Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
2131 Sand Hill Road Office Project
March 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations……………………………………………………...………………………………………..v Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of The Initial Study ...... 1 1.2 Public Review Period ...... 1 1.3 Consideration of the Initial Study and Project ...... 1 1.4 Notice of Determination ...... 1 Section 2.0 Project Information ...... 3 2.1 Project Title ...... 3 2.2 Lead Agency Contact ...... 3 2.3 Project Applicant ...... 3 2.4 Project Location ...... 3 2.5 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers ...... 3 2.6 General Plan Designation and Zoning District ...... 11 2.7 Project-Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits...... 11 Section 3.0 Project Description ...... 13 3.1 Existing Site Conditions ...... 13 3.2 Proposed Project ...... 13 3.3 Uses of the Initial Study ...... 25 Section 4.0 Environmental Checklist and Impact Discussion ...... 27 4.1 Aesthetics ...... 29 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ...... 45 4.3 Air Quality ...... 47 4.4 Biological Resources ...... 62 4.5 Cultural Resources ...... 70 4.6 Geology and Soils ...... 74 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 81 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 87 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 95 4.10 Land Use and Planning ...... 104 4.11 Mineral Resources ...... 115 4.12 Noise and Vibration ...... 117 4.13 Population and Housing ...... 128 4.14 Public Services ...... 130
2131 Sand Hill Road Office i Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.15 Recreation ...... 134 4.16 Transportation/Traffic...... 136 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 155 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 160 4.19 Summary Table of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 163 Section 5.0 References ...... 175 Section 6.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ...... 179 6.1 Lead Agency ...... 179 6.2 Consultants ...... 179 Section 7.0 Mitigated Negative Declaration ...... 181
2131 Sand Hill Road Office ii Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures Figure 1: Regional Map ...... 5 Figure 2: Vicinity Map ...... 7 Figure 3: Aerial Photograph and Surrounding Land Uses ...... 9 Figure 4: City Boundary Map ...... 13 Figure 5: Conceptual Site Plan...... 19 Figure 6: Front and Left Building Elevations ...... 21 Figure 7: Rear and Right Building Elevations ...... 23 Figure 8: Artistic Rendering of Building from Sand Hill Road ...... 33 Figure 9: Sensitive Receptor Locations ...... 57 Figure 10: Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations ...... 107 Figure 11: Existing and Proposed Zoning Districts ...... 111 Figure 12: Intersections and Bicycle Facilities ...... 139
Photographs Photos 1 – 2 ...... 33 Photos 3 – 4 ...... 35 Photos 5 – 6 ...... 37 Photos 7 – 12 ...... 39
Tables Table 2.6-1: General Plan and Zoning ...... 11 Table 4.3-1: Air Quality Significance Thresholds ...... 52 Table 4.3-2: 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures ...... 53 Table 4.3-3: Unmitigated Construction Project Impacts...... 59 Table 4.3-4: Cumulative Construction Impact Assessment ...... 60 Table 4.4-1: Tree Species Found on Site ...... 65 Table 4.12-1: Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Land Uses ...... 125 Table 4.16-1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay ...... 143 Table 4.16-2: Existing Levels of Service ...... 145 Table 4.16-3: Project Trip Generation Estimates ...... 148 Table 4.16-4: Near-Term Levels of Service ...... 149 Table 4.16-5: Near-Term Average Daily Traffic ...... 150
2131 Sand Hill Road Office iii Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment Appendix B: Arborist Report and Addendum Appendix C: Biological Reconnaissance Report Appendix D: Geotechnical Investigation Appendix E: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix F: Hydrology Report Appendix G: Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment Appendix H: Traffic Impact Analysis
2131 Sand Hill Road Office iv Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ADT Average Daily Traffic AP Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning APN Assessor’s Parcel Number BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAU Business-as-Usual BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission BMP Best Management Practice BMR Below Market Rate CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Clean Air Plan CARB California Air Resources Board C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County CCAP Climate Change Action Plan CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDP Census-Designated Place CEC California Energy Commission CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFC Chlorofluorocarbon CGP Construction General Permit CGS California Geological Survey CH4 Methane CMP Congestion Management Program CMU Concrete Masonry Unit CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency dB Decibel dBA A-Weighted Sound Level DOSH Division of Occupational Safety and Health DPM Diesel Particulate Matter DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EIR Environmental Impact Report
2131 Sand Hill Road Office v Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program GHG Greenhouse Gas GWP Global Warming Potential HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response HFC Hydrofluorocarbon HI Hazard Index HSP Health and Safety Plan IS Initial Study LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission Ldn Day/Night Average Noise Level LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Leq Energy-Equivalent Noise Level LID Low Impact Development Lmax Maximum Noise Level LOS Level of Service LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas LQG Large Quantity Generator LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MEI Maximally Exposed Individual MLD Most Likely Descendant MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MPFPD Menlo Park Fire Protection District MPPD Menlo Park Police Department MRP Municipal Regional Permit MSL Mean Sea Level MTBE Methyl Tert-Butyl Ether MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission N2O Nitrous Oxide NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NOD Notice of Determination NOI Notice of Intent NOx Nitrogen Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places OITC Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class O&M Operations and Maintenance OSH Occupational Safety and Health PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PCE Tetrachloroethene PDA Priority Development Area PFC Perfluorocarbon
2131 Sand Hill Road Office vi Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
PM Particulate Matter PPV Peak Particle Velocity RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ROG Reactive Organic Gases RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SamTrans San Mateo County Transit SB Senate Bill SBSA South Bayside Systems Authority SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act SMCEH San Mateo County Environmental Health Department SQG Small Quantity Generator STC Sound Transmission Class SVCW Silicon Valley Clean Water SVOC Semi-Volatile Organic Compound SWCV Solid Waste Collection Vehicle SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TAC Toxic Air Contaminant TCM Transportation Control Measure TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey UST Underground Storage Tank V/C Volume to Capacity VOC Volatile Organic Compound VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority WBSD West Bay Sanitary District
2131 Sand Hill Road Office vii Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office viii Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project site is located along Sand Hill Road, west of Alpine Road, within the West Menlo Park unincorporated community of San Mateo County.
PROJECT BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW
The project includes prezoning and annexation of a 14.2-acre lot from unincorporated San Mateo County to the City of Menlo Park. Of the 14.2 acres, two portions are developed with office and residential uses, and one is undeveloped.
The project applicant and property owner, Stanford University, proposes to construct a 39,510-square foot, two-story office building with two levels of below grade parking on the undeveloped portion of the property. No changes to the developed portions of the site are proposed. This Initial Study evaluates the environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project.
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Construction of a new office building on the proposed project site could result in significant impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise and vibration.
Implementation of the mitigation measures included in the project and best management practices required by the City of Menlo Park would reduce significant impacts to a less than significant level.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office ix Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office x Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The City of Menlo Park, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study for the 2131 Sand Hill Office Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and policies of the City of Menlo Park, California.
The Initial Study may also be used by the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), as a responsible agency, when considering the proposed annexation of the property to the City of Menlo Park.
1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning of a 20-day public review and comment period. During this period, the Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Initial Study during the 20-day public review period should be sent to:
Tom Smith, Associate Planner City of Menlo Park Community Development Department 701 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA 94025 [email protected]
1.3 CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MND AND PROJECT
Following the conclusion of the public review period, the City will consider the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project at a regularly scheduled meeting. The City shall consider the IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. Upon adoption of the MND, the City may proceed with project approval actions.
1.4 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
If the project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)).
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 1 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 2 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 PROJECT TITLE
2131 Sand Hill Road Office Project
2.2 LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Tom Smith, Associate Planner City of Menlo Park Community Development Department (650) 330-6730 [email protected]
2.3 PROJECT APPLICANT
Stanford University Land, Buildings & Real Estate 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304
2.4 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site consists of one parcel, comprising five Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) and totaling 14.2 acres, in unincorporated San Mateo County. The site is located on the south side of Sand Hill Road and is bordered on the east by Alpine Road and Santa Cruz Avenue. The lot narrows from east to west until ending at a point just east of Stanford Hills Park, across Sand Hill Road from the Sharon Heights Shopping Center. A portion of a PG&E-maintained natural gas pipeline is located in an easement along the site’s southern boundary. Single-family residences in the Stanford Hills neighborhood are located south of the project site.
A regional and a vicinity map of the site are shown on Figures 1 and 2, and an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding area is shown on Figure 3.
2.5 ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS
074-450-030, 074-450-040, 074-450-050, 074-321-110, 074-331-210
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 3 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 4 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 92 101 Newark
San Francisco Bay Belmont
82
92 Redwood City
East 35 Atherton Palo Alto
280 101
Menlo Palo d oa Alto Park R ill H nd a Woodside S Junipe ro S erra Bl vd Project Site A
l
p
i
n
e
R
o 101 a
Portola d Los Mountain 1 Valley Altos View
Oakland Sunnyvale San Francisco 84 San Francisco Bay Fremont
Palo Alto Project Site 280 Mountain View 85
Pacific Ocean San José
84 Morgan Hill Santa Cruz Cupertino
Monterey Bay
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 1
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 6 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 e e v ri D l el Oakd oad Oakley AvenuAvenue R d ak oa O l RRoad S il aant H nt Vine Street d Hil an Avy Avenue a SSan C
r u
z
C A on v t e in n e u n e ta l D riv e Mo S nte ha R ron os R a oa Dr d ive
Sharon Par e k Drive iv
S is kiyou Fremont DrDrive Driv e B r a n Jun n ipe ill Road e ro S and H r er
S ra D
D Bou
r
r le
i i v v
v ard
e e
A A
l p
i n e R o a d
280
Lane sel An Project Site 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 Feet
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 8 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 Santa Cruz Avenue Residential Sh ar on R o a d
Commercial/Office
Golf Course Sh a ro n Meyer-Buck O a House k s Residential 3.6 acres D r iv e Sand Hill Road Juniunipero e pero Se riv rra Bo rk D ule Pa va n Hewlett rd ro ha Foundation S 7.1 acres
Commercial
Alpine Road Golf Course 2.6 acres PG&E Easement
Office Residential
Branner Drive PG&E Valve Lot Residential
Anderson Way
Park Project Boundary APN Boundary 0 100 500 Feet
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Sep. 28 2016. Photo Date: Apr. 2016
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 3
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 10 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
2.6 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT
Table 2.6-1: General Plan and Zoning APN 074-450-030 & 074-450-050 074-321-110 & 074-450-040 074-331-210 Area 9.7 acres 3.6 acres 0.9 acre General Plan Designation Existing Medium Low Density Medium Low Density Low Density Residential Residential Residential Proposed Professional and Low Density Low Density Administrative Offices Residential Residential Zoning District Existing R-E/S-9 R-1/S-9 R-1-S Proposed C-1-C R-1-S R-1-S
2.7 PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS
City of Menlo Park
Prezoning General Plan Amendment Tentative Map Use Permit Architectural Control Heritage Tree Removal Permits Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement
San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission
LAFCo Annexation Approval
State Water Resources Control Board
General Construction Permit (Notice of Intent)
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 11 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 12 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located on a 14.2-acre property along Sand Hill Road and Alpine Road, south of the Sand Hill Road and Sharon Park Drive intersection. The site consists of one lot, narrowing from east to west, that comprises five APNs. Most of the site (APNs 074-450-030, -040, and 050), including developed and undeveloped areas, is located in unincorporated San Mateo County (West Menlo Park). The remainder of the site (APNs 074-321-110 and 074-331-210), a 0.9-acre PG&E easement located along the southern boundary of the site, is located in the City of Menlo Park.
The easternmost, 3.6-acre portion of the property is developed with a two-story residence (Stanford’s Meyer-Buck House) and associated ancillary buildings. The Meyer-Buck House is a Mediterranean- style residence, designed by the San Francisco architectural firm Bakewell & Brown and completed in 1920.1 The building was willed to Stanford University in 1979 and used as a conference center until it was damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. It was later restored and is currently used as the University Provost’s residence. The site residence and surrounding landscaping are bounded by Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road on the east and located at 2121 Sand Hill Road.
The central, 7.14-acre portion of the property, 2121 Sand Hill Road, is developed with a two-story office building, two adjacent surface parking lots, an underground parking garage, landscaping, and driveways. The 48,000-square foot building was constructed in 2002 and designed by B. H. Bocook Architects.2 The structure was the first in California to be awarded LEED Gold by the U.S. Green Building Council.3 The site is leased and operated by the Hewlett Foundation.
The westernmost 2.6 acres of the site are undeveloped with the exception of a PG&E-maintained monitoring station located at the west corner of the site. The monitoring station is accessed from the existing PG&E easement that runs along the property’s southern boundary. This portion of the site supports grasses and low plants, with trees growing along the northern and southern boundaries. Several planters and a small storage shed are located on the eastern side of the vacant area. The property’s address is expected to be 2131 Sand Hill Road.
3.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
3.2.1 Annexation and Office Development
The proposed project includes prezoning and annexation of a 14.2-acre property, currently in unincorporated San Mateo County, into the City of Menlo Park. The site is located within Menlo Park’s sphere of influence and is adjacent to the existing City limits to the north, west, and south. Figure 4 shows the location of the site in relation to the City limits of the City of Menlo Park.
The applicant is also proposing to construct a 39,510-square foot, two-story office building with two levels of below grade parking on the 2.6-acre undeveloped portion of the property at 2131 Sand Hill
1 Stanford Report. A new life for Meyer-Buck House closed after Loma Prieta. April 16, 2003. 2 University of California Berkeley Center for the Built Environment. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Building. 2013. 3 US Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 13 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 14 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 Palo Alto
Unincorporated San Mateo County
Menlo Park
Meyer-BuckMeyer-Buck HouseHouse 3.6 acres
HewlHewlettett FoFoundationundation 7.1 aacrescres S an M at eo C 2.2.66 acracrees o un ty
S
a
n
t
a
C
l
a
r
a
C
o
u
n
t y
Unincorporated San Mateo County Project Site Unincorporated County Boundary Santa Clara County Menlo Park Palo Alto
0 50 100 200 400 Feet
MENLO PARK BOUNDARY MAP FIGURE 4
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 16 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Road. The proposed two-story building would extend to a total height of approximately 35 feet above grade. Parking would be provided in a surface parking lot, located east of the building, and a parking garage. The two-story parking garage below the building would extend to 25 feet below grade. The project would also construct a driveway, pedestrian walkways, and a fire lane, and plant new trees and landscaping.
A conceptual site plan is shown on Figure 5, and building elevations are shown on Figures 6 and 7.
Apart from the annexation and associated land use designation and rezoning by the City of Menlo Park, no changes are proposed to the Meyer-Buck House or Hewlett Foundation areas of the property. No changes are proposed to the PG&E easement, which is located within the City of Menlo Park. Since no physical changes are proposed to the existing development, the following sections focus on the undeveloped westernmost portion of the property at 2131 Sand Hill Road.
3.2.2 Access, Circulation, and Parking
The proposed office building would be accessed via a short extension to the Hewlett Foundation headquarters driveway. The existing driveway has one entrance on Sand Hill Road and an additional entrance on Alpine Road. The existing driveway on Sand Hill Road would be the only point of access to the proposed project site. The proposed building would include entrances facing north, east, south, and west.
The project would construct a 119-space parking garage, and would provide 40 surface parking spaces, for a total of 159 parking spaces. Eight bicycle racks would be located under the building arcade, and eight bicycle lockers would be included in the garage.
3.2.3 Landscaping and Tree Removal
The undeveloped 2.6-acre portion of the site contains 93 trees, including 45 Heritage trees, as defined in the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code (Chapter 13.24). The project proposes to remove six Heritage and 13 non-Heritage trees (19 total) for the project construction.
Existing trees to be preserved would be protected with setbacks and a tree protection plan, prepared by the project applicant. Approximately 70 new trees would be planted onsite around the proposed building and surface parking area.
3.2.4 Construction Activities and Schedule
Construction activities at the project site would take approximately 15 months and would consist of site preparation, grading, construction of the office building (including below-grade parking garage), paving, and installation of landscaping. Grading and subterranean work is anticipated to take approximately three months to complete. Construction of the proposed building would take approximately 12 months to complete.
3.2.5 Green Building and Emissions Reduction Features
The proposed project would be built according to the Menlo Park Green Building Ordinance, which requires adherence to the Nonresidential Mandatory Measures of the 2013 California Green Building
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 17 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 18 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 0 50 100 200 300 Feet
Source: ArchiRender Architect, 1/25/2017.
PROPOSED SITE PLAN FIGURE 5
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 20 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 Front Elevation (From Sand Hill Road)
Front Elevation (From Sand Hill Road) Left Elevation
Source: ArchiRender Architect, 8/26/2016. FRONT AND LEFT BUILDING ELEVATIONS FIGURE 6
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 22 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 Rear Elevation
Rear Elevation Right Elevation
Source: ArchiRender Architect, 8/26/2016. REAR AND RIGHT BUILDING ELEVATIONS FIGURE 7
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 24 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Standards Code (CALGreen). The Menlo Park El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan requires new developments within the downtown area to meet the intent of LEED Silver, but has not set similar standards for development in other areas.
Although the project is not located in the downtown area and is, therefore, not required to meet LEED standards, the proposed building is expected to meet the intent of LEED Silver. The project would incorporate alternative transportation, low-emitting materials, and energy performance features to achieve LEED certification.
3.3 USES OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The Initial Study provides decision-makers in the City of Menlo Park (the CEQA Lead Agency), responsible agencies, and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in considering the project.
This IS may also be relied upon for other agency approvals necessary to implement the project, including approvals by the San Mateo County LAFCo.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 25 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 26 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in their respective subsections:
4.1 Aesthetics 4.10 Land Use and Planning 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources 4.11 Mineral Resources 4.3 Air Quality 4.12 Noise and Vibration 4.4 Biological Resources 4.13 Population and Housing 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.14 Public Services 4.6 Geology and Soils 4.15 Recreation 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.16 Transportation/Traffic 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections:
Environmental Checklist – The environmental checklist, as recommended by CEQA, identifies environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. The right-hand column of the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each question. The sources are identified at the end of this section.
Setting – This subsection discusses the site conditions and regional setting as pertain to the resource. Relevant federal, state, and local laws and regulations are also addressed.
