East Palo Alto City Council
May 3, 2022

1 CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

UNIVERSITY CIRCLE PHASE II OFFICE PROJECT

EAST PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020060144

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE
This CEQA Findings of Fact document addresses the environmental effects associated with the proposed University Circle Phase II (proposed project or project) located at 1900 - 2050 University Circle in the City of East Palo Alto, San Mateo County, California. These findings are made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 21081 and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14. Cal Regs. 15000, et. seq. The potentially significant impacts were identified in both the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Final EIR, as well as additional facts found in the complete record of proceedings.

Public Resources Code 21081 and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines require that the lead agency prepare written findings for identified significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation for the rationale for each finding. The City of East Palo Alto (City) is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of the EIR in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part, that:
a. No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR.
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, whenever significant impacts cannot be mitigated to a level below significance, the lead agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the proposed project against 2 its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." In that case, the decision-making agency may prepare and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
a. CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
b. When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these findings, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the project. The City finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these findings, meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code by providing for the implementation and monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the project.

The Final EIR for the project identified potentially significant effects that could result from project implementation. However, the City finds that the inclusion of certain mitigation measures as part of the project approval will reduce all of those effects to less than significant levels.

In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these findings as part of its certification of the Final EIR for and approval of the project. Pursuant to Section 21082.1(c)(3) of the Public Resources Code, the City also finds that the Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the project.

1.2 SUMMARY OF PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would redevelop the existing 97,659-square-foot landscaped surface parking lot located in the southern portion of the project site with an approximately 180,000- square-foot office building above three levels of below-grade parking. As described in further detail below, the project also includes a community room for community use, parking for adjacent residences until completion of the Woodland Park Apartments expansion project, improved site pedestrian access, an easement for planned pedestrian improvements in the project area, and a fire water tank and pump to serve the proposed office building. 3 The proposed project is consistent with the development standards for the site as outlined in the East Palo Alto Zoning Code and General Plan including those policies specific to the Westside Plan area. Consistency with these plans is discussed in detail in Section 4.11, Land Use and Planning.

1.2.1 Office Building
The new office building would be six-stories tall with a maximum height of 109 feet (including mechanical screen) and would include three levels of below-grade parking. The ground level of the office building would include an entry lobby, men’s and women’s bathrooms with showers, tenant office space, and approximately 2,940 square feet of indoor community space and a 1,000-square-foot patio for community use. The remaining five floors would be dedicated to office space for commercial tenants. One 162-kW diesel powered emergency generator would provide back up power to the proposed office building and would be located on the southwestern boundary of the project site adjacent to Manhattan Avenue.

1.2.2 Site Access and Parking
Vehicular access to the project site is currently provided via University Circle, Woodland Avenue, and Manhattan Avenue. University Circle is a private road extending north into the project site from Woodland Avenue and provides access to both surface and below-grade parking. Ingress and/or egress to the below-grade parking garage is currently provided via four ramps, two off of University Circle, one off of Manhattan Avenue, and one from the surface parking lot in the northwest corner of the site.

A total of 1,601 parking spaces are currently provided at the project site, including 849 spaces in the below-grade parking garage, 523 surface parking spaces, and 229 spaces in the abovegrade parking garage. The portion of the project site proposed to be redeveloped with an office building provides 99 surface parking spaces.

Under the proposed project, 99 surface parking spaces would be removed to accommodate the new office building. The proposed project would provide 14 vehicular surface parking spaces for the dedicated community space, as well as 513 vehicular parking spaces within the expanded three-level, below-grade parking garage. The project proposes a parking ratio of one space per 420 square feet (1:420) which is less than the City’s required parking ratio of one space per 300 square feet (1:300). As noted in Section 3.4, Uses of the EIR, the project is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for reduced parking per Municipal Code Section 18.30.050 (A). The first level of the new parking garage would be fully integrated into the existing parking garage. The project would replace the existing vehicle downward access ramp off of University Circle with a new ramp adjacent to the new office building to serve the expanded below-grade parking garage.

During project operations, above-grade vehicular circulation patterns would remain similar to existing conditions with the addition of a new ramp to the below-grade parking garage off of University Circle. Pedestrian access to the project site would be expanded to include a staircase off Manhattan Avenue and two access points off the new University Avenue sidewalk (one adjacent to the northeast corner of 1950 University Circle and the second at the proposed office building plaza). The new access points would provide a direct pedestrian connection through the project site from the Manhattan Avenue near the existing bus stop to the planned 4 bike/pedestrian overcrossing of US 101. The sidewalk on Woodland Avenue adjacent to the proposed office building would be replaced with a new sidewalk separated from Woodland Avenue by a landscaping strip.

The proposed project would also incorporate a 186,000-gallon fire water tank and pump within the below-grade parking garage with capacity to serve the proposed project and offset existing deficiencies in the municipal fire flow for the Westside area.

Refer to Chapter 3.0, Project Description of the Draft EIR for a complete description of the proposed project and associated approvals.

