Agenda packet — Atherton City Council, September 18, 2024 (part 5 of 12)

Menlo College Site 1 Construction Defaults Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 Wildfire N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Flooding
Drought
Snowpack Reduction
Air Quality Degradation
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators
AQ-Ozone
—

10.6 13.0

47.8 50.6

33.8 60.2

25.5 29.4
—
AQ-PM
AQ-DPM
Drinking Water
Lead Risk Housing
Pesticides
Toxic Releases
Traffic
Effect Indicators
CleanUp Sites 88.6
36 / 40

Page 568 of 1727 ends

Menlo College Site 1 Construction Defaults Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 Groundwater 80.3

78.4 0.00

59.2 —
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators
Impaired Water Bodies
Solid Waste
Sensitive Population
Asthma 1.30

0.35 1.82
—
Cardio-vascular
Low Birth Weights
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators
Education 5.10

42.3 0.00

9.27 41.8
Housing
Linguistic
Poverty
Unemployment

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty
Employed

98.25484409

7.070447838

99.98716797
—
Median HI
Education
Bachelor's or higher
High school enrollment
Preschool enrollment
Transportation

98.84511741
100

87.03965097
—
37 / 40

Page 569 of 1727 ends

Menlo College Site 1 Construction Defaults Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 Auto Access 93.63531374
Active commuting
Social

72.88592326
—
2-parent households
Voting

41.76825356

82.36879251
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability
Park access

83.90863596

12.6780444

34.23585269

26.26716284

97.35660208
—
Retail density
Supermarket access
Tree canopy
Housing
Homeownership 96.29154369

96.54818427

59.66893366

90.94058771

96.93314513
—
Housing habitability
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden
Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden
Uncrowded housing
Health Outcomes
Insured adults 98.84511741
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions
High Blood Pressure
Cancer (excluding skin)
Asthma

95.8 0.0

0.0 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Diagnosed Diabetes

0.0 0.0

0.0 38 / 40

Page 570 of 1727 ends

Menlo College Site 1 Construction Defaults Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 Life Expectancy at Birth
Cognitively Disabled
Physically Disabled
Heart Attack ER Admissions
Mental Health Not Good
Chronic Kidney Disease
Obesity

94.9 84.2

68.4 99.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 Pedestrian Injuries
Physical Health Not Good
Stroke

87.3 0.0

0.0 Health Risk Behaviors
Binge Drinking
—

0.0 Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity
Climate Change Exposures
Wildfire Risk

0.0 —

0.0 SLR Inundation Area
Children

0.0 76.4
Elderly 8.4
English Speaking
Foreign-born

91.4 28.4

94.9 —
Outdoor Workers
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity
Impervious Surface Cover
Traffic Density

92.2 33.5

49.7 —
Traffic Access
Other Indices
39 / 40

Page 571 of 1727 ends

Menlo College Site 1 Construction Defaults Detailed Report, 12/21/2023 Hardship 0.2
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 78.1

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 4.00

99.0 No
Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)
Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No
No
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Characteristics: Utility Information
Construction: Trips and VMT
PCE in Atherton
HRA = 0.5 mile trip length for localized emissions.
40 / 40

Page 572 of 1727 ends

Attachment 2: Cumulative Screening Information

Page 573 of 1727 ends

BAAQMD RASTER Screening Data – El Camino Real Cancer Risk Impacts

Page 574 of 1727 ends

BAAQMD RASTER Screening Data – El Camino Real PM2.5 Concentration Impacts

Page 575 of 1727 ends

BAAQMD RASTER Screening Data – El Camino Real Hazard Index Impacts

Page 576 of 1727 ends

BAAQMD RASTER Screening Data – Railroad Cancer Risk Impacts

Page 577 of 1727 ends

BAAQMD RASTER Screening Data – Railroad PM2.5 Concentration Impacts

Page 578 of 1727 ends

BAAQMD RASTER Screening Data – Railroad Hazard Index Impacts

Page 579 of 1727 ends

Risk & Hazard Stationary Source Inquiry Form
This form is required when users request stationary source data from BAAQMD This form is to be used with the BAAQMD's Google Earth stationary source screening tables.

Click here for guidanceon coductingrisk & hazard screening,includingroadways& freeways,referto the District's Risk & Hazard Analysisflow chart.

Click here for District'sRecommendedMethodsfor Screeningand ModelingLocal Risks and Hazardsdocument.

Table A: RequesterContactInformation
For Air District assistance, the following steps must be completed:

Date of Request
Contact Name
10/3/2023
Jordyn Bauer Table A 1. Complete all the contact and project information requested in complete forms will not be processed. Please include a project site map.

2. Download and install the free program Google Earth, http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/, and then download the county specific Google Earth stationary source application files from the District's website, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning‐and‐Research/CEQA‐GUIDELINES/Tools‐and‐ Methodology.aspx. The small points on the map represent stationary sources permitted by the District (Map A on right). These permitted sources include diesel back‐up generators, gas stations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, auto spray booths, etc. Click on a point to view the source's Information Table, including the name, location, and preliminary estimated cancer risk, hazard index, and PM2.5 concentration.

Affiliation
Phone
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
707‐794‐0400 x106
[email protected]
Email m
Project Name
Address
City
3315 Sierra Road
3315 Sierra Road
San Jose

3. Find the project site in Google Earth by inputting the site's address in the Google Earth search box.

4. Identify stationary sources within at least a 1000ft radius of project site. Verify that the location of the source on the map matches with the source's address in the Information Table, by using the Google Earth address search box to confirm the source's address location. Please report any mapping errors to the District.

County Santa Clara

5. List the stationary source information in

6. Note that a small percentage of the station
ue section only.

Type (residential,
commercial, mixed
Table B
e Health Risk Screening Assessment (HRSA) data INSTEAD of screening level data. These sources will use, industrial, etc.) Residential
Project Size (# of
be noted by an asterisk next to the Plant Name (Map B on right). If HRSA values are presented, these values have already been modeled and cannot be adjusted further.
units or building
square feet) 7. Email this completed form to District staff. District staff will provide the most recent risk, hazard, and PM2.5 data that are available for the source(s). If this information or data are not available, source emissions data will be provided. Staff will respond to inquiries within three weeks. 25 Comments:

Note that a public records request received for the same stationary source information will cancel the processing of your SSIF request.

Submit forms, maps, and questions to Matthew Hanson at 415‐749‐8733, or [email protected]

Page 580 of 1727 ends

Table B: Google Earth data
Distance from
Receptor (feet) or
Distance
Adjustment Cancer Risk
Multiplier Estimate
Adjusted Adjusted
Hazard Adjusted
MEI Risk 1
Plant No. Facility Name Address Cancer Risk2 Hazard Risk2 PM2.52 Source No.3 Type of Source4 Fuel Code5Status/Comments PM2.5 0 California Water Service Compa120 Reservior Road
California Water Service

0.27 0.001 ‐‐ Gas Dispensing Facility 2021 Dataset 1.00 0.27 0.001 #VALUE!

1.00 1.00

1.00 9.63

4.18 0.51

0.02 0.01

0.01 7852
15362
Company 120 Reservior Road 9.63

4.18 0.02

0.001

0.01 0.01
No Data
Generator
2021 Dataset
George Roberts 2021 Dataset
Religious of Sacred Heart
Oakwood
260 Atherton Avenue 0.001
#VALUE! 0.001

0.02 0.01
19395 140 Valparaiso Ave 0.51 ‐‐ 0.001 Generator 2021 Dataset Sequoia Union High School
District
Linden Residence

0.41 1.00

1.00 9.98

0.001

0.01 19442
23128
555 Middlefield Road
87 Linden Avenue

24.35 0.001

0.04 ‐‐

0.03 ‐‐
Generator
Generator
2021 Dataset
2021 Dataset #VALUE! #VALUE!
#VALUE! #VALUE!
23631 Residence of Dr Joe Donahue 99 Linden Avenue
John B Rohrer ‐ Private

0.01 ‐‐ ‐‐ No Data 2021 Dataset

1.00 #VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
23730
23862
23926
Residence 12 Cowell Lane ‐‐

0.05 0.01
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐

0.06 ‐‐
Generator
No Data
Generator
2021 Dataset
2021 Dataset
2021 Dataset
130 Britton LLCI
142 Britton Avenue LLC
130 Britton Avenue
142 Britton Avenue

1.00 1.00

0.05 0.01
#VALUE! 0.06
#VALUE! #VALUE!

1.00 1.00

0.01 #VALUE! #VALUE!
#VALUE! #VALUE!
#VALUE! #VALUE!
24244
24280
Nevitt Magruder Residence
John Freund Atherton
Residence
124 Austin Avenue
86 Alejandra Avenue

0.01 ‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
Generator
Generator
2021 Dataset
2021 Dataset
#VALUE!

1.00 0.41

0.09 9.99
110721
201322
Marsh Road Shell
Pink Sunset
743 Marsh Rd
141 TUSCALOOSA AVE

0.09 24.37
‐‐

0.01 ‐‐

0.03 Gas Dispensing Facility
Generator
2021 Dataset
2021 Dataset 0.003 0.01
Footnotes:

1. Maximally exposed individual

2. These Cancer Risk, Hazard Index, and PM2.5 columns represent the values in the Google Earth Plant Information Table.

3. Each plant may have multiple permits and sources.

4. Permitted sources include diesel back‐up generators, gas stations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, auto spray booths, etc.

5. Fuel codes: 98 = diesel, 189 = Natural Gas.

6. If a Health Risk Screening Assessment (HRSA) was completed for the source, the application number will be listed here.

8. Engineer who completed the HRSA. For District purposes only.

9. All HRSA completed before 1/5/2010 need to be multiplied by an age sensitivity factor of 1.7.

10. The HRSA "Chronic Health" number represents the Hazard Index.

11. Further information about common sources:
a. Sources that only include diesel internal combustion engines can be adjusted using the BAAQMD's Diesel Multiplier worksheet. b. The risk from natural gas boilers used for space heating when <25 MM BTU/hr would have an estimated cancer risk of one in a million or less, and a chronic hazard index of 0.003 or c. BAAQMD Reg 11 Rule 16 required that all co‐residential (sharing a wall, floor, ceiling or is in the same building as a residential unit) dry cleaners cease use of perc on July 1, 2010.

Therefore, there is no cancer risk, hazard or PM2.5 concentrations from co‐residential dry cleaning businesses in the BAAQMD. d. Non co‐residential dry cleaners must phase out use of perc by Jan. 1, 2023. Therefore, the risk from these dry cleaners does not need to be factored in over a 70‐year period, but instead should reflect e. Gas stations can be adjusted using BAAQMD's Gas Station Distance Mulitplier worksheet. f. Unless otherwise noted, exempt sources are considered insignificant. See BAAQMD Reg 2 Rule 1 for a list of exempt sources. g. This spray booth is considered to be insignificant.

Date last updated:
03/13/2018

Page 581 of 1727 ends

Page 582 of 1727 ends

Page 583 of 1727 ends

Page 584 of 1727 ends

Page 585 of 1727 ends

Attachment 3: Project Construction Emissions and Health Risk Calculations

Page 586 of 1727 ends

Construction Health Risk Assessment and Calculations
Me nlo School Site 2, Atherton, CA
DPM Emissions and Modeling Emission Rate s - Unmitigated DPM
Modeled Emis s ion
Construction DPM Area DPM Emis s ions
(lb/hr) (g/s)
Area
(m2)
Rate
(g/s/m2) Year Activity (ton/year) Source

0.0128 CON_DPM
Construction Hours
(lb/yr)
2025 Construction 25.6 0.00779 9.81E-04 3,954 2.48E-07
hr/day = 9 (8am - 5pm)
days/yr =
hours/year =
365
3285
DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rate s - With Mitigation DPM
Modeled Emis s ion
Construction DPM Area DPM Emis s ions
(lb/hr) (g/s)
Area
(m2)
Rate
(g/s/m2) Year Activity (ton/year) Source

0.0015 CON_DPM
Construction Hours
(lb/yr)
2025 Construction 3.0 0.00092 1.16E-04 3,954 2.94E-08
hr/day = 9 (8am - 5pm)
days/yr =
hours/year =
365
3285

Page 587 of 1727 ends

Me nlo School Site 2, Atherton, CA
PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions for Modeling - Unmitigated PM2.5
Modeled Emis s ion
Construction Area PM2.5 Emis s ions Area
(m2)
Rate
g/s/m2

5.19E-08
Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s)
2025 Construction CON_FUG 0.0027 5.4 0.00163 2.05E-04
(8am - 5pm)
3,954
Construction Hours
hr/day =
days/yr =
hours/year =
9 365
3285
PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Construction Emissions for Modeling - With Mitigation PM2.5
Modeled Emis s ion
Construction Area PM2.5 Emis s ions Area
(m2)
Rate
g/s/m2

2.12E-08
Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s)
2025 Construction CON_FUG 0.0011 2.2 0.00067 8.39E-05
(8am - 5pm)
3,954
Construction Hours
hr/day =
days/yr =
hours/year =
9 365
3285
Me nlo School Site 2, Atherton, CA
- Construction Health Impact Summary
Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - Without Mitigation
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaus t
PM10/DPM
Fugitive
PM2.5
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Hazard
Index
Annual PM2.5
Emis s ions Concentration
Year (μg/m3
) (μg/m3)
Infant/Child

12.05 Adult (-) (μg/m3
)
2025 0.0678 0.0311 0.19 0.01 0.10
Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - With Mitigation
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaus t
PM10/DPM
Fugitive
PM2.5
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Hazard
Index
Annual PM2.5
Emis s ions Concentration
Year (μg/m3
) (μg/m3)
Infant/Child Adult (-) (μg/m3
)
2025 0.0080 0.0127 1.43 0.02 0.002 0.02
- Tier 4 final engines and BMPs as M itigation Measures.

Page 588 of 1727 ends

Menlo School Site 2, Atherton, CA - Construction Impacts - With Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose xASF xED/AT x FAH x1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair xDBR xA x(EF/365) x10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child
0 - 2
Adult
Age --> 3rdTrimester
Parameter
ASF =
2 - 16 16 - 30
10 1.10E+00
361
10 1.10E+00
1090
1 3

1.10E+00
572
1 1.10E+00
261
CPF =
DBR* =
A = 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
* 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Infant/Child- Exposure Information
Age
Infant/Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult
Cancer
Risk
Exposure
Duration
(years)
Cancer
Risk
(per million)

0.11 Modeled
DPMConc (ug/m3)
Age
Sensitivity
Maximum
Hazard Fugitive Total
Index PM2.5 PM2.5
Exposure
Year
0 DPMConc (ug/m3) Sensitivity
Age
-0.25 - 0*
0 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 3
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 6
6 - 7
Year
2025
2025
Annual Factor
10 10
10 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Year
2025
2025
Annual Factor (per million)

0.25 -
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

0.0080

0.0000

0.0080

0.0000

0.0000
-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8

1.32 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

0.02 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.02 0.002 0.01 0.02
7 - 8
9 8 - 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 9 - 10
10 - 11
11 - 12
12 - 13
13 - 14
14 - 15
15 - 16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
21-22
22-23
23-24
24-25
25-26
26-27
27-28
28-29
29-30
1 1
1 0.00

0.00 Total IncreasedCancer Risk 1.43
* Third trimester of pregnancy

Page 589 of 1727 ends

Menlo School Site 2, Atherton, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose xASF xED/AT x FAH x1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair xDBR xA x(EF/365) x10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child
0 - 2
Adult
Age --> 3rdTrimester
Parameter
ASF =
2 - 16 16 - 30
10 1.10E+00
361
10 1.10E+00
1090
1 3

0.92 11.13

0.00 Modeled
DPMConc (ug/m3)
Age
Sensitivity
Maximum
Exposure Hazard Fugitive
Year
0 DPMConc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Total
Age PM2.5
-0.25 - 0*
0 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 3
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 6
6 - 7
Year
2025
2025
Annual Factor
10 10
10 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Year
2025
2025
Annual Factor (per million)
-
Index PM2.5

0.25 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0.0678

0.0678

0.0000

0.0678

0.0000

0.0000
-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

0.19 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.19 0.01 0.03 0.10

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
7 - 8
9 8 - 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 9 - 10
10 - 11
11 - 12
12 - 13
13 - 14
14 - 15
15 - 16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
21-22
22-23
23-24
24-25
25-26
26-27
27-28
28-29
29-30

0.00 1 0.00
1 1

0.00 0.00
Total IncreasedCancer Risk 12.05
* Third trimester of pregnancy

Page 590 of 1727 ends

Me nlo College Site 1, Atherton, CA
DPM Emissions and Modeling Emission Rate s - Unmitigated DPM
Modeled Emis s ion
Construction DPM Area DPM Emis s ions
(lb/hr) (g/s)
Area
(m2)
Rate
(g/s/m2) Year Activity (ton/year) Source

0.0415 CON_DPM
Construction Hours
(lb/yr)
2025 Construction 83.0 0.02528 3.19E-03 5,267 6.05E-07
hr/day = 9 (8am - 5pm)
days/yr =
hours/year =
365
3285
DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rate s - With Mitigation DPM
Modeled Emis s ion
Construction DPM Area DPM Emis s ions
(lb/hr) (g/s)
Area
(m2)
Rate
(g/s/m2) Year Activity (ton/year) Source

0.0071 CON_DPM
Construction Hours
(lb/yr)
2025 Construction 14.3 0.00434 5.47E-04 5,267 1.04E-07
hr/day = 9 (8am - 5pm)
days/yr =
hours/year =
365
3285
Me nlo College Site 1, Atherton, CA
PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions for Modeling - Unmitigated PM2.5
Modeled Emis s ion
Construction Area PM2.5 Emis s ions Area
(m2)
Rate
g/s/m2

1.50E-07
Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s)
2025 Construction CON_FUG 0.0103 20.6 0.00627 7.90E-04
(8am - 5pm)
5,267
Construction Hours
hr/day =
days/yr =
hours/year =
9 365
3285
PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Construction Emissions for Modeling - With Mitigation PM2.5
Modeled Emis s ion
Construction Area PM2.5 Emis s ions Area
(m2)
Rate
g/s/m2

6.25E-08
Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s)
2025 Construction CON_FUG 0.0043 8.6 0.00261 3.29E-04
(8am - 5pm)
5,267
Construction Hours
hr/day =
days/yr =
hours/year =
9 365
3285

Page 591 of 1727 ends

Me nlo College Site 1, Atherton, CA
- Construction Health Impact Summary
Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - Without Mitigation
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaus t
PM10/DPM
Fugitive
PM2.5
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Hazard
Index
Annual PM2.5
Emis s ions Concentration
Year (μg/m3
) (μg/m3)
Infant/Child

33.73 Adult (-) (μg/m3
)
2025 0.1897 0.1001 0.54 0.04 0.29
Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - With Mitigation
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaus t
PM10/DPM
Fugitive
PM2.5
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Hazard
Index
Annual PM2.5
Emis s ions Concentration
Year (μg/m3
) (μg/m3)
Infant/Child Adult (-) (μg/m3
)
2025 0.0326 0.0417 5.80 0.09 0.01 0.07
- Tier 4 final engines and BMPs as M itigation Measures.

Page 592 of 1727 ends

Menlo College Site 1, Atherton, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose xASF xED/AT x FAH x1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair xDBR xA x(EF/365) x10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child
0 - 2
Adult
Age --> 3rdTrimester
Parameter
ASF =
2 - 16 16 - 30
10 1.10E+00
361
10 1.10E+00
1090
1 3

2.58 31.15

0.25 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0.1897

0.1897

0.0000

0.1897

0.0000

0.0000
-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

0.54 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.54 0.04 0.10 0.29

0.00 0.00

0.00 1 0.00
1 1

0.00 0.00
Total IncreasedCancer Risk 33.73
* Third trimester of pregnancy

Page 593 of 1727 ends

Menlo College Site 1, Atherton, CA - Construction Impacts - With Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Construction Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose xASF xED/AT x FAH x1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair xDBR xA x(EF/365) x10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/Child
0 - 2
Adult
Age --> 3rdTrimester
Parameter
ASF =
2 - 16 16 - 30
10 1.10E+00
361
10 1.10E+00
1090
1 3

0.44 Modeled
DPMConc (ug/m3)
Age
Sensitivity
Maximum
Hazard Fugitive Total
Index PM2.5 PM2.5
Exposure
Year
0 DPMConc (ug/m3) Sensitivity
Age
-0.25 - 0*
0 - 1
1 - 2
2 - 3
3 - 4
4 - 5
5 - 6
6 - 7
Year
2025
2025
Annual Factor
10 10
10 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Year
2025
2025
Annual Factor (per million)

0.25 -
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

0.0326

0.0000

0.0326

0.0000

0.0000
-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8

5.36 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1

0.09 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.09 0.007 0.04 0.07
7 - 8
9 8 - 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 9 - 10
10 - 11
11 - 12
12 - 13
13 - 14
14 - 15
15 - 16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
21-22
22-23
23-24
24-25
25-26
26-27
27-28
28-29
29-30
1 1
1 0.00

0.00 Total IncreasedCancer Risk 5.80
* Third trimester of pregnancy

Page 594 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Consultants

BIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS REPORT

TOWN OF ATHERTON GENERAL PLAN

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE PROJECT

ATHERTON, CALIFORNIA
November 30, 2023
Prepared for
M-Group
51 E Campbell Avenue #1247
Campbell, California 95009
Attention: Mr. Adam Petersen
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by
Monk & Associates, Inc.
1136 Saranap Avenue, Suite Q
Walnut Creek, California 94595
Contact: Mr. Mark Jasper
[email protected]
1136 Saranap Ave., Suite Q  Walnut Creek  California  94595 (925) 947-4867 Page 595 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1

2. SUBJECT PARCEL LOCATIONS AND SETTING.....................................................................1

3. ANALYSIS METHODS ..................................................................................................................4

4. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES.........................................................................................................4

4.1 Definitions................................................................................................................................4

5. CNDDB SEARCH AND DESKTOP REVIEW RESULTS...........................................................6

5.1 Potential Special-Status Plants on the Subject Parcels...........................................................6

5.1.1 CONGDON’S TARPLANT...........................................................................................................7

5.1.2 CRYSTAL SPRINGS LESSINGIA .................................................................................................7

5.1.3 SMALL-FLOWERED MONOLOPIA..............................................................................................7

5.1.4 WHITE-RAYED PENTACHAETA................................................................................................8

5.1.5 FRAGRANT FRITILLARY ...........................................................................................................8

5.1.6 SAN FRANCISCO COLLINSIA.....................................................................................................9

5.1.7 WESTERN LEATHERWOOD .......................................................................................................9

5.2 Potential Special-Status Animals on the Project Site .............................................................9

5.2.1 WESTERN BURROWING OWL..................................................................................................10

5.2.2 WHITE-TAILED KITE ..............................................................................................................10

5.2.3 PALLID BAT ............................................................................................................................11

5.2.4 SAN FRANCISO DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT..........................................................................12

5.2.5 NESTING BIRDS ......................................................................................................................12

6. STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS PERTINENT TO THE SUBJECT PARCELS .....13

6.1 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act .......................................................................................13

6.1.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT........................................................................13

6.2 California Fish and Game Code § 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513.......................................13

6.2.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................13

6.3 The Clean Water Act.............................................................................................................14

6.3.1 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............................................................................14

6.3.2 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............................................................................14

6.3.3 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................15

6.4 Town of Atherton Tree Ordinance........................................................................................15

6.4.1 HERITAGE TREES TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................19

7. RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................19

8. LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................................23 i

Page 596 of 1727 ends

Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California

FIGURES
(At Back of Report)
Figure 1. Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Regional Map Figure 2. Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Location Map Figure 3A and 3B. Aerial Photographs of the Subject Parcels, Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project
Figure 4A. Known CNDDB Records for Special-Status Plant Species Within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits
Figure 4B. Known CNDDB Records for Special-Status Wildlife Species Within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits
TABLES
(At Back of Report)
Table 1. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Table 2. Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits
ii Page 597 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California

1. INTRODUCTION
Monk & Associates, Inc. (M&A) has prepared this Biological Constraints Analysis Report discussing M&A’s search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for records of special status species within 5 miles of Atherton’s town limits as well as other biological resources and their associated constraints to development on the 25 parcels (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “subject parcels”) proposed for residential development or redevelopment as part of the Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project (“the project”) (Figures 1, 2, 3A, 3B).

