CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. P(3) (North Shoreline Boulevard Precise Plan)

Transcription

1 I. INTRODUCTION CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Mountain View Community Development Department 500 Castro Street P.O. Box 7540 Mountain View, California B. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Shapiro, Associate Planner Telephone: (650) C. Project Sponsor and Address: Jonathan Bergschneider Britannia Hacienda VIII, LLC 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 300 Long Beach, CA D. General Plan Designation and Zoning: General Plan: Zoning: Industrial Park P(3) (North Shoreline Boulevard Precise Plan) E. Project Description: The project site is currently developed as a private recreational facility for the use of employees of Shoreline Technology Park tenants (not publicly accessible). Brittania Hacienda VIII, LLC has submitted an application to the City of Mountain View to build a two-story, 70,000-square-foot life sciences/r&d building and associated 202-space surface parking lot. The existing baseball field and barbecue areas would be removed and graded, and the new building would be constructed in the northern portion of the site. The surface parking lot would be located on the southern portion of the project site, which also serves as a flood drainage overflow easement area, and a parking row would be constructed on the west side of the project area. Existing parking rows on the east and north would be reconfigured. The existing basketball court and sand volleyball court at the southeast corner of the project area would be retained. The following discretionary actions are requested for the proposed project: 1

2 Amendment to the North Shoreline Boulevard Precise Plan to allow for an increase in allowable Floor Area Ratio, an increase in maximum building coverage, and a decrease in minimum required open space. Planned Community Permit to allow for development of the proposed project and a minor parking exception; Development Review Permit for site plan and architectural review and approval; and Heritage Tree Removal Permit to allow removal of 12 heritage trees. G. Location of Project: The approximately 3-acre area of work is located on the south side of Stierlin Court within one of two parcels in the existing Shoreline Technology Park. The Shoreline Technology Park is in an urban area that borders North Shoreline Boulevard, which is a major north-south artery through the City of Mountain View, and the project site is approximately 500 feet east of North Shoreline Boulevard. II. MITIGATION MEASURES Implementation of the following mitigation measures shall reduce any potential environmental impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measure Air-1: The project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement all the BAAQMD s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, listed below: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. 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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. 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. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action 2

3 within 48 hours. The Air District s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measure Bio-1: Identification and mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. If impacts to potentially jurisdictional features and associated riparian vegetation cannot be avoided or minimized for construction of storm drainage structures, then the project applicant will obtain a qualified biologist to complete a wetland delineation in accordance with Corps guidelines and will obtain the appropriate permits/agreements, such as a Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB, a Section 404 wetland permit from the Corps, and/or a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG. Terms and conditions of these permits will likely include recontouring and revegetating temporarily disturbed portions of the wetland, and compensation for permanent impacts onsite with the same type of feature as the feature affected. Mitigation Measure Bio-2: Nesting Bird Avoidance. To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September through February, to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, pre-construction surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to these activities, to locate any active nests. These surveys shall be performed in the project area and surrounding 500 feet. If active nests are observed on either the project site or the surrounding area, the project applicant shall establish buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with California Department of Fish and Game (usually 100 feet for perching birds and 300 feet for raptors). If work during the nesting season stops for 14 days or more and then resumes, then nesting bird surveys shall be repeated, to ensure that no new birds have begun nesting in the area. Mitigation Measure Bio-3: Heritage Tree Avoidance. In order to ensure the survival of retained heritage trees, the following protection measures shall be implemented, subject to review and approval by the City as consistent with the City s Tree Ordinance: 1. A protective fence shall be provided during the construction period to project those trees that are to be preserved. The fencing shall protect a sufficient portion of the root zone to be effective. In most cases, it would be essential to locate the fencing a minimum radius distance of 10 times the trunk diameter in all directions from the trunk. If hardscape (i.e., curing, paving, etc.) exists inside the radius, the protective fencing is usually recommended to be erected at the edge of the hardscape feature. At the discretion of City Staff, a certified arborist may be retained by the applicant to make decisions about the location(s) of protective fencing at the project site. 2. Preserved heritage trees shall be irrigated throughout the entire construction period during the dry months (any month receiving less than one inch of rainfall). Irrigate a minimum of 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks. A soaker hose or a drip line is preferred for this purpose. 3. The entire area inside the driplines of preserved heritage trees shall be mulched to the extent feasible. Mulching consists of a protective material (wood chips, gravel) being spread over the root zone inside the dripline. The material shall be four inches in depth after 3

