Agenda — Menlo Park City Council, November 15, 2022 (part 3 of 7)

District, Town Square District, and Campus District. In addition, the Proposed Project would alter three parcels (Hamilton Avenue Parcels North and South), totaling 3.1 acres, to accommodate realignment of Hamilton Avenue at Willow Road for Project Site access. The City of Menlo Park (City) is the Lead Agency for the Proposed Project.

At the main Project Site, the Proposed Project would demolish approximately 1 million square feet (sf) of existing nonresidential uses and construct approximately 1.8 million sf of nonresidential uses (excluding the proposed hotel), for a net increase of 800,000 sf in nonresidential square footage. The new nonresidential uses (excluding the hotel) would be composed of up to 1.6 million sf of office and accessory uses in the Campus District (with the office space not to exceed 1.25 million sf), up to approximately 200,000 sf of commercial/retail space, primarily in the Residential/Shopping District and Town Square District. Some of the commercial/retail sf would be located on the east side of Main Street, within the Campus District, and accessible by the public from Main Street. The Proposed Project would also include up to approximately 1,730 multi-family residential units, an up to 193-room hotel, and, assuming full buildout, approximately 20 acres of open spaces, which include approximately 8 acres of publicly accessible parks, bike paths, and trails. The Proposed Project would be developed using the bonus level allowances from the Zoning Ordinance. The Proposed Project would utilize these allowances for increased density, intensity, and height in exchange for the provision of community amenities.

The three proposed districts within the main Project Site would be situated as follows: the approximately 17.7-acre Residential/Shopping District in the southwestern portion of the main Project Site, the approximately 4.3-acre Town Square District in the northwestern portion of the main Project Site, and the approximately 32-acre Campus District in the eastern portion of the main Project Site. The Campus District would include office uses (including amenity space), accessory uses, publicly accessible retail space, and a publicly accessible elevated park (i.e., the Elevated Park) that would serve to connect the main Project Site to the adjacent Belle Haven neighborhood via an overpass at Willow Road. The Proposed Project could include an undercrossing (Willow Road Tunnel), which may be developed at the discretion of the Project Sponsor, to provide tram and pedestrian/bicyclist access to the neighboring Meta campuses from the Campus District. If constructed, the Willow Road Tunnel would be an approximately 18-foot-tall by 42-foot-wide tunnel, running under the existing Dumbarton Cutoff at Willow Road.

To be conservative in the approach to environmental review, the Project EIR evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with construction of the Willow Road Tunnel.

The main Project Site would be bisected by a new north–south street (Main Street) as well as an east–west street that would provide access to all three districts. The Proposed Project would include a circulation network for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, inclusive of both public rights-of-way and private streets that would be generally aligned to an east-to-west and a northto-south grid. The Proposed Project would also alter parcels west of the main Project Site, across Willow Road, on both the north and south sides of Hamilton Avenue (Hamilton Avenue Parcels North and South) to support realignment of the Hamilton Avenue right-of-way and provide access to the new Elevated Park. The realignment of Hamilton Avenue would require demolition and reconstruction of an existing Chevron gas station (with a potential increase in approximately 1,000 sf) at Hamilton Avenue Parcel South and enable the potential addition of up to 6,700 sf of retail uses at the existing neighborhood shopping center (Belle Haven Retail Center) on Hamilton Avenue Parcel North.

Offsite transportation and utility improvements would be constructed to serve the Proposed Project. These include various potential intersection improvements, which may be required to Resolution No. XXXX

Page 4 of 123 ends

bring intersection congestion back to pre-Project conditions per the City’s transportation impact analysis guidelines, expansion of the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Ravenswood substation, and installation of a new conduit to connect the Ravenswood substation to the main Project Site. The Proposed Project also would result in the construction of a sanitary sewer force main and recycled water line in the same trench in Hamilton Avenue and an extension of the sanitary sewer line in Willow Road from O’Brien Drive to the proposed sanitary sewer pump station, should it be sited near the intersection of Willow Road and Park Street within the Community Park. In the event the pump station is sited within the Dog Park, the extension of the sanitary sewer line would divert flows from the existing sanitary sewer line within O’Brien Drive into either a new line located within Main Street, originating at the intersection of Main Street and O’Brien Drive, to Park Street, feeding into the sanitary sewer pump station or a new line that bisects the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Hetch Hetchy right-of-way and directly feeds into the proposed pump station.

II. ConnectMenlo EIR
The Project Site is within the General Plan and M-2 Area Zoning Update (ConnectMenlo) study area. ConnectMenlo, which updated the City General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements and rezoned land in the M-2 area, now referred to as the Bayfront Area, was approved on November 29, 2016. It serves as the City’s comprehensive and long-range guide to land use and infrastructure development. Because the City General Plan is a long‐range planning document, the ConnectMenlo EIR was prepared as a Program EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. ConnectMenlo’s Land Use Element identifies an allowable increase in net new development potential of up to 2.3 million square feet for nonresidential uses, up to 4,500 residential units, and up to 400 hotel rooms in the Bayfront Area.

Acting as the lead agency under CEQA, the City determined that the Proposed Project’s location and development parameters are consistent with ConnectMenlo and that the Proposed Project is within the scope of the ConnectMenlo Program EIR. Thus, the Project EIR tiered from the ConnectMenlo EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152, 15162, 15168, and 15183. The ConnectMenlo EIR is available on the City’s website for public review at the following link: menlopark.org/connectmenlo. The Proposed Project also would be required to comply with all applicable mitigation measures identified in the ConnectMenlo MMRP, as required for any proposed development in the City.

In many environmental topic areas, the impacts of the Proposed Project were found to be within the scope of the ConnectMenlo EIR, as determined in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15162. In those cases, the Proposed Project would not have new or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the ConnectMenlo EIR, and there are no new or considerably different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts that the applicant has declined to adopt. Likewise, in many topic areas, there are no impacts peculiar to the Proposed Project that were not addressed in the ConnectMenlo EIR or that would be substantially more severe than those identified in the ConnectMenlo EIR or that cannot be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as determined in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Nonetheless, given the magnitude of the Proposed Project and the public interest, the City chose to prepare an EIR that discusses all CEQA impacts of the Proposed Project, including those that were adequately addressed in the ConnectMenlo EIR. Accordingly, although the EIR tiers from the ConnectMenlo EIR in accordance with CEQA, the EIR discusses all impacts for purposes of providing comprehensive information, even when not required by CEQA.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 5 of 123 ends

On December 29, 2016, the City of East Palo Alto filed suit to challenge certification of the ConnectMenlo Final EIR. The City of East Palo Alto alleged that the City did not comply with CEQA because the EIR underestimated the amount of new employment and failed to adequately analyze the traffic impacts that would result from development under ConnectMenlo.

To resolve the litigation, the City of Menlo Park and the City of East Palo Alto entered into a settlement agreement. While the settlement agreement does not alter what is required for an EIR under CEQA, the Draft Project EIR was prepared in accordance with the settlement agreement, the key terms of which are as follows:
• Reciprocal Environmental Review for Future Development Projects. The City will prepare an EIR for any project located in the Office (O), Life Science (LS), or Residential Mixed-Use (RMU) district that exceeds 250,000 net new square feet and requires a use permit, that proposes bonus-level development, that proposes a master plan project, or that may have a significant environmental impact. The City may, with the exception of housing and traffic (which were the focus of East Palo Alto’s challenge), simplify the environmental review for future development projects by incorporating analysis and discussions from the ConnectMenlo Final EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d). East Palo Alto will prepare an Initial Study for future development projects to determine the appropriate level of environmental review and conduct that review, which can be simplified by incorporating by reference analysis and discussions from its general plan, referred to as Vista 2035.
• Reciprocal Traffic Studies. The City and East Palo Alto will work together to ensure that future development projects’ potentially significant traffic impacts on the other jurisdiction are analyzed and mitigated.
• Reciprocal Study of Multiplier Effect. When the preparation of an EIR is required, as described above, the City or East Palo Alto, as applicable, will conduct a Housing Needs Assessment, which, to the extent possible, will include an analysis of the multiplier effect for indirect and induced employment.

III. Environmental review process
Under CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a proposed project, and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on an EIR.

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was issued by the City to the OPR State Clearinghouse and interested agencies and persons on September 18, 2019, for a 30-day review period, during which interested agencies and the public could submit comments about the Proposed Project. The City also held a public scoping meeting on October 7, 2019.

Comments on the NOP were received by the City and considered during preparation of the Draft Project EIR.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Project EIR was issued on April 8, 2022, and the Draft Project EIR was made available for public review for a 45-day public review period through May 23, 2022. The Draft Project EIR was distributed to local, regional, and State agencies, and the general public was advised of the availability of the Draft Project EIR. The Draft Project EIR was made available online at www.menlopark.org/willowvillage. Printed copies of the Draft Project EIR were available for review at the City Main Library (800 Alma Street) and the Belle Haven Branch Library (413 Ivy Drive). A public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April 25, 2022, to receive comments on the Draft Project EIR.

The Final Project EIR provides responses to the comments on significant environmental issues received during the comment period of the Draft Project EIR. The Draft Project EIR and the responses to comments, along with the revisions to the Draft Project EIR comprise the Final Project EIR. The Planning Commission considered the Final Project EIR at a duly noticed public Resolution No. XXXX

Page 6 of 123 ends

hearing held on October 24, 2022, and continued to November 3, 2022, at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission voted affirmatively to recommend the City Council certify the Final Project EIR pursuant to CEQA. On _________, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, at which the City Council independently considered the Final Project EIR and the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

IV. Certification of the final project EIR
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the City, acting by and through its City Council, hereby certifies that the Final Project EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Project EIR prior to approving the Proposed Project. The City further certifies that the Final Project EIR reflects its independent judgment and analysis.

V. Record Of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record of proceedings consists of the following documents and testimony:
(a) The ConnectMenlo EIR;
(b) The NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project; (c) The Draft Project EIR for the Proposed Project, dated April 2022; (d) All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft Project EIR;
(e) The Final Project EIR for the Proposed Project, including comments received on the Draft Project EIR, responses to those comments, and the technical appendices, as well as text changes to the Draft Project EIR, dated October 14, 2022; (f) The MMRP for the Project;
(g) All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents related to the Proposed Project prepared by the City or consultants to the City with respect to the City’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the City’s action on the Proposed Project, including as well all reports and other related documents prepared by the applicant and peer reviewed by the City and included in the Project EIR; (h) All documents submitted to the City (including the Planning Commission and City Council) by other public agencies or members of the public, including the applicant, in connection with the Project;
(i) Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Proposed Project; (j) All matters of common knowledge to the Planning Commission and City Council, including, but not limited to:
(i) City’s General Plan and other applicable policies;
(ii) City’s Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances; (iii) Information regarding the City’s fiscal status;
(iv) Applicable City policies and regulations; and
(v) Federal, state and local laws and regulations; and
(k) Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by CEQA Section 21167.6(e).

The documents described above comprising the record of proceedings are located in the Community Development Department, City of Menlo Park, 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, California 94025. The custodian of these documents is the City’s Community Development Director or his/her designee.

VI. Findings
The findings, recommendations, and statement of overriding considerations set forth below are made and adopted by the City Council of the City of Menlo Park as the City’s findings under Resolution No. XXXX

Page 7 of 123 ends

CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines relating to the Proposed Project. These findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council regarding the Proposed Project’s environmental impacts, mitigation measures, variants to the Proposed Project, alternatives to the Proposed Project, and the overriding considerations that support approval of the Proposed Project and Project variants despite any remaining environmental effects they may have.

In many environmental topic areas, the impacts of the Proposed Project were found to be within the scope of the ConnectMenlo EIR, as determined in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15168 and 15162. In those cases, the Proposed Project would not have new or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the ConnectMenlo EIR, and there are no new or considerably different mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce significant impacts that the applicant has declined to adopt. Likewise, in many topic areas, there are no impacts peculiar to the Proposed Project that were not addressed in the ConnectMenlo EIR or that would be substantially more severe than those identified in the ConnectMenlo EIR or that cannot be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as determined in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Nonetheless, given the magnitude of the Proposed Project and the public interest, the City chose to prepare an EIR that discusses all CEQA impacts of the Proposed Project, including those that were adequately addressed in the ConnectMenlo EIR. Accordingly, although the EIR tiers from the ConnectMenlo EIR, in accordance with CEQA, for purposes of providing comprehensive information, the EIR discusses all impacts, even when not required by CEQA.

The below findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Project EIR with regard to Project impacts before and after mitigation but do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of each impact contained in the Project EIR. Instead, these findings provide a summary description of and basis for each impact conclusion identified in the Project EIR, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Project EIR, and state the City’s findings and rationale about the significance of each impact following the adoption of mitigation measures. A full explanation of environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Project EIR, and these below findings incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Project EIR supporting the determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Proposed Project’s impacts.

In adopting the mitigation measures, below, the City intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures identified in the Project EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure identified in the Project EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of a mitigation measure set forth below fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measure in the Project EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Project EIR shall control unless the language of the mitigation measure specifically and expressly has been modified by these findings.

Sections VII and VIII, below, provide brief descriptions of the impacts that the Project EIR identifies as either significant and unavoidable or less than significant with adopted mitigation.

These descriptions also reproduce the full text of the mitigation measures identified in the Project EIR for each significant impact.

VII.Findings for significant and unavoidable impacts
The Final Project EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts associated with approval of the Proposed Project, some of which can be reduced, Resolution No. XXXX

Page 8 of 123 ends

although not to a less-than-significant level, through implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Project EIR. The City Council finds there are no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that could be adopted at this time that would reduce these significant and unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level. For reasons set forth in Section XI, below, however, the City Council has determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the Project’s significant and unavoidable effects. The findings in this section are based on the Project EIR, the discussion and analysis of which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

A. Impact AQ-1: The Proposed Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1: The Project Sponsor shall either:
• Ensure all off-road construction equipment with greater than 25 horsepower and operating for more than 20 hours total over the entire duration of construction activities have engines that meet or exceed either EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards. The exception to this requirement allows a cumulative total of 618,028 horsepower-hours over the duration of construction activities before residents move onsite and 34,716 horsepowerhours over the duration of construction activities after residents move onsite from the operation of off-road construction equipment that meets standards less than Tier 4 Final; or • Prior to issuance of building permits, provide supplemental analysis prepared by a qualified air quality specialist to the City for approval that shows that emissions of ROG and NOX, the excess lifetime cancer risk, and the PM2.5 concentration would not exceed the thresholds from the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines using the mix of equipment Proposed by the applicant.

Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.2: The Project Sponsor shall use super-compliant architectural coatings during construction and operation for all buildings, which shall have VOC content that meet SCAQMD Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings as revised on February 5, 2016.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts but not to a lessthan-significant level. Specific considerations make further mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible; therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to Clean Air Plan consistency were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact AQ-1. It was determined that ConnectMenlo would be consistent with the goals and applicable control measures of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. In addition, the ConnectMenlo Final EIR determined that implementation of the ConnectMenlo project would result in lower VMT per service population than under then-existing conditions. In addition, the ConnectMenlo Final EIR states that, pursuant to the City’s Zoning Ordinance update, projects that require preparation of a transportation demand management (TDM) plan are required to reduce trip generation by 20 percent below standard use rates. For these reasons, the ConnectMenlo Final EIR found that implementation of ConnectMenlo would be consistent with air quality planning efforts of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and would not hinder the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) ability to attain the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) or National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and this impact would be less than significant. With implementation of Project Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2 and ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures AQ-2b1 and AQ-2b2, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions and Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) exposures. The Proposed Project Resolution No. XXXX

Page 9 of 123 ends

would also be consistent with the transportation control measures with implementation of Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2. However, as discussed under Clean Air Plan goals and further in Impact AQ-2, the Proposed Project’s Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) emissions would remain above the BAAQMD ROG threshold after implementation of all mitigation measures.

ROG emissions from consumer products constitute the majority of the operational ROG emissions associated with the Proposed Project, and the City and Project Sponsor have minimal control over what consumer products Project users would purchase. There are no additional mitigation measures to reduce ROG emissions from consumer products. Therefore, the Proposed Project would possibly disrupt or hinder implementation of the current Clean Air Plan, and this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

B. Impact AQ-2: The Proposed Project would result in a cumulative net increase in a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or ambient air quality standard.

Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1, above.

Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.2: Implement Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.2, above.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-2b1: Prior to building permit issuance, the City shall require applicants for all development projects in the city to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8‐1, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines).

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-2b2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, development projects in the City that are subject to CEQA and exceed the screening sizes in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the City of Menlo Park a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction‐related air quality impacts. The evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with the BAAQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction‐related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the project applicant is required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during construction activities to below these thresholds (e.g., Table 8‐2, Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for projects with Construction Emissions Above the Threshold of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, or applicable construction mitigation measures subsequently approved by BAAQMD). These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans), subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division prior to building permit issuance. (The AQTR prepared and submitted for the Proposed Project fulfills the air quality technical assessment requirement.)
Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2 as well as ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures AQ-2b1 and AQ-2b2, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts but not to a less-thansignificant level. Specific considerations make further mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible; therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact AQ-2, which found that construction emissions associated Resolution No. XXXX

Page 10 of 123 ends

with individual development projects could generate emissions of criteria air pollutants and TACs. This would require subsequent environmental review of future development projects to assess potential impacts relate to BAAQMD-recommended project-level thresholds. The ConnectMenlo EIR found that construction-related impacts would be significant and identified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures AQ-2b1 and AQ-2b2 to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. Even with implementation of these measures, the ConnectMenlo Final EIR found that construction-related impacts associated with buildout would be significant and unavoidable. The Proposed Project would implement Project Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and AQ-1.2 and ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures AQ-2b1 and AQ-2b2. However, ROG emissions from consumer products constitute most of the operational ROG emissions associated with the Proposed Project. The City and Project Sponsor would have minimal control over what consumer products Project users would purchase. There are no additional mitigation measures to reduce ROG from consumer products. Thus, although the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial change in the ConnectMenlo project and would not cause new or substantially more severe significant impacts than those analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR, net mitigated operational ROG emissions would still exceed BAAQMD’s ROG threshold after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

C. Impact C-AQ-1: Cumulative development would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on air quality; thus, the Proposed Project would be a cumulatively considerable contributor to a significant cumulative impact on air quality.

Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1, above.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-2b1: Implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ2b1, above.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-2b2: Implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ2b2, above.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1 as well as ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures AQ-2b1 and AQ-2b2, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts but not to a less-than-significant level. Specific considerations make further mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible; therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding: Cumulative development in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) would result in a significant unavoidable cumulative impact with respect to air quality as a result of an exceedance of BAAQMD criteria pollutant thresholds, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation. The ConnectMenlo EIR determined criteria air pollutant emissions generated by cumulative development would exceed BAAQMD’s project-level significance thresholds and that cumulative impacts related to criteria air pollutants under ConnectMenlo would be significant and unavoidable. The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial change in the ConnectMenlo project and would not cause new or substantially more severe significant impacts than those analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR. As a result of its operational ROG emissions, in excess of the BAAQMD ROG threshold, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation (see Impact AQ-2 above), the Proposed Project would be a cumulatively considerable contributor to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on air quality with respect to criteria pollutants.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 11 of 123 ends

D. Impact NOI-1a: Construction of the Proposed Project would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies.

Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c: Project applicants for all development projects in the city shall minimize the exposure of nearby properties to excessive noise levels from construction‐related activity through CEQA review, conditions of approval and/or enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance. Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits for development projects, a note shall be provided on development plans indicating that during on‐going grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction‐related noise:
• All internal combustion engines on construction equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers, air intake silencers, and/or engine shrouds that are no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.
• Stationary equipment such as generators and air compressors shall be located as far as feasible from nearby noise‐sensitive uses.
• Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby noise‐sensitive receptors. • Limit unnecessary engine idling to the extent feasible. • Limit the use of public address systems.
• Construction traffic shall be limited to the haul routes established by the City of Menlo Park.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1: The Project applicant and/or the contractor(s) shall obtain a permit to complete work outside the exempt/standard construction hours outlined in the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code, which may be incorporated into the conditional development permit for the Proposed Project. In addition, the applicant and/or contractor(s) shall develop a construction noise control plan to reduce noise levels and comply with Municipal Code daytime (during non-exempt hours) and nighttime noise standards to the extent feasible and practical, subject to review and determination by the Community Development Department. The plan shall also include measures to reduce noise levels such that a 10-dB increase over the ambient noise level does not occur at nearby noise-sensitive land uses, such as schools and residences to the extent feasible and practical (as determined by the City). Finally, the plan shall include measures to reduce pile driving noise such that noise from this equipment does not exceed 85 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet, as feasible.

The plan shall demonstrate that, to the extent feasible and practical, noise from construction activities that occur daily between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. or between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. will comply with the applicable City of Menlo Park noise limit of 60 dBA at the nearest existing residential or noise-sensitive land use, and construction activities that occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. will comply with the applicable City noise limit of 50 dBA at the residential or noise-sensitive land use. The plan shall also demonstrate that, to the extent feasible and practical (as determined by the City), noise from construction activities during all hours will not result in a 10 dB increase over the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive land uses, and that pile driving noise would not exceed 85 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. This Noise Control Plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits to confirm the precise noise minimization strategies that will be implemented and to document that strategies will be employed to the extent feasible and practical.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 12 of 123 ends

Measures to help reduce noise from construction activity to these levels shall be incorporated into this plan and may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• To the extent feasible and practical, plan for the noisiest construction activities to occur during daytime hours when the quantitative standards are less stringent, existing ambient noise levels are generally louder, and when people are less sensitive to noise. • Require all construction equipment be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) that are in good condition (at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer) and appropriate for the equipment. • Maintain all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. • Locate construction equipment as far as feasible from adjacent or nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
• Require all stationary equipment be located to maintain the greatest possible distance to the nearby existing buildings, where feasible and practical. • Require stationary noise sources associated with construction (e.g., generators and compressors) in proximity to noise-sensitive land uses to be muffled and/or enclosed within temporary enclosures and shielded by barriers, which can reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dB.
• Install noise-reducing sound walls or fencing (e.g. temporary fencing with sound blankets) around noise- generating equipment, to the extent feasible and practical, where no perimeter wall is provided pursuant to Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2. • Prohibit idling of inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods during nighttime/nonstandard hours (i.e., more than 2 minutes). • Provide advance notification in the form of mailings/deliveries of notices to surrounding land uses regarding the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period. • Provide the name and telephone number of an on-site construction liaison through on-site signage and on the notices mailed/delivered to surrounding land uses. If construction noise is found to be intrusive to the community (i.e., if complaints are received), the construction liaison shall take reasonable efforts to investigate the source of the noise and require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. • Use electric motors rather than gasoline- or diesel-powered engines to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools during nighttime hours, to the extent feasible and practical (as determined by the City). Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust could be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by about 10 dB. External jackets on the tools themselves could be used, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dB.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2: The Project contractor(s) shall install an 8-foot-high temporary noise barrier along the complete length of the western and southern perimeter (e.g., areas near residential and school land uses), and along the southernmost 500 feet of the eastern perimeter of the main Project Site. As project buildout occurs, removal and/or adjustment in the location of the perimeter noise barrier may occur because either the construction of project buildings (completion of core and shell) or streets requires barrier realignment, or the perimeter barrier is not needed, as shown by preparation of an acoustical analysis that indicates the balance of the construction activities will not result in construction noise that exceeds the allowable limits.