Biological resources include common plant and animal species, and special-status plants and animals as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other resource organizations including the California Native Plant Society. Biological resources also include waters of the United States (U.S.) and State, as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW.

2. SUBJECT PARCEL LOCATIONS AND SETTING
The subject parcels are all within Atherton’s town limits (Figure 2). The Town of Atherton is an incorporated town in San Mateo County bounded by Redwood City on the north, Menlo Park on the east and south, and Woodside on the west. The Town has an area of approximately 3,600 acres or 5.6 square miles; 89% of which is residential, 5% parks and open space, and 6% public and private schools and municipal facilities. The Town has been primarily developed with lower density residential uses, with very few commercial or industrial uses.

For each of the 25 subject parcels proposed for future development, Table A below lists, for each subject parcel, the habitats visible on Google Earth aerial imagery, the potential for “heritage trees” to be present, and the biological constraints to proposed development. Tree inventories were only available for previous tree surveys conducted at MFO-8, V1, and V4. The other parcels were only reviewed using Google Earth aerial imagery for potential to have heritage trees onsite. Subject parcels with trees visible on aerial imagery may have heritage trees onsite, while parcels with no trees visible in aerial imagery are unlikely to have heritage trees.

Table A. Atherton Housing Element Update Subject Parcels Subject Parcel Habitats Housing
Element
Heritage
Trees
Biological
Constraints
Zoning Action Present?1
Developed, Municipal code Nesting bird
landscaped, ruderal amended site
herbaceous
and bat survey
23 Oakwood
MC Site 1
Likely
Developed Municipal code Possible, but
amended site unlikely
None
1 Based on review of Google Earth aerial imagery. Note that tree inventories were only available for MFO-8, V1 and V4.
1

Page 598 of 1727 ends

Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
Subject Parcel Habitats Housing
Element
Heritage
Trees
Biological
Constraints
Zoning Action Present?
Developed Municipal code Possible, but None
MC Site 2
MC Site 3
MFO-1
MFO-2
MFO-3
MFO-4
MFO-5
MFO-6
MFO-7
MFO-8
MFO-9
amended site
Municipal code Likely
amended site
unlikely
Developed,
landscaped
Developed,
landscaped
Developed,
landscaped
Developed,
landscaped
Developed,
landscaped
Developed,
landscaped
Developed,
landscaped
Developed,
landscaped
Developed,
landscaped
Developed
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Rare plant
Multi-family
housing site
Multi-family
housing site
Multi-family
housing site
Multi-family
housing site
Multi-family
housing site
Multi-family
housing site
Multi-family
housing site
Multi-family
housing site
Multi-family
housing site
Multi-family
housing site
Likely
Likely
Likely
Likely
Likely
Likely
Likely
13 Likely
Developed, annual Likely
grassland survey, nesting
bird and bat
survey,
Burrowing Owl
MFO-10 survey
Developed
Developed
Municipal code Likely
amended site
Municipal code Likely
amended site
Municipal code Likely
amended site
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Nesting bird
and bat survey
Rare plant
survey, nesting
bird and bat
survey
MS Site 1
MS Site 2
Sacred Heart
School
Developed,
landscaped
Landscaped
(planted trees),
annual herbaceous
Vacant site –
no zoning code
change
26 V1
V2
Developed,
landscaped
Vacant site –
no zoning code
change
Likely Nesting bird
and bat survey
2

Page 599 of 1727 ends

Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
Subject Parcel Habitats Housing
Element
Heritage
Trees
Biological
Constraints
Zoning Action Present?
Developed,
landscaped, ruderal no zoning code
herbaceous,
oak/hardwood
woodland
Vacant site – Likely Nesting bird
and bat survey,
change rare plant
survey
V3
V4
ruderal herbaceous, Vacant site – At least 4 Nesting bird and bat survey,
rare plant
survey,
woodrat
midden surveys
Nesting bird
and bat survey,
rare plant
survey,
woodrat
oak/hardwood
woodland
no zoning code
change
ruderal herbaceous, Vacant site – Likely
Likely
oak/hardwood
woodland
no zoning code
change
V5
V6
midden surveys
Nesting bird
and bat survey,
rare plant
ruderal herbaceous, Vacant site –
oak/hardwood
woodland
no zoning code
change
survey,
woodrat
midden surveys
Nesting bird
and bat survey,
rare plant
V7
V8
Developed, ruderal Vacant site – Likely
Likely
herbaceous,
fragmented mixed
oak/hardwood
forest
no zoning code
change
survey
Developed, ruderal Vacant site – Nesting bird
and bat survey,
rare plant
herbaceous,
cropland
no zoning code
change
survey
3

Page 600 of 1727 ends

Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California

3. ANALYSIS METHODS
Prior to preparing this Biological Constraints Report, M&A researched the most recent version of California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (RareFind 6 application) for records of special-status plants and wildlife within five miles of Atherton’s town limits (CNDDB 2021). The CNDDB is a database maintained by the CDFW that provides historic and recent records of special-status plant and animal species known from the state of California. M&A also searched the 2021 electronic version of the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2001) for records of special-status plants known in the vicinity of the subject parcels.

M&A reviewed all individual parcels subject to the Housing Element Update within the planning area on Google Earth and ESRI ArcMap to determine, visually, if there are or could be suitable habitats on any of the subject parcels that need further investigation (on the ground) and/or have constraints to development. All special-status species records were compiled in tables (Tables 1, 2). M&A examined all known record locations for special-status species to determine if specialstatus species could occur on any of the subject parcels or within an area of affect. The results of our literature research and desktop review are provided in the sections below.

4. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

4.1 Definitions
For purposes of this analysis, special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA and FESA, respectively) or other regulations, and species that are considered rare by the scientific community (for example, the CNPS). Special-status species are defined as:
• plants and animals that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.; 14 CCR §670.1 et seq.) or the FESA (50 CFR 17.12 for plants; 50 CFR 17.11 for animals; various notices in the Federal Register [FR] for proposed species);
• plants and animals that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA (50 CFR 17; FR Vol. 64, No. 205, pages 57533-57547, October 25, 1999); and under the CESA (California Fish and Game Code §2068); • plants and animals that meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened under the CEQA (14 CCR §15380) that may include species not found on either CESA or FESA lists;
• plants occurring on Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 of the CNPS’ electronic Inventory (CNPS 2001). The CDFW recognizes that Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B of the CNPS inventory contain plants that, in the majority of cases, would qualify for State listing, and the CDFW requests their inclusion in EIRs. Plants occurring on CNPS Ranks 3 and 4 are "plants about which more information is necessary," and "plants of limited distribution," respectively (CNPS 2001). Such plants may be included as special-status species on a 4

Page 601 of 1727 ends

Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
case by case basis due to local significance or recent biological information (more on CNPS Rank species below);
• migratory nongame birds of management concern listed by the USFWS (Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States: The list 1995; Office of Migratory Bird Management; Washington D.C.; Sept. 1995); • animals that are designated as "species of special concern" by the CDFW (2023); • animal species that are “fully protected” in California (Fish and Game Codes 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515).
• bat species that are designated on the Western Bat Working Group’s (WBWG) Regional Bat Species Priority Matrix as: “RED OR HIGH.” This priority is justified by the WBWG as follows: “Based on available information on distribution, status, ecology, and known threats, this designation should result in these bat species being considered the highest priority for funding, planning, and conservation actions. Information about status and threats to most species could result in effective conservation actions being implemented should a commitment to management exist. These species are imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment.”
In the paragraphs below we provide further definitions of legal status as they pertain to the special-status species discussed in this report or in the attached tables.

Federal Endangered or Threatened Species. A species listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA is protected from unauthorized “take” (that is, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) of that species. If it is necessary to take a federally-listed endangered or threatened species as part of an otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from the USFWS prior to initiating the take.

State Threatened Species. A species listed as threatened under the CESA (§2050 of California Fish and Game Code) is protected from unauthorized “take” (that is, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) of that species. If it is necessary to “take” a State-listed threatened species as part of an otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from the CDFW prior to initiating the “take.”
California Species of Special Concern. These are species in which their California breeding populations are seriously declining and extirpation from all or a portion of their range is possible.

This designation affords no legally mandated protection; however, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15380), some species of special concern could be considered “rare.” Pursuant to its rarity status, any unmitigated impacts to rare species could be considered a “significant effect on the environment” (§15382). Thus, species of special concern must be considered in any project that will, or is currently, undergoing CEQA review, and/or that must obtain an environmental permit(s) from a public agency. 5

Page 602 of 1727 ends

Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
CNPS Rank Species. The CNPS maintains an “Inventory” of special-status plant species. This inventory has four lists of plants with varying rarity. These lists are: Rank 1, Rank 2, Rank 3, and Rank 4. Although plants on these lists have no formal legal protection (unless they are also State or federally-listed species), the CDFW requests the inclusion of Rank 1 species in environmental documents. In addition, other State and local agencies may request the inclusion of species on other lists as well. The Rank 1 and 2 species are defined below:
•
•
•
•
Rank 1A: Presumed extinct in California;
Rank 1B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere; Rank 2B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

All of the plants constituting Rank 1B meet the definitions of Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (CESA) of the Fish and Game Code and are eligible for State listing (CNPS 2001). Rank 2 species are rare in California, but more common elsewhere. Ranks 3 and 4 contain species about which there is some concern and are reviewed by the CDFW and maintained on “watch lists.”
Additionally, in 2006, the CNPS updated their lists to include “threat code extensions” for each list. For example, Rank 1B species would now be categorized as Rank 1B.1, Rank 1B.2, or Rank 1B.3. These threat codes are defined as follows:
• .1 is considered “seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)”;
• .2 is “fairly endangered in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened)”; • .3 is “not very endangered in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known).”
Under the CEQA review process only CNPS Rank 1 and 2 species are considered since these are the only CNPS species that meet CEQA’s definition of “rare” or “endangered.” Impacts to Rank 3 and 4 species are not regarded as significant pursuant to CEQA.

Fully Protected Birds. Fully protected birds, such as the White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3511). Fully protected birds may not be “taken” or possessed (i.e., kept in captivity) at any time.

5. CNDDB SEARCH AND DESKTOP REVIEW RESULTS

5.1 Potential Special-Status Plants on the Subject Parcels Figure 4A provides a graphical illustration of the closest known records for special-status species within 5 miles of the Atherton town limits and helps readers visually understand the number of sensitive species that occur in the vicinity. No special-status plants have been mapped on or adjacent to any of the subject parcels. However, according to the CNPS’ Inventory and the CDFW’s CNDDB, a total of twenty-six (24) special-status plant species are known to occur within 5 miles of Atherton’s town limits (Table 1). Most of these plants occur in specialized habitats such serpentinite, chaparral, coastal dunes, vernal pools, and alkaline soil grasslands which are not present on any of these urban infill sites. Below is a discussion of special-status 6

Page 603 of 1727 ends

Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
plants that have potential to occur on one or more of the subject parcels. Please refer to Table 1 for information on the habitats these special-status plants are found in and the probability that each of these plants could be found on each of the subject parcels.

5.1.1 CONGDON’S TARPLANT
Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) is a CNPS Rank 1B.1 species. It has no state or federal status. This annual member of the sunflower family is found in alkaline soils in grassland habitats from 0 to 755 feet of elevation. It flowers from May through November. This species is severely threatened by development.

The only CNDDB occurrence (Occurrence #54) of this species within 5 miles of Atherton’s Town limits documents 17 plants observed in 2001 in a flat, ruderal grassland area roughly 4.2 miles northeast of subject parcel V1. The annual herbaceous/grassland habitats at 23 Oakwood Boulevard, MFO-10, V1, and V3-V8 could serve as suitable habitat for this species if alkaline soil conditions are present. However, this is very unlikely due to the lack of wetland conditions or aquatic habitats at any of these subject parcels. However, special status plant surveys should be conducted by a qualified botanist during this species’ blooming period (May through November) prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities on these parcels.

If this species is observed on any of these parcels, project development plans shall consider avoidance to the extent practicable. If avoidance is not practicable while otherwise obtaining the project’s objectives, then other suitable measures and mitigation shall be implemented. Please see this report’s Recommendations section below for details.

5.1.2 CRYSTAL SPRINGS LESSINGIA
Crystal Springs lessingia (Lessingia arachnoidea) is a CNPS Rank 1B.2 species. It has no state or federal status. This annual member of the sunflower family grows primarily in serpentine grasslands but has also been found along roadsides and in cismontane woodland and coastal scrub in elevations between 195 and 655 feet.

The only CNDDB occurrence (Occurrence #7) of this species within five miles of Atherton’s town limits documents an unknown number of plants observed in May 2001 just west of Edgewood County Park roughly 0.3 mile south of the junction of Edgewood Road and I-280.

The MFO-10 site is at roughly 185 feet of elevation but all the other subject parcels with annual grassland or woodland habitats are below 150 feet. Special status plant surveys should be conducted at MFO-10 by a qualified botanist during this species’ blooming period (July through October) prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities. If this plant is found and cannot be avoided by site development, then mitigation would need to be implemented. See the Recommendations section below for details.

5.1.3 SMALL-FLOWERED MONOLOPIA
Small-flowered monolopia (Monolopia gracilens) is a CNPS Rank 1B.2 species. It has no state or federal status. This annual herb of the sunflower family is found in serpentine grassland, open chaparral, and oak and coniferous woodlands in elevations between 330 and 3,935 feet. It flowers between March and July.
7

Page 604 of 1727 ends

Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
The nearest CNDDB occurrence (Occurrence #38) of this species within the last 30 years documents 11-50 plants observed in 2023 in serpentine chaparral with gravelly soils roughly 3.8 miles northwest of subject parcel MFO-10. The annual grassland habitat at MFO-10 could provide suitable habitat for this species; therefore, the presence of this plant cannot be dismissed without conducting special status plant surveys. Special status plant surveys should be conducted by a qualified botanist during this species’ blooming period (March through July) prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities on MFO-10. If this plant is found and cannot be avoided by site development, then mitigation would need to be implemented. See the Recommendations section below for details.

5.1.4 WHITE-RAYED PENTACHAETA
White-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora) is a federal and state listed endangered species. It is also a CNPS List 1B.1 species. This slender annual herb in the sunflower family is found in grassy or rocky areas in woodlands or grassland habitats, often in serpentine soils on elevations between 115 and 2,035 feet. It blooms from March through May.

The only CNDDB occurrence (Occurrence #1) of this species within five miles of Atherton’s Town limits documents a population originally observed in 1978 and last observed in 2004 in a rocky, bare area in serpentine soils roughly four miles northwest of subject parcel MFO-10. The annual grassland areas at MFO-10, V1, and V3-V8 could provide suitable habitat for this species if there are rocky exposed areas that are not choked by annual grasses. Special status plant surveys should be conducted by a qualified botanist during this species’ blooming period (March through May) prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities on these subject parcels to determine if this plant is present or absent. If this plant is found and cannot be avoided by site development, then mitigation would need to be implemented. See the Recommendations section below for details.

5.1.5 FRAGRANT FRITILLARY
Fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) is a CNPS Rank 1B.2 species. This plant has no federal or state status. This perennial member of the lily family is found in cismontane woodlands, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands, often in serpentine soils in elevations from 10 to 1,345 feet. Fragrant fritillary is an early bloomer, flowering between February and April. It is threatened by grazing, agriculture, urbanization, and non-native plants.

The nearest CNDDB occurrence (Occurrence #35) of this species documents 25 plants observed in 2015 in a serpentine annual grassland area roughly 2.2 miles northwest of subject parcel MFO-10. Though this species is typically found in serpentine soils, the annual grassland habitat on MFO-10, V1, and V3-V8 could provide marginally suitable habitat for this species. Special status plant surveys should be conducted by a qualified botanist during this species’ blooming period (February through April) prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities at these subject parcels to determine if this plant is present or absent. If this plant is found and cannot be avoided by site development, then mitigation would need to be implemented. See the Recommendations section below for details.
8

Page 605 of 1727 ends

Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California

5.1.6 SAN FRANCISCO COLLINSIA
San Francisco collinsia (Collinsia multicolor) is a CNPS List 1B.2 species. It has no federal or state status. This annual plant is found in moist, shady scrub and forest habitats, sometimes in serpentine soils. It blooms between March and May and is found in elevations ranging from 100 to 900 feet.

The nearest CNDDB occurrence (Occurrence #10) of this species documents roughly 300 plants observed in 2015 in mixed foothill woodland and broadleaf forest on a steep slope roughly 4.3 miles west of subject parcel MFO-10. Potentially suitable habitat for this species is present on the annual grassland areas on MFO-10, V1, and V3-V8; its presence cannot be dismissed without conducting formal special status plant surveys. Special status plant surveys should be conducted by a qualified botanist during this species’ blooming period (March through May) prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities at these subject parcels. If this plant is found and cannot be avoided by site development, then mitigation would need to be implemented. See the Recommendations section below for details.

5.1.7 WESTERN LEATHERWOOD
Western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis) is not a federally or California state listed species. It is a CNPS List 1B.2 species. This plant can be found in chaparral, cismontane woodlands, riparian woodlands, closed cone coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest, riparian forests, and broad-leafed upland forest (elevation 50-395 meters). The flowering period for this deciduous shrub is from January through April.

The nearest CNDDB occurrence (Occurrence #5) of this species documents 12-50 plants observed in 2020 in thin, rocky, moist soil between foothill woodland and chaparral habitat roughly 1.5 miles south of subject parcel MFO-10. The woodland/forest habitats on MFO-10 and parcels V3-V8 may provide suitable habitat for this species. Special status plant surveys should be conducted by a qualified botanist during this species’ blooming period (January through April) prior to the start of any ground disturbing activities on these subject parcels. If this plant is found and cannot be avoided by site development, then mitigation would need to be implemented. See the Recommendations section below for details.

5.2 Potential Special-Status Animals on the Project Site Figure 4B provides a graphical illustration of the closest known records for special-status wildlife species within 5 miles of Atherton’s town limits helps readers visually understand the number of sensitive species that occur in the vicinity of the subject parcels. No special-status animal records have ever been mapped on or adjacent to any of the subject parcels. However, a total of 30 special-status animal species are known to occur in the region of the project site (Table 2). Due to the dense residential development surrounding all of the subject parcels, only four species have any possibility of occurring on any of them: Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), White-tailed Kite (Elanus caeruleus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens). These species are discussed in further detail below.
9

Page 606 of 1727 ends

Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California

5.2.1 WESTERN BURROWING OWL
The Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) is a California species of special concern.” Its nest, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503, §3503.5 and §3513). The Burrowing Owl is also protected from direct take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13). Finally, based upon this species’ rarity status, any unmitigated impacts to rare species would be considered a “significant effect on the environment” pursuant to §21068 of the CEQA Statutes and §15382 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Thus, this owl species must be considered in any project that will, or is currently, undergoing CEQA review, and/or that must obtain an environmental permit(s) from a public agency. When these owls occur on project sites, typically, mitigation requirements are mandated in the conditions of project approval from the CEQA lead agency.

Burrowing Owl habitat is usually found in annual and perennial grasslands, characterized by low-growing vegetation. Often, the burrowing owl utilizes rodent burrows, typically ground squirrel burrows, for nesting and cover. They may also on occasion dig their own burrows or use man-made objects such as concrete culverts or rip-rap piles for cover. They exhibit high site fidelity, reusing burrows year after year. Occupancy of suitable Burrowing Owl habitat can be verified at a site by observation of these owls during the spring and summer months or, alternatively, its molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement (whitewash) at or near a burrow. Burrowing Owls typically are not observed in grasslands with tall vegetation or wooded areas because the vegetation obscures their ability to detect avian and terrestrial predators. Since Burrowing Owls spend most of their time sitting at the entrances of their burrows, grazed grasslands seem to be their preferred habitat because it allows them to view the world at 360 degrees without obstructions.

The nearest CNDDB record of this species (Occurrence #27) documents one adult observed in winter of 2000 and 2003 above a trail through the restored San Mateo landfill area in San Mateo Shoreline Park roughly three miles east of subject parcel MFO-10. The annual grassland habitat at the north end of MFO-10 could provide suitable wintering or breeding burrows for this species.

Based on records for Western Burrowing Owl in this area and the potential habitat found on subject parcel MFO-10, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls should be conducted prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. See the Recommendations section below for details.

5.2.2 WHITE-TAILED KITE
The White-tailed Kite (Elanus caeruleus) is a “Fully Protected” species under the California Fish and Game Code (§3511). Fully protected birds may not be “taken” or possessed (i.e., kept in captivity) at any time. It is also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR

10.13) and its eggs and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503, 3503.5). The White-tailed Kite is typically found foraging in grassland, marsh, or cultivated fields where there are dense-topped trees or shrubs for nesting and perching. They nest in a wide variety of trees of moderate height and sometimes in tall bushes, such as coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis). Native trees used are live and deciduous oaks (Quercus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), cottonwoods (Populus spp.), sycamores (Platanus spp.), maples (Acer spp.), toyon (Heteromeles 10 Page 607 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
arbutifolia), and Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa). Although the surrounding terrain may be semi-arid, kites often reside near water sources, where prey is more abundant. The particular characteristics of the nesting site do not appear to be as important as its proximity to a suitable food source. Kites primarily hunt small mammals, with California meadow voles accounting from between 50-100% of their diet (Shuford 1993).

The nearest CNDDB record (Occurrence #87) for this species is located approximately 4.0 miles northwest of the subject parcel MFO-3. This record is from 1971 and documents three nesting pairs observed in an area of coyote brush surrounded by salt marsh habitat. This species could be encountered on any of the subject parcels that have suitable nesting trees in proximity to food and water sources.

Prior to any tree removal or earthwork that would be conducted during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), M&A recommends that a nesting bird survey be conducted on any of the subject parcels within 15 days of the commencement of work. If active bird nests are identified, then mitigation would need to be implemented. See the Recommendations section below for details.

5.2.3 PALLID BAT
The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) is a California “species of special concern.” It has no federal status. The “species of special concern” status designation does not provide any special legally mandated protection for this bat species. However, this status designation likely meets the definition of “rare” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR §15380(2)(A)). As such, potential impacts to this bat species should be considered during any CEQA review. Any unmitigated impacts to this species would likely be regarded as a significant adverse impact pursuant to CEQA (§21068).

This bat is a locally common species of low elevations in California. It occurs throughout California except for the high Sierra Nevada from Shasta to Kern Counties, and the northwestern corner of the state from Del Norte and western Siskiyou counties to northern Mendocino County.

It occurs in a wide variety of habitats. It is most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Day roosts are in caves, crevices, mines, and occasionally in hollow trees and buildings. Roost must protect bats from high temperatures. Night roosts may be in more open sites such as porches and open buildings. Pallid bat is a social species that roosts in groups of 20 or more.

The closest known CNDDB record (Occurrence #297) for the pallid bat is from 1960 and documents one male adult collected in woodland habitat roughly 1.7 miles west of subject parcel MFO-10. As abandoned buildings and trees can provide suitable roosting habitat for this species, impacts to pallid bat cannot be ruled out. Preconstruction bat surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to development or building demolition on any of the subject parcels. If this species is found during preconstruction surveys, then mitigation would need to be implemented. See the Recommendations section below for details. 11 Page 608 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California

5.2.4 SAN FRANCISO DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT
Hooper (1938) described 11 subspecies of the dusky-footed woodrat. The San Francisco duskyfooted woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) is one of the 11 described subspecies. The duskyfooted woodrat is found in forested, wooded, and riparian habitats throughout much of California, the Willamette Valley of Western Oregon, and northern Baja California (Carraway and Verts 1991). In the San Francisco Bay Area, they have particular affinities with poison oak in riparian settings but are also frequently found in the South San Francisco Bay area high in California live oak canopies typically towards the outer branches (S. Lynch pers. observations).

