20221206-cc-agenda-packet-with-presentation — Menlo Park City Council, December 6, 2022 (part 1 of 4)

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC

HEARING
Date: 12/6/2022
Time: 6:00 p.m.

Locations: Zoom.us/join – ID# 831 3316 9409 and
City Council Chambers
751 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025

NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING IDENTIFIED BELOW IN AGENDA ITEM F1., HELD AT THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 30, 2022 WAS CONTINUED TO TUESDAY DECEMBER 6, 2022 AND SHALL RESUME ON: TUESDAY DECEMBER 6, 2022 AT 6 P.M.

ONLINE IN A REMOTE FORMAT, PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 361, AND ACCESSIBLE AT:
• Zoom.us/join – ID# 831 3316 9409
• IN-PERSON, AT THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 751 LAUREL ST., MENLO PARK, CA 94025 NOVEL CORONAVIRUS, COVID-19, EMERGENCY ADVISORY NOTICE
Consistent with Government Code section 54953(e), and in light of the declared state of emergency, and maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can listen to the meeting and participate using the following methods.

How to participate in the meeting
• Access the live meeting, in-person, at the City Council Chambers • Submit a written comment online up to 1-hour before the meeting start time:
[email protected]
Please include the agenda item number you are commenting on. • Access the meeting real-time online at:

Zoom.us/join – Meeting ID 831 3316 9409
• Access the meeting real-time via telephone at:
(669) 900-6833
Meeting ID 831 3316 9409
Press *9 to raise hand to speak
• Watch meeting:
• Cable television subscriber in Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton, and Palo Alto:

Channel 26
• City Council Chambers
Note: City Council closed sessions are not broadcast online or on television and public participation is limited to the beginning of closed session.

Subject to Change: Given the current public health emergency and the rapidly evolving federal, state, county and local orders, the format of this meeting may be altered or the meeting may be canceled. You may check on the status of the meeting by visiting the City’s website menlopark.gov. The instructions for logging on to the webinar and/or the access code is subject to change. If you have difficulty accessing the

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
December 6, 2022

Page 2 ends

webinar, please check the latest online edition of the posted agenda for updated information (menlopark.gov/agendas).

According to City Council policy, all meetings of the City Council are to end by midnight unless there is a super majority vote taken by 11:00 p.m. to extend the meeting and identify the items to be considered after 11:00 p.m.

Regular Session
A. Call To Order
B. Roll Call
C. Agenda Review
D. Public Comment
Under “Public Comment,” the public may address the City Council on any subject not listed on the agenda. Each speaker may address the City Council once under public comment for a limit of three minutes. You are not required to provide your name or City of residence, but it is helpful. The City Council cannot act on items not listed on the agenda and, therefore, the City Council cannot respond to non-agenda issues brought up under public comment other than to provide general information.

E. Consent Calendar
E1. Adopt a resolution to continue conducting the City’s Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and to authorize the use of hybrid meetings (Staff Report #22-230-CC)
E2. Adopt a resolution ratifying the Menlo Park Fire Protection District Ordinance No. 50-2022 adopting amendments to the 2022 California Fire Code (Staff Report #22-231-CC) E3. Receive and file the Single Audit Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 (Staff Report #22-232-CC)
E4. Reject all bids for the minimum point of entry room heating, ventilation, and air conditioning upgrade project and direct staff to rebid the project at a future date (Staff Report #22-233-CC) E5. Adopt a resolution of intention to abandon a public utility easement along the rear of properties at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive; determine this action is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15305’s Class 5 exemption for minor alterations in land use limitations (Staff Report #22-234-CC) E6. Authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with the West Bay Sanitary District regarding the provision of recycled water service within Menlo Park Municipal Water Service Area; determine this action is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268 (Ministerial Projects) (Staff Report #22-237-CC) City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
December 6, 2022

Page 3 ends

F. Continued Public Hearing
F1. Consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the proposed project with modifications and adopt a resolution to 1) certify the final environmental impact report (Final EIR), make the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings including the Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts, and approve the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP), 2) adopt a resolution to amend the General Plan Circulation Element, 3) adopt resolutions to approve the vesting tentative maps for the proposed project, read the title, and waive further reading of ordinances to 4) amend the City zoning map, rezone the project site from R-MU-B and O-B to R-MU-B-X and O-B-X to include the “X” Conditional Development overlay, and approve the conditional development permit and 5) adopt the development agreement, and 6) adopt a resolution to approve the below market rate (BMR) housing agreements for the proposed Willow Village masterplan project located at 1350-1390 Willow Road, 925-1098 Hamilton Avenue and 1005-1275 Hamilton Court, 1399 and 1401 Willow road, and 871- 883 Hamilton Avenue (Staff Report #22-228-CC) – Continued from 11/30/2022 G. Regular Business
G1. Authorize the city manager to execute a community funding agreement and approve budget amendment (Staff Report #22-235-CC)
H. Study Session
H1. Provide direction regarding revisions to the City’s draft Housing Element in response to comments from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), and potential Zoning Ordinance and El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan amendments associated with the Housing Element Update project (Staff Report #22-236-CC) (Presentation) Please note: Public comment on item H1. is limited to two minutes per speaker.

I. Informational Items
I1. City Council agenda topics: December 2022 (Staff Report #22-240-CC) I2. Transmittal of city attorney billing (Staff Report #22-238-CC) I3. Update on the Willow Oaks Park improvement project (Staff Report #22-239-CC) J. City Manager's Report
K. City Councilmember Reports
L. Adjournment
At every regular meeting of the City Council, in addition to the public comment period where the public shall have the right to address the City Council on any matters of public interest not listed on the agenda, members of the public have the right to directly address the Council on any item listed on the agenda at a time designated by the chair, either before or during the City Council’s consideration of the item.

At every special meeting of the City Council, members of the public have the right to directly address the City Council on any item listed on the agenda at a time designated by the chair, either before or during consideration of the item.

For appeal hearings, appellant and applicant shall each have 10 minutes for presentations.

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
December 6, 2022

Page 4 ends

If you challenge any of the items listed on this agenda in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Menlo Park at, or prior to, the public hearing.

Any writing that is distributed to a majority of the City Council by any person in connection with an agenda item is a public record (subject to any exemption under the Public Records Act) and is available by request by emailing the city clerk at [email protected]. Persons with disabilities, who require auxiliary aids or services in attending or participating in City Council meetings, may call the City Clerk’s Office at 650-330-6620.

Agendas are posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website at menlopark.gov/agendas and can receive email notification of agenda and staff report postings by subscribing to the “Notify Me” service at menlopark.gov/subscribe.

Agendas and staff reports may also be obtained by contacting City Clerk at 650-330-6620. (Posted: 12/1/2022) City Manager's Office

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-230-CC
Consent Calendar: Adopt a resolution to continue conducting the City’s Council and advisory body meetings
remotely due to health and safety concerns for the
public and to authorize the use of hybrid meetings
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) to continue conducting the City’s Council and advisory body meetings remotely due to health and safety concerns for the public and to authorize the use of hybrid meetings.

Policy Issues
Assembly Bill 361 (AB 361) was signed into law September 16, 2021 allowing cities to continue holding virtual meetings during any emergency proclaimed by the governor. AB 361 will expire when the state of emergency ceases or January 1, 2024, whichever is first. Governor Newsom recently announced an end to the state of emergency February 28, 2023, in which case AB 361 would expire on that date. The City Council would need to declare every 30 days that the City’s legislative bodies must continue to meet remotely or in a hybrid format whereby City Councilmembers, appointed officials, staff and the public may participate in person or remotely, in order to ensure the health and safety of the public.

Background
The California Legislature approved AB 361, which was signed by the governor September 16, 2021 for signature. The bill allows local legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely through January 1, 2024. A local agency will be allowed to continue to meet remotely when:
• The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency • State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing • Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees
The City meets the requirements to continue holding meetings remotely in order to ensure the health and safety of the public:
• The City is still under a local state of emergency
• County Health urges that all individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks On September 13, 2022 Governor Newsom signed AB 2449 amending the Brown Act to provide additional teleconference procedures to allow members of a legislative body (included bodies appointed by the City Council) to participate remotely in public meetings. The new amendments to the Brown Act go into effect January 1, 2023 and provide complex procedures for holding hybrid public meetings. A hybrid meeting AGENDA ITEM E-1 Page E-1.1
Staff Report #: 22-230-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov allows members of City Council and advisory bodies, staff, and members of the public to participate in meetings either virtually and in-person.

Analysis
The City is still under a local state of emergency and the emergency findings required under AB 361 are still in effect. San Mateo County is still in the Low COVID-19 Community Level category and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that people may choose to mask at any time and people with symptoms, a positive test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 should wear a mask. The resolution authorizes the use of hybrid meetings, whereby City Councilmembers, participants, and staff may choose to attend either remotely or in person due to health and safety concerns and needs. The City Council finds that reducing the number of persons present in City Council chambers may continue to reduce imminent health risks associated with large groups and/or members of varying households gathering indoors.

AB 2449 would allow local officials to hold remote public meetings and would authorize relaxed teleconferencing procedures beyond what is currently required by the Brown Act (meaning there would be no need to identify each teleconference location, post agendas at all teleconference locations, or allow the public to access the teleconference locations) if at least a quorum of the legislative body participates inperson at a single location identified on the agenda that is open to the public, and the legislative body follows certain requirements, including:
• The legislative body must provide either a two-way audiovisual platform or two-way telephonic service and a live webcasting of the meeting to allow the public to remotely hear and visually observe the meeting, and remotely address the legislative body.
• The agenda must identify and include an opportunity for all persons to attend via a call-in option, internetbased service option and at the in-person location of the meeting. • A member of the legislative body can only participate remotely if one of the following are met:
• the member notifies the legislative body at the earliest opportunity possible, including at the start of a regular meeting, of their need to participate remotely for “just cause”; or • the member requests the legislative body to allow them to participate in the meeting remotely due to "emergency circumstances" and the legislative body takes action to approve the request. The legislative body must request a general description (generally not exceeding 20 words) of the circumstances relating to their need to appear remotely at the given meeting. • “Just cause” is defined as (i) a childcare or caregiving need of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires them to participate remotely; (ii) a contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person; (iii) a need related to a physical or mental disability as defined by statute; or (iv) travel while on official business of the legislative body or another state or local agency.
• Members of the legislative body are prohibited from using AB 2449 to participate in remote meetings for more than three consecutive months or for 20% of the regular meetings in a calendar year. • Members of the legislative body participating remotely must participate using both audio and visual technology. While the new law doesn’t specify whether audio and visual technology must be enabled at all times while participating remotely, we think the best reading of the law is that a member participating remotely should keep their camera on, and be able to participate via audio at all times during the meeting.
• Members of the legislative body participating remotely must publicly disclose whether any individual over the age of 18 is present in the same room as the member participating remotely.

Page E-1.2
Staff Report #: 22-230-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov • A meeting must be paused when there is any teleconference disruption for the public and no action can be taken if a disruption event prevents the legislative body from broadcasting the meeting. • Real-time public comments must be allowed during the meeting. • Legislative bodies must implement procedures for resolving requests for reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities.

Impact on City Resources
Additional technologies will need to be purchased and implemented in the City Council Chambers, Main Library (Senior Annex), Oak Room (Arrillaga Recreation Center), and the Downtown Conference Room (City Hall) in order to hold hybrid meetings. There will also be the need to train staff and advisory body members on the new technology.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it is an organizational structure change that will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Resolution
Report prepared by:

Judi A. Herren, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk Page E-1.3
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK AND

ON BEHALF OF COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES CREATED BY THE CITY

COUNCIL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54952(b) AUTHORIZING TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH AB 361 (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e)) TO CONTINUE TO

ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SAFELY PARTICIPATE IN LOCAL

GOVERNMENT MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council is committed to ensuring public access to observe and participate in local government meetings; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City Council and other legislative bodies created pursuant to Government Code Section 54952(b) are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act, so that any member of the public may participate in local government meetings; and WHEREAS, the AB 361, codified at Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in local government meetings, without compliance with the requirements of 54953(b)(3), during a Governor-proclaimed state of emergency and if the local legislative body determines, by majority vote, that as a result of the emergency, meeting solely in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom proclaimed a State of Emergency due to the outbreak of respiratory illness due to a novel coronavirus (now known as COVID-19) and that State of Emergency is still in effect in the State of California; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020 the City Council proclaimed the existence of a local state of emergency within the City, pursuant to Section 8625 of the California Emergency Services Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; and
WHEREAS, COVID-19 continues to threaten the health and lives of City residents; and WHEREAS, the SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron Variants are highly transmissible in indoor settings; and
WHEREAS, the Omicron subvariants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is overtaking other variants in San Mateo County; and
WHEREAS, according to data from the County’s Health Administrator and County website, the County is averaging approximately 12 new cases per 100,000 of COVID-19 per day; and WHEREAS, although the City has returned to in-person meetings, due to the prevalence of BA strains of the SARS-CoV-2 virus overtaking other variants in San Mateo County, the City Council finds that reducing the number of persons present in City Council chambers is necessary to reduce imminent health risks associated with large groups and/or members of varying households gathering indoors; and
WHEREAS, the State of California and the City of Menlo Park continue to follow safety measures in response to COVID-19 as ordered or recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), California Department of Public Health (DPH), and/or County of Page E-1.4 ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 2 of 3 ends

San Mateo, as applicable, including facial coverings when required; and based upon that guidance, in-person attendance indoors at public meetings continues to present a health risk for certain segments of the population, necessitating the need to reduce the number of in-person meeting attendees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, acting as a legislative body pursuant to Government Code section 54952(a) and for the benefit of the commissions, committees and other bodies that were created by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section 54952(b) (collectively referred to as “Legislative Bodies”), finds that the current conditions meet the circumstances set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to continue to use teleconferencing to hold open and public meetings if the Legislative Bodies comply with the requirements set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure the public can safely participate in and observe local government meetings.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Menlo Park that the City Council does hereby:

1. Find that current conditions authorize teleconference public meetings of Legislative Bodies.

Based on the California Governor’s continued declaration of a State of Emergency and current conditions, the City Council finds that meeting in person, without the option for certain populations and persons to participate remotely, would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. The City Council does therefore find that Legislative Bodies and members of Legislative Bodies of the City may elect to use teleconferencing to hold public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure members of the public have continued access to safely observe and participate in local government meetings.

2. Authorize Legislative Bodies to conduct teleconference meetings. The Legislative Bodies are hereby authorized to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.

3. Authorize Legislative Bodies to conduct hybrid meetings. The Legislative Bodies are hereby further authorized to conduct meetings in a “hybrid” format, where both members of the Body may elect to be present in person, utilizing appropriate distancing and masking practices, or participate by teleconferencing technology. Such meetings of the Legislative Bodies that occur using teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who wish to address Legislative Bodies and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing.
//
//
//
//
//
//
Page E-1.5
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 3 of 3 ends

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 sixth day of December, 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 December, 2022.

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Page E-1.6
Community Development

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-231-CC
Consent Calendar: Adopt a resolution ratifying the Menlo Park Fire Protection District Ordinance No. 50-2022 adopting
amendments to the 2022 California Fire Code
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) ratifying the Menlo Park Fire Protection District’s Ordinance No. 50-2022 adopting revisions to the 2022 California Fire Code.

Policy Issues
Menlo Park does not have its own fire department. The Menlo Park Fire Protection District (Fire District) takes the lead in adopting any local amendments to the California Fire Code. Under the Fire Protection District Law of 1987, the Fire District has authority to adopt local amendments to the California Fire Code by adopting its own ordinance, and its modifications will go into effect within Menlo Park as long as they are ratified by the City. The Fire District has adopted an ordinance making such modifications to the 2022 California Fire Code, which are shown in Attachment B and C. Staff is presenting a resolution to the City Council ratifying the Fire District’s ordinance so that it may go into effect in Menlo Park, on January 1, 2023.

Background
On November 1, 2022 staff provided the City Council a review of the proposed amendments to the fire Code and Local Ordinances. The City Council did not have any comments.

Analysis
If the City Council chooses to take action to adopt the resolution, the updated Fire Code and local amendments will be ratified and effective January 1, 2023. The resolution will designate the Fire District as the primary entity for enforcement of the fire code as amended. The Fire District Board adopted the ordinance at their meeting November 15, 2022.

Impact on City Resources
The adoption of the resolution ratifying the Fire District Fire Code Ordinance No. 50-2022 will not result in any direct costs to the City. Public informational materials, such as City webpages and/or handouts, will need to be updated to reflect minor modifications.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

AGENDA ITEM E-2 Page E-2.1
Staff Report #: 22-231-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting and posting a notice at the City Hall front entry.

Attachments
A. Resolution ratifying Fire District Ordinance 50-2022 B. Fire District Ordinance No. 50-2022
C. Matrix of Fire District ordinance versus 2022 California Fire Code Report prepared by:

Sergio Rudin, Assistant City Attorney
Chuck Andrews, Assistant Community Development Director Reviewed by:

Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director
Page E-2.2
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK

RATIFYING THE MENLO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
WHEREAS, the Fire Protection District Law of 1987 (Health and Safety Code 13869 et seq.) allows fire districts and cities to adopt amendments to the California Fire Code based on local conditions.

WHEREAS, the Menlo Park Fire Protection District (Fire Protection District) adopted Ordinance No. 50-2022, amending the 2022 California Fire Code on November 15, 2022.

WHEREAS, the City desires to ratify Ordinance No. 50-2022 so that it applies within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Menlo Park.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Menlo Park, as follows:

1. The City Council hereby ratifies Fire Protection District Ordinance No. 50-2022, which amends the 2022 California Fire Code, Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Part 9, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 13869.7. The City Council of the City of Menlo Park delegates the enforcement of Ordinance No. 50-2022 to the Chief of the Fire Protection District or the Chief’s authorized representative(s).

2. Ordinance No.50-2022, as ratified herein, shall apply to building permit submittals made after January 1, 2023.

3. The City Council, in the exercise of its independent judgment, determines that this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

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 December, 2022.

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A Page E-2.3
Page E-2.4 ATTACHMENT B
Page E-2.5
Page E-2.6
Page E-2.7
Page E-2.8
Page E-2.9
Page E-2.10
Page E-2.11
Page E-2.12
Page E-2.13
Page E-2.14
Page E-2.15
Page E-2.16
Page E-2.17
Page E-2.18
Page E-2.19
Page E-2.20
Page E-2.21
Page E-2.22
Page E-2.23
Page E-2.24
Page E-2.25
MPFPD Ordinance
IFC/CFC Code Section MPFD Change (in Red) Reason
[A] 101 General
101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the
Fire Code of [NAME OF JURISDICTION],
hereinafter referred to as “this code.”
101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known
as the 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, and
with amendments adopted by the Menlo Park
Fire Protection District, will be hereinafter
referred to as the “CODE,” and/or the “FIRE
PREVENTION CODE.” See also Paragraph 3
of this ordinance.

Section 101.1 is the Title of the Code and is
required to be filled in by the jurisdiction. The
referral to Paragraph 3 of the Ordinance is parallel
language adopting the entire Fire Code with
District amendments.
102.6 Historic Buildings 102.6 The provisions of this code relating to the construction, alteration, repair, enlargement,
restoration, relocation or moving of buildings or
structures shall not be mandatory for existing
buildings or structures identified and classified
by the state or local jurisdiction as historic
buildings where such buildings or structures do
not constitute a distinct hazard to life or
property. Fire protection in designated historic
buildings shall be provided in accordance with
the California Historic Building Code.

Section 102.6 is to provide guidance on how to
properly construct and protect CA Historic
Buildings.
107 Fees 107.1 The fees for the permits and other
services shall be established by resolution of the
Menlo Park Fire Protection District Fire Board
Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”). The fee shall be
set to cover the cost of the Fire District to review
and inspect the intended activities, operations or
functions. Exception: Fees for a permit may
be waived at the discretion of the Fire Chief
when the work or event to be conducted is for
the Town of Atherton, City of East Palo Alto,
City of Menlo Park or County of San Mateo.

Establishes reference to established cost recovery
fees for services related to construction, occupancy
permits, etc.
107.2 Where a permit or other inspection fee is
required, a fee for each permit shall be paid as
required, in accordance with the Menlo Park
Fire Protection District Fee Schedule.

States fees shall be paid for permits and inspections
111.1 Means of Appeals 111.1 Board of Appeals. All decisions and rulings of the Fire Code Officials are final and
any appeals shall be made through the legal
process.

Appeals process describes to follow legal process.
112 Violations 112.4 Violation penalties. Persons who shall violate a provision of this code or shall fail to
comply with any of the requirements thereof or
who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work
in violation of the approved construction
documents or directive of the fire code official,
or of a permit or certificate used under
provisions of this code, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more
than $1000 or by imprisonment not exceeding 6
months, or both such fine and imprisonment.