Impacts Evaluation – This subsection discusses the project’s impact as it relates to the environmental checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified. “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section15370). Each impact is numbered using an alphanumeric system that identifies the environmental issue. For example, Impact HAZ-1 denotes the first potentially significant impact discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section. Mitigation measures are also numbered to correspond to the impact they address. For example, MM NOI-2.3 refers to the third mitigation measure for the second impact in the Noise section.
Conclusion – This subsection provides a summary of the project’s impacts on the resource.
Important Note to the Reader
The California Supreme Court in a December 2015 opinion [California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (No. S 213478)] confirmed that CEQA, with several specific exceptions, is concerned with the impacts of a project on the environment, not the effects the existing environment may have on a project. Therefore, the evaluation of the significance of project impacts under CEQA in the following sections focuses on
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 27 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 impacts of the project on the environment, including whether a project may exacerbate existing environmental hazards.
The City of Menlo Park currently has policies that address existing conditions (e.g., air quality, noise, and hazards) affecting a proposed project, which are also addressed in this section. This is consistent with one of the primary objectives of CEQA and this document, which is to provide objective information to decision-makers and the public regarding a project as a whole. The CEQA Guidelines and the courts are clear that a CEQA document (e.g., Environmental Impact Report or Initial Study) can include information of interest even if such information is not an “environmental impact” as defined by CEQA.
Therefore, where applicable, in addition to describing the impacts of the project on the environment, this chapter will discuss Planning Considerations that relate to policies pertaining to existing conditions. Such examples include, but are not limited to, locating a project near sources of air emissions that can pose a health risk, in a floodplain, in a geologic hazard zone, in a high noise environment, or on/adjacent to sites involving hazardous substances.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 28 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.1 AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With Checklist Significant Significant No Impact Mitigation Source(s) Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 1, 2, 3, 4 scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 1, 2, 3, 5 including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 1, 2, 3 character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or 1, 2, 3, 4 glare which will adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
4.1.2 Setting
Regulatory Framework
California Scenic Highway Program
The intent of the California Scenic Highway Program (Streets and Highway Code Sections 260 et seq.) is to provide and enhance California’s natural beauty and protect the social and economic values provided by the State’s scenic resources. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) defines a scenic highway as any freeway, highway, road, or other public right-of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality.
Suitability for designation as a State Scenic Highway is based on vividness, intactness, and unity. Caltrans’ California Scenic Highway Mapping System lists three Officially Designated Scenic Highways in San Mateo County.4 Interstate 280 is approximately 1.4 miles from the project site, and is not visible from the site. California State Routes 35 and 1 are approximately 4.7 and 11.8 miles, respectively, from the project site.
City of Menlo Park General Plan
The General Plan is a legal document, required by state law, which serves as the City of Menlo Park’s constitution for development and the use of its land. It is a comprehensive, long-term document, detailing proposals for the physical development of the City, and of any land outside its boundaries but within its designated sphere of influence. Key policies related to aesthetics and applicable to the proposed project include:
4 California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, San Mateo County. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed October 3, 2016.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 29 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
I-G-10: Extensive landscaping should be included in public and private development, including greater landscaping in large parking area. Where appropriate, the City shall encourage placement of a portion of the required parking in landscape reserve until such time as the parking is needed. Plant material selection and landscape and irrigation design shall adhere to the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. II-E-1: The City shall require all new development to incorporate safe and attractive pedestrian facilities on-site. OSC1.12: Include landscaping and plazas on public and private lands, and well-designed pedestrian and bicycle facilities in areas of intensive non-vehicular activity. Require landscaping for shade, surface runoff, or to obscure parked cars in extensive parking areas.
City of Menlo Park Municipal Code
The City of Menlo Park addresses visual considerations for development in many City documents, including the Municipal Code. The City Zoning Ordinance (Title 16) sets forth specific design guidelines, height limits, building density and landscaping standards, light and glare policies, architectural features, sign regulations, and open space and setback requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance promotes good design and careful planning of development projects to enhance the visual environment. The City’s development review process ensures that the architecture and urban design of new developments would protect the City’s visual environment. The City’s Planning Division reviews private and public development applications for conformance with City plans, ordinances, and policies related to zoning, urban design, and CEQA.
Existing Conditions
Project Site
Existing Development
The easternmost, 3.6-acre portion of the property is developed with a large, two-story residence (Stanford’s Meyer-Buck House), associated ancillary buildings, and a broad expanse of landscaping (see Photos 1 and 2). This Mediterranean-style residence was completed in 1920. The site residence and surrounding landscaping are bounded by Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road to the east.
Immediately to the west of the Meyer-Buck House site is the Hewlett Foundation headquarters, a two-story modern office building with a stucco exterior and a metal roof (see Photo 3). Surface parking lots are located east and west of the building. A driveway, north of the building, connects the parking lots to Sand Hill Road. Landscaping improvements include trees, grasses, a courtyard, and a patio.
Views of the two existing buildings from public streets (Sand Hill Road and Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road) are partially obscured by mature oaks and/or solid walls at the perimeter of the site.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 30 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Proposed Office Development Site
The 2.6-acre western portion of the site is accessed via the driveway at Sand Hill Road and Sharon Park Drive (see Photo 4). The area is currently undeveloped with the exception of a PG&E- maintained automated valve control station in the west corner of the site. The station is accessed from the existing PG&E easement that runs along the property’s southern boundary (see Photo 5). The PG&E valve lot is surfaced in gravel, with some equipment located on small concrete pads. A chain-link fence surrounds the station. The site topography is gently sloping downward to the east. The center of the site is overgrown with grasses and low plants. Several planters and a small storage shed are located on the eastern side of the site (see Photo 6). The site is visible from the immediate surrounding area, including the residential properties, which are separated from the site by fences, and Sand Hill Road. Mature trees provide screening from Stanford Hills Park to the west and Sand Hill Road to the north. The Hewlett Foundation headquarters is visible from the project site, although mature trees along the site’s eastern boundary provide some screening. Photographs of the project site are shown on the following pages. An artistic rendering of the proposed office development as viewed from Sand Hill Road is shown on Figure 8.
Surrounding Land Uses
Sand Hill Road is located to the north of the project site (see Photos 7 and 8). A one-story commercial shopping center and gas station are located to the north across Sand Hill Road (see Photos 9 and 10). The project site is bounded to the south by one-story, single-family residences (see Photo 11). Fencing separates the easement from residential uses to the south. A three-acre public park, Stanford Hills Park, is located to the west on Branner Drive (see Photo 12). No scenic view corridors, scenic vistas, or scenic resources are located on the project site.
Scenic Views and Resources
The site is bordered by western Menlo Park at the edge of the foothills within an area that has been partially urbanized. Expansive grassland and woodland slopes of the Santa Cruz Mountains are primarily located to the west and south of the site. Due to the flat topography of the lot and relative elevations of surrounding development and roadways, views of the developed and vacant portions of the site are limited to the immediate surrounding area. Mature trees growing along the perimeter partially screen views of the site from surrounding roadways and public vantage points.
The site is not located on a scenic view corridor, nor is it visible from a designated or eligible state scenic highway. No scenic vistas or resources are located on the site.
Light and Glare
Streetlights and other lighting around commercial, office, and residential buildings are found throughout the area in the vicinity of the project site. Sources of light and glare in the surrounding area are those typical of developed urban areas, including headlights, streetlights, parking lot lights, security lights, and reflective surfaces such as windows.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 31 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 32 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 PHOTO 1: Meyer-Buck House
PHOTO 2: On-site residential ancillary building
PHOTOS 1 AND 2 (PROJECT SITE)
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 34 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 PHOTO 3: Existing office building (Hewlett Foundation)
PHOTO 4: Access driveway, looking west toward vacant area
PHOTOS 3 AND 4 (PROJECT SITE)
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 36 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 PHOTO 5: On-site vacant area
PHOTO 6: Vacant area, looking north
PHOTOS 5 AND 6 (PROJECT SITE)
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 38 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 Photo 7: Eastbound Sand Hill Road and bicycle path Photo 8: Westbound Sand Hill Road, site on left
Photo 9: Sharon Park Drive and Sand Hill Road Photo 10: Commercial uses on Sharon Park Drive
Photo 11: Residences on Branner Drive Photo 12: Stanford Hills Park
PHOTOS 7-12 (SURROUNDING AREA)
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 40 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 Source: ArchiRender Architect, 8/26/2016.
ARTISTIC RENDERING OF BUILDING FROM SAND HILL ROAD FIGURE 8
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 42 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.1.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing buildings and their surrounding landscaping (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no direct aesthetics impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2-acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the proposed office development on the western portion of the property. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
The primary natural visual resources in the City of Menlo Park are the San Francisco Bay shoreline, the surrounding foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, and San Francisquito Creek. The project site is gently sloping to relatively flat, and views of the project site are limited to the immediate area. The foothills are visible to the west from portions of the site. Views of the site and foothills from public vantage points are partially obstructed by existing development and trees.
Construction of the proposed two-story office building would not substantially affect the foothill vistas to the west currently available from public vantage points (e.g., streets and Stanford Hills Park) in the surrounding area. The proposed building, therefore, would not substantially impact views of a scenic vista. [Less Than Significant Impact] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
As described in the “Setting” section above, the site does not contain any scenic view corridors or scenic resources in western Menlo Park. Interstate 280, the closest Officially Designated Scenic Highway, is 1.4 miles from the project site and is not visible from the site. For these reasons, the project would not impact scenic resources or a scenic vista. [No Impact] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Aesthetic values are, by their nature, very subjective. Opinions as to what constitutes a degradation of visual character will differ among individuals. The best available means for assessing what constitutes a visually acceptable standard for new buildings is the City’s design standards and implementation of those standards through the City’s design process.
The proposed office building would be located in the westernmost portion of the lot fronting Sand Hill Road, with the surface parking lot located on the eastern side. The project would include common areas, landscaping, new utility infrastructure, and a trash enclosure. Amenities such as pedestrian walkways, a second-floor deck, and bicycle storage are included in the project design. New parking lots, driveways, and lighting would be constructed for the project, in compliance with City of Menlo Park design guidelines and regulations. The proposed two- story office building would extend to a total height of approximately 35 feet.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 43 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Conceptual elevations of the proposed building are shown on Figures 6 and 7, in Section 3.2, Proposed Project of this Initial Study. The proposed building would consist of stucco exterior walls and columns, aluminum detailing, and a metal roof, typical of modern commercial office architecture. The materials and overall aesthetic would be consistent with the existing Hewlett Foundation building adjacent to the site.
The project also proposes to replace the existing chain-link fencing and gate surrounding the PG&E valve lot with a concrete masonry unit (CMU) wall and metal gate.
Of the 93 trees within or immediately adjacent to the proposed office development, it is estimated that 19 would be removed. Six of these trees would be considered Heritage trees by the City of Menlo Park. New trees and landscaping would also be planted, as discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources of this Initial Study. Heritage trees would be replaced on-site at a ratio of at least 2:1 (trees replaced to trees removed), in addition to other new landscaping.
The new landscaping and on-site tree plantings would minimize long-term impacts to the visual character of the project site. Since the project would comply with City tree replacement requirements and would retain key trees providing screening at the transition between commercial, office, and residential areas, impacts to the visual character of the project from the proposed office development and associated tree removal would be less than significant. [Less Than Significant Impact] d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
As described above, the project proposes to construct a two-story office building and associated improvements. The Menlo Park Planning Commission and City Council would evaluate the aesthetics of the proposed building, including reflective materials and lighting sources, during the project approval process. This review would ensure that the proposed design and construction materials are consistent with design and aesthetic standards for office development in the area, and would not adversely affect the visual quality of the area or create a substantial new source of light and glare.
Given the location of the proposed buildings, the existing screening provided by mature trees, and the visual character of the site area, the project would not create a significant new source of light or glare. [Less Than Significant Impact]
4.1.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in significant visual and aesthetic impacts. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 44 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 1, 3, 6 or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1, 3, 6 use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause 1, 4, 6 rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of 1, 2, 3 forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing 1, 2, 3, 6 environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
4.2.2 Setting
Regulatory Framework
The California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) produces maps and statistical data for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status, and the best quality land is categorized as Prime Farmland. The maps are updated every two years with the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance.
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use.
Existing Conditions
The project site is not used for agricultural or timberland purposes, and is located within an existing developed area of San Mateo County. According to the San Mateo County Important Farmland
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 45 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
2014 map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land, meaning that the land contains a building density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel. Common examples of Urban and Built-Up Land include residential, industrial, and commercial purposes; golf courses; landfills; airports; sewage treatment; and water control structures.
The site is not designated by the California Resources Agency as farmland of any type and is not the subject of a Williamson Act contract. No land adjacent to the project site is designated or used as farmland, timberland, or forest land.
4.2.3 Impact Discussion a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use?
The project site is not used for agricultural purposes. The site is not designated by the Department of Conservation as farmland of any type. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in impacts to agricultural resources. [No Impact] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The project site is not zoned for agriculture, and it is not the subject of a Williamson Act contract. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agriculture. [No Impact] c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production?
The project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland, and the City of Menlo Park does not contain any lands zoned for timberland production. The project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. [No Impact] d) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Neither the project site, nor any of the properties adjacent to the project site or in the vicinity, is used for timberland or forest land. The project would not impact timberland or forest land. [No Impact] e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
According to the San Mateo County Important Farmland 2014 map, the project site and surrounding area are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. The development of the project site would not result in conversion of any forest or farmlands. [No Impact]
4.2.4 Conclusion
The proposed project would have no impact on agricultural land, agricultural activities, or forestry resources in the area. [No Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 46 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.3 AIR QUALITY
The discussion in this section is based in part on the 2131 Sand Hill Office Development Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in October 2016. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix A.
4.3.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 1, 2, 3, 7 the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 1, 2, 3, 7 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 1, 2, 3, 7 increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 1, 2, 3, 7 pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 1 substantial number of people?
4.3.2 Setting
Air quality and the amount of a given pollutant in the atmosphere are determined by the amount of a pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute the pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain, and, for photochemical pollutants, sunshine.
Regulatory Framework
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency tasked with managing air quality in the region. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), oversees regional air district activities and regulates air quality at the State level.
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan
As the regional government agency responsible for regulating air pollution within the air basin, BAAQMD must prepare air quality plans specifying how state air quality standards will be met. The
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 47 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP), which has been adopted by BAAQMD and takes into account future growth projections to 2035, serves to:
Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone; Provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter (PM), air toxics, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan; Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010-2012 timeframe.
Determining a project’s consistency with the 2010 CAP involves assessing whether applicable control measures contained in the 2010 CAP are implemented. Implementation of control measures improve air quality and protect public health. Control measures in the 2010 CAP are organized into five categories: Stationary Source Measures, Mobile Source Measures, Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), Land Use and Local Impact Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures.
Air Pollutants of Concern (Criteria Air Pollutants)
Major criteria air pollutants, listed in criteria documents by the U.S. EPA and CARB, include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and suspended particulate matter. These pollutants can have health effects such as respiratory impairment and heart and lung disease symptoms.
Ozone
High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort.
Particulate Matter
Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). The health effects of particulate matter are discussed below.
Air Quality Standards
The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act require that the CARB, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as “nonattainment areas.” Because of the differences between the national and state standards, the designation of nonattainment areas is different under the federal and state legislation. The Bay Area is considered a nonattainment area for ground-level ozone and PM2.5
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 48 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered nonattainment for PM10 under the California Clean Air Act, but not the Federal Act. The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide (CO).
Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer or serious illness) and include, but are not limited to, criteria air pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter near a highway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, state, and federal levels.
Diesel Particulate Matter
Diesel exhaust, in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM), is the predominant TAC in urban air. It is estimated to represent about three-quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the CARB, diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State’s Proposition 65 or under the federal Hazardous Air Pollutants program.
CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in-use public and utility fleets, and heavy- duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008, CARB approved a new regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and nitrogen oxides from existing on-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles. The regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance requirements between 2014 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010 model-year engines or equivalent by 2023. These requirements are phased in over the compliance period and depend on the model year of the vehicle.
Fine Particulate Matter
Elevated concentrations of PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. Fine particulate matter can travel into the lungs and bloodstream. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children.
Sensitive Receptors
There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 49 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer-causing TACs. Residential locations are assumed to include infants and small children. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are located in residences to the south of the project boundary.
Existing Conditions
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. BAAQMD is the regional government agency that monitors and regulates air pollution within the air basin. According to the most current data available from the BAAQMD, the Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
The Bay Area typically has moderate ventilation, frequent inversions that restrict vertical dilution, and terrain that restricts horizontal dilution. These factors give the Bay Area a relatively high atmospheric potential for pollution.
4.3.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to the existing development (i.e., the Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no air quality impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2-acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property.
CEQA Thresholds of Significance Used in the Analysis
As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Menlo Park, and other jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, often utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air emissions and/or health effects adopted by the BAAQMD based upon the scientific and other factual data prepared by BAAQMD in developing those thresholds.
Thresholds prepared and adopted by BAAQMD in May 2011 were the subject of a lawsuit by the California Building Industry Association5 and a subsequent appeal by BAAQMD6. The Appellate Court decision on August 13, 2013 upheld the threshold adoption process as valid. Subsequently, the Appellate Court’s decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted limited review and issued a ruling in December 2015 striking down a narrow aspect of the BAAQMD thresholds (i.e., the requirement to look at existing environmental impacts on the project), but leaving
5 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Alameda County Superior Court (Case No. RG10548693). 6 California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Cal. Ct. App. 1st, Case No. A135335, August 13, 2013. The Appellate Court ruled that the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds were adopted using a valid public review process and were supported by substantial evidence.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 50 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 the bulk of the thresholds intact. The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment is subject to the discretion of each lead agency, based upon substantial evidence. The City has carefully considered the thresholds prepared by BAAQMD in May 2011 and regards these thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Evidence supporting these thresholds has been presented in the following documents:
BAAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012. BAAQMD. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report – California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance. October 2009. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects. July 2009. Cal EPA, CARB. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. 2005.
This analysis is based upon the general methodologies in the most recent BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated May 2012) and numeric thresholds for the San Francisco Bay Basin, including the thresholds listed in Table 4.3-1.
