42,077 square feet of

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 102 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
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).

Table 4.10-1: Approximate Existing and Proposed Impervious/Pervious Surfaces Existing Proposed
Square footage Percent of site Square footage Percent of site Impervious Area 42,077 56 54,830 74
Pervious Area 32,708 44 18,880 26
Toal Area 74,785 100 73,710* 100
* The overall area of the site would be reduced with the project’s dedication of a five-foot-wide section of right-of-way to the City along the eastern property boundary, as described in Section 3.2.4.

As summarized in Table 4.10 -1 above, the project would increase the impervious area on-site to 54,830 square feet due to the addition of the new residences and associated hardscaping. Although the project would reduce the amount of surface water that is allowed to percolate on-site, the project site is not located in a recharge area as identified by the 2021 GWMP and is located entirely in a confined area of the aquifer.93 In addition, project would plant new landscaping, including new trees, shrubs, and groundcover to maximize the amount of surface water percolation on-site.

Excavation would occur at a maximum depth of eight feet bgs . Given the on -site depth of groundwater of between nine to 16 feet bgs , no dewatering would be required during construction activities. Based on the above discussion, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. (Less than Significant Impact)

c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows?

As discussed previously, there or no streams or rivers on-site. Therefore, the project would not affect the existing drainage pattern of any streams or rivers. The proposed project would comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP requirement to incorporate site design, source control, and LID -based stormwater treatment controls. The project would also comply with General Construction Permit requirements, City standard conditions of approval, and General Plan policies regarding stormwater management. To control the amount of stormwater runoff from the site, the project would include

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

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 103 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
1,685 square feet of silva cells and 160 square feet of bioretention facilities. Based on a review of the project design by the City’s Public Works Department, t here 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 . As a result, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation, flooding, or additional sources of polluted runoff. (Less than Significant Impact)

d) Would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones?

The proposed residential project would not use or store substantial quantities of hazardous materials on-site. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area or located in an area that is subject to flood risks associated with tsunamis or seiches, as discussed in Section 4.10.1.2 Existing Conditions. For these reasons, the project would not risk release of substantial pollutants due to inundation. (Less than Significant Impact)

e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

The San Francisco Basin Plan provides a framework for state and local governments to meet water quality objectives and criteria to protect the beneficial uses of local aquifers, streams, marshes, and San Francisco Bay. Consistent with the San Francisco Basin Plan, the proposed project would comply with the MRP requirement to install LID treatment controls to treat stormwater runoff . The project would also implement the City standard conditions of approval COA HYD -1 and COA HYD -2.

Additionally, the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies as discussed under checklist question b). Therefore, the project would not conflict with water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 104 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Land Use and Planning

4.11.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Regional and Local
Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP, adopted by the Santa Clara County ALUC, is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport, as well as aircraft occupants.94 The CLUP is also intended to ensure that surrounding new land uses do not affect airfield operations.

The CLUP identifies the Airfield’s AIA. The AIA is a composite of areas surrounding the Airfield that are affected by noise, height, and safety considera tions. Within the AIA, the CLUP establishes a (1) noise restriction area, (2) height restriction area, and (3) safety restriction area.

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

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

LUD 3.2 Mix of land uses. Encourage a mix of land uses, housing types, retail and public amenities and public neighborhood open spaces accessible to the community.

LUD 3.4 Land use conflict. Minimize conflicts between different land uses.

Existing Conditions
The General Plan land use designation for the site is General Industrial, which allows for industrial uses including manufacturing and storage, R&D, administrative offices, and ancillary commercial. The project site currently is zoned as MM – General Industrial. The MM zone allows for manufacturing and processing, transportation and communication (e.g., public utility services), and services (e.g., data centers, storage, and warehousing) land uses.

The project site is comprised of two parcels. The southern parcel is developed with one office/research building. The northern parcel is developed with two single -family residential units, a detached garage, and two accessory structures. However, most of the northern parcel is undeveloped.

94 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan. November 2, 2016.

4.11 4.11.1.1

4.11.1.2 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 105 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025

4.11.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?

a) Would the project physically divide an established community?

A physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as a wall, roadway, or railroad tracks) or the removal of a means of access (such as a local roadway or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community or between communities.