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
CEQA states that the statement of project objectives should be clearly written and define the underlying purpose of the project, in order to permit the development of a reasonable range of alternatives and aid the Lead Agency in making findings.

The stated objectives of the project proponent are to:

1. Construct and operate an additional office building consistent with and in furtherance of applicable General Plan and Westside Plan goals and policies calling for the intensification of office uses at University Circle and additional build out of the original University Circle development project (refer to General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Policy 2.7 and Westside Plan Policy 4.6).

2. Expand University Circle development to create a larger office campus, which better aligns with and helps to achieve the City’s goals relating to growing its tax and employment base and improving its job-housing balance (refer to General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Goal 2).

3. Utilize the build-out and operation of the additional office space as an opportunity to further integrate the University Circle into the surrounding neighborhoods via enhanced bike and pedestrian connectivity between the Westside and Downtown East Palo Alto, and along the Westside generally (refer to General Plan Westside Area Plan Policies

4.6, 7.6).

4. Utilize the build-out and operation of the additional office space as an opportunity enhance the look of one of the City’s nonresidential areas and improve local traffic and circulation through implementation of an enhanced TDM program and other offsite voluntary traffic improvements (refer to General Plan Westside Area Plan Goal W-9).

5. Use the development of a new office building as the catalyst to re-energize and modernize the University Circle campus as a more active and community-oriented space for East Palo Alto’s residents. Examples include the ground floor indoor/outdoor 5 community room, a public art plaza and ongoing curation of annual community events and the farmer’s market (refer to General Plan Westside Area Plan Policy 4.6, 8.4).

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Notice of Preparation: In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, to determine the number, scope and extent of environmental issues, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review for a period of 30 days, beginning on June 8, 2020 and ending on July 8, 2020. The City also held a public scoping meeting on June 22, 2020 to discuss the project and solicit public input as to the scope and contents of this EIR. Due to local and statewide shelter in place directives resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of East Palo Alto held the public scoping meeting online consistent with Public Resources Code §§ 21080.4(b) and 21083.9 in lieu of a public gathering.

Appendix A of the Draft EIR includes the NOP and comments received on the NOP.

Draft EIR: In accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Draft EIR was prepared to address the potential significant environmental effects associated with the proposed project identified during the NOP process. The Draft EIR was released for public and agency review for a 45-day period, from November 5, 2021 to December 20, 2021. During the Draft EIR public review period, the City received five comment letters.

Final EIR: Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the Lead Agency responsible for the preparation of an EIR evaluate comments on environmental issues and prepare a written response addressing each of the comments. The intent of the Final EIR is to provide a forum to address comments pertaining to the information and analysis contained within the Draft EIR, and to provide an opportunity for clarifications, corrections, or minor revision to the Draft EIR as needed.

The Final EIR assembles in one document all of the environmental information and analysis prepared for the proposed project, including comments on the Draft EIR and responses by the City to those comments.

Pursuant to Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR for the project consists of the following:
a. The Draft EIR, including all of its appendices; and
b. The Response to Comments document, which includes: a short description of the environmental review process, the comments that were received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments, and minor text revisions made to the Draft EIR in response to the comments received and/or to amplify or clarify material in the Draft.

2.0 CEQA FINDING OF INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT
The Final EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own 6 environmental consultant in the preparation of the EIR, as well as reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the consultant.

Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the Final EIR, as well as any and all other information in the record, the City hereby makes findings pursuant to and in accordance with Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

3.0 FINDINGS OF FACT

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT WHICH ARE CONSIDERED

UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Based on information in the Final EIR and substantial evidence in the record, the City finds that no environmental impact associated with the proposed project has been determined to be significant and unavoidable under Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore no statement of overriding considerations is required to be issued by the City.

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS EVALUATED IN THE FINAL EIR WHICH CAN BE

AVOIDED OR SUBSTANTIALLY LESSENED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS

WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IDENTIFIED MITIGATION MEASURES This section identifies significant adverse impacts of the project that require findings to be made pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on information in the Final EIR, the City finds that, based upon substantial evidence in the record, adoption and implementation of the mitigation measures set forth below will reduce the identified significant impacts to less than significant levels. Based on the analysis contained in the Final EIR, the following impacts have been determined to be impacts that can be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures set forth below:
• Impact AIR-2: Ground disturbing activities associated with project construction could generate fugitive dust emissions.
• Impact AIR-3: Construction exhaust emissions associated with the proposed project would result in TAC concentrations above the BAAQMD single source thresholds. • Impact BIO-1: Project construction could result in incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment, resulting in a significant impact to nesting birds.
• Impact BIO-4: The project would result in significant impacts to the movement of native birds due to increased risk of bird collision resulting from the design, orientation, and reflective façade treatment of the proposed office building. • Impact CUL-2: Ground Disturbing Activities Associated with project construction could disturb previously unrecorded archaeological resources. • Impact CUL-3: Ground disturbing activities associated with project construction could disturb human remains interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. • Impact GEO-6: Ground disturbing activities associated with project construction could disturb currently unrecorded paleontological resources or a unique geologic feature. 7 • Impact NOI-1.1: Non-exempt construction activities would occur within 500 feet of the nearest residential use and within 200 feet of the nearest commercial use for a period of more than 12 months, exceeding the City’s Municipal Code thresholds for construction noise levels at these receptors
• Impact NOI-1.2: Noise generated by project HVAC equipment could exceed the City’s Municipal Code threshold for exterior noise levels at the nearest residential property line. • Impact NOI-2: Construction-related vibration levels at the existing office buildings on-site would be up to 1.233 in/sec PPV, which would exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold. • Impact TRA-1: The proposed project would generate a VMT of 13.2 percent below the citywide average home-based work trip VMT, exceeding the City’s threshold of 15 percent below the citywide average home-based work trip VMT.