Nests are typically constructed on or just off the ground in thick poison oak, willows, or other within other dense vegetation.

Dusky-footed woodrats are medium-sized rodents ranging from 200- 400g. The head and body length range from 7 3/5 to 9 inches (193-229 mm) long with a tail length of 6 4/5 to 8 2/3 inches (173-220 mm). The body coloring is brown/grey with white/grey underside and white/dusky coloring on feet. Dusky-footed woodrats have a hairy, brown tails with light undersides, and large ears (Burt and Grossenheider 1980).

Woodrats are, for the most part, generalist herbivores. They consume a wide variety of nuts and fruits, fungi, foliage, and some forbs (Linsdale and Tevis, Jr. 1951). Dusky-footed woodrats are sometimes called packrats attributable to their behavior of collecting bobbles, bottle caps, pieces of deflated shiny helium balloons, and other man-made objects. These artifacts are placed within their relatively large stick nests, some of which can last for twenty or more years.

The closest known CNDDB record for this species (Occurrence #21) is from 2016 and documents seven nesting adult woodrats captured and relocated in riparian and ruderal grassland habitat along a drainage channel roughly 3.4 miles south of subject parcel V6. The forest and woodland habitats on subject parcels V4, V5, and V6 could provide suitable nesting habitat for this rodent species. Preconstruction woodrat midden surveys should be conducted prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities or vegetation removal on subject parcels V4, V5, and V6. If this species is found during preconstruction surveys, then mitigation would need to be implemented. See the Recommendations section below for details.

5.2.5 NESTING BIRDS
Passerine birds (songbirds) and raptors (i.e., birds of prey), their active nests, eggs, and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503 and §3503.5). Thus, prior to any tree removal or earthwork that would be conducted during the nesting season (February 1 through September 1) that could disturb nesting birds (for example, ground vibrations from grading equipment will cause some birds to abandon their nests), M&A recommends that preconstruction nesting bird surveys be conducted within 7 days prior to any proposed ground disturbance (grading, paving, building demolition) or vegetation removal (including grubbing and brush clearing) on subject parcels requiring nesting bird surveys as indicated on Table A if this disturbance would occur between February 1st and September 1st (the nesting season).

If active bird nests are identified onsite during preconstruction surveys, then mitigation would need to be implemented. See the Recommendations section below for details. 12 Page 609 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California

6. STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS PERTINENT TO THE SUBJECT

PARCELS
There are many state and federal regulations in place that protect our waterways, native plants and wildlife, and endangered species. Those regulations relevant to the subject parcels and the proposed project are discussed below. There is not a discussion of the Federal or California Endangered Species Acts in this report because the subject parcels do not provide habitat for any federally- or state-listed species, as stated above.

6.1 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) makes it unlawful to “take” (kill, harm, harass, shoot, etc.) any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section

10.13, including their nests, eggs, or young. Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, wading birds, seabirds, and passerine birds (such as warblers, flycatchers, swallows, etc.).

6.1.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Raptors such as White-tailed Kite, Red-tailed Hawk, and Red-shouldered Hawk could nest on the subject parcels that still contain natural habitats. These raptors (birds of prey) would be protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Also, common songbirds that nest on man-made structures proposed for demolition or on the subject parcels with natural habitats would be protected pursuant to this Act. As long as there is no direct mortality of species (including their eggs or young) protected pursuant to this Act caused by development of any of the subject parcels, there should be no constraints to development. To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, preconstruction surveys would have to be conducted for nesting birds (including raptors) if any work is proposed on the subject parcels during the nesting season (February through August) and all active nest sites (nests with viable eggs or young) would have to be avoided while such birds were nesting. Upon completion of nesting, the work could commence as otherwise planned.

6.2 California Fish and Game Code § 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 California Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the “take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.” Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered “take.” Such a take would also violate federal law protecting migratory birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act).

All raptors (that is, hawks, eagles, owls) their nests, eggs, and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503.5). Additionally, “fully protected” birds, such as the white-tailed kite and golden eagle, are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3511). “Fully protected” birds may not be taken or possessed (that is, kept in captivity) at any time.

6.2.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Raptors that could be impacted by the project include White-tailed Kite, Red-tailed Hawk, and Red-shouldered Hawk. These raptors and many common passerine birds could nest on the subject parcels. If any tree removal or site work would happen between February 1 and 13 Page 610 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
September 1st, preconstruction surveys would have to be conducted for nesting birds (including raptors) to ensure that there is no direct take of these birds, or their eggs or active nests, as applicable, during the construction of the proposed project. Any active nests that are found during preconstruction surveys would have to be avoided by the proposed project. Suitable nondisturbance buffers would be established around nest sites until the nesting cycle is complete.

6.3 The Clean Water Act

6.3.1 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (33 U.S.C. §1251(a)). Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the disposal of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States” (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). This requires project applicants to obtain authorization from the Corps prior to discharging dredged or “fill” materials into any water of the United States.

In the published 2023 rule from the Federal Register, the term “waters of the United States” is defined as:

1. Waters which are:
a. currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
b. The territorial seas; or
c. Interstate waters;

2. Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section;

3. Tributaries of waters identified in (a)(1) or (2), (4), or (6) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water;

4. Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
i. Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or ii. Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters;

5. Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.

6.3.2 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulate activities in "waters of the State" (which includes wetlands) through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. While the Corps administers a permitting program that authorizes impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands and other waters, any Corps permit authorized for a proposed project would be inoperative unless it is a Nationwide Permit 14 Page 611 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
(NWP) that has been certified for use in California by the SWRCB, or if the RWQCB has issued a project specific certification of water quality. Where a project will result in dredge or fill of nonfederal waters of the State (that is, a water outside of the Corps’ jurisdiction), the RWQCB will authorize those fills through waste discharge requirements issued under the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

On April 2, 2019, the SWRCB adopted a State-level definition of “wetlands,” which definition is broader than the federal definition in that unvegetated areas may be considered a wetland water of the State. As a part of the same policy, the SWRCB adopted permit procedures and standards governing the discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and other waters of the State. The policy includes, among other things, requirements for analyses to identify the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) and compensatory mitigation standards including a minimum 1:1 ratio for wetlands and streams, and full functional replacement of all waters on top of this minimum where applicable.

6.3.3 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
M&A reviewed Google Earth aerial imagery, U.S. topographic maps, and the USGS’s Inventory Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2003) to look for any evidence of wetland or “other waters of the U.S./State on any of the subject parcels. No evidence of aquatic resources of any kind on any of the subject parcels was found. Based on this review, M&A does not believe that any of these subject parcels have any Corps or RWQCB jurisdictional features.

6.4 Town of Atherton Tree Ordinance
Section 8.10 of the Town of Atherton Municipal Code provides for the protection and preservation of “Heritage trees” in the Town of Atherton, and removal or destruction of a Heritage tree requires a permit issued in accordance with section 8.10.040 of the Municipal Code (Title 8, Chapter 8.10 Removal of and Damage to Heritage Trees).

Section 8.10.020 defines a “Heritage tree” as:

1. A tree meeting any of the following conditions:
a. An oak tree (Quercus lobata, Quercus agrifolia or Quercus douglasii) located anywhere on a lot, that has a minimum trunk circumference of forty-eight inches or diameter of fifteen and two-tenths inches (15.2 inches diameter at breast height), as measured at fifty-four inches above the natural grade.
b. A tree located outside the main buildable area that has a minimum trunk circumference of forty-eight inches or diameter of fifteen and two-tenths inches, as measured at fifty-four inches above the natural grade.
c. A split trunk or low-branching tree located outside the main buildable area that has a minimum trunk circumference of forty-eight inches or diameter of fifteen and twotenths inches, as measured at fifty-four inches above the natural grade. If the trunk branches or splits below this point, the smallest circumference or diameter below the lowest branch shall be measured.
d. A multi-stemmed tree located outside the main buildable area that has a total trunk circumference of forty-eight inches or total diameter of fifteen and two-tenths inches 15 Page 612 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
when calculated as follows: considering all the branches at fifty-four inches above natural grade, add the measurement of the largest branch to one-half the measurement of each additional branch. Reference the Guide for Plant Appraisal authored by representatives to the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.

2. A tree so designated by the city council, based upon findings that the particular tree is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual age, appearance, location or other factors;

3. A tree that has been removed without a permit that cannot be measured pursuant to subsection (L)(1) of this section will be presumed to have been a heritage tree if it meets any of the following criteria:
a. The tree has a stump of at least seventeen and three-quarters inches in diameter as measured at the natural grade;
b. The tree is a native oak with a minimum of seventy-five years of age; c. The tree is any other species of tree with a minimum of forty-five years of age, unless otherwise specified in this section;
d. The tree is a redwood with a minimum age of thirty years of age; e. In the absence of remaining physical evidence, photographs and other circumstantial evidence of characteristics, including but not limited to height, canopy dimensions, and similar trees in the immediate area may be used to create a presumption that the tree was a heritage tree.

4. Exemptions. The trees listed below shall not be classified as heritage trees, regardless of their size or age, nor shall they be used for replacement plantings:
a. Bailey acacia (Acacia bailenyana)
b. Green wattle (Acacia decurrens)
c. Black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)
d. Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
e. Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin)
f. Eucalyptus—Any species
Section 8.10.030 Prohibitions and protections
A. No person shall remove a heritage tree unless a permit has first been issued in accordance with Section 8.10.040.

B. All heritage trees must be shown and designated on every plot map that may be required by the town in connection with any application for a subdivision, variance, use permit, special structures permit, or building permit. In addition, a heritage tree protection and preservation plan may be required with each application, as determined by the town arborist.

The heritage tree protection and preservation plan shall adhere to the specifications found in the town’s current heritage tree preservation standards and specifications document. Said plan shall also show heritage trees which border the development area but are on a 16 Page 613 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
neighboring property or share a border within fifteen feet of the property line and shall include neighbor notification as prescribed in the town’s current heritage tree preservation standards and specifications document.

C. No person shall disturb and/or damage a heritage tree by any means whatsoever, including, without limitation, those actions defined in Section 8.10.020(I), or conduct any prohibited activities within the defined TPZ as specified in the town’s current tree preservation standards and specifications document, unless a permit has first been issued by the town. Staff-level decisions about the TPZ may be appealed to the planning commission within ten days of the decision in writing to the town.

D. The provisions of this chapter shall not be deemed to repeal or otherwise affect the provisions of Chapter 8.08, relating to dead or dangerous trees (Ord. 641 § 1 (Exh. A (part)), 2020; Ord. 547 § 1, 2004; Ord. 533 § 2, 2002; Ord. 522 § 1, 2001; Ord. 444 § 3, 1989).

8.10.040 Permit process.

A. The application for a heritage tree removal permit shall be filed with the building department on a prescribed form. The building department may require the applicant, at the applicant’s expense, to furnish a written report from a certified arborist.

B. If the heritage tree which is the subject of an application meets the requirements as set forth in this section and is determined by staff to be a dead or dangerous tree as defined in Section 8.10.020(E) and pursuant to Chapter 8.08, based upon a review of the permit application and the inspection report, then the building department shall grant the permit and attach reasonable conditions to ensure compliance with the intent and purpose of this chapter such as, but not limited to, requiring replacement of the tree or trees removed with plantings acceptable to the building department. Such replacements shall not require submittal of a bond.

C. If the building department determines that the tree does not meet the requirements of a dead or dangerous tree and if the applicant requests planning commission review for removal and/or relocation, then the application shall be referred to the planning commission for consideration at a public meeting, noticed in accordance with Section 17.06.080(B). Each application for a heritage tree removal permit shall be accompanied by a fee in an amount as set by resolution of the city council sufficient to cover all costs of processing the permit. The application for planning commission review shall contain all requested information in order to be deemed complete.

D. Planning commission shall hear all evidence presented, and shall grant the heritage tree removal permit unless it finds that the removal of the subject heritage tree would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the general plan of the town, while considering the following criteria:
17 Page 614 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California

1. The probability of failure which is a function of heritage tree and site conditions such as, but not limited to, structural defects, presence of disease, species history, age or remaining life span, and varying weather conditions;

2. The probability of a public safety hazard, personal injury or significant property damage as a function of proximity to existing structures and objects of value and interference with utility services;

3. The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect of the requested removal upon shade, noise buffers, protection from wind damage, air pollution, historic value, scenic beauty, health, safety and general welfare of the area and town as a whole;

4. Good forestry practices such as, but not limited to, the age, number of healthy trees a given parcel of land will support and/or the long-term benefits of a proposed reforestation plan relative to existing site conditions;

5. The necessity to remove or relocate the heritage tree(s) to allow for operation of existing solar panels that were installed prior to the planting of the heritage tree(s) on the subject or adjoining property; and

6. The necessity to remove the heritage tree(s) to allow reasonable use or other enjoyment of the property when there is no demonstrated feasible alternative to the removal while meeting other adopted goals and policies of the general plan to the greatest extent feasible.

E. At the discretion of the planning commission, for each heritage tree permitted to be removed the permittee may be required to plant three trees of fifteen-gallon container size, or two trees of twenty-four-inch box container size, or one tree of fifteen-gallon container size and one tree of thirty-six-inch container size. Replacement trees shall not be those listed as disfavored trees above. Where heritage oak trees are allowed to be removed from within the buildable area, they shall each be replaced with one or more trees of forty-eight-inch container size of oak species at a location approved by the planning commission. The planning commission may also attach other reasonable conditions to ensure compliance with the intent and purpose of this chapter.

F. Any person required to plant replacement trees and/or relocate a heritage tree(s) pursuant to this section shall maintain such trees in a good and healthy condition to ensure permanent establishment of said trees, to the satisfaction of the town arborist. Such person shall execute a maintenance agreement with the town for a duration of between one year and three years, at the discretion of the town arborist. Such person shall also post a maintenance bond or security deposit equal to the appraised value of each tree that is planted and/or relocated. If the condition of the replacement planting(s) is not satisfactory to the town arborist during the term of the maintenance agreement, the town may take additional steps to ensure permanent establishment of replacement trees, including planting of new trees and/or an extension of the 18 Page 615 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
maintenance agreement and bond/security deposit. This requirement shall not apply to dead or dangerous trees.

The maintenance bond/security deposit shall be returned at permittee’s request at the termination of the maintenance agreement, subject to the approval of the town arborist. The town shall attempt to notify permittee at the address on file. If no response is received from initial town attempt by thirty days from notification, then the town shall attempt a second time to notify the permittee. If after three years from the termination of the maintenance agreement the permittee has not requested the return of the maintenance bond/security deposit, the funds shall be considered forfeited and shall be deposited into the town’s general fund and shall be purposed for projects and/or improvements as identified in the town’s current adopted capital improvement plan (CIP) and/or other adopted town plan or program.

6.4.1 HERITAGE TREES TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT M&A reviewed a tree survey and report completed for the property at 97 Santiago Avenue (Subject Parcel V1 on Table 1 above) in April 2022 by Kielty Arborist Services, LLC. The report states that 26 Heritage trees were observed on the property or on neighboring properties, the majority of which are native oak trees. M&A also reviewed a tree survey and report conducted at 95 Faxon Road (Subject Parcel V4 on Table 1 above) in May 2023. At the request of the landowner, that survey and report only analyzed 5 coast live oaks on the property; 4 out of the 5 trees surveyed were concluded to be Heritage trees. A Town tree inventory was also taken at the Gilmore House (MFO-8 in Table 1) and at least 13 Heritage trees were noted. No known tree surveys or reports have been conducted at any of the other subject parcels, but it is likely that several of the subject parcels contain trees that would qualify as Heritage trees under the Town of Atherton’s tree ordinance.

Tree removal permits should be obtained prior to removal of any trees that may qualify as Heritage trees based on meeting any of the conditions listed in Section 8.10.020 of the Town of Atherton’s Municipal Code (listed above).

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Preconstruction nesting bird surveys should be conducted within 7 days prior to any proposed ground disturbance (grading, paving, building demolition) or vegetation removal (including grubbing and brush clearing) on subject parcels requiring nesting bird surveys as indicated on Table A if this disturbance would occur between February 1st and September 1st, the nesting season. The nesting bird surveys should include an examination of all buildings onsite and all trees and shrubs onsite and within 200 feet of the entire subject parcel (i.e., within a zone of influence of nesting birds), not just trees slated for removal. The zone of influence includes those areas outside the project site where birds could be disturbed by earth- moving vibrations and/or other constructionrelated noise. If any active bird nests are identified onsite or within a zone of influence, a non-disturbance buffer would have to be erected around the nesting site and fenced.

The nest buffer should be staked with orange construction fencing. The buffer must be of sufficient size to protect the nesting site from construction-related disturbance and should be established by a qualified ornithologist or biologist with extensive experience working 19 Page 616 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
with nesting birds near and on construction sites. Typically, adequate nesting buffers are 50 feet from the nest site or nest tree dripline for small birds and up to 300 feet for sensitive nesting birds that include several raptor species known from the region of the project site. Upon completion of nesting surveys, if nesting birds are identified on or within a zone of influence of the subject parcel, a qualified ornithologist/biologist that frequently works with nesting birds should prescribe adequate nesting buffers to protect the nesting birds from harm while the project is constructed.

No construction or earth-moving activity should occur within any established nest protection buffer prior to September 1 unless it is determined by a qualified ornithologist/biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones, or that the nesting cycle is otherwise completed. In this region, most species complete nesting by mid-July. This date can be significantly earlier or later and would have to be determined by the qualified biologist. At the end of the nesting cycle, and fledging from the nest by its occupants, as determined by a qualified biologist, temporary nesting buffers may be removed, and construction may commence in established nesting buffers without further regard for the nest site.

2. The Town of Atherton has a Tree Ordinance that requires acquisition of a tree removal permit prior to removal of any potential “heritage trees.” A tree removal permit should be obtained prior to removal of any trees with a minimum trunk circumference of forty-eight inches or diameter of fifteen and two-tenths inches, as measured at fifty-four inches above the natural grade, excluding the following species: Bailey acacia (Acacia bailenyana), Green wattle (Acacia decurrens), Black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin).

3. Based on records for Western Burrowing Owl in this area and the potential habitat found on subject parcel MFO-10, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls should be conducted at MFO-10 prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. The CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) states that take avoidance (preconstruction) surveys should be conducted 14 days prior to ground disturbance. As Burrowing Owls can recolonize a site after only a few days, time lapses between project activities trigger subsequent take avoidance surveys including but not limited to a final survey conducted within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance to ensure absence of the species.

If burrowing owls are detected during preconstruction surveys, the following restricted activity dates and setback distances are recommended per the CDFG’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012).
a. From April 1 through October 15, low disturbance and medium disturbance activities should have a 200-meter buffer while high disturbance activities should have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests.
20 Page 617 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
b. From October 16 through March 31, low disturbance activities should have a 50- meter buffer, medium disturbance activities should have a 100-meter buffer, and high disturbance activities should have a 500-meter buffer from occupied nests. c. No earth-moving activities or other disturbance should occur within the aforementioned buffer zones of occupied burrows. These buffer zones should be fenced as well. If Burrowing Owls were found in the proposed project area, a qualified biologist would also need to delineate the extent of Western Burrowing Owl habitat on the site.

4. The forest and woodland habitats on subject parcels V4, V5, and V6 could provide suitable nesting habitat for Dusky-footed woodrats. Prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities or vegetation removal on these subject parcels, a qualified biologist should survey all oak/bay woodland and forested habitats for evidence of nesting San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats (i.e., large stick nests). Since woodrats use their nests year-round, surveys for woodrat nests may be conducted at any time of the year. If woodrat nests are identified, they will be flagged in the field and delineated on project site maps. For any woodrat nest identified on a subject parcel, the mitigation listed below should be implemented.

If any woodrat nests are identified, CDFW should be contacted immediately to coordinate mitigation. A qualified biologist should conduct a pre-construction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests no more than 30 days prior to the onset of site grubbing/grading or construction activities within 50 feet of construction zones.

Identified nests should be avoided, where possible. If avoidance is not possible, the nest(s) should be manually deconstructed when helpless young are not present, typically during the non-breeding season (October through January). If it is determined that young may be present during the pre-construction survey, a suitable buffer, depending on the type of proposed impact, nest location and topography of where the nest is located, shall be established by the qualified biologist (typically ranges between 20-50 feet). This nondisturbance buffer should remain in place around the nest until the young are independent enough to successfully move from the nest to be deconstructed.

5. The trees and buildings on the subject parcels may provide roosting and maternity habitat for special-status bats including the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). In order to avoid impacts to roosting pallid bat or other special-status bats, building or tree removal should only be conducted during seasonal periods of bat activity: between August 31 and October 15, when bats would be able to fly and feed independently, and between March 1 and April 1st to avoid hibernating bats, and prior to the formation of maternity colonies.

Then a qualified biologist, one with at least two years of experience surveying for bats, should do preconstruction surveys for roosting bats within 14 days of starting work. If the qualified biologist finds evidence of bat presence during the surveys, then he/she should develop a plan for removal and exclusion, when there are not dependent young present.

6. Prior to the Town of Atherton’s approval of development on MFO-10, V1, and V3-V8, special-status plant surveys should be conducted in appropriate habitats during the appropriate period in which the species discussed above are most identifiable. Project 21 Page 618 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California
construction should not be initiated on these subject parcels until all special-status plant surveys are completed and subsequent mitigation, if necessary, is implemented.

If special-status plant species are found during these surveys, those individuals or populations should be avoided to the maximum degree possible. If avoidance is not possible while otherwise obtaining the project’s objectives, then other suitable measures and mitigation shall be developed in consultation with the agencies that are responsible for protection of that plant species based on its protection status [i.e., Town of Atherton (for plants protected by CEQA), CDFW (plants protected by California law/regulation), or USFWS (protected by federal law/regulation)]. Appropriate mitigation prescriptions for impacts on special-status plants should be included as conditions of project approval. 22 Page 619 of 1727
Biological Constraints Report MONK & ASSOCIATES
Town of Atherton General Plan Housing Element Update Project Atherton, California

8. LITERATURE CITED
Baldwin D.H, Goldman D.H., Keil D.J., Patterson R, Rosatti T.J., Wilken D.H. (ed.). 2012. The Jepson Manual Vascular Plants of California: Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1568 pps.

Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider 1980. Peterson field guide to mammals. Houghton Mifflin Company, 289 pp.

Carraway, L. N., and B. J. Verts. 1991. Neotoma fuscipes. Mammalian Species 386:1-10.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation.

March 7, 2012. 15 pages plus appendices.

CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Data Base). 2021. RareFind 6. Computer printout for special-status species within a 3-mile radius of the project site. California Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2001. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California (sixth edition). Rare plant scientific advisory committee, David P. Tibor, convening editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. 338 pps.

Hooper, E.T. 1938. Geographical variation in wood rats of the species Neotoma fuscipes. Univ.

Calif. Publ. Zool., 42, 213-246.

Linsdale, J. M., and L. P. Tevis, Jr. 1951. The dusky-footed wood rat. Univ. California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 664 pp.

Shuford, W.D. 1993. The Marin County Breeding Bird Atlas: A Distributional and Natural History of Coastal California Birds. California Avifauna Series 1. Bushtit Books, Bolinas, California.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory website. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Accessed on October 30, 2023.
23 Page 620 of 1727

Page 621 of 1727 ends

Page 622 of 1727 ends

Page 623 of 1727 ends

Page 624 of 1727 ends

Page 625 of 1727 ends

Page 626 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 1
Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Family
Taxon
Common Name Status* Flowering Period
May-October
Habitat Area Locations Probability on Project Site
Alismataceae
Sagittaria sanfordii Marshes and swamps
(assorted shallow freshwater). City limits.