Each day that a violation continues after due
notice has been served shall be deemed a
separate offense.

Allows District to abate code violations.
2022 CA Fire Code vs. Ordinance - City of Menlo Park

CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE
ATTACHMENT C Page E-2.26
112.4.1 Abatement of violation. In addition to
the imposition of the penalties herein described,
the fire code official is authorized to institute
appropriate action to prevent unlawful
construction or to restrain, correct or abate a
violation; or to prevent illegal occupancy of a
structure or premises; or stop an illegal act,
conduct of business or occupancy of a structure
on or about any premise.

Allows District to abate code violations.

CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS
None All Weather Driving Surface. A roadway
designed to carry the imposed weight loads of
fire apparatus complete with all underground
utilities, curbs, gutters, and a minimum surface
finish of one layer of asphalt or concrete or road
pavers.

Clarify a driving surface that includes fire
apparatus
None Essential Service Facility. Shall mean that
building or structure which has been designated
by the local government to house facilities that
are necessary for emergency operations.

Clarify fire stations, EOCs and other public
facilities.

FIRE CODE OFFICIAL. The fire chief or other
designated authority charged with the administration
and enforcement of the code, or a duly authorized
representative.

FIRE CODE OFFICIAL. The fire code
official shall mean the District's Fire Chief,
employees of the District’s Fire Prevention and
Fire Suppression Divisions and such other
representatives of the District as may be
authorized by the Menlo Park Fire District
Board of Directors or the Fire Chief
In the International Fire Code, the term Fire Code
Official is used generically to allow other agencies,
besides the Fire Department, to enforce the Fire
Code. For Menlo Park Fire District, the Fire Chief
and employees of the Fire District are charged with
the enforcement of the Fire Code.
[B] FLOOR AREA, GROSS. The floor area within
the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of the
building under consideration, exclusive of vent shafts
and courts, without deduction for corridors, stairways, closets, the thickness of interior walls, columns or
other features. The floor area of a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding exterior walls
shall be the usable area under the horizontal projection of the roof or floor above. The gross floor area shall
not include shafts with no openings or interior courts.

The floor area within the inside perimeter of the
exterior walls of the building under
consideration, exclusive of vent shafts and
courts, without deduction for corridors,
stairways, closets, the thickness of interior walls,
columns or other features. The floor area of a
building, or portion thereof, not provided with
surrounding exterior walls shall be the usable
area under the horizontal projection of the roof
or floor above. The gross floor area shall not
include shafts with no openings or interior
courts. Areas to be included in the square
footage calculation include:

1. Garages or carports if under a habitable space,
or covers egress

2. New attached garage

3. All additions

4. Total square footage of any room that
received alterations or additions. Removing
sheetrock exposing structural framing or any
structural change in a room involves the total
square footage of that room. Existing square
footage shall be obtained from the San Mateo
County Tax Assessor’s Office or may be
submitted by a licensed architect.

Definition from the CA Building Code Ammended
Page E-2.27
[A] JURISDICTION. The governmental unit that has
adopted this code under due legislative authority.
[A] JURISDICTION. Jurisdiction shall mean
the territorial boundaries of the Menlo Park Fire
Protection District. In that case “Jurisdiction”
would mean, as appropriate, the County of San
Mateo, the City of East Palo Alto, the City of
Menlo Park and the Town of Atherton. The Fire
District’s map book shall be adopted by
reference to indicate the territorial boundaries of
the Menlo Park Fire Protection District. Except
where in the code the term "jurisdiction" is used
in a context which implies the ability to exercise
governmental powers, such as “the authority
having jurisdiction,” then in that context
"jurisdiction" shall mean the particular public
agency authorized to and exercising that
governmental power.

The term Jurisdiction has two meanings. One,
indicates the boundary lines which make up the
Menlo Park Fire Protection District, and Two,
indicates the government agency exercising its
governmental powers.

None LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Local law
enforcement” shall mean the local police
departments of the City of East Palo Alto, the
City of Menlo Park, the Town of Atherton, the
San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department, and the
California Highway Patrol.

The term Local Law Enforcement is used in the
Code in Chapters 1, 4 and 5. This ordinance uses
the term when referring to fire lanes and parking
enforcement. A definition in the ordinance defines
exactly who the local law enforcement agency is.

None SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION. The
renovation of any structure and/or which
combined with any additions to the structure,
affects a gross floor area which exceeds fifty
percent (50%) of the existing floor area of the
structure. This may include but is not limited to
:
1) Removal of exterior walls and/or roof
assembly
When any structural changes are made to the
building, such as walls, columns, beams or
girders, floor or ceiling joists and covering, roof
rafters, roof diaphragms, foundations, piles or
retaining walls or similar components, the floor
area of all room affected by the changes shall be
included in computing floor areas for purposes
of applying this definition. This definition does
not apply to the replacement and upgrading of
residential roof coverings.

The term substantial alteration is used in the
ordinance in section 505.1 when referring to the
lighted address requirement, and the of definition
of a substantial alteration is used as the foundation
in section 903.6.1.1 for determining when
improvements occur to an existing building and it
becomes reasonable to include fire sprinkler
protection as a portion of the improvement.

CHAPTER 3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
308.3.2 Theatrical Performances.

Where approved, open-flame devices used in
conjunction with theatrical performances are
allowed to be used where adequate safety
precautions have been taken in accordance with
NFPA 160 and Title 19 CCR.

Added and amended to allow state approved
devices in theatrical shows.
324.1 Mobile Food Preparation Vehicles
Health department approval. Mobile food
preparation vehicles shall display a San Mateo
County Health Department sticker as prescribed
by County Health.

Added to verify compliance with County Health
rules and maintenance of fire extinguishing
equipment.

CHAPTER 4 EMERGENCY PLANNING
403.11 Special requirements for public safety.

Special requirements for public safety shall be in
accordance with Sections 403.11.1 through 403.11.3.3.

Added to describe fire watch requirements
Page E-2.28
403.11.1 Fire watch personnel. Where, in the
opinion of the fire code official, it is essential for
public safety in a place of assembly or any other place where people congregate, because of the number of
persons, or the nature of the performance, exhibition,
display, contest or activity, the owner, agent or lessee shall provide one or more fire watch personnel, as
required and approved. Fire watch personnel shall
comply with Sections 403.11.1.1 and 403.11.1.2.

Added to describe fire watch personnel
403.11.1.1 Duty times. Fire watch personnel shall
remain on duty while places requiring a fire watch are
open to the public, or when an activity requiring a fire watch is being conducted
.

Added to describe fire watch required times
403.11.1.2 Duties. On duty fire watch personnel shall
have the following responsibilities: 1. Keep diligent
watch for fires, obstructions to means of egress and
other hazards. 2. Take prompt measures for
remediation of hazards and extinguishment of fires
that occur. 3. Take prompt measures to assist in the
evacuation of the public from structures.

Added to describe fire watch duties
403.11.2 Public safety plan for gatherings. Where
the fire code official determines that an indoor or
outdoor gathering of persons has an adverse impact on
public safety through diminshed access to buildings,
structures, fire hydrants and fire apparatus access
roads or where such gatherings adversely affect public
safety services of any kind, the fire code official shall have authority to order the development of or prescrib
e
a public safety plan that provides an approved level of public safety and addresses the following items: 1)
Emergency vehicle ingress and egress; 2) Fire
protection; 3) Emergency egress or escape routes; 4)
Emergency medical services; 5) Public assembly areas
;
6) The directing of both attendees and vehicles,
including the parking of vehicles; 7) Vendor and food
concession distribution; 8) The need for the presence
of law enforcement; 9) The need for fire and
emergency medical services personnel; 10) The need
for weather monitoring person.

Added to describe large gatherings safety plan
403.11.3 Crowd managers. Where facilities or events
involve a gathering of more than 500 people, crowd
managers shall be provided in accordance with
Sections 403.11.3.1 through 403.11.3.3
Added to describe crowd managers
403.11.3.1 Number of crowd managers. Not fewer
than two trained crowd managers, and not fewer than
one trained crowd manager for each 250 persons or
portion thereof, shall be provided for the gathering.

Exceptions: 1) Outdoor events with fewer than 1,000
persons in attendance shall not require crowd
managers; 2) Assembly occupancies used exclusively
for religious worship with an occupant load not
exceeding 1,000 shall not require crowd managers; 3)
The number of crowd managers shall be reduced
where, in the opinion of the fire code official, the fire protection provided by the facility and the nature of
the event warrant a reduction.

Added to describe crowd managers requirements
403.11.3.2 Training. Training for crowd managers
shall be approved
.

Page E-2.29
403.11.3.3 Duties. The duties of crowd managers shall
include, but not limited to: 1) Conduct an inspection of the area of responsibility and identify and address any egress barriers; 2) Conduct an inspection of the area of responsibility to identify and mitigate any fire hazard; 3) Verify compliance with all permit conditions,
including those governing pyrotechnics and other
special effects; 4) Direct and assist the event attendees in evacuation during an emergency; 5) Assist
emergency reponse personnel where requested; 6)
Other duties required by the fire code official; 7) Other duties as specified in the fire safety plan
Added to describe crowd manager training
CHAPTER 5 FIRE SERVICE FEATURES
501.1 Scope. Fire service features for buildings,
structures and premises shall comply with this chapter. 501 .1 Scope. Fire service features for buildings,
structures and premises shall comply with this
chapter, and appendix D.

Added for more detailed criteria.
503 Fire Apparatus Access Roads
503.1 Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads
shall be provided and maintained in accordance with
Sections 503.1.1 through 503.1.3
503.1 Where required. Fire apparatus access
roads shall be provided and maintained in
accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through
503.1.3 and according to Menlo Park Fire
District Fire District Standards and Guidelines
Manual.

Added to describe fire access road requirements
503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. Approved fire
apparatus access roads shall be provided for
every facility, building or portion of a building
hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall
comply with the requirements of this section and
shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of
the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of
the first story of the building as measured by an
approved route around the exterior of the
building or facility.
503.1.1 Approved fire apparatus access
roads shall be provided for every facility,
building or portion of a building hereafter
constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road
shall comply with the requirements of this
section and Appendix D, and shall extend to
within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of
the facility and all portions of the exterior
walls of the first story of the building as
measured by an approved route around the
exterior of the building or facility.

Exceptions: No Changes
Amended to provide required fire access during
construction for medical or fire emergencies during
any weather conditions.

None 503.1.1.2 is added to read as follows: Nothing
in the California Fire Code shall prevent the
Town or City from designating or maintaining a
street as a “Fire Lane” which does not meet the
requirements of a fire apparatus access road
under the California Fire Code. 503.1.2 - 5.3.6
(CFC text not modified)
Added to allow jurisdictions to recognize public
roads as Fire Lanes or Fire Access Roads.
503.3 Marking. Where required by the fire code
official, approved signs or other approved notices or
markings that include the words NO
PARKING—FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire
apparatus access roads to identify such roads or
prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which
fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or
repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. 503.3 Marking. Where required by the fire
code official approved signs and markings
designating fire lanes shall comply with
California Vehicle Code section 22500.1. The
designation shall be indicated (1) by a sign
posted immediately adjacent to, and visible
from, the designated place clearly stating in
letters not less than one inch in height that the
place is a fire lane, (2) by outlining or painting
the place in red and, in contrasting color,
marking the place with the words "FIRE
LANE", which are clearly visible from a vehicle,
or (3) by a red curb or red paint on the edge of
the roadway upon which is clearly marked the
words "FIRE LANE". Signs and markings shall
not be obstructed, and shall be maintained in a
clean and legible condition at all times and be
replaced or repaired when necessary to provide
adequate visibility.

Local law enforcement has asked that designated
fire lanes are marked with both signs AND red
curbs AND lettering stating "No Parking - Fire
Lane."
Section changed to follow language from the
California Vehicle Code, per Menlo Park Police.
503.7 Restrictions and requirements as specified
in the CA Vehicle Code shall apply to fire lanes
established by this section.

Added to follow CA Vehicle Code
Page E-2.30
505.1 Address identification. New and existing
buildings shall be provided with approved address
identification. The address identification shall be
legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address numbers
shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters.

Numbers shall not be spelled out. Each character shall
be not less than 4 inches high with a minimum stroke
width of 1/2 inch. Where required by the fire code
official, address identification shall be provided in
additional approved locations to facilitate emergency
response. Where access is by means of a private road
and the building cannot be viewed from the public
way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be
used to identify the structure. Address identification
shall be maintained.
505.1 Address Identification. New and existing
buildings shall have approved address numbers,
building numbers or approved building
identification placed in a position that is plainly
legible and visible from the street or road
fronting the property. These numbers shall
contrast with their background. Address
numbers shall be Arabic numerals or English
alphabet letters. Where required by the fire code
official, address identification shall be provided
in additional approved locations to facilitate
emergency response. Where access is by means
of a private road and the building cannot be
viewed from the public way, a monument, pole
or other sign or means shall be used to identify
the structure. Address identification shall be
maintained. Said numbers shall be either
internally or externally illuminated in all new
construction. Numbers shall be as follows: 1.

Minimum of one-half inch (1/2″) stroke by eight
inches (8″) high. Exception: Single-family
dwelling minimum of one-half inch (1/2") stroke
by four inches (4") high. 2. When the
structure is more than fifty (50) feet from the
street or fire apparatus access, a minimum of one
inch (1”) stroke by twelve inches (12″) high is
required.

The Fire District responds to many types of
emergencies, including medical calls, critical home
services such as flooding or natural gas leaks, and
smoke or carbon monoxide alarms, just to name a
few. In many areas of the Fire District, street
lighting is not available, which makes finding
addresses difficult, especially when seconds count.

The Fire District ordinance requires new buildings
and buildings undergoing a substantial alteration to
include an illuminated address, so that emergency
responders can more easily find the location
needing help.

The ordinance also provides minimum size
requirements for address numbers on larger
structures for better visibility, where the
International Fire Code is silent.

None 505.1.1 Multi -Tenant Buildings. Numbers or
letters shall be designated on all occupancies
within a building. Size shall be one-half inch
(1/2″) stroke by four inches (4″) high and on a
contrasting background. Directional address
numbers or letters shall be provided. Said
addresses or numbers shall be posted at a height
no greater than 5 feet, 6 inches (5′ 6″) above the
finished floor and shall be either internally or
externally illuminated in all new construction.

The ordinance requires individual tenant spaces to
have address numbers, and provides guidance as to
height and size of the numbers. The International
Fire Code is silent on this issue.

None 505.1.2 Rear Addressing. When required by
the fire code official, approved numbers or
addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly
visible and legible from the fire apparatus road
at the back of a property or where rear parking
lots or alleys provide an acceptable vehicular
access. Number stroke and size shall comply
with 505.1.

The ordinance requires rear entrances to tenant
spaces to have corresponding address, so fire
fighters can orientate themselves when
approaching the rear of a single building that has
multiple addresses. The International Fire Code is
silent on this issue.
506.1 Where required. Where accecss to or within a
structure or an area is restricted because of secured
openings or where immediate access is necessary for
life-saving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code
official is authorized to require a key box to be
installed in an approved location. The key box shall be an approved type listed in accordance to UL 1037, and
shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official.
506.1 Where required. Where access to or
within a structure or an area is restricted because
of secured openings or where immediate access
is necessary for life-saving or fire-fighting
purposes, the fire code official is authorized to
require a key box to be installed in an approved
location. The key box shall be of an approved
type listed in accordance with UL 1037, and
shall contain keys to gain necessary access as
required by the fire code official. Where a new
gate or barrier is installed on a fire access
roadway, the fire department shall have
emergency access. Gates or barriers shall have a
Knox® key switch.

Added to require knox key box
Page E-2.31
None 506.3 Key box content requirements. The keys
including multi-tenant spaces. Additional keys
shall be included for card access, elevator
control, fire alarm control panels, and fire
sprinkler control valve access. Exceptions: 1)
Multi-tenant spaces which provide a key box for
each tenant and installed per Section 506.1 2)
Electronic card keys and codes may be be
utilized as a substitute for manual keys.

Description of keys required for fire department
access box.
508.2 Fire Control Room
An approved fire control room shall be provided
for all new buildings or occupancies with a
change of use, requiring protection by an
automatic fire sprinkler system. The room shall
contain the fire alarm control panels, ERCCS
control equipment, and other fire equipment
required by the Fire Code Official. Fire control
rooms shall be located within the building at a
location approved by the Fire Code official, and
shall be provided at grade with a means to access
the room directly from the exterior. Durable
signage shall be provided on the exterior side of
the access door to identify the fire control room.

Fire Control Rooms shall not be less than 50
square feet. Exceptions: 1. Group R-3
Occupancies. 2. Occupanices with a fire pump
shall have a fire control room that is a minimum
of 200 square feet. 3. In high-rise buildings, the
fire control room shall not be less than 200
square feet.

Added to follow standard for San Mateo County
fire jurisdictions operational consistency.
510.1 Emergency Responder Communication
Coverage in new buildings.

Exception 1. Where approved by the building
official and the fire code official, a wired
communication system in accordance with
Section 907.2.13.2 shall be permitted to be
installed or maintained instead of an approved
radio coverage system.

Deleted. No hard wire is accepted for fire and
police communications.
510.3 Permits required
Permits shall be required as set forth in
Sections 105.5 and 105.6 for the installation of
or modification to and the operation of inbuilding two-way emergency responder communication coverage systems and related
equipment. Maintenance performed in
accordance with this code is not considered a
modification and does not require a permit.

Amended to follow MPFPD permit process
510.4.2 System design
The in-building, two-way emergency responder
communication coverage system shall be
designed in accordance with Sections 510.4.2.1
through 510.4.2.8, NFPA 1221, NFPA 1225,
NFPA 72 and San Mateo County ERCCS (P500) .

Amended to follow San Mateo County Fire Chiefs
policy for coverage design.
510.4.2.9
510.4.2.9 UL CERTIFICATION. New ERCES
systems shall be UL-Certified. A Certificate of
Completion and other documentation as listed in
NFPA 72 shall be provided for all new fire
alarm system installations. It is the
responsibility of the building owner or owner's
representative to obtain and maintain a current
and valid Certificate.

In the early 1980's UL established a program for
certification of fire alarm systems. NFPA 72
Standards were used as the requirements for the
certification. The certificate is a declaration by the
alarm company responsible for the installation that
the system as described on the certificate form has
been installed and will be maintained in accordance
with the NFPA Standard. This standard is now
inlcuding ERCES beginning January 1, 2023.
510.5 Installation requirements The installation of the in-building, two-way emergency responder communication coverage
system shall be in accordance withSan Mateo
County ERCCS (P-500), NFPA 72, NFPA
1221, and Sections 510.5.2 through 510.5.5.

Amended to follow San Mateo County Fire Chiefs
policy for coverage design.

CHAPTER 9 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
Page E-2.32
903 Automatic Sprinkler Systems
Town of Atherton
903.2 Where required. Approved automatic
sprinkler systems in new buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in Sections
903.2.1 through 903.2.12.
903.2 Where required. Approved automatic
fire sprinkler systems in new buildings and
structures shall be provided in all Group A, B, E,
F, M, R, S, and U Occupancies greater than
1,000 square feet and in locations described in
subsections 903.2.2, 903.2.5, 903.2.6, 903.2.8,
903.2.11, 903.2.12. Sections and Subsections of
903.2.1, 903.2.3, 903.2.4, 903.2.9, 903.2.10 and
903.2.11.3 of Chapter 9 of the code are deleted
in their entirety. Approved automatic fire
sprinkler system in existing buildings and
structures shall be provided as described in
section 903.6.

Exceptions:

1. Independent solar carports or structures, noncombustible carports or shade structures.

2. Canopies less than 1000 square feet over
motor vehicle fuel dispensing facilities when
constructed in accordance with Section 406.7.2
of the 2022 California Building Code.

Maintaining Ordinance requirements that has been
in place since 1984 to aid in fire propogation and
spread. Aging water infrastructure, inadequate
hydrant spacing and increased response times due
to traffic, road width, traffic calming devices slow
down response requiring increased protection.

These subsections refer to Group A, B, E, F, and S
Occupancies where the fire sprinkler threshold is
greater than 1,000 square feet, and would conflict
with the ordinance.
903.2.7 Group M. An automatic sprinkler system
shall be provided throughout buildings containing a
Group M occupancy where one of the following
conditions exists:

1. A Group M fire area exceeds 12,000 square feet
(1115 m2).

2. A Group M fire area is located more than three
stories above grade plane.

3. The combined area of all Group M fire areas on all
floors, including any mezzanines, exceeds 24,000
square feet (2230 m2).