3.2.1 Air Quality
Impact AIR-2: Ground disturbing activities associated with project construction could generate fugitive dust emissions.

Mitigation Measure AIR-2: During construction period ground disturbance, the project contractor shall implement the following measures recommended by BAAQMD to control dust and exhaust:
• Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered three times per day at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent.
• Haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • Visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweeps at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• Vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph) • Roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be posted for construction workers at all access points. • Construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and contact at the City of East Palo Alto regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be included to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• Excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speed exceeds 20 miles per hour (mph) and visible dust extends beyond site boundaries. 8 • Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction adjacent to sensitive receptors. Wind breaks should have at minimum of 50 percent air porosity.
• Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
• The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. • Avoid tracking visible soil material on to public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) treat site access to a distance of 100 feet from public paved roads with a six to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment prior to leaving the site. • Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

Findings for Impact AIR-1: Mitigation Measure AIR-2 requires the project to implement measures recommended by BAAQMD to control dust and exhaust. The purpose of this mitigation measure is to ensure construction associated with the proposed project is consistent with recommendations in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines for providing best management practices to control construction emissions and would reduce on-site fugitive dust emissions.

Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impact on air quality, including potential impacts to air quality standards established by the BAAQMD.

AIR-3: Construction exhaust emissions associated with the proposed project would result in TAC concentrations above the BAAQMD single source thresholds.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3.1: The project shall develop a plan demonstrating either of the following options:
1) All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emissions standards for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, or
If use of Tier 4 equipment is not feasible, use equipment that meets the U.S. EPA emissions standards for Tier 3 engines and includes CARB-certified Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve a minimum 87 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment, or use alternatively fueled equipment or electric equipment;
And provide line power to the site during the early phases of construction to minimize the use of diesel-powered stationary equipment, such as generators; And cranes, air compressors, and welders shall be powered by electricity or alternative fuel, or
9 2) The applicant may develop a separate feasible plan that reduces on- and near-site construction diesel particulate matter emissions by a minimum of 87 percent or greater.

Such a plan would have to be reviewed and approved by the City.

Findings for Impact AIR-3.1: Mitigation Measure AIR-3.1 requires the project to develop a plan that reduces on-and near-site construction diesel particulate matter emissions through use of construction equipment that meets U.S. EPA and CARB emission standards or through an alternate plan that reduces construction diesel particulate matter emissions by a minimum of 87 percent. The purpose of this mitigation measure is to ensure sensitive receptors would not be exposed to airborne particulates in excess of BAAQMD single source thresholds.

Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impact on air quality, including potential impacts to sensitive receptors.

3.2.2 Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Project construction could result in incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings or otherwise lead to nest abandonment, resulting in a significant impact to nesting birds.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1: Avoidance: the project applicant shall schedule demolition and construction activities that may directly or indirectly affect protected species to avoid the nesting season. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors in the San Francisco Bay area, extends from February 1st through August 31st (inclusive), as amended.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1.2: Nesting Bird Surveys: If it is not possible to schedule demolition and construction that may directly or indirectly affect protected species between September 1st and January 31st (inclusive), pre-construction surveys for nesting birds shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests shall be disturbed during project implementation.

This survey shall be completed no more than 14 days prior to initiation of construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (February 1st through April 31st inclusive) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May 1st through August 31st inclusive). During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats immediately adjacent to the construction areas for nests.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1.3: Buffer Zones: If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by construction, the ornithologist, in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shall determine the extent of a construction free buffer zone to be established around the nest, typically 250 feet, to ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests shall not be disturbed during project construction.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1.4: Reporting: Prior to any tree removal, or approval of any grading permits, (whichever occurs first), the ornithologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Community and Economic Development or the Director’s designee. 10 Findings for Impact BIO-1.1: Mitigation Measure BIO-4 requires the project applicant to, if feasible, demolition and construction activities that could impact nesting birds during the nonnesting season, or have a qualified ornithologist conduct a preconstruction survey for nesting birds. If any active nests are found, additional measures are required. The purpose of this measure is to avoid any potential impact to native birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code and/or federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impact on biological resources, including potential impacts to nesting birds.