BAAQMD’s established thresholds of significance include ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx), PM10, and PM2.5, and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts. Construction and operational thresholds for these pollutants, as well as CO and fugitive dust, are listed in Table 4.3-1.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 51 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Table 4.3-1: Air Quality Significance Thresholds Construction Operation-Related Average Daily Average Daily Average Annual Pollutant Emissions Emissions Emissions (pounds per day) (pounds per day) (tons per year) Criteria Air Pollutants ROG 54 54 10 NOx 54 54 10 PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15 PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10 9.0 parts per million (8-hour average) or CO Not Applicable 20.0 parts per million (1-hour average) Construction Dust Ordinance or other Fugitive Dust Not Applicable Best Management Practices Health Risks and Hazards for Single Sources Excess Cancer Risk >10 per one million Hazard Index >1.0 Incremental annual PM2.5 >0.3 microgram per cubic meter Health Risks and Hazards for Combined Sources (Cumulative from all sources within 1,000-foot zone of influence) Excess Cancer Risk >100 per one million Hazard Index >10.0 Annual Average PM2.5 >0.8 microgram per cubic meter a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Regional Air Quality Management Districts such as BAAQMD have prepared air quality plans specifying how state air quality standards would be met. The BAAQMD’s most recent adopted plan is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Determining consistency with the 2010 CAP involves assessing whether applicable control measures contained within the 2010 CAP are implemented. Implementation of control measures improves air quality and protects public health. The project’s consistency with applicable control measures is summarized in Table 4.3- 2 below. The project supports the primary goals of the 2010 CAP in that it does not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds for operational air pollutant emissions (see discussion b-d, below) and is considered infill development, providing users of the site with access to existing transit and services to reduce vehicle trips. The proposed project is consistent with the following applicable CAP control measures:
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 52 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Table 4.3-2: 2010 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Measure Description Project Consistency The project site is accessible by existing Expand bicycle facilities serving Improve bicycle lanes and bikeways. Eight bicycle transit hubs, employment sites, Bicycle racks and eight bicycle lockers are educational and cultural Access and proposed as part of the project. The facilities, shopping districts, and Facilities project is consistent with this control other activity centers measure. Existing pedestrian facilities in the area include crosswalks, sidewalks, and Improve Improve pedestrian access to pedestrian signals. The project would Pedestrian transit, employment, and major install crosswalks and pedestrian signals at Access and activity centers the intersection of Sand Hill Road and Facilities Sharon Park Drive. The project is consistent with this control measure. Promote land use patterns, The project vicinity is served by existing policies, and infrastructure transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities Support investments that support mixed- and is in an infill location. The project is Local Land use, transit-oriented not located within a downtown core and is Use development that reduces motor not part of a mixed-use development. The Strategies vehicle dependence and project is generally consistent with this facilitates walking, bicycling, control measure. and transit use Promote policies to implement market-rate pricing of parking facilities, reduce parking Parking requirements for new Pricing and The project does not propose market-rate development projects, parking Management pricing or shared mixed-use parking. “cash-out,” unbundling of Strategies parking in residential and commercial leases, shared parking at mixed-use facilities The proposed project would be built Increase efficiency and Energy according to the Menlo Park Green conservation to decrease fossil Efficiency Building Ordinance. The project is fuel use in the Bay Area consistent with this control measure. Although the project does not propose the Mitigate the “urban heat island” use of cool roofing or paving, the project Urban Heat effect by promoting the would plant additional trees and provide Island implementation of cool roofing, new landscaping. Thus, the project is Mitigation cool paving, and other strategies generally consistent with this control measure. The project would plant additional trees Promote planting of low-VOC- and provide new landscaping around the emitting shade trees to reduce Tree proposed building. The trees would help urban heat island effects, save Planting offset the urban heat island effects and energy, and absorb CO and 2 absorb CO ; thus, the project is generally other air pollutants 2 consistent with this control measure.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 53 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
The proposed project includes transportation and energy control measures and is generally consistent with the 2010 CAP; therefore, it would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan. [Less Than Significant Impact] b-d) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Criteria Pollutants
Construction Impacts
Construction activities would temporarily affect local air quality and could affect nearby sensitive receptors (residences). Construction activities such as earthmoving, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local and regional air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non- water-based paints, thinners, some insulating materials, and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application.
In their 2011 update to the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, BAAQMD identified the size of land use projects that could result in significant air pollutant emissions. The BAAQMD screening threshold for construction of general office buildings is 346,000 square feet. The proposed development would be well below the screening threshold at 39,510 square feet of office uses.
However, construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. Fugitive dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. Fugitive dust emissions would also depend on soil moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of equipment operating. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less than significant if best management practices are employed to reduce these emissions. A list of Best Management Practices is provided in MM AIR-1.1 below.
Impact AIR-1: Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, could temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. [Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 54 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Mitigation Measures: The proposed project will implement the mitigation measures described below to reduce the potential for generation of fugitive dust to a less than significant level.
MM AIR-1.1: Measures to Control Dust Emissions: The contractor shall implement the following Best Management Practices that are required of all projects:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes7. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Implementation of MM AIR-1.1 would reduce the impacts of fugitive dust to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Operational Impacts
The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. BAAQMD monitors and regulates air pollution within the air basin. As previously discussed, the Bay Area is considered a nonattainment area for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered nonattainment for PM10 under the California Clean Air Act, but not the Federal Clean Air Act. The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide.
7 Idling times are regulated by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 55 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
The project proposes construction of a 39,510-square foot office building. The proposed project is below the BAAQMD operational screening level for criteria pollutants of 277,000 square feet. The project would not contribute substantially to the Bay Area’s existing air quality violations of ground-level ozone, PM2.5, or PM10, or to any projected violations. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction Impacts
Project Construction Impacts
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Construction of the project is anticipated to take about 15 months. Emissions (assumed to be DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and exhaust emissions from on- road vehicles, with total emissions from all construction stages, were calculated as 167 pounds. The on-road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during demolition and grading activities, worker travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. These emissions from on-road vehicles traveling at or near the site were calculated as occurring at the construction site. Fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions were calculated as 6.5 pounds for the overall construction period, well below the air quality significance threshold of 54 pounds per day listed in Table 4.3-1.
These exhaust air pollutant emissions would not be considered to contribute substantially to existing or projected air quality violations for toxic air contaminants. Construction exhaust emissions may still pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at existing sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) in the vicinity of the project construction area. Construction emissions were assumed to occur daily between 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM, when the majority of construction activity would occur. Figure 9 shows the project site and nearby sensitive receptor locations where health impacts were evaluated for the maximally exposed individual (MEI).8
Results of the air quality assessment indicate that without mitigation, the maximum excess residential cancer risks would be 58.7 in one million for an infant exposure and 1.0 in one million for an adult exposure. The maximum modeled cancer risk occurred just south of the construction site at a single-family residence near the site (MEI). The maximum residential excess cancer risk would be greater than the BAAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million shown in Table 4.3-3.
8 The MEI is a person that may be located at the receptor location where the highest exposure to toxic air contaminants emitted from a given source or project is predicted in a Health Risk Screening Analysis (Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Regulation 2 Permits, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.)
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 56 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS FIGURE 9
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 58 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
The maximum annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.21 microgram per cubic meter at the MEI residential receptor location would not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold of 0.3 microgram per cubic meter. These results are displayed in Table 4.3-3.
The maximum modeled annual residential DPM concentration (i.e., from construction exhaust) was 0.18 microgram per cubic meter. The maximum computed hazard index (HI) based on this DPM concentration is 0.036, which is much lower than the BAAQMD significance criterion of a HI greater than 1.0.
Table 4.3-3: Unmitigated Construction Project Impacts Annual PM 2.5 Acute or Cancer Risk (micrograms Source Chronic (per million) per cubic Hazard Index meter) Unmitigated Project Construction 58.7 0.21 0.01 BAAQMD Single Source Threshold 10.0 0.8 10.0 Significant Impact – Single Source Yes No No
Impact AIR-2: Construction activities could cause the maximum residential excess cancer risk to exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District significance threshold. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: The proposed project will implement the mitigation measures described below to reduce the potential for increased residential cancer risk to a less than significant level.
MM AIR-2.1: Selection of Construction Equipment: The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average 85 percent reduction in PM2.5 exhaust emissions or more. Such equipment selection would include the following requirements:
All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operated on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, be equipped with California Air Resources Board-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent, and/or Use of alternatively-fueled equipment (e.g., Liquefied Petroleum Gas [LPG]-powered lifts), alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels), added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures listed above provided that these measures are approved by the City and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to a less than significant level. Measures to be used shall be approved by the City of Menlo Park Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading permits, and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than significant.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 59 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Implementation of MM AIR-1.1 and MM AIR-2.1 would reduce maximum residential excess cancer risk to less than 4.7 in one million, below the Bay Area Air Quality Management significance threshold. Residential cancer risks under unmitigated and mitigated conditions are reported in Table 4.3-4. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Table 4.3-4: Cumulative Construction Impact Assessment Annual PM 2.5 Acute or Cancer Risk (micrograms Source Chronic (per million) per cubic Hazard Index meter) Unmitigated Project Construction 58.7 0.21 0.01 Mitigated Project Construction 4.7 0.02 0.00 Sand Hill Road 1.8 0.06 <0.02 Plant G2945 (550 feet from MEI) 1.9 0.01 <0.01 Total Unmitigated 62.4 0.27 <0.04 Mitigated 8.4 0.09 <0.03 BAAQMD Single Source Threshold 10.0 0.8 10.0 Significant Impact – Single Source Unmitigated Yes No No Mitigated No No No BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0 Significant Impact - Cumulative Unmitigated No No No Mitigated No No No
Cumulative Effects During Construction
Community health risk assessments also typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of a project site. These sources include freeways and highways, busy surface streets, and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD. Traffic on high-volume roadways is a source of TAC emissions that may adversely affect sensitive receptors in close proximity to the roadway. For local roadways, BAAQMD considers roadways with traffic volumes of over 10,000 vehicles per day to have a potentially significant impact on a proposed project. A review of the project area indicates that traffic on Sand Hill Road is the only substantial source of mobile TAC emissions within 1,000 feet of the project site. One stationary source in the project vicinity has the potential to affect the project site. Cumulative risk impacts from these sources upon the construction MEI (i.e., the location where maximum construction health risk impacts occur) are reported in Table 4.3-4.
Roadway Impacts: There are several local roadways near the project site, with the busiest being Sand Hill Road. At a distance of 330 feet south of Sand Hill Road, the construction MEI’s estimated cancer risk from Sand Hill Road would be 1.75 per million, and PM2.5 concentration would be 0.06 microgram per cubic meter. Chronic or acute HI for the roadway would be below 0.02. These values are below BAAQMD thresholds of significance for cancer risk (10 in one million) and HI (1.0). Sand Hill Road health risks are displayed in Table 4.3-4. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 60 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Stationary Sources: One permitted stationary source of air pollution near the project site was identified. Plant G2945, which is a gasoline dispensing station operated by Shell and located at 125 Sharon Park Drive, is about 550 feet northeast of the cancer risk and PM2.5 MEI. This facility would result in an adult cancer risk of 1.9 per million, PM2.5 concentration of 0.01 microgram per cubic meter, and HI of less than 0.01, which would all be below BAAQMD thresholds of significance. The stationary source risk is reported in Table 4.3-4. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Operational Impacts
Project effects related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing a new sensitive receptor, such as a residential use, in proximity to an existing source of TACs or by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. The BAAQMD recommends using a 1,000-foot screening radius around a project site for purposes of identifying community health risk from siting a new sensitive receptor or a new source of TACs. Operation of the proposed office project is not expected to cause any localized emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to unhealthy air pollutant levels. No stationary sources of TACs, such as generators, are proposed as part of the project. [Less Than Significant Impact] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Land uses primarily associated with odorous emissions include waste transfer and recycling stations, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting operations, petroleum operations, food and byproduct processes, factories, and agricultural activities such as livestock operations. The proposed project does not include any of these types of land uses. In addition, the proposed project would not be sited near any odor sources and, thereby, would not be exposed to any recognized odor sources. [No Impact]
4.3.4 Conclusion
The project would have a less than significant impact on air quality with implementation of the mitigation measures MM AIR-1.1 and MM AIR-2.1. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 61 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The discussion of trees in this section is based on an arborist report prepared by HortScience, Inc. on September 8, 2015 and addendum letter issued January 27, 2017. The report and addendum are included as Appendix B to this Initial Study. A letter of recommendations for reducing the potential effects on sensitive vegetation communities, Heritage trees, and special-status species was prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants, Inc., and is included as Appendix C.
4.4.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 1, 8 directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 1, 2, 3 riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 1, 2, 3 protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of 1, 8 any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 1, 4, 9 protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 1, 2, 3 Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 62 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.4.2 Setting
Regulatory Framework
Special-Status Species
Special-status species include plants or animals that are listed as threatened or endangered under the federal and/or California Endangered Species Act (CESA), species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a California Species of Special Concern, as well as plants identified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)9 as rare, threatened, or endangered.
A review of the following literature and database searches was conducted to determine the potential for sensitive biological communities and special-status species:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Palo Alto 7.5-minute quadrangle; California Natural Diversity Database; California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Database; USFWS Information for Conservation and Planning search; Aerial photographs.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA: 16 USC Section 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, bird nests, and eggs. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in a violation of the MBTA such as the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or nest abandonment.
California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts on, many of the state’s fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats. Certain sections of the Fish and Game Code describe regulations that pertain to certain wildlife species. Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 2513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by CDFW.
City of Menlo Park Heritage Tree Ordinance
The City of Menlo Park Municipal Code establishes regulations for the preservation of heritage trees under Chapter 13.24, Heritage Trees. The primary intent of the ordinance is to ensure there will be a significant population of large, healthy trees over the long term in the City.
9 The California Native Plant Society is a non-profit organization that maintains lists and a database of rare and endangered plant species in California. Plants in the CNPS “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California” are considered “Special Plants” by the CDFW National Diversity Database Program.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 63 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
The ordinance also establishes permitting policies and procedures for removal, pruning, protection, and specific penalties for violations. This chapter defines heritage trees as:
A tree or group of trees of historical significance, special character, or community benefit, specifically designated by resolution of the City Council; An oak tree (Quercus sp.) which is native to California and has a trunk with a circumference of 31.4 inches (diameter of 10 inches) or more, measured at 54 inches above natural grade; All trees other than oaks which have a trunk with a circumference of 47.1 inches (diameter of 15 inches) or more, measured 54 inches above natural grade, with the exception of trees that are less than 12 feet in height, which will be exempt from this section.
Habitat Conservation Plans
There are currently no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans applicable to the proposed project site.
Existing Conditions
Existing Biotic Resources On-Site
The project site is located along the south side of Sand Hill Road and is surrounded by commercial, office, and residential development. The proposed office development area is primarily vacant land except for an existing PG&E valve lot and unpaved access road to the valve lot. In the greater landscape context, the site is located within a developed area of San Mateo County and does not provide habitat connections to or from open space in the vicinity.
The proposed project site is composed of ruderal/disturbed areas and developed/landscaped areas, both of which are not considered sensitive vegetation communities. Ruderal areas have been recently disturbed by construction activities (related to the PG&E valve lot) and are dominated by non-native invasive grasses and herbaceous plants. Developed/landscaped areas include a large residential building, an office building, an access road for the existing office complex, and irrigated ornamental landscape plantings. The northern and southern perimeters of the proposed office development area are lined with mixed fencerows of planted and/or naturalized native and non-native trees, many of which are large enough to be considered Heritage trees per the City of Menlo Park Heritage Tree Ordinance. These fencerows do not constitute a sensitive natural vegetation community because they are not contiguous stands and appear to consist primarily (if not entirely) of planted trees based on historic aerial photographs. Recent aerial photographs (Google Earth 2016) indicate that the majority of the site was used as a construction and staging area for a PG&E gas transmission pipeline project in 2012.
Trees
The arborist report and addendum for the project evaluated 93 trees representing 19 different species on or immediately adjacent to the proposed office development area. Forty-five of these trees qualify as Heritage trees in the City of Menlo Park, as defined previously. Tree species found on the project site are listed in Table 4.4-1.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 64 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Table 4.4-1: Tree Species Found on Site Scientific Name Common Name Count Heritage Tree Afrocarpus falcatus African fern pine 1 0 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor 1 1 Eucalyptus camaldulensis Red river gum 2 2 Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum eucalyptus 1 1 Eucalyptus polyanthemos Silver dollar gum 1 1 Eucalyptus viminalis Manna gum 1 1 Grevillea robusta Silk oak 1 1 Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia 1 1 Olea europaea Olive 1 0 Pinus pinea Italian stone pine 2 2 Pinus radiate Monterey pine 6 4 Pistacia atlantica Mt. Atlas pistache 1 1 Prunus cerasifera Purpleleaf plum 2 0 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak 39 22 Quercus douglasii Blue oak 2 1 Quercus ilex Holly oak 5 0 Quercus lobata Valley oak 11 7 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood 7 0 Ulmus alata Winged elm 8 0 Total 93 45
4.4.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing buildings and their surrounding landscaping (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no biological resources impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2-acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Special Status Plant Species
Based upon a search of the databases listed above, 22 special-status plant species have documented occurrences within the Palo Alto USGS quadrangle and the vicinity of the site. Because of a lack of suitable habitat (e.g., hydrologic conditions, soil conditions, and vegetation communities) and the recent history of soil and vegetation disturbance, none of the 22 special- status plant species have the potential to occur on the site. No special-status plant species were observed during the site visit.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 65 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Several Monterey pine trees were observed on the proposed office development site; however, only native occurrences of this species are considered special-status and the site is not located at the site of a native occurrence. Monterey pine is widely naturalized throughout coastal California, and is considered invasive outside of its native range. [No Impact]
Special Status Wildlife Species
Of the 35 special-status wildlife species documented in the vicinity of the proposed project site, most are excluded from the site based on a lack of habitat features. The absence of habitat features eliminates components critical to the survival or movement of most special-status species found in the vicinity.
American badger (Taxidea taxus) has been documented within 0.1 mile of the proposed site, but the location of this occurrence has since been developed and the lack of resources such as prey and burrows within the site and lack of connectivity with potentially occupied habitat eliminates potential for the species to occur. Other species like burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) have potential to inhabit open grassland or vacant lots; however, no suitable burrows or burrow surrogates were observed at the site and surrounding 300 feet. One special-status wildlife species was observed during the site visit. Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, is common in this portion of its range and may nest within tree cavities of the few large oak trees on site.