4. A Group M occupancy used for the display and sale
of upholstered furniture or mattresses exceeds 5,000
square feet (464 m2).
903.2.7 Group M. Automatic fire sprinkler
systems shall be provided throughout buildings
containing a Group M occupancy with a fire
area greater than 1,000 square feet and any
Group M occupancy used for the display and
sale of upholstered furniture.
903.2.7.1 High-piled storage. To remain
unchanged
The ordinance requires new M occupancies to have
automatic fire sprinklers when the square footage
exceeds 1,000 square feet.

Section 903.2.7.1 requires Group M Occupancies
with high piled storage to follow the fire sprinkler
requirements of Chapter 32 on High Piled
Combustible Storage.
903.2.11.1 Stories without openings. An automatic
sprinkler system shall be installed throughout all
stories, including basements, of all buildings where
the floor area exceeds 1,500 square feet (139.4 m2)
and where there is not provided at least one of the
following types of exterior wall openings:

1. Openings below grade that lead directly to ground
level by an exterior stairway complying with Section
1009 or an outside ramp complying with Section 1010.

Openings shall be located in each 50 linear feet (15
240 mm), or fraction thereof, of exterior wall in the
story on at least one side. The required openings shall be distributed such that the lineal distance between
adjacent openings does not exceed 50 feet (15 240
mm).
903.2.11.1 Stories and basements without
openings. Automatic sprinkler systems shall be
installed in every building with a basement.

Automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed in
every story of all buildings where the floor area
exceeds 1000 square feet and where the
following type of exterior wall opening is not
provided.

1. Openings entirely above the adjoining ground
level totaling at least 20 square feet (1.86 m2) in
each 50 linear feet (15 240 mm), or fraction
thereof, of exterior wall in the story on at least
one side.

Adjustments in this section require automatic fire
sprinkler protection in basements of occupancies.

The threshold begins at square footage exceeding
250 square feet, except for the Town of Atherton
which has no threshold square footage.

Basement fires bring a different tactic to fire
suppression operations. Entry is obscured by thick
smoke. Opening doors to basement create a rush of
hot gases typically exceeding 900 degrees F. A
fire in a basement can cause the floor to giveaway
under firefighters as they enter the structure to
attempt extinguishment.
903.3.1.1.2 Bathroom Deleted MPFPD standard to delete bathrooms due to fire history
903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Automatic
sprinkler systems in Group R occupancies up to and
including four stories in height not exceeding 60 feet
in height above grade plane shall be permitted to be
installed throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R as
amended in Chapter 80.
903.3.1.2 NFPA 13R sprinkler systems. Where
in the code a NFPA 13R sprinkler system is
allowed, a NFPA 13 sprinkler system shall be
used.

NFPA 13R sprinkler systems are used in multifamily dwellings (apartments). They allow unsprinklered spaces and installation practices inconsistent with similar size occupancies. This
change requires a full fire sprinkler system, which
is consistent with similar size buildings.

Page E-2.33
903.3.3 Obstructed locations. Automatic sprinklers
shall be installed with regard to obstructions that will delay activation or obstruct the water distribution
pattern. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in or
under covered kiosks, displays, booths, concession
stands or equipment that exceeds 4 feet (1219 mm) in
width. Not less than a 3- foot (914 mm) clearance shall be maintained between automatic sprinklers and the
top of piles of combustible fibers.

Exception: Kitchen equipment under exhaust hoods
protected with a fire-extinguishing system in
accordance with Section 904.
903.3.3 Obstructed locations. Automatic
sprinklers shall be installed with regard to
obstructions that will delay activation or obstruct
the water distribution pattern and shall be in
accordance with the applicable automatic
sprinkler system standard that is being used.

Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in or
under covered kiosks, displays, booths,
concession stands, laboratory fume hoods, bio
safety cabinets that use flammable liquids in
processes, or equipment that exceeds 4 feet
(1219 mm) in width. Not less than a 3-foot (914
mm) clearance shall be maintained between
automatic sprinklers and the top of piles of
combustible fibers. Sprinklers shall be provided
in all areas including combustible or
noncombustible concealed spaces, 6 inches or
more.

Exception: 1. Sprinkler protection for concealed
spaced 6 inches or more may be omitted if the
building owner and the fire code official agree in
writing that the use of the space is unlikely to
change in the future.

2. Kitchen equipment under exhaust hoods
protected with a fire-extinguishing system in
accordance with Section 904.

The Fire District requires fire sprinkler protection
in obstructed locations that are 6 inches or more in
height or width. These spaces are typically used to
run electrical wiring, and have been collection
points for combustible debris. Fires in these
concealed spaces have the ability to overcome
automatic fire sprinkler protection. By providing
fire sprinkler protection in these spaces, early fire
detection is established and the fire is controlled.

Industrial areas of the District cater to Research
and Development Laboratories. Due to fire
histories in these labs, the Fire District requires fire sprinkler protection inside lab fume hoods, and in
biosafety cabinets that use flammable liquids in
processes.

By including an exception, for sprinklering the 6
inch concealed space, the ordinance allows for
flexibility depending on the occupancy and the use
of the space.

None 903.3.10 Partial Systems in new buildings or
structures. Automatic fire sprinkler systems
that only protect a portion of the building shall
not be allowed.

The Fire District added a section to the ordinance
that requires a full fire sprinkler system in a
building, and to not allow for a partial system.

When firefighters respond to a fire in a sprinklered
building, it is assumed that the all portions of the
building have fire sprinkler protection. If the fire's
origin happened to be in an unsprinklered portion
of a sprinklered building, the fire's heat can
overcome the sprinklered portion of the building.
903.6 Where required in existing buildings and
structures. An automatic sprinkler system shall be
provided in existing buildings and structures where
required in Chapter 11.
903.6 Where required in existing buildings
and structures. An automatic sprinkler system
shall be provided in existing buildings and
structures where required in Chapter 11 or when
improvements are conducted in accordance with
this section.

No changes to the introductory statement.

None 903.6.1 Where required due to
improvements to buildings and structures.

The provisions of this section are intended to
provide a reasonable degree of fire safety in
existing structures by requiring installation of an
automatic fire-extinguishing system.

The Fire Code does not specify whether or not an
existing building that under goes improvements
should include automatic fire sprinkler protection.

The Fire District has specified in this section, what
it believes to be reasonable requirements to add fire
sprinkler protection when buildings are improved
or occupancies are changed to become hazardous.

Page E-2.34
None 903.6.1.1 Where Required. All existing
buildings and structures, regardless of type of
occupancy or area, shall be provided with an
automatic fire sprinkler system when any of the
following conditions occur: (1) Where the
gross floor area of a proposed alteration,
addition, or combination of alterations and
additions and the gross floor area of any
alterations, additions, or combination of
alterations and additions exceeds 50% of the
existing gross floor area of the building or 75%
of the existing gross floor area of the building
for R-3 occupancies.

Exception: Buildings or structures less than
1,000 square feet. (2) When a change in
occupancy classification, as defined within the
Building Code, results in an increased fire
hazard or risk due to business operations and/or
number of occupants permitted in the building.
(3) When an existing occupancy constructs a
basement that is 250 square feet or larger, a fire
sprinkler system shall be provided throughout
the basement and the rest of the building or
structure.

The Fire Code does not specify whether or not an
existing building that under goes improvements
should include automatic fire sprinkler protection.

None 903.6.1.2 Partial Systems in existing
buildings and structures. Automatic fire
sprinkler systems that only protect a portion of
the building shall not be allowed. Exception:

A phased installation of an automatic fire
sprinkler system may be allowed as an alternate
materials and method application, as prescribed
in Section 104.9, when different tenant spaces in
the same building are occupied, and the
installation of a fire sprinkler system may
disrupt business. Not to exceed five (5) years
for final completion from initial permit date.

Description of not allowing partial systems.

Allows exceptions for existing multi-tenant
buildings.
907.1.6 Certification 907.1.6 Certification. New fire alarm systems shall be UL-Certified. A certificate of
Completion and other documentation as listed in
NFPA 72 shall be provided for all new fire
alarm system installation. It is the responsibility
of the building owner or owner’s representative
to obtain and maintain a current and valid
Certificate. The protected premise shall be
issued a UUFX type certification from
Underwriters Laboratories (UL).

Added for system integrity and reduction of false
alarms. Been a MPFPD Standard for over 20
years. Now becoming a San Mateo County
standard
907.7 Acceptance tests and completion. Upon
completion of the installation, the fire alarm system
and all fire alarm components shall be tested in
accordance with NFPA 72.
907.7 Acceptance tests and completion. Upon
completion of the installation, the fire alarm
system and all fire alarm components shall be
tested in accordance with NFPA 72. Fire alarms
systems in commercial structures shall obtain a
UL Certificate for the system prior to final
inspection.

In the early 1980's UL established a program for
certification of fire alarm systems. NFPA 72
Standards were used as the requirements for the
certification. The certificate is a declaration by the
alarm company responsible for the installation that
the system as described on the certificate form has
been installed and will be maintained in accordance
with the NFPA Standard.
907.9 Where required in existing buildings and
structures. An approved fire alarm system shall be
provided in existing buildings and structures where
required in Chapter 11.
907.9 Where required in existing buildings
and structures. An approved fire alarm
system shall be provided in existing buildings
and structures where required in Chapter 11.

When an alteration to any existing building or
structure requires an upgrade or new fire alarm
system, multiple fire alarm systems shall be
approved by the fire code official.

If a fire occurs in a single space of a multi-tenanted
building, occupants of the other spaces should also
be notified of the fire and evacuated. However,
NFPA 72 allows individual tenants to install their
own fire alarm system, thus NOT notifying other
tenants of a fire. To correct this problem, the Fire
District will require a single fire alarm system for
multi-tenanted spaces. Fire code official will
approve multiple systems with conditions.

Page E-2.35
None 1207.11.5.1 Electrical Disconnect. The ESS
disconnect shall be located on the exterior of the
building and at the main panel.

Added to allow firefighters to secure utilitites from
the exterior of the house in the event of an
emergency
None 1207.11.11 Interconnected Electrical Power
Sources. A permanent directory site plan plaque
denoting the location of all electrical power
source disconnecting means on or in the
premises shall be installed at each service
equipment location and at the location(s) of the
system disconnect(s) for all electric power
production sources capable of being
interconnected.

Added to provide notification to firefighters of
multiple power sources and locations to secure
utilities and aid in firefighter safety and safe
operations.

Appendix B Table B105.1(1) Minimum fire flow
for Section 903.3.1.3 - minimum fire flow shall be
1000gpm for 1 hour duration minimum
Table B105.1(1) Minimum fire flow for
Section 903.3.1.3 shall be 1000 gpm for 1
hour duration
The CA Fire Code historically allowed the AHJ to
reduce fire flow requirements. The code now
makes it automatic, which takes awa y the local
AHJ ability to mitigate local water issues and
conflagration potential. This provides MPFPD
what we have historically provided for over 30
years and allows proper fire protection for our
inreasing density and larger buildings and potential
for conflagration.

Appendix B Table B105.2 Minimum fire flow for
Section 903.3.1.1 - 25% of the value in Table
B105.1(2)a
; Section 903.3.1.2 - 25% of the value
in Table B105.1(2)b
Table B105.2 Minimum fire flow for Section
903.3.1.1 - 50% of the value in Table
B105.1(2)a
; Section 903.3.1.2 - 50% of the
value in Table B105.1(2)b
The CA Fire Code historically allowed the AHJ to
reduce fire flow requirements. The code now
makes it automatic, which takes awa y the local
AHJ ability to mitigate local water issues and
confligration potential. This provides MPFPD
what we have historically provided for over 30
years and allows proper fire protection for our
inreasing density and larger buildings and potential
for confligration.

Appendix D Added - Fire Apparatus Access Roads To clarify requirements of fire access roads for uniformity.

Appendix L Appendix L Requirements for PIPED AIR
SCBA REFILLING SYSTEMS is added as
follows: For buildings more than 10 stories in
height, shall install Firefighter Air
Replenishment System per Menlo Park Fire
Protection District Standards and Guidelines
Manual.

Currently, a firefighter's air bottle lasts about 20
(plus) minutes before it needs to be refilled. With a
Firefighter Air System installed in a multi story
building, firefighters can refill their air supply from the interior of the building, without having to leave
the fire area. Without such a system, an air bottle
would need to be refill from an air-refill truck
located on the street. This requirement allows for a
more efficient use of the firefighters time on the
fire scene.

Page E-2.36
City Manager's Office

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-232-CC
Consent Calendar: Receive and file the Single Audit Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021
Recommendation
Staff and the Finance and Audit Committee recommend that the City Council receive and file the Single Audit Report (SAR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.

Policy Issues
Pursuant to 2 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, a non-federal agency that expends $750,000 or more during the fiscal year in federal awards is required to have a single audit and issue a SAR. The City expended $1.3 million during fiscal year ending June 30, 2021; therefore, is required to issue a Single Audit Report.

The SAR tests the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) to ensure that an agency has used federal funds correctly in compliance with Office of Management Budget (OMB) standards.

The June 30, 2021, report was due March 31, 2022, but extended to September 30, 2022 due to COVID issues. Agencies are required to complete their SARs and uploaded all necessary documentation to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse by September 30, 2022 not to be considered delinquent. The City is in compliance with this date.

Background
The City contracted with the firm Lance, Soll & Lungard, LLP (Certified Public Accountants) in 2019 to perform an audit of the City’s financial records, complete the SAR and render an opinion in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. The contract covers a three-year engagement with June 30, 2022, being their final year.

Analysis
Staff and the Finance and Audit Committee reviewed the City’s June 30, 2021, SAR at its October 19, 2022 meeting. The auditor’s examined the City’s compliance with the types of requirements described in the OMB compliance supplement that could have a direct and material effect on the City’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2021.

Based on their annual independent audit, the auditor rendered an unmodified “clean” opinion on the City’s SEFA in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole. The significant AGENDA ITEM E-3 Page E-3.1

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Staff Report #: 22-230-CC
deficiencies and material weaknesses identified in relation to the financial statements have been addressed by staff in the Management’s Response and Corrective Action in Section II of the SEFA.

Impact on City Resources
The independent auditing services is a covered expense within the City’s approved budget.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. City of Menlo Park SAR for the year ended June 30, 2021 Report prepared by:

Marvin Davis, Interim Finance Director
Page E-3.2

CITY OF MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA
JUNE 30, 2021 SINGLE AUDIT REPORT
ATTACHMENT A Page E-3.3

CITY OF MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA

SINGLE AUDIT REPORT
JUNE 30, 2021
Page E-3.4

CITY OF MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA

SINGLE AUDIT REPORT
JUNE 30, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ...................................................................... 1 Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and on Internal Control Over Compliance; and Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance ........................................................................................ 3 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 ........................................................................................................ 6 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards .................................................................... 8 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs for the
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021 ........................................................................................................ 9 Summary Schedule of Prior Year Findings and Questioned Costs for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2020 ...................................................................................................... 13 Page E-3.5

Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP 2151 River Plaza Dr., Suite 150 Sacramento ,CA95833 Phone: 916.503.9691 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL

OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS

BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE

WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Menlo Park, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Menlo Park California, (the City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated December 29, 2021.

Internal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified. However, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses and significant deficiencies.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the City’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. We consider the following deficiencies reported on the schedule of findings and questioned costs to be material weaknesses:
2021-001 through 2021-003.

A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We consider the following deficiency, described on the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs, to be a significant deficiency: 2021-004.
.

Page E-3.6
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Menlo Park, California
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests did not disclose any instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

City’s Response to Findings
The City’s response to the findings identified in our audit was not subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.

Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Sacramento, California
December 29, 2021
2 Page E-3.7
Lance, Soll & Lunghard, LLP 2151 River Plaza Dr., Suite 150 Sacramento ,CA95833 Phone: 916.503.9691 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR PROGRAM

AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE OF

EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS REQUIRED BY THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Menlo Park, California
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
We have audited the City of Menlo Park (the City), California’s compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of the City’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2021. The City’s major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor’s results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2021.

Basis for Opinion
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Our responsibilities under those standards and the Uniform Guidance are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules, and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the City’s government programs.

Page E-3.8
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Menlo Park, California
Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance
Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the City’s compliance with the requirements of the government program as a whole.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and Uniform Guidance, we:
x Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. x Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. x Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance.

Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit.

Report on Internal Control over Compliance
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be a material weakness, as defined above. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that have not been identified.
4 Page E-3.9
To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Menlo Park, California
Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. We issued our report thereon dated December 29, 2021, which contained unmodified opinions on those financial statements. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the basic financial statements. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Sacramento, California
September 19, 2022 (Except for the Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by Uniform Guidance, which is dated December 29, 2021)
5 Page E-3.10

CITY OF MENLO PARK

San Mateo County Joint Urban Agreement
Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 14-729-2952 $ 45,600 Subtotal - Assistance Listing 14.218 45,600
Total Department of Housing and Urban Development Programs 45,600 Total CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster 45,600
Other Programs
U.S. Department of Agriculture Passed Through:

California Department of Education
Child and Adult Care Food Program 10.558 88-307-4270 43,950 Total U.S. Department of Agriculture Programs 43,950
U.S. Department of Transportation Passed Through:

California Department of Transportation
Highway Planning and Construction 20.205 94-900-7744 393,477 State of CA - Office of Traffic Safety
State and Community Highway Safety 20.600 80-824-4842 19,224 Minimum Penalties for repeat offenders for driving while intoxicated 20.608 80-824-4842 2,814 National priority safety programs 20.616 80-824-4842 23,350 Total Department of Transportation Programs 438,865
U.S. Department of Treasury Direct Programs:

COVID-19 - Coronavirus Relief Fund * 21.019 N/A 434,929 Total U.S. Department of Treasury 434,929
State of CA - Library
Grants to States 45.310 82-775-8827 82,409
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed Through:

San Mateo County Area Agency on Aging
10-204-0412

93.044 10-204-0412 10,000
Child Care and Development Block Grant 93.575 10-204-0412 27,563 Total U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed Through: 66,929 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Direct Programs:

Hazard Mitigation Grant* 97.039 N/A 214,881
Total U.S. Department of Homeland Security 214,881
Total Other Programs 214,881
Total Expenditures of Federal Awards $ 1,327,563
Grantor/Program or Cluster Title
Federal Grantor/Pass-Through
U.S. Institute Of Museum And Library Services Or National Endowment For The Arts Or National Endowment For The Humanities Passed Through:

Total U.S. Institute Of Museum And Library Services Or National Endowment For The Arts Or National Endowment For The Humanities 82,409 Special Programs for the Aging Title VIII, Chapter 2 - Long Term Care Ombudsman Services for Older Individuals 93.042 29,366
Special Programs for the Aging Title III, Part B - Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers
The notes to the schedule of expenditures of federal awards are an integral part of this schedule. 6 Page E-3.11

CITY OF MENLO PARK

SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Federal
Assistance Pass-Through Entity Total Federal
Listing Number Identifying Number Expenditures
U.S. Department of Treasury
COVID-19 - Coronavirus Relief Fund * 21.019 N/A $ 434,929 Total Coronavirus Relief Fund 434,929
Total Coronavirus Emergency Acts Funding $ 434,929
* Major Program
1 There was no federal awards expended in the form of noncash assistance and insurance in effect during the year.

CORONAVIRUS EMERGENCY ACTS FUNDING RECONCILIATION
Federal Grantor/Pass-Through
Grantor/Program or Cluster Title
The notes to the schedule of expenditures of federal awards are an integral part of this schedule. 7 Page E-3.12

CITY OF MENLO PARK

NOTES TO THE SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021
Note 1: Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Applicable to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
A. Reporting Entity
The financial reporting entity consists of (a) the primary government, City of Menlo Park, California (City), (b) organizations for which the primary government is financially accountable, and (c) other organizations for which the primary government is not accountable, but for which the nature and significance of their relationship with the primary government are such that exclusion would cause the reporting entity’s financial statements to be misleading or incomplete. The City has no other organizations defined in (b) and (c) that would be included in the City’s financial statements.

B. Basis of Accounting
Funds received under the various grant programs have been recorded within the general, special revenue, and capital projects funds of the City. The City utilizes the modified accrual basis of accounting for the general, special revenue, and capital projects funds. Expenditures of federal awards reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Schedule) are recognized when incurred.

C. Relationship of Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards to Financial Statements The accompanying Schedule presents the activity of all federal financial assistance programs of the City. Federal financial assistance received directly from federal agencies as well as federal financial assistance passed through the State of California, the County of San Mateo, and Silicon Valley Community Foundation are included in the Schedule. The Schedule was prepared only from the accounts of various grant programs and, therefore, does not present the financial position or results of operations of the City.