Impact BIO-4: The project would result in significant impacts to the movement of native birds due to increased risk of bird collision resulting from the design, orientation, and reflective façade treatment of the proposed office building.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4.1: Prior to issuance of building permits, the project shall reduce the amount of glazing (i.e., windows or reflective surfaces) to the extent feasible on the southern façade of the proposed office building and treat all remaining glass on the southern façade with bird-safe glazing treatments.

Findings for Impact BIO-4.1: Mitigation Measure BIO-4 requires the project applicant to reduce glazing on the southern façade of the proposed office building and treat remaining southern façade glazing with bird-safe glazing treatments. The purpose of this measure is to reduce the potential for bird collision with the proposed project. Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impact on biological resources, including potential impacts to avian collisions.

3.2.3 Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-2: Ground Disturbing Activities Associated with project construction could disturb previously unrecorded archaeological resources.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2.1: Prior to issuance of grading or demolition permits, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist and Native American cultural resources monitor from Tamien Nation. The qualified archaeologist shall conduct subsurface borings within the southern section of the project site where the three levels of underground parking is proposed.

The Native American cultural resources monitor shall be on site to monitor ground disturbing activities including soil borings. Soil borings shall be conducted where anticipated deep disturbances are proposed, away from the existing single-story underground parking. Boring locations shall be placed between 50 and 75 meters apart depending on the size of the area to be explored. At least one boring shall sample the entire proposed impacts depth to provide a comparison of the stratigraphy to the previous nearby coring samples. At least 7 meters of undisturbed native soils shall be sampled below the fill if that can be completed within the proposed depth of impacts. Boring sample depths should be adjusted depending on findings of similar soils or missing layers. Samples from the three layers most likely to have archaeological 11 resources shall be screened by a qualified archaeologist to determine if cultural materials are present.

If archaeological resources are identified, the qualified archaeologist in consultation with a Native American representative shall prepare a research design and treatment plan tailored to the resources identified. The qualified archaeologist shall submit the research design and treatment plan approved by Tamien Nation to the City for review and approval. Once the research design and treatment plan is approved by the City, archaeological testing of the resource can begin. Testing shall be commensurate with the level of proposed impacts and determined in consultation with a Native American representative. After field testing, an evaluation report shall be prepared documenting the fieldwork, analyzing the cultural materials recovered, defining its boundaries within proposed impacts, and evaluating the resource per the California Register of Historic Resources criteria. If cultural materials are determined to be Native American in origin, a Native American monitor shall be present during all archaeological testing.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2.2: Prior to issuance of the Grading Permit, the project applicant shall submit evidence that an Archaeological Cultural Resource Awareness Training was held prior to ground disturbance. The training shall be facilitated by the project archaeologist in coordination with a Native American representative from Tamien Nation, registered with the Native American Heritage Commissions, for the City of East Palo Alto and that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area as described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.3
Mitigation Measure CUL-2.3: In the event that buried, or previously unrecognized archaeological deposits or materials of any kind are inadvertently exposed during construction activity, work within 50 feet of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist can assess the find and provide recommendations for further treatment, if warranted. Construction and potential impacts to the area(s) within a radius determined by the archaeologist shall not recommence until the assessment is complete.

Findings for Impact CUL-2: Mitigation Measure CUL-2.1 requires the applicant to retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct subsurface borings within the southern section of the project site where the three levels of underground parking is proposed, and to prepare a research design and treatment plan if resources are identified and conduct archaeological testing.

Subsurface boring activity and the potential research design and treatment plan and archaeological testing would be monitored and/or reviewed and approved by a Native American cultural resources monitor from Tamien Nation. Mitigation Measure CUL-2.2 requires the applicant to hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct an Archaeological Cultural Resource Awareness Training at the project site prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure CUL-2.3 describes the process the applicant is required to undertake in the event that an archaeological deposit is encountered during project construction. The purpose of these mitigation measures is to avoid a substantial adverse change to unrecorded archaeological deposits that may be encountered during construction activities. Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a lessthan-significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, 12 or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impact on cultural resources, including potential impacts to previously unrecorded archaeological deposits.

Impact CUL-3: Ground disturbing activities associated with project construction could disturb human remains interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3.1: If human remains are encountered as a result of construction activities, all work in the vicinity shall be halted and the County Coroner contacted. In the event that the County Coroner determines that the human remains are Native American, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is required, who shall appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (PRC Section 5097.98). The qualified archaeologist, project sponsor, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment, with appropriate dignity, of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d). The agreement shall incorporate ‘best practices’ as identified by the state NAHC. A final report shall be prepared by the project archaeologist in consultation with the MLD and approved by the City of East Palo Alto. Work on the project may proceed upon City approval.

Findings for Impact CUL-3: Mitigation Measure CUL-3.1 describes the process the applicant is required to undertake in the event that human remains are encountered during project construction. The purpose of these mitigation measures is to avoid a substantial adverse change to human remains that may be encountered during construction activities.

Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impact on cultural resources, including potential impacts to human remains.