Page 13 of 123 ends

this site would not exceed the allowable limits. The decision regarding the necessity of this barrier and location(s) shall be subject to review and approval of the City based on evidence and analyses providing by the applicant team.

Regarding the Hamilton Avenue Parcel North, a similar noise barrier shall also be constructed along the complete length of the southern and western perimeters, along with the eastern most 100 feet of the northern perimeter of the Hamilton Avenue Parcel North, unless the Project Sponsor can demonstrate, through an acoustical analysis, that construction noise at this site would not exceed the allowable limits. The decision regarding the necessity of this barrier and location(s) shall be subject to review and approval of the City based on evidence and analyses providing by the applicant team.

The barriers shall be constructed of material that has an acoustical rating of at least 26 STC (Sound Transmission Class). This can include a temporary barrier constructed with plywood supported on a wood frame, sound curtains supported on a frame, or other comparable material.

Finding: Implementation of Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c and Project Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1 and NOI-1.2, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce the impacts but not to a less-than-significant level. Specific considerations make further mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible; therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding: Noise impacts related to construction during the day, construction during non-exempt daytime hours, construction during the night, potential intersection improvements, and construction of offsite improvements would be significant. The ConnectMenlo EIR determined that future projects in Menlo Park could result in construction‐ related noise levels that would exceed noise limits; however, with implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with the City Noise Ordinance, impacts would be less than significant. Since adopting ConnectMenlo, the City has implemented a construction noise threshold under CEQA that is more stringent than the threshold used to evaluate construction noise in the ConnectMenlo EIR. With respect to the Proposed Project, noise impacts on offsite uses (e.g., schools, residences) from construction, including the construction of certain offsite improvements, would remain significant, even after implementation of feasible mitigation measures. For example, while installation of a temporary construction noise barrier could reduce impacts, effective mitigation may not be feasible in all locations and may not reduce noise from all activities to a level of insignificance, even if noise is somewhat reduced. In addition, although not a CEQA impact, construction noise impacts on onsite Project land uses during morning and evening hours would be significant, even after implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Thus, the Proposed Project would cause a new or substantially more severe significant construction noise impact than that analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR.

E. Impact NOI-2: The Proposed Project would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 14 of 123 ends

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a1, 2: To prevent architectural damage citywide as a result of construction-generated vibration:
• Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any development project requiring pile driving or blasting, the project applicant/developer shall prepare a noise and vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. The maximum levels shall not exceed 0.2 in/sec, which is the level that can cause architectural damage for typical residential construction. If maximum levels would exceed the thresholds, alternative methods, such static rollers, non-explosive blasting, and pile drilling, as opposed to pile driving, shall be used to the extent feasible and practical, subject to review and determination by the Community Development Department.

To prevent vibration-induced annoyance as a result of construction-generated vibration:
• Individual projects that involve vibration-intensive construction activities, such as blasting or the use of pile drivers, jack hammers, or vibratory rollers, within 200 feet of sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. A vibration study shall be conducted for individual projects where vibration- intensive impacts may occur. The study shall be prepared by an acoustical or vibration engineer holding a degree in engineering, physics, or an allied discipline who is able to demonstrate a minimum of 2 years of experience in preparing technical assessments regarding acoustics and/or ground-borne vibration. The study is subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department.

Vibration impacts on nearby receptors shall not exceed the vibration annoyance levels (in RMS inches per second), as follows:
• Workshop = 0.126
• Office = 0.063
• Residence, daytime (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.) = 0.032
• Residence, nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) = 0.016 If construction-related vibration is determined to be perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses, additional requirements, such as less vibration-intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be implemented during construction (e.g., non-explosive blasting, pile drilling, as opposed to pile driving, preclusion for vibratory roller use, use of small or medium-sized bulldozers) to the extent feasible and practical. Vibration reduction measures shall be incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the Project and applicable building plans, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1: During daytime hours, pile driving activity shall take place no closer than 335 feet from residential land uses, 210 feet from office or school land uses, and 130 feet from workshops or retail land uses, to the extent feasible and practical. When pile driving work must take place closer than these distances from the aforementioned land uses, reduction measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible and practical, such as the use of alternative pile installation methods that do not require impact or vibratory pile driving. Examples of alternative pile installation methods include auger cast pressure grouted displacement 1 This noise and vibration study for the Proposed Project has been prepared in accordance with ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a.
2 ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE‐2a has been modified to allow for compliance “to the extent feasible and practical,” which would be subject to review and determination by the Community Development Department.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 15 of 123 ends

(APGD) piles, stone columns, cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles, or press-in piles. These measures will be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department.

In addition, the construction contractor shall appoint a Project vibration coordinator who will serve as the point of contact for vibration-related complaints during project construction. Contact information for the Project vibration coordinator will be posted at the Project Site and on a publicly available Project website. Should complaints be received, the Project vibration coordinator shall work with the construction team to adjust activities (e.g., drilling instead of driving piles in closer proximity to certain land uses) to the extent feasible and practical to reduce vibration or to reschedule activities for a less sensitive time. The Project vibration coordinator shall notify the Community Development Department of all vibration-related complaints and actions taken to address the complaints.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-2.2: During daytime hours, construction activity involving a vibratory roller shall take place no closer than 90 feet from residential land uses, 60 feet from office or school land uses, and 35 feet from workshops or retail land uses, to the extent feasible and practical, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. In addition, equipment that generates vibration levels similar to a large bulldozer shall take place no closer than 50 feet from residential land uses, 35 feet from office or school land uses, and 20 feet from workshops or retail land uses, to the extent feasible and practical, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. Maintaining these distances between equipment and the nearest residential, school/office, or workshop land uses would ensure vibration levels would be below 0.032 PPV in/sec at the nearest residences, 0.063 PPV in/sec at the nearest school or office, and 0.126 PPV in/sec at the nearest workshop, per the requirements in ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a.

When construction would require the use of these equipment types at distances closer than these to nearby sensitive uses, reduction measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible and practical, such as the use of smaller or less vibration-intensive equipment. For example, the vibration level from a large bulldozer at 10 feet would be approximately 0.352 PPV in/sec, whereas the vibration level from a large bulldozer at the same distance would be approximately

0.012 PPV in/sec. The vibration level from a small bulldozer at 10 feet would be below all daytime vibration thresholds from ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure Noise-2a. The feasibility of reduction measures shall be subject to review and determination by the Community Development Department.

In addition, the construction contractor shall appoint a Project vibration coordinator who will serve as the point of contact for vibration-related complaints during Project construction.

Contact information for the Project vibration coordinator will be posted at the Project Site and on a publicly available Project website. Should complaints be received, the Project vibration coordinator shall work with the construction team to adjust activities (e.g., drilling instead of driving piles in closer proximity to certain land uses) to the extent feasible and practical to reduce vibration or to reschedule activities for a less sensitive time. The Project vibration coordinator shall notify the Community Development Department of all vibration-related complaints and actions taken to address the complaints.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-2.3: During the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., pile driving activity shall take place no closer than 540 feet from residential land uses to the extent feasible and practical. When pile installation work must take place closer than this distance to residences, alternative pile installation methods that do not require impact or vibratory pile driving shall be employed to the extent feasible and practical. Examples of alternative pile Resolution No. XXXX

Page 16 of 123 ends

installation methods include auger cast pressure grouted displacement (APGD) piles, stone columns, cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) piles, or press-in piles. The feasibility of these alternative measures shall be subject to review and determination of the Community Development Department.

In addition, the construction contractor shall appoint a Project vibration coordinator who will serve as the point of contact for vibration-related complaints during Project construction.

Finding: Implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a and Project Mitigation Measures NOI-2.1, NOI-2.2, and NOI-2.3, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce vibration-related damage impacts from Project construction to nearby residential, school, and commercial/industrial buildings and vibration-related annoyance during nighttime to less than significant, but would not reduce daytime vibration-related annoyance impacts to a less than significant level. Specific considerations make further mitigation measures or alternatives for daytime vibration-related annoyance impacts infeasible; therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding: Construction vibration impacts were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR and determined to be potentially significant. With implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a, this impact was determined to be reduced to a less-thansignificant level. Both daytime and nighttime onsite and offsite construction activities would result in less than significant vibration-related damage impacts because vibration would be less than the damage threshold. Offsite vibration levels from the Proposed Project may exceed applicable vibration-related annoyance thresholds at nearby sensitive uses during daytime and nighttime construction. The impacts would be significant, even after implementation of feasible mitigation. Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1, for instance, would reduce daytime vibration-related annoyance effects from pile driving to nearby sensitive uses. However, because pile installation can be vibration-intensive, it is not known if at all times and in all locations vibration levels would be reduced to below the applicable annoyance criteria. In addition, Project Mitigation Measure NOI-2.2 would reduce vibration levels from non-pile driving activity. However, it might not be possible to ensure that vibration levels at all times and in all locations would be reduced to below the applicable annoyance thresholds. Likewise, vibration from construction of offsite improvements would exceed annoyance thresholds. Project Mitigation Measure NOI-2.3 would implement vibration control measures for annoyance from nighttime pile driving, would limit nighttime pile driving, and would ensure that nighttime pile driving would take place at least 540 feet from the nearest residential land uses, as feasible. If pile installation must take place closer than this distance from occupied residences, alternative pile installation methods would be used to the extent feasible and practical to reduce vibration levels to below the applicable significance thresholds. However, it may not be possible to ensure that vibration levels at all times and in all locations would be reduced to below the applicable annoyance thresholds if pile driving work must occur closer than 540 feet from residences, making the impact significant and unavoidable. The ConnectMenlo EIR determined that future projects in Menlo Park could expose people to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels, but that with implementation of mitigation measures, Resolution No. XXXX

Page 17 of 123 ends

impacts would be less than significant. Thus, the Proposed Project would cause a new or substantially more severe significant construction vibration impact than that analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR.

F. Impact C-NOI-1: Cumulative development would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impact; thus, the Proposed Project would be a cumulatively considerable contributor to a significant cumulative noise impact.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c: Implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c, above.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1, above.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2: Implement Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2, above.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3: Implement Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3, below.

Finding: Implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-1c and Project Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1, NOI-1.2, and NOI-1.3, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts but not to a less than significant level. Specific considerations make further mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible; therefore, the impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Facts in Support of Finding: Because there might be future or approved projects located in close proximity to the Project Site that could undergo construction at the same time, cumulative construction noise impacts would be significant. Although mitigation is applied to the Project to reduce construction noise impacts (see ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure Noise-1c, and Project Mitigation Measures NOI-1.1 and NOI-1.2), including implementation of best practices and construction of temporary construction noise barriers, construction noise impacts for the Proposed Project were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion in the ConnectMenlo EIR, the Proposed Project in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to construction noise. Unlike the conclusion in the ConnectMenlo EIR, however, the Proposed Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation. The Proposed Project’s contribution to significant cumulative operational traffic noise impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable on all roadway segments. With the implementation of mitigation, the Proposed Project’s contribution to significant cumulative operational equipment noise impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Specifically, with implementation of Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3: Mechanical Equipment Noise Reduction Plan, Project-related impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels; similar mitigation would be required for other projects in the project vicinity in order to ensure equipment noise complies with the applicable local noise standards. Cumulative noise impacts related to emergency generator testing would be less than significant. It is unlikely that emergency generators associated with the Proposed Project and nearby future projects would be tested at the same time or would be close enough to one another for noise to combine at a given individual receptor to create a new significant cumulative noise impact. Cumulative vibration impacts would be less than significant. Operational sources of vibration that may operate simultaneously would not be expected to combine to raise the overall peak vibration Resolution No. XXXX

Page 18 of 123 ends

level experienced at a nearby sensitive use. Construction vibration from multiple construction projects near one another would generally not combine to increase vibration levels.

VIII. Findings for significant impacts reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures
The Project EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project and mitigation measures for those impacts. It is hereby determined that the impacts addressed by the following described mitigation measures will be mitigated to a less than significant level or avoided by adopting and incorporating these mitigation measures as conditions into the Project. The findings in this section are based on the Project EIR, the discussion and analysis of which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.

A. Impact C-LU-1: Cumulative development would not result in a significant cumulative impact to land use, and the Proposed Project would not be a cumulatively considerable contributor to such cumulative impact.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure LU-2: Prior to project approval, as part of the project application process, future development in Menlo Park is required to demonstrate consistency with the applicable goals, policies, and programs in the General Plan and the supporting Zoning standards to the satisfaction of the City of Menlo Park’s Community Development Department.

A future project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning standards if, considering all its aspects, it will further the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan and supporting Zoning standards and not obstruct their attainment.

Finding: ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure LU-2 has been implemented through the Project EIR, which analyzes the Proposed Project’s consistency with General Plan goals and policies.

Because the Proposed Project is consistent with General Plan goals and policies, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial change in the ConnectMenlo project and would not cause a new or substantially more severe significant land use impact than that analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) Facts in Support of Finding: The ConnectMenlo EIR determined that implementation of ConnectMenlo would not divide an established community or conflict with established plans, policies, and regulations and that implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure LU-2 (requiring projects to demonstrate consistency with the City General Plan and zoning standards prior to approval) would ensure that future projects in Menlo Park would be consistent with City General Plan policies. The ConnectMenlo EIR also determined that ConnectMenlo would be consistent with existing and proposed changes in other local and regional plans and that development in surrounding cities and the San Mateo County region is taking place in alreadyurbanized areas and therefore would not require significant land use changes that would create land use conflicts, nor would development contemplated by ConnectMenlo divide communities.

Therefore, cumulative impacts related to land use changes would be less than significant with mitigation. As required by ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure LU-2, the Project EIR analyzed the Proposed Project’s consistency with ConnectMenlo’s goals and policies. The analysis in the Project EIR, including in Table 3.1-4, shows that the Proposed Project will be consistent with ConnectMenlo’s goals and policies. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial change in the ConnectMenlo project and would not cause a new or substantially more severe significant land use impact than that analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR.

Consistent with the conclusions in the ConnectMenlo EIR, the Proposed Project in combination with other cumulative development in Menlo Park, which also must implement ConnectMenlo Resolution No. XXXX

Page 19 of 123 ends

Mitigation Measure LU-2, as well as other foreseeable cumulative development in the area, would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact with respect to land use. No additional mitigation measures are required.

B. Impact TRA-2: The Proposed Project would exceed the applicable VMT threshold of significance for the residential land use and could result in a significant impact.

Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2: The residential land use of the Project Site will be required to implement a TDM Plan achieving a 36% reduction from gross ITE trip generation rates (for the Proposed Project, this reduction equals 6,023 daily trips). Should a different number of residential units be built, the total daily trips will be adjusted accordingly. The required residential TDM Plan will include annual monitoring and reporting requirements on the effectiveness of the TDM program. The Project applicant will be required to work with City staff to identify the details of the TDM Plan. If the annual monitoring finds that the TDM reduction is not met (i.e., the Proposed Project exceeds 6,023 daily trips from the residential land use), the TDM coordinator will be required to work with City staff to detail next steps to achieve the TDM reduction.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: While the ConnectMenlo EIR included an evaluation of VMT impacts for information purposes, the VMT standards applied in the ConnectMenlo EIR differ from those adopted by the City under the updated TIA Guidelines. The ConnectMenlo EIR found that implementation of ConnectMenlo would not exceed the VMT threshold of significance used in that EIR and would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to VMT. The Proposed Project would exceed the applicable VMT threshold of significance for the residential land use. Residential land use VMT is estimated to be 13.3 daily miles per capita, which would exceed the VMT threshold and result in a VMT impact. The Proposed Project’s residential land use would require a 36% reduction in VMT from gross Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) rates to mitigate the significant VMT impact. Therefore, mitigation of the VMT impact would require implementing a TDM Plan for the residential component that achieves at least a 36% reduction from gross ITE rates (for the Proposed Project, this reduction equals 6,023 daily trips). According to the Proposed Project’s proposed TDM Plan, the proposed TDM measures for the residential component could achieve the required reduction. The City incorporates monitoring requirements for TDM plans into project conditions and would monitor annually the effectiveness of the TDM plan to ensure that total daily trips achieve the required reduction.

Therefore, Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2 is feasible and would fully mitigate this impact.

C. Impact TRA-3: The Proposed Project includes a design feature that could increase hazards and could result in a significant impact.

Project Mitigation Measure TRA-3: Revise the North Garage access design to provide adequate sight distance for the eastern driveway or incorporate other design solutions to reduce hazards to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Potential solutions that would reduce hazards to a less than significant level include restricting the eastern driveway to inbound vehicles only or prohibiting exiting left turns, modifying landscaping or relocating the driveway to the west to allow for adequate sight distance for exiting vehicles, or installing an all-way stop or signal.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 20 of 123 ends

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure TRA-3, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: The ConnectMenlo EIR found that future developments and roadway improvements would be designed according to City standards and subject to existing regulations that are aimed at reducing hazardous conditions with respect to circulation.

Additionally, future development would be concentrated on sites that are already developed where impacts related to incompatible traffic related land uses would not likely occur. Therefore, the adoption of ConnectMenlo would result in less-than-significant impacts for hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. The Proposed Project includes a design feature that could increase hazards. While the driveway designs generally comply with applicable standards and would not present hazards, the Proposed Project’s proposed eastern driveway at the “North Garage” would be directly adjacent to a sharp roadway curve. The roadway curve would restrict sight distance to approximately 50 feet, which would provide inadequate sight distance for vehicles exiting the garage. Project Mitigation Measure TRA-3, which requires revisions to the North Garage access design to provide adequate sight distance for the eastern driveway or other design solutions to reduce hazards, would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level.

D. Impact C-TRA-2: The Proposed Project would exceed the applicable VMT threshold of significance for the residential land use and could result in a significant impact.

Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Implement Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2, above.

E. Impact C-TRA-3: The Proposed Project includes a design feature that could increase hazards and could result in a significant impact.

Project Mitigation Measure TRA-3: Implement Project Mitigation Measure TRA-3, above.

Page 21 of 123 ends

Facts in Support of Finding: The ConnectMenlo EIR found that cumulative impacts to the transportation network would be the same as identified for each respective environmental topic area. Cumulative land use development and transportation projects would promote accessibility for people walking to and through the site by conforming to General Plan policies and zoning regulations, and by adhering to planning principles that emphasize providing convenient connections and safe routes for people walking, bicycling, driving, and taking transit.

Additionally, as with current practice, projects would be designed and reviewed in accordance with the City’s Public Works Department Transportation Program and the department would provide oversight engineering review to ensure that the project is constructed according to City specifications. With implementation of Project Mitigation Measure TRA-3, this Proposed Project, in combination with cumulative projects, consistent with the findings of the ConnectMenlo Final EIR, would have a less than significant cumulative impact with respect to hazards or incompatible uses.

F. Impact AQ-3: The Proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1, above.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-2b1: Implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ2b1, above.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-2b2: Implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ2b2, above.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1 as well as ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures AQ-2b1 and AQ-2b2, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact AQ-3. It was determined that the increase in traffic associated with buildout would not result in, or contribute to, localized concentrations of CO that would exceed applicable federal and state ambient air quality standards. The ConnectMenlo EIR found that new land uses in the City that involve trucks and truck idling and the use of off-road equipment at warehousing operations could generate substantial DPM emissions. The ConnectMenlo Final EIR identified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-3b to ensure that air pollution levels at sensitive receptors meet the incremental risk thresholds established by BAAQMD. With implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-3b, the ConnectMenlo Final EIR concluded that impacts would be less than significant. The Proposed Project’s unmitigated health risk results would not exceed BAAQMD’s recommended health risk thresholds for the non-cancer hazard index; however, the Proposed Project would exceed BAAQMD’s cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration thresholds.

Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1 and ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures AQ-2b1 and AQ2b2 would be implemented to mitigate cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration exceedances. The Proposed Project triggered the requirement for ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-3b and complied with the measure by submitting a health risk assessment (HRA) to the City’s Planning Division prepared in accordance with the policies and procedures of the State Office of Environmental health hazard Assessment and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-3b also requires a project to identify and demonstrate that mitigation measures are capable of reducing health risks to below the BAAQMD thresholds Resolution No. XXXX

Page 22 of 123 ends

and incorporate those measures into the project. Based on the HRA and EIR analysis, ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures AQ-2b1 and AQ-2b2, together with Mitigation Measure AQ1.1 would reduce health risks to below BAAQMD’s thresholds and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program requires the applicant to implement these mitigation measures.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-3a would not apply to the Proposed Project. With implementation of Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1 and ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures AQ-2b1 and AQ-2b2 from the ConnectMenlo EIR, the incremental increase in health risks from all sensitive receptor types would be less than all BAAQMD-recommended health risk thresholds. Therefore, mitigated construction and operational emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and associated health risks. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

G. Impact AQ-4: The Proposed Project would result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Project Mitigation Measure AQ-4.1: The Project Sponsor and West Bay Sanitary District shall install a molecular neutralizer at the proposed sanitary sewer pump station to convert hydrogen sulfide gas into a biodegradable effluent during sewer pump operations. The molecular neutralizer shall be installed prior to the commencement of sewer pump operations.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure AQ-4.1, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: Odors from the Proposed Project’s sewer pump station could adversely affect a substantial number of people, which could be considered a significant impact.

BAAQMD Regulation 7 contains requirements on the discharge of odorous substances after the Air Pollution Control Officer receives odor complaints from ten or more complainants within a 90-day period, alleging that a person has caused odors perceived at or beyond the property line of such person and deemed to be objectionable by the complainants in the normal course of their work, travel or residence [BAAQMD 7-102]. The operations within the Proposed Project would be subject to this regulation and would comply with the requirements if the regulation becomes applicable via BAAQMD 7-102, which is not expected. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 7. The Proposed Project also would implement Project Mitigation Measure AQ-4.1, which requires the sewer pump station to be equipped with a molecular neutralizer, which would convert hydrogen sulfide gas into a biodegradable effluent during sewer pump operations. With implementation of this Project Mitigation Measure and compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 7, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

H. Impact GHG-1b: Operation of the Proposed Project could generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Implement Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2, above.