Impact BIO-1: Construction activities could impact Nuttall’s woodpecker that could nest within tree cavities of the large oak trees on site. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: The proposed project will implement the mitigation measures described below to reduce the potential for direct impacts to special-status wildlife species to a less than significant level.
MM BIO-1.1: Worker Environmental Awareness Training: Prior to any construction activities, an approved biologist will conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will include descriptions of Nuttall’s woodpecker, its habitat, importance of the species, and the limits of work boundaries associated with the project.
MM BIO-1.2: Nesting Bird Avoidance: To the greatest extent feasible, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be completed between September 1 and February 14, to avoid the general nesting period for birds.
MM BIO-1.3: Preconstruction Survey: A preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be completed by a qualified biologist prior to vegetation removal or any construction-related activity (including site preparation) that occurs during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31) in order to determine if nesting birds and their territories are located within 500 feet of the project site. If no special status bird nests are identified with 500 feet during the preconstruction survey, construction-related activities will be allowed to proceed.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 66 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
MM BIO-1.4: Buffer Zone: If active nests are observed during the preconstruction survey, the project applicant, in coordination with City staff as appropriate, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with CDFW (usually 100 feet for perching birds and 300 feet for raptors). The no-disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends.
Nesting Birds
Raptors (birds of prey) and other birds protected by the MBTA and CDFW Code may nest in trees and vegetation within and adjacent to the proposed project site. There is potential for construction-related activities to impact nesting birds if active nests are removed or otherwise disturbed during the breeding season. Any loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment would constitute a significant impact. Implementation of MM BIO-1.2 through MM BIO-1.4 listed above would reduce the potential for the project to impact birds protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code to a less than significant level.
Implementation of MM BIO-1.1 through MM BIO-1.4 would reduce impacts to special-status species and nesting birds to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
The project is not located within 100 feet of the San Francisco Bay; therefore, the project is not within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).
The nearest waterway to the proposed project site is San Francisquito Creek, approximately 1,000 feet to the east. There are no rivers, streams, channels, lakes, or riparian vegetation onsite. Therefore, the project site is not under the regulatory jurisdiction of CDFW under Sections 1601-1603 of the Fish and Game Code. [No Impact] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Habitats meeting the regulatory definition of Waters of the U.S. are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. All proposed discharges of dredged or fill material occurring below the high tide line in tidal waters of the U.S. and within the lateral extent of wetlands adjacent to these waters typically requires authorization from the USACE.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 67 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
The project site is not located in the vicinity of tidal waters or wetlands. The proposed project would not impact any area under the jurisdiction of the USACE. [No Impact] d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Wildlife movement between suitable habitat areas can occur via open space areas lacking substantial barriers. Functioning corridors connect two larger areas of core habitat and do not direct wildlife to developed areas or areas that are otherwise void of core habitat. Wildlife corridors can reduce the effects of habitat fragmentation by allowing animals to move between core habitats, replenishing depleted populations and maintaining genetic diversity.
The extent and density of existing development surrounding the site prevents the site from functioning as a wildlife corridor for the movement of terrestrial wildlife or plants. The distance between viable core habitat areas for terrestrial species is too great, and the intensity of disturbance from traffic along major roads, nighttime lighting, noise, and human presence over that distance is a major deterrent to terrestrial wildlife movement. The small size of the site in the context of the surrounding landscape also substantially reduces the value of the site as a corridor for avian and bat species. Considering these factors, no true wildlife corridors can be said to exist within the proposed project site. [Less Than Significant Impact] e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The proposed office development area currently supports 93 existing trees. Because the majority of trees are located along the perimeter of the site and the proposed building would be near the center of the site, 74 trees could potentially be preserved. Based on the current site plan, the proposed project would remove 19 trees, including six Heritage trees, for construction. A City of Menlo Park Heritage Tree Removal Application Permit is required before any Heritage trees could be removed from the site or significantly pruned.
Impact BIO-2: The proposed office development project would require the removal of 19 trees for construction. Six of these trees are considered Heritage trees by the City of Menlo Park. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: The project will implement the mitigation measures described below to reduce the impacts of the loss of Heritage trees to a less than significant level.
MM BIO-2.1: Tree Replacement: The applicant shall offset the loss of trees by planting replacement trees at the project site. Two replacement trees per Heritage tree, and one replacement tree per non-Heritage tree, shall be planted, for a total of 25 replacement trees. If additional trees are removed due to project impacts, replacement trees will be required at the same ratios.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 68 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
MM BIO-2.2: Tree Preservation Measures: All existing on-site trees to remain shall be trimmed and fertilized by a licensed arborist prior to commencement of grading or demolition operations.
MM BIO-2.3: Tree Protection Measures: A Tree Protection Zone of at least ten feet shall be established around each tree to be preserved. No grading, excavation, construction, or storage of materials shall occur within that zone.
Implementation of MM BIO-2.1 through MM BIO-2.3 would reduce the impacts of tree removal to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
There are no currently adopted habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans applicable to the proposed project site. [No Impact]
4.4.4 Conclusion
The project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources with implementation of the mitigation measures MM BIO-1.1 through MM BIO-2.3. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 69 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.5.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1, 2, 3 significance of an historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 1, 2, 3 significance of an archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 1, 2, 3 paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those 1, 2, 3 interred outside of formal cemeteries?
4.5.2 Setting
Regulatory Framework
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the National Park Service’s official list of historic places worthy of preservation, and is part of a national program to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archaeological resources. The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) includes buildings and sites significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of the state.
Several sections of the California Public Resources Code protect paleontological resources. Section 5097.5 prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any “vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints” on public lands, except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted express permission. “As discussed in this section, ‘public lands’ means lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state, or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof.” California Public Resources Code Section 30244 requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that occur as a result of development on public lands.
Existing Conditions
Historic Resources
Three sites in the City of Menlo Park are on the NRHP. These include the Barron-Latham-Hopkins Gate Lodge at 555 Ravenswood Avenue, the Church of the Nativity at 210 Oak Grove Avenue, and the Menlo Park Railroad Station at 1100 Merrill Street. Two sites in the City of Menlo Park are listed on the CRHR including the aforementioned Menlo Park Railroad Station and a residence
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 70 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 located at 262 Princeton Road. The residence at 262 Princeton Road is approximately 1.6 miles from the site, and is the closest listed historical resource.
Archaeological Resources
Menlo Park is situated within territory once occupied by Costanoan (also commonly referred to as Ohlone) language groups. There are no known archaeological resources on or adjacent to the project site, and the site is located in an area with an extremely low risk for archaeological resources.10
Paleontological Resources
The proposed office development site is underlain by clayey sand that is part of the Santa Clara Formation, as discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils of this Initial Study. Regionally, this unit is known to include freshwater vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossils. Based on the presence of vertebrate fossils in the formation, the Santa Clara Formation is considered to have high paleontological sensitivity.11
4.5.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing development (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no cultural resources impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2- acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource?
Based upon a review of the CRHR, NRHP, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest, historical resources were not identified on or in proximity to the project site. The proposed office building would be located adjacent to a modern office building on Sand Hill Road. The proposed project would not include demolition or removal of any buildings, and would not directly or indirectly impact historical resources. [No Impact] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource?
Although the likelihood of encountering buried cultural resources is low, the disturbance of these resources, if they are encountered during excavation and construction, could create an impact. The project will be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, which include measures to avoid or reduce impacts to unknown cultural resources.
10 Jones, Laura. “2131 Sand Hill Road: Response to 12-22-17 comments.” Email. March 9, 2017. 11 Hanson, C. Bruce. Paleontological Evaluation Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California. September 2010.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 71 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Impact CUL-1: Construction activities could impact unknown archaeological resources. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to reduce and/or avoid impacts to buried archaeological resources on site to a less than significant level.
MM CUL-1.1: Discovery of Cultural Materials: If prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and the City must be notified. A qualified archaeologist and Native American representative shall inspect and evaluate the findings within 24 hours of discovery. Prehistorical material might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, milling slabs); and battered-stone tools such as hammerstones and pitted stones. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, shall develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
Implementation of MM CUL-1.1 would reduce and/or avoid impacts to buried archaeological resources to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature?
Although no paleontological resources have been identified in the vicinity of the project site, the site is underlain by sediment with a high paleontological sensitivity. Disturbance of these resources, if they are discovered during excavation and construction, could result in an impact. The project will be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, which include measures to avoid or reduce impacts to unknown paleontological resources.
Impact CUL-2: Construction excavation activities could impact unknown paleontological resources. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: The project shall implement the following mitigation measure to reduce and/or avoid impacts to unknown paleontological resources on site to a less than significant level.
MM CUL-2.1: Discovery of Paleontological Resources: In the event that a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, all work on the site will stop immediately until a qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. The City shall be notified if any fossils are discovered. Treatment may include preparation and recovery of fossil material so that they can be housed in an
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 72 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The project proponent shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the paleontologist.
Implementation of MM CUL-2.1 would reduce and/or avoid impacts to unknown paleontological resources to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project] d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The proposed project is not located on or near a known archaeological site or cemetery. Although the likelihood of encountering human remains is low, the disturbance of these remains, if they are encountered during construction, could result in an impact. The project will be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, which include measures to avoid or reduce impacts to unknown human remains.
Impact CUL-3: Construction activities could impact unknown human remains. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: The project shall implement the following mitigation measures to reduce and/or avoid impacts to unknown human remains that could be located on site to a less than significant level.
MM CUL-3.1: Discovery of Human Remains: In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50-foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified immediately and shall then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, he/she shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who will notify the person the NAHC identifies as the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. If the MLD does not make recommendations regarding the disposal of the remains within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.
Implementation of MM CUL-3.1 would reduce and/or avoid impacts to unknown human remains to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
4.5.4 Conclusion
The proposed project, with implementation of the mitigation measures MM CUL-1.1 through MM CUL-3.1 outlined above, would result in a less than significant impact to cultural resources. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 73 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The discussion in this section is based in part on the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group in May 2016. This report is included as Appendix D of this Initial Study.
4.6.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 1, 3, 10, described on the most recent Alquist- 11 Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42)? 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1, 3, 10, 11 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including 1, 3, 10 liquefaction? 4. Landslides? 1, 3, 10 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 1, 3, 10 of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 1, 3, 10 unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 1, 3, 10 Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately 1 supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
4.6.2 Setting
Regulatory Framework
A number of laws and regulations related to geology and soils apply to development on the project site, including the following:
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 74 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning (AP) Act was passed into law following the destructive 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The AP Act provides a mechanism for reducing losses from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis. The intent of the AP Act is to ensure public safety by prohibiting the siting of most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was passed by the California legislature in 1990 to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other seismic hazards. The SHMA established a state-wide mapping program to identify areas subject to violent shaking and ground failure; the program is intended to assist cities and counties in protecting public health and safety. The SHMA requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. As a result, the California Geological Survey (CGS) is mapping SHMA Zones and has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, ground shaking, and landslides, which include the central San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin.
California Building Code
The California Building Code prescribes a standard for constructing safer buildings throughout the State of California. It contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, soil and rock profile, strength of the ground, and distance to seismic sources. The Code is renewed on a triennial basis. The current version is the 2016 Building Standards Code.
City of Menlo Park Municipal Code
Title 12, Buildings and Construction, of the Menlo Park Municipal Code includes the current California Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, and Green Building Codes. Requirements for grading, excavation, and erosion control are including in Chapter 12.42, Flood Damage Prevention.
Existing Conditions
Regional Geology
The proposed project site is located on a gently inclined alluvial fan surface between the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the southwest and the tidal flats of the San Francisco Bay to the northeast. The alluvial fan surface has been dissected by creeks including the San Francisquito Creek. The alluvial plain has further divided into several distinct geomorphic terrace surfaces.
The nearby foothills to the southwest are composed of primarily Upper Pliocene and older sedimentary rocks (Ladera and Whisky Hills Formations) mantled by partially consolidated
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 75 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 freshwater units of gravel, sand, silt, and clay of the Santa Clara Formation of Pleistocene and Pliocene age (approximately 2 to 7 million years old).
Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The proposed project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay region, but is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a San Mateo County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. No surface expression of active faulting was identified on aerial photographs of the site or during field reconnaissance. The Monte Vista-Shannon Fault is the closest active fault and is located approximately 0.9 mile southwest of the project site.
The major earthquake faults in the project area are the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 3.1 miles from the site, and the San Gregorio Fault, located approximately 13.2 miles from the site. More locally, there are several thrust and reverse faults in the vicinity of the Stanford campus which are contemporary with pre-Holocene activity on the San Andreas Fault Zone. These Quaternary faults include the Pulgas Fault, the Frenchman’s Road Fault, the San Juan Hill Fault, the Willow Road Bridge Fault, the Deer Creek Fault, the Arastadero Thrust Fault, the Hermit Fault, and the Stanford Fault.
The U.S. Geological Survey’s Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities 2015 estimated that there is a 63 percent chance that at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between 2007 and 2036. During such an earthquake the danger of fault surface rupture at the site is slight, but very strong ground shaking would occur. The highest levels of shaking and damage would be expected at locations close to faults.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loose water- saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state during ground shaking. During ground shaking events, such as earthquakes, cyclically induced stresses may increase pore water pressure within the soil voids, resulting in liquefaction. Liquefied soils may lose shear strength, leading to large shear deformations and/or flow failure under moderate to high shear stresses, such as beneath formations or sloping ground. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, non-cohesive soils that are saturated and are bedded with poor drainage, such as sand and silt layers bedded with a cohesive cap.
Based upon the geotechnical investigation, subsurface conditions at the site include thin, stiff cohesive soils underlain by soft bedrock. Groundwater was not encountered in any soil borings. Liquefaction, therefore, is not considered a substantial seismic hazard on the site.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits toward a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water. Typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. There are no open faces within a distance considered susceptible to lateral spreading, and the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading to occur is low.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 76 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Landslides
The project site is relatively flat and, therefore, the probability of a landslide occurring at the site during a seismic event is low.
Site Topography and Soils
The project site is relatively flat and located at approximately 188 to 210 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
Three subsurface exploratory test borings were drilled within the proposed office development area on May 10, 2016 for the preliminary geotechnical investigation (Appendix D). Explorations encountered four to five feet of medium stiff to hard lean clay with variable amounts of sand and gravel. The clay layer is underlain by Santa Clara Formation materials consisting of very dense clayey sand with gravel over Ladera Sandstone to the maximum depth explored of 44 ½ feet. The Santa Clara and Ladera Formations were found to be in a very dense condition. The Santa Clara Formation contains gravel and occasional cobbles.
Based on the subsurface borings, the site exhibits a generally low expansion potential to wetting and drying cycles. One area of the site with a stiff clay layer indicated a high expansion potential to wetting and drying. This material was only encountered in two borings and does not appear to be continuous across the site.
The nearest waterway to the project site is San Francisquito Creek, approximately 1,000 feet to the east. San Francisquito Creek flows northeast toward San Francisco Bay, which is located approximately 4.7 miles east of the project site.
Groundwater was not encountered in any subsurface borings during drilling, which extended to a maximum of 44 feet below grade. Historic high groundwater is not mapped in this area by CGS, as it is mapped in an area of shallow bedrock. Perched water could be encountered at the transition between the surficial clay soils and the Santa Clara Formation. The depth to groundwater can vary seasonally, and can be influenced by underground drainage pattern, regional fluctuations, and other factors.
4.6.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing development (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no geology or soils impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2- acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 77 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, ii) strong seismic ground shaking, iii) seismic-related ground failure, or iv) landslides?
Surface Fault Rupture and Seismic Shaking
The project site is located within the seismically-active San Francisco Bay region, but is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. There are no known earthquake faults crossing the site. Therefore, the likelihood of primary ground rupture is low.
As previously discussed, strong ground shaking would be expected during the lifetime of the proposed project. While no active faults are known to cross the project site, ground shaking on the site could affect the proposed building.
In conformance with current standard practices in the City of Menlo Park, the project shall be constructed according to the recommendations of the design-level geotechnical investigation prepared for the project, as well as the 2016 California Building Code, or subsequent adopted codes. Implementation of these requirements would reduce potential seismic hazards to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Based upon the geotechnical report, the project would not be subject to impacts from other seismic-related hazards including liquefaction, lateral spreading, slope instability, or landslides due to the flat topography of the site. [No Impact] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The project site is generally flat and not adjacent to any steep slopes. Site elevations range from 188 to 210 feet. The project would comply with the City of Menlo Park Grading and Drainage Control Guidelines to further reduce soil erosion and the loss of topsoil. [Less Than Significant Impact] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that will become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
According to published geologic and hazard maps, there are no mapped landslides at or near the site and the site is not included within a landslide hazard zone. Based on the published information and the flat topography of the site, landslides are not judged to be a hazard at the site. [No Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 78 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change with changes in moisture content. They shrink and harden when dried and expand and soften when wetted. Expansive soil was encountered in two of the three subsurface borings completed on the site. This material does not appear to be continuous across the site; however, because there is a cut in the western portion of the site, this expansive layer could be encountered in the subsurface soil beneath at-grade flatwork areas.
Impact GEO-1: Non-contiguous expansive soils were observed on the project site, and could cause a substantial risk during and after subsurface excavation activities. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: To reduce the potential for damage due to expansive soils, the following mitigation measures are included in the project:
MM GEO-1.1: Engineering Measures: To reduce the potential for damage to the planned at- grade structures, footings shall extend below the zone of seasonal moisture fluctuation. In addition, moisture changes shall be limited by using positive drainage away from the building as well as limiting landscaping watering. If the expansive clay layer is encountered beneath concrete flatwork, pavements, or pavers, the non-expansive fill layer shall be increased.
MM GEO-1.2: Construction Moisture Conditioning: To minimize soil volume changes, the contractor shall keep all exposed expansive soil subgrade (and also trench excavation side walls) moist until protected by overlying improvements (or trenches are backfilled). If expansive soils are allowed to dry out significantly, reconditioning may require several days of re-wetting, or deep scarification, moisture conditioning, and re-compaction.