Impact CUL-C:The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant cultural resources impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Findings for Impact CUL-C: There are no known cultural resources at the project site. None of the existing buildings on the project site are historic resources. With implementation of mitigation measures MM CUL-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 3.1, the potential for the proposed project to impact cultural resources would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant impact.

Implementation of these mitigation measures would also reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative cultural resource impacts to less than cumulatively considerable. Furthermore, as with the proposed project, the cumulative projects considered in the EIR would be subject to federal, state, county, and local laws, policies, and regulations protecting cultural resources, as applicable. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant cumulative impact on cultural resources.

3.2.4 Geology
Impact GEO-6: Ground disturbing activities associated with project construction could disturb currently unrecorded paleontological resources or a unique geologic feature. 13 Mitigation Measure GEO-6.1: If paleontological resources are encountered during grading or excavation, all construction activities within 50 feet shall stop and the City of East Palo Alto Director of Community and Economic Development shall be notified. A qualified paleontologist shall inspect the findings within 48 hours of discovery. If it is determined that the proposed development could damage unique paleontological resources, mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 and Section 15126.4 of the CEQA Guidelines. Possible mitigation under Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 requires that reasonable efforts be made for resources to be preserved in place or left undisturbed. If preservation in place is not feasible (e.g., planning construction activities to avoid paleontological sites, incorporating sites into parks and other open spaces, covering sites with stable soils, and deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement) data recovery through excavation shall be conducted by a qualified paleontologist with a data recovery plan in place.

Findings for Impact GEO-6: Mitigation Measure GEO-6.1 describes the process the applicant is required to undertake if a paleontological resource is encountered during project grading or excavation. The purpose of this mitigation measures is to avoid a substantial adverse change to unrecorded paleontological resources or a unique geologic features that may be encountered during construction activities. Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impact on cultural resources, including potential impacts to currently unrecorded paleontological resources or a unique geologic features.

3.2.5 Noise
Impact NOI-1.1: Non-exempt construction activities would occur within 500 feet of the nearest residential use and within 200 feet of the nearest commercial use for a period of more than 12 months, exceeding the City’s Municipal Code thresholds for construction noise levels at these receptors.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1: The project applicant shall prepare a construction noise logistics plan for review and approval by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of grading and/or demolition permits on the project. The construction noise logistics plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures to reduce construction noise to less than significant levels:
• Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.1 and Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Prohibit construction on Sundays and holidays;
• Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where such technology exists;
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
1 Excepting haul and truck deliveries between 7:00 and 10:00 pm. 14 • Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent land uses; • Locate staging areas and construction material areas as far away as possible from adjacent land uses;
• Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; • Construct solid eight- to 10-foot-tall plywood fences along the construction site boundaries with direct line-of-sight to noise-sensitive receptors. Constructing temporary noise barrier fences to shield these receptors would provide a five dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier interrupts the line-of-sight between the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is constructed in a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps.
• Where feasible, limit the quantity of equipment operating simultaneously to 10 pieces of equipment or less.
• The applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem are implemented.
• Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction.

In addition, to reduce noise levels at nearby residential uses from non-exempt construction activities to a less than significant level between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., the following measures shall be implemented by the project:
• Prohibit use of noise-generating equipment outdoors between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
• Limit truck loading and unloading to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. • Limit the number of truck deliveries to two trucks an hour between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.
• Prohibit truck travel routes along Manhattan Avenue between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.

Findings for Impact NOI-1.1: Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1 requires the applicant to implement specific construction-period noise avoidance measures. The purpose of this measure is to reduce construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impact on noise, including construction noise levels impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.

Impact NOI-1.2: Noise generated by project HVAC equipment could exceed the City’s Municipal Code threshold for exterior noise levels at the nearest residential property line. 15 Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2: Prior to issuance of building permits, project mechanical equipment shall be selected and designed to reduce impacts on surrounding uses and meet the City’s exterior and interior noise level requirements. A qualified acoustical consultant shall be retained by the project applicant to review mechanical noise as the equipment systems are selected to determine specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the City’s 55 dBA L50 daytime exterior limit and 50 dBA L50 nighttime exterior limit at the nearest residential property lines. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and/or installation of noise barriers, such as enclosures and parapet walls to block the line-of-sight between the noise receptors. Alternate measures may include locating equipment in less noise-sensitive areas. With implementation of this measure, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Findings for Impact NOI-1.2: Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2 requires the applicant to retain a qualified acoustical consultant to review project mechanical equipment and determine necessary noise reduction measures to comply with Municipal Code thresholds for exterior noise levels. The purpose of this measure is to reduce mechanical noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impact on noise, including operational noise levels impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.

Impact NOI-2: Construction-related vibration levels at the existing office buildings on-site would be up to 1.233 in/sec PPV, which would exceed the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1: The proposed project shall incorporate the following measures during project construction:
• Limit vibration-inducing equipment.
• Use of the heavy vibration-generating construction equipment shall be prohibited within 20 feet of existing on-site buildings.
• Use of smaller equipment to minimize vibration levels below the limits near existing on-site buildings shall be required.
• Modify/design or identify alternative construction methods to reduce vibration levels below the limits.
• Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials.