The project would redevelop the site with higher intensity residential development. The project would not include the construction of features or remove means of access that would divide the community. Based on this discussion, development of the project would not physically divide an established community. (Less than Significant Impact)

b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

General Plan
The project would require a General Plan amendment to accommodate the proposed residential use on-site, as the current General Plan land use designation of General Industrial does not allow for residential uses. The project would be consistent with applica ble General Plan land use policies (specifically those identified in Section 4.11.1.1 Regulatory Framework) by intensifying development on a site located within half a mile of public transit service, proposing a use that is compatible with the existing mix of uses in the project area (residential and light industrial), and providing a mix of housing types in the area. (Less than Significant Impact)

Moffett Field CLUP
As discussed in Section 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is not located within the Moffett Federal Airfield safety zones or 65 dB noise contour. However, the project site is located within the Airfield’s AIA and mapped Part 77 182-foot amsl horizontal surface, which means any □
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 106 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
structure exceeding 140 feet in height above grade (given the project site’s existing elevation of 38 to 42 feet amsl) would require submittal to the FAA for airspace safety review. Since t he maximum building height of the project would be 39 feet and the project’s construction equipment (i.e., cranes) would not exceed 140 feet in height , the project would not require notification and review by the FAA to determine potential aviation hazard. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with airport operations at Moffett Federal Airfield and would be consistent with the adopted CLUP. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 107 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Mineral Resources

4.12.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted by the California legislature in 1975 to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. As mandated under SMARA, the State Geologist has designated mineral land classifications in order to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), after receiving classification information from the State Geologist, to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance.

Existing Conditions
According to the U.S. Geologic Service (USGS), the project site and the surrounding area do not contain any mineral resources or mineral resource production areas.95

4.12.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that will be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan?

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

4.12 4.12 .1.1

4.12.1.2 □
□
□
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 108 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state?

As discussed above in Section 4.12.1.2 Existing Conditions, there are no known mineral resources on- site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the residents in the state or region. (No Impact)

b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

The project site is not identified in the General Plan as containing any locally important mineral resources and no known mineral resources have previously been discovered on -site. The project, therefore, would not result in impacts to locally important mi neral resource recovery sites. (No Impact)

922-950
San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 109 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
N oise
The following discussion is based in part upon a Noise Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated April 14, 2025. The Noise Assessment is attached as Appendix F to this Initial Study.

4.13.1 Environmental Setting
B ackground Information
Noise
Factors that influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, includ e the actual level of sound, period of exposure, frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a decibel scale , which serves as an index of loudness. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA.

S
ince excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. Noise guidelines are generally expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, including L
eq, Ldn, or CNEL. 96 These descriptors are used to measure a location’s overall noise exposure, given that there are times when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from an airport or when a leaf blower is operating) and times when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on freeways or in the middle of the night). Lmax is the maximum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period.

Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Vibration amplitude can be quantified using Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. PPV has been routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne construction vibration. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 inches/second (in/sec) PPV. 96 Leq is a measurement of average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time . Day-Night Level (Ldn) is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring be tween 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) includes an additional five dB applied to noise occurring between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and Ldn are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq.

4.13 4.13.1.1

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 110 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Vibration Limits
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed vibration impact assessment criteria for evaluating vibration impacts associated with transit projects. The FTA has proposed vibration impact criteria based on maximum overall levels for a single event . The impact criteria for groundborne vibration are shown in Table 4.13-1 below. These criteria can be applied to development projects in jurisdictions that lack vibration impact standards.

Table 4.13-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria
Land Use Category
Vibration Impact Levels (VdB inch/sec)
Frequent
Event
Occasional
Events
Infrequent
Events

Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations
65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use 75 78 83 Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. September 2018.

State and Local
California Building Standards Code
The CBSC establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings housing people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartments, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources do not exceed 45 Ldn/CNEL in any habitable room. Exterior windows must have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 40 or Outdoor -Indoor Transmission Class (OITC ) of 30 when the property falls within the 65 dBA Ldn noise contour for a freeway or expressway, railroad, or industrial source.

Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP is intended to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport, as well as aircraft occupants. 97 The CLUP includes noise exposure
maps and guidelines intended to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. The CLUP identifies the AIA. The AIA is a composite of areas surrounding the Airfield that are

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

4.13 .1.2

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 111 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
affected by noise, height, and safety considerations. Within the AIA, the CLUP establishes a (1) noise restriction area, (2) height restriction area, and (3) safety restriction area. The Santa Clara County ALUC has jurisdiction over new land uses in the vicinity of airports, and establishes 65 dBA CNEL as the maximum allowable noise level considered compatible with residential uses. Recommendations made by the ALUC are advisory in nature to the local jurisdictions, not mandatory.