4 spreading, which shall be done by hand. Wood chips are preferred because they are organic and degrade naturally over time. Wood chips shall be primarily one quarter to threequarters of an inch in diameter. 4. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone TV cable, etc.) shall be located outside the driplines of preserved heritage trees, unless approved by a certified arborist. 5. Sidewalks or other hardscape inside the driplines of preserved heritage trees shall be constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade without excavation. Fill soil may be added to the edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distance of approximately 2 feet from the edges to integrate the new hardscape to the natural grade. 6. If any old irrigation lines, drain lines, sewer lines, or any other underground features exist inside the driplines of preserved heritage trees and would not be used, they shall be cut off approximately at soil grade and left in the ground. 7. Material shall not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of preserved heritage trees. 8. Excavated soil shall not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of preserved heritage trees. 9. Any pruning of preserved heritage trees shall be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards Landscape irrigation trenches shall be a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk diameter from the trunks of preserved heritage trees 11. The sprinkler irrigation shall not be designed to strike the trunks of preserved heritage trees. 12. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) shall not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. If any of the above 12 procedures cannot be achieved adequately, a certified arborist shall be consulted to recommend possible alternative solutions, if any. Any further recommendations and protection measures identified by the arborist shall be followed to reduce project-related impacts to heritage trees to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure Cul-1: Inadvertent 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 halt 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 toolmaking 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 4

5 archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. Mitigation Measure Cul-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are encountered during ground disturbing activities, State Health and Safety Code Section requires that no further disturbance will occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will then identify the person(s) thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will make recommendations for the treatment of any human remains. Mitigation Measure Geo-1: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation. The City of Mountain View shall require that the design level geotechnical investigation include recommendations to mitigate the potential for liquefaction in accordance with the specifications of CGS Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Recommendations made in the geotechnical report shall be implemented as part of the project. Mitigation Measure Hyd-1: Stormwater Flow Projection Study. The applicant shall prepare a design level stormwater flow projection study and a hydraulic capacity study, to be submitted to the City of Mountain View Public Works Department for review and verification that the existing stormwater infrastructure is properly sized. The studies shall show the new connecting points to the existing storm drain and model the estimated flows and peaking factors, as they relate to the changes in land use on the project site. The studies shall show that the reconfigured drainage pattern would not result in increased on or off-site erosion, siltation, or flooding. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing and financing new or upgraded infrastructure that is required to serve the proposed project. Mitigation Measure Noise-1: Construction Noise. The project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement the following mitigation measures: All construction vehicles and equipment, fixed and mobile, shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). Consistent with Section 8.23 of the City Code, all noise generating construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. No noise producing construction activities shall be performed on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays without prior written approval from the City. Construction staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from existing recreational uses so as to cause minimal disruption to these activities. Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, and the name and contact number for an appointed disturbance coordinator for the job site in the event of problems. 5

6 III. DETERMINATION In accordance with local procedures regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and on the basis of that study recommends the following determination: The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the implementation of the required mitigation measures, and therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required. The Initial Study incorporates all relevant information regarding potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required. IV. FINDINGS Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: A. As discussed in the preceding sections, the proposed project does not have the potential to significant degrade the quality of the environment, including effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate historic or prehistoric sites. B. As discussed in the preceding sections, both short-term and long-term environmental effects associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. C. When impacts associated with adoption of the proposed project are considered alone or in combination with other impacts, the project-related impacts are insignificant. D. The above discussions do not identify any substantial adverse impacts to people as a result of the proposed project. E. This determination reflects the independent judgment of the City. Rebecca Shapiro, Associate Planner Date 6