Findings for Impact NOI-2.1: Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1 requires the applicant to implement specific construction-period vibration avoidance measures. The purpose of this measure is to reduce construction vibration impacts on nearby structures. Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which 16 mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impact on noise, including construction vibration levels impacts on nearby structures.

3.2.6 Transportation
Impact TRA-1: The proposed project would generate a VMT of 13.2 percent below the citywide average home-based work trip VMT, exceeding the City’s threshold of 15 percent below the citywide average home-based work trip VMT.

Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1: Prior to issuance of grading and/or demolition permits for the project, the project applicant shall develop and submit to the Director of Community Development for review and approval an enhanced TDM program that demonstrates a reduction in project VMT to 15 percent below the Citywide average home-based work trip VMT.

The enhanced TDM program shall include the following measures:
• Expand University Circle Caltrain shuttle to meet more trains before 7 a.m., between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m., and after 6:30 p.m.,
• Add a University Circle last-mile shuttle connection for Dumbarton Express riders, • Provide transit subsidies,
• Provide vanpool subsidies, and/or
• Provide commuter cash allowances.

Findings for Impact TRA-1: Mitigation Measure TRA-1.1 requires the applicant to enhance their TDM program with additional TDM measures. The purpose of this mitigation measure is to reduce VMT to 15 percent below the citywide average home-based work trip. Implementation of the identified mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant impact on transportation, including the potential impacts to VMT.

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT This section identifies impacts of the project that are less than significant and do not require mitigation measures. The City agrees with the characterization in the Final EIR with respect to issue areas identified as “no impact” and those impacts identified as “less than significant” and finds that those impacts have been described accurately and are less than significant as so described in the Final EIR.

This finding applies to the following impacts evaluated in the Final EIR and determined to result in “no impact” or determined to be “less than significant.” • growth-inducing and irreversible effects
• use of nonrenewable resources
• commitment of future generations to similar use
17 • irreversible damage from environmental accidents
• irreversible commitment of resources
• Aesthetics
o The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. (No Impact)
o The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. The project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Less than Significant Impact) o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant aesthetics impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) • Air Quality
o The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant Impact) o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant air quality impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) • Biological Resources
o The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. (Less than Significant Impact) o The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (No Impact)
o The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (No Impact)
o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant biological resources impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
• Cultural Resources
o The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant Impact)
• Energy
o The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. (Less than Significant Impact) 18 o The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant Impact) o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) • Geology and Soils
o The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides. (No Impact)
o The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. (No Impact)
o The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (No Impact)
o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant geology and soils impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o The project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Less than Significant Impact) o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant GHG emissions impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
o The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Less than Significant Impact) o The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (No Impact)
o The project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (No Impact) o The project would not be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The 19 project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. (No Impact)
o The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. (No Impact) o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant hazards and hazardous materials impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
• Hydrology and Water Quality
o The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Less than Significant Impact) o The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. (No Impact)
o The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant hydrology and water quality impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
• Land Use and Planning
o The project would not physically divide an established community. (No Impact) o The project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less than Significant Impact) o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant land use and planning impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
• Noise
o The project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (No Impact) o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant noise impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) 20 • Population and Housing
o The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (No Impact) o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant population and housing impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
• Public Services
o The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools. (No Impact) o The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant public services impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
• Recreation
o The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. (Less than Significant Impact) 21 o The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (No Impact)
o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant recreation impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) • Transportation
o The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant transportation impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
• Tribal Cultural Resources
o The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). (Less than Significant Impact) o The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant tribal cultural resources impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
• Utilities and Service Systems
o The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant Impact) o The project would not have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (Less than Significant Impact)
o The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. (Less than Significant Impact) o The project would comply with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Significant Impact) 22 o The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant utilities and service systems impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
The City also agrees with determinations made in the Draft EIR “Effects Found Not to be Significant” sections that identified issue areas or thresholds of significance either are not applicable to the Project and that no impact related to the issue area or threshold of significance would occur, including the following issue areas:
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Mineral Resources
• Wildfire

4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT MAKE ALTERNATIVES

ANALYZED IN THE FINAL EIR INFEASIBLE
The analysis of alternatives to the proposed project is found in Section 8.0 of the Final EIR.

Based on the analysis and the entire record, the City finds each of the alternatives to be infeasible for the following reasons:

4.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The "No Project" alternative, required to be evaluated in the EIR, considers "existing conditions…as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services" [CEQA Guidelines Section15126.6(e)(2)].