City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The purpose of the General Plan Noise Element is to guide policies for addressing exposure to current and projected noise sources in Mountain View. The Noise Element includes a land use compatibility section which outlines acceptable outdoor noise environment standards for land use categories, as shown below in Table 4.13-2. The following General Plan policies are intended to reduce noise impacts and would be applicable to the project.

Policy Description
NOI 1.1 Land Use Compatibility . Use the Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines as a guide for planning and development decisions.

NOI 1.2 Noise-sensitive land uses. Require new development of noise- sensitive land uses to incorporate measures into the project design to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to the following acceptable levels:
• New single-family developments shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA Ldn for exterior noise in private outdoor active use areas.
• New multi-family residential developments shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA L dn for private and community outdoor recreation use areas. Noise standards do not apply to private decks and balconies in multi-family residential developments. • Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dBA L dn in all new single -family and multi - family residential units.

Where new single-family and multi-family residential units would be exposed to intermittent noise from major transportation sources such as train or airport operations, new construction shall achieve an interior noise level of 65 dBA through measures such as site design or special construction materials. This standard shall apply to areas exposed to four or more major transportation noise events such as passing trains or aircraft flyovers per day.

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

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

NOI 1.5 Major roadways. Reduce the noise impacts from major arterials and freeways.

NOI 1.6 Sensitive uses. Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, schools, hospitals and child-care facilities.

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

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 112 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Table 4.13-2: General Plan Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines

ure In Decibels {CNEL)
Land U e Category D Le el In
Aesidenuat-Single-fam1ly.

Duple . obile Homes
Aesidentia ulli-Fam1Jy
Transient Lodging- otels,
Hotels
Schools. Libraries. Churches.

Hosoitals. ursmg Homes
Auditoriums. Concert Halls.

Amphitheaters. $parts enas.

Outdoor Soectator Soorts
Playgrounds. eighborhood
Palks
Golf Courses, Aiding Stables,
ter Recrea -on. Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and Professional
lndustnal. Manufactunng.

Utilities. riculture
- ORMALLY ACCEPTABLE
S5
Specified land use i satJs.f ory, based upon
the assumption tha any bu1ldi~s involved are
of nonn convenlJonal constructJon, thou 8ny
soecial noise insulation requirements.

CONDfflONALLY ACCEPTABLE
60 e constru on or development should be under­
aken only after a detai ed alySIS of the noise
reducuon requirements is made and needed 1101se
insulation features included in the desrgn.

Source: Stats of Caffarnia a-ra1 Plan Q/mlrnes, 2003.
6S 70 85
- ORM.ALLY UNACCEPTABLE
ew a>n ction or develOl)ITlent should be d,scour-
aged If construction or deve opmen does
proceed, a deta led analysis of lhe noise reduction
requirements must be made and needed noise
insulation features included m the design.
- CLEARLY UNACCEPrABLE
New construction or devetopmen clearly should no
be undertaken .

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 113 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Mountain View Municipal Code
The City of Mountain View addresses noise regulations and goals in the Zoning Ordinance of the Municipal Code. These regulations help protect the community from exposure to excessive noise and also specify how noise is measured and regulated. Noise is also regulated through project conditions of approval. The Mountain View Police Department and City Attorney’s office enforce noise violations.

Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residences), and/or when construction duration lasts over an extended period of time. Section 8.70 of the Municipal Code restricts the hours of construction activity to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays without written approval from the City. Construction activities are defined to include any physical activity on the construction site or in the project’s staging area, including the delivery of materials.

The City of Mountain View also identifies limits on noise from stationary equipment (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning mechanical systems, delivery truck idling, loading/unloading activities, recreation activities, and parking lot operatio ns) in Section 21.26 of the Code. The maximum allowable noise level is 55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM), unless it has been demonstrated that such operation will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of residents subjected to such noise, and the use has been granted a permit by the Zoning Administrator.

Existing Conditions
The existing noise environment at the project site results primarily from vehicular traffic along roadways and freeways ( particularly the SR 85 /US 101 interchange ), operational noise from the surrounding office buildings, and occasionally from aircraft associated with Moffett Federal Airfield.