Species occurs within 5 miles of None. No habitat. No impacts expected.

Fed: -
Sanford's arrowhead State:

CNPS:
-
Rank 1B
Alliaceae
Allium peninsulare franciscanum
Franciscan onion
Cismontane woodland; Species occurs within 5 miles of None. No serpentinite likely on these urban infill parcels. No
impact expected.

Fed: -
-
May-June
valley and foothill grassland City limits.
[clay, often serpentine]. 100-
300 m.

State:

CNPS: Rank 1B.2
Apiaceae
Eryngium aristulatum hooveri
Hoover's button-celery
Vernal pools. Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

None. No vernal pool habitats or
seasonal wetland habitats within
the project area. No impact
expected.

Fed: -
-
July-July
State:

CNPS: Rank 1B.1
Eryngium jepsonii Occurs on clay in vernal
pools and grassland
Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

None. No vernal pools or seasonal
wetland habitats within the
project area. No impact expected.

Fed: April-August
Button-celery State:

CNPS: Rank 1B.2
Asteraceae
Centromadia parryi congdonii
Congdon's tarplant
Valley and foothill grassland Species occurs within 5 miles of (alkaline). City limits.

Unlikely. Needs alkaline wetland
conditions. No impact expected.

Fed: -
-
May-November
State:

CNPS: Rank 1B.2

Page 1 of 6 ends

Page 627 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 1
Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Family
Taxon
Common Name Status* Flowering Period
June-October
Habitat Area Locations Probability on Project Site
Cirsium fontinale fontinale Chaparral (openings); valley Species occurs within 5 miles of and foothill grassland;
[serpentinite seeps].

None. No habitat present. No
impact expected.

Fed: FPE
City limits.

Fountain thistle State:

CNPS:

CE
Rank 1B
Cirsium praeteriens Biennial or perennial herb Species occurs within 5 miles of City limits.

Fed: June-July Unlikely. Only known from
July-October
March-July
March-May
historic occurrences (1897 and
1901). Believed to be extirpated.

No impact expected. However,
this plant will be searched for
during preconstruction surveys of
Palo Alto thistle State:

CNPS: Rank 1A
Lessingia arachnoidea Cismontane woodland;
coastal scrub; valley and
foothill grassland;
[serpentinite, often
roadsides].

Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

Low. No serpentinite in the
project areas but this plant has
been found in other habitats and
along roadcuts. Surveys necessary
prior to grading/site development
on MFO-10. See text.

Fed: -
Crystal Springs lessingia State:

CNPS:
-
Rank 1B
Monolopia gracilens Coniferous and broadleafed
upland forest openings,
chaparral openings, and
serpentine valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation 100-
1200 m.

Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

Low. MFO-10 may provide
suitable habitat. Surveys
necessary prior to site grading or
development. See text.

Fed:

Small-flowered monolopia State:

CNPS: Rank 1B.2
Pentachaeta bellidiflora Valley and foothill grassland Species occurs within 5 miles of (often serpentinite).

Low. MFO-10 may provide
habitat. Surveys necessary prior
to site grading or development.

See text.

Fed: FE
CE
City limits. White-rayed pentachaeta State:

CNPS: Rank 1B
Boraginaceae
Plagiobothrys chorisianus chorisianus
Choris's popcornflower
Chaparral; coastal prairie;
coastal scrub; [mesic].

Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

None. No chaparral, coastal
prairie, or scrub habitats present
on any of the subject parcels. No
impact expected.

Fed: - April-June
State:

CNPS:
-
Rank 1B

Page 2 of 6 ends

Page 628 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 1
Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Family
Taxon
Common Name Status* Flowering Period
March-June
Habitat Area Locations Probability on Project Site
Caryophyllaceae
Silene verecunda verecunda
San Francisco campion
Coastal bluff scrub; Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

Low. Habitats onsite not ideal but
MFO-10 may provide suitable
habitat. Surveys necessary. See
text.

Fed: -
chaparral; coastal prairie;
coastal scrub; valley and
foothill grassland.

State:

CNPS:
-
Rank 1B
Chenopodiaceae
Suaeda californica
California sea-blite
Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt).

Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

None. No marshes on any of the
subject parcels. No impact
expected.

Fed: FE
-
July-October
State:

CNPS: Rank 1B
Ericaceae
Arctostaphylos andersonii
Santa Cruz manzanita
Broadleaf upland forest;
north coast coniferous forest City limits.
(openings and edges)
Species occurs within 5 miles of None. No habitat present. No impact expected.

Fed: - January-April
January-April
State:

CNPS:
-
Rank 1B
Arctostaphylos regismontana Broad-leaved upland forest; chaparral; north coast
coniferous forest; [granitic or
sandstone].

Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

None. No habitat present. No
impact expected.

Fed: -
Kings Mountain manzanita State:

CNPS:
-
Rank 1B
Fabaceae
Astragalus tener tener
Alkali milkvetch
Playas; mesic grasslands
(adobe clay), vernal pools
(alkaline).

Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

None. No aljaline soils or vernal
pools on the project site. No
impact expected.

Fed: -
-
March-June
State:

CNPS: Rank 1B.2

Page 3 of 6 ends

Page 629 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 1
Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Family
Taxon
Common Name Status* Flowering Period
April-June
Habitat Area Locations Probability on Project Site
Lamiaceae
Acanthomintha duttonii Chaparral; valley and foothill Species is located with City limits Low. Sighting is from 1977 and grassland [serpentinite].

Fed: FE
(Occ. 2). 1977 this plant is known from
serpentine grassland and
chaparral which is unlikely to
occur on any of these urban infill
parcels. No impact expected.

San Mateo thorn-mint State:

CNPS:

CE
Rank 1B
Liliaceae
Fritillaria liliacea
Fragrant fritillary
Coastal prairie; coastal
scrub; valley and foothill
grassland; [often
Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

Low. Typically found on Fed: -
-
February-April
serpentine substrates. MFO-10
may provide marginal habitat.

Surveys necessary prior to site
grading/development.

State:

CNPS: Rank 1B.2 serpentinite].

Linaceae
Hesperolinon congestum
Marin dwarf flax
Chaparral; valley and foothill Species occurs within 5 miles of None. No serpentinite present in the project area boundaries. No
impact expected.

Fed: FT
CT
April-July
woodland; [serpentinite]. City limits.

State:

CNPS: Rank 1B.1
Malvaceae
Malacothamnus arcuatus Chaparral. Species occurs within 5 miles of City limits.

None. No chaparral within
project area. Very unlikely to
occur. No impact expected.

Fed: -
-
April-July
Arcuate bush mallow State:

CNPS: Rank 4
Orobanchaceae
Chloropyron maritimum palustre
Point Reyes salty bird's-beak
Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt).

Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

None. No habitat present. No
impact expected.

Fed: -
-
June-October
State:

CNPS: Rank 1B.2

Page 4 of 6 ends

Page 630 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 1
Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Family
Taxon
Common Name Status* Flowering Period
April-June
Habitat Area Locations Probability on Project Site
Plantaginaceae
Collinsia corymbosa Coastal dunes. Species occurs within 5 miles of City limits.

None. No habitat present. No
impact expected.

Fed: -
Round-headed Chinese houses State:

CNPS:
-
Rank 1B
Collinsia multicolor Closed-cone coniferous
forest; shady scrub forest,
coastal scrub.

Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

Low. Though the habitat is not
ideal, MFO-10 may provide
suitable habitat. Surveys needed
prior to site grading/development.

See text.

Fed: - March-May
San Francisco collinsia State:

CNPS:
-
Rank 1B
Thymelaeaceae
Dirca occidentalis
Western leatherwood
Chaparral; riparian,
broadleaf, and coniferous
woodlands and forests;
[mesic locations].

Species occurs within 5 miles of
City limits.

Low. MFO-10 may provide
woodland habitat necessary for
this plant. Surveys necessary
prior to site grading/development.

Fed: -
-
January-April
State:

CNPS: Rank 1B.2

Page 5 of 6 ends

Page 631 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 1
Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Family
Taxon
Common Name Status* Flowering Period Habitat Area Locations Probability on Project Site *Status
Federal: State: CNPS Continued:

FE - Federal Endangered
FT - Federal Threatened
CE - California Endangered
CT - California Threatened
Rank 2 - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere
FPE - Federal Proposed Endangered CR - California Rare Rank 2A - Extirpated in California, common elsewhere FPT - Federal Proposed Threatened
FC - Federal Candidate
CC - California Candidate
CSC - California Species of Special Concern
Rank 2B.1 - Seriously endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B.2 - Fairly endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B.3 - Not very endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3 - Plants about which we need more information (Review List) CNPS: Rank 3.1 - Plants about which we need more information (Review List) Seriously endangered in California
Rank 3.2 - Plants about which we need more information (Review List) Fairly endangered in California
Rank 1A - Presumed extinct in California
Rank 1B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 1B.1 - Seriously endangered in California (over 80% occurrences threatened/ high degree and immediacy of threat)
Rank 1B.2 - Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) Rank 1B.3 - Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)
Rank 4 - Plants of limited distribution - a watch list
Rank 4.2 - Plants of limited distribution; fairly threatened in California Rank 4.3 - Plants of limited distribution; not very threatened in California

Page 6 of 6 ends

Page 632 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 2
Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Species *Status Habitat Closest Locations Probability on Project Site Insects
Crotch bumble bee Fed: Inhabits grassland and scrub areas, with select Species occurs within 5 miles of City None. No suitable habitat on any of the subject food plants: Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia, parcels.

Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.

Nests underground, often in abandoned rodent
dens.

Bombus crotchii limits. State: CC
Other:

Western bumble bee Fed: Confined to high elevation sites and north coast. Inhabits grassland with select food
plants: Melilotus, Cirsium, Trifolium,
Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, and Eriogonum.

Typically nests underground in abandoned
rodent burrows or other cavities.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable habitat on any of the subject
Bombus occidentalis parcels. State: CC
Other:

Bay checkerspot butterfly Fed: FT
-
Found in serpentine grasslands around San
Francisco Bay. Dwarf plantain (Plantago
erecta) is the larvae's host plant. Owl's-clover
(Castilleja spp.) is a nectar source.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable habitat on any of the subject
Euphydryas editha bayensis parcels. State:

Other:

Fish
Green sturgeon - Southern DPS Fed: FT
-
Found in rivers, estuaries, and marine waters. Species occurs within 5 miles of City None. No suitable aquatic habitat on any of the Spawns in the Sacramento River and Klamath limits. subject parcels.

River. Prefers lower reaches of large rivers for
spawning. Needs swift currents and large
cobble.

Acipenser medirostris State:

Other:

Longfin smelt Fed: -- Endemic to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Species occurs within 5 miles of City None. No suitable aquatic habitat on any of the system. Inhabits open waters in the Delta and subject parcels.

Suisun Bay. After spawning, larvae are
Spirinichus thaleichthys limits. State: CT
Other: carried downstream to brackish nursery areas.

Page 1 of 6 ends

Page 633 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 2
Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Species *Status Habitat Closest Locations Probability on Project Site Amphibians
Santa Cruz black salamander Fed: Occurs in mixed deciduous woodland, coniferous forests, coastal grasslands. Found
under rocks near streams, in talus, under damp
logs, and other objects. Rarely encountered
very far from water.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable habitat on or near any of the
Aneides flavipunctatus niger subject parcels. State:

Other: CSC
California tiger salamander (Cntrl CA DPS) Fed: FT Found in grassland habitats of the valleys and Species occurs within 5 miles of City None. No suitable aquatic breeding or upland dispersal habitiat on any of the subject parcels.

Residential development surrounding subject
parcels serves as barriers to movement of this
species.
foothills. Requires burrows for aestivation and limits. standing water until late spring (May) for
larvae to metamorphose.

Ambystoma californiense State: CT
Other:

California giant salamander Fed: Inhabits wet coastal forests in or near clear, cold permanent and semi-permanent streams
and seepages. Found from Santa Cruz County
to Mendocino County in two to three isolated
regions.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable aquatic habitat on or near any
Dicamptodon ensatus of the subject parcels. State: CSC
Other:

California red-legged frog Fed: FT Occurs in lowlands and foothills in deeper pools and streams, usually with emergent
wetland vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of
permanent water for larvae development.

Species is located with City limits (Occ. None. No suitable aquatic habitat on or near any 640). 2016 of the subject parcels and the residential
development surrounding them serve as barriers
to movement of this species.

Rana draytonii State: CSC
Other:

Foothill yellow-legged frog ** Fed: -- Found in partially shaded, shallow streams Species occurs within 5 miles of City None. No suitable aquatic habitat on or near any with rocky substrates. Requires perenial pools limits. of the subject parcels. or flowing water. Needs some cobble-sized
rocks as a substrate for egg laying. Requires
water for 15 weeks for larval transformation.

Rana boylii State: CE
Other:

Reptiles
Western pond turtle Fed: - Uncommon to common in suitable aquatic habitat throughout CA, west of the SierraCascade crest and absent from desert regions, except the Mojave River. Associated with
permanent or nearly permanent water in a
wide variety of habitat types.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable aquatic habitat on or near any
Emys marmorata of the subject parcels. State: CSC
Other:

Page 2 of 6 ends

Page 634 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 2
Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Species *Status Habitat Closest Locations Probability on Project Site San Francisco garter snake Fed: FE Found in freshwater marshes, ponds, and slow- Species is located with City limits (Occ. None. No suitable marsh or aquatic habitat on or moving streams on the San Francisco
peninsula. Prefers dense cover and water
depths of at least one foot.

Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia 75). 1922 near any of the subject parcels. State: CE Other:

Birds
White-tailed Kite Fed: Found in lower foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and along river
bottomlands or marshes adjacent to oak
woodlands. Nests in trees with dense tops.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

Very low. Preconstruction surveys will be
Elanus leucurus conducted priot to development. State: FP Other:

Bald eagle Fed: - Ocean shorelines, lake margins, and river courses for both nesting and wintering. Most
nests within one mile of water.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable nesting habitat on any of the
subject parcels. Regardless, preconstruction
nesting bird surveys will be conducted prior to
development.

Haliaeetus leucocephalus State: CE
Other:

Northern Harrier Fed: - Nests on the ground or in shrubby vegetation typically in grasslands, fallow farm lands, near limits. freshwater and salt water marshes.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City None. No suitable marsh habitat on or near any of the subject parcels. Preconstruction surveys
will be conducted prior to development.

Circus hudsonius State: CSC
Other:

Yellow rail Fed: - Summer resident in eastern Sierra Nevada in Mono County. Fresh-water marshlands.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable marsh habitat on or near any
Coturnicops noveboracensis of the subject parcels. State: CSC Other:

California Black Rail Fed: -- Inhabits salt marshes bordering larger bays.

Prefers tidal salt marshes of pickleweed.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable marsh habitat on or near any
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus of the suibject parcels. State: CT Other:

Page 3 of 6 ends

Page 635 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 2
Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Species *Status Habitat Closest Locations Probability on Project Site California Ridgway's rail Fed: FE Inhabits salt water and brackish marshes with tidal sloughs in San Francisco Bay. Prefers
dense pickleweed for cover, but forages for
invertebrates along mud-bottomed sloughs.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable marsh habitat on or near any
Rallus obsoletus obsoletus of the subject parcels. State: CE Other:

Western snowy plover Fed: FT Prefers sandy beaches, salt pond levees, and shores of large alkali lakes. Requires sandy,
gravelly, or friable soil for nesting.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable habitat on or near any of the
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus subject parcels. State: CSC Other:

California least tern Fed: FE Breeds colonially along the coast from San Francisco Bay to Northern Baja California.

Nests on bare or sparsely vegetated flat
substrates, such as beaches, alkali flats,
landfills, or paved areas.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable habitat on or near any of the
Sterna antillarum brownii subject parcels. State: CE
Other:

Western Burrowing Owl Fed: -- Found in open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands
characterized by low-growing vegetation.

Subterranean nester, dependent upon
burrowing mammals, most notably, the
California ground squirrel.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

Very low. Grassland areas on MFO-10 and V1
may have marginally suitable habitat.

Preconstrucion surveys will be conducted prior
to developent of these two subject parcels.

Athene cunicularia hypugaea State: CSC
Other:

Short-eared owl Fed: -- Found in fresh and saltwater marshes; lowland Species occurs within 5 miles of City None. No suitable habitat on any of the subject meadows; irrigated alfalfa fields. Tule parcels.
patches/ tall grass needed for nesting/daytime
seclusion. Nests on dry ground in depression
concealed in vegetation.

Asio flammeus limits. State: WL
Other:

Salt Marsh Common Yellowthroat Fed: - Resident of freshwater and salt water marshes in the San Francisco Bay region. Requires
thick, continuous cover for foraging and tall
grasses, tules, or willows for nesting.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable marsh habitat on or near any
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa of the subject parcels. State: CSC Other:

Page 4 of 6 ends

Page 636 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 2
Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Species *Status Habitat Closest Locations Probability on Project Site Alameda Song Sparrow Fed: -- Found in Salicornia marshes in the southern arm of San Francisco Bay. Nests in low
Grindelia bushes and in Salicornia.

Species is located with City limits (Occ. None. No suitable marsh habitat on or near any Melospiza melodia pusillula 38). 1914 of the subject parcels. State: CSC Other:

Mammals
Salt marsh wandering shrew Fed: -- Tidal salt marshes of the south San Francisco Bay. Medium high marsh 6-8 ft above sea
level where abundant driftwood is scattered
amoung pickleweed.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable marsh habitat on or near any
Sorex vagrans halicoetes of the subject parcels. State: CSC Other:

Townsend's big-eared bat Fed: -- Occurs in humid coastal regions of northern and central California. Roosts in limestone
caves, lava tubes, mines, and buildings.

Extremely sensitive to disturbance.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable roosting habitat on any of the
subject parcels. This species is extremely
sensitive to disturbance and not expected to
occur on these urban infill sites.

Corynorhinus townsendii State: CSC
Other:

Fed:
-
Pallid bat - Occurs in deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in dry
habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts
in caves, crevices, mines, and occasionally
hollow trees. Night roosts in open areas such
as porches and open buildings.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

Very low. Preconstruction surveys will be
Antrozous pallidus conducted prior to development. See text. State: CSC Other:

Salt marsh harvest mouse Fed: FE Inhabits saline marshes in the San Francisco Estuary. Prefers pickleweed marshes.

Requires higher areas for escaping high water.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

None. No suitable marsh habitat on or near any
Reithrodontomys raviventris of the subject parcels. No impacts expected. State: CE Other:

San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat Fed: -- Inhabits forests, woodlands, and chaparral with a moderate canopy and moderate to
dense understory. Uses shredded grass, leaves,
and other material for nests.

Species occurs within 5 miles of City
limits.

Low. Marginally suitable habitat in the forested
areas on V4, V5, and V6. Preconstruction
surveys will be conducted prior to development.

See text.

Neotoma fuscipes annectens State: CSC
Other:

Page 5 of 6 ends

Page 637 of 1727 ends

MONK & ASSOCIATES Table 2
Special-Status Wildlife Species Known to Occur Within 5 Miles of Atherton’s Town Limits Species *Status Habitat Closest Locations Probability on Project Site American badger Fed: - Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils. Need sufficient food, friable
soils & open, uncultivated ground. Prey on
burrowing rodents. Dig burrows.

Species is located with City limits (Occ. None. No suitable habitat on or near any of Taxidea taxus 130). 1894 these urban infill sites. State: CSC Other:
*Status
Federal: State: State:

FE - Federal Endangered
FT - Federal Threatened
CE - California Endangered
CT - California Threatened
CSC - California Species of Special Concern
FP - Fully Protected
FPE - Federal Proposed Endangered CR - California Rare WL - Watch List. Not protected pursuant to CEQA FPT - Federal Proposed Threatened
FC - Federal Candidate
CC - California Candidate
FPD - Federally Proposed for delisting
** This frog is listed as “endangered” in the east/southern Sierra, west/central, and southern California coasts and “threatened” in the Northern Sierra and Feather River. This frog is not protected pursuant to CESA on the northern coast of California (all counties from Marin and Solano Counties north to Oregon boarder).

Page 6 of 6 ends

Page 638 of 1727 ends

m-group a new design on urban planning
policy planning  urban design  environmental review  historic preservation  community engagement  staffing solutions m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
March 11, 2024
Town of Atherton
Planning Department
Brittany Bendix, Town Planner
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
RE: FINAL – Historic Resource Evaluation
1000 El Camino Real
Menlo College
Town of Atherton, CA, 94027
Dear Brittany Bendix,
M-Group was noticed to proceed for a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the Faculty Housing Apartment 8B in Menlo College, on September 5, 2023. In accordance with the agreed scope of work, Task 1 (Project Start-Up / Site Visit), Task 2 (HRE Draft), and Task 3 (HRE Final) are now complete. The site visit was completed on December 5, 2023, and the archive/library visits were completed on December 5, 2023, and on December 7, 2023, by Sean Manalo, Associate Planner. On March 3, 2024, Suzanne Avila noted no comments nor revisions were necessary on the Draft HRE. The Final HRE includes additional content for the Town of Atherton’s General Plan, and is provided on the following page, Attachment A.

Please reach out at your earliest convenience if you would like additional evaluations for this site so that we may schedule a follow-up meeting. I look forward to speaking with you at your earliest convenience.

Respectfully submitted,

ISABEL CASTELLANO
Historic Preservation Specialist
[email protected]
707.304.7215

Page 639 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
FACULTY HOUSING APARTMENT 8B

MENLO COLLEGE

HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
FINAL
MARCH 2024
PREPARED FOR:

Town of Atherton
Planning Department
80 Fair Oaks Lane
Atherton, CA 94027
PREPARED BY:

Metropolitan Planning Group (M-Group)
Isabel Castellano, Historic Preservation Specialist
Sean Manalo, Associate Planner

Page 640 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Table of Contents

1. LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 4

2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 4

2.1. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 4

2.2. LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................... 4

2.3. SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................. 5

3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 6

3.1. PURPOSE AND METHODS ................................................................................................................. 6

3.2. CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES .............................................................................................. 7

3.3. ONLINE RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 7

3.4. ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS................................................................................................................. 7

4. HISTORIC OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................ 8

4.1. ETHNOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. 8

4.2. TOWN OF ATHERTON ........................................................................................................................ 9

4.3. MENLO COLLEGE ............................................................................................................................. 11

5. HISTORY OF SUBJECT STRUCTURE .................................................................................. 13

5.1. INITIAL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................... 13

5.2. PERMIT HISTORY .............................................................................................................................. 13

5.3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, INTERIOR SPACES, AND LANDSCAPE .................................................. 14

5.4. HISTORIC CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................... 14

5.5. REGULATORY SETTING .................................................................................................................... 16

6. EVALUATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY .................................................... 17

6.1. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES & CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES17

6.2. TOWN OF ATHERTON LOCAL CRITERIA ........................................................................................ 20

6.3. SIGNIFICANCE & INTEGRITY ........................................................................................................... 22

6.4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT .............................................................................. 23

7. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 23

7.1. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 23

7.2. FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................................... 23

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................ 25

9. APPENDIX .................................................................................................................... 26

9.1. MAPS ................................................................................................................................................. 26

9.2. PARCEL DATA ................................................................................................................................... 26

9.3. ON-SITE PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION ............................................................................. 26

9.4. ARCHIVED BUILDING & PLANNING DOCUMENTS ....................................................................... 26

9.5. NEWSPAPER RECORD ...................................................................................................................... 26

9.6. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION (DPR) 523 FORMS ................................................ 26

9.7. PREPARER’S QUALIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................ 26

Page 641 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

1. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Menlo College Campus, Context Map. ..................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Subject Structure Aerial View. .................................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Ohlone Territory Map ................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 4: Tribes of San Francisco Peninsula Map .................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: Map of the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad, c.1862 ..................................................... 10 Figure 6: Town of Atherton Map. ............................................................................................................. 11 Figure 7: Menlo College Main Entrance. ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 8: Menlo College, circa 1941......................................................................................................... 13 Figure 9: Menlo College Aerial, 1956. ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 10: El Camino Hall, Menlo College. .............................................................................................. 15

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1. SUMMARY
This Historical Resource Evaluation (HRE) was prepared by Metropolitan Planning Group (MGroup) at the request of the Town of Atherton Planning Department, to determine whether the Faculty Housing Apartment 8B (subject structure) in Menlo College, located at 1000 El Camino Real, Atherton (APN 070-360-100), qualifies as a historical resource in accordance with Article 5, §15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the local Historic Designation Criteria.