Principal Characteristics: The No Project alternative assumes that the proposed project would not be developed and that the project site would generally remain in its current condition. The No Project Alternative would not result in a change in the current development at the site although, given the site’s Office land use and zoning designation and its location within the University Circle site (which was identified in the General Plan as an area for increased commercial development), it is reasonable to assume that if the proposed project were not approved or implemented, an alternative development would likely be proposed in the future which would conform to the Office land use designation and General Plan Policies pertaining to the site. The three existing six-story office buildings, and five-story hotel would remain on-site and continue to operate. Because the No Project Alternative would not result in any physical changes to the project site compared to existing conditions, there would be no environmental impacts. However, this alternative would not achieve the project objectives. In the event the current project was not approved/implemented, and future development was proposed on the site consistent with current plans and policies, it would be expected to be similar to the proposed project and have similar construction and operational impacts.

Environmental Effects: Under the No Project Alternative, the site would generate less traffic than under the proposed project, and traffic levels would remain as they are with the current developed site condition. The No Project Alternative scenario would avoid the significant but mitigable project VMT impacts, in addition to avoiding adverse effects on local intersections and 23 freeway segments. Since no construction would occur on the project site under the No Project Alternative, construction-related impacts identified to occur under the proposed project would be avoided. None of the project objectives, however, would be met under the No Project Alternative. In addition, General Plan Westside Area Policy 4.6, University Circle allows for intensification of development at the University Circle site so long as it meets the vision for the Westside.

Relation to Project Objectives: The No Project alternative would not achieve any of the project objectives. In the event the current project was not approved/implemented, and future development was proposed on the site consistent with current plans and policies, it would be expected to be similar to the proposed project and have similar construction and operational impacts.

4.2 BELOW GRADE PARKING REDUCED SCALE ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes a reduced scale office building with one level of below-grade parking.

Principal Characteristics: Given many of the project’s impacts are due to extensive construction activity to accomplish three levels of below grade parking, the purpose of the Below-Grade Parking Reduced Scale Alternative is to reduce construction related impacts by developing an office project that can be parked adequately with parking provided in one level of below-grade parking, consistent with the rest of the developed site condition. The Below-Grade Parking Reduced Scale Alternative would develop an office building and one level of belowgrade parking with 175 spaces in the same location on-site as under the proposed project.

Based on the parking ratios required by the City (1:300) and included in the proposed project (1:420), under this Alternative, the office building could have between 52,500 square feet and 73,588 square feet of office uses and would be two to three stories in height. The maximum depth of excavation under this Alternative would be reduced from 36 feet for three levels to approximately 16 feet bgs to accommodate the single level parking garage.

Environmental Effects: The reduced building height under the Below-Grade Parking Reduced Scale Alternative would result in fewer changes to the existing views in the surrounding area and would respond to controversy regarding the proposed building height expressed in comments received during the scoping period. Under the Below-Grade Parking Reduced Scale Alternative, most of the construction-related impacts identified to occur under the proposed project would be reduced. Because the office building would be smaller and maximum depth of excavation would be reduced to 16 feet bgs, the Below-Grade Parking Reduced Scale Alternative would result in fewer construction air quality emissions from operation of heavy-duty excavation equipment and hauling soil off-site compared to the proposed project. Constructionnoise impacts would also be less due to the shorter construction duration. The reduced amount of traffic generated under this alternative, consisting of roughly one third of the project’s proposed office space, would result in a commensurate reduction in air quality and noise emissions compared to the proposed project. The possibility of noise impacts from mechanical equipment operation and impacts to birds during construction and operation of this Alternative would be similar to the proposed project and would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures identified under the proposed project. Because VMT is measured as a ratio per employee, the VMT impacts associated with this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and would also be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures identified under the proposed project. 24 Relation to Project Objectives: The Below-Grade Parking Reduced Scale Alternative would only partially meet some of the project objectives due to the reduced size of the office building.

Due to the reduced square footage of office space, no community space would be provided under the Below-Grade Parking Reduced Scale Alternative and thus the fifth objective to reenergize and modernize University Circle campus as a more active and community-oriented space for East Palo Alto residents would not be met. The project applicant has indicated that this alternative cannot effectively cover the cost of constructing the below-grade parking garage and, therefore, would not be economically feasible.

4.3 ABOVE-GRADE PARKING REDUCED SCALE ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes a reduced scale office building with above-grade parking.

Principal Characteristics: Given many of the project’s impacts are due to extensive construction activity to accomplish three levels of below grade parking, the purpose of the Above-Grade Parking Reduced Scale Alternative is to develop an office project that can be parked adequately with parking provided above grade at the lower levels of the new office building, thereby avoiding all substantial excavation beyond typical building foundation and utility work. No below-grade parking would be constructed under this Alternative. The AboveGrade Parking Reduced Scale Alternative would construct an office building above two levels of above-grade parking. The two levels of parking under this Alternative can provide approximately 160 parking spaces, which would create a net increase of 61 parking spaces over the existing surface parking. Based on the City’s required parking ratio (1:300) and the parking ratio included in the proposed project (1:420), between 48,000 and 67,200 square feet of office uses can be adequately parked with two levels of above-grade parking. Under this Alternative, the maximum height of the building would be between four and five stories, with two or three levels of office above the two parking podium levels, and the podium footprint would be increased compared to the proposed project to maximize the amount of parking while allowing the University Circle entrance to remain open during construction. Since the entire ground floor of the building would be occupied by parking and the podium footprint would be expanded, the community space, public art, and an additional left turn lane on Woodland Avenue included as a community benefit under the proposed project would not be constructed under this Alternative.