D. Pass-Through Entities’ Identifying Number
When federal awards were received from a pass-through entity, the Schedule shows, if available, the identifying number assigned by the pass-through entity. When no identifying number is shown, the City determined that no identifying number is assigned for the program or the City was unable to obtain an identifying number from the pass-through entity. b. Basis of Accounting
The expenditures included in the accompanying schedule were reported on the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, expenditures are incurred when the City becomes obligated for payment as a result of the receipt of the related goods and services. Expenditures reported included any property or equipment acquisitions incurred under the federal program. The City has elected not to use the 10-percent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. 8 Page E-3.13

CITY OF MENLO PARK

SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021

SECTION I - SUMMARY OF AUDITORS' RESULTS
Financial Statements
Type of auditors' report issued: Unmodified Opinion
Internal control over financial reporting:
x Significant deficiencies identified? X yes none reported x Material weaknesses identified? X yes no
Noncompliance material to financial
statements noted? yes X no
Federal Awards
Internal control over major programs:
x Significant deficiencies identified? yes X none reported x Material weaknesses identified? yes X no
Type of auditors' report issued on compliance for major programs: Unmodified Opinion Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be
reported in accordance with Title 2 U.S. Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance)? yes X no
Identification of major programs:

Assistance Listing Number(s) Name of Federal Program or Cluster

21.019 Coronavirus Relief Fund

97.039 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
Dollar threshold used to distinguish
between type A and type B program $750,000
Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? yes X no
9 Page E-3.14

CITY OF MENLO PARK

SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (CONTINUED)
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS
Accounts Payable Accrual
Reference Number: 2021-001
Evaluation of Finding:

Material Weakness
Condition:

The City did not accrue a check relating to services performed in fiscal year 2020-2021 as of June 30, 2021.

Criteria:

The City should ensure that all payables are accrued in the proper fiscal year.

Cause of Condition:

The cause of this condition resulted from time constraints on the review process of the year end journal entries.

Effect or Potential Effect of Condition:

The misstatement resulted in understated expenditures and accounts payable at year end.

Recommendation:

LSL recommends that the City perform a thorough review over the AP accrual, beyond the City’s AP cutoff period to ensure any late invoices are properly accrued, if necessary.

Management’s Response and Corrective Action:

The City accepts this finding. In fiscal year 2020-21, the City implemented a new financial software – OpenGov parallel with the old Cayenta financial system. The conversion started in March 2021 which conflicts with the year-end and audit preparation. Two of the Accountants (City only have 3 accountant positions) were assigned on the system conversion and installation, which took away their times to focus on the year-end closing and audit preparation. The system conversion to the new financial software should have been done after the audit preparation is completed. Due to the staffing changes and the vacancy of the Finance and Budget Manager position, staff assigned to the audit were not able to review the entire Accounts Payable schedule prior to the scheduled audit field work.

In the future, City staff will make sure that a thorough review of the Accounts Payable accrual, beyond the City’s cutoff period will be properly accrued.

Recognition of Land Held for Resale
Reference Number: 2021-002
Evaluation of Finding:

Material Weakness
10 Page E-3.15

CITY OF MENLO PARK

SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (CONTINUED)
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS (CONTINUED)
Condition:

The City expensed land held for resale in the trial balance provided for the audit. Because of audit inquiries LSL became aware that the city bought land held for resale. This purchase was verified against council minutes.

Criteria:

The City of Menlo Park should not expense purchases of land held for resale.

Cause of Condition:

Improper review of financial transactions for classification and rights to assets.

Effect or Potential Effect of Condition:

The unremedied condition would have overstated expenses and understated assets by $440,284 Recommendation:

The City should review all real estate transactions for proper classification in the financial records.

Management’s Response and Corrective Action:

The City accepts this finding. Error was an oversight on City’s part due to short staff. In the future, fixed assets will be reconciled and reviewed for proper classifications in the general ledger and financial records.

Bank Reconciliation Process
Reference Number: 2021-003
Evaluation of Finding:

Material Weakness
Condition:

We received various correcting Bank reconciliations. The City of Menlo Park should be reviewing and completing bank reconciliations before the start of audit fieldwork.

Criteria:

The timeliness of bank reconciliations is important for the financial management of the City of Menlo Park.

The reconciliation needs to be performed in an accurate and timely manner .

Cause of Condition:

Improper review of the bank reconciliation process and lack of oversight into the review process.

Effect or Potential Effect of Condition:

Without timely and accurate bank reconciliations, the City is hindered in financial management.

Recommendation:

The City of Menlo Park should implement changes to the bank reconciliation process to ensure they are completed accurately and timely.
11 Page E-3.16

CITY OF MENLO PARK

SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (CONTINUED)
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS (CONTINUED)
Management’s Response and Corrective Action:

The City accepts this finding. In fiscal year 2020-21, the Accountant II position was assigned to focus on the system conversion of the new accounting system. The bank reconciliation preparation has left behind and also the review process due to staffing changes. Only one staff and a consultant were provided to focus on the year end and audit preparation. In the future the City will ensure they are completed accurately and timely.

OpenGov has a bank reconciliation function that will be used to process the bank reconciliation monthly.

Correcting Journal Entries
Reference Number: 2021-004
Evaluation of Finding:

Significant Deficiency
Condition:

During the course of the audit, the City of Menlo Provided over a dozen correcting journal entries. These ranged from closing entries that were improperly not included in the financial records provided for the audit to corrections of material errors.

Criteria:

The City of Menlo Park should ensure that the general ledger and other financial records are complete, accurate and reviewed in a timely manner.

Cause of Condition:

Due to staffing changes at the City of Menlo Park, there are areas which are not being properly reviewed for completeness and accuracy.

Effect or Potential Effect of Condition:

The potential effect of the City of Menlo Park not posting journal entries varies by journal entry, but the management of the City should strive to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the financial information.

Recommendation:

The City of Menlo Park should review the year-end close process and update with improved procedures that will help ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information under audit.

Management’s Response and Corrective Action:

The City accepts this finding. As mentioned earlier, the system conversion should have been scheduled after the audit preparation, so staff can focus on the year end closing and audit preparation. Staffing changes during this period affected staff deadlines. Staff focus were diverted to system conversion that several journal entries were not finished or prepared prior to the scheduled audit field work.

City will ensure that the general ledger and other financial records are completed, accurate and reviewed in a timely manner.

SECTION III - FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS No matters were reported.
12 Page E-3.17
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Administrative Services

SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2020

SECTION II - FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS
Finding: 2020-001 – Insurance Payable Accrual
Appropriate corrective actions were taken; this finding is considered resolved and is not repeated in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.

Finding: 2020-002 – Various Adjust Journal Entries
Reason for Recurrence:

The City performed a system conversion prior to the audit, experienced staffing changes, resulting in a number of correcting journals being provided after the trial balance had been provided to the auditors.

Planned Corrective Action:

City will ensure that the general ledger and other financial records are completed, accurate and reviewed in a timely manner.

Current Year Reference Number:
2021-004
Finding: 2020-003 – Duplicate Water Service Charge
Appropriate corrective actions were taken; this finding is considered resolved and is not repeated in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.

SECTION III - FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS No matters were reported.
13 Page E-3.18
Public Works

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-233-CC
Consent Calendar: Reject all bids for the minimum point of entry room heating, ventilation, and air conditioning upgrade
project and direct staff to rebid the project at a
future date
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council reject all bids received for the minimum point of entry (MPOE) Room heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) upgrade project and direct staff to re-bid the project at a future date.

Policy Issues
The City Council must take action to award or reject construction bids for capital improvement projects above the city manager’s signing authority per public contracting requirements.

Background
The MPOE room is located within the police department building at 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park. This room houses the information technology (IT) servers for the police department and City Hall. The servers are critical infrastructure, which are necessary for the operation of City services and storage of electrical files. The servers and its related equipment generate a considerable amount of heat in a relatively small area and the flow of cool air through the servers is essential to the proper cooling of them. Therefore, the HVAC system is an integral part of the IT room, and is important to maintaining the air quality, temperature and humidity of the room. The existing HVAC system in the MPOE room is deficient and does not have sufficient temperature control for the servers. This project will replace the existing HVAC system to provide necessary upgrades to support the existing and future electrical IT loads in the MPOE room to make sure the IT servers are cool enough to work properly and serve the police department and City Hall.

Analysis
On September 15, 2022, staff advertised the project for construction bidding with an engineer’s estimate of $71,350. The project was advertised through PlanetBids. On October 19, 2022, the City received one bid for the project from Trahan Mechanical, in the amount of $315,600.

The project specifications stipulated that the contract award would be based on the base bid and the bidders’ responsiveness to the project documents. Trahan Mechanical, with a listed base bid of $315,600, was identified as the apparent low bidder pending review of the bid documentation by staff. Upon documentation review, the bid was identified as nonresponsive due to bid irregularities. The bidder did not completely fill out the subcontractor’s list form, which is a requirement of the project specifications and subcontractor listing law. The submitted bid was also five times higher than the engineer’s estimate, and AGENDA ITEM E-4 Page E-4.1
Staff Report #: 22-233-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov this is attributable, in part, to the bid schedule not reflecting the project scope in great enough detail. Some of the bid items, such as minor concrete work, had valuations which were vastly disproportional to the scope of work.

Staff recommends that the City Council reject the bid received for the MPOE Room HVAC Upgrade project and direct staff to re-bid the project. To facilitate rebidding the project, staff will perform the following actions:
 Reevaluate the engineer’s cost estimation
 Revise the bid schedule to reflect more project scope detail  Combine this project with a similarly scoped project to replace the HVAC system at the Dispatch room to achieve greater economies of scale.

Subject to the City Council’s approval, staff will re-advertise the project in 2023 and schedule an award of contract in 2023 contingent upon bids received.

Impact on City Resources
There is no impact on City resources.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
None.

Report prepared by:

Arian Khosravian, Project Manager
Report reviewed by:

Theresa Avedian, Senior Civil Engineer
Tanisha Werner, Assistant Public Works Director - Engineering Page E-4.2
Public Works

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-234-CC
Consent Calendar: Adopt a resolution of intention to abandon a public utility easement along the rear of properties at 1701
Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive;
determine this action is categorically exempt under
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15305’s Class 5 exemption for minor
alterations in land use limitations
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution of intention (Attachment A) to abandon two public utility easements along the rear of the properties at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive and determine this action is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15305’s Class 5 exemption for minor alterations in land use limitations.

Policy Issues
In order to abandon public easements, the City is legally required to go through a multistep process as specified by the State of California Streets and Highways Code or can abandon public easements through a tentative map as provided for in the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66499.20.2.) In addition to the process required by the Streets and Highways Code, City practice has been to initiate abandonment proceedings with the City Council consideration of a resolution of intent.

Background
In May 2020, the City issued a building permit for the construction of a new two-story, single-family residential home at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive. During the construction of the new residence, PG&E removed the existing overhead electric utilities located along the rear of the properties at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive, at the request of the property owners. New underground electric utilities were installed on Bay Laurel Drive to provide utility services to both 1701 and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive properties.

Analysis
The existing overhead utilities along the rear of the properties located at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive were removed. New underground utilities were installed on Bay Laurel Drive to provide utility services to both 1701 and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive properties. The applicant has obtained “no objection” letters for the easement abandonment from all relevant public utility agencies for both 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive.

Abandonment procedure
The applicable abandonment procedure is a three-step process that first involves City Council adoption of a AGENDA ITEM E-5 Page E-5.1
Staff Report #: 22-234-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Resolution of intention to abandon public utility easements. The resolution forwards the abandonment request to the Planning Commission for its consideration and recommendation, tentatively scheduled for January 9, 2023. The Planning Commission will review the abandonment to determine if it conforms with the City’s General Plan. The City Council will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation at a subsequent public hearing, tentatively scheduled for February 14, 2023. Staff will advertise notices of the public hearing in the local newspaper and at the site in accordance with the requirements of the Streets and Highways Code. An affidavit of posting will then be filed with the city clerk. Should the utility agencies, affected parties, Planning Commission, and City Council consider the abandonment favorably, a resolution ordering the vacation and abandonment of the easements at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive will be recorded.

Impact on City Resources
There is no direct impact on City resources associated with the actions in this staff report. The fee for staff time to review and process the abandonment has been paid by the applicant.

Environmental Review
The proposed public utility easement abandonment is Categorically Exempt under Class 5, minor alterations in land use, of the current State of CEQA Guidelines.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Resolution of intention
Report prepared by:

Edress Rangeen, Associate Engineer
Report reviewed by:

Ebby Sohrabi, Senior Civil Engineer
Tanisha Werner, Assistant Public Works Director - Engineering Page E-5.2
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK DECLARING THE INTENTION OF SAID CITY TO ABANDON TWO 10 -

FOOT - WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG THE REAR OF
PROPERTIES AT 1701 BAY LAUREL DRIVE AND 1715 BAY LAUREL DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Menlo Park has considered the abandonment of public utility easements within the properties at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive shown in Exhibit A, which is attached and made apart thereto; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to review the proposed abandonment for consistency with the City’s General Plan at its meeting on January 9, 2023; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 8320(a), the City Council will hold a Public Hearing tentatively scheduled for February 14, 2023 as required by law to determine whether said public utility easements shall be abandoned.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Resolution of Intention of the City Council of the City of Menlo Park does hereby propose the abandonment of public utility easements within the properties at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive.

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 sixth day of December, 2022 by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this ____ day of December, 2022.
____________________________
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits:

A. Abandonment of public utility easement along the rear of the properties at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive
Page E-5.3 ATTACHMENT A
10-foot-wide
public utilityeasement tobe vacated
1701 Bay Laurel Drive 1715 Bay Laurel Drive
Abandonment of public utility easement at the rear side of the properties at 1701 Bay Laurel Drive and 1715 Bay Laurel Drive

EXHIBIT A
Page E-5.4
Public Works

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 12/6/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-237-CC
Consent Calendar: Authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with the West Bay Sanitary District regarding the
provision of recycled water service within Menlo
Park Municipal Water Service Area; determine this
action is exempt from California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15268 (Ministerial Projects)
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with West Bay Sanitary District (WBSD) regarding the provision of recycled water service within Menlo Park Municipal Water (MPMW) Service area and determine this action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15268 (Ministerial Projects) in that approval of the agreement is required by the Water Code section 13850.7, and also, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15307 (Action for Protection of Natural Resources), in that the approval of the agreement would authorize the provision of recycled water within the service area in lieu of potable water.

Policy Issues
As a water purveyor, MPMW is required to provide recycled water to potential users within its service area boundary. If recycled water requests from customers within the MPMW service area boundary cannot be met in a reasonable time frame, MPMW can delegate the requests to a recycled water producer. Under this Agreement (Attachment A), MPMW would designate WBSD as the recycled water purveyor for applicable customers in the Bayfront Area as shown on the map in Exhibit A of the agreement. Pursuant to State law, the City must adopt a recycled water ordinance designating areas within the MPMW service area that can, or may in the future, use recycled water and establish rules and regulations governing the use and distribution of recycled water. Staff will be working to develop the ordinance prior to completion of the Bayfront area recycled water facilities in the 2025-2026 timeframe.

Background
WBSD provides wastewater collection services to the City, as well as to the Towns of Portola Valley, Atherton, Woodside, sections of the City of East Palo Alto, and sections of unincorporated areas of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. The wastewater collected from these areas flows to the Menlo Park Pump Station, located on Marsh Road near the entrance of Bedwell Bayfront Park, and is pumped to the wastewater treatment facility in Redwood City. Both the Menlo Park Pump Station and the wastewater treatment facility in Redwood City are operated by Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW.) A substantial portion of the wastewater treated at the SVCW facility is discharged to the San Francisco Bay, while the remainder is treated to recycled water standards and sold to Redwood City customers for non-potable uses.

In February 2019, WBSD completed the Bayfront Recycled Water Facilities Plan. The report performed AGENDA ITEM E-6 Page E-6.1
Staff Report #: 22-237-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov additional market assessment, studied recycled water treatment requirements, evaluated potential project alternatives, and identified a recommended project.

On October 29, 2019, the City Council received and filed WBSD’s Bayfront recycled water facilities plan and delegated authority to the city manager to negotiate an agreement for recycled water purveyorship options.

Option 2 (WBSD Purveyorship) was recommended as described below:
• WBSD would be the recycled water purveyor for the Bayfront area and charge connection fees, meter fees, and usage fees to each individual customer. WBSD would be responsible for billing and collection from customers.
• WBSD would be responsible to maintain the transmission lines, service lines, and meters to customers throughout the MPMW service area.

In April 2020, the city manager signed a letter supporting WBSD’s Flow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility (FERRF) Levee Improvements and the award of a grant from the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Improvement Fund. WBSD received $4.9 million from the grant.

WBSD is proposing a Bayfront project consisting of two primary elements. The first element, the FERRF Levee Improvements project, will improve levees around the property to protect the site against San Mateo County’s 50-year sea level rise projections and remove the interior portions of the site from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain. The flood protection measures consist of installing fill, sheetpiles and the construction of a horizontal levee. The levee Improvement project will require WBSD to work on the city’s land for the installation of fill and sheetpiles. Exhibit B shows the encroachment areas on the city’s land which would require WBSD to enter into an encroachment agreement with the city for a Temporary Construction Easement (TCE.) The second element consists of building a Recycled Water Facility on this site to serve the Bayfront area of Menlo Park.

The Bayfront Recycled Water Project includes various off-site improvements including a pump station located near the SVCW’s existing Menlo Park Pump Station near the intersection of Marsh Road and Bayfront Expressway and an influent pipeline to the recycled water facility. Influent and distribution pipelines will be located within the road right-of-way connecting the influent pump station to the Bayfront Recycled Water Facility (RWF.) Recycled water distribution pipelines would also be constructed within the road rightof-way for Bayfront Expressway, Constitution Drive, Chilco Street and Hamilton Avenue.

The WBSD recycled water system is anticipated to be designed and constructed in phases. Those phases have been established and mapped as shown in Exhibit A of the agreement.

On December 18, 2020, WBSD filed a Notice of Availability of the FERRF Levee Improvements and Bayfront RWF draft environmental impact report (EIR) for public review and comment; the draft EIR only covered the first two elements – the levee improvements and the recycled water facility and related pipelines to serve the Phase 1 area. The comment period ended February 1, 2021. Comments were received, addressed, and the draft EIR was certified May 12, 2021.

Since January 2021, the City, WBSD, and their respective attorneys have been working to develop the agreement for the provision of recycled water service within MPMW’s service area in the Bayfront area. Also, on May 10, 2022, WBSD and their consultant, Woodard Curran, presented an update on the project to the City Council.

Page E-6.2
Staff Report #: 22-237-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Analysis
MPMW purchases all of its potable water supply from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and supplies water to about half of the City’s residences and businesses through approximately 4,300 service connections. As required by State law, in May 2021, the City Council adopted the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which requires urban water suppliers to describe and evaluate their water supply sources and reliability through 2040. Per the UWMP, during normal non-drought years, MPMW would have sufficient water to meet all of its planned future water demands through 2040. However, during multiple drought years, MPMW could experience water supply shortfalls of more than 50 percent.

Recycled water supplies, which can be relied upon in all water year types, provide reliable supplemental water to our community.

Under California Water Code §13580, et seq., the Water Recycling Act of 1991 (Recycling Act) requires that water purveyors, such as MPMW, identify potential uses for recycled water and potential recycled water customers within their service areas. As part of this requirement, and to help offset potential future shortfalls in water supply, MPMW evaluated the feasibility of developing a recycled water program as part of the Water System Master Plan (WSMP), which was adopted in 2018. The WSMP identified potential areas that could be served with recycled water and the feasibility of acquiring recycled water from the cities of Redwood City, Palo Alto and WBSD.

This agreement would designate WBSD as the recycled water purveyor to the area identified in the exhibit to the agreement, as well as other sections of its service area which will be constructed in three phases:
• Phase 1 would serve new developments in the Bayfront area. These Phase 1 areas are within MPMW boundaries. The plant would be sized to meet the maximum daily demand of newly proposed developments in this area (for their demands which can be met with recycled water.) These developments may use WBSD’s recycled water if they are willing to finance their portion of costs associated with the initial recycled water plant and distribution pipeline construction, and pay to operate and maintain the system. Additional users within the Phase 1 area can be added as supply is available, and they would be expected to pay for their share of both the capital and operating costs of providing the recycled water supply. This phase is estimated to be constructed by approximately 2025. • Phase 2 would serve the area within the MPMW that is south of Highway 101 and north of Middlefield Road. It is not anticipated that this phase would be initiated until water users in this area, and the City of Menlo Park, express a strong desire to promote this phase. Furthermore, the extension of service would require an extensive recycled water distribution system expansion. • Phase 3 would serve the area within the MPMW south of Middlefield Road, including the City Hall complex and related municipal facilities. Similar to Phase 2, it is not anticipated that this phase would be initiated until the water users in this area, and the City of Menlo Park, expressed a strong desire to promote this.