Implementation of MM GEO-1.1 through MM GEO-1.2 listed above would reduce the potential impacts of expansive soils to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project] e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Sewers are available for the disposal of wastewater. [No Impact]
4.6.4 Conclusion
Through conformance with regulatory standards required by the City of Menlo Park and the State of California, as well as implementation of mitigation measures MM GEO-1.1 and MM GEO-1.2, the proposed project would result in less than significant geology and soils impacts, and would not
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 79 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 significantly expose people or structures to adverse seismic risks. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 80 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The discussion in this section is based in part on the 2131 Sand Hill Office Development Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in October 2016. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix A.
4.7.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 1, 2, 3, 7 directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or 1, 2, 3, 7 regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
4.7.2 Setting
Regulatory Framework
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases (GHGs), regulate the Earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor, but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the Earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:
CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion.
N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops.
CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents, but their production has been stopped by international treaty. HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling. PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.
Each GHG has its own potency and effect upon the Earth’s energy balance. This is expressed in terms of a global warming potential (GWP), with CO2 being assigned a value of one and sulfur hexafluoride being several orders of magnitude stronger with a GWP of 23,900. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its GWP and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e).
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 81 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
An expanding body of scientific research supports the idea that global warming is currently affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California could be adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise could increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes, and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.
Assembly Bill 32 and Executive Orders
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed in 2006 and established a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Prior to the adoption of AB 32, the Governor of California signed Executive Order S-3-05. In addition to establishing 202 targets, Executive Order S-3-05 set a long-term objective to reduce GHG emissions to 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. CARB is the state agency in charge of coordinating the GHG emissions reduction effort and establishing statewide emission targets along the way.
In December 2008, CARB approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce California’s dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, and enhance public health, among other goals. Per AB 32, the Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas reduction goal. The First Update to the Scoping Plan was approved on May 22, 2014 and builds upon the Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations. The First Update defines CARB’s priorities over the next five years and lays the groundwork to reach long-term goals set forth in Executive Order S-3-05.12
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-30-15 establishing a GHG reduction target for California of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This is considered a mid-term target for implementation of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. All state agencies with jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions were directed to implement measures to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets. CARB was directed to update the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target and is moving forward with the update process, as discussed below.
SB 32 and AB 197
SB 32 and AB 197 were signed into law in September 2016. The recently signed SB 32 legislation amends provisions of AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Health and Safety Code Division 25.5), to require CARB to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by December 31, 2030. This legislation incorporates the
12 California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board. First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. May 22, 2014.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 82 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Executive Order B-30-15 target discussed above into state law. Changes to the Health and Safety Code under the companion AB 197 legislation call for each scoping plan update to identify each emissions reduction measure and include the range of projected greenhouse gas emissions reductions as well as the range of projected air pollution reductions that result from the emissions reduction measure.
The mid-term target is considered critical by the State to help frame the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure needed to continue reducing GHG emissions. CARB is charged with adopting rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions reductions to meet the new interim statewide GHG target. The framework for greenhouse gas emissions reductions will be provided through an update to the current Climate Change Scoping Plan. The 2030 Target Scoping Plan has been released in draft form and will be considered for adoption by CARB in June 2017.13
Senate Bill 375
California Senate Bill (SB) 375, known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. SB 375 requires regional transportation plans to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that links transportation and land use planning together into a more comprehensive, integrated process. The SCS is a mechanism for more effectively linking a land use pattern and a transportation system together to make travel more efficient and communities more livable. The result is reduced greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles, along with other benefits.
SB 375 builds on AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035 in comparison to 2005 emissions. The per capita reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.
Plan Bay Area, adopted in 2013 by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), is the region’s first plan prepared in response to SB 375. The strategies in the plan are intended to promote compact, mixed-use development close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities, particularly within Priority Development Areas (PDAs) identified by local jurisdictions. The project site is not located within a PDA.14
Senate Bill 1383
On September 19, 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 1383, which establishes the country’s toughest restrictions on destructive “super pollutants” including black carbon, fluorinated gases, and methane. Super pollutants have highly potent heat-trapping effects, but remain in the atmosphere for only a short time as compared to carbon dioxide. SB 1383 reduces the emission of these short-lived climate pollutants by requiring a 50 percent reduction in black carbon and 40 percent reduction in methane and hydrofluorocarbon from 2013 levels by 2030. Sources of super pollutants include petroleum-
13 California Air Resources Board. Discussion Draft 2030 Target Scoping Plan. December 2, 2016. 14 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Priority Development Area (PDA) Investment & Growth Strategy. May 2014.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 83 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 based transportation fuels, agriculture, waste disposal, and synthetic gases used in refrigeration, air conditioning, and aerosol products. Reducing super pollutants can, because of their shorter atmospheric residence time, have a more immediate beneficial impact on climate change.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is the regional government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The BAAQMD regulates GHG emissions through the following plans, programs, and guidelines:
Regional Clean Air Plans
The BAAQMD and other air districts prepare clean air plans in accordance with the state and federal Clean Air Acts. The Bay Area 2010 CAP provides a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health through implementation of a control strategy designed to reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants. The most recent CAP also includes measures designed to reduce GHG emissions.
BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, and provide additional guidance for tiering under CEQA. Under the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a local government may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that is consistent with AB 32 goals. If a project is consistent with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and General Plan that addresses the project’s GHG emissions, it can be presumed that the project will not have significant GHG emissions under CEQA.
City of Menlo Park Climate Action Plan
The City of Menlo Park has prepared and updated its community-wide GHG emissions inventory several times since the release of the City’s 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis. In 2009, the City prepared and approved the City’s Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP). The 2009 CCAP included GHG emissions inventories and strategies to reduce GHG emissions within the City. The latest update to the City’s CCAP was completed in 2015. The 2015 Climate Action Plan Update and Status Report recommends GHG reduction strategies focused on energy efficiency and clean energy.
Existing Conditions
The site is currently undeveloped with the exception of a PG&E valve lot at the western corner of the site. Direct GHG emissions occur from vehicle trips related to maintenance of the PG&E valve lot. There are no indirect GHG emissions from usage of operational electricity, natural gas, water, or other sources.
4.7.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing development (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no greenhouse gas impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2- acre site.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 84 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
For operational GHG emissions, the BAAQMD screening size was identified as 53,000 square feet for general office buildings. Because the project proposes 39,510 square feet of office space, it is concluded that the operational GHG emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for development through 2020 and no quantitative assessment of project GHG impacts was completed. [Less Than Significant Impact] b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, codifies the State of California’s GHG emissions target by directing CARB to reduce the state’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Since that time, CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the Building Standards Commission have all been developing regulations that will help meet the goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3- 05.
A Scoping Plan for AB 32 was adopted by CARB in December 2008. It contains the State of California’s main strategies to reduce GHGs from business-as-usual (BAU) emissions projected in 2020 back down to 1990 levels. BAU is the projected emissions in 2020, including increases in emissions caused by growth, without any GHG reduction measures. The Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, including direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. It required CARB and other state agencies to develop and adopt regulations and other initiatives reducing GHGs by 2012.
As directed by AB 32, CARB has also approved a statewide GHG emissions limit. On December 6, 2007, CARB staff resolved an amount of 427 million metric tons of CO2e as the total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit. The limit is a cumulative statewide limit, not a sector- or facility-specific limit. CARB updated the future BAU annual emissions forecast, in light of the economic downturn, to 545 million metric tons of CO2e. Two GHG emissions reduction measures currently enacted that were not previously included in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory were included, further reducing the baseline inventory to 507 million metric tons of CO2e. Thus, an estimated reduction of 80 million metric tons of CO2e is necessary to reduce statewide emissions to meet the AB 32 target by 2020.
The proposed office development project would comply with requirements of CALGreen. For example, the proposed building would be constructed in conformance with CALGreen and the Title 24 Building Code, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures and water-efficient
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 85 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
irrigation systems. The project would not conflict or otherwise interfere with the statewide GHG reduction measures to meet the statewide 2020 target identified in CARB’s Scoping Plan.
The proposed project would comply with GHG reduction strategies identified in the Climate Change Action Plan. The proposed office development would include electric vehicle parking and bicycle storage, and would meet the requirements for LEED Silver. [Less Than Significant Impact]
4.7.4 Conclusion
The proposed project would not generate new greenhouse gas emissions considered to have a significant impact on global climate change. The project would not conflict with any plans, policies, or regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions adopted by the California legislature, CARB, BAAQMD, or the City of Menlo Park. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 86 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The discussion in this section is based in part on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Aquifer Sciences, Inc. on June 7, 2016. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix E.
4.8.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 1, 3, 12 the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 1, 3, 12 the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 1, 3 hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a 1, 3, 12 list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land 1, 3, 13 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1, 3, 13 airstrip, will the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically 1, 3 interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant 1, 3, 14 risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 87 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.8.2 Setting
Regulatory Framework
Hazardous materials encompass a wide range of substances, some of which are naturally-occurring and some of which are man-made. Examples include pesticides, herbicides, petroleum products, metals (e.g., lead, mercury, arsenic), asbestos, and chemical compounds used in manufacturing. Determining if such substances are present on or near project sites is important because, by definition, exposure to hazardous materials above regulatory thresholds can result in adverse health effects on humans, as well as harm to plant and wildlife ecology.
Due to the fact that these substances have properties that are toxic to humans and/or the ecosystem, there are multiple regulatory programs in place designed to minimize the chance for unintended releases and/or exposures to occur. Other programs set forth remediation requirements at sites where contamination has occurred.
Hazardous waste generators and hazardous materials users in the City are required to comply with regulations enforced by several federal, state, and county agencies. The regulations are designed to reduce the risk associated with the human exposure to hazardous materials and minimize adverse environmental effects. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require protective measures during construction activities where workers may be exposed to asbestos, lead, and/or other hazardous materials.
Federal Laws and Regulations
The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as Superfund, is to clean up contaminated sites so that public health and welfare are not compromised. RCRA provides for “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes.
Other federal laws include:
Clean Water Act Clean Air Act Safe Drinking Water Act Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
California Laws and Regulations
Hazardous waste in California is regulated primarily under the authority of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and the California Health and Safety Code. Other California laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. In California, the U.S. EPA has granted most enforcement authority of federal hazardous materials regulations to CalEPA. Under the authority of CalEPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) or the San Francisco Bay
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 88 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is responsible for overseeing the remediation of contaminated sites in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials that may affect human health and the environment. Proper disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction. The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) enforces state worker health and safety regulations related to construction activities. Regulations include exposure limits, protective clothing, and training requirements to prevent exposure to hazardous materials. DOSH also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and asbestos investigations and abatement, which equal or exceed their federal counterparts.
Local Regulations
The routine management of hazardous materials in California is administered under the Unified Program. The CalEPA has granted responsibilities to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEH) for implementation and enforcement of hazardous material regulations under the Unified Program as a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The SMCEH is responsible for ensuring that classified hazardous substances are properly handled, contained, and disposed.
Existing Conditions
Site History
Historical use information for the proposed project site and vicinity was gathered from aerial photographs, topographic maps, fire insurance maps, city directories, and environmental records. The approximately 2.6-acre proposed office development area has been vacant since the publication of the first area maps in 1891. As early as 1943, PG&E maintained an easement along the site’s southern boundary. By April 2013, the PG&E valve lot had been constructed and a gravel access road installed from the private road to the station.
PG&E continues to maintain the 35-foot wide natural gas line easement, which includes two active pipelines and one abandoned pipeline. The easement includes a woodchip-surfaced road running parallel to the site’s southern boundary. There are nine raised-bed gardens located on the far eastern portion of the site. Two non-potable PVC irrigation lines along the southern and western portions of the site irrigate recently planted trees. There are no additional facilities on the site.
Potential Sources of Contamination
An environmental disclosure report was compiled for the site and its vicinity by a computer-aided search service, Environmental Data Resources, Inc., in May 2016. The service reviewed the most recent versions of federal, state, and local regulatory agency lists to identify sites with known or potential soil or groundwater contamination, hazardous waste generators, wastewater dischargers, and discharges of chemicals to air and water within a one-mile radius of the site. No recognized environmental conditions were identified for the project site.
PG&E Natural Gas Pipelines L109, 2121 Sand Hill Road: PG&E maintains a 35-foot wide natural gas line easement that runs adjacent to the southern portion of the site. The pipeline easement leads
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 89 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 to the PG&E Sand Hill Road automated valve control station at the far western portion of the site. Records show that PG&E is a large-quantity generator (LQG) of hazardous waste.
PG&E hydrostatically pressure tested the L109 natural gas pipelines in 2011 and 2012. One pipeline was subsequently retired in place. Prior to hydrostatic pressure testing and retirement, the pipelines were cleaned using an alkaline chemical cleaner formulated to remove organic and inorganic deposits typically found in natural gas pipelines. These activities resulted in the generation of approximately 115,000 gallons of hazardous wastewater, some of which may have been containerized onsite. The wastewater was sent to an off-site, permitted Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility in accordance with environmental regulations. There is no record of any releases to soil or groundwater.
Shell Service Station, 125 Sharon Park Drive: The Shell service station is located 200 feet north of the project site. The gas station has three active gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs) each with 10,000-gallon capacity. A California Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) case closed in April 2012. Cleanup actions at the site consisted of excavation and disposal of contaminated soil as well as groundwater remediation. Approximately 63 pounds of contaminants containing methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) was removed by means of pumping and treating the groundwater. The groundwater treatment system was shut down in October 2009. Concentrations of MTBE (610 ppb) and gasoline (600 ppb) remain in the groundwater at the Shell Service Station.
During the environmental investigation, a total of nine monitoring wells were installed on the gas station property (seven wells) and at adjacent properties across Sand Hill Road (two wells). One well was located in the northeastern corner of the proposed project site. No gasoline constituents were detected in the well, and it was destroyed in December 2011.
Sharon Heights Cleaners, 325 Sharon Park Drive: The Sharon Heights Cleaners site is located 200 feet north of the proposed project site. Dry cleaning activities have occurred at the cleaners since 1965. The groundwater flow direction is to the south-southeast and in the direction of San Francisquito Creek. Tetrachloroethene (PCE) is the contaminant of concern at this site. Cleanup actions have consisted of excavation and disposal of contaminated soil as well as soil vapor extraction. In May 2010, approximately 13 cubic yards of soil were removed from the vicinity of the former dry cleaning machine. A sub-slab depressurization system was installed in October 2013. As of 2013, concentrations of PCE remain in the soil vapor at the Sharon Heights Cleaners.
Stanford University / Meyer-Buck Estate, 2111 Sand Hill Road: The Buck Estate is located 740 feet east and downgradient of the proposed project site. According to San Mateo County records, an inactive underground tank is located on the property. The existence of the tank could not be confirmed on other databases.
In 2002, Stanford University was listed as a small-quantity generator (SQG). Waste types produced included ignitable and corrosive waste and waste containing lead. Public records also indicate that in 2002 lab waste chemicals, as well as 348 tons of contaminated soil, were removed from the property. The environmental records from 2002 are likely associated with the restoration of the Buck Estate that occurred between 2001 and 2003. The restoration involved remediation for materials containing asbestos and lead.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 90 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Watsonville Gas Company, 2336 Branner Drive: Historically, an auto station was located 600 feet southeast of the proposed project site. Currently, a residence occupies the site.
SLAC Stanford Linear Accelerator, 2575 Sand Hill Road: The SLAC site is located 2,300 feet southwest of the site. SLAC is a 426-acre high-energy physics research facility that includes a two- mile long linear accelerator. SLAC has conducted numerous site investigations. Results of the investigations indicate that both soil and groundwater have been impacted at the site. The constituents of concern for soil include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead, and tritium. The constituents of concern for groundwater include VOCs, SVOCs, TPH, and tritium.
Since 2009, the facility has been under a RWQCB Order (R2-2009-0072 and -0073) for soil and groundwater impacts that remain within its own property boundary. Evaluation of remedial treatment alternatives addressing soil and groundwater pollution is ongoing.
4.8.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing development (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no hazardous materials impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2-acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
The proposed office development would routinely use and store limited amounts of oils, fuels, pesticides, fertilizers, and cleaning materials for building maintenance and landscaping. Materials such as solvents, paints, and fuels could also be utilized during project construction.
Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local handling, storage, and disposal requirements would ensure that no significant hazards to the public or the environment would be created by the routine transport, use, or disposal of these substances.
Contamination has not be reported on the property, however, soil and groundwater testing has not been completed. There are several reported contaminated sites in the vicinity, although, based upon the Phase I ESA, the site is not anticipated to be effected by these documented historic releases. The Phase I ESA recommends that on-site testing of soil and groundwater within the proposed office development area be undertaken to inform necessary measures to be included in worker health and safety plans. Because the project includes excavation of an underground parking garage, grading for foundations and trenching for utilities, construction workers and the environment could be exposed to contaminated soil or groundwater, if present on the site.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 91 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Impact HAZ-1: Although unlikely, localized contamination could be encountered during construction activities. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: The following measures shall be implemented prior to and during site clearing and construction.
MM HAZ-1.1: Soil and Groundwater Sampling: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project shall complete focused sampling and analysis under the oversight of the San Mateo County Health System, or other appropriate oversight agency, in accordance with a Work Plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the oversight agency. The Work Plan shall be approved prior to site clearing or excavation and include appropriate risk-based screening levels for comparison of the sampling results.
MM HAZ-1.2: Hazardous Materials Disposal: If evidence of a hazardous materials is discovered during construction (or pre-construction soil testing), work will be stopped in the immediate area and soil samples will be collected and analyzed by a qualified environmental professional to determine the type and extent of release and potential health effects to construction workers. The analytical results will be compared against applicable hazardous waste criteria, and if necessary, the investigation will provide recommendations regarding management and disposal of affected soil (and groundwater). Any contaminated soil and/or groundwater found in concentrations above developed thresholds shall be removed and disposed of according to California Hazardous Waste Regulations. Special health and safety measures and/or soil management procedures may also be required during project construction.
MM HAZ-1.3: Soil Characterization: Soil materials removed from the site shall be characterized and disposed of according to the California Hazardous Waste Regulations. Contaminated soil that exceeds regulatory thresholds shall be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering and dust controls, in accordance with local, State and federal laws. Any contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be disposed of at a licensed hazardous materials disposal site.