Page 23 of 123 ends

to update the Climate Action Plan) would reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible.

However, additional state and federal actions would be necessary to ensure that regulated state and federal sources (i.e., sources outside the City’s jurisdiction) would achieve the deep reductions needed to meet a 2050 target. Therefore, the ConnectMenlo Final EIR considered GHG emissions to be significant and unavoidable. The Proposed Project would develop and implement TDM programs with trip reduction measures to reduce vehicle traffic in and around the Project Site. Because the Proposed Project would implement TDM measures and Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2 (which would ensure that operation of the Proposed Project would achieve the City’s VMT thresholds) to meet the City’s trip and VMT reduction targets, implementation of the Proposed Project would not contribute a significant amount of operational mobile-source GHG emissions to existing significant cumulative emissions. Accordingly, the Project’s contribution to this significant cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation. In addition, because the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in operational non-mobile-source GHG emissions, the Proposed Project’s operational GHG emissions would not constitute a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative climate change impacts. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to this significant cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation.

I. Impact GHG-2: The Proposed Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions or GHGs.

Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Implement Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2, above.

Therefore, the ConnectMenlo Final EIR determined that the level of GHG emissions associated with implementation of ConnectMenlo would be significant and unavoidable. The Proposed Project would achieve net-zero non-mobile-source operational emissions without mitigation.

Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2 would ensure that operation of the Proposed Project would achieve the City’s VMT thresholds, thereby reducing associated operational mobile-source GHG emissions. Construction and operation of the buildings associated with the Proposed Project would be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The buildings would meet a net-zero operational GHG threshold. Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2 would ensure that operation of the Proposed Project would result in a level of VMT that would meet the City’s VMT thresholds. For these reasons, implementation of Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2 would result in the Proposed Project being consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, thereby reducing the Project’s contribution to this significant cumulative impact to less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation.

J. Impact NOI-1b: Operation of the Proposed Project would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 24 of 123 ends

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b: Stationary noise sources and landscaping and maintenance activities citywide shall comply with Chapter 8.06, Noise, of the Menlo Park Municipal Code.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3: To reduce potential noise impacts resulting from Project mechanical equipment, including heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment, the Project applicant shall conduct a noise analysis to estimate noise levels of Project-specific mechanical equipment based on the final selected equipment models and design features. In addition to the analysis, a Mechanical Equipment Noise Reduction Plan shall be created to ensure noise levels of equipment, once installed, are below the applicable criteria described below. The Noise Reduction Plan shall include any necessary noise reduction measures required to reduce Project-specific mechanical equipment noise to a less-than-significant levels. The plan shall also demonstrate that with the inclusion of selected measures, noise from equipment would be below the significance thresholds. Feasible noise reduction measures to reduce noise below the significance thresholds include, but are not limited to, selecting quieter equipment, utilizing silencers and acoustical equipment at vent openings, siting equipment farther from the roofline, and/or enclosing all equipment in a mechanical equipment room designed to reduce noise. This analysis shall be conducted and the results and final Noise Reduction Plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of building permits for each building.

The noise analysis and Noise Reduction Plan shall be prepared by persons qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering. The Noise Reduction Plan shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that noise from mechanical equipment selected for the Project, including the attenuation features incorporated into the Project design, will not exceed the City of Menlo Park’s property plane threshold of 60 dBA during daytime hours or 50 dBA during nighttime hours at nearby noise-sensitive land uses, as well as the 50 dBA at 50 feet threshold that applies to rooftop equipment in the City.

The Project applicant shall incorporate all feasible methods to reduce noise identified above and other feasible recommendations from the acoustical analysis and Noise Reduction Plan into the building design and operations as necessary to ensure that noise sources meet applicable requirements of the respective noise ordinances at receiving properties.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.4: Prior to approval of a building permit for each building, the Project applicant shall conduct a noise analysis to estimate noise levels from the testing of Project specific emergency generators, based on the actual generator makes and models Proposed and the actual selected attenuation features. Based on the results of the analysis, a Noise Reduction Plan shall be created to ensure noise levels of generator testing are below the applicable Code requirements. The results, methods, and final Noise Reduction Plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The analysis shall account for proposed noise attenuation features, such as specific acoustical enclosures and mufflers or silences, and the final Noise Reduction Plan shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that proposed generator(s) will not exceed the City of Menlo Park noise thresholds of 60 dBA at the nearest noise-sensitive use during daytime hours, and/or 85 dBA at 50 feet for powered equipment, whichever is lower. Acoustical treatments may include, but are not limited to:
• Enclosing generator(s);
• Installing relatively quiet model generator(s);
• Orienting or shielding generator(s) to protect noise-sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible;
• Installing exhaust mufflers or silencers;
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 25 of 123 ends

• Increasing the distance between generator(s) and noise-sensitive receptors; and/or • Placing barriers around generator(s) to facilitate the attenuation of noise.

In addition, all Project generator(s) shall be tested only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Because no nighttime testing of generators will be allowed, compliance with the 50- dB nighttime noise threshold in the City need not be demonstrated.

The Project applicant shall incorporate sufficient recommendations from the acoustical analysis into the building design and operations to ensure that noise sources meet applicable requirements of the noise ordinance.

Finding: Implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b and Project Mitigation Measures NOI-1.3 and NOI-1.4, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: Construction and operational noise effects were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact NOISE-1. Impacts were determined to be less than significant with application of mitigation measures as well as compliance with City General Plan goals and policies. Mechanical equipment noise from the Proposed Project’s South Garage central energy plant, the North Garage central energy plant, and the Proposed Project’s mixed-use parcels may exceed the daytime and nighttime thresholds outlined in the City Municipal Code, as well as the rooftop equipment noise threshold. Impacts from mechanical equipment noise at these locations would be considered significant. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b from the ConnectMenlo EIR in combination with Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3, which requires acoustical analysis and preparation of a Mechanical Equipment Noise Reduction Plan, would reduce noise from Project mechanical equipment to comply with the noise limits outlined in Chapter 8.06 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code. Therefore, impacts from mechanical equipment noise would be less than significant with mitigation. In addition, generator noise from multiple Project generators would have the potential to exceed the allowable limits in the City. Because all final generator makes and models, as well as generator noise attenuation features and actual locations, have not been finalized, actual noise levels also could be louder, or quieter, than the estimated levels at the nearest sensitive land uses. Because generator noise during testing likely would be in excess of the applicable City noise limits, noise impacts from emergency generator testing would be considered significant. ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b in combination with Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.4, which requires preparation of an Emergency Generator Noise Reduction Plan that includes effective attenuation features, would ensure noise from emergency generators during testing would comply with the noise limits outlined in Chapter 8.06 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code. Therefore, noise impacts from Project emergency generator testing would be less-than-significant with mitigation.

K. Impact CR-1: The Proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Project Mitigation Measure CR-1.1: The Project Sponsor shall remove the Dumbarton Cutoff Line tracks, store them during construction of the Proposed Project, and reinstall them in their historic location without irreparable damage to their character-defining historic fabric. The Project Sponsor will prepare a preservation plan that specifies the practices to be employed to preserve the historical integrity of the tracks during their removal, storage, and reinstallation.

These methods may include the following: using straps to lift rails rather than chains or other “metal on metal” methods, marking or numbering the track components so they can be replaced Resolution No. XXXX

Page 26 of 123 ends

in their original sequence, and ensuring secure storage onsite or in a lay-down area. Following tunnel construction, the rail segments will be returned to their preconstruction location in Willow Road on new ballast and ties or other appropriate material for the rail crossing. The preservation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City and the San Mateo County Transit District (Samtrans) prior to the issuance of demolition permits related to construction activities within Willow Road, and the Project Sponsor will incorporate the recommended protective measures into construction specifications.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure CR-1.1, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to historical resources were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact CULT-1. The ConnectMenlo EIR did not identify any historical resources within the vicinity of the Project Site. However, as a result of the Proposed Project’s temporary removal of a segment of track from the Dumbarton Cutoff Line (which currently crosses Willow Road) in connection with the construction of the Willow Road Tunnel, the now identified historical resource could lose a portion of the historic material that expresses the significant historic character of the Dumbarton Cutoff Linear Historic District if the material is damaged or not properly returned to its original location. This activity could discernibly alter the resource’s historical integrity and the public’s ability to understand its historic character, as observed from Willow Road. Therefore, the Proposed Project could constitute material impairment of the significance of the Dumbarton Cutoff Line. Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure CR-1.1 would require the Project Sponsor to remove the tracks belonging to the Dumbarton Cutoff Line in a sensitive manner, store them during construction, and reinstall them in their historic location following completion of Project construction. This measure would ensure that the resource’s overall physical characteristics and extant alignment would remain intact; following the Proposed Project, the Dumbarton Cutoff Line and the historic district to which it contributes would retain all aspects of historical integrity as well as the physical characteristics that support inclusion in the National Register and California Register. With implementation of Project Mitigation Measure CR-1.1, the Dumbarton Cutoff Line and the Dumbarton Cutoff Linear Historic District would still convey their historical significance and continue to qualify as historical resources for purposes of CEQA. Impacts therefore would be less than significant with mitigation
L. Impact CR-2: The Proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-2a:
• If a potentially significant subsurface cultural resource is encountered during grounddisturbing activities on any parcel in the city, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the find shall cease until a qualified archeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. In addition, if a potentially significant subsurface cultural resource is encountered during ground-disturbing activities within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way, the Caltrans District 4 Office of Cultural shall be immediately contacted at (510) 847-1977. All developers in the Study Area shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of these requirements. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate DPR forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria by a qualified archeologist in accordance with Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.2.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 27 of 123 ends

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.1, below.

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.2: Implement Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.2, below.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures TCR-1.1 and TCR-1.2 as well as Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-2a, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to archeological resources were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact CULT-2. It was determined that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures CULT-2a and CULT-2b.

Project-related ground disturbance would have the potential to disturb both known and as-yet undocumented archaeological deposits associated with CA-SMA-160/H and other archeological resources. Compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including applicable ConnectMenlo EIR mitigation measures, City General Plan goals and policies, and Projectspecific mitigation measures, would protect significant archaeological resources within the Project Site by providing archaeological resources sensitivity training to workers; ensuring preservation in place or, if infeasible, archaeological data recovery when significant archaeological resources are encountered and cannot be avoided; and allowing early detection of potential conflicts between development and resources. The Proposed Project has implemented ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-1 by completing the site-specific historical and archeological resource studies referenced in the Draft Project EIR. The Proposed Project would implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-2a, as modified to avoid redundancy with Project-specific mitigation, if a potentially significant subsurface cultural resource is encountered during ground-disturbing activities. In addition, the Project Sponsor would implement Project Mitigation Measures TCR-1.1 and TCR-1.2, which would reduce impacts on CA-SMA-160/H and unknown archeological resources to a less than significant level. These measures would be implemented on the main Project Site. ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-2a (as modified) and Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.2 apply to Hamilton Avenue Parcels North and South and the Willow Road Tunnel site, areas where Project-related ground disturbance would have the potential to affect elements of CA-SMA160/H and unknown archaeological resources. Impacts on archaeological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

M. Impact CR-3: The Proposed Project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.1, below.

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.2: Implement Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.2, below.

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-2.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure TCR-2.1, below.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4: Implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4, below. Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures TCR-1.1, TCR-1.2, and TCR-2.1 as well as Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) Resolution No. XXXX

Page 28 of 123 ends

Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to human remains were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact CULT-4, which found that impacts would be less than significant with implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4. Here, Native American human remains could be exposed and disturbed during ground-disturbing activities at the Project Site. An archaeological and tribal cultural resource was identified within the main Project Site. This resource has the potential to contain human remains interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Excavation activities associated with the Proposed Project would not affect any known reburial locations; however, previously undocumented Native American burials could be affected by ground-disturbing construction due to their location within areas proposed for subsurface improvements. This impact could be potentially significant. The Proposed Project would implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4, as modified, based on the Project’s cultural resources assessment report, if human remains are encountered at the Project Site during ground-disturbing activities. The Project Sponsor also would implement Project Mitigation Measures TCR 1.1 and TCR 1.2 within the main Project Site, given the presence of CA-SMA-160/H. Project Mitigation Measures TCR 1.1 and TCR 1.2 include measures to avoid or minimize ground-disturbing excavation near CA-SMA-160/H, to the extent feasible, and preparation of a monitoring and treatment plan that details the appropriate procedure if remains are encountered. Project Mitigation Measure TCR-2.1 requires avoidance and preservation in place of existing known reburials. With implementation of mitigation, the Proposed Project’s impact on human remains would be less than significant.

N. Impact BIO-2: The Proposed Project would result in substantial predation among specialstatus bird and mammal species that breed in the nearby brackish marshes and may forage, in the case of special-status birds, in the Project area.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1: The Project Sponsor shall implement a feral cat management program, similar to the program developed in conjunction with the Peninsula Humane Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for the East Campus in 2013. Prior to the program being implemented, the program developer shall coordinate with local human societies and animal service centers to identify facilities able to take cats. The program coordinator shall coordinate with facilities receiving cats to ensure that efforts are made to attempt to reunite any inadvertently trapped pet with its owners.

For one week every 3 months (i.e., each quarter), three live trap cages, designed to trap domestic cats, shall be placed around the perimeter of the main Project Site in locations where feral cats are likely to prey upon native wildlife species. The traps shall be deployed and maintained by a qualified trapping professional (such as an animal management company or other trained and experienced animal or wildlife professional). The duration of traps shall be coordinated with the specified intake facility so that the facility is prepared and open to receive trapped cats.

Each trap cage shall be closely monitored and maintained on a daily basis during the week when traps have been set to determine whether a feral cat has been caught and whether the trap has inadvertently captured a non-target species (e.g., pet cat or wildlife). Traps shall not be deployed during extreme weather (e.g., heat, cold, rain). Traps shall contain water and be at least partially covered where feasible to attempt to reduce stress of trapped animals.

If a cat is caught, the qualified professional shall transport the trapped cat as soon as practicable to the local humane society or animal service center that accepts trapped cats. If an animal other than a feral cat is caught in one of the traps, such as a suspected pet cat (e.g., cat with a collar) or wildlife, it shall be released immediately at the trap location.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 29 of 123 ends

Because there are residences within and adjacent to the Project Site and the area where the Feral Cat Management Program will take place, efforts will be taken to ensure that residences are aware of the program to avoid inadvertent trapping and removal of pet cats. Visible signage shall be installed a week in advance of trapping and shall remain installed for the duration of trapping. The signs will have contact information should residents have questions or concerns.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to special-status species or the inadvertent loss of bird nests in active use were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact BIO-1 and found to be less-than-significant with mitigation. The impact could be potentially significant because special-status species have the potential for occurrence in the remaining undeveloped lands in the Bayfront Area and, much more infrequently, in the semi-natural portions of the City where construction with future development allowed under the General Plan could occur.

Feral cat populations have been observed at the main Project Site, which increases predation of local animal populations, including special-status species. Implementation of the Proposed Project has the potential to result in an increase in the feral cat population. The influx of residents and their pets, or the establishment of new feral cat feeding stations by residents and workers, would also increase the feral cat population on the main Project Site. In addition, Willow Road Tunnel would provide direct access to the West Campus and a connection to the undercrossing below Bayfront Expressway that links the Bay Trail and the Meta Campuses, both East and West. Willow Road Tunnel could increase feral cat movement in the Project area; it could also increase access to the Baylands north of the Project Site where special-status species are known to be present. Offsite improvements at the PG&E Ravenswood substation, other utility improvements, and intersection roadway improvements would not facilitate increased predation of special-status species. Feral cats could access the main Project Site via the new Elevated Park or Willow Road Tunnel, allowing them to cross Willow Road and the Dumbarton Rail Corridor. Migration is most conceivable at night when traffic is reduced and mammalian predators are less likely to be injured or killed by cars; however, predators can already cross this area at street level. Therefore, indirect impacts on special-status species would be potentially significant. Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1, which would require implementation of a feral cat management program, would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation.

O. Impact BIO-3: Project demolition and construction would affect riparian and other sensitive natural communities.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.1: To the extent feasible, construction activities should avoid or minimize the removal of wetland vegetation or the placement of fill in the wetlands immediately north and northeast of the Project Site. If all direct impacts on wetlands (i.e., vegetation removal, loss, and fill) are avoided, Mitigation Measures BIO-3.2 and BIO-3.3 would not need to be implemented. However, if any wetland vegetation needs to be removed from the wetlands, or any fill needs to be placed in the wetlands, or post-construction conditions result in vegetation loss, Mitigation Measure BIO-3.2 (and Mitigation Measure BIO-3.3 if permanent impacts would occur) shall be implemented.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.2: If impacts on the wetlands immediately north of the Project Site are temporary, resulting in vegetation removal or temporary fill within the wetland but no Resolution No. XXXX

Page 30 of 123 ends

permanent fill, then the wetland area shall be restored by the Project Sponsor following construction. The herbaceous seasonal wetlands are likely to become recolonized easily without the need for seeding and planting as long as their existing hydrology and topography are restored following temporary impacts. There is some potential for the arroyo willow clumps in the isolated forested wetland to regrow from cut stumps. In such a case, the in-situ restoration shall involve simply protecting the area with exclusion fencing following construction to allow for regrowth of vegetation.

For temporary impacts involving removed willow root masses where in situ restoration is still an option, a more detailed restoration plan shall be developed. The mitigation shall, at a minimum, achieve no net loss of wetland acreage (i.e., jurisdictional wetlands lost to fill shall be replaced through the creation or restoration of wetland habitat of the same type as the affected habitat [either forested or herbaceous seasonal] at a minimum ratio of 1:1 on an acreage basis or as otherwise required by any state or federal permitting agencies) or ecological functions and values through the restoration and enhancement of the affected wetlands to a level equal to or greater than the baseline condition of the existing wetlands. An in-situ restoration approach could involve salvaging wetland plant material prior to construction (e.g., willow cuttings or willow clumps, in the case of the isolated forested wetland) and then replanting the material if the seasonal timing of construction is appropriate. USACE and/or RWQCB approvals may be required to authorize temporary impacts on these features.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.3: If any permanent fill or permanent loss of the isolated forested wetland or the herbaceous seasonal wetlands occurs, the Project Sponsor shall provide new wetland habitat of the same type (either forested or herbaceous seasonal) to offset this impact, either through the creation, enhancement, or restoration of wetlands in an appropriate location or through the purchase of mitigation credits from a USACE- or RWQCBapproved wetland mitigation bank. The purchase of such credits shall serve as full mitigation for impacts on these wetland features.3 If Project-specific creation, enhancement, or restoration of wetland habitat is implemented, habitat shall be restored or created at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (compensation: impact) on an acreage basis or as otherwise required by any state or federal permitting agencies. This ratio is not higher because of the relatively low quality of the wetlands on the Project Site relative to the more extensive, less fragmented wetlands elsewhere in the region, and it is not lower because of the temporal loss of wetland functions and values that would result from the lag between impacts on the wetlands and maturation of the mitigation habitat. USACE and/or RWQCB approvals may be required to authorize permanent impacts on this feature.

To the extent that compensatory mitigation is not provided by purchasing mitigation credits from a USACE- or RWQCB approved wetland mitigation bank, then, if feasible, compensation shall be provided by creating, enhancing, or restoring wetland habitat so as to achieve the 2:1 ratio somewhere in San Mateo County or as otherwise required by any state or federal permitting agencies. A qualified biologist shall develop a wetland mitigation and monitoring plan that describes the mitigation, including the following components (or as otherwise modified by regulatory agency permitting conditions):
• Summary of habitat impacts and Proposed mitigation ratios; • Goal of the restoration to achieve no net loss of habitat functions and values; • Location of mitigation site(s) and description of existing site conditions; 3 Refer to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 325 and State Water Resources Control Board’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (April 2, 2019), pages 28 and

29. Resolution No. XXXX

Page 31 of 123 ends

• Mitigation design:
• Existing and Proposed site hydrology;
• Grading plan, if appropriate, including bank stabilization or other site stabilization features;
• Soil amendments and other site preparation elements, as appropriate; • Planting plan;
• Irrigation and maintenance plan;
• Remedial measures and adaptive management; and
• Monitoring plan, including final and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, and monitoring schedule. Success criteria shall include quantifiable measurements of wetland vegetation type (e.g., dominance by natives), the appropriate extent for the restoration location, and the provision of ecological functions and values equal to or exceeding those in the affected wetland habitat. At a minimum, success criteria shall include following:
• At Year 5 post-mitigation, at least 75 percent of the mitigation site shall be dominated by native hydrophytic vegetation.

The wetland mitigation and monitoring plan must be approved by the City and other applicable agencies prior to the wetland impacts and must be implemented within 1 year after the discharge of fill into wetland features. Alternately, offsite mitigation could be provided through the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency-approved mitigation bank, as noted above.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures BIO-3.1, BIO-3.2, and BIO-3.3, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-thansignificant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to the loss of coastal salt marsh vegetation in the Baylands and possibly areas of riparian scrub and woodland along San Francisquito Creek and other drainages in the area were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact BIO-2 and found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. There are wetlands outside the boundary of the main Project Site and Hamilton Avenue Parcels North and South, and it is possible that these features may be affected, either temporarily or permanently, during Project grading.

Construction of a bicycle/pedestrian path along the northern edge of the main Project Site would require soil excavated from basement construction to be brought in to elevate the site. Although a retaining wall, ranging from 2 to 7 feet in height, is proposed to support the path, some vegetation clearing, as well as fill, within the wetlands (or portions of the wetlands) may occur.

As a result, it is possible that the entire 0.07-acre isolated forested wetland (as well as an additional 0.13-acre area where the canopy of willows extends outside the 0.07-acre forested wetland footprint within which the willows are rooted) and the 0.07-acre herbaceous seasonal wetlands may be lost because of fill. Even if the wetlands are not permanently affected, temporary impacts on wetlands may occur because of construction access, potentially resulting in degradation of wetland vegetation or hydrology. Owing to the scarcity of forested wetlands along the edge of the Bay and the decline in seasonal wetlands in the region, this impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures BIO-3.1, BIO-3.2, and BIO-3.3, which provide for avoidance and minimization of impacts, as possible, as well as restoration and compensatory mitigation, as needed, would reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation.