2.2. LOCATION
The subject structure is located in the Menlo College campus, and the campus is located south of California Highway 82 (El Camino Real), near easter town boundary of Atherton, and west of the City of Menlo Park. The campus is one city block (APN 070-360-100), approximately 21.56 acres, and contains the central campus that supports a collection of Menlo College academic and administration buildings, and athletic and operational facilities. It also supports an open campus space, parking areas, student dormitories and campus faculty residences. The Cartan Athletic is located on the north side of Alejandra Avenue and that area holds various sports facilities. The college supports approximately 850 undergraduate and graduate students and approximately 160 faculty and staff on site.

Menlo College is surrounded by residential lots to the West, East, and South. Menlo School and Menlo School Technology Center is located to the southeast. A mixture of commercial and office buildings are located to the north of Menlo College, across El Camino Real. There has been an increase in single housing development and improvement in the surrounding area which has included new construction, rear or second-story additions, and rear accessory structures for residential lots.

Page 642 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

2.3. SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject structure is located at the north side of the Menlo College campus, at the southeast intersection of El Camino Real (Highway 82) and Alejandra Avenue. The subject structure is in between the O’Brien Parking Lot and the Russel Center (refer to Appendix 9.1). The subject structure is a single-story apartment building for faculty housing, containing 4 apartment units, with an approximate total of 2,400 square foot. The subject structure is surrounded by a wood fence with a privacy lattice top at approximately 6-feet in height. Additional information regarding the subject structure’s architectural style, interior spaces, and landscape is noted in Section 5.4.

Figure 1: Menlo College Campus, Context Map.

Source: Bing Maps, 2024.

Subject Structure
Menlo College, Main Entrance
Perimeter of Menlo College & Menlo School (PFS) Approx.

Menlo School, Main Entrance
N

Page 643 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Figure 2: Subject Structure Aerial View.

Source: Google Maps, 2024.

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. PURPOSE AND METHODS
The methodological approach used to complete the HRE consisted of conducting a site visit with photographic documentation of the property including its site and structure(s), historical research of the property and the associated persons and events, review of Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms if available, along with archival research at San Mateo County Historical Society Archive Room, the Local History Archive Room in the Town of Atherton Library, the County Assessor Records Office, and the Archives of the Town of Atherton Building and Planning Departments. This evaluation includes a copy of the site’s historic county assessor’s records and parcel data (Appendix 9.2), and a list of archived building and planning documents (Appendix 9.4).

Further research was conducted using M-Group’s in-house resources, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map Collection or U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maps (Appendix 9.1), and newspaper articles from the Peninsula Times and the Redwood City Tribune (Appendix 9.5).

Research conducted at the San Mateo County Historical Society Archive Room involved a review of the City Directories dating back to 1946. In addition, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) were consulted, and the subject property was not included in these listings.

Subject Structure
Perimeter of Menlo College & Menlo School (PFS) Approx.

Page 644 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
A site visit was completed with the assistance of M-Group’s Associate Planner, Sean Manalo, on December 5, 2023. During the site visit, the subject property’s existing condition was recorded with on-site photographic documentation of the subject structure, its site, and the surrounding neighborhood setting (Appendix 9.3). Additional notes on the architectural features of the structure and neighborhood were recorded for the development of the HRE’s site and building descriptions. Archive and library visits were completed on December 5, 2023, and December 7, 2023.

The HRE was reviewed and completed by M-Group’s Historic Preservation Specialist, Isabel Castellano. Isabel Castellano meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural Historian. She holds a Master of Arts in Conservation Studies of Historic Buildings and a Bachelor of Architecture.

3.2. CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORIES
• Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Information Systems (CHRIS) • California Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD) • National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Database and Research • California Historical Landmarks (CHL)
• California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR)
• California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI)
• San Mateo County Archive
• Town of Atherton, Community Department
• Town of Atherton, Library
• Atherton Heritage Association

3.3. ONLINE RESOURCES
• USGS Topographic Map, Old Maps Online
• Library of Congress, Sanborn Maps
• Newspaper.com
• California Digital Newspaper Collection
• California State Library
• California Library Association
• Calisphere, University of California

3.4. ON-SITE INVESTIGATIONS
• Menlo College Site Visit
• San Mateo County Historical Association
• Town of Atherton Library

Page 645 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

4. HISTORIC OVERVIEW

4.1. ETHNOGRAPHY
The Town of Atherton is located in the south area of San Mateo County and lies near the San Francisco Bay on the San Francisco Peninsula. The town is approximately 20 miles south of the City and County of San Francisco and 20 miles north of San Jose in neighboring Santa Clara County.

The town is positioned among a collection of creeks, estuaries, wetlands, and grasslands. The area was abundant in native game, shellfish, fruits, acorns, and other naturally available foods. With an ideal climate, this made the area useful for growing populations of settlers.

The original inhabitants of the area were recognized as the Ohlone or Costanoan people.1 For thousands of years, the Ohlone lived in ten independent tribes on the San Francisco Bay Area on what are the present-day counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Santa Cruz, Solano, and San Joaquin counties2 . In the 1700’s, about 2000 Ohlone lived
in what is now San Mateo County. This area offered a fertile countryside and lively waters of the bay. The Ohlone developed various hunter-gatherer techniques to hunt blacktail deer and tule elk, fish in the bay from boats made of tules, and gather mussels and nuts to store for year-round use. In the late 1700’s, the area fell under the influence of the Spanish with the establishment of missions along the San Francisco peninsula3. With the arrival of the Spanish explorers, missionaries, settlers, and bureaucrats, the Ohlone soon lost the majority of their population and were relocated and removed from their ancestral lands4
. The majority of Ohlone members within
the present-day San Francisco Peninsula, were later baptized at Missions Dolores and Santa Clara.

The area of present-day Atherton is located on lands traditionally stewarded by the Puichon Thamien-Ohlone Tribe, one of the ten independent Ohlone tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Between 1851 to 1892, the lands of the Puichon-Thamien Ohlone as well as other native tribes across the state of California were ceded to the United States military as part of Cessation 274, one of 18 treaties signed by native tribes living across the American Southwest, once again forcing tribes off their native land and onto reservations 5
.

Today, the Association of Ramaytush Ohlone and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe lead the region’s only known living descendants of aboriginal people of the San Francisco Peninsula6 .

Contemporary members of the Ohlone continue to research, preserve, and share the history and culture of the ancient Ohlone people.
1 Native Land Digital. The registered Canadian not-for-profit organization is Indigenous-led and provides an interactive map for general territory locations for reference. Interactive map is available at: https://native-land.ca/ 2 Muwekma Ohlone Tribe. www.muwekma.org
3 Guillard, Pamela and Lund, Nancy. Under the Oaks – Two Hundred Years in Atherton. San Francisco, CA; Scottwall Associates, 2009. 4 Ramaytush Ohlone, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=ff1475b14956474989181b48dbadd487 5 Menlo College. https://www.menlo.edu
6 Association of Ramaytush Ohlone, https://www.ramaytush.org/

Page 646 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Figure 3: Ohlone Territory Map
Source: Damian Bacich/CaliforniaFrontier.net
Figure 4: Tribes of San Francisco Peninsula Map
Source: Ramaytush Ohlone, 2023

4.2. TOWN OF ATHERTON
The area surrounding present-day Atherton remained largely rural and agricultural in the 1800’s, with the development of a collection of farms and ranches ran by Mexican immigrants to Alta California. Settler Luis Arguello, was awarded a parcel in 1835, stretching from modern day Menlo Park through Atherton to San Mateo. This cattle ranch was called “Rancho las Pulgas,” and would eventually be settled and developed by new migrants to the region.

During the period around 1850, California experienced increases and changes in trade, population, trade, and development. The California Gold Rush and the admission of California into the Union accelerated the economic demands of the state and made the construction of a transportation network linking the region’s major hubs of commerce a necessity. Implementation of a railroad linking San Francisco and Santa Clara County was completed in 1864, with the construction of the “San Francisco and San Jose Railroad”. Along this route, Southern San Mateo County became a popular destination for San Franciscans looking for places to build summer homes in the sunshine. In 1866, Atherton was known as “Fair Oaks”, and was a flag stop on the California Coast for the Southern Pacific Railroad between San Francisco and San Jose for the convenience of the owners of large estates living north of Menlo Park.

Town of Atherton,
Approx.

Page 647 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Figure 5: Map of the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad, c.1862 Source: Daggett, 1922.

As California approached the end of the gold and silver mining era, Fair Oaks and Menlo Park remained quite rural. With the construction of the historic Flood (Linden Towers) and Selby (Almendral) estates, the area became noted as a place for country homes for San Francisco’s wealthiest businessmen and high-society families. Few individuals who made residence in the Fair Oaks community included Louis and Lucie Stern of the Levi Strauss Company, socialite Olive Holbrook and Silas Palmer, inventor Leon Douglass, Thomas Selby of Selby Silver and Lead Smelting Works and Former Mayor of San Francisco, William Cassandra Hills Adams, bank founder Joseph Donohoe, “cattle king “ Henry Miller, heiress Mabel Lloyd Jessup, and the Moulton and Merrill families7. The legacy of these individuals and their namesake estates continue to be celebrated for their history and legacy within the Town.

Throughout the beginning of the 20th century, the community of Fair Oaks remained an oasis of large farmlands, orchards, and estate homes in contrast to the rapidly growing surrounding communities. Edward Eyre and Perry Eyre, prominent members of the community, were at the forefront of trying to incorporate Fair Oaks to maintain its rural identity. In 1923, residents of Menlo Park announced its intention to incorporate its lands to include Fair Oaks. During a meeting of the representatives of the two communities, the Fair Oaks property owners maintained their community as a strictly residential area, and they would incorporate independently. Both groups rushed to the County courthouse in Redwood City, but the Fair Oaks committee arrived first. They also realized that they could not keep the name “Fair Oaks,” s it was already the name of a town near Sacramento8. It was decided to honor Faxon Dean Atherton who had been one of the first property owners in the south peninsula and name the town for him. Atherton was then 7 Town of Atherton, 100 Year Celebration. https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/665/100---Year-Centennial-Celebration 8 Guillard, Pamela and Lund, Nancy. Under the Oaks – Two Hundred Years in Atherton . San Francisco, CA; Scottwall Associates, 2009.

Page 648 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
incorporated on September 12, 1923. Consistent with the vision of the Town’s earliest residents, Atherton maintains large residential parcels that do not contain commercial uses. In subsequent years, the town would see large land holdings being subdivided into smaller residential parcels.

By the 1950’s, over 80 subdivisions would be officially recorded in Atherton, bringing the era of large land estates to a close.

Today, Atherton’s continues to maintain stately homes with refined landscaping and country lanes that began with the early families who built their estates long before the town’s founding. Town remains largely single-family residential homes and maintains its unique character as a scenic, semi-rural, thickly-wooded residential area with abundant open space. With close proximity to San Francisco and Silicon Valley, the Town stands as one of the wealthiest and prestigious communities in the United States.

Source: Bing Maps, 2024.

4.3. MENLO COLLEGE
The 40-acre property that is now Menlo College were estate lands owned by several notable local residents, including Faxon Dean, Dominga Atherton, and George and Ellen Fife. A boys military academy called the “William Warren School,” after its founder and first headmaster William 9 Town of Atherton. History of Atheron. https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/96/History-of-Atherton Town of Atherton,
Approx.

N
Menlo College,
Approx.

Page 649 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Warren, was established in 1915 on 12 acres of the Fife estate located on Alejandra Avenue. The schoolhouse was built on a two-story frame, and educated boys aged 8 through 18 in strict WestPoint style military tradition. The school began to falter following declining admission after the First World War, and was closed and sold in 1924.10 The school was purchased by Clifford Dennis who formed a new board of trustees and established the Menlo School for Boys, later identified as the Menlo School. A two-year college was established in 1927 as an integral part of the school, and the institution changed its name to Menlo School and Junior College. Shortly safter its founding, Menlo School became known as the “feeder school” to Stanford University. In this way, many Menlo College alumni progressed in their higher education with programs at the nearby University. By 1949, the name was officially changed to Menlo School and Menlo College. 11 The college first supported athletic teams in 1928. Local newspaper articles from the period describe significant investments in baseball, track and field, swimming, and other athletic facilities on campus. These early additions to the campus would help establish Menlo College as a premier college with a strong tradition for intercollegiate sport. The current gymnasium “Haynes-Prim Pavilion,” named after its three financers, Mrs. Ester R. Haynes and Mr. and Mrs. Wayne L. Prim, was built during the 1970s.12 The school underwent significant change in following years with the introduction of co-educational facilities (1979-1981), and the addition of sixth grade to the Middle School (1993-1994). The Menlo School and College formally separated in June 1994. Menlo School and Menlo College are now entirely independent entities each with their own board, administration, and faculty. Each institution owns and occupies the land and buildings on its section of the 62-acre campus while sharing some of the common sports facilities on campus.

Since 1986, Menlo College has been exclusively a four-year institution with an enrollment of approximately 800 students. Majors currently offered include Accounting, Business Analytics, Entrepreneurship, Finance, Human Resource Management, International Business, Marketing, Psychology, Real Estate, and Sports Management.13
Figure 7: Menlo College Main Entrance.

Source: Menlo College, 2023.
10 Guillard, Pamela and Lund, Nancy. Under the Oaks – Two Hundred Years in Atherton. San Francisco, CA; Scottwall Associates, 2009. 11 Menlo College. https://www.menlo.edu
12 Menlo College History. https://www.menlo.edu/about/our-history/ 13 Menlo College Majors and Programs. https://www.menlo.edu/academics/choosing-your-major/

Page 650 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

5. HISTORY OF SUBJECT STRUCTURE

5.1. INITIAL DEVELOPMENT
Historic campus maps of Menlo School (Appendix 9.2) indicate that the subject structure has been built since 1950. Historical aerial photographs were sourced and confirm that the subject building was constructed on the Menlo College campus on or prior to 1955. No documents readily available identify the construction date of the subject structure. It is identified with a contemporary architectural style and its exterior materials of wood, composite roof, and concrete blocks support a construction date from the 1920s to 1950s. Furthermore, historical information regarding the origins of the subject structure, whether construction on site or relocation, could not be confirmed due to documentation readily available or to insufficient records. Earliest available records confirm the building’s primary use has been faculty apartments. The subject structure in not listed on a national, state, or local historic resource register.

Figure 8: Menlo College, circa 1941.

Source: USGS Map,
California Palo Alto Quadrangle, 1941.

Figure 9: Menlo College Aerial, 1956.

Source: Historic Aerials by Netronline, 1956.

5.2. PERMIT HISTORY
Thorough research conducted at Atherton Town Center involved a review of digital and printed materials and records associated with the subject parcel, related to Menlo College and existing structure on college campus, included review of building permits, planning applications, and project maps. The entire campus is identified as one parcel (APN: 070-360-100) that includes multiple structures on site. As such, all development records associated with the campus is associated with the subject parcel.

The town’s records of the campus building permits and projects range in scope and include construction of new residence halls and administrative buildings and sign changes. No files were Subject Structure
Menlo College,
Approx.

Page 651 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
readily available on the subject structure to indicate if its history included substantial construction, record of site relocation, or identification of recent work. Minor maintenance and repairs that typically occur in existing structures may include roof repairs, window and door replacements, and exterior painting.

5.3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, INTERIOR SPACES, AND LANDSCAPE The subject structure was originally designed in a Contemporary architectural style, common from 1945 to 1990. Typical features include low-pitched gables roofs, widely overhanging eaves, exposed roof beams, with natural materials including wood, stone, brick, or concrete block. The structure is a single-story, multi-dwelling apartment, with a building footprint at approximately 80 feet by 30 feet (approximately 2,400 square feet). Aerial and USGS maps have recorded the structure’s footprint has retained its original dimensions and rectangular form. On-site observations determined the structure contains painted wood-frame and concrete block walls, a shingle roof, and a combination of fixed, casement, and horizontal sliding windows. The roof contains chimneys, vents, and gutters. The structure supports 4 apartments, each with their own variety of windows and exterior doors and fenced outdoor area. An evaluation of the exterior is only required for the determination of an eligible historic resource. Hence, the subject structure’s interior spaces were not accessed during the site-visit or was it recorded for this HRE.

This structure is characterized by its symmetrical low-pitched gable roof with overhanging eaves, exposed roof beams, and single-story massing. The structure does hold architectural features related to the dwelling’s original style. However, the structure lacks character-defining features related to the Contemporary architectural style, which typically includes a combination of a recessed entrance, entry garden, broad low masonry chimney, carport, and surfaces with integral patterns. This style also accounts for two-story structures located on a flat or slope ground surface, two levels of pitched roofs with a clerestory window, balcony railings with an outward slant, window walls withs spatial configurations, vertical elements, carports, and screens.

Subtypes of Contemporary architectural styles can be identified through their roof styles which includes front-gable roof, side-gable roof, gable-roof variations, and a flat roof.

The subject structure pertains to the Menlo College campus and therefore does not have an individual parcel or property line. However, a wood fence with a privacy lattice top at approximately 6 feet in height encloses the subject structure, providing for a wood entry gate door and an outdoor area for each apartment. Within this area there are paved areas with a variety of outdoor furniture pieces. Vegetation includes small plants and large trees. Adjacent areas and structures include a parking lot to the west, El Camino Hall to the east, the Russel Center to the northeast, faculty apartments to the north, and the O’Brien Hall to the south.

5.4. HISTORIC CONTEXT
Menlo College has grown and amassed a collection of structures and facilities to support the campus, its students, and its surrounding environment. Structures within the campus include

Page 652 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
residential and administrative buildings representing various eras of construction assemblies and design. Primary architectural styles include Spanish Revival, New Traditional, and Contemporary architectural styles.

Two buildings that are over 90 years old within the Menlo College campus include the Phar Lap Stable, and El Camino Hall, a residence hall. The Phar Lap Barn is a stable original to the former residential estate. It is located north of Alejandra Avenue and within the Cartan Field. It is known as a stable associated with the victorious Australian racehorse, Phar Lap, during the Great Depression.14
El Camino Hall is a dormitory building, built circa 1931, after the founding of Menlo Junior College, by local and notable architect Birge Clark. The building maintains a U-shaped layout that supports a central courtyard with low vegetation landscaping and a concrete walkway. The building exhibits several identifying features with the Spanish Revival style including red clay tile roof coverings, stucco wall surfaces, a low-pitched side gabled roof with eave overhangs. The original floor plan of El Camino Hall supported approximately 70 dormitory units as well as a living room, several bedrooms, laundry room, and shared restroom facilities. El Camino Hall is located south of the subject structure, the Faculty Housing Apartment 8B.

In addition to the El Camino Residence Hall, the subject building is adjacent to O’Brien residence hall, a two-story structure supporting 100-beds, and one freestanding house that serves as residences for faculty and staff. Records from Menlo School (Appendix 9.1) indicate that the O’Brien Hall and the freestanding house were built circa 1950.

Figure 10: El Camino Hall, Menlo College.

Source: Menlo College, 2021
14 National Museum Australia. Phar Lap. https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/phar-lap

Page 653 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

5.5. REGULATORY SETTING
Town of Atherton General Plan
As described on the Town of Atherton’s General Plan website, the Atherton General Plan was adopted in November 2002, and is intended as a map for the Town to guide the growth and development. The General Plan is a comprehensive document articulating policies and guidelines for developing and preserving the quality of life in Atherton. General Plans typically contain goals, objectives, policies and programs all intended to support the Town's desire to develop in a particular manner and to attain a community vision. An update to the Housing Element, prepared in accordance with State law, was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2015, with the next State mandated update to occurred in 2022. All other elements of the General Plan have not been updated since 2002. Atherton is essentially built out in accordance with the policies stated in the General Plan.15
The City Council held a public hearing on January 15, 2020, at which time it considered the IS/MND and all comments on that document. It also considered the proposed General Plan Update and all of the comments made at the public workshop, the Planning Commission public hearing and the City Council public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council certified the IS/MND and adopted the General Plan Update.16
Town of Atherton General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element The open space and conservation element of the general plan is included in the 2019 General Plan, pages VIII OSC – 50 to 68, dated January 2020. The Open Space Element contains an inventory and description of existing and proposed open space lands and uses and identifies goals and policies that support open spaces in Atherton. The Conservation portion of this Element describes the Town’s natural and man-made resources; including land, water, ecosystems, cultural and living resources. The Open Space and Conservation Element seeks to maintain the low-density, residential character of the Town.

The subject structure, the Faculty Housing Apartment 8B in Menlo College, is not identified within the General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element as a historically significant buildings and is not associated with the Menlo School, Stent Family Hall (Douglass Hall aka Payne-Douglass House), or the Perry Stable (Associated with Australian Racehorse Phar Lap). 15 Town of Atherton, General Plan Background Information available at: https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/208/General-Plan 16 Town of Atherton, General Plan 2019, document dated January 2020, page III INTRO – 5. 17 Ibid, page VIII OSC – 64.

Page 654 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Town of Atherton General Plans’ Public Facilities and Schools (PFS) Land Use and Zoning Districts The Menlo College falls under the Town of Atherton General Plans’ Public Facilities and Schools (PFS) Land Use and Zoning Districts. Pursuant to Town’s General Plan, per Section 17.36 on Public Facilities and Schools District (PFS) District Zoning of the Atherton Municipal Code, private school facilities are subject to development by the issuance of a conditional use permit from the Town planning commission. As noted within the municipal code, conditional use permits require an application with specific documentation for the existing and proposed work, and review by the Planning Commission.18
Furthermore, all private schools located in the PFS district are requested by the City Council to prepare a master plan update that is received by the planning commission (Section 17.36.059 of the Atherton Municipal Code). The master plan update is meant to allow flexibility and adjustment of the facilities’ locations of a campus, while providing specific projections related to enrollment and proposed floor space. A master plan may also include details related to possible facilities to be developed, scheduled/priority development, circulation patterns, location of parking, and the identification of historic/unique facilities among other content to support the overall growth and development of a school. As the subject structure is located within the Menlo College campus, it is also subject to the PFS.

6. EVALUATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY

6.1. NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES & CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) recognizes historic properties equal to or greater than fifty years old that are determined to be significant in respect to American history, architecture, archeology, engineering or culture, and at the local, state, or national level. To be determined eligible for listing on the NRHP a resource must also retain integrity in terms of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) resources that meet the criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The State Office of Historic Preservation has recommended the National Register of Historic Properties Criteria for Evaluation (used below) as a uniform standard for California because they provide a basis for assessing the significance of historical resources at the national, state, and local levels. As such, they encompass and provide for routine consideration of other applicable state and local criteria.19
From these are derived the guidelines used below, including those of the Town of Atherton (Section 6.2).

Determinations of historical significance require that several factors are considered, including the property’s history (both construction and use); the history and context of the surrounding community; an association with important persons or uses; the number of resources associated 18 Atherton. Municipal Code, Title 17, Zoning. https://atherton.municipal.codes/Code/17 19 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, Office of Historic Preservation, March 1995.

Page 655 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
with the property; the potential for the resources to be the work of a master architect, builder, craftsman, landscape gardener, or artist; the historical, architectural or landscape influences that have shaped the property’s design and its pattern of use; and alterations that have taken place; and lastly how these changes may have affected the property’s historical integrity.