The Phase 1 facilities are currently in the design phase and construction is expected to be completed in 2025. Future Phases 2 and 3 are subject to appropriate review under CEQA.

Impact on City Resources
WBSD estimates their proposed recycled water project will provide 220 acre-feet of recycled water per year after 2025 when all sites are connected, which would decrease MPMW’s potable water sales in an equivalent amount. In May 2021, the City Council adopted the five-year water rates which took into account the anticipated decreased SFPUC water purchases and revenues associated with WBSD’s proposed project. Overall, MPMW is expected to experience an increase in potable water sales associated with the Page E-6.3
Staff Report #: 22-237-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov projected growth and increased water demand within its service area, particularly from the Bayfront area.

Environmental Review
On December 18, 2020, WBSD filed a Notice of Availability of the FERRF Levee Improvements and Bayfront RWF draft EIR for public review and comment; the draft EIR covers the first phase of improvements (the levee improvements and Bayfront RWF and related pipelines.) The comment period ended February 1, 2021. Comments were received, addressed, and the EIR was certified May 12, 2021.

The construction of the Bayfront RWF facility was appropriately studied and there have been no changes to the project or its circumstances, or new information available, which would trigger a requirement for a subsequent EIR under CEQA Guidelines section 15162. Accordingly, no further CEQA documentation is warranted.

The City’s action in this agenda item is to approve the service agreement which authorizes the provision of recycled water, and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15268 (Ministerial Projects), in that approval of the agreement is required by the Water Code section 13850.7, and also, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15307 (Action for Protection of Natural Resources), in that the approval of the agreement would authorize the provision of recycled water within the service area in lieu of potable water.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Attachments
A. Agreement between City of Menlo Park and WBSD regarding provision of recycled water service within MPMW service area - Bayfront Area, and other customers within the recycled water purveyor boundary Report prepared by:

Fariborz Heydari, Senior Civil Engineer
Report reviewed by:

Tanisha Werner, Assistant Public Works Director
Page E-6.4

AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CITY OF MENLO PARK AND WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT

REGARDING PROVISION OF RECYCLED WATER SERVICE WITHIN MENLO

PARK MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICE AREA
This Agreement is made by and between the West Bay Sanitary District ("West Bay") and the City of Menlo Park (“City” or "MPMW") (collectively the "Parties") and provides as follows:

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park is a municipal corporation and a general law city organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, and is the operator of Menlo Park Municipal Water, a division of the Menlo Park Public Works Department, and retail supplier of water to approximately 16,000 customers through approximately 4,300 service connections within the Menlo Park service area; and
WHEREAS, West Bay is a Sanitary District organized and existing under the Sanitary District Act of 1923 (the "Sanitary District Act") (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 6400, et seq.), and provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to the Cities of Menlo Park, Atherton and Portola Valley, and portions of East Palo Alto, Woodside and unincorporated San Mateo and Santa Clara counties; and
WHEREAS, the Water Recycling Act of 1991 ("Recycling Act") (Cal. Water Code §13575, et seq.) requires retail water suppliers, like MPMW, to identify potential uses for recycled water within their service areas, potential customers for recycled water service within their service areas, and, within a reasonable time, potential sources of recycled water; and WHEREAS, the Recycling Act requires a retail water supplier that receives a request from a customer enter into an agreement to provide recycled water, if recycled water is available, or can be made available, to the retail water supplier for sale to the customer, and authorizes a retail water supplier to delegate to a recycled water producer or a recycled water wholesaler its responsibility to provide recycled water; and
WHEREAS, the City delegates the authority to West Bay to provide recycled water under Water Code Section 13580.5(a)(2), subject to West Bay’s compliance with Water Code section 13580.7(b) – (d) with respect to rate setting for recycled water, and indemnification of the City for any related damages and claims against the City arising out of West Bay’s recycled water rates and distribution;
WHEREAS, West Bay is authorized, pursuant to Section 6512 of the Sanitary District Act to "acquire, plan, construct, reconstruct, alter, enlarge, lay, renew, replace, maintain, and operate... water recycling and distribution systems…”; and
WHEREAS, West Bay has notified MPMW of its future ability to provide recycled water in accordance with Cal. Government Code Section 65604; and City of Menlo Park – West Bay Sanitary District
Recycled Water Purveyor Designation Agreement
ATTACHMENT A Page 1 of 10 Page E-6.5
WHEREAS, West Bay owns and operates a Flow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility (FERRF) on its retired wastewater treatment plant site at 1700 Marsh Road in Menlo Park, north of Bedwell Bayfront Park; and
WHEREAS, West Bay plans to construct a 0.6 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection satellite recycled water treatment facility capable to upsize to 0.8 MGD, and associated pump stations and piping on the FERRF, that will provide up to 220 Acre-feet per Year (AFY), and potentially more in the future, of recycled water to commercial customers in the Bayfront area of Menlo Park and offset the delivery of potable water by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park encourages and supports the use of recycled water and as part of the Land Use Element of its General Plan in response to frequent statewide drought conditions and concerns about the long term viability of continuing to irrigate exclusively with SFPUC potable water; and
WHEREAS, at the direction of Menlo Park City Council on October 29, 2019, City staff have been meeting with West Bay to discuss options for jointly pursuing the parties' mutual interests in conserving available potable water supplies, protecting the environment and natural resources, and reducing the volume of treated wastewater discharged into the San Francisco Bay; and WHEREAS, West Bay has completed a study, funded by West Bay, prepared by Woodard & Curran (the "Feasibility Study"), demonstrating the feasibility of constructing a recycled water treatment facility (the "Project") in the Bayfront area, to be located at the FERRF behind the Bedwell Bayfront Park to produce recycled water for irrigation of landscaped areas, cooling towers, flushing of toilets, and other permitted uses; and WHEREAS, West Bay prepared and certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the recycled water facility where the EIR considered three phases of the distribution of recycledwater, and as users are added to the distribution system they will be subject to appropriate project level review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, West Bay has preliminarily concluded that recycled water will be suitable for use as a substitute for the potable water currently used to irrigate the landscaping and flush toilets, and other permitted uses and to that end are seeking to enter into User Agreements with potential key customers Establishing Principles of Agreement for Design, Construction and Operation of Recycled Water Treatment Facility (the "User Agreements"), the purpose of which is to determine the demand for substituting recycled water permitted for some of the potable water in the customer facilities and provide a framework for preparation of a long-term agreement for the design, permitting, and construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, California's Urban Water Management Planning Act ("UWMP Act") (Cal. Water Code §10610, et seq.) requires urban water suppliers that have 3,000 or more connections, or that supply at least 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water, to submit a UWMP to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) every five years; and WHEREAS, the UWMP Act was amended in 2009 to require water suppliers to reduce urban water use by twenty percent statewide by 2020; and
City of Menlo Park – West Bay Sanitary District
Recycled Water Purveyor Designation Agreement

Page 2 of 10 ends

City of Menlo Park – West Bay Sanitary District
Recycled Water Purveyor Designation Agreement
WHEREAS, pursuant to the UWMP Act, on May 25, 2021 MPMW adopted Resolution No. 6630 adopting its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the purpose of which is to:
• Identify measures to be implemented or projects to be undertaken to reduce water demands and address water supply shortfalls;
• Identify six stages of action to address up to 10 percent, up to 20 percent, up to 30 percent, up to 40 percent, up to 50 percent, and greater than 50 percent reduction in water supplies during dry water years;
• Identify actions to be implemented in the event of a catastrophic interruption in water supplies;
• Assess the reliability of the sources during normal, single-dry and multiple-dry water years up to five years; and
WHEREAS, in 2018 MPMW evaluated the potential for using recycled water to reduce potable water demands, and identified parcels within its service area as potential recycled water users using approximately 531 acre feet of water annually, and several relatively large potential recycled water users; and
WHEREAS, in 2018 MPMW completed a Water System Master Plan that includes an evaluation of recycled water opportunities as a means of providing a safe and reliable supply of non-potable water for the its customers; and
WHEREAS, by enactment of the Recycling Act, the State of California has found and declared that:

1. The State of California is subject to periodic drought conditions.

2. The development of traditional water resources in California has not kept pace with the state's population, which is growing at the rate of over 700,000 per year.

3. There is a need for a reliable source of water for uses not related to the supply of potable water to protect investments in agriculture, greenbelts, and recreation and to replenish groundwater basins, and protect and enhance fisheries, wildlife habitat, and riparian areas.

4. The environmental benefits of recycled water include a reduced demand for water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta that is otherwise needed to maintain water quality, reduced discharge of waste into the ocean, and the enhancement of groundwater basins, recreation, fisheries, and wetlands.

5. The use of recycled water has proven to be safe from a public health standpoint, and the State Water Resources Control Board is regularly updating regulations for the use of recycled water to expand the safe use of recycled water Statewide.

6. The use of recycled water is a cost-effective, reliable method of helping to meet California's water supply needs.

Page 3 of 10 ends

7. The development of the infrastructure to distribute recycled water will provide jobs and enhance the economy of the state.

8. Retail water suppliers and recycled water producers and wholesalers should promote the substitution of recycled water for potable water and imported water in order to maximize the appropriate cost-effective use of recycled water in California.

9. Recycled water producers, retail water suppliers, and entities responsible for groundwater replenishment should cooperate in joint technical, economic, and environmental studies, as appropriate, to determine the feasibility of providing recycled water service.

10. Retail water suppliers and recycled water producers and wholesalers should be encouraged to enter into contracts to facilitate the service of recycled and potable water by the retail water suppliers in their service areas in the most efficient and costeffective manner.

11. Recycled water producers and wholesalers and entities responsible for groundwater replenishment should be encouraged to enter into contracts to facilitate the use of recycled water for groundwater replenishment if recycled water is available and the authorities having jurisdiction approve its use.

WHEREAS, wholesale prices set by recycled water producers and recycled water wholesalers, and rates that retail water suppliers are authorized to charge for recycled water, should reflect an equitable sharing of the costs and benefits associated with the development and use of recycled water; and
WHEREAS, the Recycling Act authorizes a recycled water producer or recycled water wholesaler that has identified a potential use or customer that is within the service territory or jurisdiction of a retail water supplier to request a retail water supplier to enter into an agreement to provide recycled water to the potential customer; and WHEREAS, West Bay plans to construct a 0.6 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection satellite recycled water treatment facility capable to upsize to 0.8 MGD, and associated pump stations and piping on the FERRF, that will provide up to 220 Acre-feet per Year (AFY), and potentially more in the future, of recycled water to commercial customers in the Bayfront area of Menlo Park and offset the delivery of potable water by the City. The proposed project is consistent with and in furtherance of the Parties’ mutual goals, interests, and long-term water supply planning objectives; and WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it is desirable, in their mutual interest and consistent with their responsibilities and authority under the UWMP Act and Recycling Act for the MPMW to delegate to West Bay its responsibility under the Recycling Act to provide recycled water in accordance with the terms of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, West Bay will develop a Recycled Water Ordinance and establish a Recycled Water Service Area as part of a future resolution; and
City of Menlo Park – West Bay Sanitary District
Recycled Water Purveyor Designation Agreement

Page 4 of 10 ends

City of Menlo Park – West Bay Sanitary District
Recycled Water Purveyor Designation Agreement
WHEREAS, West Bay and the City of Menlo Park have planned improvement projects at the FERRF and Bedwell Bayfront Park entrance area that require easements from each other to construct; and
WHEREAS, West Bay’s Flow Equalization and Resource Recovery Facility (FERRF) abuts City land to the north, south, and east, and the City owns a small sliver of land north of the FERRF and Bayfront Park to the south and east as shown on Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, the planned levee improvements encroach over the sliver and also small areas of Bayfront Park adjacent to the northeast and southwest corners of the FERRF, and these improvements will require granting of easement(s) from the City to the West Bay to construct the Levee Improvement Project, the City will work with West Bay to provide for the granting of such easements; and
WHEREAS, the City has street improvements planned at the corner of Haven and Marsh Road, the Haven Avenue Streetscape Project, that requires encroachment into the Menlo Park Pump Station; and
WHEREAS, these improvements will require granting of easement(s) from West Bay to the City, and West Bay will work with the City to provide for the granting of such easements; and WHEREAS, it is understood that the easements in final form will be brought to City Council and West Bay Board for approval and it is understood that both the City and West Bay are amenable to granting easements needed to construct the Levee Improvements Project and the Haven Avenue Streetscape Project, respectively.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Delegation. Pursuant to California Water Code Section 13580.5(a)(2), Menlo Park hereby delegates to West Bay Sanitary District the responsibility to provide recycled water to the Bayfront Area, and to other applicable customers within the Recycled Water Purveyor Boundary as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A – Phase I. After consultation with City, West Bay may provide recycled water to service areas as shown in Phases 2 and 3. West Bay shall start the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process after the MOU is approved by the City Council. West Bay shall prepare project level CEQA documents for future facilities serving Phases 2 and 3, and shall do public outreach and coordination with Cal Water, as appropriate, for users within their boundary.

2. Customer Offers and Rate-Setting. West Bay Sanitary District shall provide customers with information required by Water Code section 13580.7(f) in any offer to provide water service. In accordance with California Water Code Sections 13580.5(c) and 13580.7, rates for the supply of recycled water service provided to customers under this Agreement shall be set by West Bay Sanitary District. In setting rates, West Bay Sanitary District shall comply with the requirements of any applicable law, which may include but not be limited to Water Code Section 13580.7, Article XIIID of the California Constitution and/or Government Code section 53750 et seq. To the fullest extent permitted by law, West Bay Sanitary District shall defend, indemnify and hold

Page 5 of 10 ends

City of Menlo Park – West Bay Sanitary District
Recycled Water Purveyor Designation Agreement
harmless City, and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, civil penalties and fines, expenses and costs (including, without limitation, claims expenses, attorney's fees and costs and fees of litigation) (collectively, "Liability") of every nature, whether actual, alleged or threatened, arising out of or in connection with West Bay Sanitary District’s rate setting practices or the provision of recycled water service under this Agreement.

3. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

EXECUTED and effective on the date by which it has been duly approved and executed by all Parties hereto.

WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT
Dated: _____________________ BY: ________________________ Sergio Ramirez
General Manager

CITY OF MENLO PARK
Dated: _____________________ BY: ___________________________ Justin I. C. Murphy
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ _______________________
Tony Condotti Nira F. Doherty
General Counsel City Attorney

Page 6 of 10 ends

City of Menlo Park – West Bay Sanitary District
Recycled Water Purveyor Designation Agreement

EXHIBIT A

WEST BAY DESIGNATED RECYCLED WATER PURVEYOR BOUNDARY MAP Phase 1 (Map also shows Phase 2 & 3)
EXHIBIT A Page 7 of 10 Page E-6.11
Legend
±
Figure Exported: 4/14/2022 By: dliu Using: \\wc\shared\Projects\RMC\SF\0606 West Bay Sanitary District\0606-008 - WBSD Bayfront RW Facilities Plan\2. Project Work\GIS\New Project_12-11-19\Bayfront_06-29-20_L.mxd 03 1,750 ,500Feet West Bay Sanitary District (WBSD) Menlo Park Municipal Water District Third Party GIS Disclaimer: This map is for reference and graphical purposes only and should not be relied upon by third parties for any legal decisions.

Any reliance upon the map or data contained herein shall be at the users’ sole risk. 1 inch = 3,500 feet
") Recycled Water Facility
!( Influent Sanitary Sewer Pump Station (IPS)!( Recycled Water Storage Tank (0.50 MG)!( Future Storage Tanks (0.50 MG Total) Distribution PipelineExisting DistributionPipelineFuture Distribution PipelineInfluent Sanitary SewerForce Main (SSFM) Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3
City BoundaryConnectMenloMenlo Park MunicipalWaterCalifornia Water ServiceCompany Exhibit A:

Recycled Water
Purveyor Boundary

Page 8 of 10 ends

City of Menlo Park – West Bay Sanitary District
Recycled Water Purveyor Designation Agreement

EXHIBIT B
Site Plan showing encroachment within the City of Menlo Park Bedwell Bayfront Park for West Bay Sanitary District’s Levee Improvements.

EXHIBIT B

Page 9 of 10 ends

LEVEE WORK WITHIN

CITY OF MENLO PARK PROPERTY

Page 10 of 10 ends

Community Development

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 11/30/2022 12/06/2022 – CONT. FROM 11/30/2022 Staff Report Number: 22-228-CC
Public Hearing: Consider the Planning Commission’s
recommendation to approve the proposed Willow
Village masterplan project located at 1350-1390
Willow Road, 925-1098 Hamilton Avenue and 1005-
1275 Hamilton Court, 1399 and 1401 Willow road,
and 871-883 Hamilton Avenue with modifications
and adopt a resolution to 1) certify the final
environmental impact report (Final EIR), make the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
findings including the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for significant and unavoidable
impacts, and approve the mitigation monitoring and
reporting program (MMRP), 2) adopt a resolution to
amend the General Plan Circulation Element, 3)
adopt resolutions to approve the vesting tentative
maps for the proposed project, 4) read the title, and
waive further reading of an ordinance to amend the
City zoning map, rezone the project site from R-MUB and O-B to R-MU-B-X and O-B-X to include the “X” Conditional Development overlay, and approve
the conditional development permit and 5) read the
title, and waive further reading of an ordinance to
adopt the development agreement, and 6) adopt a
resolution to approve the below market rate (BMR)
housing agreements
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the Planning Commission’s resolution (Attachment A) recommending approval with modifications of the proposed project to the City Council, including the following actions:
• Adopt a resolution to certify the Final EIR that analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and makes the CEQA findings to address impacts, including a statement of overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable environmental effects that would result from the proposed project, and approves the mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the proposed project to mitigate impacts to less than significant with mitigation or reduce significant and unavoidable impacts (Attachment B);
• Adopt a resolution to amend the General Plan Circulation Map to modify the locations of the public rightsof-way, new street connections, paseos and incorporate multi-use pathways within the main project site and new site access (Attachment C);
• Adopt resolutions to approve the vesting tentative map for the main project site and the vesting tentative AGENDA ITEM F-1 Page F-1.1
Staff Report #: 22-228-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov map for the Hamilton Avenue Parcels to create new buildable parcels, dedicate public rights-of-way, identify public access easements, site infrastructure and realign Hamilton Avenue (Attachment D “main project site” and Attachment E “Hamilton Avenue parcels”); • Introduce, read the title, and waive further reading of an ordinance to rezone the project site from R-MUB and O-B to R-MU-B-X and O-B-X to include the “X” Conditional Development combining district overlay, amend the Zoning Map to include the X overlay and modify the locations of the public right-ofways, new street connections and paseos, and approve a conditional development permit (CDP) to develop the proposed project through the master plan provisions outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, utilize the bonus level development allowances (increased height, density and intensity) in exchange for community amenities, establish allowed uses, development regulations (including design standard modification requests), and otherwise govern the development of the proposed project (Attachment F; • Introduce, read the title, and waive further reading of an ordinance to adopt a development agreement (DA) between the City and the project applicant for vested rights in exchange for community amenities, public benefits, and assurances on the timing and phasing of the proposed project (Attachment G); and • Adopt a resolution to approve the BMR housing agreements for the provision of 312 BMR units with a mix of affordable income limits, including 119 age-restricted senior units (Attachment H) The City Council began its review of the proposed project, including the Planning Commission’s recommendation, at its regular meeting on November 15, 2022. At that meeting, the City Council received the staff’s and the applicant’s presentations, heard public comment, and deliberated on the proposed project. The City Council continued the item with direction to the applicant and staff on development agreement terms and modifications to the conditional development permit, draft resolutions, and the draft conditions of approval for the vesting tentative maps. Where a resolution, ordinance, or governing entitlement document has been revised, the tracked changed document is included in the recommended actions listed above. If the City Council adopts the resolutions or introduces the ordinances, the documents would be revised to incorporated the changes.

Policy Issues
The City Council should consider the Planning Commission’s review and recommendation when evaluating the merits of the proposed project, including project consistency with the City’s current general plan, municipal code, and other adopted policies and programs. The City Council will also need to consider the proposed development regulations, which include modifications to the development standards established in the Zoning Ordinance (e.g., design standards, bird friendly waivers, transportation demand management, signage, construction hours and BMR housing) in the CDP, and the proposed deviations from the Below Market Rate Housing Guidelines. As part of the project review, the City Council will need to make findings that the merits of the project and the public benefits and specific community amenities associated with the development agreement balance the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts as described in the environmental impact report by adopting a statement of overriding considerations. The policy issues summarized here are discussed in detail in the City Council November 15, 2022 staff report, available in Attachment I.