P. Impact BIO-4: Project demolition and construction could affect state and/or federally protected wetlands.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 32 of 123 ends

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.1, above.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.2: Implement Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.2, above.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.3: Implement Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.3, above.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures BIO-3.1, BIO-3.2, and BIO-3.3, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to the loss of wetland habitat in the area were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact BIO-3 and found to be less than significant with mitigation. As discussed in Impact BIO-3, above, the Proposed Project could affect a portion of the isolated forested wetland and herbaceous seasonal wetland along the northern edge of the main Project Site and Hamilton Avenue Parcel North during grading. As discussed in Impact BIO-3, above, implementation of Project Mitigation Measures BIO-3.1, BIO-3.2, and BIO-3.3, outlined in Impact BIO-3, above, would reduce this impact to less than significant with mitigation.

Q. Impact BIO-5: The removal of buildings, trees, shrubs, or woody vegetation and the construction of new buildings and installation of lighting that could affect native migratory birds.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-5.1: The Project Sponsor shall implement the following measures to reduce impacts on nesting migratory birds:
• To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts on nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in San Mateo County extends from February 1 through August 31.
• If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests of migratory birds will be disturbed during Project implementation.

Surveys shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to the initiation of construction activities for each construction phase. During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, California annual grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for migratory bird nests. • If an active nest is found within trees or other potential nesting habitats that would be disturbed by construction activities, a construction-free buffer zone (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species) will be established around the nest to ensure that species that are protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will not be disturbed during Project implementation. The ornithologist shall determine the extent of the buffer.
• If construction activities will not be initiated until after the start of the nesting season, all potential nesting substrates (e.g., bushes, trees, grasses, and other vegetation) that are scheduled to be removed by the Proposed Project may be removed prior to the start of the nesting season (i.e., prior to February 1). This would preclude the initiation of nests in this vegetation and prevent any potential delay for the Proposed Project because of the presence of active nests in these substrates.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 33 of 123 ends

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-5.2: The Project Sponsor shall implement the following measures to reduce impacts on migratory birds due to construction of the atrium:
• The Project Sponsor shall treat 100 percent of the glazing on the dome-shaped portions of the atrium’s façades (i.e., all areas of the north façade and all areas of the south façade above the Elevated Park) with a bird-safe glazing treatment to reduce the frequency of collisions. This glazing shall have a Threat Factor of 15 or less.4 Because a Threat Factor is a nonlinear index, its value is not equivalent to the percent reduction in collisions that a glazing product provides. However, products with lower Threat Factors result in fewer bird collisions.
• The Project Sponsor shall treat 100 percent of the glazing on the atrium’s east and west façades with a bird-safe glazing treatment to reduce the frequency of collisions. This glazing shall have a Threat Factor of 15 or less.
• Interior trees and woody shrubs shall be set back from the atrium’s east, west, and nonsloped (i.e., vertical/perpendicular to the ground) portions of the south façades by at least 50 feet to reduce the potential for collisions with these facades due to the visibility of interior trees. This 50-foot distance is greater than the distance used in the project design for the north and sloped portions of the south facades (e.g., 20-25 feet for the north façade) due to the vertical nature of the east, west, and non-sloped portion of the south façades, as opposed to the articulated nature of the north and sloped portions of the south façades (which is expected to reduce the visibility of internal vegetation to some extent), as well as the direct line-of-sight views between interior and exterior vegetation through the east, west, and non-sloped portions of the south façades compared to the north façade (where internal vegetation is elevated above exterior vegetation). Interior trees and shrubs that are not visible through the east, west, and south façades may be planted closer than 50 feet to glass façades.
• Because the glass production process can result in substantial variations in the effectiveness of bird-safe glazing, a qualified biologist will review physical samples of all glazing to be used on the atrium to confirm that the bird-safe frit will be visible to birds under various lighting conditions and expected to be effective. • The Project Sponsor shall monitor bird collisions around the atrium for a minimum of 2 years following construction to identify any collision “hot spots” (i.e., areas where collisions occur repeatedly). A monitoring plan for the atrium shall be developed by a qualified biologist and shall include focused surveys for bird collisions from late April through May (spring migration), September through October (fall migration), and mid-November through midJanuary (winter) to maximize the possibility of detecting bird collisions that might occur.

Surveys of the atrium shall be conducted daily for 3 weeks during each of these periods (i.e., 21 consecutive days during each season, for a total of 63 surveys per year). In addition, for the 2-year monitoring period, surveys of the atrium shall be conducted the day following nighttime events during which temporary lighting exceed would typical levels (i.e., levels specified in the International Dark-Sky Association’s defined lighting zone, LZ-2 [Moderate Ambient], from dusk until 10:00 p.m., or 30 percent below these levels from 10:00 p.m. to midnight). The applicant can assign responsibility for tracking events and notifying the biologist when a survey is needed to a designated individual who is involved in the

4 A material’s Threat Factor, as assigned by the American Bird Conservancy, refers to the level of danger posed to birds, based on the birds’ ability to perceive the material as an obstruction, as tested using a “tunnel” protocol (a standardized test that uses wild birds to determine the relative effectiveness of various products at deterring bird collisions). The higher the Threat Factor, the greater the risk that collisions will occur. An opaque material will have a Threat Factor of 0, and a completely transparent material will have a Threat Factor of 100. Threat Factors for many commercially available façade materials can be found at https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/01/Masterspreadsheet-1-25-2021.xlsx.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 34 of 123 ends

planning and scheduling of atrium events. The timing of the 63 seasonal surveys (e.g., morning or afternoon) shall vary on the different days to the extent feasible; surveys conducted specifically to follow nighttime events shall be conducted in the early morning. • At a frequency of no less than every 6 months, a qualified biologist shall review the bird collision data for the atrium in consultation with the City to determine whether any potential hot spots are present (i.e., if collisions have occurred repeatedly at the same location). A “potential hot spot” is defined as a cluster of three or more collisions that occur within one of the 3-week monitoring periods described above at a given location on the atrium. The “location” shall be identified by the qualified biologist as makes sense for the observed collision pattern, and may consist of a single pane of glass, an area of glass adjacent to a landscape tree or light fixture, the 8,990-square-foot vertical façade beneath the Elevated Park, the façade adjacent to the vegetation at the Elevated Park, the atrium’s east façade, the atrium’s west façade, or another defined area where the collision pattern is observed.

The definition of location shall be based on observations of collision patterns and the architectural, lighting, and/or landscape features that contributed to the collisions and not arbitrarily determined (e.g., by assigning random grids). If any such potential hot spots are found, the qualified biologist shall provide an opinion as to whether the potential hot spots will affect bird populations over the long term to the point that additional measures (e.g., light adjustments, planting of vegetation) will be needed to reduce the frequency of bird strikes at the hot spot location in order to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level under CEQA (i.e., whether it constitutes an actual “hotspot”). This determination shall be based on the number of birds and the species of birds that collide with the atrium over the monitoring period. In addition, a “hotspot” is automatically defined if a cluster of five or more collisions are identified at a given “location” on the atrium within one of the three-week monitoring periods described above. If a hotspot is identified, additional measures will be implemented at the potential hotspot location at the atrium; these may include one or more of the following options in the area of the hotspot depending on the cause of the collisions:
• Adding a visible bird-safe frit pattern, netting, exterior screens, art, printed sheets, interior shades, grilles, shutters, exterior shades, or other features to untreated glazing (i.e., on the façade below the Elevated Park) to help birds recognize the façade as a solid structure.
• Installing interior or exterior blinds on buildings within the atrium to prevent light from spilling outward through glazed facades at night.
• Reducing lighting by dimming fixtures, redirecting fixtures, turning lights off, and/or adjusting the programmed timing for dimming/shutoff.
• Replacing certain light fixtures with new fixtures to increase shielding or redirect lighting. • Adjusting or reducing lighting during events.
• Adjusting the timing of events to reduce the frequency during certain times of year (e.g., spring and/or fall migration) when relatively high numbers of collisions occur. • Adjusting landscape vegetation by removing, trimming, or relocating trees or other plants (e.g., moving them farther from glass) or blocking birds’ views of vegetation through glazing (e.g., using a screen or other opaque feature). • If modifications to the atrium are implemented to reduce collisions at a hot spot, 1 year of subsequent focused monitoring of the hot-spot location shall be performed to confirm that the modifications effectively reduced bird collisions to a less-than-significant level under CEQA. In the event that a hot-spot is detected at a time when there is less than one year remaining of the initial 2-year monitoring period, then this one year of subsequent monitoring of that hot-spot would extend beyond the 2-year monitoring period described above.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 35 of 123 ends

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-5.3: The Project Sponsor shall prepare a lighting design plan that incorporates and implements the following measures to reduce lighting impacts on migratory birds. Prior to implementation of the lighting design plan, a qualified biologist shall review the final lighting design plan to confirm that the required measures are incorporated:
• To the maximum extent feasible, up-lighting (i.e., lighting that projects upward above the fixture) shall be avoided in the Project design. All lighting shall be fully shielded to prevent illumination from shining upward above the fixture. If up-lighting cannot be avoided in the Project design, up-lights shall be shielded and/or directed such that no luminance projects above/beyond the objects at which they are directed (e.g., trees and buildings) and no light shines directly into the eyes of a bird flying above the object. If the objects themselves can be used to shield the lights from the sky beyond, no substantial adverse effects on migrating birds are anticipated.
• All lighting shall be fully shielded to prevent it from shining outward and toward Bay habitats to the north. No light trespass shall be permitted more than 80 feet beyond the Project Site’s northern property line (i.e., beyond the Dumbarton Rail Corridor). • With respect to exterior lighting in the northern portion of the Project Site (i.e., areas north of Main Street and Office Buildings 03 and 05 surrounding the hotel, Town Square retail pavilion, Office Building 04, event building, and North Garage), and with respect to interior portions of the atrium, exterior lighting shall be minimized (i.e., outdoor lumens shall be reduced by at least 30 percent, or extinguished, consistent with recommendations from the International Dark-Sky Association [2011]) from 10:00 p.m. until sunrise, except as needed for safety and compliance with Menlo Park Municipal Code. With respect to Office Buildings 01, 02, 03, 05, and 06, South Garage, and the residential/mixed-use buildings, exterior lighting shall be minimized (i.e., total outdoor lighting lumens shall be reduced by at least 30 percent or extinguished, consistent with recommendations from the International Dark-Sky Association [2011]) from midnight until sunrise, except as needed for safety and City code compliance.
• Temporary lighting that exceeds minimal site lighting requirements may be used for nighttime social events. This lighting shall be switched off no later than midnight. No exterior up-lighting (i.e., lighting that projects upward above the fixture, including spotlights) shall be used during events.
• Lights shall be shielded and directed so as not to spill outward from the elevator/stair towers and into adjacent areas.
• Interior or exterior blinds shall be programmed to close on north-facing windows of buildings within the atrium from 10:00 p.m. to sunrise to prevent light from spilling outward. • Accent lighting with the atrium shall not be used to illuminate trees or vegetation.

Alternatively, the applicant shall provide documentation to the satisfaction of a qualified biologist that the illumination of vegetation and/or structures within the atrium by accent lighting and/or up-lighting will not make these features more conspicuous to the human eye from any elevation outside the atrium compared to ambient conditions within the atrium. The biologist shall submit a report to the City following completion of the lighting design, documenting compliance with this requirement.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures BIO-5.1, BIO-5.2, and BIO-5.3, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to the movement of fish and wildlife, wildlife corridors, or wildlife nursery sites in the area were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact BIO-4 and found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The Proposed Project Resolution No. XXXX

Page 36 of 123 ends

would incorporate trees, shrubs, and forbs into the landscape design, which would provide some food and structural resources for the common, urban-adapted birds of the area as well as migrants that may use the area during spring and fall migration. If the Proposed Project is implemented during the nesting season (February 1 to September 14), tree and shrub removal could result in the direct mortality of adult or young birds, the destruction of active nests, or disturbance of nesting adults, causing nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort. Any disturbance of nesting birds that results in the abandonment of active nests or the loss of active nests through vegetation or structure removal would be a potentially significant impact. In addition, the proposed buildings at the main Project Site could result in avian collision risks, as discussed in the Willow Village Master Plan Bird-Safe Design Assessment prepared by H.T.

Harvey & Associates. Birds at the main Project Site could also be affected by new buildings and other structures with significant glass façades. The Proposed Project would also be required to comply with the City’s bird-safe design requirements, which would further reduce the risk of avian collisions on the main Project Site. Through incorporation of bird-friendly Project features, compliance with City requirements, and preparation of final architectural control plans, as required by the Conditional Development Permit (CDP) for the Proposed Project, impacts related to bird collisions with buildings and other structures would be less than significant. The only exception to this would be at the atrium. Because of the unique design of the atrium, birdfriendly Project features and compliance with City bird-safe design requirements required by the CDP would not reduce collision risks enough to avoid significant impacts under CEQA.

Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Construction of the Proposed Project also would create new sources of light, which would emanate from fixtures for illuminating buildings, building architectural lighting, pedestrian lighting, and artistic lighting. Light from the Project Site has some potential to attract and/or disorient birds, especially during inclement weather when nocturnally migrating birds descend to lower altitudes. As a result, some birds flying along the Bay at night may be attracted to the site and/or disoriented by the light, potentially causing them to collide with buildings. Certain migrant birds that use structures for roosting and foraging (e.g., swifts and swallows) could be vulnerable to collisions if they perceive illuminated building interiors as potential roosting habitat and attempt to enter the buildings through glass walls.

Similarly, migrant and resident birds would be vulnerable to collisions if they perceive illuminated vegetation within buildings as potential habitat and attempt to enter through glass walls. Impacts on birds within the Project Vicinity due to artificial lights would be potentially significant. Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures BIO-5.1, BIO-5.2, and BIO-5.3, which address impacts to nesting migratory birds and lighting impacts on migratory birds, would ensure that Project impacts on migratory birds would be less than significant with mitigation.

R. Impact BIO-6: The Project would result in conflicts with the Menlo Park Municipal Code.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1, above.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.1, above.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.2: Implement Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.2, above.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.3: Implement Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.3, above.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-5.2: Implement Project Mitigation Measure BIO-5.2, above.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures BIO-2.1, BIO-3.1, BIO-3.2, BIO-3.3, and BIO-5.2, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) Resolution No. XXXX

Page 37 of 123 ends

Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to conflicts with local policies and ordinances for the area were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact BIO-5 and found to be less than significant because the General Plan is the overriding planning document for the City and the proposed amendments analyzed under the ConnectMenlo EIR would ensure internal consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, with adherence to General Plan goals, policies, and programs in the Land Use and Open Space/Conservation, Noise, and Safety Elements and the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, in combination with Municipal Code Chapters 12.44, Water-Efficient Landscaping, and 13.24, Heritage Trees, as well as federal and state laws, no conflicts with local plans and policies were anticipated, and impacts were determined to be less than significant.

Compliance with the bird-friendly design requirements of the Menlo Park Municipal Code, with appropriate waivers, would reduce the number of bird collisions with proposed buildings.

However, because of the unique design of the atrium, bird-friendly Project features and compliance with City bird-safe design requirements required by the CDP would not reduce collision risks enough to avoid significant impacts under CEQA. However, with implementation of Project Mitigation Measure BIO-5.2, which sets forth atrium bird-safe design requirements, Project impacts due to bird collisions at the atrium would be less than significant with mitigation.

Provided that the Proposed Project incorporates the mitigation measures described in the EIR, the Proposed Project would not conflict with City General Plan Policy OSC1.3, which sets forth certain requirements relating to sensitive habitats, including preparation of baseline biological resources reports, consultation with appropriate regulatory and resource agencies, incorporation of avoidance and minimization measures, and receipt of needed permits/authorizations. The Master Plan Biological Resources Assessment (Master Plan BRA) and the Tunnel Biological Resources Assessment (Tunnel BRA) represent compliance with ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure BIO-1 by providing all information required by that mitigation measure for a biological resources assessment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

S. Impact C-BIO-1: Cumulative development would not result in a significant cumulative impact on biological resources, and the Proposed Project would not be a cumulatively considerable contributor to such a cumulative impact.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure BIO-1: As part of the discretionary review process for development projects, new construction and building additions, regardless of size, in addition to appropriate CEQA review, the City shall require all project applicants to prepare and submit project-specific baseline biological resources assessments (BRA) if the project would occur on or adjacent to a parcel containing natural habitat with features such as mature and native trees, unused structures that could support special-status species, other sensitive biological resources, and/or active nests of common birds protected under Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Sensitive biological resources triggering the need for the baseline BRA shall include:
wetlands, occurrences or suitable habitat for special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and important movement corridors for wildlife such as creek corridors and shorelines.

The baseline BRA shall be prepared by a qualified biologist.

The baseline BRA shall provide a determination on whether any sensitive biological resources are present on the site, including jurisdictional wetlands and waters, essential habitat for special-status species, and sensitive natural communities. If jurisdictional wetlands and/or waters are suspected to be present on the site, a jurisdictional delineation confirmed by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will be provided as part of the baseline BRA.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 38 of 123 ends

The baseline BRA shall also include consideration of possible sensitive biological resources on any adjacent undeveloped lands that could be affected by the project and lands of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge).

The baseline BRA shall incorporate guidance from relevant regional conservation plans, including, but not limited to, the then current Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan and the USFWS Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover, for determining the potential presence or absence of sensitive biological resources, however, the presence or absence of sensitive biological resources will be determined by on-site surveys. If the adjacent property is the Refuge, Refuge staff shall be contacted regarding the presence or absence of sensitive biological resources.

If sensitive biological resources are determined to be present on the site or may be present on any adjacent parcel containing natural habitat, coordination with the appropriate regulatory and resource agencies must occur. Appropriate measures, such as preconstruction surveys, establishing no-disturbance zones and restrictive time periods during construction, protective development setbacks and restrictions, and applying bird-safe building design practices and materials, shall be developed by the qualified biologist in consultations with the regulatory and resource agencies to provide adequate avoidance, or provide compensatory mitigation if avoidance is infeasible. With respect to fully protected species, if the BRA for any development project determines that any of the following Fully Protected Species are present, then neither take of such species will be permitted nor will mitigation measures including species collection or relocation. The Fully Protected Species include American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), California Clapper Rail – Ridgway’s Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), California Least Tern (Sterna albifrons browni), White-tail Kite (Elanus leucurus), Saltmarsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), and San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia).

The qualified biologist shall consult with the Refuge management and, where appropriate, the Endangered Species Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) for determining the potential presence or absence of sensitive biological resources and appropriate avoidance or compensatory mitigation measures, if required.

Where jurisdictional waters or federally and/or State-listed special-status species would be affected, appropriate authorizations, i.e. the USACE, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), USFWS, NMFS, Refuge and CDFW, shall be obtained by the project applicant, and evidence of such authorization provided to the City prior to issuance of grading or other construction permits.

For sites that are adjacent to undeveloped lands with federally and/or State-listed special status species, or sensitive habitats, or lands of the Refuge, the BRA shall include evaluation of the potential effects of:
• additional light,
• glare,
• shading (i.e. shadow analysis),
• noise,
• urban runoff,
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 39 of 123 ends

• water flow disruption,
• water quality degradation/sedimentation,
• attraction of nuisance species/predators (e.g. attraction of refuse) and their abatement (e.g. adverse impacts of rodenticides), and
• pesticides
generated by the project, as well as the possibility for increased activity from humans and/or domesticated pets and their effects on the nearby natural habitats. The BRA shall include proposed avoidance, minimization and mitigation of these adverse impacts.

The City of Menlo Park Planning Division may require an independent peer review of the adequacy of the baseline BRA as part of the review of the project to confirm its adequacy.

Mitigation measures identified in the project-specific BRA shall be incorporated as a component of a proposed project and subsequent building permit, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department and the appropriate regulatory and resource agencies.

The following zoning regulations enacted by ordinances (including, but not limited to, 16.43 OOffice District, 16.43.080 Corporate housing, 16.43.140 Green and sustainable building; 16.44 LS-Life Science District, 16.44.130 Green and sustainable building) to minimize impacts to biological resources are incorporated by reference into this mitigation measure and shall be a component of the project building permits:

1. Setbacks (A) Minimum of two hundred (200) feet from the waterfront; waterfront is defined as the top of the levee.

2. Waterfront and Environmental Considerations. The following provisions are applicable when the property is adjacent to the waterfront or other sensitive habitat. a. Non-emergency lighting shall be limited to the minimum necessary to meet safety requirements and shall provide shielding and reflectors to minimize light spill and glare and shall not directly illuminate sensitive habitat areas. Incorporate timing devices and sensors to ensure night lighting is used only when necessary. b. Landscaping and its maintenance shall not negatively impact the water quality, native habitats, or natural resources.
c. Pets shall not be allowed within the corporate housing due to their impacts on water quality, native habitats, and natural resources.

3. Bird-friendly design.
a. No more than ten percent (10%) of façade surface area shall have non-bird- friendly glazing.
b. Bird- friendly glazing includes, but is not limited to opaque glass, covering the outside surface of clear glass with patterns, paned glass with fenestration, frit or etching patterns, and external screens over non-reflective glass. Highly reflective glass is not permitted.
c. Occupancy sensors or other switch control devices shall be installed on non-emergency lights and shall be programmed to shut off during non-work hours and between 10 PM and sunrise.
d. Placement of buildings shall avoid the potential funneling of flight paths towards a building façade.
e. Glass skyways or walkways, freestanding (see-through) glass walls and handrails, and transparent building corners shall not be allowed.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 40 of 123 ends

f. Transparent glass shall not be allowed at the rooflines of buildings, including in conjunction with roof decks, patios and green roofs. g. Use of rodenticides shall not be allowed.

If it is determined through the BRA or CEQA review that further assessment/monitoring/ reporting is required by appropriate regulatory or resource agencies, it shall be the responsibility of the City to ensure all project requirements are implemented.

Finding: ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been implemented by the Proposed Project’s design features, Project-specific BRA, analysis in the Project EIR, and Project-specific biological mitigation measures, which would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: The ConnectMenlo EIR determined cumulative impacts to biological resources to be less than significant with implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure BIO-1. This mitigation measure requires that as part of the discretionary review process for development projects, the City require project applicants to prepare and submit project-specific baseline biological resources assessments (BRA) prepared by a qualified biologist. This mitigation measure was implemented for the Proposed Project through preparation of the Master Plan BRA and Tunnel BRA by H.T. Harvey & Associates. The Master Plan BRA and Tunnel BRA, as well as the Bird-Safe Design Assessment, all prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates, outline mitigation measures to reduce Project impacts on biological resources. As described above, Project Mitigation Measures BIO-2.1, BIO-3.1 through BIO-3.3, and BIO-5.1 though BIO-5.3 would mitigate Project impacts on sensitive regulated habitats, minimize impacts on nesting birds, and reduce bird collisions. In addition, the City General Plan contains conservation measures that would benefit biological resources as well as measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on such resources. All other projects within the Bayfront Area of Menlo Park also would be required to implement General Plan measures, including ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure BIO-1. The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial change in the ConnectMenlo project and would not cause new or substantially more severe significant biological resources impacts than those analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR.