These issues must be explored thoroughly before a final determination of significance can be established. To be eligible for the California Register, historic resources must possess both historical significance and retain historic integrity. The following are the four significance criteria of the California Register. Upon review of the criteria, if historic significance is identified, then an integrity analysis is conducted. To be eligible for the California Register, an historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under at least one of the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Event or Patterns of Events
It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

Historical research has determined that the subject structure, the Faculty Housing Apartment 8B in Menlo College, located at 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, does not qualify under Criterion 1: Event/Patterns of Events. The structure possesses association with the development of residential and academic structures for Menlo College circa 1950 and illustrates the architectural type of development of many of the region’s academic spaces However, it does not demonstrate a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The existence of residential structures on campus and consistency of singlefamily residents in environ to the campus are supported by the current uses of the sites and is not related to a specific event or patterns of events. As a result, the subject structure does not qualify individually under California Register Criterion 1: Event or Pattern of Events.

Criterion 2: Important Person(s)
It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.

Menlo College is associated with various notable alumni including, but not limited to, Patty Hearst (granddaughter to publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst), Bob Lurie (former owner of the San Francisco Giants), K.S. “Bud” Adams (Texas Oil Entrepreneur), Richard Tang (owner of Hong Kong Star Ferry), Jeff van Gundy (former head coach of the New York Knicks and Houston Rockets), David Copley (President/Owner of Copley Press, and Philanthropist) and Prince Awaleed al Saud (Saudi Arabian businessman, investor, philanthropist, and royal).20 Historical research has determined that the subject structure, the Faculty Housing Apartment 8B in Menlo College, located at 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, is not directly associated with these notable alumni. The National Register 20 Workman, Bill . A Rich Legacy/Menlo College, once famed for its elite alumni, is celebrating its diamond anniversary. SF Gate, May 3, 2002

Page 656 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Bulletin “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,” provides guidance in applying the criterion for “Important Persons”:

The persons associated with the property must have gained importance within his or her profession or group. … A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social or ethnic group. It must be shown that the person gained importance within his or her profession or group.

The subject structure has been used as 4 apartments, providing faculty housing on campus. Brief research on the subject structure did not result with specific occupants for the college and did not demonstrate significant or relative historic background to associate it with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. As a result, the structure does not qualify individually under California Register Criterion 2:

Important Person(s).

Criterion 3: Design/Construction
It 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.

Although there are notable architects associated with Menlo College and its campus buildings, no significant architect or designer has been identified with the subject structure. The structure is an example of the Contemporary style and is a respective style within the context represented in Menlo College and Atherton. However, does not possess unique nor prominent architectural features. It is also not singularly distinctive with respect to other structures of the same style such that it would be of landmark quality to be individually eligible for the California Register.

As previously noted in Section 5.3, this structure is characterized by its symmetrical lowpitched gable roof with overhanging eaves, exposed roof beams, and single-story massing.

The structure does hold architectural features related to the dwelling’s original style.

However, the structure lacks character-defining features related to the Contemporary architectural style, which typically includes a combination of a recessed entrance, entry garden, broad low masonry chimney, carport, and surfaces with integral patterns. This style also accounts for two-story structures located on a flat or slope ground surface, two levels of pitched roofs with a clerestory window, balcony railings with an outward slant, window walls withs spatial configurations, vertical elements, carports, and screens.

Subtypes of Contemporary architectural styles can be identified through their roof styles which includes front-gable roof, side-gable roof, gable-roof variations, and a flat roof.

The National Register Bulletin “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,” provides guidance in applying the criterion for “Design/Construction”:

Page 657 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
A building that is a classic expression of the design theories of the Craftsman Style, such as carefully detailed handwork, is eligible. … A building that is a modest example of the Craftsman Style of architecture would not qualify for high artistic value.

The review of the structure’s original architectural style and existing conditions has provided a description of the structure's current state in relation to its design and construction determining the structure does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a Contemporary type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. As a result, the structure does not qualify individually under California Register Criterion 3: Design/Construction.

Criterion 4: Information Potential
It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

Since the subject structure does not possess individual historical significance, nor does the subject structure yield, or potential to yield information important to the prehistory of history of the local area, California, of the nation, an analysis of integrity has not been undertaken.

This HRE evaluates the subject structure and does not evaluate further information related to archaeology. Refer to “Archaeological Record Search and Report of Findings for the Town of Atherton Zoning Code Update, Atherton, San Mateo County, California,” dated February 8, 2024, prepared by Evans & De Shazo, Inc.

6.2. TOWN OF ATHERTON LOCAL CRITERIA
Procedures and processes to register historic buildings, along with activities requiring an alteration permit to a historic building in the Atherton historical register are located in Chapter

8.15 of the Atherton Municipal Code.21 The “Atherton historical register” is the official list of historic buildings within the town and is maintained by town staff (Ord. 652 § 1, 2022).

Pursuant to Chapter 8.15.200, the criteria for designating a historic building are the following:

Criterion A: Precondition to Listing
A building will only be considered for inclusion on the Atherton historical register, if one or more of the following is met:

1. The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

2. The building is listed on the California State Historical Landmarks, Points of Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources.

3. The building is determined to be of local significance by the city council. 21 Town of Atherton. Municipal Code Chapter 8.15. https://atherton.municipal.codes/Code/8.15

Page 658 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
The subject structure is currently not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California State Historical Landmarks, Points of Interest, or the California Register of Historical Resources. The building has also not been determined to be of local significance by the City Council. As a result, the structure does not qualify individually under the Town of Atherton Historical Register Criteria A1, A2, and A3.

Criterion B: Determining Local Significance
The City Council may determine a building is of local significance if it can make any of the following findings with respect to the building:

1. The building is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the town’s history;
Historical research has determined that the subject structure, the Faculty Housing Apartment 8B in Menlo College, located at 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, is not associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the town’s history (refer to Section 6.1, Criteria 1). As a result, the subject structure does not qualify individually under the Town of Atherton Historic Designation Criteria B1.

2. The building is associated with a person that played a significant role in the town’s history; Historical research has determined that the subject structure, Faculty Housing Apartment 8B in Menlo College, located at 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, is not directly associated with a person that played a significant role in the town’s history (refer to Section

6.1, Criteria 2). The subject structure is an single-story, used to support housing for faculty and is not associated with a significant person. As a result, the subject structure does not qualify individually under the Town of Atherton Historic Designation Criteria B2.

The structure does hold architectural features related to the dwelling’s original style.

Page 659 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
window walls withs spatial configurations, vertical elements, carports, and screens.

Subtypes of Contemporary architectural styles can be identified through their roof styles which includes front-gable roof, side-gable roof, gable-roof variations, and a flat roof.

This HRE evaluates the subject structure and does not evaluate further information related to archaeology. Since the subject structure does not possess individual historical significance, nor does the subject structure yield, or potential to yield information important to the prehistory of history of the local area, California, of the nation, an analysis of integrity has not been undertaken (refer to Section 6.1, Criteria 4). As a result, the subject structure does not qualify individually under the Town of Atherton Historic Designation Criteria B3.

4. The building is listed as a historically significant building in the open space and conservation element of the general plan. (Ord. 652 § 1, 2022)
As previously noted in Section 5.5, the subject structure, the Faculty Housing Apartment 8B in Menlo College, is not identified within the General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element as a historically significant buildings and is not associated with the Menlo School, Stent Family Hall (Douglass Hall aka Payne-Douglass House), or the Perry Stable (Associated with Australian Racehorse Phar Lap). As a result, the structure does not qualify individually under the Town of Atherton Historic Designation Criteria B4.

6.3. SIGNIFICANCE & INTEGRITY
In addition to evaluating a structure for its significance with a historic register criteria as a historic resource, the structure must also retain integrity. The National Register criteria recognizes seven aspects or qualities, that can be used in combination, claiming integrity. The seven aspects include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.22 Since the evaluation of the subject structure has not led to identification of an eligible historic resource under the national, state, or local historic register criteria, an analysis of integrity has not been undertaken.
22 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Cultural Resources. National Register Bulletin, 44. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf

Page 660 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

6.4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code §21084.1 provides that any project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Public Resources Code §5020.1(q) defines “substantial adverse change” as demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration such that the significance of the historical resource would be impaired. According to the Public Resources Code §5024.1, an historical resource is a resource that is listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; included in a local register of historical resources; or is identified as significant in a historic resource survey if that survey meets specified criteria.

According to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)(3), a lead agency can find a resource has been determined to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California provided that the determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

The subject structure does not meet the level of significance necessary to be eligible for the California Register. The subject structure is not included in a local register of historic resources nor designated as a historically significant site, nor has it been identified or documented in previous historic resource survey efforts or documentation projects.

7. CONCLUSION

7.1. RECOMMENDATIONS
In conclusion to the evaluation of the subject structure for qualification as a historical resource in accordance with Article 5, §15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the local Historic Designation Criteria, one recommendation is provided for the subject structure. Due to the minimal documentation found during the development of the HRE for the subject structure, it is recommended that the subject structure is identified in the next submittal of the Menlo College’s Master Plan. The identification may include a copy of the HRE, photographic documentation, and description of current and proposed uses for the college. This documentation would support its regulatory setting within the PFS, where a Master Plan is required to be reported annually to planning commission pursuant to Section 17.36.059 of the Atherton Municipal Code.

7.2. FINDINGS
The subject structure, the Faculty Housing Apartment 8B in Menlo College, located at 1000 El Camino Real, in the Town of Atherton, does not possess historical significance, is not a strong example of the Contemporary style, was not designed by a master architect or builder, and is not associated with important events or persons. It is the professional opinion of M-Group that the structure (1) is not individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Resources, (2) is not

Page 661 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
individually eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, (3) does not qualify individually as a historical resource under CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)(3), and (4) is not eligible for individual historic designation under Atherton Municipal Code, Chapter 8.15.200, Criteria for designating a historic building.

Page 662 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Association of Ramaytush Ohlone. https://www.ramaytush.org/ California State Office of Historic Preservation. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ County of San Mateo Assessor. Historic Assessor’s Records.

Daggett, Stuart. Chapters on the History of the Southern Pacific Railroad. New York, NY; Ronald Press Co, 1922.

Guillard, Pamela and Lund, Nancy. Under the Oaks – Two Hundred Years in Atherton . San Francisco, CA; Scottwall Associates, 2009.

Library of Congress, Sanborn Collection. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, June 1919.

McAlester, Virginia S. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York, NY; Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.

Menlo College. https://www.menlo.edu/
Muwekma Ohlone. www.muwekma.org
Peninsula Times and Redwood City Tribune. Newspapers.com Articles dated from 1927-1928.

Ramaytush Ohlone.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=ff1475b14956474989181b48dbadd487 San Mateo County Historical Society. Polk Publishing Company. San Mateo Cities Directories, 1920 - 1976.

Town of Atherton, Building Inspection & Code Enforcement Division, Building Permit Records.

Town of Atherton, History of Atherton. https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/96/History-of-Atherton Town of Atherton, General Plan. https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/208/General-Plan Workman, Bill . A Rich Legacy/Menlo College, once famed for its elite alumni, is celebrating its diamond anniversary. SF Gate, May 3, 2002

Page 663 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

9. APPENDIX

9.1. MAPS

9.2. PARCEL DATA

9.3. ON-SITE PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION

9.4. ARCHIVED BUILDING & PLANNING DOCUMENTS

9.5. NEWSPAPER RECORD

9.6. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION (DPR) 523 FORMS

9.7. PREPARER’S QUALIFICATIONS

Page 664 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
APPENDIX 9.1
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maps
Palo Alto, California, 1897.

Palo Alto, California, 1948.

Menlo
College,
Approx.

Page 665 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Palo Alto, California, 1953.

Palo Alto, California, 1961.

Subject Structure, Approx.

Page 666 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Palo Alto, California, 1961, revised 1968.

Palo Alto, California, 1991.

Subject Structure, Approx.

Page 667 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Palo Alto, California, 1997.

Subject Structure, Approx.

Page 668 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Menlo School / Menlo College Historic Campus Plan, c. 1950.

Subject Structure

Page 669 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Menlo College Campus Map, 2023.

Page 670 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
APPENDIX 9.2
Parcel Data
County of San Mateo Assessor’s Map (1969).

Subject
Structure,
Approx.

Page 671 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
APPENDIX 9.3
On-Site Photographic Documentation
December 5, 2023
Front Entrance - View facing East
Side- View facing Northeast

Page 672 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
Side/Rear- View facing North
Rear - View facing North

Page 673 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
APPENDIX 9.4
Archived Building & Planning Documents
Summary of Building Permits and Planning Projects Associated with the subject parcel, 1000 El Camino Real (APN: 070-360-100)
Building Permit
Number
Project Type Brief Scope
Description
Status
BP23-000529 Mechanical Install HVAC Unit Issued 7/2023
BP23-000478 Commercial Reroof of a 10,500 sq.ft.
building
Finalized, 9/2023
BP23-00495 Commercial Reroof of a 26,300 sq.ft.
building
Issued, 9/2023
BP23-000279 Accessory Structure Alterations to Tennis
Courts
Finalized, 10/2023
BP22-00231 Plumbing Step down Regulator at
Kratt Hall
Expired 9/2022
BP22-00232 Plumbing Step down Regulator at
Michaels Hall
Expired 9/2022
APW21-000316 Public Works Sewer Lateral
Replacement
Issued, 11/2021
BP21-000107 Demolition Demolition of
Swimming Poola and
Equipment structures
Finalized, 3/2021
BP20-000617 Commercial Alterations to the
Florence Moore Hall
Finalized, 3/2021
BP20-00532 Grading and Drainage Grading and Drainage,
Maintenance
Agreement
Finalized, 5/2023
BP20-00334 Commercial New 3 Story Dormitory
Building
Finalized, 5/2023
BP19-00380 Commercial New Flag Pole Finalized, 1/2020
BP19-00164 Grading and Drainage Replace existing
pavement and install
new pavers
Finalized, 1/2020
APW19-00083 Public Works Trench and Place 45’
conduit for AT&T
Finalized, 5/2019
TR19-00039 Tree Removal 1 Valley Oak to be
removed and replaced
Finalized, 3/2019
BP19-00108 Other Street Name Change
request
Under Review,
2/2019
APW18-00411 Public Works Atherton Fiber Ring on
El Camino Real
Approved,
11/2018
APW18-00354 Landscaping Minor Traffic Control for MCI
Projects
Finalized, 6/2021

Page 674 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
BP18-00562 Commercial Install Canopies and
Bleachers at Pool
Finalized, 2/2019
APW18-00005 Public Works Atherton Fiber
Backbone
Issued, 1/2018
TR17-00209 Heritage Tree Permit 5 Trees to be removed
and replaced
Finalized, 3/2019
BP17-00534 Reroof Reroof Florence Moore
Hall
Finalized,7/2018
BP17-00514 Commercial Sign in front of School Finalized, 7/2018 BP17-00366 Commercial Accessible Auto parking
and school bus parking
Finalized, 10/2017
BP17-00096 Commercial Renovate Bathrooms
and Locker Rooms
Finalized, 2/2018
BP17-00058 Demolition Interior Demolition of
Walls and Fixtures
Finalized, 6/2017
Planning Permit
Number
Project Type Description Status
MPL22-00003 School Master Plan Master Plan Update
2022
Received, 11/2022
MPL21-00003 School Master Plan Master Plan Update
2021
Received, 11/2021
HTR21-00005 Hertiage Tree Removal HTR Subject to PC
Approval
Approved, 7/2021
IRB21-00025 Initial Review New Dormitory Building Received, 2/2021 MPL20-00002 School Master Plan Master Plan Update
2020
Received, 10/2020
CUP19-00002 Accessory Structure Build a New 3 story
residence hall
Received, 12/2019
ENV19-00002 Initial Review, Negative
Declaration
Build a New 3 story
residence hall
Received, 12/2019
MPL19-00003 School Master Plan Master Plan Update
2019
Received, 6/2019
IRB19-00138 Initial Review New Flag Pole Received, 6/2019 IRB18-00211 Initial Review Install Canopies and
Bleachers at Pool
Received, 7/2018
MPL18-00003 School Master Plan Master Plan Update
2018
Received, 7/2018
IRB17-00184 Initial Review Installation of a
Monument Sign
Received, 7/2017
IRB17-00148 Initial Review New Parking Lot Received, 6/2017 IRB17-00052 Initial Review New Dugouts, Backstop
and Netting
Received, 3/2017

Page 675 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
APPENDIX 9.5
Peninsula Times and Redwood City Tribune Articles, Menlo College Source: Newspaper.com
February 2, 1928
(Top)
October 12, 1927
February 2, 1928
(Bottom)

Page 676 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

January 6, 1928
April 28, 1928
May 12, 1928

Page 677 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
APPENDIX 9.6
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 Forms
Provided on the following page.

Rest of this page left black intentionally.

Page 678 of 1727 ends

Page 1 of 2 ends

P1. Other Identifier: ___
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
OtherListings
Review Code Reviewer Date
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted
*a. County San Mateo County and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M.
c. Address 1000 El Camino Real City Atherton Zip 94027
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 070-360-100 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
Brief Description: The Faculty Housing Apartment 8B (subject structure) is located at the north side of the Menlo College campus (1000 El Camino Real, Atherton 94027), at the southeast intersection of El Camino Real (Highway 82) and Alejandra Avenue. The subject structure is in between the O’Brien Parking Lot and the Russel Center. The subject structure is a single-story apartment building for faculty housing, containing 4 apartment units, with an approximate total of 2,400 square foot. The subject structure was originally designed in a Contemporary architectural style, common from 1945 to 1990. The structure is a single-story, multi-dwelling apartment, with a building footprint at approximately 80 feet by 30 feet (approximately 2,400 square feet). Aerial and USGS maps have recorded the structure’s footprint has retained its original dimensions and rectangular form. On-site observations determined the structure contains painted wood-frame and concrete block walls, a shingle roof, and a combination of fixed, casement, and horizontal sliding windows. The roof contains chimneys, vents, and gutters. The structure supports 4 apartments, each with their own variety of windows and exterior doors and fenced outdoor area. For additional content to the subject structure, refer to Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, Historic Resource Evaluation, dated March 11, 2024. *P3b. Resource Attributes:

HP3. Multiple family property
*P4. Resources Present:  Building
Structure Object Site District
Element of District Other
(Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) View of Side/Rear Façade,
facing North, December 5, 2023.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: Historic Prehistoric
Both
Ca. 1950.
*P7. Owner and Address:

Menlo College, 1000 El Camino
Real, Atherton, CA 94027
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address)
M-Group, 1475 S. Bascom Avenue,
Suite 210 Campbell, CA 95008
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Refer to Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, Historic Resource Evaluation, dated March 11, 2024. *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record
 Other: Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, Historic Resource Evaluation, dated March 11, 2024.

P5a. Photograph

Page 679 of 1727 ends

*Resource Name or # Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real *NRHP Status Code

Page 2 of 2 ends

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name: Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real B3. Original Use: Unknown B4. Present Use: Faculty Housing Apartments *B5. Architectural Style: Contemporary
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Construction Brief History: Historic campus maps of Menlo School indicate that the subject structure has been built since 1950. Historical aerial photographs were sourced and confirm that the subject building was constructed on the Menlo College campus on or prior to 1955. No documents readily available identify the construction date of the subject structure. It is identified with a contemporary architectural style and its exterior materials of wood, composite roof, and concrete blocks support a construction date from the 1920s to 1950s. Furthermore, historical information regarding the origins of the subject structure, whether construction on site or relocation, could not be confirmed due to documentation readily available or to insufficient records. Earliest available records confirm the building’s primary use has been faculty apartments. The subject structure in not listed on a national, state, or local historic resource register. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown
*B10. Significance: Theme N/A Area
Period of Significance N/A Property Type N/A Applicable Criteria N/A Menlo College Brief History: The 40-acre property that is now Menlo College were estate lands owned by several notable local residents, including Faxon Dean, Dominga Atherton, and George and Ellen Fife. A boys military academy called the “William Warren School,” after its founder and first headmaster William Warren, was established in 1915 on 12 acres of the Fife estate located on Alejandra Avenue. The schoolhouse was built on a two-story frame, and educated boys aged 8 through 18 in strict West-Point style military tradition. The school began to falter following declining admission after the First World War, and was closed and sold in 1924.1
The school was purchased by Clifford Dennis who formed a new board of trustees and established the Menlo School for Boys, later identified as the Menlo School. A two-year college was established in 1927 as an integral part of the school, and the institution changed its name to Menlo School and Junior College. By 1949, the name was officially changed to Menlo School and Menlo College. 2 B11. Additional Resource Attributes: N/A
*B12. References: For additional content to the subject structure, refer to Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo
College, Historic Resource Evaluation, dated
March 11, 2024._______________________________
B13. Remarks: N/A
*B14. Evaluator: M-Group
*Date of Evaluation: March 11, 2024
1 Guillard, Pamela and Lund, Nancy. Under the Oaks – Two Hundred Years in Atherton. San Francisco, CA; Scottwall Associates, 2009. 2 Menlo College. https://www.menlo.edu
Menlo College Campus, Context Map, 2024.

Page 680 of 1727 ends

FINAL HRE – Faculty Housing Apartment 8B, Menlo College, 1000 El Camino Real, Town of Atherton, CA m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley
APPENDIX 9.7
Preparer’s Qualifications
Provided on the following page.

Rest of this page left black intentionally.

Page 681 of 1727 ends

m-group.us

EXPERIENCE
M-Group
Historic Preservation Specialist
Sep 2021 – Present
Santa Rosa, Calif.

PMM Consultant Engineers
Historic Preservation Planner
Consultant
Mar 2020 – Sep 2021
Miami, Fla.

PPIY Architects +
Part II Architectural Assistant
Dec 2018 – Nov 2019
York, U.K.

ODP Architects
Designer
Jun 2014 – Dec 2017
Hollywood Beach, Fla.

EDUCATION
Master of Arts – Conservation
Studies of Historic Buildings
University of York
York, England, U.K,
Bachelor of Architecture
Cum Laude + Dean’s List
Syracuse University
Syracuse, N.Y.

LANGUAGES
English
Spanish
Isabel Castellano is an experienced Historic Preservation Planner and Architectural Designer.

She has practiced complex work within the American and British industries of architecture, interior design, conservation, archaeology, and urban city planning. She values holistic and technical development of architectural design and urban planning and displays a professional passion for design and development of physical, social, and economic aspects of a city and its neighborhoods. Her formal education includes Architecture, Environment, Geography, and Historic Preservation. She is an active and dedicated professional who excels with assertive and inclusive communication, strategic research methodologies, and descriptive writing practices. Isabel is bi-lingual — fluent in English and Spanish.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Historic Preservation Historic Resource Evaluation & Peer Review Architectural Design & Review Section 106 Compliance
Board & Committee Administration Research, Analysis & Technical Writing

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION SPECIALIST | M-GROUP, SANTA ROSA, CALIF.

Providing historic preservation services for cities and counties within the Bay Area, services include Historic Resource Evaluations (HREs), Peer Reviews, Section 106 Compliance, eligible historic resource consultation, and building/planning permit reviews for historic listed properties. Managing planning applications with the City of Petaluma’s Community Development Department and for Historic Site & Architectural Plan Reviews.

Supporting and assisting the city's Historic and Cultural Preservation Committee.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER CONSULTANT | PMM CONSULTANT ENGINEERS, MIAMI, FLA.

Reviewed architectural drawings and specifications, conducted site visits, reported survey findings, assessed Archaeology Shovel Test Reports, issued Standard Certificates of Appropriateness and Certificates to Dig, provided technical guidance for property owners and assistance to the administration of the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB). Coordinated and directed meetings virtually with range applicants including property owners, architects, contractors, developers, and permit runners. Reviewed and evaluated existing zoning provisions and Historic Design Guidelines to provide recommendations of design guidelines and efficient processes to address City needs. Staff Analysis and Designation Reports with archival work were produced monthly for HEPB applications. Tracked permits and projects in Special Districts and Scenic Transportation Corridors (STP) using various City platforms and interfaces. Simultaneously oversaw four unique Historic Districts in Miami: Buena Vista East, Lummus Park, Palm Grove and Riverview.