Background
Planning Commission recommendation
Previously, on November 3, 2022 the Planning Commission completed its review and recommendation on the proposed project. The Planning Commission voted 6-0-1, with Commissioner Schindler not participating, Page F-1.2
Staff Report #: 22-228-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project with the following modifications:

1. Incorporate a guarantee of operation for the community amenities (e.g., grocery store, pharmacy, bank, air quality monitoring installation, etc.);

2. Evaluate and incorporate a longer duration for the grocery store rent subsidy beyond the currently proposed 24 months, potentially up to as many as 60 months;

3. Clarify the minimum required development potential (e.g., number of dwelling units, size of grocery store, etc.);

4. Modify the timing for the delivery of the community amenities to be more concurrent with the completion of the office square footage;

5. Provide additional financial analysis on the cost and/or value of the senior standalone BMR housing building;

6. Reduce daily trips from the main project site by 1,000 or reduce office parking spaces commensurately;

7. Increase funding of $10 million for programs to increase connectivity of the main project site and the surrounding area, including potential additional funding for the proposed Bayfront Area shuttle; and

8. Require the Bayfront Area shuttle to be electric.

City Council initial review and continuance
At its meeting on November 15, 2022, the City Council began its review of the proposed project, including the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the proposed project with modifications. After receiving presentations from staff and the applicant and taking public comment, the City Council began its deliberation on the proposed project. The City Council and the applicant engaged in a discussion of potential project modifications to be incorporated into the DA, CDP, or other appropriate entitlement document. The list below provides a summary of the general topics that are discussed in detail later in the report and incorporated into the entitlement documents accordingly. • Additional annual subsidy for grocery store through year five; • Bayfront shuttle would be electric, if feasible, coordinated with other owners/users, and at 17 years City and applicant would meet and confer to discuss future operation and funding; • Phasing plan modifications to frontload housing and amenities by moving up the start of residential buildings RS2 and RS6;
• Provide a longer term for the gap payment to offset fiscal impacts to the City if hotel is not built through a one-time payment at end of gap payment term or the end of the DA; • Address on-site and off-site bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the CDP and/or map conditions; • Increase funding for affordable housing with an offer of an additional $1M from the applicant and two payments instead of four payments;
• Include low carbon or electric alternatives to the proposed diesel generators if commercial available at time of purchase;
• Include a City project manager to facilitate project implementation and review; • Allow for City and community use of the event space at the Meeting and Collaboration Space (MCS); • Include a financial penalty of 120 percent of the full cost of the Elevated Park segment over Willow Road if that portion is not constructed;
• Modify job training to include five job fairs in case of a hiring freeze; • Include provisions for Elevated Park to address concerns about balloons and trash in the wetlands; and • Directed staff to work with the City Council subcommittee for the project to schedule a meeting with East Palo Alto to discuss its comments on the project.

This City Council staff report primarily focuses on the analysis of the changes to the proposed project since Page F-1.3
Staff Report #: 22-228-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov the City Council meeting, including modifications to address the City Council’s recommendations and staff initiated edits and cleanups to the entitlement documents. For a detailed analysis of the proposed project, please review the November 15 City Council staff report (Attachment I) or the November 3 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment J.)
Analysis
Project overview
The applicant, Peninsula Innovation Partners, Inc., is proposing to redevelop the main project site with a mixed-use masterplan that includes office and accessory space, retail, hotel, and multifamily residential units through the master plan process that allows a project to aggregate development potential and Zoning Ordinance requirements across the site. A location map is included in Attachment K. A hyperlink to the master plan project plans is included in Attachment L. Table 1 summarizes the proposed development at the project site.

Table 1: Main project site project data
Proposed project (CDP Standards) Zoning Ordinance bonus level standards (maximums)
Residential dwelling units 1,730 units** 1,735 units
Residential square footage 1,696,406 s.f. 1,701,404 s.f.

Residential floor area ratio 224.3% 225%
Commercial retail
square footage 200,000 s.f. 397,848 s.f.

Commercial retail
floor area ratio 12.6% 25%
Office square footage 1,600,000 s.f.* 1,780,436 s.f.

Office floor area ratio 113% 125%
Hotel rooms 193 n/a
*Proposed office square footage includes a maximum of 1.25M s.f. of office use with the balance of 350,000 s.f. for meeting and collaboration space use (if office square footage is maximized at 1.25M sf) within the Campus District; the total s.f. includes a portion of the 25% non-residential FAR permitted in the R-MU portion of the project site. **The total units would include a minimum of 15 percent of the residential units as BMR units to satisfy the City’s inclusionary requirements. Additional BMR units would be incorporated to comply with the commercial linkage requirement.

More details on the proposed project are included in the November 15, 2022 City Council Staff Report (Attachment I.)
Project entitlement modifications
The modifications discussed below are included in track changes in the City Council resolutions and ordinances for City Council consideration. If the resolutions are approved and ordinances introduced, staff will incorporate the track changes and any additional requested modifications into the final entitlement documents, resolutions, and ordinances.

Development agreement
Based on the City Council and the applicant’s discussion and generally agreed upon terms at the November Page F-1.4
Staff Report #: 22-228-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov 15 City Council meeting, the applicant and City staff collaborated to incorporate the detailed language for the revisions to the development agreement (DA.) The redlined DA is included in Attachment G that documents the substantial changes discussed below as well as the minor clean up items.

Elevated Park penalty (Section 5.1.A)
The City Council identified connectivity concerns between the project site and the Belle Haven neighborhood. In response the applicant offered to increase the financial penalty if the Elevated Park is not constructed due to the inability for the applicant to obtain approvals of outside agencies and approval of lessees at the Hamilton Avenue Parcel North. The revised DA includes a 120 percent financial penalty on the full cost of the Elevated Park segment over Willow Road.

Grocery store rent subsidy (Section 5.1.C)
The City Council raised concerns about the viability of the grocery store beyond the two years of subsidized rent. The City Council and the applicant generally agreed to revise the grocery store rent subsidy to incorporate an additional $1M that could be applied over years three to five if the grocery store is not meeting a specific sales target. Subsequently, staff and the applicant have worked together to determine specific metrics to be used in evaluating the grocery store and potential subsidy. The sales target proposed by the applicant and confirmed by BAE, the City’s consultant, is $14 per square foot in weekly sales on an annual basis, excluding pharmacy sales (referred to in the DA as the “Grocery Store Performance Standard”.) The additional subsidy would be provided based on the amount of the delta between the store sales and Grocery Store Performance Standard for years three to five. The applicant would provide a subsidy if the Grocery Store Performance Standard is not met, with a not to exceed amount of $1M over the three additional years. The applicant would report if any additional subsidy was provided through the annual review of the DA but is not required to disclose the amount of the subsidy. This subsidy would be in addition to the two years of rent subsidy in the amount of $1,972,630 to the grocery store tenant.

Affordable housing contribution (Section 5.1.D)
In response to City Council and applicant discussion, the amount of the affordable housing contribution has been increased from $5M to $6M and the payments would be accelerated. Instead of an initial $2M upon issuance of the first building permit for vertical construction and payments of $1M annually thereafter, the DA has been revised to include an initial $3M payment upon issuance of the first building permit for vertical construction and a second $3M payment one year after. Exhibit F of the DA and the DA have been revised accordingly.

Bayfront shuttle (Section 5.1.I)
The DA includes a shuttle that would circulate between the project site and the Bayfront Area of Menlo Park to improve accessibility for residents in the vicinity and to enhance success of the grocery store and other retail uses. The DA previously identified that the shuttle would be electric, if feasible. The City Council requested and the applicant has agreed to make the shuttle electric, provided an electric shuttle can meet the required performance standards. The DA has been revised to identify that the shuttle would be electric, provided that the technology at the time of implementation is able to run for 12 hours without recharging and is commercially reasonably available. If this technology is not feasible, then the City and applicant would meet and confer to determine the lowest emission technology that is commercially reasonable and acceptable to the applicant and the City, which the applicant will then employ.

Additionally, the vicinity of the project site is currently served by multiple private and public shuttles and future development projects in the area may incorporate shuttles as part of their adopted transportation demand management (TDM) plans. The applicant, at the request of the City Council, has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to coordinate with other developers and owners in the area on the provision of shuttle services, subject to cost constraints and maintaining anticipated headways, which could allow for Page F-1.5
Staff Report #: 22-228-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov the project shuttle to serve other sites and be integrated into a broader network of shuttles to allow for increased accessibility within the Bayfront Area.

The DA also has been revised to require the City and applicant to meet and confer to determine if there is continued demand for the shuttle after 17 years; If there is demand, the applicant and City would work together to determine an approach for continuing the service.

Job fair for residents (Section 5.3.A)
Similar to previous DAs, the proposed DA includes a requirement for Meta to hold an annual job fair for residents of Belle Haven and East Palo Alto. The DA initially identified that this job fair would be conducted annually for five years except in times of hiring freezes by Meta. Upon request from the City Council, the applicant has clarified that if a hiring freeze occurs the job fairs shall be extended annually until five job fairs have occurred.

Additional gap payment in lieu of hotel (Section 5.3.G) The fiscal impact analysis for the proposed project identified that, if the hotel is not constructed, the proposed project would result in a negative fiscal impact to the City and, as part of the DA, City staff and the applicant negotiated a gap payment to cover the difference between the projected revenue and costs to the City generated by the proposed project. That gap payment would end in 17 years or upon the construction of the hotel. The City Council and the applicant discussed extending this payment at the November 15 City Council meeting. In response, the DA has been revised to include a lump sum payment or “Supplemental Gap Payment” if the Gap Payment Termination Date is reached without a hotel receiving a certificate of occupancy. The payment would be calculated using the annual gap payment in effect at the time with a three percent annual escalation rate over 10 years and a net present value discount rate of seven and onehalf percent. The City’s consultant, BAE Urban Economics, has reviewed this methodology and determined the discount rate is consistent with other City fiscal impact analyses and that the 3 percent escalation rate is reasonable and generally consistent with the long term Bay Area Consumer Price Index increase of 4.1 percent. The proposed one time Supplemental Gap Payment would ensure that the project would be net neutral fiscally to the City over an additional 10 year period, without requiring the applicant to make payments beyond the term of the DA.

Community use of Meeting and Collaboration Space (MCS) (Section 5.3.I) At the request of the City Council, the revised DA includes an allowance for the City, a non-profit, or similar community organization to use the MCS for up to six events per year. The use of the space would be subject to the applicant’s scheduling needs, applicant’s security protocols and requirements, and deed restrictions resulting from EIR mitigation measures. The applicant would report on the community use of the space annually as part of the DA annual reviews. To accommodate these community events, the applicant has requested that the trip cap for the Campus District be modified to allow for six additional exceedances for these events. A redlined CDP (Attachment F) clarifies the difference between local events (e.g. farmers’ markets) and community events, and a redlined Trip Cap Monitoring and Enforcement Policy is included in Attachment M.

Environmentally cleaner generators (Section 5.3.J)
The proposed project includes 12 diesel generators. The Planning Commission and City Council raised concerns about the timing of project construction and the need for diesel generators with regard to air quality. To address the concerns, the Council asked for the applicant to use non-diesel generators if feasible and the applicant agreed. The DA has been revised to require that if at the time future generators are purchased there is commercially available technology that is environmentally cleaner and can achieve the electrical load requirements of the project, and if the purchase price and operation costs are not more than five percent of the bid price for each generator, then the proposed project will implement the non-diesel Page F-1.6
Staff Report #: 22-228-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov technology. The applicant would be required to provide verification of these cost increases to the City for review and confirmation.

City project manager for implementation of proposed project (Section 9.3.C) The DA previously included an allowance for the applicant to request that the City hire additional staff and consultants to carry out the project expeditiously; however, the DA did not include an allowance for the City to decide to hire a project manager to facilitate project implementation. At the request of the City Council and the agreement of the applicant, the DA now includes a provision to allow the City to request the applicant to fund a third party consultant or member of staff to focus primarily on managing the proposed project implementation, including subsequent approvals. The retention of a project manager would allow the City to provide resources to facilitate implementation of the project and be reimbursed directly for those resources by the applicant team.

Timing of residential buildings (Exhibit D)
The City Council raised concerns that the project would not balance the delivery of the office buildings and residential buildings. In response, the applicant agreed to modify the timing for the start of residential building 2 (or RS2) (which includes the grocery store) and residential building 6 (or RS6.) The applicant would be required to start construction of residential RS2 concurrent with or prior to construction of the first office building and commence construction of RS6 within 90 days of the start of the first office building. The phasing plan in Exhibit D to the DA, at the request of the City Council, has also been revised to clarify that in no case shall any changes in the project phasing result in an increase in office uses above the maximum permitted in the CDP.

CDP revisions and clarifications
City staff included a number of additional clarifications and edits to the CDP in response to City Council direction and staff initiated clean up items as well as for consistency with the updated DA. The redlined CDP is included in Attachment F.

In response to City Council comments on the viability of the retail and restaurant uses on site, the applicant suggested modifying the CDP to prohibit ATMs, dry cleaners, massage facilities, and permanent third-party branded eating and retail establishments from the Campus District, unless those uses are open to the public (e.g. located in the Main Street retail spaces.) Staff believes these modifications would help ensure the retail and dining uses within the project are successful. These redlined changes are located in Section 3.1.4.1 of the CDP.

In response to concerns raised by the City Council and the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge, the City and applicant have revised the CDP to include a requirement that all garbage and recycling bins be designed to reduce windborne refuse (full or partial covers) and be emptied regularly (added section

13.8.3.) To address concerns regarding balloon trash from the Elevated Park, Section 19 (Operating Rules for Publicly Accessible Open Space) has been revised to include a provision that the operating rules prohibit balloons in the Elevated Park.

Under the permitted uses for each district, community events have been redefined as local events to avoid confusion with the six community events permitted in the Meeting and Collaboration Space. A new community events use (Section 3.1.4.10) has been added in the Campus District, referenced back to the DA for the definition and parameters for community events.

Section 15.1 has been revised to clarify that if the No Hamilton Avenue Realignment variant is incorporated into the proposed project, then the applicant would recalculate the maximum permitted floor area ratio, gross floor area, and density in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and the masterplan plan set based Page F-1.7
Staff Report #: 22-228-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov on the revised area of dedicated public right-of-way, provided the maximum development potential identified in the masterplan plan set shall not be exceeded.

Additional clean up items in the CDP are focused generally on typos, numbering, grammar, and minor edits for consistency with the project plans and other entitlement documents.

Vesting tentative maps (VTMs)
In response to City Council discussion and comments on the on-site and off-site circulation improvements, City staff updated the vesting tentative map for the main project site conditions to clarify the timing and expectations for the Willow Road Improvements and bicycle and pedestrian circulation on/off-site. A redlined version of the vesting tentative map conditions for the main project site is included in Attachment D.

For the Willow Road improvements, Condition 6.C for the main project site VTM has been revised to require the applicant to coordinate with staff on the improvements prior to the submittal of the first Final/Parcel Map and the applicant and the City shall coordinate on the design to ensure safe bicycle and pedestrian connections across Willow Road (including turning movements for bicyclists.) The previous conditions included a check in review by the City Council of the Willow Road improvements in advance of the submittal to Caltrans and that requirement has been revised to clarify that the update would be an opportunity for the City Council to provide input on the design for Caltrans’ consideration. Caltrans has final design and permitting authority over Willow Road.

Staff added condition of approval 19 to the main project site VTM that requires bicycle infrastructure on the project site to comply with the masterplan plan set. The condition would further ensure that connections from off-site improvements and transitions within the project site are designed per best practice complete streets design guidance that emphasizes designing for all ages and abilities and City standards and City standards, subject to review and approved by the Public Works Director or their designee.

Condition of approval 20 has been added to the main project site VTM to clarify that if the Hamilton Avenue Realignment is not approved by Caltrans or the applicant is unable to obtain sufficient real property rights that the No Hamilton Avenue Realignment would take effect, as outlined in the CDP. This change is limited to clarifying that the vesting tentative map would comply with the CDP.

General plan amendment
Staff has revised the general plan circulation element amendment resolution to authorize the proposed project circulation and the circulation for the No Hamilton Avenue Realignment variant in the event that the applicant does not receive approval from outside agencies and real property rights to implement the realignment of Hamilton Avenue. The redlined resolution is included in Attachment C and includes updated exhibits for both the proposed project and the No Hamilton Avenue Realignment variant. These changes are limited to clarifying the amendment for consistency with the CDP.

Correspondence
Since the November 15, 2022 City Council public hearing, staff has received four additional items of correspondence included in Attachment N.

Conclusion
The City Council should consider the revised DA, CDP, general plan amendment resolution, and vesting tentative map conditions that Staff and the applicant have collaborated on in response to the City Council’s direction at its November 15, 2022 public hearing. The resolutions, ordinances, and entitlement documents for the project are contained in Attachments B through G. The City Council should also consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation (Attachment A) including its recommended modifications and Page F-1.8
Staff Report #: 22-228-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov determine whether to certify the EIR and approve the requested land use entitlements and adopt the resolutions and introduce ordinances to enable the proposed project. The City Council will need to consider the environmental analysis, the merits of the proposed project, the comprehensive redevelopment through the CDP, the provision of BMR units, and the community amenities and public benefits in the DA.

Impact on City Resources
The applicant is required to pay planning, building and public works permit fees, based on the City’s Master Fee Schedule, to fully cover the cost of staff time spent on the review of the proposed project. The applicant is also required to fully cover the cost of work by consultants performing environmental review and additional analyses to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed project.

Environmental Review
As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is an informational document that is intended to provide the City, responsible and trustee agencies, other public agencies, and community members with detailed information about the potential environmental effects that could result from implementing the proposed project, examine and implement mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant physical environmental impacts if the proposed project is approved, and consider feasible alternatives to the proposed project, including a required No Project Alternative. The Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR by reference, is included through the hyperlink in Attachment O.

The City released the Draft EIR for public review and comment on April 8, 2022. The comment period closed May 23, 2022. As part of its consideration of the merits of the project, the City Council will need to review and consider the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) along with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP.) The draft resolution certifying the EIR, making the CEQA findings inclusive of the SOC and the MMRP is included in Attachment B. The draft SOC outlines numerous public benefits of the project, inclusive of the benefits derived from the community amenities and development agreement, economic benefits, and social benefits. Per City Council direction, the SOC has been updated to remove under “Social Benefits” the statement that the proposed project would include a meeting and collaboration space so “visitors can understand the company’s background and products.” The other benefits of the meeting and collaboration space have been retained in the draft SOC. The SOC has also been revised to change the reference to grocery store space as a benefit to a grocery store. A redlined version of the resolution is included in Attachment B. The MMRP includes the feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR. 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.

Public Notice
Public notification of this special City Council meeting was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Public notification also consisted of publishing a notice in the local newspaper and notification by mail of owners and occupants within a ¼ miles radius of the subject property.