7 SHORELINE TECHNOLOGY PARK BUILDING 13 Initial Study Prepared for March 2011 City of Mountain View 225 Bush Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA Los Angeles Oakland Olympia Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills

8 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

9 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Project Description Environmental Checklist and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Aesthetics Agricultural and Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emission Data... A-1 Appendix B: Transportation Analysis Data... B-1 Shoreline Technology Park Building 13 i ESA /

10 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Special Status Species for the Mountain View USGS Quadrangle Table 2: Existing North Shoreline Boulevard Precise Plan Height and Bulk Provisions Table 3: Existing Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Table 4: Trip Generation Estimate Table 5: Existing Plus Project Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Table 6: Cumulative Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Table 7: Cumulative Plus Project Peak-Hour Intersection Levels of Service Table 8: Summary of Mitigation Measures Figure 1: Project Location... 3 Figure 2: Site Plan... 4 Figure 3: Illustrative Elevations... 5 Figure 4: Existing Roadways Figure 5: Trip Distribution Shoreline Technology Park Building 13 ii ESA /

11 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) INITIAL STUDY 1. Introduction This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental effects of construction of a life sciences research and development building and associated parking on a site located on the southern side of Stierlin Court within the existing Shoreline Technology Park. A more detailed description of the proposed project is provided in Project Description, below. A. Project Address and Title: Address: Stierlin Court, Mountain View, CA Title: Shoreline Technology Park Building 13 B. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Mountain View Community Development Department 500 Castro Street P.O. Box 7540 Mountain View, California C. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Shapiro, Associate Planner Telephone: (650) D. Project Sponsor s Names and Addresses: Jonathan Bergschneider Britannia Hacienda VIII, LLC 3760 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 300 Long Beach, CA E. General Plan Designation and Zoning: General Plan: Industrial Park Zoning: P(3) (North Shoreline Boulevard Precise Plan) F. Project Description: See below. G. Location of Project: See below. Shoreline Technology Park Building 13 1 ESA /

12 Project Description 2. Project Description Proposed Project Brittania Hacienda VIII, LLC (applicant) has submitted an application to the City of Mountain View to build a two-story, 70,000-square-foot life sciences building and associated surface parking lot on an approximately 3-acre area of work located on the south side of Stierlin Court within one of two parcels in the existing Shoreline Technology Park. The project site is currently developed as a private recreational facility for the use of employees of Shoreline Technology Park tenants (not publicly accessible). The project would require an amendment to the North Shoreline Boulevard Precise Plan to allow for an increase in allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), as well as increase in maximum building coverage and decrease in minimum required open space. Figure 1 identifies the project location, and Figure 2 provides the proposed site plan. Figure 3 shows elevations of the proposed building. The existing baseball field and barbecue areas would be removed and graded, and the new building would be constructed in the northern portion of the site. To allow for construction of the project, 12 heritage trees would be removed (of 99 total existing trees to be removed on or around the project site), and 65 trees would remain, including 13 heritage trees. The building would be an irregular rectangle and oriented parallel to Stierlin Court. The primary entrance would be located at the northwest corner of the building, and it would be fronted by an entry plaza. The building would be surrounded on four sides by sidewalks. Bike lockers would be incorporated into the landscaping on the north side, and bike racks and a handicapped-accessible raised outdoor dining area and entry patio would be incorporated on the south side. A service yard, loading dock, and mechanical equipment would be located at the southwest corner. The surface parking lot would be located on the southern portion of the project site, and a parking row would be constructed on the west side of the project area. Existing parking rows on the east and north would be reconfigured. The project would create approximately 202 new parking spaces, including seven handicapped-accessible spaces. Bioswales with native grasses and vegetation would be incorporated into the parking lot landscaping. The existing basketball court and sand volleyball court at the southeast corner of the project area would be retained. The existing multi-use path, directly south of the site, would not be altered by the proposed project. Site access would remain open. As under existing conditions, vehicular access to and from the project area would be provided via curb cuts at 2023 and 2025 Stierlin Court, respectively directly west and east of the project site. Also, the sidewalk along the western edge of the property line would continue to connect to the existing multi-use path directly south of the project site. Exterior lighting would be provided along pedestrian paths, in the parking lot, and under the canopy at the entrance. Accent lights would also be installed on the east side of the building. The site would be landscaped with Western Hackberry, Crape Myrtles, London Plane Trees, and Flowering Plums. The applicant expects to begin construction of the project in fall 2011, and it would be completed in Shoreline Technology Park Building 13 2 ESA /