Therefore, consistent with the conclusions in the ConnectMenlo EIR, with respect to biological resources, the Proposed Project in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in cumulative impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation. No further mitigation measures are required.

T. Impact GS-5: The Proposed Project could destroy a unique paleontological resource or site.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3: In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are discovered during ground-disturbing activities anywhere in the City, excavations within a 50- foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. Ground disturbance work shall cease until a City-approved, qualified paleontologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed (in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards [Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995]), evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine the procedures that would be followed before construction activities would be allowed to resume at the location of the find. If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City of Menlo Park for review Resolution No. XXXX

Page 41 of 123 ends

and approval prior to implementation, and all construction activity shall adhere to the recommendations in the excavation plan.

Project Mitigation Measure PALEO-1: Before the start of any excavation or grading activities, the construction contractor will retain a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the SVP, who is experienced in teaching non-specialists. The qualified paleontologist will train all construction personnel who are involved with earthmoving activities, including the site superintendent, regarding the possibility of encountering fossils, the appearance and types of fossils that are likely to be seen during construction, and proper notification procedures should fossils be encountered. Procedures to be conveyed to workers include halting construction within 50 feet of any potential fossil find and notifying a qualified paleontologist, who will evaluate the significance.

The qualified paleontologist will also make periodic visits during earthmoving in high sensitivity sites to verify that workers are following the established procedures.

Finding: Implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3 and Project Mitigation Measure PALEO-1, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: The ConnectMenlo EIR found that impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, in particular implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3. In the event that fossils or fossilbearing deposits are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would require excavations within a 50-foot radius of the find to be temporarily halted or diverted until a City-approved paleontological can assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. If the find meets the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist would prepare an excavation plan to mitigate the effect of construction activities on the discovery. Project site preparation would involve earthwork, such as excavation, grading, trenching, cut-and-cover work, and potentially the installation of foundation piles, all of which would encounter artificial fill and could encounter native deposits. Activities at ground surface that disturb Quaternary fine-grained alluvium (Qaf), Quaternary alluvial fan deposits, fine facies (Qhff), and Quaternary floodplain deposits (Qhfp), as well as activities below the ground surface that disturb these geologic units and Quaternary older alluvium, could expose undisturbed deposits that contain fossils. These activities could damage or destroy fossils. This is considered a potentially significant impact. ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would ensure that construction personnel would follow proper notification procedures in the event that paleontological resources are uncovered during construction. In addition, Project Mitigation Measure PALEO-1 would ensure that construction personnel would recognize fossil materials.

Implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3 and Project Mitigation Measure PALEO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts on paleontological resources to less than significant with mitigation, consistent with the ConnectMenlo EIR.

U. Impact C-GS-1: Cumulative development would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to geology, soils, and seismicity, and thus the Proposed Project would not be a cumulatively considerable contributor to any significant cumulative impact to geology, soils, and seismicity. Cumulative development would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact with mitigation to paleontological resources and the Proposed Project would not be a cumulatively considerable contributor to any significant cumulative impact.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 42 of 123 ends

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3: Implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3, above.

Finding: Implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: The ConnectMenlo EIR determined that cumulative impacts on geology, soils, and seismicity would be less than significant and that implementation of ConnectMenlo would not significantly contribute to cumulative impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity. Therefore, ConnectMenlo determined that impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity under ConnectMenlo would be less than significant. With respect to paleontological resources, new development would be required to comply with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations enacted to protect paleontological resources. In addition, development within the ConnectMenlo study area would be subject to general plan policies adopted to protect unrecorded paleontological resources. ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would require avoidance of paleontological resources or, if avoidance is not possible, preparation of an excavation plan to protect the resources. Impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation. The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial change in the ConnectMenlo project and therefore would not be a cumulatively considerable contributor to any significant cumulative impact on geology, soils, and seismicity and would not cause new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to geology, soils, seismicity, or paleontological resources than those analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR. Consistent with the conclusions in the ConnectMenlo EIR, the Proposed Project would result in a less-thansignificant cumulative impact with respect to geology, soils, and seismicity. Impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant with implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3.

V. Impact HY-1: The Proposed Project could violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality.

Project Mitigation Measure HY-1.1: If dewatering is needed to complete the Proposed Project, and if water from dewatering is discharged to a storm drain or surface water body, dewatering treatment may be necessary if groundwater exceeding water quality standards is encountered during excavation. Because there is potential for groundwater to be contaminated with VOCs or fuel products at the Project Site, the Project Sponsor would be required to comply with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board’s VOC and Fuel General Permit (Order No. R2-2018- 0050) if groundwater exceeding water quality standards is encountered.

If dewatering requires discharges to the storm drain system or other water bodies, the water shall be pumped to a tank and tested using grab samples and sent to a certified laboratory for analysis. If it is found that the water does not meet water quality standards, it shall be treated as necessary prior to discharge so that all applicable water quality objectives (as noted in Table

3.11-2) are met or it shall be hauled offsite instead for treatment and disposed of at an appropriate waste treatment facility that is permitted to receive such water. The water treatment methods selected shall remove contaminants in the groundwater to meet discharge permit requirements while achieving local and state requirements, subject to approval by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board. Methods may include retaining dewatering effluent until particulate matter has settled before discharging it or using infiltration areas, filtration techniques, or other means. The contractor shall perform routine inspections of the construction Resolution No. XXXX

Page 43 of 123 ends

area to verify that water quality control measures are properly implemented and maintained, observe the water (i.e., check for discoloration or an oily sheen), and perform other sampling and reporting activities prior to discharge. The final selection of water quality control measures shall be submitted in a report to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board for approval prior to construction. If the results from the groundwater laboratory do not meet water quality standards and the identified water treatment measures cannot ensure that treatment meets all standards for receiving water quality, then the water shall be hauled offsite instead for treatment and disposal at an appropriate waste treatment facility that is permitted to receive such water.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure HY-1.1, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to water quality were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact HYDRO-1 and determined to be less than significant through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations, including General Plan goals, policies, and design standards. No mitigation measures were recommended. This topic also was analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact HYDRO-6, which likewise found that impacts on water quality would be less than significant through compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations as well as General Plan policies to minimize impacts related to water supply. No mitigation measures were recommended in the ConnectMenlo EIR. However, construction dewatering for the Proposed Project could be required in areas with shallow groundwater during excavation and trenching for foundation work and utility improvements. The main Project Site has historical soil and groundwater contamination (EnviroStor ID 60002595). In addition, construction of the Willow Road Tunnel would require cut-and-cover work during construction and possibly dewatering. Compliance with waste discharge requirements and dewatering regulations would ensure that dewatering activities would be monitored as required and that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would occur. Dewatering of potentially contaminated groundwater may result in a potentially significant impact on groundwater quality. Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure HY-1.1 would reduce the potentially significant impact on groundwater quality during construction to a less-thansignificant level by requiring groundwater monitoring and treatment during dewatering activities.

Therefore, Project impacts on groundwater quality during construction would be less than significant with mitigation.

W. Impact HY-5: The Proposed Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Project Mitigation Measure HY-1.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure HY-1.1, above.

Page 44 of 123 ends

groundwater management plan because this topic was added to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G after completion of the ConnectMenlo EIR. However, the ConnectMenlo EIR concluded that development under the General Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to depleting groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge.

Dewatering for the Proposed Project would be conducted temporarily during the construction phase. Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure HY-1.1 would reduce the potentially significant impact on groundwater quality during construction to a less-than-significant level by requiring groundwater monitoring and treatment during dewatering activities. Further, groundwater supplies would not be used during operation. The amount of impervious area within the Project Site would decrease upon Project completion. New landscaping, pervious paving, stormwater gardens, bioretention areas, flow-through planters, and other features would be integrated into the design of streets and parks; they would also treat runoff and allow groundwater infiltration. In addition, implementation of the appropriate City General Plan policies would require the protection of groundwater recharge areas and groundwater resources, in accordance with the applicable sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project Site overlies the San Mateo subbasin, which is designated as a very low-priority basin and not subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA); thus, no sustainable groundwater management plan is applicable. Construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, Project impacts on groundwater quality during construction would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

X. Impact HAZ-2: The Proposed Project could 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.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a: Construction of any site in the City with known contamination shall be conducted under a Project‐specific Environmental Site Management Plan (ESMP) prepared in consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), as appropriate. The purpose of the ESMP is to protect construction workers, the general public, the environment, and future site occupants from subsurface hazardous materials previously identified at the site and address the possibility of encountering unknown contamination or hazards in the subsurface. The ESMP shall summarize soil and groundwater analytical data collected on the site during past investigations; identify management options for excavated soil and groundwater, if contaminated media are encountered during deep excavations; and identify monitoring, irrigation, or wells that require proper abandonment in compliance with local, state, and federal laws, policies, and regulations.

The ESMP shall include measures for identifying, testing, and managing soil and groundwater suspected of or known to contain hazardous materials. The ESMP shall 1) provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during excavation and dewatering activities, respectively; 2) describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers who could be exposed to hazardous materials, in accordance with state and federal worker safety regulations; and 3) designate the personnel responsible for implementation of the ESMP.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 45 of 123 ends

Project Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1: For the offsite improvement in the area where the Willow Road Tunnel passes under the Dumbarton Rail Corridor and Willow Road, a Phase I ESA shall be performed by a licensed environmental professional. The Phase I ESA shall identify RECs at the site and indicate whether a Phase II ESA is required in order to evaluate contamination at the site.

Finding: Implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a and Project Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts as a result of reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as impact HAZ-2. Future development under ConnectMenlo, as part of the City’s approval process, would be required to comply with existing federal, state, regional, and local laws. In addition, General Plan goals, policies, and programs would minimize potential hazardous materials impacts that could result from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts from ConnectMenlo were determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation was required.

However, implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and 4b would further reduce impacts from sites with known hazardous material contamination Mitigation Measure HAZ-4b applies to projects on sites with potential residual contamination in soil, gas, or groundwater, rather than sites with known contamination, such as the Project site, which are addressed by ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a.

Ground-disturbing activities associated with construction could expose construction workers to contaminated groundwater at the main Project Site and Willow Road Tunnel site. A Phase I ESA has been prepared for the main Project Site and the Willow Road Tunnel site where the tunnel would emerge on the West Campus. The impact on construction workers and the environment at these locations would be less than significant. However, groundwater contamination in the Dumbarton Rail Corridor and within the Willow Road right-of-way has not been characterized by a Phase I ESA. Therefore, the impact on construction workers and the environment at these locations would be potentially significant. Implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a and Project Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1 would characterize soil contamination where the Willow Road Tunnel would go under the Dumbarton Rail Corridor and Willow Road. In addition, ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a would require development and implementation of a Project-specific ESMP, which would provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during excavation and dewatering activities; describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers who could be exposed to hazardous materials; and designate the personnel responsible for implementation of the ESMP. With implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a and Project Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1, the impact at the Willow Village Tunnel site within the Dumbarton Rail Corridor would be less than significant with mitigation.

Y. Impact HAZ-3: The Proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

Project Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1, above.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 46 of 123 ends

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a: Implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ4a, above.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1 and ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials near schools were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact HAZ-3. Impacts were found to be less than significant because hazardous materials would be stored, used, and handled according to existing federal, state, and local regulations. Similarly, hazardous materials emissions would be subject to existing federal, state, and local regulations. For any future public schools that would receive state funding for acquisition or construction, DTSC’s School Property Evaluation and Cleanup Division would assess, investigate, and clean up the proposed school sites. General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance requirements would minimize potential hazardous materials impacts that could result from storing, using, or handling hazardous materials or from generating emissions from hazardous materials. No mitigation was required, although implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures HAZ-4a and 4-b would further reduce impacts from sites with known hazardous material contamination. Mitigation Measure HAZ-4b applies to projects on sites with potential residual contamination in soil, gas, or groundwater, rather than sites with known contamination, such as the Project site, which are addressed by ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a.

Offsite construction work could occur within 0.25 mile of Costaño Elementary School in East Palo Alto as well as the Belle Haven School and Beechwood School in Menlo Park. The upsizing and placement of utility lines within existing rights-of-way and improvements within intersections would result in temporary construction impacts. No federally or state-listed cleanup sites or known subsurface hazardous materials are identified within 0.25 mile of proposed offsite improvements in hazardous materials databases. However, contamination has been documented at the Willow Road Tunnel site. Accordingly, offsite utility work could encounter hazardous materials or contaminated groundwater. Therefore, impacts on schools would be potentially significant. Implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a and Project Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1 would characterize soil contamination where the Willow Road Tunnel would go under the Dumbarton Rail Corridor and Willow Road. In addition, ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a would require development and implementation of a Project-specific ESMP, which would provide procedures for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of soil and groundwater during excavation and dewatering activities; describe required worker health and safety provisions for all workers who could be exposed to hazardous materials; and designate the personnel responsible for implementation of the ESMP.

With implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a and Project Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1, the impact at the Willow Village Tunnel site within the Dumbarton Rail Corridor would be less than significant with mitigation.

Z. Impact C-HAZ-1: Cumulative development would not result in a significant cumulative impact from hazards and hazardous materials, and the Proposed Project would not be a cumulatively considerable contributor to such a cumulative impact.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a: Implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ4a, above.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 47 of 123 ends

Finding: Implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: As with the Proposed Project, cumulative projects in the Project vicinity would be required to comply with existing local, regional, state, and federal regulations as well as safety plans. Hazardous materials would be managed in accordance with existing regulatory requirements, which would reduce the risk of hazardous materials emissions and/or accidental releases that could affect receptors outside work areas. In addition, all projects in the Bayfront area in Menlo Park with known hazardous materials would be required to comply with ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant.

The Proposed Project would not result in a substantial change in the ConnectMenlo project and would not cause new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be a cumulatively considerable contributor to a significant cumulative impact regarding hazards and hazardous materials.

Consistent with the conclusions in the ConnectMenlo EIR, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects with respect to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation. No additional mitigation measures are required.

AA. Impact TCR-1: The Proposed Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in PRC Section 21074.

Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-2a: Implement Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-2a, above.

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.1:

Plan Check
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Sponsor shall ensure and the City shall verify that the applicable grading plans that require ground-disturbing excavation clearly indicate:
• that there is potential for exposing buried cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources (“TCRs”) and Native American burials; and
• that excavations associated with soil remediation, removal of below grade utilities, and initial mass grading at the main Project site and all ground disturbing activities within the Core and Perimeter (including the High Sensitivity Area) require the presence of an archaeological monitor and tribal monitor in accordance with the Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Protocol and Plan (“ATMTPP”), as defined in Mitigation Measure TCR-1.2; and
• that all ground disturbing activities require compliance with the ATMTPP.

All archaeological site information supplied to the contractor shall be considered and marked confidential. Any no-disturbance zones shall be labelled as environmentally sensitive areas.

Prior to issuance of grading permits for the Project, the Project Sponsor and City shall, with input from the tribes that engaged in consultation with the City on the Proposed Project pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 (“Consulting Tribes”), develop a non-confidential field manual summarizing the approved TCR mitigation measures and the approved ATMTPP requirements. This list shall be provided to all relevant personnel implementing TCR mitigation measures.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 48 of 123 ends

Archeological and tribal monitors shall be invited to attend all Tailgate Safety meetings at which safety concerns and other pertinent information regarding current construction activities are presented.

Measures for the Core
The Project Sponsor shall avoid or mitigate ground-disturbing excavation in the Core as detailed below.
• Ground disturbance into the existing culturally affected soil of the Core is prohibited. The following performance standards for capping, minimizing construction loading, and preservation in place of the Core shall apply.
•
Capping of Core
• The Project Sponsor shall install a culturally sterile engineered cap of four to seven feet to cover the cultural deposits within the Core and preserve the Core in place. Tribal monitoring shall be required during the installation of the fill cap on the Core. • Onsite soil material is suitable as fill material provided that it is processed to remove concentrations of organic material, debris, and particles greater than six inches in maximum dimension; oversized particles shall either be removed from the fill or broken down to meet the requirement. Imported fill material shall meet the above requirements and have a plasticity index of less than 20. Material used for engineered fill shall not contain or introduce contaminants in excess of applicable Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) Environmental Screening Levels (“ESLs”). Any TCR materials within the soil matrix that are identified as TCRs by a tribal monitor shall be treated in accordance with the ATMTPP and shall not be broken down or used in fill.
• Construction activities shall be conducted in a manner that protects against penetration of the culturally affected soil within the Core and reduces the potential for disturbance from concentrated surface loads. The following measures shall be implemented within the Core during fill placement and any subsequent construction to reduce potential impacts on subsurface archaeological and cultural materials.
• An elevation contour plan shall be created to guide the surface preparation necessary to place the fill cap within the Core boundaries. The plan shall show the top of the culturally affected soil elevation to establish a six-inch-thick protection layer above the culturally affected soil layer, below which soil excavation or penetration shall not be permitted. • Tree root balls from trees removed within the Core boundary that have roots extending within an area 24 inches from the culturally affected soil layer shall be left in place.

Stumps may be ground flat with the existing grade.
• Clearing of surface vegetation within the Core boundary shall be performed through hand grubbing.
• Ground surface preparation prior to fill placement within the Core boundary shall use relatively light equipment (3,000 to 5,000 pounds), such as a walk-behind roller, to densify the six-inch-thick protection material. The use of relatively light equipment reduces potential for densification below the buffer zone. • A layer of geogrid reinforcement shall be placed over the prepared ground surface within the Core boundary. Geogrid shall consist of a triaxial grid (e.g., TX140 or approved equivalent). A second layer of geogrid shall be placed to reinforce the engineered fill approximately 24 inches above the base geogrid layer. Geogrid shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. After placement of the geogrid, there shall be no soil disturbance in the Core below the top layer of geogrid. • Once the six-inch-thick protection layer has been prepared and the base reinforcement grid placed within the Core boundary, engineered fill may be placed in eight-inch lifts and Resolution No. XXXX

Page 49 of 123 ends

compacted using a single-drum ride-on sheepsfoot roller. The roller shall not be parked or left stationary on the Core overnight. If yielding subgrade is encountered in the base protection layer, the geotechnical consultant may recommend placement of additional layers of reinforcement within the engineered fill. This determination will be based on field observations during preparation of the ground surface. • To protect the culturally affected soil in the Core, construction and other transitory vehicle traffic (with the exception of the equipment necessary to place and compact the engineered fill) shall not be permitted over the Core until after engineered fill placement is complete to provide a buffer between mound material and concentrated vehicle loads.

Once fill placement is complete, the culturally affected soil will be protected, but construction vehicles and construction equipment directly on the Core nonetheless shall continue to be limited to the minimum number necessary to complete construction of the Proposed Project. Vehicles shall not be left stationary or parked on the Core overnight.

The contractor shall ensure that vehicles and equipment will not leak fuel or other liquids when operating on the Core. Leaking vehicles and equipment shall be promptly removed from the Core area and repaired before use is resumed on the Core.

Temporary Construction Loading at Core
The following measures shall be implemented within the Core during scaffold erection to reduce potential impacts on subsurface cultural materials:
• Scaffolds placed on the Core shall be installed no earlier than three months after the engineered fill placement related to sea-level rise.
• Scaffolds shall use 16-foot square bases on top of the engineered fill cap. Minor leveling of the fill cap shall be allowed at each scaffold installation, but excavation or other penetrations into the fill surface shall not be permitted except for equipment or the temporary auxiliary structures needed to install the atrium frame and associated glass. There shall be no soil disturbance in the Core below the top layer of geogrid. • Scaffolds shall be removed promptly after installation and inspection of the framework and glass within the atrium to remove pressure from the engineered fill over the Core.

Post-Construction Preservation in Place at the Core
• Post-construction, there shall be no soil disturbance in the Core below the top layer of geogrid. Any surface structural elements, irrigation, utilities, and infrastructure shall be located only upon/within the engineered fill and shall not penetrate the top layer of geogrid. • Comply with Mitigation Measure TCR-1.3, Post-Construction Preservation in Place.

Measures for the Perimeter
The Project Sponsor shall avoid or mitigate ground-disturbing excavation in the Perimeter Area as follows:
• The Project Sponsor shall install a culturally sterile engineered cap of four to seven feet to cover the cultural deposits within the Perimeter.
• Excavation through the cap shall follow the procedures in Mitigation Measure TCR-1.2. • Tribal monitoring shall be required during all ground disturbing site work in the Perimeter; provided that, once culturally affected soil has been removed, stockpiled, and treated in accordance with the ATMTPP, no additional tribal monitoring of ground disturbance is required in the area where such soil was removed.

Measures for the High Sensitivity Area
The Project Sponsor shall avoid or mitigate ground-disturbing excavation in the High Sensitivity Area as follows:

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 50 of 123 ends

• For portions of the High Sensitivity Area located within the Core, the Project Sponsor shall comply with the mitigation measures for the Core identified above, including but not limited to the tribal monitoring provisions.
• For portions of the High Sensitivity Area located within the Perimeter, the Project Sponsor shall comply with the mitigation measures for the Perimeter identified above, including but not limited to the tribal monitoring provisions.

Measures for Existing Known Reburials
• Existing known reburials shall be preserved in place. • Existing known reburials will be protected by a layer of geogrid prior to the placement of engineered fill.
• Tribal monitoring in the vicinity of existing known reburials shall be required in accordance with the ATMTPP.

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.2:

The Project Sponsor and archaeological consultant, in consultation with the Consulting Tribes, shall develop an Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resource Monitoring and Treatment Protocol and Plan (“ATMTPP”) to guide archaeological and tribal cultural resource monitoring of ground-disturbing site work and provide for appropriate treatment of any archeological materials and tribal cultural resources exposed during construction, as described below. The ATMTPP will apply to the entire Project Site and all off-site Project improvements. In addition, specific protocols that pertain to the Core, Perimeter, and High Sensitivity Area will be distinguished from general unanticipated discovery response procedures that apply in other areas. Tribal monitoring refers to the controlled observation and regulation of construction operations on or in the vicinity of a known or potentially significant tribal cultural resource to avoid, preserve in place, or mitigate impacts on the resource. The ATMTPP shall be developed in consultation with the Consulting Tribes and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of the first grading permit and any physical ground disturbing site work being allowed on the Project Site or for off-site Project improvements. The ATMTPP shall include, at a minimum:
• Background information and context data on the Project Site, archeological resources, and tribal cultural resources.
• Tribal monitoring requirements, including worker awareness training as specified below; a discussion of specific locations and the intensity of the monitoring effort for areas with potential for the discovery of archeological and tribal cultural materials; and anticipated personnel, including retention of California Native American tribal representative(s) from Consulting Tribes.
• A requirement that tribal monitors from each Consulting Tribe be afforded the opportunity to be present at each location of ground disturbing site work that requires tribal monitoring pursuant to the Project mitigation measures and the ATMTPP, for the duration of such work, unless a Consulting Tribe agrees in writing that tribal monitoring is not needed by that tribe in that instance, or unless a Consulting Tribe fails to provide a monitor at the scheduled time, provided that adequate notice of the schedule was provided and documented. • Specific parameters for tribal monitoring, including the number of monitors from each Consulting Tribe based on number of simultaneous excavation locations, activities subject to monitoring (consisting of all excavations associated with soil remediation, removal of below grade utilities, and initial mass grading at the main Project Site and all ground disturbing activities within the Core), and activities not subject to monitoring (including all grading outside the Core subsequent to initial mass grading in areas that have been monitored by the Consulting Tribes and found to no longer contain tribal cultural resources, all foundation and building demolition, and all above ground or vertical build construction).