The project site is located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the Moffett Federal Airfield.

The nearest sensitive receptors are the residential uses to the south of the project site.

A summary of the noise levels measured on-site are included in Table 4.13-3 and Table 4.13-4 below.

The noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 4.13-1 below.

4.13.1.3 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 114 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Table 4.13-3: Summary of Long-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) Noise Measurement Location Daytime Leq
Range
Nighttime Leq
Range
Average Noise
Level (Ldn)
LT-1: ~ 25 feet west of the San Leandro Avenue
centerline
57 to 61 46 to 60 62
LT-2: ~ 360 feet west of the San Leandro Avenue
centerline
61 to 66 54 to 65 64
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Arbor Square Project 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Noise Assessment. February 5, 2025.

Table 4.13-4: Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data (dBA) Noise Measurement Location Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq ST-1: ~ 55 feet west of the centerline of San Leandro
Avenue
72 62 54 53 51 55
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Arbor Square Project 922-950 San Leandro Avenue Noise Assessment. February 5, 2025.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue ResidenƟal Project
City of Mountain View
115IniƟal Study/MiƟgated NegaƟve DeclaraƟon
September 2025
San Leandro
Avenue
San Leandro Avenue
San Pablo Drive
San Carrizo
Way
San Rafael Avenue
Stevens Creek
Stevens Creek Trail
San Pablo Drive
San Carrizo
Way
San Rafael Avenue
Stevens Creek
Stev
ensCreekTrail
85 LT-1LT-1
ST-1ST-1
LT-2LT-2
0 25 150 200 300 Feet
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Dec. 17, 2024. Photo Date: Aug. 2023 Short-Term Noise Measurement Loca Ɵon
Long-Term Noise Measurement Loca Ɵon
Project Boundary
Boundaries of Proposed
Future City Park
NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS FIGURE 4.13-1
• •

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 116 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025

4.13.2 Impact Discussion

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?

c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Construction Noise
Project Construction
Noise impacts from construction depend on a variety of factors such as the noise generated by different pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise -sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise sensitive times of the day (e.g. early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas adjacent to noise- sensitive land uses, or when construction is done over extended periods of time.

Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving. It is estimated that the project would take a total of 12 months to complete. Construction materials would be staged on-site.

The project would comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance and the following standard conditions of approval to ensure potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

□
□
□
□
□
□
cg]
cg]
□
□
□

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 117 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
City Standard Condition of Approval:

COA NOI-1: Work Hours/Construction Site Signage: No work shall commence on the job site prior to 7:00 a.m. nor continue later than 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, nor shall any work be permitted on Saturday or Sunday or any holiday unless prior approval is granted by the Chief Building Official. The ge neral contractor, applicant, developer, or property owner shall erect a sign at all construction site entrances/exits to advise subcontractors and material suppliers of the working hours (see job card for s pecifics) and contact information, including an after - hours contact. Violation of this condition of approval may be subject to the penalties outlined in Section 8.70 of the MVCC and/or suspension of building permits.

Notice of Construction: The applicant shall notify neighbors within 750 feet of the project site of the construction schedule in writing, prior to construction. For multi-phased construction, separate notices may be required for each phase of construction. A copy of the notice and the mailing list shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of building permits.

Construction Noise Reduction: The following noise reduction measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby properties: (a) comply with manufacturer’s muffler requirements on all construction equipment engines; (b) turn off construction equipment when not in use, where applicable; (c) locate stationary equipment as far as practical from receiving properties; (d) use temporary sound barriers or sound c urtains around loud stationary equipment if the other noise reduction methods are not effective or possible; and (e) shroud or shield impact tools and use electric powered rather than diesel- powered construction equipment.

Disturbance Coordinator: The applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator (who may be an employee of the general contractor) will determine the cause of the compla int and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notifica tion sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. The sign must also list an emergency after -hours contact number for emergency personnel.