13 Amphitheatre Pkwy Stierlin Ct Charleston Rd Project Site Rengstorff Ave N Shoreline Blvd Middlefield Rd Route 101 Stevens Crk Moffett Blvd Central Expy 0 2,200 Feet SOURCE:U.S. Census Bureau Shoreline Technology Park - Building 13. ESA # Figure 1 Project Location

14 SOURCE: HCP, 2011 Shoreline Technology Park - Building 13. ESA# Figure 2 Site Plan

15 SOURCE: HCP, 2010 Shoreline Technology Park - Building 13. ESA# Figure 3 Illustrative Elevations

16 Project Description Project Site and Vicinity Project Site The project site is located in the South Bay Area, in northeastern Mountain View. The irregular-shaped site area (see Figures 1 and 2) is located on the south side of Stierlin Court, between North Shoreline Boulevard and Stevens Creek. It is within an area known as Shoreline Technology Park. The project site composes a portion of APN , which is one of two parcels that compose the Shoreline Technology Park campus (Stone, 2010). Currently, the project site is occupied by a private recreational facility comprising a tennis court, barbecue area, baseball field, a full basketball court, and sand court used for volleyball. Access to the site is not controlled, but security throughout the outdoor areas of the campus is provided by on-site roaming guards. Both campus parcels, including the project area, are owned by the applicant. Site Vicinity Shoreline Technology Park is characterized by two-story buildings housing commercial, research and development offices and support services. Buildings are surrounded by landscaped surface parking lots. Directly southeast, east, north, and west of the project site are additional technology park and surface parking lot uses. To the south is a city-owned detention pond, which extends from North Shoreline Boulevard in the west to a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) corridor in the east. The technology campus is bordered to the east by the PG&E electric corridor, which runs adjacent to Stevens Creek. Office park technology buildings, a public recreational area, and surface parking lots are located to the north of the campus. The Shoreline Amphitheatre, associated parking lots, and Shoreline at Mountain View recreational area (including Vista Slope) are located to the northwest. Vacant land is located directly west, and additional office park uses are located to the south. Stierlin Court extends eastward from North Shoreline Boulevard at Amphitheatre Parkway. Amphitheatre Parkway is an east-west roadway that continues to Rengstorff Avenue, which is a major north-south roadway through Mountain View that provides access to major arterials, including U.S. Highway 101, Middlefield Road, the Central Expressway / Alma Street, and El Camino Real (State Route 82). North Shoreline Boulevard is a north-south roadway that continues to South Shoreline Boulevard. Together, these streets are a major roadway through Mountain View and provide access to major arterials. Regional access to the project site is provided by U.S. Highway 101, the West Valley Freeway (State Route 85), and the Central Expressway, which are about 0.75 miles south, 0.75 miles southeast, and 1.5 miles south of the project site, respectively. Approval Requirements The proposed project would require approval of an amendment to the North Shoreline Boulevard Precise Plan to increase maximum allowed floor area and building coverage, as well as to decrease minimum required open space area. It would also require Planned Community, Development Review and Heritage Tree Removal Permits. Shoreline Technology Park Building 13 6 ESA /