PART II ARCHITECTURAL ASSISTANT | PPIY ARCHITECTS +, YORK, U.K.

Responsible for ensuring project delivery including communication and documentation between clients, consultants, and contractors. Conducted site surveys and historical research. Provided daily development and management between 2D drawings

Page 682 of 1727 ends

m-group.us

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
World Heritage USA / ICOMOS,
International Member 2023-Present
Association for Preservation
Technology International (APT),
Member 2020-Present
California Preservation Foundation
(CPF), Member 2021-Present
California Association of
Environmental Professionals (AEP),
Member 2021-Present
American Institute for Conservation
(AIC), Member 2021-2022
National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Individual Member
2018-2022
Institute for Historic Building
Conservation (IHBC), Student Affiliate
Member 2019
American Institute of Architecture
Miami Chapter, Associate Member
2016-2017
(schematics/ proposals/ construction documents) and 3D visualizations (diagrams/renderings), selection of finishes and FFE, and cost analysis reports. Submitted City planning and building regulation applications. Created and coordinated client presentations. Reviewed and provided recommendations to current and prospective clients on proposed landscape, architectural and urban design plans for City permits.

Selected projects include: Wakefield Hospice entrance renovation proposal, Medieval Fenton Church Clock Tower survey and louver replication, Victorian residential grantaided disabled extension, Mid-century Quaker Meeting House feasibility study, and Derwent Valley Light Railway Engine Shed Teaching Facility design proposal.

DESIGNER | O’DONNEL DANNWOLF AND PARTNERS, ARCHITECTS INC., HOLLYWOOD BEACH, FLA.

Provided review and directed consultants’ drawings towards architectural design intent.

Produced client presentations and communicated design proposals into construction documents. Conducted field surveys and inspections. Assisted in the supervision and project management of a small group of professionals. Collaborated, designed and developed multi-million-dollar residences and luxury residential apartments in Florida & Bahamas through set submissions, RFIs and 3D (digital/physical) models. Created maps, graphics, displays, and massing studies to gather and correlate preliminary data and plans. Designer tasks included project design, creation of renderings, presentations, graphic displays, and mood board layouts. Participated in the production of CD sets for One Thousand Museum, Zaha Hadid Architects & Paramount Miami World Center.

RECOGNITIONS
York Conservation Archaeology Alumni Dissertation Research Grant Canary Islands, Spain 2019
SU Travel Abroad Grant
Florence, Italy 2014

Page 683 of 1727 ends

m-group.us

SEAN MANALO

ASSOCIATE PLANNER

EXPERIENCE
M-Group
Associate Planner
May 2022 – Present
City of Modesto
Assistant Planner
Jun 2021– May 2022
Modesto, Calif.

California State Senate
Senior District Representative
Dec 2014 – Jun 2021
Fremont, Calif.

Political Consulting
Principal
Jun 2014 – Nov 2020
Fremont, Calif.

California State Assembly
Field Representative
Jul 2012 – Dec 2014
Fremont, Calif.

EDUCATION
Master of Urban Planning
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, Calif.

Bachelor of Arts – International
Studies
Magna cum Laude
University of Denver
Denver, Colo.

Study Abroad/Cherrington Global
Scholar
Beijing Foreign Studies University
Beijing, People’s Republic of China
Sean Manalo is an energetic planner with a strong dedication to the betterment of communities. He is detail-focused with proven project management success. Sean values inclusion and thrives in collaborative environments where his creativity and problem-solving skills shine. He is particularly experienced in development review and community engagement and seeks opportunities to have a positive impact on the communities he serves.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Project Management
Zoning Review & Compliance
Community Engagement
Planning Commission Clerk
Policy Planning
Development Review
Historic Preservation

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
ASSOCIATE PLANNER (CURRENT PLANNING) | M-GROUP/ATHERTON, CALIF.

Process planning permit and entitlement applications, review and analyze land use impacts and compliance with local and state regulations and city policies. Prepare staff reports for Planning Commission, coordinate with other City reviewers, and conduct site inspections. Communicate with applicants, consultants, city staff and the public. Clerk for Planning Commission meetings and manage Zoom capabilities for public workshops.

Assists with mapping inquiries and analysis for Town’s housing policy programs.

ASSOCIATE PLANNER (HISTORIC PRESERVATION) | M-GROUP/REDWOOD CITY, CALIF.

Provide support for historic preservation services for Historic Resource Evaluations (HREs) and peer review. Conduct site visits and perform research analysis for Historic Site & Architectural Plan Reviews. Assists in the review and writing of evaluations and reports as required by CEQA.

ASSOCIATE PLANNER (ADVANCED PLANNING) | M-GROUP/SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIF.

Consulted for the Stanford University Community Plan Update project. Managed day-today and long-term project tasks. Coordinated project schedule and community outreach strategy. Communicated with County planners, attorneys, executives, and subconsultants. Prepared Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors staff reports, notices, and presentations. Researched, drafted, reviewed, and edited Community Plan goals, policies, programs, and background information.

Supported project management efforts of the Sargent Quarry Project, including communications with the project applicant, meeting coordination, and project schedule. Communicated with County planners, attorneys, executives, and subconsultants. Assisted in the EIR public comment process by organizing project inquiries and public comments. Reviewed project plans,
EIR project description, reclamation plans, and chapters to draft reports, presentations, and notices.

Page 684 of 1727 ends

m-group.us

SEAN MANALO

ASSOCIATE PLANNER

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Planning Association
Congress for the New Urbanism
(CNU) - California Chapter
ASSOCIATE PLANNER (CURRENT PLANNING) | M-GROUP/CITIES OF PALO ALTO AND MILPITAS, CALIF.

Processed planning applications for review and analyzed land use impacts and compliance with local and state regulations and city policies. Coordinated permitting for residential and commercial construction and accessory dwelling units. Communicated with applicants, consultants, city staff and the public.

Conducted research and analyzed collected data. Prepared technical and administrative reports. Resolved constituent inquiries and provided direct counter services and information to the public.

ASSISTANT PLANNER | CITY OF MODESTO, CALIF.

Served as expert staff for Advanced and Daily Planning related activities. Reviewed development proposals and applications for adherence to municipal code regulations and state policies. Prepared technical staff reports and presented information as expert staff to City Council, Planning Commission, and Board of Zoning Adjustment. Collected, recorded, and summarized statistical and demographic information; integrated planning data into other City database systems such as ARC GIS. Prepared and reviewed plans for the subdivision and development of land such as neighborhood zoning and development; advised developers in the design of proposed subdivisions and plot plans; processed plans as required by subdivision and zoning regulations policies. Processed applications for zoning changes, variances, and use permits; provided information to the public on possible uses of land, physical design constraints, and other use limitations.

SENIOR DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE | CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE, FREMONT, CALIF.

Conducted policy research, prepared memos and summary reports on legislation, and testified to City Councils and Legislative Bodies on Senator’s behalf. Assumed role as Public Communications Representative and Policy Liaison on Health, Education, the Environment and Business and Technology. Forged and fostered relationships with community organizations, business groups, elected officials, community leaders, and government agencies. Developed and executed outreach/communications strategies and initiatives to reach a diverse audience and promote Senator’s message related to legislative priorities. Tracked and stayed current on local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and policies.

PRINCIPAL | POLITICAL CONSULTING
Led team in all aspects of candidate campaigns, including strategy, fundraising, and daily operations. Conducted public relations activities and served as a spokesperson with journalists regarding campaign events. Conducted research and drafted legislative amendments. Managed and executed projects and work activities, ensuring optimal use of resources. Identified and secured opportunities for new partnerships within community organizations and political groups. Authored website and social media content. Designed collateral materials for the public using multimedia and graphic arts.

Page 685 of 1727 ends

m-group.us

EXPERIENCE
M-Group
Assistant Planner
Apr 2023 - Present
Swale Inc.

Planning Technician
May 2022 – Apr 2023
Grass Valley, Calif.

San Simeon WWTP Environmental
Constraints Project
Contributor
Sep 2022 – Dec 2022
Swale Inc.

GIS & Land-Use Planning Intern
Jun 2021 – Jul 2021
Grass Valley, Calif.

California Polytechnic State
University Base-map Project
Contributor
Apr 2021 – Jun 2021
San Luis Obispo, Calif.

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science –
Environmental Management &
Protection
Minor – City & Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State
University
San Luis Obispo, Calif

LANGUAGES
English
Spanish
Laylonni Laster is an emerging planner with knowledge of sustainable urban development, land use law, and climate action planning. She has experience in technical writing, specifically city and special district Municipal Service Reports, research and analysis, and GIS applications.

She has a particular interest in environmental issues and is motivated to find sustainable solutions to current planning problems. Laylonni is bilingual (English/Spanish) and skilled in public speaking and written communication.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Climate Action Planning
Sustainable Urban Development
Environmental Review
CEQA
Land Use Planning
Community Engagement
Research & Analysis
GIS Mapping

EXPERIENCE
ASSISTANT PLANNER | M-GROUP
Contributor to the Town of Atherton Housing Element providing analysis of the environmental setting for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Produce study session presentation for the Menlo Park Environmental Justice and Safety Elements. Analyze city General Plan objectives that correspond to CEQA environmental issue areas. Prepare Notice of Preparation for Environmental Impact Reports. Analyze project compliance with SB 330 and city municipal code. Author staff reports for project applications. Create GIS maps for environmental review documents.

PLANNING TECHNICIAN | SWALE INC., GRASS VALLEY, CALIF.

Completed technical writing for city and special district Municipal Service Reports.

Researched data for and created GIS maps that portrayed district service areas, city boundaries, sphere of influence, and wildfire severity zones. Conducted population analysis to project population growth in city boundaries. Analyzed Master Plans, General Plans, and other long range planning documents.

CONTRIBUTOR | ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS PROJECT, SAN SIMEON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, CALIF.

Analyzed CEQA environmental issue areas that may be impacted. Wrote a technical analysis paper on potential constraints on the development of a new wastewater treatment plant.

Analyzed potential permits necessary for the project implementation. Made project recommendations to the client to reduce potential environmental impacts related to water resources. Created maps to show the spatial connection between the project site and natural resources.

GIS & LAND-USE PLANNING INTERN | SWALE INC., GRASS VALLEY CALIF.

Completed a bibliography for sources that will be included in a municipal service report.

Assessed Lake Oroville Area Public Utility District’s governance and accountability. Created ArcGIS maps for a district’s boundary and Sphere of Influence. Prepared a presentation of the Lake Oroville Area Public Utility District findings and maps.

Page 686 of 1727 ends

m-group a new design on urban planning
policy planning  urban design  environmental review  historic preservation  community engagement  staffing solutions

MEMORANDUM
Date:

To:

March 11, 2024
Town of Atherton, Planning Department
Brittany Bendix, Principal Planner
From: Isabel Castellano, Historic Preservation Specialist Subject: Town of Atherton, Housing Element Update, Preliminary Evaluation regarding 9 subject properties: 999 Ringwood Avenue (APN 061091080); 352 Bay Road (APN 061091070); 318 Bay Road (APN 061091060); 296 Bay Road (APN 061091050); 175 Ravenswood Avenue (APN 061281050); 185 Ravenswood Avenue (APN 061281060); 197 Ravenswood Avenue (APN 061281150); 23 Oakwood Boulevard (APN 059153080); 150 Valparaiso Avenue (APN 070390010).

Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum (memo) is to provide a preliminary evaluation to assist the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the Town of Atherton’s Housing Element Update, regarding 9 subject properties: 999 Ringwood Avenue (APN 061091080); 352 Bay Road (APN 061091070); 318 Bay Road (APN 061091060); 296 Bay Road (APN 061091050); 175 Ravenswood Avenue (APN 061281050); 185 Ravenswood Avenue (APN 061281060); 197 Ravenswood Avenue (APN 061281150); 23 Oakwood Boulevard (APN 059153080); 150 Valparaiso Avenue (APN 070390010).

A brief description of the subject properties, existing structures on site, and a preliminary opinion for the eligibility as a historic resource and listing in the state and local register is also included. The subject properties are located in various areas within the Town of Atherton. Further descriptions are provided in the following section. The conclusion provides recommendations and preliminary findings for the subject properties. A complete Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) and Archaeological Report may be requested for development proposals associated with the project site to satisfy the CEQA review.

Methodology
The methodological approach used to complete the preliminary evaluation consisted of historical research of the property and the associated persons and events, archived directory research (Appendix IV), and subject property documentation (Appendix III). Further research was conducted using online resources, including archived maps (Appendix II), parcel and aerial maps (Appendix III), and newspaper articles (Appendix V). In addition, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and the Town of Atherton Criteria were reviewed.

Additional notes on the architectural style and features of the structures are recorded. m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 687 of 1727 ends

A site visit was completed with the assistance of M-Group’s Assistant Planner, Laylonni Laster, on December 11, 2023, and on January 2, 2024. During the site visit, the subject property’s existing condition was recorded with photographic documentation of the subject property from the public right-of-way (Appendix III). General obstructions for photographic documentation included landscape, fencing, property walls, gates, and parked vehicles. Additional notes on the architectural features of the structure and neighborhood were recorded for the development of the HRE’s site and building descriptions. Archive and library visits were completed on February 23, 2024, by M-Group’s, Associate Planner, Sean Manalo.

Town of Atherton Brief History
The area surrounding present-day Atherton remained largely rural and agricultural in the 1800’s, with the development of a collection of farms and ranches ran by Mexican immigrants to Alta California.

Settler Luis Arguello, was awarded a parcel in 1835, stretching from modern day Menlo Park through Atherton to San Mateo. This cattle ranch was called “Rancho las Pulgas,” and would eventually be settled and developed by new migrants to the region.

As California approached the end of the gold and silver mining era, Fair Oaks and Menlo Park remained quite rural. With the construction of the historic Flood (Linden Towers) and Selby (Almendral) estates, the area became noted as a place for country homes for San Francisco’s wealthiest businessmen and high-society families. Individuals who made residence in the Fair Oaks community included Louis and Lucie Stern of the Levi Strauss Company, socialite Olive Holbrook and Silas Palmer, inventor Leon Douglass, Thomas Selby of Selby Silver and Lead Smelting Works and Former Mayor of San Francisco, William Cassandra Hills Adams, bank founder Joseph Donohoe, “cattle king “ Henry Miller, heiress Mabel Lloyd Jessup, and the Moulton and Merrill families1. The legacy of these individuals and their namesake estates continue to be celebrated for their history and legacy within the Town.

Throughout the beginning of the 20th century, the community of Fair Oaks remained an oasis of large farmlands, orchards, and estate homes in contrast to the rapidly growing surrounding communities.

Edward Eyre and Perry Eyre, prominent members of the community, were at the forefront of trying to incorporate Fair Oaks to maintain its rural identity. In 1923, residents of Menlo Park announced its 1 Town of Atherton, 100 Year Celebration. https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/665/100---Year-Centennial-Celebration m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 688 of 1727 ends

intention to incorporate its lands to include Fair Oaks. During a meeting of the representatives of the two communities, the Fair Oaks property owners maintained their community as a strictly residential area, and decided they would incorporate independently. Both groups rushed to the County courthouse in Redwood City, but the Fair Oaks committee arrived first. They also realized that they could not keep the name “Fair Oaks,” as it was already the name of a town near Sacramento2. It was decided to honor Faxon Dean Atherton who had been one of the first property owners in the south peninsula and name the town for him. Atherton was then incorporated on September 12, 1923.

Consistent with the vision of the Town’s earliest residents, Atherton maintains large residential parcels that do not contain commercial uses. In subsequent years, the town would see large land holdings being subdivided into smaller residential parcels. By the 1950’s, over 80 subdivisions would be officially recorded in Atherton, bringing the era of large land estates to a close.

Today, Atherton’s continues to maintain stately homes with refined landscaping and country lanes that began with the early families who built their estates long before the town’s founding. The Town remains largely single-family residential homes and maintains its unique character as a scenic, semirural, thickly-wooded residential area with abundant open space. With close proximity to San Francisco and Silicon Valley, the Town stands as one of the wealthiest and prestigious communities in the United States.

In addition to its built development, Atherton is still “a plain of oaks,” where a variety of tree species including native live oaks, white oaks, bays, redwoods, cedars, pines, and other ornamental trees cover the six square miles of town.3
Refer to Town of Atherton Map (Figure 1) and Subject Property Documentation (Appendix III) for the location of the subject properties. Refer to “Archaeological Record Search and Report of Findings for the Town of Atherton Zoning Code Update, Atherton, San Mateo County, California,” dated February 8, 2024, prepared by Evans & De Shazo, Inc., for additional subject property site history and information.
2 Guillard, Pamela and Lund, Nancy. Under the Oaks – Two Hundred Years in Atherton . San Francisco, CA; Scottwall Associates, 2009. 3 Town of Atherton. History of Atheron. https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/96/History-of-Atherton m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 689 of 1727 ends

23 Oakwood Blvd,
Approx.

Town of Atherton,
Approx. 999 Ringwood Ave,
352 Bay Road,
318 Bay Road,
296 Bay Road,
Approx.
175 Ravenswood Ave,
185 Ravenswood Ave,
197 Ravenswood Ave,
Approx.
150 Valparaiso Ave
(Sacred Heart Schools),
Approx.

N
Figure 1: Town of Atherton Map.

Source: Bing Maps, 2024.

Town of Atherton General Plan
As described on the Town of Atherton’s General Plan website, the Atherton General Plan was adopted in November 2002, and is intended as a map for the Town to guide the growth and development. The General Plan is a comprehensive document articulating policies and guidelines for developing and preserving the quality of life in Atherton. General Plans typically contain goals, objectives, policies and programs all intended to support the Town's desire to develop in a particular manner and to attain a community vision. An update to the Housing Element, prepared in accordance with State law, was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2015, with the next State mandated update occurring in 2022. All other elements of the General Plan have not been updated since 2002. Atherton is essentially built out in accordance with the policies stated in the General Plan.4 The City Council held a public hearing on January 15, 2020, at which time it considered the IS/MND and all comments on that document. It also considered the proposed General Plan Update and all of the comments made at the public workshop, the Planning Commission public hearing and the City Council public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council certified the IS/MND and adopted the General Plan Update.5
4 Town of Atherton, General Plan Background Information available at: https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/208/General-Plan 5 Town of Atherton, General Plan 2019, document dated January 2020, page III INTRO – 5. m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 690 of 1727 ends

Town of Atherton General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element & Existing Historic Resources/ Structures
The open space and conservation element of the general plan is included in the 2019 General Plan, pages VIII OSC – 50 to 68, dated January 2020. The Open Space Element contains an inventory and description of existing and proposed open space lands and uses and identifies goals and policies that support open spaces in Atherton. The Conservation portion of this Element describes the Town’s natural and man-made resources; including land, water, ecosystems, cultural and living resources.

The Open Space and Conservation Element seeks to maintain the low-density, residential character of the Town.

The General Plan identifies the following properties as historically significant buildings and structures; the Watkins/Cartan House, Water Tower, Holbrook-Palmer Park, Gen Merrill Carriage House, HolbrookPalmer Park, Sacred Heart Schools Main Building, Menlo School, Stent Family Hall (Douglass Hall aka Payne-Douglass House), Perry Stable (Associated with Australian Racehorse Phar Lap), Caltrain Station, Town Center, and the Town Hall (Council Chambers building).6 The subject properties are not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or the Town of Atherton’s local criteria and are not identified as a historically significant buildings and structures within the General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element. The subject properties are also not listed in the published version of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for San Mateo County.7
150 Valparaiso Ave
(Sacred Heart Schools),
Approx.

Figure 2: Open Space and Conservation Map.

Source: Town of Atherton General Plan, 2019.
6 Ibid, page VIII OSC – 64.
7 Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD). Resources by County available at: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338 m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 691 of 1727 ends

Subject Properties Brief Descriptions
The subject properties include seven single-family residences of a Ranch architectural style, one multidwelling structure of a Spanish Ranch architectural style, and one single-family residence of a SplitLevel architectural style. Refer to Appendix I for the identification of the subject properties by their Assessor Parcel Number (APN), address, lot acres, zoning, structure type, year built, and architectural style. Refer to Appendix III for documentation of the subject properties which includes a parcel map, aerial view, and on-site photographs.

A “Ranch” architectural style, common from 1935 to 1975, is typically identified as a broad one-story structure in which it is built low to the ground, supports a low-pitched roof without dormers, and contains average to wide roof overhangs.8 Four principal subtypes are distinguished by their roof styles and include roofs that are hipped, cross-hipped, side-gable, or cross-gable. Additional design elements include an asymmetrical front façade, a covered front entry under a main roof that is typically off-centered, a garage on a main façade, and a large picture window.

There are a variety of windows associated with the Ranch architectural style due to the standardizations that were made for prefab construction during and post-World War II. Windows varied between traditional short, and picture styles and would commonly be made with steel, aluminum, or wood frames. Traditional windows include for horizontal panes 2/2 or 3/3, jealousies, horizontal panes, 2/2 or 3/3, and horizontal panes, 8/8 or 6/6. Short window styles include casement, sliding, awning, or hopper. Picture windows were configured with a large central pane with sections of multiple lights, as casement with multiple lights, horizontal lights, or ribbons of tall vertical panes that may not open.

With the Ranch architectural style’s asymmetrical front façade, the covered front entry may vary in four different locations. The entry can be either recessed on a flat façade and with coverage with a roof overhang, set into an “L” and recessed with coverage of two overhangs, located in an entry porch underneath a cross gable or cross hip roof, or contain a broad entry porch underneath the main roof form. Additional architectural features include open or boxed eaves, exposed rafters, chimneys, curvilinear door panels, decorated wrought-iron, wall claddings in entry areas, board-and-batten cladding, and window box planters.
“Styled” Ranch architectural styles were also built from 1935 and extended into 1985, and were identified as ranch residences that included one or more historic elements to resemble a Spanish, Colonial Revival, Neo-Classical, French, or Tudor.9 “Spanish Ranch” architectural style is prominent in California and is identified by its stucco exterior, tiled roof, exposed rafter, round arches, roundarched front entry porch, principal windows, and a courtyard.

A ”Split-Level” architectural style refers to structures that are separated or have split levels with a partial flight of stairs and were designed to take advantage of more space on a smaller footprint. Split levels included common architectural styles visible in contemporary, ranch, and styled ranch 8 McAlester, Virginia S. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York, NY; Alfred A. Knopf, 2013. Ranch, pages 596 – 611. 9 Ibid. Styled Ranch, pages 694 – 704.
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 692 of 1727 ends

structures.10 The configuration of the interior spaces allowed for multi-floor levels, multi-garage doors, shorter stair lengths, privacy, noise control, interior circulation, and lighting.

Other common landscape features for the single-family residential property sites include a gravel, paved, or concrete driveways, fenced perimeter of hedges, chain-link fence, and/or wooden fence, and minimal vegetation with a lawn, low-lying vegetation, and trees on the properties. The multidwelling structure (Nun Residence at Sacred Hearts School) is located in the Sacred Hearts School campus and therefore has landscape features associated with the school campus such as a main entrance to a circular driveway, an entry ramp, a covered porch area, a surfaced courtyard, and an open lawn area.

The nine subject properties are a good, but not an outstanding, example of its respective architectural style within the context of the style as represented in California or the Town of Atherton. The nine subject properties contain a variation of architectural elements involved in the identification of its architectural styles and generally appear in their original forms with minor alterations such as windows, doors, and roof replacements.

Preliminary Evaluation
Under CEQA resources that meet the criteria of the CRHR are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The State Office of Historic Preservation has recommended the National Register of Historic Properties Criteria for Evaluation (used below) as a uniform standard for California because they provide a basis for assessing the significance of historical resources at the national, state, and local levels.