Attachments
A. Planning Commission Resolution recommending the City Council adopt a resolution to 1) certify the final environmental impact report (Final EIR), make the CEQA Findings, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts, and approve the mitigation Page F-1.9
Staff Report #: 22-228-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov monitoring and reporting program (MMRP), 2) adopt a resolution to amend the General Plan Circulation Element, 3) adopt resolutions to approve the vesting tentative maps for the proposed project, read the title, and waive further reading of ordinances to 4) amend the City zoning map, rezone the project site from R-MU-B and O-B to R-MU-B-X and O-B-X to include the “X” Conditional Development overlay, and approve the CDP and 4) adopt the development agreement, and 5) adopt a resolution to approve the BMR housing agreements for the proposed Willow Village masterplan project B. Resolution certifying EIR and adopting CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Resolution amending General Plan Circulation Map
D. Resolution approving vesting tentative map for the Main project site (includes conditions) E. Resolution approving vesting tentative map for the Hamilton Avenue parcels (includes conditions) F. Ordinance rezoning main project site, amending the zoning map and approving a CDP G. Draft Ordinance adopting the development agreement
H. Resolution approving the BMR housing agreements
I. Hyperlink – November 15 City Council agenda and staff report:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-and-minutes/city-council/2022- meetings/agendas/20221115-city-council-agenda-packet.pdf#page=219 J. Hyperlink – November 3 Planning Commission agenda and staff report:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-and-minutes/planning-commission/2022- meetings/agendas/20221103-continuance-of-20221024-public-hearing.pdf#page=5 K. Location map
L. Hyperlink – master plan project plans: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/communitydevelopment/documents/projects/under-review/willow-village/october-2022/masterplan-plan-set.pdf M. Redline Trip Cap Monitoring and Enforcement Policy
N. Correspondence since November 15 City Council meeting O. Hyperlink Final EIR: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/communitydevelopment/documents/projects/under-review/willow-village/final-eir/willow-village-master-plan-finaleir.pdf Report prepared by:

Kyle Perata, Planning Manager
Report reviewed by:

Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director
Anna Shimko, Assistant City Attorney
Page F-1.10
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2022-31

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MENLO PARK RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT

AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,

ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,

AND APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING MAP

AMENDMENT, REZONE OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO ADD A
CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT (“X”) COMBINING DISTRICT, AND

APPROVE WITH RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS A CONDITIONAL

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING

AGREEMENTS, VESTING TENTATIVE MAPS, AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR UP TO 1.6 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND ACCESSORY USES, UP TO 1,730 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS, UP TO 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USES, AN UP TO 193 ROOM HOTEL,

AND ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park (“City”) received an application requesting an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element (“General Plan”), zoning map amendment, rezoning certain properties to add a Conditional Development (“X”) Combining District, a conditional development permit (“CDP”), below market rate (“BMR”) housing agreements, vesting tentative maps, and Development Agreement from Peninsula Innovation Partners, LLC (“Applicant”), to redevelop an approximately 59-acre industrial site (the “Main Project Site”) plus three parcels (within two sites) west of Willow Road (the “Hamilton Parcels” and collectively, with the Main Project Site, the “Project Site”) with a bonus level development project consisting of up to 1.6 million square feet of office and accessory uses (a maximum of 1,250,000 square feet for office uses and the balance accessory uses), up to 1,730 multifamily dwelling units, up to 200,000 square feet of retail uses, an up to 193-room hotel, and associated open space and infrastructure (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the Project requires discretionary actions by the City, and therefore the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) require analysis and a determination regarding the Project’s environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, on November 29, 2016, in connection with an update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City’s General Plan and related zoning changes, commonly referred to as the ConnectMenlo project, the City certified the ConnectMenlo Final EIR (ConnectMenlo EIR); and WHEREAS, in connection with the certification of the ConnectMenlo EIR, the City entered into a settlement agreement with the City of East Palo Alto (“Settlement Agreement”), which requires project-specific environmental impact reports (EIR) for certain future projects. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement: (i) a project-specific EIR may tier from the ConnectMenlo EIR, and the project-level EIR shall include a project-specific transportation impact analysis; and (ii) the City shall prepare a housing needs assessment (HNA) to inform the population and housing topic area of the project-level EIR; and
ATTACHMENT A Page F-1.11
2 WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for the Project, as defined in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore is responsible for the preparation, consideration, certification, and approval of environmental documents for the Project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and CEQA, the City prepared, or caused to be prepared, a project-level EIR (SCH: 2019090428), including a transportation impact analysis, and an HNA for the Project that informed the population and housing section of the Project EIR, and meets the requirements of the Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City released a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) of an Environmental Impact Report for the Project (“Project EIR” or “EIR”) to the Office of Planning and Research (“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 Project; and WHEREAS, the City held a public scoping meeting on the Project EIR on October 7, 2019; and
WHEREAS, comments on the NOP were received by the City and considered during preparation of the Draft Project EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) was issued and the Draft Project EIR made available for public review on April 8, 2022, for a 45-day public review period through May 23, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Project EIR was filed with the California Office of Planning and Research and copies of the Draft Project EIR were made available on the City’s website and at the City Main Library and the Belle Haven Branch Library; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission of the City of Menlo Park (Planning Commission) on April 25, 2022, to receive public comments on the Draft Project EIR; and
WHEREAS, the analysis in the Draft Project EIR tiered from the ConnectMenlo EIR pursuant to Public Resource Code Sections 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152, 15162, 15168, and 15183, as appropriate, and as further described in each environmental topic section in the Draft Project EIR; and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2022, the City published a Response to Comments Document that contains all the comments received on the Draft Project EIR during the public comment period, including a transcript of the public hearing, and written responses to those comments, as well as text changes to the EIR, prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft Project EIR and Response to Comments Document constitute the Final Project EIR; and WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held according to law; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 24, 2022, at which all persons interested had the opportunity to appear and comment; and
Page F-1.12
3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the comments received and the responses thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Final Project EIR identified certain potentially significant adverse effects on the environment caused by the Project; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the General Plan Circulation Map, as shown in Attachment A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is necessary to modify the circulation plan with regard to the locations for new street connections to the surrounding roadway network as well as the locations of public rights-of-way and a proposed multi-use pathway within the Main Project Site; and
WHEREAS, the requested amendment would further the goals of the General Plan; and WHEREAS, an amendment of the City zoning map is necessary to modify the circulation plan with regard to the locations for new street connections to the surrounding roadway network as well as the locations of public rights-of-way within the Main Project Site as shown in Exhibit A to Attachment B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; WHEREAS, rezoning of the Main Project Site as shown in Exhibit A to Attachment B requires adding a conditional development (“X”) combining district, thereby allowing special regulations and conditions to be added at the Main Project Site (combined with the base O-B and R-MU-B regulations) as part of the proposed Project;
WHEREAS, the Applicant has specifically requested that the parcels identified in Exhibit B to Attachment B are rezoned to O-B-X to add an X combining district and the parcels identified in Exhibit C to Attachment B are rezoned to R-MU-B-X to add an X combining district.

WHEREAS, the Project is eligible for a CDP under Menlo Park Municipal Code section

16.82.055(1) in that the Main Project Site is more than one acre and is not located in the SP-ECR/D district;
WHEREAS, approving the CDP, a draft of which is attached hereto as Attachment C, is necessary to authorize development of the Project on the Main Project Site, including variants of the Project, including to authorize certain modifications to the requirements of the O and R-MU zoning districts for the Project in accordance with Municipal Code Section 16.82.050, authorize a master planned project in accordance with Municipal Code Sections 16.43.055 and 16.45.55, authorize bonus level development and require the provision of community amenities in accordance with Municipal Code Sections 16.43.060 through .070 and 16.45.60 through 70, approve uses identified in the Conditional Development Permit in accordance with Menlo Park Municipal Code sections 16.43.020 through .040, 16.45.020 through .040, and 16.78.030, approve waivers to Bird Friendly Design requirements pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 16.43.140(6) and 16.45.130(6), approve modifications to the City’s transportation demand management plans and trip reductions in accordance with Municipal Code Sections 16.43.100 and 16.45.90, establish a procedure for approval of a future master sign program that would establish signage standards and guidelines and also set maximum sign areas by parcel or building, establish protocols for events, outdoor seating, and sale of beer, wine, and alcohol, approve emergency diesel generators, establish construction hours and construction noise exceptions, and approve an exception to the unbundled parking requirement pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.45.080(1);
Page F-1.13
4 WHEREAS, the proposed amendment of the City zoning map and rezoning of the Main Project Site, as shown in Exhibit A to Attachment B, and approval of the CDP, would promote a mixed-use live/work/play environment through the inclusion of multifamily housing, including affordable residential units, along with office, retail, hotel and recreational uses at the density and intensity envisioned in the General Plan;
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment of the City zoning map and rezoning of the Main Project Site, as shown in Exhibit A to Attachment B and the CDP are consistent with the General Plan, including the land use designations for the Main Project Site; WHEREAS, General Plan Policy LU-4.7 requires proposed mixed-use and nonresidential development of a certain minimum scale to be evaluated for its fiscal impacts on the City and the community; and
WHEREAS, the City had its consultant, BAE Urban Economics, prepared a fiscal impact analysis pursuant to General Plan Policy LU-4.7 that the Community Development Director reviewed and determined was prepared pursuant to professional standards and based on correct data and assumptions and which showed that the Project would have a positive fiscal impact on the City and community; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Policy LU-4.4 and Program LU-4.C and Sections 16.43.060 and

16.45.060 of the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code requires that bonus level projects that are developed at a greater level of intensity with an increase in density, floor area ratio (FAR), and/or height shall provide one or more community amenities to address the needs that result from the effect of the increased development. The value of the community amenities to be provided shall be equal to 50 percent of the fair market value of the additional gross floor area of the bonus level development; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Sections 16.43.070 and 16.45.070 of the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code, the City commissioned Fabbro Moore & Associates, Inc. to perform an independent review of an appraisal produced by Valbridge Property Advisors and determine the value of the Project’s community amenities contribution. In a report titled “Community Amenities Appraisal Report Review,” Fabbro Moore & Associates determined the Project’s community amenities obligation would amount to $133,300,000. The Community Development Director determined that the appraisal was created pursuant to the City’s guidelines and approved the appraisal; and
WHEREAS, in May and August 2022, the City Council held study sessions, received public comments, and provided feedback on the Applicant’s community amenities proposal, and helped to shape the community amenities offered by the Applicant; and WHEREAS, in August 2022, the Applicant submitted a community amenities proposal with the following features: grocery store space, two-year grocer 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 maintenance, funding for job training programs, Bayfront area shuttle, funding for Willow Road feasibility study, funding for additional affordable housing, and funding for the installation of air quality and noise monitors in Belle Haven. Some of these amenities are on a list of City Council-adopted community amenities and some are unique to the Project, as documented in the Development Agreement. These community amenities are valued at $187,674,410 Page F-1.14
5 according to the City’s consultant, BAE Urban Economics, which would exceed the required amenities value of $133,300,000; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of Sections 16.45.060, 16.96.020, and 16.96.030 of the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code and the City’s Below Market Rate (“BMR”) Housing Program, the applicant submitted a BMR proposal that would provide 312 BMR units (15 percent of the allowed 1,730 units totaling 260 inclusionary units plus 52 units that satisfy the City’s commercial linkage/unit equivalency requirement for 1.6 million square feet of office space), where 82 units would be affordable to extremely low income households (age-restricted for seniors); 37 units would be affordable to very low income households (age-restricted for seniors), 76 units would be affordable to low income households (not age-restricted), and 117 units would be available to moderate income households (not age-restricted); and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public meeting on August 3, 2022, the Housing Commission considered the applicant’s BMR proposal, including a requested adjustment to BMR Housing Program Guidelines Section 5.1 regarding the size and dispersion of BMR units, and draft BMR Housing Agreement Term Sheet, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission of the proposed BMR Term Sheet; and
WHEREAS, there is a deficit of affordable housing for seniors in the City, and concentrating senior housing in one designated building provides the most feasible option for affordability. In addition, the typical lifestyle needs of senior residents supports a higher percentage of senior affordable studio apartments as compared to the percentage of studio apartments in the Project as a whole. Constructing affordable senior housing serves the purpose of the BMR Housing Program, which is to increase the housing supply for households that have extremely low, very low, low- and moderate-incomes compared to the median income for San Mateo County; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered those certain Below Market Rate Housing Agreements (“BMR Agreements”) between the City and Peninsula Innovation Partners and finds that those satisfy the requirements in Chapter 16.96 of the City’s Municipal Code and in the BMR Housing Program Guidelines, except as modified by the CDP, and would result in affordable housing that meets the City’s affordable housing goals and result in a BMR program for the Project with characteristics that are a reasonably equivalent alternative to a program that strictly complied with the BMR Housing Program Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, an “A” Vesting Tentative Parcel Map creating legal non-buildable parcels for financing and conveyancing purposes and the construction of project-serving infrastructure improvements is proposed for the Main Project Site; and WHEREAS, a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for a subdivision is proposed for the Hamilton Avenue realignment proposed as part of the Project (“Hamilton VTM”); and WHEREAS, the Project would be developed subject to a Development Agreement that provides the City certain benefits including certain community amenities and provides the Applicant certainty for developing the Project. Pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq. and City Resolution No. 4159, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held according to law; and
Page F-1.15
6 WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Planning Commission on October 24, 2022 and continued to November 3, 2022, at which all persons interested had the opportunity to appear and comment; and WHEREAS, after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission considered all public and written comments, pertinent information, documents and plans an all other evidence in the public record on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission fully reviewed, considered, evaluated, and recommended certification of the Final EIR, along with all public and written comments, pertinent information, documents and plans prior to recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to the General Plan, zoning map amendment, the rezoning of certain properties to add a Conditional Development (“X”) Combining District, a CDP, BMR housing agreements, vesting tentative maps, and Development Agreement, with the following recommended modifications:

1. Incorporate a guarantee of operation for the community amenities (e.g. grocery store, pharmacy, bank, air quality monitoring installation, etc.);

2. Evaluate and incorporate a longer duration for the grocery store rent subsidy beyond the currently proposed 24 months, potentially up to 60 months;

3. Clarify the minimum required development potential (e.g. number of dwelling units, size of grocery store, etc.);

4. Modify the timing for the delivery of the community amenities to be more concurrent with the completion of the office square footage;

5. Provide additional financial analysis of the cost and/or value of the senior standalone below market rate housing building;

6. Reduce daily trips from the main project site by 1,000 or reduce office parking spaces commensurately;

7. Increase funding of $10 million for programs to increase transportation connectivity of the main project site and the surrounding area, including potential additional funding for the proposed Bayfront Area shuttle; and

8. Require the Bayfront Area shuttle to be fully electric.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and they are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that the above recitals together with the staff report and the application materials, including without limitation, the EIR, and all other documents, reports, studies, memoranda, maps, oral and written testimony, and materials in the City’s file for the applications and the Project, and all adopted and applicable City planning documents related to the Project and the Project Site and all associated approved or certified environmental documents, have together served as an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the recommendations set forth in this resolution.

Page F-1.16
7 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission makes the following findings and recommendations:

1. CEQA. The Planning Commission, having fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, finds:
a. The Final Project EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to the comments. b. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21082.1(c)(3), the Final Project EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the Project and is supported by substantial evidence.
c. Where more than one reason for approving the Project and rejecting alternatives is given in its findings or in the record, and where more than one reason is given for adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Planning Commission would have made its recommendation on the basis of any one of those reasons.
d. Based on the findings in Attachment D, for the reasons stated therein and incorporated fully here, despite the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives, there exist certain overriding economic, social, and other considerations for approving the Project that justify the occurrence of those impacts.

Having fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council vote to certify the Final Project EIR, make the findings required by CEQA, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) in a form substantially consistent with Attachment D to this resolution, and approve the Project.

2. General Plan Amendment. An amendment to the General Plan Circulation Map is necessary to modify the circulation plan with regard to the locations for new street connections to the surrounding roadway network, as well as the locations of public rights-of-way and a proposed multi-use pathway within the Main Project Site; and.

The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with the ConnectMenlo General Plan goals, policies, and programs, including Policy LU-1.2 which states, “Integrate regional land use planning efforts with development of an expanded transportation network focusing on mass transit rather than freeways, and encourage development that supports multimodal transportation. The proposed amendment is also consistent with the policies under Goal CIRC-2, which states, “Increase accessibility for and use of streets by pedestrian, bicyclists, and transit riders,” and Goal CIRC-4, which states, “Improve Menlo Park’s overall health, wellness, and quality of life through transportation enhancements.” The new roadway connections to the surrounding roadway network and the proposed paseos and multi-use pathways will provide new routes for bicyclists and pedestrians through the Main Project Site, encouraging the use of multimodal transportation. The paseos and multi-use pathways will increase accessibility and use of Page F-1.17
8 the streets by pedestrians and bicycles, and the proposed roundabout connection will provide an additional to the Main Project Site for bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles.

The Planning Commission thus recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the amendment to the General Plan Circulation Map.

3. Zoning Map Amendment and Rezoning. The zoning map amendment and proposed X Combining District is consistent with the General Plan, which allows the uses permitted in the combining district at the density and intensity proposed and encourages the type of live/work/play environment promoted by the X combining district in the Bayfront area. The Planning Commission thus recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the Zoning Map Amendment and X Combining District.

4. CDP. In accordance with Municipal Code Sections 16.82.030, 16.78.020, and

16.82.440, the CDP, including all uses permitted therein, would be consistent with the General Plan and would not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the Project, would not be unreasonably incompatible with uses permitted in surrounding areas, and would not be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. In addition, public convenience or necessity would be served by the issuance of licenses to sell alcohol contemplated by the CDP, and the outdoor seating contemplated by the CDP would maintain unimpeded pedestrian access on the public right-of-way. The Planning Commission thus recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the CDP with the recommended modifications to the TDM requirement and trip reduction.

5. BMR Agreements. The BMR Agreements satisfy the requirements in Chapter 16.96 of the City’s Municipal Code and the applicable BMR Housing Program Guidelines, as amended by the CDP. The request to modify BMR Housing Program Guidelines Section 5.1 to allow affordable senior housing to be located in a single building rather than distributed through all residential buildings and to have a higher percentage of studio apartments than the Project as a whole supports the City’s need for affordable senior housing. The Planning Commission finds that the deviations from BMR Housing Program Guidelines Section 5.1 meet the requirement of BMR Housing Program Guidelines Section 13, which allows the City Council to approve a BMR proposal and ensuing Agreement(s) that is not consistent with every section of the BMR Housing Program Guidelines where the deviation results in the proposal providing a reasonably equivalent alternative that is commensurate with the goals of the BMR Housing Program Guidelines. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council waive the BMR Housing Program Guidelines’ distribution and size requirements of Section 5.1, as well as adjust the preference criteria of Section 8.1, to allow for the senior affordable housing, consistent with the CDP, to promote the construction of needed affordable senior housing. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve applicant’s BMR proposal and the BMR regulatory Agreements, including an agreement for the non-age restricted BMR units, and an agreement for the age restricted (senior affordable housing) BMR units in a form substantially Page F-1.18
9 consistent with the Agreements attached hereto as Attachment E to this resolution, and direct the City Manager to execute the BMR Agreements on behalf of the City.

6. “A” Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. Subject to final approval by the City Council of the above rezoning, approval of the “A” Vesting Tentative Parcel Map consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City of Menlo Park Municipal Code Section 15.20.050:
a. The proposed “A” Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Main Project Site is technically correct and in compliance with all applicable State regulations, City General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and the State Subdivision Map Act.
b. The proposed “A” Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for the Main Project Site, including the contemplated design and improvements, is consistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies, in particular the goals for the Bayfront Area set forth in the General Plan. The Project is consistent with the land use designations described in the General Plan and would be consistent with City General Plan policies as well as City Zoning Ordinance requirements for masterplanned projects at the proposed density and for the types of use. c. The Project Site is physically suitable for the proposed master-planned development, including the proposed density of development, and the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Project is consistent with the density and uses for the site set forth in the General Plan. The Project Site is in a heavily urbanized area of the City currently occupied by developed/landscaped areas that include various urban uses and does not include any aquatic habitat. The Project would not cause substantial environmental damage to the already disturbed Project Site and would not substantially injure the limited wildlife that access the site or their habitat. d. The design of the subdivision or types of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The Project would comply with the General Plan’s goals and policies, City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and other applicable regulations designed to prevent serious health or safety problems. e. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements does not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision because alternate easements for access or use will be provided that are substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.
f. The Project is subject to flood and inundation hazards and is not located within a slide area. The Project Site is located within the 100-year flood hazard zone.

However, the contemplated Project design and improvements will be elevated so as to mitigate flood hazards, and the Project would comply with applicable requirements designed to mitigate flood hazards as well as address future sea level rise.

Page F-1.19
10 Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the “A” Vesting Tentative Parcel Map in a form substantially consistent with Attachment F.

7. Hamilton VTM. The Hamilton VTM meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and City of Menlo Park Municipal Code Section 15.20.050:
a. The Hamilton VTM is technically correct and in compliance with all applicable State regulations, City General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and the State Subdivision Map Act.
b. The proposed Hamilton VTM, including the contemplated design and improvements, is consistent with applicable General Plan goals and policies, in particular the goals for the Bayfront Area set forth in the General Plan. The Project is consistent with the land use designations described in the General Plan and would be consistent with City General Plan policies as well as City Zoning Ordinance requirements for master-planned projects at the proposed density and for the types of use.
c. The Project Site is physically suitable for the proposed master-planned development, including the proposed density of development, and the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Project is consistent with the density and uses for the site set forth in the General Plan. The Project Site is in a heavily urbanized area of the City currently occupied by developed/landscaped areas that include various urban uses and does not include any aquatic habitat. The Project would not cause substantial environmental damage to the already disturbed Project Site and would not substantially injure the limited wildlife that access the site or their habitat. d. The design of the subdivision or types of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems. The Project would comply with the General Plan’s goals and policies, City Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and other applicable regulations designed to prevent serious health or safety problems. e. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements does not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision because alternate easements for access or use will be provided that are substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.
f. The Project is subject to flood and inundation hazards but is not located within a slide area. The Project Site is located within the 100-year flood hazard zone.

However, the contemplated Project improvements will be designed to comply with applicable requirements that mitigate flood hazards as well as address future sea level rise.

Page F-1.20
11 Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Hamilton VTM in a form substantially consistent with Attachment G.

8. Development Agreement. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the draft Development Agreement, attached as Attachment G, as well as the analysis and facts set forth above, the staff report, EIR, other supporting documents, and public testimony and based on this information makes the following findings:
a. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan. b. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for the O-B-X, R-MU-B-X, and C-2-S districts in which the Project Site will be located.
c. The Development Agreement is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practices.
d. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City or the region surrounding the City. e. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values within the City.
f. The Development Agreement will promote and encourage the development of the Project by providing a greater degree of certainty with respect thereto. g. The Development Agreement will result in the provision of public benefits by the Applicant, including, but not limited to, financial commitments.