17 3. Environmental Checklist and Discussion of Environmental Effects This section includes the Environmental Checklist required by CEQA, an explanation of responses made to questions on the checklist, mitigation measures necessary to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, and a finding as to the significance of each potentially adverse impact after mitigation. 1. AESTHETICS Will the proposed project result in the following environmental effects? No Impact Less-Than- Impact Less-Than- Impact with Mitigation Potentially Impact 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. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion Comments to 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c: As shown in the photos below, the project site is currently occupied by a baseball field, barbecue area, basketball court, sand volleyball court, benches, and walking paths. Short-range publicly available views through the project site are limited by onsite structures, landscaping, and berms. Aside from the berms, the site itself is primarily flat, though there is decrease in elevation traveling southward from the barbecue area to the baseball field. The City of Mountain View CEQA Guidelines use both visual resources and architectural character as guidelines for determining whether a project would have a substantial demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. With respect to visual character, for a project to have significant visual impacts, the project must either block views of an aesthetic resource or be located in an area that is itself considered to be an aesthetic resource. The site contains only one architectural feature, a hexagonal pavilion in the barbecue area, which is not considered to have unique aesthetic qualities. Shoreline Technology Park Building 13 7 ESA /

18 View of project site looking from parking lot at Stierlin Court View of project site looking northward from multi-use path at detention pond The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) administers California s Scenic Highway Program, which was established by the California Legislature in Its purpose is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. The highways nearest to the proposed project (i.e., U.S. 101 and State Route (SR) 85) are not designated by Caltrans as scenic highways. The nearest scenic highway designated by Caltrans is SR 9 in Santa Clara County from the Santa Cruz County line to the Los Gatos City limit. Both are several miles from the project site. Because the proposed project is not near a designated scenic highway, it would have no effect on views from scenic highways. In addition, as stated in Section 7, there are no known historic architectural resources on the project site or in the general vicinity. The proposed project would not affect views of such resources. The project would be partially visible from Shoreline at Mountain View, as well as from Shoreline Vista Slope, although it would be substantially obscured by existing interceding buildings and vegetation. The site would also be visible from adjacent and nearby roads and publicly accessible parking lots. As required to the North Shoreline Boulevard Specific Plan, all parking areas would be screened by landscaping and planted within landscaped bioswales. This landscaping would be consistent with existing landscaping both on the project site and on nearby properties, as well as landscaping along Stierlin Court, and it would obscure views of the project site s parking lot and building from surrounding areas. Mechanical equipment on the roof would be screened from view and set back from the roofline to reduce its visibility. The proposed project would change the visual character of the site. In place of the existing uses, which present a predominantly natural landscaped character of the recreational uses, would be a two-story building and surface parking lot. The building façade would incorporate glass, aluminum mullions, concrete panels, corrugated metal panels, and cement plaster. The main entrance façade would be distinguished entirely by glass and aluminum mullions, which would allow for transparency between outdoor and indoor visual elements. The plaza fronting the main entrance would allow for a transition between the aesthetic characters of these spaces. As shown in the elevations in Figure 3, the proposed project would incorporate façade materials that Shoreline Technology Park Building 13 8 ESA /

19 complement existing development, while also distinguishing itself with unique visual elements. The new building would be comparable in height and bulk to the existing development surrounding the project site. The new spaces of the surface parking lot would be located in the southern portion of the site, thereby not directly visible from Stierlin Court or other locations to the north and northwest. Although the parking lot would present a visual change from the existing baseball field, it would be compatible with the landscaped surface parking lots adjacent to the east and west, as well as throughout the Shoreline Technology Park campus. The City s review process would ensure that the building architecture, site design and landscaping would result in a high-quality research and development office building and parking area that are compatible with existing development. Therefore, the project would have a lessthan-significant impact on scenic views, vistas, visual quality and character. Impact: Less than. No Mitigation Measures required. Comment to 1.d: According to the preliminary lighting and photometrics plan, exterior lighting would be provided for the parking lot, walking paths, at the main entrance beneath the canopy, and on the eastern façade at a secondary egress point. Parking lot luminaires would be cutoff and spaced a minimum of 128 feet apart to provide minimum foot-candles for safety. Project plans would be reviewed at the time development plans are submitted to the City for review. The City s review process would ensure that the project would be reviewed for light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. Also, site landscaping along the perimeter of the property would impede potential light and glare from traveling offsite. Therefore the proposed project would not create significant light and glare. For a discussion of lighting impacts to biological resources, please see Section 4. Cumulative Impacts: The proposed project would alter the cumulative visual quality at the site and the vicinity. The City s review process for the project, however, would require it to complement the existing site vicinity, including both the adjacent research and development office uses and nearby regional recreational resources. Therefore, the project would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution on the surrounding development s visual character. Impact: Less than. No Mitigation Measures required. Shoreline Technology Park Building 13 9 ESA /