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 51 of 123 ends

• Identification of a tribal monitoring coordinator, whose responsibility is to ensure that communication between the construction team and monitors is clear, that schedules for monitoring are conveyed, and that monitoring tribes have a single point of contact, prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.
• Protocols for discoveries during construction, consistent with modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-2a (see Section 3.8, Cultural Resources), including a requirement that any DPR forms required pursuant to ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-2a to be submitted to the Northwest Information Center to document a find of TCR, cultural resources, historical resources, or archaeological resources shall be completed and submitted no later than 120 days after completion of the Project. • Prehistoric era research design, including sampling level, study method documentation, and provisions, such as staffing and scheduling, for bringing the proposed research to fruition. • Detailed procedures regarding how to address significant discoveries made during construction, including a discussion of field and artifact analysis methods to be used. • Treatment of Native American human remains consistent with state law and recommendations of the NAHC-appointed Most Likely Descendant (“MLD”) and Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4.
• Laboratory methods, including artifact cataloging and special analyses. • Thresholds for decision making if there is a conflict among tribal or archeological monitors regarding the identification or treatment of TCRs. Specifically, if there is a conflict between the archeological monitor and the tribal monitors, deference shall be given to the preferences of the tribal monitors, subject to applicable law in the event of the discovery of Native American human remains, provided that those preferences do not require Project redesign or result in unreasonable construction delay. If there is a conflict among the tribal monitors, the soil containing the potential TCR will be evaluated in accordance with applicable law and, if appropriate, shall be stockpiled in accordance with the soil protocol in the ATMTPP while the disagreement is being resolved.
• Provisions for reporting (e.g., Tribal Monitoring Closure Report) and artifact treatment in consultation with the Consulting Tribes in the event of significant finds. • Pre-designated confidential reburial area(s) that will serve to reinter any Native American human remains encountered during construction (excluding existing, known reburial sites, which shall be preserved in place pursuant to Mitigation Measure TCR-1.1) with appropriate level of privacy for visitation by the Consulting Tribes, in an area not open to the public. • Treatment protocols that detail the appropriate procedures, methods, and reports to be completed if significant archaeological or tribal cultural materials, including Native American burials, are encountered. The archeological significance of a resource shall not be determinative of whether the resource is a TCR, the level of impact to a TCR, or the significance of a TCR.
• Soil treatment protocols that preserve cultural soil onsite where feasible, including:
• Subject to the requirements of DTSC or other agencies with jurisdiction and the reasonable preferences of the MLD in accordance with applicable law, prohibiting the removal of cultural soil from the main Project site. The determination of which soils are cultural soils shall be made by the tribal monitors.
• Requiring only clean, engineered fill to be used on the main Project site. Under no circumstances should soil from another culturally significant area be used on this Project site.
• The tribal monitors shall have the right to request that any cultural soils excavated from native soil on the main Project site be relocated to an area on the main Project site located away from the construction zone, where the tribal monitors shall be given the opportunity during active construction work hours to sift the cultural soil to identify and Resolution No. XXXX

Page 52 of 123 ends

remove any tribal cultural items and Native American human remains, which tribal cultural items and Native American human remains shall be treated in accordance with the ATMTPP. Any tribal cultural resources obtained from sifting shall be reburied in the reburial area, subject to the reasonable preferences of the MLD in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and other applicable law. Any tribal monitors performing this work (1) must have the requisite training or experience to do so, including training or experience with regard to work in environmentally impacted soil (which shall include at a minimum HAZWOPR certification), and (2) shall be paid at the rate specified for this work in the applicable Tribal Monitoring Agreement. Following sifting and removal of TCRs, the soil can be reused at the same or a different location within the main Project Site.
• Specifications for archeological and tribal cultural resources sensitivity training for construction workers and superintendents that meet the following standards:
• Occurs prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activity or site work on the Project Site or for off-site improvements.
• Training shall be required for all construction personnel participating in ground-disturbing construction to alert them to the archaeological and tribal cultural sensitivity of the area and provide protocols to follow in the event of a discovery of archaeological materials or tribal cultural resources. Training shall be provided en masse to such personnel at the start of construction of the Project, and training shall be repeated when new personnel participating in ground-disturbing site work start work. • Includes, for job site posting, a document (“ALERT SHEET”) that summarizes the potential finds that could be exposed, the protocols to be followed, and the points of contact to alert in the event of a discovery that is presented as part of the training. • Requires the contractor to ensure that all workers requiring training are in attendance. • Requires training for all contractors and sub-contractors that is documented for each permit and/or phase of a permit that requires ground-disturbing activities onsite. • For work in the Core and the existing known reburial area, additional worker training shall also be required for workers who will work on the surface or who will drive directly over the Core or work in the existing known reburial area. • Work plan for the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) and forensic canine detection (FCD) that meets the following standards:
• Upon conclusion of building demolition and the removal of surface improvements within the Perimeter, the Project Sponsor shall retain a qualified team of FCD survey providers and a GPR operator to perform a survey of the Perimeter before grading, trenching, or other earthwork commences.
• A minimum of seven calendar days prior to the FCD or GPR survey, the Project Sponsor or their designee shall notify the Consulting Tribes of the schedule to afford sufficient time to be present during the survey. Should the Consulting Tribe(s) choose not to attend, the FCD or GPR survey may continue as scheduled. Where the FCD or GPR survey will occur within 100 feet of known burials or reburials (which know reburials shall remain in place in accordance with Mitigation Measure TCR-1.1), use of the FCD or GPR and presence of tribal monitors shall be dictated by the MLD for those prior discoveries.
• The results of the FCD and GPR surveys shall be provided to the Consulting Tribes within fourteen calendar days after completion of the survey reports. Measures to protect TCRs identified as a result of the surveys shall be implemented in accordance with the Project mitigation measures and ATMTPP.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 53 of 123 ends

• In the event of the discovery of Native American human remains other than known reburials, the procedures in Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4 will apply.
• Procedures for the event of an inadvertent discovery during construction, which require the archaeological and tribal monitors to review, identify, and evaluate TCRs to determine if a discovery is a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource, or a TCR, under CEQA. These procedures shall include, at a minimum:
• Criteria for identifying cultural soils.
• Impose a stop work radius of 100 feet around the discovery; work can continue outside of the stop-work radius while the discovery is being addressed. If the archaeological and tribal monitors agree that the find does not constitute a TCR, work can resume immediately, and no notifications are required.
• Notify the City, Consulting Tribes, and Project Sponsor within 24 hours of the discovery. • Complete a discovery form to document the location, nature, and condition of the discovery.
• Consult on the discovery to determine appropriate treatment, which may include any combination of avoidance, preservation in place, rapid recovery and reburial, and/or documentation. In no circumstance other than the express written recommendation of the MLD shall Native American human remains be removed from the Project site.

Curation and data recovery shall not be allowed, unless curation or data recovery is (i) in compliance with the recommendation of the MLD for Native American human remains in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and other applicable law or, (ii) agreed upon by the tribal monitors per the protocols in the ATMTPP for TCRs that are not Native American human remains.

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.3:

Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any occupied building within the Campus District, the Project Sponsor shall record deed restrictions over the Core, confidential locations of existing known reburials, and the pre-designated reburial area (“Project Reburial Area”) to restrict development or other activities identified in the deed restrictions that would disturb TCRs or Native American human remains in the future. The area included in the deed restrictions shall be described by a licensed surveyor prior to recording. Because archaeological and tribal cultural resource site locations are restricted from public distribution, the deed restrictions shall cite an “environmentally sensitive area.” A copy of the recorded deed restrictions that include the Core and any pre-designated reburial site shall be provided to the City for retention in a confidential project file. A copy of the deed restrictions shall be provided to the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System.

The restriction on the deed for the Core and Project Reburial Area shall prohibit the following activities directly on the Core or Project Reburial Area (excluding activities in cantilevered or spanned structural elements) after completion of construction of the Proposed Project, subject to applicable building code and life safety access requirements and necessary facilities maintenance, service, and repairs:
• Active recreational activities and structures, including, but not limited to, sports, field games, running, biking, and play equipment.
• Domesticated animals other than security/service animals. • Vehicles.
• Surface penetrations below the upper geogrid.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 54 of 123 ends

• Altering the surface or general topography of the Core or Project Reburial Area except for maintenance of the engineered soil cap, landscaping, facilities, circulation, and utilities included within the cap.
• In the unlikely event that any activity needs to occur below the area of the upper geogrid in the event of an emergency, the Consulting Tribes will be immediately notified and given a reasonable opportunity (consistent with the nature of the emergency) to have a tribal monitor present.

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.4:

Within 30 days after the recording of the deed restrictions over the dedicated reburial area(s), the Project Proponent shall extend a written offer to the Consulting Tribes to execute a tribal access agreement to allow for permitted access to the Project Reburial Area for the purposes of tribal visitation, subject to the parameters below. The Project Proponent shall provide a copy of the offer letter and if accepted by the Consulting Tribe(s), the executed agreement(s), to the City for retention in a confidential Project file. This mitigation measures shall be considered satisfied upon delivery of the offer letter to the Consulting Tribes, even if the Consulting Tribe(s) declined to enter into the agreement. The owners’ association shall manage the Project Reburial Area in accordance with the terms and conditions of the deed restrictions, access agreements, Project mitigation measures, and Project conditions of approval, subject to applicable building code and life safety access requirements and necessary facilities maintenance, service, and repairs.

Access to the reburial area established for the Project will be controlled. The following conditions apply:
• Access to the Project Reburial Area will be available following completion of construction of the Proposed Project, including the Project Reburial Area, subject to notification and access requirements to be specified in an access agreement.
• Visitation shall comply with all rules applicable to publicly accessible open space within the Proposed Project except as otherwise specified in an access agreement. • Visitation shall not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the passage of vehicles or the operation of the facility.
• Parking shall be limited to public parking spaces.
• Visitation shall not include activities or uses that conflict with the deed restriction or reasonable preferences of the Most Likely Descendent; provided that the Project Proponent shall work in good faith to ensure that all Consulting Tribes are provided access to the Project Reburial Area in accordance with the terms of the access agreement. • Visitation shall not present a risk to human life or safety. • Visitation shall not include abandonment of materials or objects other than ceremonial, religious, or funerary offerings specified in an access agreement. • Visitation shall be subject to restriction as necessary to respond to any security threat, pandemic or similar health risk, or emergency condition. Visitation shall not be unreasonably restricted.

Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4: Procedures of conduct following the discovery of human remains citywide have been mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, and the California Code of Regulations Section 15064.5(e) (CEQA). According to the provisions in CEQA, if human remains are encountered at the site, all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease and necessary steps to ensure the integrity of the immediate area shall be taken. The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified immediately. The coroner shall then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Resolution No. XXXX

Page 55 of 123 ends

coroner shall notify the NAHC within 24 hours, which will, in turn, notify the person the NAHC identifies as the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) in connection with any human remains. Further actions shall be determined, in part, by the desires of the MLD. The Project Sponsor, the Project archaeologist, and the 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, including those associated with known and unknown Native American burial locations (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[d]). The agreement should address appropriate actions for when remains are discovered, including excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, and final disposition of the remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. The MLD will have 48 hours to make recommendations regarding the disposition of the remains following notification from the NAHC of the discovery. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, or the owner does not accept the recommendation of the MLD in accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.98(e), the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.

Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures TCR-1.1, TCR-1.2, TCR-1.3, and TCR1.4 as well as Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures CULT-2a and CULT-4, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a lessthan-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).) Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to tribal cultural resources were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact CULT-5. The ConnectMenlo EIR found that compliance with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations, as well as General Plan goals and policies listed under Impact CULT-2, would protect tribal cultural resources by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation. The ConnectMenlo EIR further found that implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures CULT‐2a, CULT‐2b, and CULT‐4 would reduce any impacts to tribal cultural resources in the City as a result of future development under buildout of the General Plan to a less-than-significant level.

The Proposed Project would avoid and minimize known archaeological expressions of the Hiller Mound, a tribal cultural resource, through a combination of avoidance through design strategies, preservation in place, capping to protect the resource, planning greenspace to incorporate the resource with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria, and specifications of the contractor’s means and methods. Collectively, these Proposed Project features and measures would be consistent with the appropriate treatment measures established by CEQA Sections 20183.2 and 21084.3. Nonetheless, given the relatively shallow depth of the archaeological deposits associated with the Hiller Mound, as well as the dispersal of deposits from past disturbance associated with natural drainage, agriculture, and construction, the Proposed Project could encounter culturally affected soil in the Hiller Mound during construction activities, such as grading, demolition, construction of underground improvements, and placement of construction equipment. Project-related ground disturbance would have the potential to disturb both known and as-yet undocumented cultural deposits associated with the tribal cultural resource.

Pursuant to ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-2b, which requires the City to request tribal consultation for projects that involve General Plan amendments and land use policy changes, AB 52, and SB 18, the City contacted the Native American Heritage Commission for a Resolution No. XXXX

Page 56 of 123 ends

list of tribes to be contacted about the Proposed Project and sent the required requests for consultation. In its consultation with the City, the Tamien Nation has asserted that the entire site of Hiller Mound is a tribal cultural resource and sacred site that the Tamien Nation uses to this day, even though legal access does not currently extend to tribal members. The Tamien Nation has stated that building around a sacred site is not avoidance because the use of the site would be impacted, and that construction within a tribal cultural landscape is an impact on a larger county-wide tribal cultural landscape. However, the avoidance and preservation in place of the Core and existing, known reburials, coupled with the modification of construction means and methods in the Hiller Mound, would ensure that tribal cultural resources, if encountered, are treated with care and in a culturally appropriate manner. In addition, permanent use restrictions with respect to the Core, existing known reburial area, and future reburial area, and access agreement with respect to the future reburial area, would preserve and protect the tribal cultural resource. After numerous meetings and discussions, the Tamien Nation sent a letter to the City dated October 24, 2022, stating that the City and proponent responded to the Tamien Nation’s concerns, thanking the City and proponent, and withdrawing any previous objections to the Project. The Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe also identified the Hiller Mound as a tribal cultural resource and indicated its support of the proposed mitigation measures.

The Proposed Project would implement ConnectMenlo Modified Mitigation Measures CULT-2a and CULT-4 if potentially significant subsurface cultural resources or human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities. In addition to these mitigation measures, the Project Sponsor would implement Project Mitigation Measures TCR-1.1 through -1.4. These measures require preservation in place of known tribal cultural resources (the Core and existing reburials), worker training prior to construction to allow early identification of discoveries, and tribal monitoring, thereby reducing impacts on tribal cultural resources. These mitigation measures also require consultation on the appropriate response when a tribal cultural resource is encountered. Implementation of these enforceable mitigation measures is sufficient to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources to less than significant with mitigation.

BB. Impact TCR-2: The Proposed Project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4: Implement Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4, above.

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.1: Implement Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.1, above.

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.2: Implement Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.2, above.

Project Mitigation Measure TCR-2.1:

The locations of known previous reburials of Native American human remains shall be restricted from future ground disturbance, as required by Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.3.

Finding: Implementation of Project Mitigation Measures TCR-1.1, TCR-1.2, and TCR-2.1 as well as Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Proposed Project, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1).)
Facts in Support of Finding: Impacts related to tribal cultural resources were analyzed in the ConnectMenlo EIR as Impact CULT-5. The ConnectMenlo EIR found that compliance with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations, as well as General Plan goals and Resolution No. XXXX

Page 57 of 123 ends

policies listed under Impact CULT-2, would protect tribal cultural resources by providing for the early detection of potential conflicts between development and resource protection and by preventing or minimizing the material impairment of the ability of archeological deposits to convey their significance through excavation or preservation. The ConnectMenlo EIR further found that implementation of ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures CULT‐2a, CULT‐2b, and CULT‐4 would reduce any impacts to tribal cultural resources in the City as a result of future development under buildout of the General Plan to a less-than-significant level.

Here, Native American human remains could be exposed and disturbed during grounddisturbing activities at the Project Site. A tribal cultural resource was identified within the main Project Site. This resource has the potential to contain human remains interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Excavation activities associated with the Proposed Project would not affect any known reburial locations; however, previously undocumented Native American burials could be affected by ground-disturbing construction due to their location within areas proposed for subsurface improvements. This impact would be potentially significant. The City implemented ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-2b when it sent consultation requests to tribes asking to be notified about projects in the area of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4, as modified, based on the Project’s cultural resources assessment report, if human remains are encountered at the Project Site during ground-disturbing activities. The Project Sponsor would also implement Project Mitigation Measures TCR-1.1 and -1.2 within the main Project Site, given the presence of CASMA-160/H. Project Mitigation Measures TCR-1.1 and -1.2 include measures to avoid or mitigate ground-disturbing excavation near CA-SMA-160/H, to the extent feasible, and preparation of a monitoring and treatment plan that details the appropriate procedure if remains are encountered. Project Mitigation Measure TCR-2.1 requires avoidance and preservation in place of existing known reburials. Therefore, the Project’s impact on human remains would be less than significant with mitigation.

IX. Findings regarding variants to the proposed project The Draft EIR included an environmental analysis of certain “variants” to the Proposed Project in Chapter 5 of the Project EIR, the analysis is hereby incorporated. Variants are variations of the Proposed Project at the Project Site, with the same objectives, background, and development controls but with a specific variation. With the exception of the Increased Residential Density Variant (which was studied for policy purposes in the event the City desires to consider it), the variants are slightly different versions of the Proposed Project that could occur, based on the action or inaction of agencies other than the City, property owners outside the Project Site, or an applicant’s decision not to build certain components (e.g., the Willow Road Tunnel). Because the variants could increase or reduce environmental impacts, the Draft EIR described and analyzed associated environmental impacts for the following four variants to the Proposed Project:
• Variant 1: No Willow Road Tunnel Variant. This variant considers a scenario where the Willow Road Tunnel would not be constructed as part of the Proposed Project and Meta trams would continue to use the public street network, Bayfront Expressway, and Willow Road to access the proposed Campus District. Without the Willow Road Tunnel, cyclists and pedestrians traveling between the main Project Site and the West/East Campus would need to use at-grade crossings. All other development components of the Proposed Project would continue to be proposed under this variant. This variant was analyzed to disclose environmental impacts that would occur if agencies other than the City with jurisdiction over the Willow Road Tunnel do not approve the Willow Road Tunnel or if the applicant elects not to build it. In addition, because this option would avoid significant noise impacts associated with constructing the Willow Road Tunnel, this option was included as an alternative to the Resolution No. XXXX

Page 58 of 123 ends

Project that could be selected by the City Council; thus, it is fully analyzed in Chapter 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR.
• Variant 2: Increased Residential Density Variant. This variant would increase the number of residential dwelling units by approximately 200, for a total of 1,930 residential units at the main Project Site. All other components of the Proposed Project would remain. This variant was analyzed to disclose environmental impacts that would occur in the event that the City Council desires to increase the number of residential units under the Proposed Project. • Variant 3: No Hamilton Avenue Realignment Variant. This variant would alter the proposed circulation network east of Willow Road to accommodate retaining the Willow Road/Hamilton Avenue intersection in its current alignment. The overall development program for the Proposed Project would remain unchanged. This variant was analyzed to disclose environmental impacts that would occur if affected property owners and/or agencies other than the City with jurisdiction over the Hamilton Avenue Realignment do not approve the Hamilton Avenue Realignment.
• Variant 4: Onsite Recycled Water Variant. This variant would provide recycled water to the main Project Site through onsite treatment of wastewater. The onsite treatment and production of recycled water would involve capturing wastewater, including blackwater (e.g., water from toilet flushing, food preparation drains), from all proposed buildings. All other proposed features of the Project would remain the same. This variant was analyzed to disclose environmental impacts that would occur if the West Bay Sanitary District does not construct its project to provide recycled water to the main Project Site in time to serve the Proposed Project and the applicant instead constructs onsite treatment facilities.

Overall, these variants would modify limited “features” or aspects of the Proposed Project. By contrast, the various “alternatives” to the Proposed Project (as described and analyzed in Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR) were designed to meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.6. As required by CEQA, alternatives must meet most of the basic Project objectives and avoid or lessen one or more of the significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The proposed variants would not change the basic characteristics of the Proposed Project. Rather, each variant would change the design of the Project in a discrete way. Each variant was analyzed at the same level of detail as the Proposed Project, as warranted, and is available for selection by the Project Sponsor and decision-makers as part of an approval action.

The Project EIR’s analysis considered the environmental impacts associated with each variant in Chapter 5, Variants. For some environmental topics, the impacts under a specific variant would be the same as those of the Proposed Project. For those topics, further analysis was not needed. In some cases, the impacts under a particular variant would differ from the impacts identified for the Proposed Project in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Project EIR. The differences between the Proposed Project and the variants were analyzed quantitatively in the Project EIR. Unless otherwise stated, all mitigation measures required to reduce impacts associated with the Proposed Project also would be applicable to each of the variants.

As described in Chapter 5 of the Draft Project EIR, the No Willow Road Tunnel Variant, the Increased Residential Density Variant, the No Hamilton Avenue Realignment Variant, and the Onsite Recycled Water Variant all would remain within the overall scope of impacts as evaluated for the Proposed Project and would not result in any new significant impacts. All impacts identified above as being significant and unavoidable would remain significant and unavoidable under each of the No Willow Road Tunnel Variant, the Increased Residential Density Variant, the No Hamilton Avenue Realignment Variant, and the Onsite Recycled Water Resolution No. XXXX

Page 59 of 123 ends

Variant, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation, and the same findings set forth apply. Likewise, significant impacts identified above as being reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of mitigation also would remain the same for each of the No Willow Road Tunnel Variant, the Increased Residential Density Variant, the No Hamilton Avenue Realignment Variant, and the Onsite Recycled Water Variant, and the same findings set forth above apply. No additional mitigation measures were identified or otherwise are required for the No Willow Road Tunnel Variant, the Increased Residential Density Variant, the No Hamilton Avenue Realignment Variant, or the Onsite Recycled Water Variant. The City’s CEQA findings as set forth above, therefore, likewise apply to the No Willow Road Tunnel Variant, the Increased Residential Density Variant, the No Hamilton Avenue Realignment Variant, and the Onsite Recycled Water Variant, and the City thus can authorize these variants based on the same above findings for the Proposed Project.