MM HAZ-1.4: Hazardous Materials Cleanup: If detected at levels that exceed regulatory thresholds, the extent of contamination shall be identified, and recommendations for a Health and Safety Plan, Soil Management Plan, and methods for cleanup shall be implemented, as applicable. This work shall be performed under the oversight of a regulatory agency, such as the San Mateo County Health System, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the Department of Toxic Substances Control, with copies of all documentation provided to the City of Menlo Park.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 92 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Implementation of the mitigation measures listed above would reduce potential impacts from hazardous materials contamination to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project] b) 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?
Construction at the project site would require the use of hazardous materials including petroleum products, lubricants, cleaners, paints, and solvents. These materials would be used in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws. If used as directed, these materials would not pose a hazard to workers. [Less Than Significant Impact] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
The proposed project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school (Oak Knoll Elementary School) is located approximately 0.4 mile northeast of the project site. The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or require handling of substantial quantities of hazardous materials, substances, or waste during operation. [No Impact] d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The proposed project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, but is located in proximity to sites that have a recorded presence of contaminated soil and groundwater. Implementation of MM HAZ 1.1 through MM HAZ 1.4 discussed above would ensure that the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. [Less Than Significant Impact] e) Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Palo Alto Airport, a small public airport, is located approximately five miles northeast of the project site. San Carlos Airport, a public airport, is located approximately seven miles north of the project site. Moffett Federal Airfield is a joint civil-military airport located approximately eight miles east of the project site. The project site is not located within the aircraft noise contours for any airport. The project would not result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area. [No Impact] f) Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
The project is not located in the vicinity of any private airstrip and would not result in a safety hazard for people working or residing in the project area. [No Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 93 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The development of the proposed project would not impair or interfere with implementation of the City’s Emergency Operation Plan or the City’s Disaster Preparedness Manual. [No Impact] h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The project site is located in an urbanized area, and is not in a severe wildland hazard zone. The site is not subject to hazards from wildland fires.15 Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to any risk from wildland fires. [No Impact]
4.8.4 Conclusion
With implementation of the mitigation measures MM HAZ-1.1 through MM HAZ-1.4 listed above, the proposed project would not result in significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
15 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – San Mateo County. November 7, 2007.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 94 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The discussion in this section is based in part on the Hydrology Report and Calculations prepared by Sandis Civil Engineering in August 2016. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix F.
4.9.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 1, 3, 4 discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or 1, 3, 10 interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells will drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 1, 4, 15 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 1 pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which will result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which will 1, 3, 4 exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 1, 3, 4 quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard 1, 16 area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area 1, 16 structures which will impede or redirect flood flows?
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 95 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: i) Expose people or structures to a significant 1, 3, 17, risk of loss, injury or death involving 18 flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1, 3, 10
4.9.2 Setting
Regulatory Framework
Flooding
In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising cost of taxpayer-funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and creates Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that designate 100-year floodplain zones and delineate other flood hazard areas. A 100-year floodplain zone is the area that, based on historical data, has a one in one hundred (one percent) chance of being flooded in any one year. The project site is not in a designated 100-year floodplain zone.
Water Quality
The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality. Regulations set forth by the U.S. EPA and the State Water Resources Control Board have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. The U.S. EPA’s regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the water quality control boards, which for the Menlo Park area is the San Francisco RWQCB.
Statewide Construction General Permit
The State Water Resources Control Board has implemented an NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) for the State of California. For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared prior to commencement of construction. The CGP, which became effective July 1, 2010, includes additional requirements for training, inspections, recordkeeping, reporting, and for projects of certain risk levels, monitoring.
Since the project would disturb more than one acre (43,560 square feet) of soil, it would be required to prepare an NOI and SWPPP pursuant to the CGP.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 96 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit/C.3 Requirement
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP: Permit Number CAS612008). In an effort to standardize stormwater management requirements throughout the region, this permit replaces the formerly separate countywide municipal stormwater permits with a regional permit for 77 Bay Area municipalities, including the City of Menlo Park. Under provisions of the NPDES Municipal Permit, development projects that disturb more than 10,000 square feet are required to design and construct stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. Amendments to the MRP require all of the post- construction runoff to be treated by using Low Impact Development (LID) treatment controls, such as biotreatment facilities.
The project would disturb more than 10,000 square feet, and is, therefore, subject to the requirements of the MRP.
Impaired Water Bodies (Section 303(d))
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d), the State of California assesses the water quality of the state’s waterways to determine if they contain pollutants in concentrations that exceed federal standards. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) programs are established by the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards for waterways that exceed these limits. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive and still meet water quality standards. A body of water is deemed ‘impaired’ if, despite the use of pollution control technologies, pollutant concentrations exceed the standards.
Existing Conditions
Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as non-point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, and animal feces), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.
Groundwater
Subsurface exploration for the project site did not encounter groundwater at depths that would be impacted by excavation and construction. The depth of groundwater can vary seasonally, and can be influenced by underground drainage patterns, regional fluctuations, and other factors.
Stormwater Drainage
Cities and unincorporated communities in San Mateo County, including Menlo Park, generate runoff that flows into the Bayfront Canal via seven drainage basins. The project site is located within the San Francisquito Creek watershed. Currently, runoff from the proposed office development area sheet flows east toward the Hewlett Foundation portion of the site, is picked up by a catch basin, and
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 97 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 flows into an inlet structure on the northeast corner of the parcel along Sand Hill Road. City of Menlo Park sewer map C16 does not clearly show where this storm drain leads.
As the proposed development creates and/or replaces less than one acre of impervious surface, this project is not a hydromodification management project and would not be required to perform hydromodification calculations to ensure that post-development stormwater discharge does not exceed pre-development discharge from the site.
Flooding
The site itself does not contain any streams, waterways, or wetlands. The nearest waterway, San Francisquito Creek, is located approximately 1,200 feet east of the project site. San Francisquito Creek flows northeast toward the San Francisco Bay, which is located approximately five miles northeast of the project site.
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard zone. According to the FIRM prepared by FEMA for the project area, the site is located within Zone X, which is defined as “Areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood; areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one-foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from one percent annual chance flood.”16
Tsunami/Seiche
Tsunamis and seiches are described as ocean waves or similar waves usually created by undersea fault movement or by a coastal or submerged landslide. Tsunamis may be generated at great distance from shore (far-field events) or nearby (near-field events). Waves are formed as the displaced water moves to regain equilibrium, and radiate across the open water. When the waveform reaches the coastline, it quickly raises the water level and water velocity.
Other Inundation Hazards
ABAG compiles the dam failure inundation hazard maps submitted to the State Office of Emergency Services by dam owners throughout the Bay Area.
The San Mateo County dam hazard map shows that the project site is not located within a dam failure inundation hazard zone.17 The site is not located near a large enclosed body of water, near the ocean, or in a landslide hazard zone, and is, therefore, not vulnerable to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
4.9.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing buildings and their surrounding landscaping (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no hydrology or water
16 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06081C0312E. Effective Date: May 18, 2009. 17 Association of Bay Area Governments. Dam Failure Inundation Maps and Landslide Maps. GIS Viewer. April 25, 2005.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 98 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 quality impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2-acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Implementation of the proposed project would install an estimated 40,814 square feet of impervious surfaces, including the office building and surface parking lot. Because the project would disturb more than 10,000 square feet, it is subject to the requirements of the MRP. The project would also be required to comply with the City of Menlo Park’s requirements for reducing erosion and sedimentation.
The existing drainage patterns would be maintained, with the stormwater of the new development draining into the existing storm drain system on the east side of the parcel and exiting the site via the existing storm inlet. The site stormwater would flow to a combination of permeable unit pavers and bio-retention areas. The runoff would flow to a graded swale and then an existing catch basin north of the Hewlett Foundation building. The sub-base on the paver and bio-retention areas would be designed to treat and detain the C.3 volume of stormwater before flowing into the existing storm drain system.
Site preparation and construction activities have the potential to temporarily increase erosion and sedimentation that could be carried by runoff into nearby waterways. Outdoor materials storage could cause increased erosion and sedimentation impacts to local water bodies such as San Francisquito Creek and ultimately the San Francisco Bay.
Impact HYD-1: Construction activities could temporarily increase pollutant loads. Outdoor work and storage could degrade water quality downstream of the project site. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: To reduce the potential for the project to increase pollutant loads and degrade water quality, the following mitigation and standard measures are included in the project:
MM HYD-1.1: State of California Construction General Permit: An NOI and SWPPP shall be prepared for construction projects disturbing one acre or more of land. Proof of coverage under the CGP shall be attached to the building plans.
MM HYD-1.2: Best Management Practices: The project will implement BMPs to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants including sediments associated with construction activities in accordance with the SWPPP and NPDES requirements. The project shall prepare an Erosion Control Plan to the satisfaction of the City of Menlo Park Public Works Department. The Erosion Control Plan may include but is not limited to BMPs specified in the Manual of Standards Erosion and Sediment Control. The project shall
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 99 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
implement the following erosion and sediment control measures where appropriate:
Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants and non- stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials/wastes properly to prevent contact with stormwater; Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated; Train and provide BMP instruction to all employees and subcontractors; Protect all storm drain inlets in the vicinity of the site using sediment controls such as berms, fiber rolls, or filters; Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; Delineate with field marker clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones, trees, and drainage courses; Complete clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering and obtain all necessary permits; Trap sediment on-site using sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, check dams, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stockpiles, etc.; Divert on-site runoff around exposed areas; divert off-site runoff around the site using swales and dikes; and Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate.
MM HYD-1.3: Outdoor Storage Areas (Including Garbage Enclosures): Outdoor storage areas (for storage of equipment or materials which could decompose, disintegrate, leak, or otherwise contaminate stormwater runoff), including garbage enclosures, shall be designed to prevent the run-on of stormwater and runoff of spills by all of the following:
Paving the area with concrete or other non-permeable surface; Covering the area; and Sloping the area inward (negative slope) or installing a berm or curb around its perimeter. There shall be no storm drains in outdoor storage areas.
Implementation of the mitigation measures MM HYD-1.1 through MM HYD-1.3 listed above would reduce potential impacts to water quality from construction activities to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 100 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there will be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells will drop to a level which will not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Groundwater depths fluctuate seasonally, but groundwater was not encountered in subsurface borings at the proposed project site. Shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the site is not used for drinking water. Shallow groundwater is not expected to be a concern at the site, and the project would not interfere with groundwater flow. [No Impact] c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
The proposed project would construct one two-story building with two levels of underground parking, a surface parking lot, new landscaping, and new utility infrastructure. Based on preliminary plans, the project would add 40,814 square feet of impervious surfaces. As described above, site stormwater would flow to a combination of permeable unit pavers and bio- retention areas. The on-site drainage design would retain the C.3 volume of stormwater before discharge to the existing stormwater system.
Impact HYD-2: The addition of impervious surfaces could substantially alter the drainage pattern of the project site, causing erosion or siltation on- or off-site. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: To reduce the risk of erosion and siltation, the following mitigation measures are included in the project:
MM HYD-2.1: Municipal Regional Permit: The project shall comply with the requirements of the MRP, as well as other local, state, and federal requirements. The project shall comply with provision C.3 of the MRP, which provides performance standards for the management of stormwater for new development, and any new requirements.
MM HYD-2.2: Landscape Design: For non-residential buildings, landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. Examples include:
No steep slopes exceeding 10 percent; Using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; Installing plants with low water requirements; and Installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 101 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
MM HYD-2.3: Efficient Irrigation: For residential and non-residential buildings, common areas shall employ efficient irrigation to avoid excess irrigation runoff. Examples include:
Setting irrigation timers to avoid runoff by splitting irrigations into several short cycles; Employing multi-programmable irrigation controllers; Employing rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after significant precipitation; Use of drip irrigations for all planter areas which have a shrub density that will cause excessive spray interference of an overhead system; and Use of flow reducers to mitigate broken heads next to sidewalks, streets, and driveways.
MM HYD-2.4: Stormwater Treatment: Stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the San Mateo County “C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance.” The County’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select Low Impact Development types of stormwater controls and the types of projects that are exempt from this requirement.18
LID treatment measures include rainwater harvesting, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment. Biotreatment is allowed only if it is infeasible to treat the specified amount of runoff with rainwater harvesting, infiltration, and evapotranspiration.
Implementation of the mitigation measures MM HYD-2.1 through MM HYD-2.4 listed above would reduce potential impacts of erosion and siltation to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project] d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which will result in flooding on-or off-site?
The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing draining of the site. There are no streams or rivers on-site, and water would ultimately drain to the public storm drain system at rates that would not exceed existing conditions. [Less Than Significant Impact] e) Create or contribute runoff water which will exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The City of Menlo Park requires that post-construction runoff rates shall not exceed pre-project levels. The project shall comply with MRP and City requirements for landscape design and efficient irrigation as outlined in MM HYD-2.2 and -2.3. [Less Than Significant Impact]
18 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. January 4, 2013.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 102 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The project would follow San Mateo County and City of Menlo Park water quality guidelines. Potential water quality impacts and associated mitigation measures are listed above. No additional impacts to water quality are expected. [Less Than Significant Impact] g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
The proposed project is non-residential. The project site not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The site is located within Flood Zone X, which is defined as “Areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood; areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas protected by levees from one percent annual chance flood.” Thus, construction on the site would not expose people or structures to flooding risks. [No Impact] h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which will impede or redirect flood flows?
The project site is located within Flood Zone X, which is not a 100-year flood hazard area. The 100-year flood (one percent annual flood), also known as the base flood, is the flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The water surface elevation of the base flood is 10.2 feet. The site elevation is an estimated 188 to 210 feet above mean sea level, and the proposed project would not impede or redirect flood flows. [No Impact] i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
According to the maps within the City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update, the project site is not located within a dam failure inundation hazard zone or a tsunami inundation zone.19 The potential for flooding to affect the site is very low. [No Impact] j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
In the San Francisco Bay Area, the areas most likely to be inundated during a tsunami or seiche are marshlands, tidal flats, and former bay margin lands, and are generally within 1.5 miles of the shoreline. The site is approximately 5 miles inland from the San Francisco Bay shoreline, and is an estimated 188 to 210 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the potential for inundation due to tsunami or seiche is considered very low. [No Impact]
4.9.4 Conclusion
The proposed project, with implementation of the mitigation measures MM HYD-1.1 through MM HYD-2.4 outlined above, would result in a less than significant impact to hydrology and water quality. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
19 City of Menlo Park. Housing Element Update, General Plan Consistency Update, Zoning Amendments Environmental Analysis. 2013. Figure 4.8-2.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 103 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.10.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 2, 3 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 1, 2, 3, policy, or regulation of an agency with 19 jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 1, 3 conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
4.10.2 Setting
‘Land use’ is a term that describes different types of activities that occur in a particular area. For example, different areas in Menlo Park contain homes, retail stores, industry, parks, open spaces, and public facilities, such as schools. Menlo Park includes a mixed-use downtown core, distinct residential neighborhoods and commercial corridors, and industrial areas, each embodying a character that makes it unique. Most of the project site is located in the unincorporated urban area of West Menlo Park, with the southern APNs (comprising the PG&E easement) located within the City of Menlo Park.
Regulatory Framework
San Mateo County LAFCo
The San Mateo County LAFCo is a State-mandated, independent agency with countywide jurisdiction over changes in organization and boundaries of cities and special districts including annexations, detachments, incorporations, and formations. There is a LAFCo in each of the 58 counties of California. Because the project proposes land annexation into the City of Menlo Park, it must be approved by LAFCo. LAFCo responsibilities relevant to the proposed project include:
Discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging the orderly growth and development of local government agencies; Reviewing and approving or disapproving proposals for changes in the boundaries and organization of the 20 cities, 24 independent special districts, and approximately 44 county- governed special districts plus incorporations of cities and formations of special districts; and Establishing and periodically updating spheres of influence – future boundary, organization, and service plans – for the county’s cities and special districts.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 104 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
LAFCo policies encourage reasonable city growth and reorganizations, including annexations of unincorporated islands. As per Government Code Section 56375.3, the annexation process is streamlined for islands surrounded by the annexing city, provided that the island meets size and land use criteria. LAFCo island annexation policies relevant to the proposed project include:
In order to fulfill the intent of the state legislature and implement the joint urban development policies of the cities, county, and LAFCo, and in the interests of efficient service provision and orderly growth and development, the cities should annex unincorporated urban islands. LAFCo will collaborate with the cities and the County in facilitating annexation of unincorporated urban islands. Where feasible, and in furtherance of goals to support orderly growth and development, cities are encouraged to annex entire islands, rather than conducting single parcel annexations.
Menlo Park General Plan
Land use within Menlo Park is governed by the City’s General Plan which, in turn, provides the basis for the City’s Zoning Ordinance, precise plans, and design guidelines. The General Plan is a legal document, required by state law, which serves as the City of Menlo Park’s constitution for development and the use of its land. It is a comprehensive, long-term document, detailing proposals for the physical development of the City, and of any land outside its boundaries but within its designated sphere of influence. The City of Menlo Park General Plan was adopted by the City Council in December 1994. The policies of the General Plan, as they relate to the proposed project, are described below.
Policy I-E-4: Any new or expanded office must include provisions for adequate off-street parking, mitigating traffic impacts, and developing effective alternatives to auto commuting, must adhere to acceptable architectural standards, and must protect adjacent residential uses from adverse impacts. Policy I-I-1: The City shall cooperate with the appropriate agencies to help assure a coordinated land use pattern in Menlo Park and the surrounding area. Policy I-I-2: The regional land use planning structure should be integrated within a larger transportation network built around transit rather than freeways and the City shall influence transit development so that it coordinates with Menlo Park’s land use planning structure.
The project proposes to divide the single existing parcel into one residential and one office parcel. The area with APN 074-450-050 would be designated as Low Density Residential, and the area with APNs 074-450-030 and -040 would be designated as Professional and Administrative Offices under the City of Menlo Park General Plan. No changes are proposed to the PG&E easement (APNs 074- 321-110 and 074-331-210), which is located within the City of Menlo Park. Figure 10 shows the City of Menlo Park and San Mateo County General Plan existing land use designations in the vicinity of the project site, and the site’s proposed land use after annexation to Menlo Park.