20 2. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Will the proposed project result in the following environmental effects? No Impact Less Than Impact Less Than with Mitigation Potentially Impact 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 nonagricultural 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 the 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? Discussion Comment to 2.a and 2.b: The project site is not designated by either the General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance as agricultural. It is not designated as important farmland by the state (DOC, Shoreline Technology Park Building ESA /

21 2008). Thus, no significant agricultural resources or operations would be affected as a result of the proposed project. Impact: No Impact. No Mitigation Measures required. Comment to 2.c, 2.d, and 2.e: The project site is not zoned or designated for forestry or timberland uses. It is currently developed with outdoor recreational features. Therefore, there would be no impacts. For a discussion of impacts to heritage trees, please see Section 4 of this document. Impact: No Impact. No Mitigation Measures required. Cumulative Impacts: The project site is not designated as agricultural or forest land and would have no impact related to these criteria. Therefore, in combination with cumulative projects, impacts to agricultural and forest land would be less than significant. Shoreline Technology Park Building ESA /

22 3. AIR QUALITY Will the proposed project result in the following environmental effects? No Impact Less-Than- Impact Less-Than- Impact with Mitigation Potentially Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion Comment to 3.a: The project site is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards and as a nonattainment area for the state particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5) standards and federal fine particulate matter standard (PM-2.5). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District s (BAAQMD s) 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is the applicable Clean Air Plan that has been prepared to address ozone nonattainment issues. In addition, the 2010 CAP provides an integrated, multipollutant strategy to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. When a project is proposed in a city with a general plan that is consistent with the most recently adopted Clean Air Plan and if the project is consistent with the land use designation of the general plan, then the project is considered consistent with applicable air quality plans and policies. As stated in Section 10, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and Precise Plan land use designations for the project site (although it would require a Precise Plan amendment as part of its approvals to increase allowable floor area). In addition, the City s General Plan is consistent with the Clean Air Plan because data and projections from the General Plan are incorporated into the Clean Air Plan. The proposed project would not directly increase population, as discussed in Section 13, Population and Housing. Shoreline Technology Park Building ESA /

23 Development of the project would not generate a substantial increase in vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) in the region. As discussed later in response to Comment 3.b, criteria pollutants of concern and their precursors generated by motor vehicle travel in the region would be less than BAAQMD thresholds for significance. Consequently, the project would be considered consistent with the projections used to develop the 2010 Clean Air Plan planning projections as it would neither increase the population of the area nor substantially increase VMT. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to potential substantial conflicts with the region s air quality management plan. Impact: Less than. No Mitigation Measures required. Comment to 3.b: The project site is located in the City of Mountain View, within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area). The Bay Area experiences occasional violations of ozone and particulate matter (PM-10 and PM-2.5) standards. The proposed construction of a 70,000 square foot life science building would result in emissions during the construction phase of the project from construction equipment, construction worker vehicle trips, vendor vehicle trips and off-gassing of construction materials such as asphalt and architectural coatings. Once constructed, the project would generate emissions primarily through worker motor vehicle trips, but also through on-site combustion of natural gas and fuels for landscape maintenance equipment. Construction would involve use of equipment and materials that would emit ozone precursor emissions (i.e., reactive organic gases, or ROG, and nitrogen oxides, or NOx). Construction activities would also result in the emission of other criteria pollutants from equipment exhaust, construction-related vehicular activity and construction worker automobile trips. Emission levels for construction activities would vary depending on the number and type of equipment, duration of use, operation schedules, and the number of construction workers. Criteria pollutant emissions of ROG and NOx from these emission sources would incrementally add to the regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during project construction. The updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines adopted on June 2, 2010 (the 2010 Guidelines) establish significance thresholds for criteria construction emissions. These thresholds are 54 pounds per day of ROG, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and PM-2.5 and 82 pounds per day for PM-10. The thresholds for PM-10 and PM-2.5 are inclusive only of construction exhaust emissions. BAAQMD guidance for construction-related emission of fugitive dust identifies implementation of Best Management Practices as its threshold of significance. If Best Management Practices are not implemented, the impact is considered significant. The 2010 Guidelines describe Best Management Practices as the continuation of the approach developed in the BAAQMD s 1999 CEQA Guidelines, and, as such, this analysis considers them to consist of BAAQMD s list of eight Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects. Construction-related emissions from the proposed project were calculated using the Urban Land Use Emissions Model (URBEMIS2007) assuming a 70,000 square foot light-industrial building on a 3-acre lot. Construction was assumed to begin in fall of 2011 and be completed in Construction activities were divided into four phases: grading, building construction, trenching, Shoreline Technology Park Building ESA /