X. Findings regarding alternatives to the proposed project As required under CEQA, the Project EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project and evaluated the environmental impacts and feasibility of each alternative, as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet Project objectives. The Proposed Project objectives are listed in Chapter 2 (Project Description) of the Draft Project EIR; the potentially significant environmental effects of the Proposed Project, including feasible mitigation measures identified to avoid significant environmental impacts, are analyzed in Chapter 3 (Environmental Impact Analysis) of the Draft Project EIR, as further reflected in Chapter 5 (Variants); the alternatives are described in detail in Chapter 6 (Alternatives Analysis) of the Draft Project EIR.

Brief summaries of the alternatives are provided below. The findings in this section are based on the Project EIR, the discussion and analysis of which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference. The reasons stated in the EIR for rejecting certain alternatives likewise are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Each individual reason constitutes a separate and independent basis to reject the alternative and, when the reasons are viewed collectively, provide an overall basis for rejecting the alternative.

A. The No Project Alternative
CEQA requires evaluation of the “no project” alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, no additional construction would occur at the Project Site. The existing buildings and landscaping on the Project Site would not be demolished and would instead remain in place and be used and maintained the same as current site conditions. The Project Sponsor would not construct the new buildings, establish open space area, provide community amenities, or install infrastructure. There would be no realignment of Hamilton Avenue at Willow Road and no additional streets within the Project Site. None of the Project variants would be implemented.

Compared to the Proposed Project, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts. As discussed in the EIR, however, the No Project Alternative would not satisfy the basic project objectives, including the underlying purpose of the Proposed Project and the objectives identified by the Project Sponsor. The current uses on the Project Site include offices, offices/labs, warehouses, warehouses/offices, retail, and a service station. The No Project Alternative would preserve these uses and not meet any objectives related to creating a mixed-use community or residential uses. The No Project Alternative also would not be required to have a TDM program or provide the bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment that enhances the Project Site’s connectivity to surrounding areas. No changes to land use would occur and existing space would remain the same, not meeting several objectives related to design and use of buildings and the land. Development would not respond to market Resolution No. XXXX

Page 60 of 123 ends

demands. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the No Project Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible.

B. No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative
The No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative would consist of the Proposed Project but without the Willow Road Tunnel. The trams would use the public street network, Bayfront Expressway, and Willow Road to access the proposed Campus District. Historically, three tram routes have served the Willow Village campus. Without the Willow Road Tunnel, the trams would continue to operate as they do under baseline conditions. Most pedestrians and bicyclists accessing the Willow Village Campus District would use the on-street bike lanes and sidewalk improvements to move along the Willow Road corridor and would cross at the Willow Road and Main Street/Hamilton Avenue intersection. Pedestrians and bicyclists desiring to access the Bay Trail or the other Meta campuses would use (i) the bike/pedestrian trail within the City public utility easement located adjacent to and immediately west of Willow Road or (ii) the Elevated Park.

Pedestrians and bicyclists would access the Elevated Park using publicly accessible stairs and elevators located within or adjacent to Hamilton Avenue Parcel North and within Town Square.

Compared to the Proposed Project, the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to aesthetics (Impacts AES-3 and C-AES-1), air quality (Impact AQ-1, AQ-2, and C-AQ-1), energy (Impact C-EN-1), greenhouse gas emissions (Impact GHG-1a), noise (Impact NOI-1, NOI-2, and C-NOI-1), cultural resources (Impact CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, and C-CR-1), biological resources (Impact BIO-1), geology and soils (Impact GS-2, GS-5, and CGS-1), hydrology and water quality (Impact HY-1, HY-5, and C-HY-1), hazards and hazardous materials (Impact HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, and C-HAZ-1), and tribal cultural resources (Impact TCR-2 and C-TCR-1). However, while impacts related to air quality (Impact AQ-1, AQ-2, and CAQ-1) and noise (Impact NOI-1, NOI-2, and C-NOI-1) would be slightly reduced because there would be less overall construction under the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative, these impacts would still remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative. Thus, this alternative would not appreciably reduce any significant and unavoidable impact of the Proposed Project.

Overall, the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative would meet many of the Project objectives. It would still, for example, contain the land uses proposed under the Proposed Project. Thus, it would meet objectives related to creating a mixed-use community and residential uses and other specified building and land uses. For the objective that contains new bicycle and pedestrian connections, the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative also would meet this objective, albeit to a lesser degree than the Proposed Project because the Willow Road Tunnel would provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection. Similar to the Project, the alternative also would generate revenue for the City and other public entities. Because the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative would not reduce avoid or substantially lessen any of the Proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, however, it is hereby rejected as an alternative, although it may still be authorized by the City as a permissible variant to the Proposed Project. As stated in the EIR, the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative also is considered a variant to the Proposed Project. The City Council could choose to select the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative to reduce construction noise impacts, and the Willow Road Tunnel would thus not proceed. If the City Council does not select the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative, then the No Willow Road Tunnel Variant could be approved as part of the Project to address the potential that Caltrans does not provide the requisite right of way for the Willow Road Tunnel or the Applicant elects not to construct the Willow Road Tunnel.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 61 of 123 ends

C. Base Level Development Alternative
The Base Level Development Alternative would consist of the Proposed Project but developed to be consistent with the “base-level” development standards in the R-MU and O zoning districts. The base-level development standards for the R-MU district allow for a maximum density of up to 30 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) and a maximum height of up to 40 feet. For the O zoning district, the base-level development standards allow for a floor area ratio (FAR) of

0.45 (plus 10 percent for non-office commercial uses and 175 percent for hotels) and a maximum height of 35 feet (110 feet for hotels). The Proposed Project proposes “bonus-level” development in exchange for providing community amenities acceptable to the City Council; the Base Level Development Alternative would not involve this exchange and no community amenities would be provided. Construction also would not be phased.

Compared to the Proposed Project, the Base Level Development Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to aesthetics (Impact AES-1, AES-3, and C-AES-1), air quality (Impact AQ-1, AQ-2, C-AQ-1), energy (Impact EN-1, C-EN-1), greenhouse gas emissions (Impact GHG1a, GHG-1b), noise (Impact NOI-1, C-NOI-1), cultural resources (Impact CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, and C-CR-1), biological resources (Impact BIO-1, BIO-5, BIO-6), geology and soils (Impact GS-5, CGS-1), hydrology and water quality (Impact C-HY-1), hazards and hazardous materials (Impact HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, C-HAZ-1), population and housing (Impact POP-1, C-POP-1), public services (Impact PS-1, PS-2, PS-3, PS-4, PS-5, and C-PS-1), utilities and service systems (Impact UT-1, UT-2, UT-3, UT-4, UT-5, C-UT-1, C-UT-2, C-UT-3, C-UT-4, C-UT-5, C-UT-6), and tribal cultural resources (Impact TCR-2 and C-TCR-1). Impacts related to noise (Impact NOI-1, NOI-2, and C-NOI-1) would remain significant and unavoidable. Project-level and cumulative operational air quality impacts related to ROG emissions (Impact AQ-1, AQ-2, and C-AQ-1), however, would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation.

The Base Level Development Alternative would not meet many of the Project Objectives to the same degree as the Proposed Project. It would still contain the proposed land uses. Therefore, it would meet objectives related to creating a mixed-use community, residential uses, and other specified building and land uses but to a considerably lesser degree than the Proposed Project because there would be a reduction in office, non-office commercial/retail, and residential square footage and residential density as compared to the Proposed Project. The Base Level Development Alternative could still include a pharmacy (although it would not be a required community amenity); an interconnected office campus; a meeting and collaboration space; and a secure, safe, and private work environment. But because the Base Level Development would result in less office space than currently exists on the Project Site, it is reasonable to conclude that the Project Sponsor likely would not proceed with the Base Level Development Alternative and that this alternative would not provide a mix of uses at densities to achieve a financially feasible project. The Base Level Development Alternative likely would respect the surrounding community through appropriate building siting, massing, density, and height, but it would not meet the objective to be consistent with the standards prescribed for bonus-level development.

Open space would be reduced in the Base Level Development Alternative compared to the Proposed Project, which means the Base Level Development Alternative would meet open space related objectives to a lesser degree than the Proposed Project. The Base Level Alternative also would not generate as much revenue for the City and other public entities in part because it would reduce the level of development and the Zoning Ordinance would not require the Base Level Alternative to provide community amenities. These amenities would provide much needed benefits to the Bayfront area, including grocery store space, two-year grocery store space rent subsidy, pharmacy services, dining options, community entertainment offerings, bank or credit union, elevated park improvements, town square improvements, teacher housing and rent subsidies, excess public open space, open space operations and Resolution No. XXXX

Page 62 of 123 ends

maintenance, and funding for job training programs. It is important to the City to be able to provide such amenities to its constituents and absent bonus-level development, the City would be unable to require such amenities. The Base Level Development Alternative would not be phased, so it would not meet the objective regarding phasing to meet market demands.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Base Level Development Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible.

D. Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would consist of the Proposed Project but developed at a lesser intensity (albeit still at a bonus level of development, unlike the Base Level Development Alternative). Both the total residential and non-residential square footage would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project. Construction of this alternative would be conducted in one phase rather than in the two phases planned for the Proposed Project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet many of the basic Project Objectives, although it may not meet some objectives to the same degree as the Project.

Compared to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to aesthetics (Impact AES-1, AES-3, and C-AES-1), air quality (Impact AQ-1, AQ-2, C-AQ-1), energy (Impact EN-1, C-EN-1), greenhouse gas emissions (Impact GHG-1a, GHG-1b), noise (Impact NOI-1, C-NOI-1), cultural resources (Impact CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, and CCR-1), biological resources (Impact BIO-1, BIO-5, BIO-6), geology and soils (Impact GS-5, CGS-1), hydrology and water quality (Impact C-HY-1), hazards and hazardous materials (Impact HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, C-HAZ-1), population and housing (Impact POP-1, C-POP-1), public services (Impact PS-1, PS-2, PS-3, PS-4, PS-5, and C-PS-1), utilities and service systems (Impact UT-1, UT-2, UT-3, UT-4, UT-5, C-UT-1, C-UT-2, C-UT-3, C-UT-4, C-UT-5, C-UT-6), and tribal cultural resources (Impact TCR-2 and C-TCR-1). Impacts related to noise (Impact NOI-1, NOI-2, and C-NOI-1) would remain significant and unavoidable. Project-level and cumulative operational air quality impacts related to ROG emissions (Impact AQ-1, AQ-2, and C-AQ-1), however, would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation.

The Reduced Intensity Alternative would not meet many of the Project Objectives to the same degree as the Proposed Project. It would still contain the land uses proposed under the Proposed Project. Therefore, it would meet objectives related to creating a mixed-use community, residential uses, and other specified building and land uses. However, there would be a reduction in office, non-office commercial/retail, and residential square footage and residential density. Due to the lower residential density, the Reduced Intensity Alternative also would provide less affordable housing than the Proposed Project. In addition, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would provide only approximately 225,000 square feet more office than currently existing on the Project Site and may not result in densities that achieve a financially feasible project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative thus would meet objectives related to land use to a considerably lesser degree than the Proposed Project. Community amenities also would be reduced commensurate with the reduction in bonus level development under the Reduced Intensity Alternative. The Reduced Intensity Alternative could still include a pharmacy; an interconnected office campus; a meeting and collaboration space; and a secure, safe, and private work environment. The community amenities provided by the Proposed Project meet important City needs, including the desire for more parks and neighborhood-serving retail and entertainment, and lesser amenities would not aid the City to the same extent. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet the objective related to building siting, massing, density, and height because it would be within the standards prescribed for bonus-level development. Open space would be reduced in the Reduced Intensity Alternative compared to the Proposed Project, which means the Reduced Intensity Alternative would meet open space related Resolution No. XXXX

Page 63 of 123 ends

objectives to a lesser degree than the Proposed Project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative also would not be phased, so it would not meet the objective regarding phasing to meet market demands. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Reduced Intensity Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible.

E. Environmentally Superior Alternative
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the Proposed Project and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection be disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant impacts. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure, and the alternative selected as environmentally superior may not be an alternative that is feasible and substantially lessens the significant environmental effects of the project.

As set forth in the EIR, the No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2) states that when the no project alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. Selection of an environmentally superior alternative necessitates weighing of numerous environmental considerations. No other alternative is environmentally superior for all resource areas, as shown in Table 6-12 of the Project EIR, and so the City must balance environmental aspects in determining which alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.

Whereas the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative largely reduces impacts that are temporary as a result of construction and excavation, the Base Level Development Alternative and Reduced Intensity Alternative result in reductions in impacts during both construction and operation.

The No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative reduces noise and vibration impacts during construction, as well as the criteria air pollutant emissions, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions from construction activities such as heavy equipment operation and excavation. It reduces the potential for damage of cultural resources and reduces hydrology and hazardous materials impacts during construction of the Willow Road Tunnel.

The Base Level Alternative and Reduced Intensity Alternative also reduce construction impacts because the development would have smaller buildings under those alternatives. The No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative also would reduce construction impacts because tunnel construction would not occur. However, over the long term, the Base Level Alternative and Reduced Intensity Alternative also would reduce impacts associated with operation of the buildings, such as criteria air pollutant emissions, energy consumption, noise, and greenhouse gas emissions, which the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative would not.

Menlo Park’s 2030 Climate Action Plan (Menlo Park 2021) sets a goal for the City of Menlo Park to reduce its VMT by 25 percent or an amount recommended by the Complete Streets Commission as one of six actions to eventually reach carbon neutrality. This emphasizes the importance of reducing VMT in Menlo Park. A reduction in VMT is also expressed in the objectives of the Proposed Project, through objectives such as to reduce VMT by locating residential, commercial, and office uses adjacent to each other; provide multiple transportation options and a robust TDM to reduce traffic congestion, air quality impacts, and greenhouse impacts; and develop an integrated, highly connected office campus that accommodates Resolution No. XXXX

Page 64 of 123 ends

anticipated worker space demands and provides flexible workspace at densities that support various transportation options.

Based on the latest citywide travel demand model, the regional average office VMT is 15.9 and the regional average residential VMT is 13.1. Office VMT for the Proposed Project would be

13.6, while residential VMT would be subject to mitigation to meet the significance threshold of

11.2. Mitigation Measure TRA‐1 would require that residential land uses on the Project site reduce trips through a TDM Plan achieving a 36 percent trip reduction from gross ITE trip generation rates.

The Proposed Project and all three alternatives would generate similar VMT per capita.

However, there would be differences in total VMT. The No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative would generate similar total VMT at the Project Site to the Proposed Project because it would have the same square footage of nonresidential and residential development. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would generate less VMT than the Proposed Project at the Project Site because there would be fewer total residents and employees. The Base Level Development Alternative would generate even less VMT at the Project Site because there would be even fewer total residents and employees. However, the Proposed Project is designed to reduce VMT to below the regional average, such that if office uses and residential uses were developed elsewhere, the VMT reduction benefits at the Project Site would not be realized. The Base Level and Reduced Intensity Alternatives would also reduce VMT to below the regional average. The No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative, with the maximum residential and non-residential buildout at the Project Site among the alternatives, would maximize development and total VMT reduction at the Project Site over the long term while also reducing several construction impacts. However, the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative would not reduce any of the Proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Therefore, the No Willow Road Tunnel Alternative is not the environmentally superior alternative.

None of the other alternatives would reduce the Proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable construction noise and vibration impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Base Level Development Alternative and the Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce the Proposed Project’s project-level and cumulative operational air quality impacts related to ROG emissions to a less-than-significant level with mitigation. The Base Level Development Alternative would result in the greatest reduction (19 net lbs/day of ROG compared to 53.6 net lbs/day under the Reduced Intensity Alternative). Therefore, the Base Level Development Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative.

XI. Statement of overriding considerations
As set forth above, the City has found that the Proposed Project will result in project and cumulative significant adverse environmental impacts related to air quality and noise that cannot be avoided following adoption, incorporation into the Project, and implementation of mitigation measures described in the EIR. In addition, there are no feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or avoid all of the Project’s significant environmental impacts. Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that when the decision of the public agency results in the occurrence of significant impacts that are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its actions. See also Public Resources Code Section 21081(b). Having balanced the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, the City finds that the Proposed Project’s benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and that the adverse environmental effects are therefore acceptable.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 65 of 123 ends

The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, specific benefits of the Proposed Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The City finds that each of the Proposed Project’s benefits discussed below is a separate and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final Project EIR and other information contained in the administrative record for the Proposed Project.

Economic Benefits

1. The Proposed Project would redevelop an underutilized property with a master-planned, mixed-use neighborhood in further of the goals for the Bayfront Area set forth in ConnectMenlo.

2. The Proposed Project would develop an integrated, connected office campus that accommodates anticipated worker space demands and provides flexible workspace at densities that support various transportation options.

3. The Proposed Project would have positive net fiscal impact on the City’s annual General Fund operating budget. The Proposed Project also would both generate a net positive fiscal impact for the Menlo Park Fire Protection District, Sequoia Union High School District, and the Ravenswood City Elementary School District. The Proposed Project also would be required to pay various impact fees to the City and the two school districts.

Environmental Benefits

1. The Proposed Project would reduce vehicle miles traveled by locating residential, commercial, and office uses adjacent to each other.

2. The Proposed Project would provide multiple transportation options and a transportation demand management program to reduce traffic congestion, air quality impacts, and greenhouse gas emissions.

3. The Proposed Project would create a bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly environment that enhances connectivity between the Project Site and surrounding areas with minimal traffic conflicts.

4. The Proposed Project would use sustainable design techniques to promote energy and water efficiency.

5. The Proposed Project would respect the surrounding community through appropriate building siting, massing, density, and height, consistent with the standards prescribed for bonus-level development in the City’s General Plan and zoning policies.

Social Benefits

1. The Proposed Project would create a master-planned, mixed-use neighborhood with up to 1,730 residential units, a grocery store/supermarket, neighborhood-serving retail uses, office space, a hotel, new bicycle and pedestrian connections, and open space.

2. The Proposed Project would promote General Plan goals of providing office, R&D, residential, and commercial uses and a hotel in proximity to or integrated with one another.

3. The Proposed Project would provide market rate and below market rate housing, including affordable senior housing, in Menlo Park.

4. The Proposed Project would provide a pharmacy to serve the community within the main Project Site or on Hamilton Avenue Parcel North, as well as other community amenities.

5. The Proposed Project would provide publicly accessible open space in the area.

6. The Proposed Project would foster knowledge, partnerships, and innovation by creating a “meeting and collaboration space” where workers can convene to share ideas and goals, visitors can understand the company’s background and products, business partners can learn about technology, and new product demonstrations can occur.

7. The Proposed Project would provide a variety of community benefits, including but not limited to grocery store space, two-year grocer space rent subsidy, pharmacy services, Resolution No. XXXX

Page 66 of 123 ends

dining options, community entertainment offerings, bank or credit union, elevated park improvements, town square improvements, teacher housing and rent subsidies, excess public open space, open space operations and maintenance, and funding for job training programs.

XII.Adoption of the MMRP
The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

XIII. Severability
If any term, provision, or portion of these findings or the application of these findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.

I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the fifteenth day of November, 2022, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this __ day of November, 2022.

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits:

A. MMRP
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 67 of 123 ends

Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 November 2022 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the adoption of feasible mitigation measures to reduce the severity and magnitude of significant environmental impacts associated with project development. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared and certified for the proposed Willow Village Master Plan Project (Proposed Project) includes all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project.

CEQA also requires reporting on and monitoring of mitigation measures adopted as part of the environmental review process (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to aid the City of Menlo Park in its implementation and monitoring of measures adopted from the certified EIR.

The mitigation measures in this MMRP are assigned the same number they had in the EIR. The MMRP, presented in table format, describes the actions that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, the entities responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions, and verification of compliance. Additional information is provided in the certified EIR for the Project.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 68 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Transportation
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The Proposed Project would exceed an applicable VMT threshold of significance. The Proposed Project would exceed the applicable VMT threshold of significance for the residential land use and would result in a significant impact. (Impact TRA-2) Project Mitigation Measure TRA-2: The residential land use of the Project Site will be required to implement a TDM Plan achieving a 36% reduction from gross ITE trip generation rates (for the Proposed Project, this reduction equals 6,023 daily trips). Should a different number of residential units be built, the total daily trips will be adjusted accordingly. The required residential TDM Plan will include annual monitoring and reporting requirements on the effectiveness of the TDM program. The Project applicant will be required to work with City staff to identify the details of the TDM plan. If the annual monitoring finds that the TDM reduction is not met (i.e. the Proposed Project exceeds 6,023 daily trips from the
residential land use), the TDM coordinator will be required to work with City staff to detail next steps to achieve the TDM reduction.

Finalize
Transportation
Demand
Management
(TDM) Plan
details with the
City.

Implement TDM
Plan during
occupancy of the
Proposed Project.

Finalization of TDM
Plan with City prior
to occupancy of the
first building
Annual monitoring
and reporting every
year the Project is
operational with
timing to be
determined by the
City
Project Sponsor City of Menlo Park
Community
Development
Department
(CDD), Planning
Division
City of Menlo Park
Public Works
Department (PW),
Transportation
Division
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: The Proposed Project would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The Proposed Project includes a design feature that could increase hazards and would result in a significant impact. (Impact: TRA-3) Project Mitigation Measure TRA‐3: Revise the North Garage access design to provide adequate sight distance for the eastern driveway or incorporate other design solutions to reduce hazards to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Director. Potential solutions that would reduce hazards to a less than significant level include restricting the eastern driveway to inbound vehicles only or prohibiting exiting left turns, modifying landscaping or relocating the driveway to the west to allow for adequate sight distance for exiting vehicles, or installing an all-way stop or signal.

Revise the North
Garage access
design for
adequate visibility
and hazard
reduction.

During the building
permit and site
development review
process and prior to
issuance of building
permits.

Project Sponsor/
Project architect
PW,
Transportation
Division
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Vehicle Miles Traveled. (Impact C-TRA-2) Implement Mitigation Measure TRA-2 above. See above. See above. See above. See above.

IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Hazards or Incompatible Uses. (Impact C-TRA-3) Resolution No. XXXX

Page 69 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Implement Mitigation Measure TRA-3, above. See above. See above. See above. See above.

Air Quality
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan. The Proposed Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Impact AQ-1) Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1: Use Clean Diesel-powered Equipment during Construction to Control Construction-related Emissions. The Project Sponsor shall either:
• Ensure all off-road construction equipment with greater than 25 horsepower and operating for more than 20
hours total over the entire duration of construction
activities have engines that meet or exceed either EPA or ARB Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards. The
exception to this requirement allows a cumulative total of 618,028 horsepower-hours over the duration of
construction activities before residents move onsite and 34,716 horsepower-hours over the duration of
construction activities after residents move onsite from the operation of off-road construction equipment that
meets standards less than Tier 4 Final; or
• Prior to issuance of building permits, provide
supplemental analysis prepared by a qualified air quality specialist to the City for approval that shows that
emissions of ROG and NOX, the excess lifetime cancer risk, and the PM2.5 concentration would not exceed the
thresholds from the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines using the mix of equipment proposed by the
applicant.

Use clean dieselpowered
equipment during
construction or
provide
supplemental air
quality analysis.

Prior to the issuance
of building permits
During construction
(if clean dieselpowered equipment
is used)
Project Sponsor CDD
Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.2: Architectural Coatings. The Project Sponsor shall use super-compliant architectural coatings during construction and operation for all buildings, which shall have VOC content that meet SCAQMD Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings as revised on February 5, 2016.

Apply
architectural
coatings to meet
South Coast Air
Quality
Prior to the issuance
of building permits
During construction
Project Sponsor CDD
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 70 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Management
District Rule 1113.

Ongoing during
operation of Project
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants. The Proposed Project would result in a cumulative net increase in a criteria pollutant for which the Project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or ambient air quality standard. (Impact AQ-2)
Implement Project Mitigation Measures AQ-1.1 and
AQ-1.2
See above See above See above See above
ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-2b1: Prior to building permit issuance, the City shall require applicants for all development projects in the city to comply with the current Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) basic control measures for reducing construction emissions of PM10 (Table 8‐1, Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
Recommended for All Proposed Projects, of the BAAQMD
CEQA Guidelines).

Comply with
BAAQMD basic
control measures.

During the building
permit and site
development review
process, prior to
building permit
issuance, and during
construction
Project Sponsor CDD
ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure AQ-2b2: Prior to issuance of a building permit, development projects in the City that are subject to CEQA and exceed the screening sizes in the
BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines shall prepare and submit to the City of Menlo Park a technical assessment evaluating potential project construction‐related air quality impacts. The
evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with the
BAAQMD methodology for assessing air quality impacts. If construction‐related criteria air pollutants are determined to have the potential to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of
significance, as identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the project applicant is required to incorporate mitigation measures to reduce air pollutant emissions during
construction activities to below these thresholds (e.g., Table 8‐ 2, Additional Construction Mitigation Measures
Recommended for projects with Construction Emissions
Above the Threshold of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, or
applicable construction mitigation measures subsequently Prepare the
constructionrelated air quality
technical
assessment.

During the building
permit and site
development review
process and prior to
permit issuance
Project Sponsor CDD
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 71 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
approved by BAAQMD). These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate construction documents (e.g., construction management plans), subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division prior to building permit issuance. (The AQTR prepared and submitted for the
Proposed Project fulfills the air quality technical assessment requirement.)
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. The Proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Impact AQ-3) Implement Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1 and
ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures AQ-2b1 and AQ-2b2, above.

See above. See above. See above. See above.

IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Other Air Emissions. The Proposed Project would result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. (Impact AQ-4) Project Mitigation Measure AQ-4.1: Molecular Neutralizer for Odors. The Project Sponsor and West Bay Sanitary District shall install a molecular neutralizer at the proposed sanitary sewer pump station to convert hydrogen sulfide gas into a biodegradable effluent during sewer pump operations. The molecular neutralizer shall be installed prior to the
commencement of sewer pump operations.

Install molecular
neutralizer at the
proposed sanitary
sewer pump
station.

During the building
permit and site
development review
process. Install prior
to the
commencement of
sewer pump
operations.

Project Sponsor/
West Bay
Sanitary District
CDD/PW
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts. Cumulative development would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact on air quality; thus, the Proposed Project would be a cumulatively considerable contributor to a significant cumulative impact on air quality. (Impact C-AQ-1)
Implement Project Mitigation Measure AQ-1.1 and
ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measures AQ-2b1 and AQ-2b2.

See above. See above. See above. See above.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Generation of GHG Emissions during Construction. Construction of the Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Impact GHG-1b) Implement Mitigation Measure TRA-2, above. See above. See above. See above. See above.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 72 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Conflicts with Applicable Plans and Policies. The Proposed Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs. (Impact GHG-2) Implement Mitigation Measure TRA-2, above. See above. See above. See above. See above.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 73 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Noise
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Construction Noise. Construction of the Proposed Project would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Impact NOI-1a) Modified ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE‐1c.

Project applicants for all development projects in the city shall minimize the exposure of nearby properties to excessive noise levels from construction‐related activity through CEQA
review, conditions of approval and/or enforcement of the City’s Noise Ordinance. Prior to issuance of demolition, grading, and/or building permits for development projects, a note shall be provided on development plans indicating that during on‐going grading, demolition, and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction‐related noise:
• All internal combustion engines on construction
equipment and trucks are fitted with properly maintained mufflers, air intake silencers, and/or engine shrouds that are no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.
• Stationary equipment such as generators and air
compressors shall be located as far as feasible from
nearby noise‐sensitive uses.
• Stockpiling is located as far as feasible from nearby noise‐ sensitive receptors.
• Limit unnecessary engine idling to the extent feasible. • Limit the use of public address systems.
• Construction traffic shall be limited to the haul routes established by the City of Menlo Park.

Implement
measures to limit
constructionrelated noise.

Prior to the issuance
of demolition,
grading, and
building permits
and throughout the
duration of
construction
activities
Project Sponsor/
contractor(s)
CDD
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 74 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1: Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Construction Noise. The Project applicant and/or the contractor(s) shall obtain a permit to complete work outside the exempt/standard construction hours
outlined in the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code, which may be incorporated into the conditional development permit for the Proposed Project. In addition, the applicant and/or contractor(s) shall develop a construction noise control plan to reduce noise levels and comply with Municipal Code
daytime (during non-exempt hours) and nighttime noise
standards to the extent feasible and practical, subject to review and determination by the Community Development
Department. The plan shall also include measures to reduce noise levels such that a 10-dB increase over the ambient noise level does not occur at nearby noise-sensitive land uses, such as schools and residences to the extent feasible and practical (as determined by the City). Finally, the plan shall include measures to reduce pile driving noise such that noise from this equipment does not exceed 85 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet, as feasible.

The plan shall demonstrate that, to the extent feasible and practical, noise from construction activities that occur daily between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. or between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. will comply with the applicable City of Menlo Park noise limit of 60 dBA at the nearest existing residential or noisesensitive land use, and construction activities that occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. will comply with the
applicable City noise limit of 50 dBA at the residential or noise-sensitive land use. The plan shall also demonstrate that, to the extent feasible and practical (as determined by the City), noise from construction activities during all hours will not result in a 10 dB increase over the ambient noise level at the nearest noise-sensitive land uses, and that pile driving noise would not exceed 85 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. This Develop a Noise
Control Plan and
obtain a permit to
complete work
outside standard
construction
hours.

Submit noise
control plan
concurrently with
the application for
the first building
permit for each
building and
implement plan
during construction.

Obtain permit prior
to building permit
application.

Project Sponsor/
contractor(s)
CDD
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 75 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Noise Control Plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of building permits to confirm the precise noise minimization strategies that will be implemented and to document that strategies will be employed to the extent feasible and practical.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 76 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
• Prohibit idling of inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods during nighttime/non-standard hours
(i.e., more than 2 minutes).
• Provide advance notification in the form of
mailings/deliveries of notices to surrounding land uses regarding the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period.
• Provide the name and telephone number of an on-site
construction liaison through on-site signage and on the notices mailed/delivered to surrounding land uses. If
construction noise is found to be intrusive to the community (i.e., if complaints are received), the construction liaison shall take reasonable efforts to investigate the source of the noise and require that reasonable measures be implemented to
correct the problem.
• Use electric motors rather than gasoline- or dieselpowered engines to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered
tools during nighttime hours, to the extent feasible and practical (as determined by the City). Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust could be used; this muffler can
lower noise levels from the exhaust by about 10 dB.

External jackets on the tools themselves could be used, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dB.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2: Construction of Temporary Noise Barrier along Project Perimeter. The Project
contractor(s) shall install an 8-foot-high temporary noise barrier along the complete length of the western and southern perimeter (e.g., areas near residential and school land uses), and along the southernmost 500 feet of the eastern perimeter of the main Project Site. As project buildout occurs, removal and/or adjustment in the location of the perimeter noise Install noise
barriers.

Prior to issuance of
building permit for
each building and/or
relevant area of site
improvement
plans/building
construction and
ongoing
Project Sponsor/
contractor(s)
CDD
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 77 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
barrier may occur because either the construction of project buildings (completion of core and shell) or streets requires barrier realignment, or the perimeter barrier is not needed, as shown by preparation of an acoustical analysis that indicates the balance of the construction activities will not result in construction noise that exceeds the allowable limits.

Regarding the Hamilton Avenue Parcel South, a similar noise barrier shall be installed around the complete length of the southern, western and northern perimeters as well as the southernmost 100 feet of the eastern perimeter of the
Hamilton Avenue Parcel South, unless the Project Sponsor can demonstrate, through an acoustical analysis, that construction noise at this site would not exceed the allowable limits. The decision regarding the necessity of this barrier and location(s) shall be subject to review and approval of the City based on evidence and analyses providing by the applicant team.

Regarding the Hamilton Avenue Parcel North, a similar noise barrier shall also be constructed along the complete length of the southern and western perimeters, along with the eastern most 100 feet of the northern perimeter of the Hamilton Avenue Parcel North, unless the Project Sponsor can
demonstrate, through an acoustical analysis, that construction noise at this site would not exceed the allowable limits. The decision regarding the necessity of this barrier and location(s) shall be subject to review and approval of the City based on evidence and analyses providing by the applicant team.

The barriers shall be constructed of material that has an acoustical rating of at least 26 STC (Sound Transmission Class). This can include a temporary barrier constructed with plywood supported on a wood frame, sound curtains
supported on a frame, or other comparable material.
removal/adjustment
of noise barriers
during construction
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 78 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Operational Noise. Operation of the Proposed Project would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Impact NOI-1b) ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-1b. Stationary noise sources and landscaping and maintenance activities citywide shall comply with Chapter 8.06, Noise, of the Menlo Park Municipal Code.

Comply with
Chapter 8.06 of
the Menlo Park
Municipal Code.

Prior to the issuance
of construction
permits and
throughout the
duration of
construction
activities
Project Sponsor CDD
Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.3: Mechanical Equipment Noise Reduction Plan. To reduce potential noise impacts resulting from Project mechanical equipment, including heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment, the Project applicant shall conduct a noise analysis to estimate noise levels of Project-specific mechanical equipment based on the final selected equipment models and design features. In addition to the analysis, a Mechanical Equipment Noise Reduction Plan shall be created to ensure noise levels of equipment, once installed, are below the applicable criteria described below. The Noise Reduction Plan shall include any necessary noise reduction measures required to reduce Project-specific mechanical equipment noise to a less-thansignificant levels. The plan shall also demonstrate that with the inclusion of selected measures, noise from equipment would be below the significance thresholds. Feasible noise reduction measures to reduce noise below the significance thresholds include, but are not limited to, selecting quieter equipment, utilizing silencers and acoustical equipment at vent openings, siting equipment farther from the roofline, and/or enclosing all equipment in a mechanical equipment room designed to reduce noise. This analysis shall be conducted and the results and final Noise Reduction Plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of building permits for each building.

Submit a
Mechanical
Equipment Noise
Reduction Plan for
each building and
implement noise
control measures
to reduce noise
during operation.

Submit noise
reduction plan
concurrently with
the application for
the first building
permit for each
building, and
implement plan
during operation.

Project Sponsor/
engineers(s)
CDD
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 79 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 13 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
The noise analysis and Noise Reduction Plan shall be prepared by persons qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering.

The Noise Reduction Plan shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that noise from mechanical equipment selected for the Project, including the attenuation features incorporated into the Project design, will not exceed the City of Menlo Park’s property plane threshold of 60 dBA during daytime hours or 50 dBA during nighttime hours at nearby noisesensitive land uses, as well as the 50 dBA at 50 feet threshold that applies to rooftop equipment in the City.

The Project applicant shall incorporate all feasible methods to reduce noise identified above and other feasible
recommendations from the acoustical analysis and Noise
Reduction Plan into the building design and operations as necessary to ensure that noise sources meet applicable
requirements of the respective noise ordinances at receiving properties.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.4: Emergency Generator Noise Reduction Plan (All Parcels). Prior to approval of a building permit for each building, the Project applicant shall conduct a noise analysis to estimate noise levels from the testing of Project-specific emergency generators, based on the actual generator makes and models proposed and the actual selected attenuation features. Based on the results of the analysis, a Noise Reduction Plan shall be created to ensure noise levels of generator testing are below the applicable Code requirements. The results, methods, and final Noise Reduction Plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The analysis shall account for proposed noise attenuation features, such as specific acoustical enclosures and mufflers or silences, and the final Noise Reduction Plan shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that proposed generator(s) will not exceed the City of Menlo Park noise thresholds of 60 dBA at the nearest noise-sensitive Submit an
Emergency
Generator Noise
Reduction Plan
and implement
noise control
measures to
reduce noise
during operation.

Submit plan
concurrently with
the application for
the first building
permit for each
generator and
implement plan
during operation.

Project Sponsor/
engineers(s)
CDD
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 80 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 14 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
use during daytime hours, and/or 85 dBA at 50 feet for
powered equipment, whichever is lower. Acoustical
treatments may include, but are not limited to:
• Enclosing generator(s);
• Installing relatively quiet model generator(s);
• Orienting or shielding generator(s) to protect noisesensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible; • Installing exhaust mufflers or silencers;
• Increasing the distance between generator(s) and noisesensitive receptors; and/or • Placing barriers around generator(s) to facilitate the attenuation of noise.

In addition, all Project generator(s) shall be tested only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Because no nighttime testing of generators will be allowed, compliance with the 50-dB nighttime noise threshold in the City need not be demonstrated.

The Project applicant shall incorporate sufficient
recommendations from the acoustical analysis into the
building design and operations to ensure that noise sources meet applicable requirements of the noise ordinance.

IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. The Proposed Project would generate excessive ground-borne vibration or noise levels. (Impact NOI-2) ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a.1,2 To prevent architectural damage citywide as a result of constructiongenerated vibration:
• Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any
development project requiring pile driving or blasting, the Prepare a noise
and vibration
analysis.

Prior to the issuance
of building permits
Project Sponsor/
engineer(s)
CDD
1 This noise and vibration study for the Proposed Project has been prepared in accordance with ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a. 2 ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE‐2a has been modified to allow for compliance “to the extent feasible and practical,” which would be subject to review and determination by the Community Development Department.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 81 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 15 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
project applicant/developer shall prepare a noise and
vibration analysis to assess and mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts related to these activities. The
maximum levels shall not exceed 0.2 in/sec, which is the level that can cause architectural damage for typical
residential construction. If maximum levels would exceed the thresholds, alternative methods, such static rollers, non-explosive blasting, and pile drilling, as opposed to pile driving, shall be used to the extent feasible and
practical, subject to review and determination by the
Community Development Department.

To prevent vibration-induced annoyance as a result of
construction-generated vibration:
• Individual projects that involve vibration-intensive
construction activities, such as blasting or the use of pile drivers, jack hammers, or vibratory rollers, within 200 feet of sensitive receptors shall be evaluated for potential vibration impacts. A vibration study shall be conducted for individual projects where vibration-intensive impacts may occur. The study shall be prepared by an acoustical or vibration engineer holding a degree in engineering,
physics, or an allied discipline who is able to demonstrate a minimum of 2 years of experience in preparing technical assessments regarding acoustics and/or ground-borne
vibration. The study is subject to review and approval of the Community Development Department.

Vibration impacts on nearby receptors shall not exceed the vibration annoyance levels (in inches per second), as follows:
• Workshop = 0.126
• Office = 0.063
• Residence, daytime (7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.) = 0.032
• Residence, nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) = 0.016 If construction-related vibration is determined to be
perceptible at vibration-sensitive uses, additional
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 82 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 16 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
requirements, such as less vibration-intensive equipment or construction techniques, shall be implemented during
construction (e.g., non-explosive blasting, pile drilling, as opposed to pile driving, preclusion for vibratory roller use, use of small or medium-sized bulldozers) to the extent feasible and practical. Vibration reduction measures shall be
incorporated into the site development plan as a component of the Project and applicable building plans, subject to the review and approval of the Community Development
Department.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-2.1: Vibration Control Measures for Annoyance from Daytime Pile Driving Activity. During daytime hours, pile driving activity shall take place no closer than 335 feet from residential land uses, 210 feet from office or school land uses, and 130 feet from workshops or retail land uses, to the extent feasible and practical. When pile driving work must take place closer than these distances from the aforementioned land uses, reduction measures shall be incorporated to the extent feasible and practical, such as the use of alternative pile installation methods that do not require impact or vibratory pile driving. Examples of alternative pile installation methods include auger cast pressure grouted displacement (APGD) piles, stone columns, cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles, or press-in piles. These measures will be subject to review and approval of the Community Development
Department.

In addition, the construction contractor shall appoint a Project vibration coordinator who will serve as the point of contact for vibration-related complaints during project construction.

Ongoing during
daytime
construction hours;
documentation
provided to City
prior to pile driving
construction
activities
Project Sponsor/
contractor(s)/
Project vibration
coordinator
CDD
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 83 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 17 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
proximity to certain land uses) to the extent feasible and practical to reduce vibration or to reschedule activities for a less sensitive time. The Project vibration coordinator shall notify the Community Development Department of all
vibration-related complaints and actions taken to address the complaints.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-2.2: Vibration Control Measures for Annoyance from Daytime Construction Activities Excluding Pile Driving. During daytime hours, construction activity involving a vibratory roller shall take place no closer than 90 feet from residential land uses, 60 feet from office or school land uses, and 35 feet from workshops or retail land uses, to the extent feasible and practical, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. In
addition, equipment that generates vibration levels similar to a large bulldozer shall take place no closer than 50 feet from residential land uses, 35 feet from office or school land uses, and 20 feet from workshops or retail land uses, to the extent feasible and practical, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. Maintaining these
distances between equipment and the nearest residential, school/office, or workshop land uses would ensure vibration levels would be below 0.032 PPV in/sec at the nearest
residences, 0.063 PPV in/sec at the nearest school or office, and 0.126 PPV in/sec at the nearest workshop, per the
requirements in ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOISE-2a.

When construction would require the use of these equipment types at distances closer than these to nearby sensitive uses, reduction measures shall be incorporated to the extent
feasible and practical, such as the use of smaller or less vibration-intensive equipment. For example, the vibration level from a large bulldozer at 10 feet would be approximately

0.352 PPV in/sec, whereas the vibration level from a large bulldozer at the same distance would be approximately 0.012 Implement
vibration control
measures for
annoyance from
daytime
construction
activity, excluding
pile driving, and
limit vibratory
roller use during
daytime hours.

Ongoing during
daytime
construction hours;
documentation
provided to City
prior to vibration
related construction
activities
Project Sponsor/
contractor(s)/
Project vibration
coordinator
CDD
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 84 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 18 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
PPV in/sec. The vibration level from a small bulldozer at 10 feet would be below all daytime vibration thresholds from ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure Noise-2a. The feasibility of reduction measures shall be subject to review and
determination by the Community Development Department.

In addition, the construction contractor shall appoint a Project vibration coordinator who will serve as the point of contact for vibration-related complaints during Project construction.

Project Mitigation Measure NOI-2.3: Vibration Control Measures for Annoyance from Nighttime Pile Installation Activity. During the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., pile driving activity shall take place no closer than 540 feet from residential land uses to the extent feasible and practical. When pile installation work must take place closer than this distance to residences, alternative pile installation methods that do not require impact or vibratory pile driving shall be employed to the extent feasible and practical. Examples of alternative pile installation methods include auger cast pressure grouted displacement (APGD) piles, stone columns, cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles, or press-in piles. The feasibility of these alternative measures shall be subject to review and
determination of the Community Development Department.

In addition, the construction contractor shall appoint a Project vibration coordinator who will serve as the point of contact for Implement
vibration control
measures for
annoyance from
nighttime pile
driving and limit
nighttime pile
driving.

Ongoing during
nighttime
construction hours;
documentation
provided to City in
advance of
nighttime pile
installation
activities.

Project Sponsor/
contractor(s)/
Project vibration
coordinator
CDD
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 85 of 123 ends

City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 19 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
vibration-related complaints during Project construction.

IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Cumulative Noise Impacts. Cumulative development would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative noise impact; thus, the Proposed Project would be a cumulatively considerable contributor to a significant cumulative noise impact. (Impact C-NOI-1)
Implement Project Mitigation Measure NOI-1.1, NOI-1.2, and NOI-1.3, and ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure NOI-1c, above.

See above. See above. See above. See above.

Cultural Resources
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Historical Resources. The Proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Impact CR-1) Project Mitigation Measure CR-1.1. Remove, Store, and Reinstall Dumbarton Cutoff Line Tracks. The Project Sponsor shall remove the Dumbarton Cutoff Line tracks, store them during construction of the Proposed Project, and reinstall them in their historic location without irreparable damage to their character-defining historic fabric. The Project Sponsor will prepare a preservation plan specifying the practices to be employed to preserve the historical integrity of the tracks during their removal, storage, and reinstallation. These methods may include the following: using straps to lift rails rather than chains or other “metal on metal” methods,
marking or numbering the track components so they can be replaced in their original sequence, and ensuring secure storage onsite or in a lay-down area. Following tunnel
Remove, store,
and reinstall
Dumbarton Cutoff
Line tracks and
implement a
preservation plan
to preserve the
historical integrity
of the tracks.

Preparation of plan
prior to the issuance
of demolition
permits related to
Willow Road Tunnel
construction
activities as well as
storage and
reinstallation of
tracks during
construction
Project Sponsor/
contractor(s)
CDD and San
Mateo County
Transit District
(SamTrans)
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 86 of 123 ends

Menlo Park City CouncilNovember 15, 2022

Menlo Park City Council
November 15, 2022