As such, they encompass and provide for routine consideration of other applicable state and local criteria.11 From these are derived the guidelines used below, including the Town of Atherton’s Local Criteria (Chapter 8.15 of the Atherton Municipal Code).

Determinations of historical significance require that several factors are considered, including the property’s history (both construction and use); the history and context of the surrounding community; an association with important persons or uses; the number of resources associated with the property; the potential for the resources to be the work of a master architect, builder, craftsman, landscape gardener, or artist; the historical, architectural or landscape influences that have shaped the property’s design and its pattern of use; and alterations that have taken place; and lastly how these changes may have affected the property’s historical integrity.

These issues must be explored thoroughly before a final determination of significance can be established. To be eligible for the California Register, historic resources must possess both historical significance and retain historic integrity. The following are the four significance criteria of the California Register. Upon review of the criteria, if historic significance is identified, then an integrity analysis can be conducted. To be eligible for the California Register, an historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under at least one of the following criteria noted below.

Records indicate the Town of Atherton contains three National Register properties (Holbrook-Palmer Estate, "Elmwood" at 150 Watkins Avenue, Mathews, Arthur C. and Judith, House at 83 Wisteria Way, 10 Ibid. Split-Level, pages 612 – 615.
11 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, Office of Historic Preservation, March 1995. m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 693 of 1727 ends

and Watkins, Commodore James, House at 98 Alejandra Avenue, and contains two California Register of Historic Resources properties (Lindenwood Gates and Brick Wall, and Watkins-Cartan House). The subject properties do not meet the CRHC Criterion and the Town of Atherton’s Local Criteria, and are found not to be significant to the state or local criteria for historic resource eligibility. The subject properties are in various locations in the Town of Atherton (refer to Figure 1), and include properties with architectural styles of Ranch, Spanish Ranch, and Split-Level.

This preliminary evaluation memo provides a brief analysis of the subject properties with the CRHR Criterion and Town of Atherton’s Local Criteria for planning review.

CRHR Criteria
Criterion 1: Event or Patterns of Events
It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.

Brief historical research has determined that the subject properties do not qualify under Criterion 1: Event or Patterns of Events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The subject properties include eight single-family residential properties and one multi-dwelling structure (Nun Residence at Sacred Hearts School). The architectural styles include Ranch, Spanish Ranch, and Split-Level and is illustrative of the architectural types and patterns of development of many of the region’s residential neighborhoods.

However, does not rise to a level of significance to justify individual California Register or local eligibility as an individual property. As a result, the dwelling does not qualify individually under California Register Criterion 1: Event or Pattern of Events.

Criterion 2: Important Person(s)
It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history.

Brief historical research has determined that subject properties, are not associated with any individuals who have had an important role in local, California or national history. The National Register Bulletin “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,” provides guidance in applying the criterion for “Important Persons”:

Brief research on the property’s address within Atherton/Menlo Park and San Mateo County Directory (Appendix IV) and with archived local newspaper articles (Appendix V) did not demonstrate significant nor historic backgrounds to qualify the subject dwelling as significantly historic. The directories contained information for five of the nine subject properties (352 Bay Road, 318 Bay Road, 296 Bay Road, 197 Ravenswood Avenue, and 23 m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 694 of 1727 ends

Oakwood Boulevard). Seven of the nine property addresses were recorded in archived and local newspaper articles. The articles related to one of the following subjects; a subdivision application, filed suits, local club events, Bay road protests, forums, marriage announcements, obituaries, burglaries, vehicular crashes, sales, and advertisements. The eight single-family residential subject properties have been held under various ownerships as a single-family residence and the one multi-dwelling structure (Nun Residence at Sacred Hearts School) has been maintained by the Sacred Heart Schools. As a result, the subject property does not qualify individually under California Register Criterion 2: Important Person(s).

Brief research has not identified a significant architect or designer with the subject property. The review of the subject properties' architectural style and architectural features has provided a description of the building’s current state in relation to its design and construction. As previously noted, The subject properties are a good, but not an outstanding, example of its respective architectural style within the context of the style as represented in California or the Town of Atherton. The subject properties contain a variation of architectural elements involved in the identification of its architectural styles and generally appear in their original forms with minor alterations such as windows, doors, and roof replacements. They do not possess unique or significant architectural features. As a result, the subject property does not qualify individually under California Register Criterion 3: Design/Construction.

Criterion 4: Information Potential
It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.

Information related to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation, is not included in the preliminary evaluation of the subject properties. Refer to “Archaeological Record Search and Report of Findings for the Town of Atherton Zoning Code Update, Atherton, San Mateo County, California,” dated February 8, 2024, prepared by Evans & De Shazo, Inc., for additional site history and information.

Town of Atherton Local Criteria
Procedures and processes to register historic buildings, along with activities requiring an alteration permit to a historic building in the Atherton historical register are located in Chapter

8.15 of the Atherton Municipal Code.12 The “Atherton historical register” is the official list of historic buildings within the town and is maintained by town staff (Ord. 652 § 1, 2022).

Pursuant to Chapter 8.15.200, the criteria for designating a historic building are the following:
12 Town of Atherton. Municipal Code Chapter 8.15. https://atherton.municipal.codes/Code/8.15 m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 695 of 1727 ends

Criterion A: Precondition to Listing
A building will only be considered for inclusion on the Atherton historical register, if one or more of the following is met:

1. The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

2. The building is listed on the California State Historical Landmarks, Points of Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources.

3. The building is determined to be of local significance by the city council.

The subject properties are currently not listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California State Historical Landmarks, Points of Interest, or the California Register of Historical Resources. The subject properties have also not been determined to be of local significance by the City Council. As a result, the subject properties do not qualify individually under the Town of Atherton Historical Register Criteria A1, A2, and A3.

Criterion B: Determining Local Significance
The City Council may determine a building is of local significance if it can make any of the following findings with respect to the building:

1. The building is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the town’s history;
Historical research has determined that the subject properties in the Town of Atherton are not associated with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the town’s history (refer to CRHR, Criteria 1). The subject properties include eight single-family residential properties and one multi-dwelling structure (Nun Residence at Sacred Hearts School). The architectural styles include Ranch, Spanish Ranch, and SplitLevel and is illustrative of the architectural types and patterns of development of many of the region’s residential neighborhoods. However, does not rise to a level of significance to justify local eligibility as an individual property. As a result, the subject structure does not qualify individually under the Town of Atherton Historic Designation Criteria B1.

2. The building is associated with a person that played a significant role in the town’s history; Historical research has determined that the subject properties in the Town of Atherton, are not directly associated with a person that played a significant role in the town’s history (refer to CRHR, Criteria 2). The subject properties include eight single-family residences that are all not associated with a significant person. The multi-dwelling structure (Nun Residence at Sacred Hearts School) is located in the Sacred Hearts School. However, brief research has not identified that the multi-dwelling structure is directly associated with a person who played a significant role in the town’s history. As a result, the subject m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 696 of 1727 ends

properties do not qualify individually under the Town of Atherton Historic Designation Criteria B2.

3. The building embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, that have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory of the town; or
As previously noted in the evaluation of CRHR Criteria 3, brief research has not identified a significant architect or designer with the subject property. The review of the subject properties' architectural style and architectural features has provided a description of the building’s current state in relation to its design and construction. As previously noted, The subject properties are a good, but not an outstanding, example of its respective architectural style within the context of the style as represented in California or the Town of Atherton. The subject properties contain a variation of architectural elements involved in the identification of its architectural styles and generally appear in their original forms with minor alterations such as windows, doors, and roof replacements. They do not possess unique or significant architectural features, embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. As a result, the subject structure does not qualify individually under the Town of Atherton Historic Designation Criteria B3.

This memo does not evaluate information related to archaeology for the evaluation of the subject properties to yield or may be likely to yield information important in history or prehistory of the town. As noted in CRHC criteria 4, information related to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation, is not included in the evaluation of the subject properties. Refer to “Archaeological Record Search and Report of Findings for the Town of Atherton Zoning Code Update, Atherton, San Mateo County, California,” dated February 8, 2024, prepared by Evans & De Shazo, Inc., for additional site history and information.

4. The building is listed as a historically significant building in the open space and conservation element of the general plan. (Ord. 652 § 1, 2022)
The subject properties are in various locations in the Town of Atherton and are not listed as a historically significant building in the open space and conservation element of the general plan. It is important to note that one of the nine subject properties, the multidwelling structure (Nun Residence at the Sacred Hearts School), is located within the Sacred Heart Schools campus, which is adjacent to the Menlo Circus Club, a site listed in m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 697 of 1727 ends

the Town of Atherton’s Inventory for Open Space Lands. The Menlo Circus Club is a private equestrian center located on Elena Avenue and Park Lane. The Club provides almost 30 acres of open space for outdoor recreation for its members including polo, swimming, tennis and horse shows.

As a result, the nine subject structures do not qualify individually under the Town of Atherton Historic Designation Criteria B4. However, it is recommended that additional review is provided for the subject property that is the multi-dwelling structure (Nun Residence at the Sacred Hearts School) since it is located within the Sacred Heart Schools campus and due to its approximation of the Menlo Circus Club. Refer to the following section for recommendations.

Recommendations
In conclusion to the preliminary evaluation of the subject properties for qualification as a historical resource in accordance with Article 5, §15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the local criteria, one recommendation is provided for the subject structure that is the multi-dwelling structure (Nun Residence at the Sacred Hearts School). The recommendation addresses its location within the Sacred Heart Schools campus and its approximation of the Menlo Circus Club, a site listed in the Town of Atherton’s Inventory for Open Space Lands, that additional review is advised. Other elements such as its use for the Sacred Heart Schools, setting/location within the campus, and distance/visibility from the Menlo Circus Club, may be taken into consideration for the Town of Atherton General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element.

Conclusion
The preliminary evaluation has found, including the recommendation noted in the previous section, that the subject structures located in the Town of Atherton, do not possess historical significance, are not a strong example of the Ranch, Spanish-Ranch, and Split-Level architectural styles, were not designed by a master architect or builder, and are not associated with important events or persons.

It is the professional opinion of M-Group that the structure (1) is not individually eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, (2) does not qualify individually as a historical resource under CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)(3), and (3) is not eligible for individual historic designation under Atherton Municipal Code, Chapter 8.15.200, Criteria for designating a historic building. m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 698 of 1727 ends

Appendix I – Subject Properties, Multi-Family Residential Opportunity Sites Assessor Parcel Number (APN)
061091080
Address Lot Acres

0.90 0.92

0.94 0.93

1.1 Zoning
R-1A
R-1A
R-1A
R-1A
R-1A
R-1A
R-1A
R-1A
PFS
Structure Year Built
ca. 1955
ca. 1956
ca. 1955
1957
Architectural Style
Ranch
999 Ringwood Avenue (ca. 1935-1975)
352 Bay Road
Single-family residence
Single-family residence
Single-family residence
Single-family residence
Single-family residence
Single-family residence
Single-family residence
Single-family residence
Ranch
061091070 (ca. 1935-1975)
Ranch
061091060 318 Bay Road (ca. 1935-1975)
Split-Level
061091050 296 Bay Road (ca. 1935-1975)
Ranch
061281050 175 Ravenswood Avenue (ca. 1935-1975)
185 Ravenswood Avenue
197 Ravenswood Avenue
23 Oakwood Boulevard
150 Valparaiso Avenue
1950
Ranch
061281060 1.1 1950 (ca. 1935-1975)
Ranch
061281150 1 1954 (ca. 1935-1975)
Ranch
059153080 1.53 (ca. 1935-1975)

61.066
ca. 1953
ca. 1952
Nun Residence at Sacred Hearts
School, multi-dwelling structure
Spanish Ranch
070390010 (ca. 1935-1985)
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 699 of 1727 ends

Appendix II – Maps
USGS Map, Fair Oaks/Menlo Park, 1897.

USGS Map, Town of Atherton/Menlo Park, 1948.
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 700 of 1727 ends

Appendix III – Subject Property Documentation
County Map and Aerial View are not to scale. On-site documentation, from the public right-of-way, was completed on December 11, 2023 (except as otherwise noted).

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 999 RINGWOOD AVENUE
County Map View from Bay Road, facing southwest
Aerial View View from Ringwood Avenue, facing northwest m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 701 of 1727 ends

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 352 BAY ROAD
County Map View from Bay Road, facing southwest
Aerial View View from Bay Road, facing west
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 702 of 1727 ends

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 318 BAY ROAD
County Map View from Bay Road, facing southwest
Aerial View View from Bay Road, facing southwest
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 703 of 1727 ends

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 296 BAY ROAD
County Map View from Bay Road, facing southwest
Aerial View View from Bay Road, facing west
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 704 of 1727 ends

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 175 RAVENSWOOD AVENUE
County Map View from Ravenswood Avenue, facing north
Aerial View View from Ravenswood Avenue, facing north
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 705 of 1727 ends

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 185 RAVENSWOOD AVENUE
County Map View from Ravenswood Avenue, facing north
Aerial View View from Ravenswood Avenue, facing north
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 706 of 1727 ends

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 197 RAVENSWOOD AVENUE
County Map View from Ravenswood, facing northwest
Aerial View View from Ravenswood Avenue, facing north
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 707 of 1727 ends

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 23 OAKWOOD BOULEVARD
County Map View from Oakwood Boulevard, facing north
Aerial View View from Oakwood Boulevard, facing northeast m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 708 of 1727 ends

On-site documentation, from the public right-of-way, for 150 Valparaiso Avenue was completed on January 2, 2024.

SUBJECT PROPERTY: 150 VALPARAISO AVENUE – NUN RESIDENCY BUILDING County Map View from driveway.

Aerial View View of interior courtyard.
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 709 of 1727 ends

Appendix IV – Atherton/Menlo Park and San Mateo County Directory Source: Polk’s Atherton/Menlo Park City Directory – R.L. Polk & Co., Publishers, San Francisco and Pacific Telephone’s San Mateo County Phone Directory (except as otherwise noted)
SUBJECT PROPERTY:

YEAR 197 RAVENSWOOD AVENUE - 1954
Milton R. Buck (Helen A), h197 Ravenswood Ave.,
Atherton
1955 Polk’s Redwood City Directory
1956 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Milton R. Buck, h197 Ravenswood Ave., Atherton, Directory DA 4-4974
1957 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Milton R. Buck, h197 Ravenswood Ave., Atherton, Directory DA 4-4974
1958 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Helen A. Buck, h197 Ravenswood Ave., Atherton, Directory DA 4-4974
1959 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Helen A. Buck, h197 Ravenswood Ave., Atherton, Directory DA 4-4974
1961 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Helen A. Buck, h197 Ravenswood Ave., Atherton, Directory DA 4-4974
1961 Polk’s Atherton/Menlo Park City Directory Milton R. Buck (Helen A), Treasure Island Ceramic Studio, h 197 Ravenswood Ave., Atherton
Wallace R. Buck, r 197 Ravenswood Ave.,
Atherton
1962 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Helen A. Buck, h197 Ravenswood Ave., Atherton, Directory DA 4-4974
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 710 of 1727 ends

YEAR SUBJECT PROPERTY:
23 OAKWOOD BLVD – ca. 1953
EC Olson, r 23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton
John E. Olson, h23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton
1953 Polk’s Redwood City Directory
1953 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County
Phone Directory
John E. Olson, h23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton,
EM 6-0227
1954 Polk’s Redwood City Directory John E. Olson, h23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton 1954 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County
Phone Directory
John E. Olson, h23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton,
EM 6-0227
1955 Polk’s Redwood City Directory John E. Olson, h23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton 1956 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County
Phone Directory
John E. Olson, h23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton,
EM 6-0227
1957 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County
Phone Directory
John E. Olson, h23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton,
EM 6-0227
1958 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County
Phone Directory
John E. Olson, h23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton,
EM 6-0227
1959 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County
Phone Directory
John E. Olson, h23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton,
EM 6-0227
1961 Polk’s Atherton/Menlo Park City Directory Alvin Arata (Evelyn), r.23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton
1961 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County
Phone Directory
Alvin Arata (Evelyn), r23 Oakwood Blvd.,
Atherton, EM 6-2952
1962 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County
Phone Directory
Alvin Arata (Evelyn), r23 Oakwood Blvd.,
Atherton, EM 6-2952
1963 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County
Phone Directory
Alvin Arata (Evelyn), r23 Oakwood Blvd.,
Atherton, EM 6-2952
1964 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County
Phone Directory
Alvin Arata (Evelyn), r23 Oakwood Blvd.,
Atherton, EM 6-2952
1965 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County
Phone Directory
A.Arata, r23 Oakwood Blvd., Atherton, 366-2952
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 711 of 1727 ends

SUBJECT PROPERTY:

YEAR 296 BAY ROAD - 1957
1961 Polk’s Atherton/Menlo Park City Directory Phillip O’Donnell (Beatrice B), Member of the Planning Commission h.296 Bay Rd., Atherton
1961 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone P. O’Donnell, h.296 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory DA 5-2774
1962 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone P. O’Donnell, h.296 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory DA 5-2774
1963 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone P. O’Donnell, h.296 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory 325-2774
1964 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone P. O’Donnell, h.296 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory 325-2774
1965 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone P. O’Donnell, h.296 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory 325-2774
SUBJECT PROPERTY:

YEAR 318 BAY ROAD – ca. 1955
1961 Polk’s Atherton/Menlo Park City Directory Otto Lang, h 318 Bay Rd., Atherton 1961 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone O. Lang, h 318 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory DA 2-9710
1962 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone O. Lang, h 318 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory DA 2-9710
1963 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone O. Lang, h 318 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory 322-9710
1964 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone O. Lang, h 318 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory 322-9710
1965 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone O. Lang, h 318 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory 322-9710
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 712 of 1727 ends

SUBJECT PROPERTY:

YEAR 352 BAY ROAD – ca. 1958
1959 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Carol Maas, h 352 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory DA 6-2407
1961 Polk’s Atherton/Menlo Park City Directory Carol Maas, h 352 Bay Rd., Atherton Mary J. Maas, r 352 Bay Rd., Atherton
1961 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Carol Maas, h 352 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory DA 6-2407
1962 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Carol Maas, h 352 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory DA 6-2407
1963 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Carol Maas, h 352 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory 376-2407
1964 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Carol Maas, h 352 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory 376-2407
1965 Pacific Telephone, San Mateo County Phone Carol Maas, h 352 Bay Rd., Atherton Directory 376-2407
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 713 of 1727 ends

Appendix V – Newspaper Articles
Source: Newspaper.com
197 Ravenswood Avenue
August 10, 1960
October 14, 1970
October 29, 1956.

November 18, 1970
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 714 of 1727 ends

318 Bay Road
May 7, 1962
July 4, 1964
June 7, 1962
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 715 of 1727 ends

999 Ringwood Avenue
July 7, 1971 July 9, 1955
August 19, 1955
December 21, 1954
Aug 26, 1955
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 716 of 1727 ends

June 24, 1966
January 10, 1968
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 717 of 1727 ends

175 Ravenswood Avenue
November 15, 1952
May 22, 1953
May 26, 1953
May 10, 1956
October 12, 1955
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 718 of 1727 ends

352 Bay Road
February 3, 1964
October 8, 1959
April 24, 1962
May 8, 1969
March 30, 1967
November 14, 1958
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 719 of 1727 ends

23 Oakwood Blvd.

April 4, 1953
June 18, 1955
September 17, 1963
April 3, 1954 November 5, 1953
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 720 of 1727 ends

150 Valparaiso Avenue (Sacred Hearts School)
October 18, 1956
April 20, 1973
May 2, 1970
October 17, 1973 April 23, 1975
June 6, 1973
February 16, 1974
m-group.us campbell  santa rosa  berkeley

Page 721 of 1727 ends

2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT

NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT
Atherton, California
January 18, 2024
Prepared for:

Adam Petersen
Principal Planner
M-Group
51 E. Campbell Avenue #1247
Campbell, CA 95009
Prepared by:

Micah Black
Michael Thill
429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794-0400
I&R Project: 23-116

Page 722 of 1727 ends

1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to assess potential noise and vibration impacts associated with the proposed update to the Housing Element of the Town of Atherton’s General Plan. The proposed amendments and revision of Title 17 of the Town of Atherton Municipal Code would allow for housing to be constructed on these properties, helping meet the Town’s regional housing needs allocation. As a policy document, Housing Element Update and the resulting amended Municipal Code does not result in direct physical changes to the environment but would indirectly lead to physical environmental changes by enabling the potential development of additional housing units within the Town’s jurisdiction.

The Noise and Vibration Assessment includes a Setting section providing a brief description of the fundamentals of environmental noise and vibration, summarizes the applicable regulatory criteria, and discusses the results of ambient noise monitoring surveys completed to document existing conditions. The General Plan Consistency section evaluates the noise environment at the housing opportunities sites. The Impacts and Mitigation Measures section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate potential impacts, provides a description of each impact, and presents mitigation measures where necessary to facilitate the implementation of the Housing Element Update (HEU) for the Town of Atherton.

SETTING
Fundamentals of Environmental Noise
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is the intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.

In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1.

There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the Aweighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a

Page 723 of 1727 ends

2 method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events.

This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.

The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within about plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports. The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.

Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn or DNL) is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this threehour period are grouped into the daytime period.

Effects of Noise
Sleep and Speech Interference
The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noises of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA Ldn. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is about equal to the Ldn and nighttime levels are 10 dBA lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection and most jurisdictions apply the same criterion for all residential uses.

Typical structural attenuation is 12-17 dBA with open windows. With closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling. Sleep and speech interference is therefore possible when exterior noise levels are about 57-62 dBA Ldn with open windows and 65-70 dBA Ldn if the windows are closed. Levels of 55-60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65-70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75-80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. In order to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment, bedrooms facing secondary roadways need to be able to have their windows closed, those facing major roadways and freeways typically need special glass windows.

Page 724 of 1727 ends

3 Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 50 dBA Ldn. At a Ldn of about 60 dBA, approximately 12 percent of the population is highly annoyed.

When the Ldn increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 25-30 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 2 percent per dBA between a Ldn of 60-70 dBA. Between a Ldn of 70-80 dBA, each decibel increase increases by about 3 percent the percentage of the population highly annoyed. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the Ldn is 60 dBA, approximately 30-35 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA adds about 3 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA, each decibel increase results in about a 4 percent increase in the percentage of the population highly annoyed.

Page 725 of 1727 ends

4 TABLE 1 Definition of Acoustical Terms Used in this Report Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20 micro Pascals.

Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e. g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.

Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.

Equivalent Noise Level,
Leq
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

Lmax, Lmin
The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.

L01, L10, L50, L90
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.

Day/Night Noise Level,
Ldn or DNL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 am.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 am.

Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Harris, 1998.

Page 726 of 1727 ends

5 TABLE 2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 dBA Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
100 dBA
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
90 dBA
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room Quiet suburban nighttime
30 dBA Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
20 dBA
Broadcast/recording studio
10 dBA
0 dBA
Source: Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), California Department of Transportation, September 2013.

Page 727 of 1727 ends

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

Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One method is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.

Table 3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous or frequent intermittent vibration levels produce. The guidelines in Table 3 represent syntheses of vibration criteria for human response and potential damage to buildings resulting from construction vibration.

Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors.

The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related groundborne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to cause damage and the degree of annoyance for humans.

The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level.

Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as paint flaking or minimal extension of cracks in building surfaces; minor, including limited surface cracking; or major, that may threaten the structural integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher. The damage criteria presented in Table 3 include several categories for ancient, fragile, and historic structures, the types of structures most at risk to damage. Most buildings are included within the categories ranging from “Historic and some old buildings” to “Modern industrial/commercial buildings.” Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.

The annoyance levels shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage.

Page 728 of 1727 ends

Atherton City CouncilSeptember 18, 2024

Atherton City Council
September 18, 2024