The project, with the implementation of City standard conditions of approval COA NOI-1, would result in less than significant construction noise impacts by notifying neighbors of the project construction schedule, designating a disturbance coordinator, working within the allowed construction hours, and implementing noise reduction measures. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 118 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Operational Noise
Traffic Noise
A significant noise impact would occur if traffic generated by the project would substantially increase noise levels at sensitive receivers in the vicinity. A substantial increase would occur if the noise level increase is three dBA Ldn or greater, as existing noise levels at the nearby residences in the area would exceed 60 dBA L dn. Generally, traffic volumes need to double to result in a perceptible (three dB) noise increase. As discussed in Section 4.17 Transportation, the project would result in a net increase of nine AM peak hour vehicle trips and 18 PM peak hour vehicle trips. The main source of traffic noise at the project site is from the proximate SR 85/US 101 interchange, and the number of trips generated by the project would not double traffic volumes traveling through that interchange . Therefore, the project-generated traffic would not increase ambient noise levels by three dBA L dn or more. For this reason, the project-generated traffic noise would result in a less than significant impact. (Less than Significant Impact)

Mechanical Equipment Noise
Residential rowhouse structures such as those proposed for the project typically include mechanical equipment such as air conditioning, heating systems, exhaust fans, etc. The proposed residential buildings would include mechanical systems (such as HVAC) on the rooftops of the building s. To comply with the City’s thresholds for mechanical equipment , the following standard condition of approval would be implemented.

City Standard Condition of Approval
COA NOI-2: Mechanical Equipment: The noise emitted by any mechanical equipment shall not exceed a level of 55 dB(A) during the day or 50 dB(A) during the night, 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM, when measured at any location on the adjoining residentially used property.

With implementation of the above City standard condition of approval, project mechanical equipment would not substantially increase noise levels in the project area. (Less than Significant Impact)

b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Construction activities associated with the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) are used. At this time, the exact equipment needed to construct the proposed project is unknown. However, the proposed project would not require pile driving, which can cause excessive vibration. The project would implement the below City standard condition of approval to reduce construction vibration impacts to a less than significant

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 119 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
level. As discussed under checklist question a) the project would generate temporary noise during construction which would not exceed the City’s noise thresholds with implementation of COA NOI-1.

City Standard Condition of Approval
COA NOI-3: Vibration Best Management Practices Construction Measures:

• Avoid impact pile driving and drill piles instead where possible. Drilled piles cause lower vibration levels where geological conditions permit their use. • Avoid using vibration rollers and tampers near sensitive areas. • In areas where project construction is anticipated to include vibration generating activities, vibration studies shall be conducted to determine the areas of impact and to present appropriate mitigation measures that may include the following:
o Identification of sites that would be exposed to project vibration compaction activities and could result in vibration impacts to structures;
o Develop a vibration monitoring and contingency plan;
o Construction contingency plan; and
o Conduct post -survey on structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage have been made.

With implementation of City standard condition of approval COA NOI -3, impacts related to groundborne vibration at adjacent structures would be reduced to a less than significant level by avoiding the use of pile driving, avoiding high vibration impact equipment near sensitive receptors, and preparing vibration studies, if needed. (Less than Significant Impact)

c) For a project locate d within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The project site is approximately one mile east of the Moffett Federal Airfield and it is located within the AIA; however, t he site is not located within the airfield’s 65 dBA noise contour area or airport safety zone. While aircraft flyovers from Moffett Federal Airfield would at times be audible at the outdoor use areas on the project site, the site is outside of the Airfield’s 65 dBA CNEL noise contour area. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or w orking in the project area to excessive noise levels. (Less than Significant Impact)

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 120 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025

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

The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City has policies (including General Plan Policies NOI 1.2, NOI 1.3, NOI, 1.4, NOI 1.5, and NOI 1.6 identified in Section

4.13.1.2 Regulatory Framework) that address existing noise conditions affecting a proposed project.

For additional details regarding the modeling, assumptions, and methodology used to prepare the Noise Assessment for the project, see Appendix F.

Future Exterior Noise Environment
As established by General Plan Policy NOI-1.2, exterior noise environments at private and community outdoor recreation use areas should be maintained at or below 65 dBA L dn to be considered acceptable by the City of Mountain View. The project would include a courtyard area that would be set back approximately 205 feet from the centerline of San Leandro Avenue and approximately 250 feet from the nearest southbound lane of SR 85 . Based on the modeling completed as part of the Noise Assessment prepare for the project, f uture exterior noise levels would be 58 dBA L dn at the center of the courtyard, which would be below the City’s acceptable exterior noise level objective.