Menlo Park Zoning Ordinance
As a long-range planning document, the General Plan outlines long-term visions, policies, and actions designed to shape future development within Menlo Park. The Zoning Ordinance serves as an implementation tool for the General Plan by establishing detailed, parcel-specific development
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 105 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 106 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 Existing
SHARON O ROYAL OAK CT STANFORDSTT HILLS PARK
ALLEYALLLLEY L Y
SANTA CRUZ AVE
BRANNER DR
STANFORD AVE LELAND AVE
SAND HILL RD
ANDERSON WAY
Menlo Park General Plan Land Use Designations San Mateo County Land Use Designations ALPINE RD
Low Density Residential Medium Low Density Residential
Professional & Administrative OfficesCAMPBELL LN Medium Density Residential
BLVD
ABLVD Medium Density Residential Institutional/Open Study/Future Study
Parks & Recreation Office Commercial
Retail/Commercial Project Site
SHARON O ROYAL OAK CT STANFORDST HILLS PARK
ALLEYALLLLEY L Y
SANTA CRUZ AVE
BRANNER DR
STANFORD AVE LELAND AVE
SAND HILL RD
ANDERSON WAY
ALPINE RD
Proposed CAMPBELL LN
BLVD
ABLVD
EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FIGURE 10
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 108 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 regulations and standards in each area of the City. Although the two are distinct documents, the Menlo Park General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are closely related, and State law mandates that zoning regulations be consistent with the General Plan maps and policies. The proposed zoning districts of the property are:
R-1-S Single Family Suburban Residential District (Meyer-Buck House and PG&E easement): The R-1-S district is designed for single-family dwellings and secondary dwelling units, along with their accessory buildings and structures. C-1-C Administrative, Professional and Research District, Restrictive (Hewlett Foundation headquarters and proposed office building): The C-1-C district is conditionally designed for professional, administrative, and executive offices; research and development facilities; convalescent homes; public utilities; and additional special uses.
Figure 11 shows the existing City and County zoning districts in the vicinity of the project site and the site’s proposed zoning district after annexation to Menlo Park.
Existing Conditions
The 14.2-acre project site is located south of Sand Hill Road and west of Santa Cruz Avenue in the unincorporated neighborhood of West Menlo Park. The eastern and central areas of the property are currently developed with a two-story office building, the Hewlett Foundation headquarters, and a residential estate, the Stanford Meyer-Buck House. The PG&E easement along the southern boundary of the site is located within the City of Menlo Park.
Surrounding land uses include a commercial shopping center and residential development to the north across Sand Hill Road, Stanford Hills Park to the west, and one-story residential development to the south. These properties are located within the City of Menlo Park. Stanford Golf Course is located east of the project site across Santa Cruz Avenue, and is in the census-designated place (CDP) of Stanford within Santa Clara County.
The three unincorporated portions of the site currently constitute an urban island under the jurisdiction of San Mateo County. The project site has an existing zoning district of R-E/S-9 (Residential Estates District; APNs 074-450-030 and -040) and R-1/S-9 (One-Family Residential District; APN 074-450-050) under the San Mateo County Zoning Regulations. The current San Mateo County General Plan designation is Medium Low Density Residential.
4.10.3 Impact Discussion a) Physically divide an established community?
Although the project site is located within unincorporated San Mateo County, the site adjoins street rights-of-way and lots within Menlo Park’s city limits and is more closely related to existing development along Sand Hill Road, within Menlo Park. The project would not physically divide an established community. Rather, the proposed annexation would integrate the property into the adjacent Menlo Park community. The project would have no impact related to physical division of an established community. [No Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 109 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 110 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 Existing
C2 SHARON O ROYAL OAK CT STANFORDSTT HILLS R3A(X) PARK
OSC ALLEYALLLLEY RLU L Y R-1/S-72
SANTA CRUZ AVE R2(X) R4
PUD-134PUD-129 BRANNER DR
STANFORD AVE R-E/S-9 LELAND AVE R-E/S-11 SAND HILL RD R1S ANDERSON WAY
R-1/S-9 R1S R1S
R-1/S-75
Menlo Park General Plan Zoning Districts San Mateo County Zoning Districts ALPINE RD
R1S - Single Family Suburban R3A(X) - Garden Apartment, Conditional R-E/S-9 R-1/S-9
R4 - High Density CAMPBELL LN R1S R2(X) - Low Density, Conditional R-E/S-11 PUD-129
ABLVD RLU - Retirement Living Units OSC - Open Space and Conservative R-1/S-72 PUD-134
C1X - Administrative and C2 - Neighborhood Shopping R-1/S-75 Professional, Restrictive, Conditional
C1C - Administrative, Professional and Research, Restrictive Project Site C2 SHARON O ROYAL OAK CT STANFORDST HILLS R3A(X) PARK
OSC ALLEYALLLLEY RLU L Y R-1/S-72
SANTA CRUZ AVE R2(X) R4
PUD-134PUD-129 BRANNER DR
STANFORD AVE C1C LELAND AVE R-E/S-11 SAND HILL RD R1S ANDERSON WAY R1S R1S R1S
R-1/S-75
ALPINE RD
Proposed CAMPBELL LN R1S BLVD
ABLVD
EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICTS FIGURE 11
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 112 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The unincorporated portions of the project site currently have a San Mateo General Plan designation of Medium Low Density Residential. The existing zoning districts are R-E/S-9 (074-450-030, -040) and R-1/S-9 (074-450-050). The project site is an island within the sphere of influence of the City of Menlo Park, and is surrounded by properties under the jurisdiction of Menlo Park. San Mateo County General Plan Policy 7.24 encourages cities to annex urban incorporated areas within designated city spheres of influence.
The project proposes annexation to the City of Menlo Park, consistent with San Mateo County General Plan Policy 7.24. These parcels would receive Menlo Park General Plan and zoning designations upon annexation. The project requires the following City approvals:
Prezoning General Plan Amendment Tentative Map Use Permit Architectural Control Heritage Tree Removal Permits BMR Housing Agreement
City of Menlo Park
The project proposes to annex the 14.2-acre project site into the City of Menlo Park. Menlo Park General Plan Land Use Element Policies I-E-4, I-I-1, and I-I-2 are relevant to the proposed annexation and General Plan Amendment.
The project would meet Policies I-E-4 and I-I-2 by providing off-street vehicle and bicycle parking. As discussed in Section 4.16, Transportation/Traffic of this Initial Study, the project area is served by Stanford’s free public shuttle service and multiple San Mateo County Transit bus lines with a connection to the Menlo Park Caltrain Station. No significant traffic or transportation impacts were identified in this Initial Study.
The project proposes to construct a two-story office building adjacent to the Hewlett Foundation headquarters, an existing two-story office building and across Sand Hill Road from additional office and commercial uses. Consistent with Policy I-I-1, the project would support a coordinated land use pattern in Menlo Park and unincorporated West Menlo Park.
San Mateo County
The San Mateo County LAFCo must approve the annexation. LAFCo would consider the proposed annexation in light of its state-mandated responsibilities and evaluation criteria, and its own adopted policies. Prior to annexation, the City and San Mateo County must each adopt a Property Tax Agreement which establishes each jurisdiction’s share of property tax revenue.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 113 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
The project would be consistent with LAFCo policies and Government Code 56375.3 by annexing the parcel, an unincorporated urban island, into the City of Menlo Park.
The project would not conflict with any applicable provisions of the San Mateo County or City of Menlo Park General Plans, annexation ordinances, or other plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. [Less Than Significant Impact] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
The project site does not overlap with any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. The project would have no effect due to conflicts with the provisions of any such plans. [No Impact]
4.10.4 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a significant land use impact. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 114 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
4.11.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 1, 2, 3 mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- 1, 2, 3 important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
4.11.2 Setting
The project site is located along Sand Hill Road in a developed area of Menlo Park. Industrial scale solar salt production from sea water has been occurring in the vicinity of Menlo Park since the 1800s. The salt ponds closest to the project site are the Ravenswood and Redwood City Plant sites. The Ravenswood site has undergone restoration as part of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. The Redwood City Plan site remains in production.
Extractive resources known to exist in and near San Mateo County include cement, sand, gravel, crushed rock, clay, limestone, and mercury. The project site is not located within a Mineral Resource Zone area containing known mineral resources, nor is the project site within an area where they are likely to occur.20
4.11.3 Impact Discussion a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that will be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The project site has not been identified by the California Geological Survey as a viable source of aggregate or other construction-related mineral resources. Implementation of the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. [No Impact] b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
The proposed project site is located within a developed area and it does not contain any known or designated mineral resources. [No Impact]
20 U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data. Map. Available at: https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map.html. Accessed December 16, 2016.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 115 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.11.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in a significant impact from the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. [No Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 116 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION
The discussion in this section is based in part on the 2131 Sand Hill Office Development Project Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in October 2016. The report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix G.
4.12.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1, 2, 3, 4, levels in excess of standards established in the 20 local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 1, 2, 3, excessive groundborne vibration or 20 groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 1, 2, 3, noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 20 existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in 1, 2, 3, 4, ambient noise levels in the project vicinity 20 above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use 1, 20 plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 1 airstrip, will the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
4.12.2 Setting
Fundamentals of Environmental Noise
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. Acceptable levels of noise vary from land use to land use. In any one location, the noise level will vary over time, from the lowest background or ambient noise level to temporary increases caused by traffic or other sources. State and federal standards have been established as guidelines for determining the compatibility of a particular use with its noise environment.
There are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 117 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis.
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the A- weighted sound level or dBA.21 This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Typical noise descriptors include maximum noise level (Lmax), the energy-equivalent noise level (Leq), and the day/night average noise level (Ldn). The Ldn noise descriptor is commonly used in establishing noise exposure guidelines for specific land uses. For the energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor called Leq the most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.
Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources which create a relatively steady background noise in which no particular sound is identifiable.
Because sensitivity to noise increases during the evening hours, 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Day/Night Average Sound Level, Ldn, is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after the addition of 10 dB to noise levels measured in the nighttime between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour A-weighted noise level from midnight to midnight after the addition of five dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration
Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction- related groundborne vibration levels. The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration.
Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as minor cracking of building elements, or may threaten the integrity of the building. There is no consensus as to what amount of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the building. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is in a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.
21 The sound pressure level in decibels is measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. All sound levels in this discussion are A-weighted, unless otherwise noted.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 118 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Regulatory Framework
The State of California and the City of Menlo Park have established regulatory criteria for noise generation. The State CEQA Guidelines are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, or the applicable standards of other agencies. A summary of the applicable regulatory criteria is provided below.
State CEQA Guidelines
CEQA contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project. CEQA does not define which noise level increase would be considered substantial. Typically, an increase in the Ldn/CNEL noise level resulting from the project at noise- sensitive land uses of three dBA or greater would be considered a significant impact when projected noise levels would remain within those considered acceptable for the affected land use.
2013 California Green Building Standards Code
The State of California established exterior sound transmission control standards for new non- residential buildings as set forth in the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code (Sections 5.507.4.1 and 5.507.4.2). Interior noise environments must not exceed an Leq of 50 dBA in occupied areas during hours of operation.
Wall and roof-ceiling assemblies exposed to adjacent roadways must meet a composite Sound Transmission Class (STC)22 rating of at least 50 or a composite Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 when the commercial property falls within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for a freeway.
City of Menlo Park General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Menlo Park General Plan provides the basis for code enforcement and other regulations, including implementation of the City’s Noise Ordinance, to control nuisance noise. The General Plan establishes Land Use Compatibility Noise Standards for New Development to protect new and existing land uses from unacceptable noise levels and vibration impacts. Noise- sensitive uses are defined as hospitals, schools, religious facilities, convalescent homes, and businesses with highly sensitive equipment.
The General Plan encourages site planning, including setbacks and structural design features, to reduce noise impacts and vibration levels. Construction methods including noise abating materials and creative site design are also encouraged. The City strives to minimize traffic noise through land use policies, natural buffers, traffic-calming methods, law enforcement, and street improvements.
22 Sound Transmission Class: A single figure rating designed to give an estimate of the sound insulation properties of a partition. Numerically, STC represents the number of decibels of speech sound reduction from one side of the partition to the other. The STC is intended for use when speech and office noise constitute the principal noise problem.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 119 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
City of Menlo Park Municipal Code
Chapter 8.06 of the City’s Municipal Code provides provisions to protect the peace, health, and safety of the City’s citizens from unreasonable noises. Chapter 16.08.095 limits all sounds emitted from roof-mounted mechanical equipment to 50 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet. The maximum allowable noise measured from any residential property is 50 dBA during nighttime hours and 60 dBA during daytime hours. For steady, audible tones, the thresholds are lowered by five dBA. An excessively annoying, loud, or unusual noise vibration that affects a considerable number of people is considered a noise disturbance.
The City’s Municipal Code allows noise limitation exceptions for construction activities restricted to the hours of 8:00 AM through 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays without approval from the City. Noise generation from powered equipment is restricted to 85 dBA at 50 feet.
Existing Conditions
The project is located south of the Sand Hill Road/Sharon Park Drive intersection. The noise environment at the site and in the surrounding areas results primarily from vehicular traffic along Sand Hill Road. Secondary traffic noise sources include Sharon Park Drive, Alpine Road, and neighborhood roadways. Aircraft associated with San Carlos Airport, Palo Alto Airport, and Moffett Federal Airfield also affect the noise environment at the project site.
4.12.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing development (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no noise impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2-acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property. a) Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Construction Noise
Assuming that all construction activities for the proposed project are limited to the allowable hours specified in the City’s Municipal Code, which are between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday, noise generated by construction activities would not expose people to temporary construction noise that exceeds criteria in the Municipal Code. Construction activities for the proposed project would not occur on weekends or holidays, as specified in the Municipal Code. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Mechanical Equipment Noise (Building Operation)
According to the City’s Municipal Code, all sources of noise must not exceed 60 dBA Leq during daytime hours (i.e., between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM) or 50 dBA Leq during nighttime
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 120 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
hours (i.e., between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM), as measured at single-family residential properties. Noise emitted from roof-mounted mechanical equipment must not exceed 50 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet. Additionally, no powered equipment shall exceed 85 dBA Leq at 50 feet.
The proposed project would include mechanical equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems. Information regarding the number, type, and size of the mechanical equipment units to be used in the proposed project was not available at the time of this report. According to the site plan, three rooftop locations have been identified for such mechanical units.
Typical air conditioning units and heat pumps for office buildings range from about 63 to 67 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet. The nearest sensitive receptors would be located to the southeast of the proposed office building, and the distance from the residential property line to the nearest mechanical unit would be approximately 105 feet. Taking into account the rooftop elevation, the unmitigated mechanical equipment noise would range from 56 to 60 dBA Leq. These levels would be at or below the City’s 60 dBA Leq daytime limit but would potentially exceed the 50 dBA Leq nighttime limit.
Impact NOI-1: Rooftop mechanical units, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, could exceed nighttime noise limits for the residential neighborhood adjacent to the project site. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: The proposed project will implement the mitigation measures described below to reduce the potential for rooftop mechanical noise impacts to a less than significant level.
MM NOI-1.1: Mechanical Equipment Selection: A qualified acoustical consultant shall review final site plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to issuance of building permits to calculate expected interior noise levels as required by City policies and State noise regulations. Mechanical equipment shall be selected to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the City’s noise level requirements. The acoustical consultant shall review mechanical noise, as these systems are selected, to determine specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the City’s noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and installation of noise barriers, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors. Results of the acoustical consultant’s analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatment, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of any building permits.
Implementation of MM NOI-1.1 would reduce noise impacts of rooftop mechanical units to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 121 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 b) Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction of the proposed building may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers and hoe rams) are used. Construction activities would include site preparation work, excavation, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing. The proposed project is not expected to require pile driving, which can cause excessive vibration.
For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 inch per second Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) for buildings that are structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 inch per second PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.08 inch per second PPV for ancient buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened. No ancient buildings or buildings that are documented to be structurally weakened adjoin the project site. Therefore, groundborne vibration levels exceeding 0.3 inch per second PPV would have the potential to result in a significant vibration impact.
The single-family residential land uses adjacent to the project site to the southeast would range from 35 to 60 feet from the construction site boundary. At these distances, vibration levels would be up to 0.15 inch per second PPV. Additionally, the nearest residential land uses to the north of the project site, opposite Sand Hill Road, are approximately 150 feet or more from the project’s property line. At these distances, vibration levels would be up to 0.03 inch per second PPV. The surrounding commercial buildings range from 120 to 200 feet from the project site. At these distances, vibration levels would be at or below 0.04 inch per second PPV. All vibration levels expected at nearby commercial and residential buildings would, therefore, be below the 0.3 inch per second PPV significance threshold. [Less Than Significant Impact] c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
The City’s General Plan, in the Land Use Compatibility Noise Standards for New Development table, indicates that exterior noise levels at outdoor use areas at the proposed office building should be maintained at or below 70 dBA CNEL to be considered “normally acceptable” by the City of Menlo Park. These noise standards would apply to community outdoor recreational areas and not to private decks or balconies.
The project would construct a two-story office building with an at-grade parking lot and below- grade parking garage. The future noise environment at the project site would continue to result primarily from traffic along Sand Hill Road, adjacent roadways, and aircraft overflights. According to the General Plan 2035 Noise Contour Map, the proposed project would be exposed to a future noise environment of less than 60 dBA CNEL. A traffic impact analysis for the proposed project was provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Based on the near- term plus project traffic conditions, the noise increase calculated along Sand Hill Road from existing conditions was less than one dBA CNEL by 2019. Therefore, the noise environment at
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 122 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
the project site would be less than 60 dBA CNEL by the year 2035, as represented by the City’s General Plan.
Future Exterior Noise Environment
The project proposes a first-floor patio located to the west of the proposed office building and five second-floor balconies, assumed to be common use areas. The center of the first-floor patio would be set back from the centerline of Sand Hill Road by approximately 180 feet. Based on the 2035 Noise Contours and the estimated noise level increase under project conditions, the future noise environment at the proposed patio would be below the City’s threshold of 70 dBA CNEL.