Environmental Effects: Under the Above-Grade Parking Reduced Scale Alternative, construction-related impacts identified to occur under the proposed project including those to air quality, noise, archaeological resources, and paleontological resources would be reduced because excavation for below-grade parking would not occur, and because the building square footage would be reduced from 180,000 to between 48,000 to 67,200 square feet. Impacts to nesting birds during construction would be similar to the proposed project and would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures identified under the proposed project. The reduced amount of traffic generated during operation of this Alternative (roughly 50 to 66 percent less, given the office space is reduced by one half to two thirds) would result in a commensurate reduction in air quality and noise emissions compared to the proposed project. The possibility of noise impacts from mechanical equipment operation and impacts to birds during construction and operation of this Alternative would be similar to the proposed project and would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures identified under the proposed project. Because VMT is measured as a ratio per employee, the VMT impacts associated with this alternative would be the same as the proposed project and would also be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation 25 of the mitigation measures identified under the proposed project. Other operational impacts, such as demand on utilities including water, energy, sewer treatment, would be reduced proportionally, as the alternative is half to two thirds smaller than the proposed project.

Relation to Project Objectives: The Above-Grade Parking Reduced Scale Alternative would partially meet some of the project objectives. Due to the reduced amount of office space by one half to two thirds, no community space would be provided under this Alternative. In order to provide adequate parking above-grade, a larger building footprint would be required under this Alternative which would preclude community benefits such as community space, pedestrian access, public art, and the widening of Woodland Avenue to provide an additional left turn lane.

The Above-Grade Parking Alternative would also not meet General Plan policies, such as General Plan Land Use and Urban Design Policy 2.7 which allows intensification of the University Circle site with an additional office or hotel building and Westside Plan Policy 8.4 which calls for acquiring community benefits from new development in the Westside area.

4.4 RECONFIGURED PARKING ALTERNATIVE
This alternative assumes the same 180,000-square-foot office building as the proposed project but reducing the amount of below-grade parking proposed to a single level basement garage and additional parking elsewhere above ground on the campus.

Principal Characteristics: The Reconfigured Parking Alternative would seek to develop the same 180,000-square-feet of new office uses by constructing a building in the same location as the proposed project but reducing the amount of below-grade parking proposed to a single level basement garage and providing adequate parking elsewhere above ground on the larger office campus. In contrast to the proposed project, parking for this alternative would be provided through a combination of the following: 1) expanding the existing one level below-grade parking garage beneath the proposed office building, 2) expanding the existing on-site above-grade parking garage from four-levels to 6.5-levels, and 3) using existing under-utilized parking spaces in the existing above-grade parking garage. This alternative would involve construction of 192 new above-grade parking spaces and 100 new below-grade parking spaces. In total, 361 parking spaces would be constructed for exclusive use by office tenants and 44 spaces on the ground floor of the above-grade garage would be shared between the hotel and office tenants under this alternative, resulting in a net increase of 405 spaces for use of office tenants above existing conditions.

Environmental Effects: The Reconfigured Parking Alternative would construct the same size office building as the proposed project and, therefore, would result in operational impacts similar to the proposed project. As described above, compared to the proposed project, impacts to cultural resources, construction criteria air pollutant and TAC emissions, construction noise and vibration would be less due to the reduced excavation required for the smaller below-grade parking garage. The CEQA aesthetics impacts from expansion of the above-grade parking garage would be less than significant, the same as the proposed project, but the taller abovegrade garage would be less aesthetically pleasing than existing conditions and conditions under the proposed project. Impacts from the Reconfigured Parking Alternative would be less than significant or reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of the same mitigation measures required for the proposed project.
26 Relation to Project Objectives: Because the Reconfigured Parking Alternative would develop the same office building, retrofit the existing office buildings with water efficient plumbing fixtures and appliances, and include the same community benefits as the proposed project, it would meet all of the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project. However, because the above-grade parking garage is under different property ownership, feasibility is unknown.

5.0 FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO MITIGATION OF SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS,

AND ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Based on the entire record before the City and having considered the potential significant impacts of the project, the City hereby determines that all feasible mitigation within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City has been adopted to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts identified in the Final EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation is available to further reduce significant impacts. The feasible mitigation measures are discussed in Section 3.1 and 3.2, above, and are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires the City to adopt a monitoring or compliance program regarding the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed to lessen or avoid significant effects on the environment. The MMRP for the proposed project is hereby adopted by the City because it fulfills the CEQA mitigation monitoring requirements:
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed on the project during project implementation; and
• Measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through conditions of approval, permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.