Future Interior Noise Environment
General Plan Policy NOI 1.2 and the CBC’s interior noise level standard of 45 dBA L dn apply to the project. Interior noise levels would vary depending upon the design of the buildings (relative window area to wall area) and the selected construction materials and methods. Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA L
dn, forced-air mechanical ventilation systems are normally required. Where exterior noise levels exceed 70 dBA Ldn, special sound rated construction systems are normally required.

Assuming that windows are partially open at each building, future noise levels within Building A would be up to 54 dBA L
dn, up to 51 dBA Ldn within Building B, up to 49 dBA Ldn within Building C, and up to 48 dBA L dn within Building D (refer to Figure 3.2-1 for the building locations) . These interior noise would exceed the maximum interior noise levels allowed by the City of Mountain View and CBC. In order to reduce the estimated interior noise levels, the project would implement the following City standard conditions of approval:

City Standard Condition of Approval:

COA NOI-4: Interior Noise Levels. Construction drawings must confirm that measures have been taken to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB(A) L dn that shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to building permit submittal.

Site-Specific Building Acoustical Analysis. A qualified acoustical consultant will review final site plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to construction to calculate expected interior noise levels as required by State noise regulations.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 121 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Project-specific acoustical analyses are required by the California Building Code to confirm that the design results in interior noise levels reduced to 45 dB(A) Ldn or lower. The specific determination of what noise insulation treatments are necessary will be completed on a unit -by-unit basis. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, will be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Building sound insulation requirements will include the provision of forced -air mechanical ventilation for all residential units as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant, so that windows can be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise. Special building techniques (e.g., sound-rated windows and building facade treatments) will be implemented as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant to maintain interior noise levels at or below acceptable levels. These treatments will include, but are not limited to, sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated wall construction, acoustical caulking, protected ventilation openings, etc.

The Noise Assessment concluded that all of the buildings would require the inclusion of fresh air mechanical ventilation systems to allow occupants to keep windows closed to control noise. In addition, it recommended the following exterior window and door Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings to maintain interior noise levels at or below 45 dBA L dn at all residential interiors on-site:

• Townhome units in Building A would require sound-rated exterior windows with a minimum STC rating of 30 and exterior doors with a minimum STC rating of 26. • Townhome units in Building B, which would be partially shielded by Building A in addition to the existing highway barrier, would require sound-rated exterior windows with a minimum STC rating of 28 and exterior doors with a minimum STC rating of 26.

The Noise Assessment concluded that the remaining townhome units in Buildings C and D, which would be partially shielded by Buildings A and B in addition to the existing highway barrier, would meet the 45 dBA L
dn interior threshold with standard construction materials and forced-air mechanical ventilation. Consistent with the requirements COA NOI- 4, a qualified acoustical consultant would review the final construction drawings for the project to confirm that adequate measures have been included to maintain an interior noise level of 45 dB A Ldn within each unit on - site.

922-950 San Leandro Avenue Residential Project 122 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View September 2025
Population and Housing

4.14.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Housing-Element Law
State requirements mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as housing -element law. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is the state - mandated process to identify the total number of housing units (by affordability level) that each jurisdiction must accommodate in its housing element. California housing-element law requires cities to: 1) zone adequate lands to accommodate its RHNA; 2) produce an inventory of sites that can accommodate its share of the RHNA; 3) identify governmental and non-governmental constraints to residential development; 4) develop strategies and a work plan to mitigate or eliminate those constraints; and 5) adopt a housing element and update it on a regular basis.98 The City of Mountain View’s Housing Element and related land use policies were adopted om April 11, 2023.

Regional and Local
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 20 50 is a long-range plan for the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area that provides strategies that increase the availability of affordable housing, support a more equitable and efficient economy, improve the transportation network, and enhance the region’s environmental resilience.

Plan Bay Area 2050 promotes the development of a variety of housing types and densities within identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) . PDAs are a reas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified for housing and job growth.99

ABAG allocates regional housing needs to each city and county within the San Francisco Bay Area, based on statewide goals. These allocations are designed to lay the foundation for Plan Bay Area 2050’s long-term envisioned growth pattern for the region. ABAG also develops a series of forecasts and models to project the growth of population, housing units, and jobs in the Bay Area. ABAG, MTC, and local jurisdiction planning staff created the Forecasting and Modeling Report, which is a technical overview of the growth forecasts and land use models upon which Plan Bay Area 2050 is based.

98 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. 99 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2050 . October 21, 2021.