24 paving and application of architectural coatings. Building construction, trenching and paving phases were assumed to occur simultaneously. The URBEMIS2007 model indicates that peak daily project-related construction emissions would be 33.3 pounds per day of ROG, 27.4 pounds per day of NOx, 1.30 pounds per day of PM-2.5 exhaust and 1.41 pounds per day of PM-10 exhaust. These values are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds of 54 pounds per day of ROG, NOx and PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day of PM-10. These estimated construction emissions are maximum daily emissions. Annual average daily emissions to which thresholds are to be compared would be even less than these values. Therefore, with the implementation of BAAQMD s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, construction activities would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As stated above, without implementation these measures, which comprise Best Management Practices under this analysis, this impact would be considered significant. Operational emissions from the proposed project were also calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model and a daily vehicle trip generation estimate of 556 trips per day from Section 16, Transportation and Traffic. The URBEMIS model calculates emissions not only from vehicle trip generation but also from natural gas combustion and landscape maintenance equipment. Total project operational emissions including both mobile sources and area sources are estimated by the URBEMIS model to total 4.20 pounds per day of ROG, 4.52 pounds per day of NOx, 1.53 pounds per day of PM-2.5 and 8.04 pounds per day of PM-10. These values are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds of 54 pounds per day of ROG, NOx and PM-2.5 and 82 pounds per day of PM-10. Therefore operational emissions of the proposed project would be less than significant and would not result in a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing violation. Impact: Potentially (construction-related emissions). Mitigation Measures Required by This CEQA Review: Mitigation Measure Air-1: The project sponsor shall require construction contractors to implement all the BAAQMD s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, listed below: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. 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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. 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. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Shoreline Technology Park Building ESA /

25 airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Impact with Incorporated Mitigation Measures: Less than. No additional Mitigation Measures required. Comment to 3.c: The BAAQMD significance thresholds discussed in Comment to 3.b were developed to represent the levels at which a project s individual emissions of criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the air basin s air quality conditions (BAAQMD, 2010). Because project-related emissions would be below these thresholds, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a non-attainment pollutant or precursor. Impact: Less than. No Mitigation Measures required. Comment to 3.d: The proposed life sciences building would not be considered a sensitive receptor with respect to air quality (e.g., a residences, a school or child care facility). The proposed project would also not include a permitted stationary source of pollutant emissions, nor are there sensitive receptors located within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site. Therefore the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impact: Less than. No Mitigation Measures required. Comment to 3.e: The types of land use development that typically pose potentially significant odor problems include wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landfills, composting facilities and transfer stations. No such uses are proposed. The proposed structure is not intended to accommodate these sorts of uses; therefore the project would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Also, there are no existing odor sources in the vicinity of the project site to which future occupants of the project site would be subjected. Impact: No impact. No Mitigation Measures required. Cumulative Impacts: As discussed under Comment to 3.c. Impact: Less than. No Mitigation Measures required. Shoreline Technology Park Building ESA /

26 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Will the proposed project result in the following environmental effects? No Impact Less-Than- Impact Less-Than- Impact with Mitigation Potentially Impact 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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, or 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? Shoreline Technology Park Building ESA /