The Planning Commission thus recommends that the City Council approve the Development Agreement in a form substantially consistent with Attachment H to this resolution with recommended modifications to the operation of community amenities, timing for delivery of amenities, and overall uses and funding, and direct the City Manager to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the City.

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.
//
//
//
Page F-1.21
12 I, Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Planning Commission Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said Planning Commission on the 3rd day of November, 2022, by the following votes:

AYES: Barnes, DeCardy, Do, Harris, Riggs, Tate
NOES: None
ABSENT: Shindler
ABSTAIN: None
IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this __ day of November, 2022.
_____________________________
Deanna Chow
Assistant Community Development Director
City of Menlo Park
Attachments included as Hyperlink – menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-andminutes/planning-commission/2022-meetings/agendas/20221103-continuance-of-20221024-publichearing.pdf#page=47 A. General Plan Amendment (Staff Report Attachment A4)
B. Zoning Map Amendment and Rezoning (Staff Report Attachment A7) C. Conditional Development Permit (Staff Report Attachment A8) D. CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and MMRP (Staff Report Attachments A2 and A3)
E. , Below Market Rate Housing Agreements (Staff Report Attachment A12 and A13) F. Vesting Tentative Map Main Project Site (Staff Report Attachment A5) G. Vesting Tentative Map Hamilton Avenue Parcels (Staff Report Attachment A6) H. Development Agreement Ordinance (Staff Report Attachments A9 and A10) Page F-1.22
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK

CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT AND ADOPTING FINDINGS, A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, ALL PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, FOR A MIXED USE
PROJECT CONSISTING OF UP TO 1.6 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND ACCESSORY USES, UP TO 1,730 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS, UP TO 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USES, AN UP TO 193 ROOM HOTEL,

AND ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE AND INFRASTRUCTURE
WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park (City) received an application requesting to redevelop an approximately 59-acre industrial site (main Project Site) plus three parcels (within two sites) west of Willow Road (Hamilton Parcels and, together with the main Project Site, Project Site) as a mixed-use development consisting of up to 1.6 million square feet of office and accessory uses, up to 1,730 multifamily dwelling units, up to 200,000 square feet of retail uses, an up to 193-room hotel, and associated open space and infrastructure (Proposed Project); and WHEREAS, the Proposed Project requires discretionary actions by the City, and therefore the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.) require analysis and a determination regarding the Proposed Project’s environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, on November 29, 2016, in connection with an update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the City’s General Plan and related zoning changes, commonly referred to as the ConnectMenlo project, the City certified the ConnectMenlo Final EIR (ConnectMenlo EIR); and
WHEREAS, in connection with the certification of the ConnectMenlo EIR, the City entered into a settlement agreement with the City of East Palo Alto (Settlement Agreement), which requires project-specific environmental impact reports (EIRs) for certain future projects. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement: (i) a project-specific EIR may tier from the ConnectMenlo EIR, and the project-level EIR shall include a project-specific transportation impact analysis; and (ii) the City shall prepare a housing needs assessment (HNA) to inform the population and housing topic area of the project-level EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency for the Proposed Project, as defined in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and therefore is responsible for the preparation, consideration, certification, and approval of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and CEQA, the City prepared, or caused to be prepared, a project-level EIR, including a transportation impact analysis, and an HNA for the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the City released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Project (Project EIR) to the Office of Planning and Research (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; and
ATTACHMENT B Page F-1.23
WHEREAS, the City held a public scoping meeting on the Proposed Project EIR on October 7, 2019; and
WHEREAS, comments on the NOP were received by the City and considered during preparation of the Draft Project EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability (NOA) was issued and the Draft Project EIR made available for public review on April 8, 2022, for a 45-day public review period through May 23, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Draft Project EIR was filed with the California Office of Planning and Research and copies of the Draft Project EIR were made available at the Community Development Department, on the City’s website, and at the City Main Library and the Belle Haven Branch Library; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission of the City of Menlo Park (Planning Commission) on April 25, 2022, to receive public comments on the Draft Project EIR; and
WHEREAS, the analysis in the Draft Project EIR tiered from the ConnectMenlo EIR pursuant to Public Resource Code Sections 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152, 15162, 15168, and 15183, as appropriate, and as further described in each environmental topic section in the Draft Project EIR; and
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2022, the City published a Final Project EIR that that includes the Draft Project EIR as well as all the comments received on the Draft Project EIR during the public comment period, including a transcript of the public hearing, written responses to those comments, and text revisions to the Draft Project EIR, all prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held according to law; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 24, 2022, continued to November 3, 2022, at which all persons interested had the opportunity to appear and comment and at which the Planning Commission considered and made recommendations to the City Council of the City of Menlo Park (City Council) regarding the Final Project EIR and the merits of the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, having fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, voted affirmatively to recommend to the City Council to certify the Final Project EIR pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on ________, 2022, at which all persons interested had the opportunity to appear and comment and at which the City Council considered the Final Project EIR and the merits of the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final Project EIR, all staff reports pertaining to the Final Project EIR, the Planning Commission hearing minutes and reports, and Page F-1.24
all evidence received by the City, including at the Planning Commission and at the City Council hearings, and found that the Final Project EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, after closing the public hearing, the City Council, acting on its independent judgment and analysis, voted affirmatively to certify the Final Project EIR pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the City Council certifies that it has reviewed the comments received and the responses thereto and finds that the Final Project EIR provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to the comments. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that the Final Project EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment as the lead agency for the Proposed Project and is supported by substantial evidence; and
WHEREAS, the Final Project EIR identified certain potentially significant adverse effects on the environment caused by the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council specifically finds that where more than one reason for approving the Proposed Project and rejecting alternatives is given in its findings or in the record, and where more than one reason is given for adopting the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council would have made its decision on the basis of any one of those reasons; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires, in accordance with CEQA, to declare that, despite the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives, there exist certain overriding economic, social, and other considerations for approving the Proposed Project that the City Council believes justify the occurrence of those impacts; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, voted affirmatively to certify the Final Project EIR, make the findings required by CEQA, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and approve the Proposed Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and they are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT that the City Council of the City of Menlo Park hereby certifies the Final Project EIR, makes the following findings with respect to the Proposed Project’s significant effects on the environment as identified in the Final Project EIR, as required under Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the MMRP as follows:

I. Project description
As fully described in Chapter 2 of the Draft Project EIR, Peninsula Innovation Partners, LLC (Project Sponsor), a subsidiary of Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), is proposing redevelopment of an approximately 59-acre industrial site (main Project Site) plus three parcels (within two sites) west of Willow Road (Hamilton Parcels and, collectively with the main Project Site, the Project Site) as a multi-phase, mixed-use development. The Willow Village Master Plan Project (Proposed Project) includes demolition of all buildings and landscaping on the 59-acre portion of the main Project Site and construction of new buildings, establishment of various open space areas (defined below), and installation of infrastructure within a new Residential/Shopping Page F-1.25
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 Page F-1.26
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.

Page F-1.27
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 Page F-1.28
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 Page F-1.29
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, Page F-1.30
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 Page F-1.31
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 Page F-1.32
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.

Page F-1.33
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.

Page F-1.34
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.

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 Page F-1.35
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.

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.

Page F-1.36
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.

Page F-1.37
(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 Page F-1.38
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, Page F-1.39
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 Page F-1.40
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 Page F-1.41
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.

Page F-1.42
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.

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).)
Page F-1.43
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 Page F-1.44
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.

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.

Page F-1.46
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;
Page F-1.47
• 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 Page F-1.48
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.

Page F-1.49
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).) Page F-1.50
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.

Page F-1.51
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 Page F-1.52
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. Page F-1.53
• 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.

Page F-1.54
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.

Page F-1.55
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.

Page F-1.56
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.

Page F-1.57
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 Page F-1.58
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).) Page F-1.59
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.

Page F-1.60
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,
Page F-1.61
• 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.

Page F-1.62
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 Page F-1.63
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.

Page F-1.64
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 Page F-1.65
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.

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.

Page F-1.67
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.

Page F-1.68
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.

Page F-1.69
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.

Page F-1.70
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 Page F-1.71
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:

Page F-1.72
• 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).

Page F-1.73
• 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 Page F-1.74
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.

Page F-1.75
• 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.

Page F-1.76
• 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 Page F-1.77
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 Page F-1.78
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 Page F-1.79
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 Page F-1.80
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 Page F-1.81
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 Page F-1.82
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.

Page F-1.83
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 Page F-1.84
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 Page F-1.85
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 Page F-1.86
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.

Page F-1.87
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 a grocery store space, two-year grocery storespace rent subsidy, pharmacy Page F-1.88
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 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.

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 NovemberDecember, 2022.

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits:

A. MMRP
Page F-1.89
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.

EXHIBIT A Page F-1.90
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) Page F-1.91
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
Page F-1.92
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
Page F-1.93
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.

Page F-1.94
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.

Page F-1.95
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
Page F-1.96
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
Page F-1.97
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.

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 noisegenerating equipment, to the extent feasible and practical, where no perimeter wall is provided pursuant to
Mitigation Measure NOI-1.2.

Page F-1.98
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
Page F-1.99
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
Page F-1.100
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
Page F-1.101
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
Page F-1.102
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.

Page F-1.103
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
Page F-1.104
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
Page F-1.105
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
Page F-1.106
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
Page F-1.107
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)
Page F-1.108
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 20 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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 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.

IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Archaeological Resources. The Proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. (Impact CR-2) Implement Project Mitigation Measures TCR-1.1 and TCR-1.2, below (see Tribal Cultural Resources)
See below. See below. See below. See below.

ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-2a (Modified) Stop Work if Archaeological Material or Features Are Encountered during Ground-Disturbing Activities.

If a potentially significant subsurface cultural resource is encountered during ground-disturbing 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 Studies 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 TCR1.2.

Stop work if
archaeological
materials and/or
cultural resources
are discovered
and determine
whether resource
requires further
study.

Initiated after a find
is made during
construction, with
regularly scheduled
site inspections
thereafter
Project Sponsor/
qualified
archaeologist
approved by CDD
CDD
Page F-1.109
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 21 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Human Remains. The Proposed Project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Impact CR-3)
Implement Project Mitigation Measures TCR-1.1, TCR-1.2, TCR-2.1, and ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-4
(Modified), below (see Tribal Cultural Resources)
See below. See below. See below. See below.

Biological Resources
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Indirect Impacts on Special-Status Species. The Proposed Project would result in substantial predation among special-status 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. (Impact BIO-2)
Project Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1: Feral Cat Management Program. 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 humane 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 cat with its owners.

Each trap cage shall be monitored and maintained on a daily basis during the week when traps have been set to determine whether a cat has been caught and whether the trap has
inadvertently captured a non-target species (e.g. pet cat or Implement a feral
cat management
program.

Ongoing beginning
with occupancy of
the first building at
a level of
extensiveness
commensurate with
the level of
development and
based on reasonable
data (e.g., nearby
feral cat
management
efforts).

Trap cages must be
placed for 1 week
every 3 months (i.e.,
each quarter) for
the duration of
Project operation.

Project Sponsor/
qualified trapping
professional
CDD
Page F-1.110
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 22 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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.

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.

IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Impacts on Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities. Project demolition and construction would affect riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. (Impact BIO-3) Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.1: Avoid and Minimize
Impacts on Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities. 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.

Avoid and
minimize the
removal of
wetland
vegetation or
placement of fill in
wetlands.

During construction Project Sponsor/
contractor(s)
CDD
Page F-1.111
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 23 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.2: In-Situ Restoration of Temporary Impacts. 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
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. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) approvals may be required to
authorize temporary impacts on these features.

If impacts on
wetlands are
temporary,
restore wetlands
to preconstruction
conditions and
prepare a
restoration plan, if
needed.

Immediately
following
construction (if
applicable)
Project Sponsor CDD/USACE/
RWQCB
Page F-1.112
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 24 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Project Mitigation Measure BIO-3.3: Provide Compensatory Mitigation. 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 RWQCB-approved 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 RWQCBapproved 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 If impacts on
wetlands are
permanent,
provide new
wetland habitat of
the same type or
purchase
mitigation credits
to offset any
impacts on
wetlands and
prepare a wetland
mitigation and
monitoring plan, if
needed.

Immediately
following
construction (if
applicable)
Project Sponsor/
qualified biologist

CDD/USACE/
RWQCB

Page F-1.113
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 25 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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;
• Mitigation design;
o Existing and proposed site hydrology;
o Grading plan, if appropriate, including bank
stabilization or other site stabilization features;
o Soil amendments and other site preparation elements,
as appropriate; Planting plan;
o Irrigation and maintenance plan;
o 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:
o 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 Page F-1.114
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 26 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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.

IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Impacts on State and/or Federally Protected Wetlands. Project demolition and construction could affect state and/or federally protected wetlands. (Impact BIO-4)
Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-3.1, BIO-3.2, and BIO-3.3, above.

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

IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Impacts on Wildlife Movement and Native Wildlife Nursery Sites. The removal of buildings, trees, shrubs, or woody vegetation and the construction of new buildings and installation of lighting could affect native migratory birds. (Impact BIO-5) Project Mitigation Measure BIO-5.1: Avoidance and Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Migratory Birds. 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.

Avoid
construction
during the nesting
season from
February 1
through August
31; if not feasible,
conduct preconstruction
surveys for birds
and potential
nesting habitat.

Establish a
construction-free
buffer zone if an
active nest is
found.

Ongoing during
construction.

In the event
construction
activities are
initiated between
February 1 through
August 31,
preconstruction
nesting surveys of
potential nesting
habitat onsite shall
be conducted no
earlier than 7 days
prior to start of
construction
activities for each
applicable
construction phase.

Project Sponsor/
qualified
ornithologist
CDD
Page F-1.115
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 27 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
• 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.

Project Mitigation Measure BIO-5.2: Atrium Bird-safe Design Requirements. 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.4Because a Threat Factor is a nonlinear index, its value is not
Implement birdsafe design
standards for the
proposed atrium.

Monitor and
survey bird
collisions.

Implement
modifications to
Design standards
for atrium prior to
issuance of the
building permit for
the building shell
and for the duration
of use at the
building
Project Sponsor/
architect/
qualified biologist
CDD

Page F-1.116
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 28 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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 non-sloped (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 atrium to
reduce collisions if
a hot spot is
identified.

Survey bird
collisions for a
minimum of 2 years
following
construction.

Page F-1.117
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 29 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
• 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 midNovember through mid-January (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 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 Page F-1.118
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 30 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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.
“Location” shall be defined based on observations of (1) collision patterns and (2) 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 lessthan-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:

Page F-1.119
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 31 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
o 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.
o Installing interior or exterior blinds on buildings
within the atrium to prevent light from spilling
outward though glazed façades at night.
o Reducing lighting by dimming fixtures, redirecting
fixtures, turning lights off, and/or adjusting the
programmed timing for dimming/shutoff.
o Replacing certain light fixtures with new fixtures to increase shielding or redirect lighting.
o Adjusting or reducing lighting during events.
o 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.
o 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.

Page F-1.120
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 32 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Project Mitigation Measure BIO-5.3: Lighting Design
Requirements. 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, 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
Implement
lighting design
measures to
reduce lighting
impacts on
migratory birds.

Prior to issuance of
building permit
Ongoing during
operation of Project
Project Sponsor/
architect
CDD/qualified
biologist
Page F-1.121
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 33 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Municipal Code. With respect to Office Buildings 01, 02, 03, 05, and 06, South Garage, and the residential/mixeduse 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 within 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.

Page F-1.122
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 34 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Impact BIO-6: Conflicts with Any Local Policies or Ordinances that Protect Biological Resources. The Project would result in conflicts with the Menlo Park Municipal Code. (Impact BIO-6) Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-2.1, BIO-3.1 through
BIO-3.3, and BIO-5.2, above.

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

Geology and Soils
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Paleontological Resources. The Proposed Project could destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. (Impact GS-5)
ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3: Conduct Protocol and Procedures for Encountering Paleontological Resources. 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 Cityapproved, 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 and approval prior to implementation, and all construction activity shall adhere to the recommendations in the excavation plan.

Conduct protocol
and procedures
for encountering
paleontological
resources.

During construction,
in the event that
fossils or fossilbearing deposits are
discovered
Project Sponsor/
qualified
paleontologist
approved by CDD
CDD
Project Mitigation Measure PALEO-1: Conduct Worker
Awareness Training. 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
Conduct worker
awareness
training.

Prior to any
excavation or
grading activities
Project Sponsor/
contractor(s)/
qualified
paleontologist
CDD
Page F-1.123
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 35 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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.

IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Cumulative Geology and Soil Impacts. 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. (Impact C-GS-1)
Implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure CULT-3, above. See above. See above. See above. See above.

Hydrology
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Water Quality. The Proposed Project could violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality. (Impact HY-1) Project Mitigation Measure HY-1.1: Implement Construction Dewatering Treatment (if necessary). 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.

Implement
construction
dewatering
treatment if
groundwater is
encountered.

During construction
(if necessary)
Project Sponsor/
contractor(s)
CDD
Page F-1.124
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 36 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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 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.

IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Conflict or Obstruct a Water Resource Management Plan. The Proposed Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Impact HY-5) Implement Project Mitigation Measure HY-1.1, above. See above. See above. See above. See above.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Page F-1.125
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 37 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Upset and Accident Conditions Involving Hazardous Materials. 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. (Impact HAZ-2)
ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ‐4a: Environmental Site Management Plan. 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.

Prepare an
Environmental
Site Management
Plan.

During the building
permit and site
development review
process and prior to
permit issuance
Project Sponsor/
personnel
designated in the
ESMP

DTSC/ CDD
Page F-1.126
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 38 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Project Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for the Willow Road Tunnel under Dumbarton Rail Corridor and Willow Road. 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.

Perform/obtain a
Phase I Site
Assessment for
the Willow Road
Tunnel.

Prior to
construction of the
Willow Road Tunnel
Project Sponsor/
licensed
environmental
professional
CDD
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Exposure to Schools. 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. (Impact HAZ-3) Implement Project Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1 and
ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a, above.

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

IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts. 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. (Impact C-HAZ-1)
Implement ConnectMenlo Mitigation Measure HAZ-4a, above. See above. See above. See above. See above.

Tribal Cultural Resources
IMPACT BEING ADDRESSED: Tribal Cultural Resources. The Proposed Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, as defined in PRC Section 21074. (Impact TCR-1) Project Mitigation Measure TCR-1.1: Avoidance and Mitigation of Impacts
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
Preservation in
place of known
tribal cultural
resources through
plan check and
measures for the
Core, Perimeter,
High Sensitivity
Area, and existing
known reburials.

Prior to the issuance
of grading permits
(plan check and
field manual)
During construction
(implement design
measures and
preservation)
Project Sponsor/
contractor(s)
CDD
Page F-1.127
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 39 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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.

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.

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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 and archaeological 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.
o An elevation contour plan shall be created to guide the surface preparation necessary to place the fill cap
Page F-1.129
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 41 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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.
o 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.
o Clearing of surface vegetation within the Core boundary shall be performed through hand grubbing.
o 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 walkbehind roller, to densify the six-inch-thick protection material. The use of relatively light equipment reduces potential for densification below the buffer zone.
o 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.
o 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 compacted using a
single-drum ride-on sheepsfoot roller. The roller
shall not be parked or left stationary on the Core
Page F-1.130
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 42 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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.
o 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.

Page F-1.131
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 43 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
• 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.
• The Project Sponsor shall 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.

Page F-1.132
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 44 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
Measures for the High Sensitivity Area
The Project Sponsor shall avoid or mitigate ground-disturbing excavation in the High Sensitivity Area as follows:
• 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: Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resource Monitoring and Treatment Protocol and Plan.

The ATMTPP will apply to the entire Project Site and all offsite Project improvements. In addition, specific protocols that pertain to the Core, Perimeter, and High Sensitivity Area will Develop an
ATMTPP to guide
archaeological and
tribal monitoring.

Prior to issuance of
the first grading
permit and any
physical grounddisturbing activity
Project Sponsor/
approved
archaeological
consultant/
consulting
tribe(s)
CDD
Page F-1.133
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 45 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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 Page F-1.134
City of Menlo Park Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Willow Village Master Plan Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 46 November 2022

WILLOW VILLAGE MASTER PLAN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures Action Timing Implementing
Party Monitoring Party
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).
• 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 EIR Mitigation Measure CULT2a (see Section 3.8, Cultural Resources), including a requirement that any DPR forms required pursuant to
ConnectMenlo EIR 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.

Menlo Park City CouncilDecember 6, 2022

Menlo Park City Council
December 6, 2022