Four of the second-floor balconies have direct line-of-sight to Sand Hill Road and have setbacks ranging from 150 to 170 feet. The final balcony would be located at the rear of the building on the eastern side. At this location, the outdoor use area would be shielded from traffic noise by the proposed office building. Based on the 2035 Noise Contours and the estimated noise level increase under project conditions, the future noise environment at each of the balconies would be below the City’s threshold of 70 dBA CNEL. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Future Interior Noise Environment
According to the 2035 Noise Contour provided in the City’s General Plan Noise Element, the site of the proposed office building does not fall within the 65 dBA CNEL 2035 contour for Sand Hill Road.
Standard construction materials for office buildings typically provide 20 to 30 dBA reduction from exterior to interior. Since future 2035 exterior levels are at or below 60 dBA CNEL, future 2035 interior noise levels would be at or below 40 dBA CNEL. Existing short-term measurements ranged from 55 to 61 Leq during the daytime hours. Under future project conditions, exterior noise measurements would also range from 55 to 61 dBA Leq, which would result in future interior noise levels being up to 41 dBA Leq, below the CALGreen Code interior noise level threshold of 50 dBA Leq. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Project-Generated Traffic Noise
Typically, a significant permanent noise increase would occur if the project would increase noise levels at noise-sensitive receptors by three dBA CNEL or greater where ambient noise levels exceed the “normally acceptable” noise standard. Where ambient noise levels are at or below the “normally acceptable” noise level standard, noise level increases of five dBA CNEL or greater would be considered significant. According to the City’s General Plan, the “normally acceptable” outdoor noise level standard for the single-family residences in the project vicinity would be 60 dBA CNEL, and existing noise contour plots indicate ambient levels are below this threshold. Therefore, a significant impact would occur if traffic due to the proposed project would permanently increase ambient levels by five dBA CNEL.
The traffic report provided peak hour volumes for the project-generated traffic at intersections in the project vicinity. According to the study, the project is projected to add 47 trips during the
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 123 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
peak morning hour and 36 trips during the peak evening hour. When this projected scenario was compared to existing traffic conditions, the traffic noise level increase was less than one dBA CNEL at each of the intersections included in the study.23 Therefore, the permanent noise level increase due to the project-generated traffic increase at the noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity would be approximately one dBA CNEL or less. The proposed project would not cause a substantial permanent noise level increase at the nearby noise-sensitive receptors. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Parking Garage Traffic Noise
The proposed project would include two below-grade parking levels, with entrances at the front and rear of the proposed office building. Since all parking garage noise would take place below grade, the adjacent residences would be acoustically shielded from parking garage noise. The operation of the parking garage would not produce noise levels exceeding existing traffic noise levels along Sand Hill Road or cause a permanent noise level increase at nearby sensitive receptors. [Less Than Significant Impact] d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time. When noise from construction activities exceeds 60 dBA Leq at residential land uses or 70 dBA Leq at commercial land uses and exceeds the ambient noise environment by at least five dBA Leq at noise-sensitive uses in the project vicinity for a period exceeding one year, the impact would be considered significant.
The adjacent noise-sensitive receptors, located approximately 35 feet southeast of the project site, have existing daytime ambient noise levels of approximately 58 dBA Leq, based on field measurements. The residences located approximately 150 feet to the north, opposite Sand Hill Road, have existing ambient noise levels of approximately 61 dBA Leq during daytime hours. The adjacent commercial receptor, which is approximately 200 feet east of the project site, has existing ambient levels of approximately 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours. Similar to the residential land uses opposite Sand Hill Road, the existing ambient environment for the commercial buildings located opposite Sand Hill Road would be 61 dBA Leq.
The proposed project is expected to take a total of 15 months to complete. Construction activities would include site preparation, grading/excavation, trenching, building construction, and paving. During each stage of construction, there would be a different set of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by stage and vary within stages, based on the amount of
23 The study intersections are shown on Table 4.16-2 of Section 4.16, Transportation/Traffic in this Initial Study.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 124 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating. Once construction moves indoors, minimal noise would be generated at off-site locations.
Table 4.12-1 summarizes the phases of construction, the time duration for each phase, the equipment expected to be used during each phase, and the estimated construction noise levels for each phase at the nearest residence. It is assumed that trenching would be completed simultaneously with grading/excavation. Therefore, the range provided in the trenching phase reflects use of the trenching equipment alone and with the grading/excavation equipment.
Table 4.12-1: Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Land Uses
Hourly Average Leq, dBA Comm. Construction Residence Time Adjacent Adjacent Opp. Phase Equipment Opp. Duration Res: 35 Comm.: Sand (Quantity) Sand Hill: feet 200 feet Hill: 150 feet 120 feet Excavator: 1 Site Prep 22 days 86 73 70 75 Grader: 1 Excavator: 1 Grading/ 45 days Crawler Tractor: 1 85 73 70 75 Excavation Bore/Drill Rig: 1 Excavator: 1 Trenching 5 days 85-88 72-75 70-73 74-77 Tractor/Backhoe: 1 Building – Crane: 1 216 days 86 73 71 75 Exterior Tractor/Backhoe: 1 Grader: 1 Paving 45 days 87 74 72 76 Other equipment: 1
As shown in Table 4.12-1, noise levels would exceed 60 dBA Leq at the residential land uses and 70 dBA Leq at the commercial land uses at times during project construction. With ambient levels at the nearby residences ranging from 58 to 61 dBA Leq, construction noise levels would exceed the ambient noise environment by five dBA Leq or more during each construction phase. Additionally, the ambient levels at the nearby commercial land uses, which range from 55 to 61 dBA Leq, would be exceeded by five dBA Leq or more during each construction phase. Since construction noise for the proposed project is expected to exceed 60 dBA Leq at surrounding residential land uses, 70 dBA Leq at surrounding commercial land uses, and ambient levels by more than five dBA Leq for a period of more than one year, this would be a significant impact.
Impact NOI-2: Construction activities could exceed Menlo Park Municipal Code noise limitations for residential and commercial properties and ambient noise increases. [Significant Impact]
Mitigation Measures: The proposed project will implement the mitigation measures described below to reduce construction noise levels to a less than significant level.
MM NOI-2.1: Construction Work Hours: Reasonable regulation of the hours of construction, as well as regulation of the arrival and operation of heavy equipment and the delivery of construction materials, are necessary to protect
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 125 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
the health and safety of persons, promote the general welfare of the community, and maintain quality of life. Construction activities will be completed in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, which limits construction work to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and prohibits construction on weekends and holidays.
MM NOI-2.2: Best Management Practices: The construction crew shall develop a construction noise plan to reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site and minimize disruption and annoyance at existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. BMPs will include, but are not limited to, the following available controls:
Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible, to screen stationary noise-generating equipment from adjoining sensitive land uses. Temporary noise barrier fences would provide a five dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier interrupts the line-of-sight between the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is constructed in a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps. Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, as far from sensitive receptors as is feasible. If they must be located near receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used. Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive receptors. Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. Locate material stockpiles, as well as maintenance/equipment staging and parking areas, as far as feasible from residential receptors. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 126 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
Implementation of MM NOI-2.1 would minimize disruption and annoyance through compliance with the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code’s allowable construction hours. Implementation of MM NOI-2.2 would reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site by five to 10 dBA. These measures would reduce the impacts of temporary, construction-related ambient noise levels to a less than significant level. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project] e) Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
San Carlos Airport is a public airport located approximately seven miles north of the proposed project site. The project site is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL contour for the airport. Moffett Federal Airfield is a joint civil-military airport located approximately eight miles east of the project site. The project site does not fall within the airport influence area and is located outside the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour. Palo Alto Airport is a small, public airport typically used for general aviation. This airport is located approximately five miles northeast of the project site. The project site lies outside 55 dBA CNEL noise contour. Noise from aircraft would not substantially increase ambient noise levels at the project site, and interior noise levels resulting from aircraft would be compatible with the proposed project. [Less Than Significant Impact] f) Expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No private airstrips are located within the vicinity of the proposed project site. Noise from private aircraft is not expected to affect ambient noise levels at the project site. [No Impact]
4.12.4 Conclusion
The noise impacts of the project would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures MM NOI-1.1 through MM NOI-2.2. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 127 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.13.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an 1, 3 area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 1 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 1 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
4.13.2 Setting
The California Department of Finance identifies the City of Menlo Park’s population (within the City limits) at 33,863, with an estimated 13,185 housing units (as of January 1, 2016).24 The General Plan projected that in 2040, the population of the City would be 38,100 residents.
Plan Bay Area 2040, jointly approved by ABAG and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is a long-range plan for Bay Area growth and is updated every four years. The Menlo Park General Plan, using data from Plan Bay Area, estimated that there were approximately 31,920 jobs in Menlo Park in 2015. The General Plan estimated that the number of jobs in Menlo Park would rise to 36,150 in 2040.
4.13.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing development (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no population or housing impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2-acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property.
24 California Department of Finance. City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2016. Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 128 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The proposed project would construct a two-story office building with 39,510 square feet of office space. Based on a ratio of one person per 333 square feet of office space, the building could support an estimated 132 employees. The project would also include the annexation of the existing Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House into the City of Menlo Park.
The project would incrementally increase the number of jobs in the City of Menlo Park through construction and annexation, thereby increasing the jobs-to-housing ratio. The site is already served by infrastructure and the project would not create growth outside of the urban envelope. The growth is within the City’s and ABAG’s projections for the City of Menlo Park through the year 2040. The project, therefore, would result in a less than significant impact on population growth in the area. [Less Than Significant Impact] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed project would not displace any housing. [No Impact] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site is currently undeveloped, and the proposed project would not displace any people. [No Impact]
4.13.4 Conclusion
Implementation of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on population and housing. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 129 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
4.14.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: - Fire Protection? 1, 3, 21 - Police Protection? 1, 3, 22 - Schools? 1, 3 - Parks? 1, 2, 3 - Other Public Facilities? 1, 3
4.14.2 Setting
Public facility services are provided to the community as a whole, usually from a central location or from a defined set of nodes. The resources base for delivery of the services, including the physical service delivery mechanisms, is financed on a community-wide basis, usually from a unified or integrated financial system. The service delivery agency can be a city, county, service, or other special district.
This section discusses the proposed project’s impacts on fire and police services as well as parks and recreational facilities. Since the project does not propose residential development, it is not expected to have an adverse effect on school enrollment or the availability of library services. Therefore, schools and libraries are not discussed further.
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection is provided to the project site by Menlo Park Fire Protection District (MPFPD), which serves a population of approximately 90,000 and an area of 30 square miles. The MPFPD runs four major divisions: Administrative Services, Human Resources, Operations and Suppression, and Training. The MPFPD has agreements with the neighboring departments, including the cities of Palo Alto, Redwood City, Fremont, and Woodside Fire District, to provide automatic aid. The MPFPD operates seven stations, strategically located throughout the City to provide the most efficient response times. Station 4 is the closest station to the proposed project site. Station 4 is located at 3322 Alameda de las Pulgas, approximately one mile northwest of the project site.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 130 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Police Protection Services
Police protection for the project site is provided by the Menlo Park Police Department (MPPD). The police station located at City Hall, approximately 2.3 miles northeast of the project site, covers the whole service area. The MPPD also operates a service center east of US-101 at Willow Road and Hamilton Avenue. It is a secure law enforcement facility with a full-time officer and public services. The service center is also used during critical incidents. The MPPD divides its service area by three beats: Beat 1 covers the area of the City west of El Camino Real, Beat 2 covers the area between El Camino Real and US-101, and Beat 3 covers the area east of US-101. The MPPD staffing includes 48 sworn officers and 22 professional staff as of 2014.25
The MPPD has a mutual aid agreement with the surrounding jurisdictions, under which the other agencies assist the MPPD in responding to calls as needed.
Park Services
The Menlo Park Community Services Department owns and operates parks and recreational facilities in the City of Menlo Park. The City has a total of 245 acres of parkland, with a ratio of 7.44 acres per 1,000 residents.26 The nearest park to the project site is Stanford Hills Park, located along Sand Hill Road approximately 400 feet southwest of the project site.
4.14.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing development (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no public services impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2- acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property. a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for public services?
Fire Protection Services
The project would increase the office uses on the site by an estimated 39,510 square feet, increasing the number of people working at the site and thus incrementally increasing the need for fire suppression and rescue response services. The project would be constructed to current Fire Code standards. Because the project would be consistent with employment assumptions in the Menlo Park General Plan, the incremental increase in demand for fire services represented
25 Menlo Park Police Department. Organizational Chart. April 2014. 26 Menlo Park, City of. General Plan. April 1, 2014.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 131 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
by the project would not result in the need to expand or construct new fire facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Police Protection Services
The development of the project site is not expected to substantially increase demand for police services in the project area. The proposed project would be constructed in accordance with current buildings codes and would be maintained in accordance with applicable City policies such as General Plan Policy S1.11 that promote public and property safety.
The MPPD maintains a staffing ratio of approximately 1.4 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. Since the proposed project would not add any residents, the project would not represent a significant demand for increased police staffing to serve the site. [Less Than Significant Impact]
School Services
The project does not include any new residential development or land use. Construction of the proposed office building would not create new demand for school services or alter existing services. [No Impact]
Park Services
To meet the demand for parks and open space, the City of Menlo Park uses the Quimby Act (California Government Code, Section 66477), which allows cities to require builders of residential subdivisions to dedicate land for parks and recreational areas, or pay an open space fee to the City. The project does not propose residential development, thus it would not be required to dedicate parkland or pay in lieu fees for parkland.
The project, which would result in a net increase of 39,510 square feet of office space on the project site and an employment increase of approximately 132 people on site, would slightly increase the number of people using nearby park facilities. The incremental increase would not require the construction of new parkland or cause the deterioration of existing facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Other Public Facilities
The proposed project does not include any new residential development or land uses. The project would have no impact on libraries, senior centers, or other public facilities. [No Impact]
4.14.4 Conclusion
The project may incrementally increase the demand for fire and police protection services in the City by increasing the amount of office space and number of people on site, but would not result in adverse physical impacts related to the construction of new governmental facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 132 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
The project does not propose to develop residences in the City of Menlo Park; therefore, it would not have any effects on school or library services. [No Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 133 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.15 RECREATION
4.15.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing 1, 3 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities 1 or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
4.15.2 Setting
The Menlo Park Community Services Department owns and operates parks and recreational facilities in the City of Menlo Park. The City has adopted a goal of maintaining a ratio of five acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents. The City provides and maintains approximately 245 acres of parkland. Menlo Park residents also have access to a range of regional parks and open space, including the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Wunderlich County Park, Huddart County Park, and the San Francisco Bay Trail. The City also has joint use agreements with La Entrada, Oak Knoll, Belle Haven, and Hillview Schools for use of sports fields after school hours.
4.15.3 Impact Discussion a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility will occur or be accelerated?
The project proposes to develop one commercial office building. The project does not propose any residential development. Increased use of parks by an estimated 132 employees would be incremental and would not cause significant physical deterioration. The project does not propose or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. [Less Than Significant Impact] b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Since the proposed project does not include residential development, it would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might result in adverse physical effects. [No Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 134 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.15.4 Conclusion
The project would not result in a significant adverse impact to recreation facilities within the City of Menlo Park or San Mateo County. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 135 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The discussion in this section is based on the 2131 Sand Hill Road Office Development Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. on November 8, 2016. This report is included in this Initial Study as Appendix H.
4.16.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or 1, 2, 3, 4, policy establishing measures of effectiveness 23 for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion 1, 2, 3, management program, including, but not 23, 24 limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 1 including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design 1, 23 feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 23 f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 1, 3, 23 programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 136 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.16.2 Setting
Regulatory Framework
Regional
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, including San Mateo County. MTC is charged with regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the region. MTC and ABAG adopted the final Plan Bay Area in July 2013 which includes the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and the most recently adopted Regional Transportation Plan.
Congestion Management Program
In accordance with California Statute, Government Code Section 65088, both San Mateo County and Santa Clara County have established Congestion Management Programs (CMPs). The intent of the CMP legislation is to develop a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions that will reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision-making and air quality. The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), as the Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo County, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) are required to prepare and adopt a CMP on a biennial basis. The purpose of the CMP is to identify strategies to respond to future transportation needs, develop procedures to alleviate and control congestion, and promote countywide solutions. The CMPs are required to be consistent with the MTC planning process that includes regional goals, policies, and projects for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).
Local
Menlo Park Comprehensive Bicycle Development Plan
In 2005, the City adopted a Comprehensive Bicycle Development Plan that provides a blueprint for making cycling an integral part of daily life in Menlo Park. The Bicycle Plan provides for a citywide system of bike lanes, bike routes, bike paths, bicycle parking, and other facilities to allow for safe, efficient and convenient bicycle travel within Menlo Park and connecting to regional destinations in the Bay Area. The bicycle plan shows bike lane facilities on Sand Hill Road, Page Mill Road and Santa Cruz Avenue in the vicinity of the site.
Existing Conditions
The project site is located on Sand Hill Road in unincorporated San Mateo County. Roadways in the vicinity of the site are under the jurisdiction of the City of Menlo Park, the City of Palo Alto, San Mateo County, and Caltrans. The project vicinity is well-served with bicycle facilities and multiple bus lines.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 137 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Existing Roadway Network
Regional Access
Regional access to the project site is provided via Interstate 280, State Route 82, and State Route 84.
Interstate 280 is an eight-lane north-south freeway that connects San Jose with San Francisco. Interstate 280 provides access to and from the project site via its interchange at Sand Hill Road.
State Route 82 (El Camino Real) is a six-lane major arterial extending from Daly City in the north to Santa Clara in the south. In the vicinity of the project site, El Camino Real is six lanes divided by a median. El Camino Real provides access to the project site via Sand Hill Road.
State Route 84 (Woodside Road) is a six-lane, east-west major arterial that connects Woodside and the Dumbarton Bridge. Within the City of Menlo Park, it connects Marsh Road with the Dumbarton Bridge. State Route 84 provides access to the project site via Alameda de las Pulgas and Sand Hill Road.
Local Access
Local access to the site is provided on Sand Hill Road, Santa Cruz Avenue, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Sharon Park Drive, and Monte Rosa Drive. These roadways, streets, and the project study intersections are shown on Figure 12.
Sand Hill Road is an east-west primary arterial that connects El Camino Real with Interstate 280. In the vicinity of the project site, Sand Hill Road is a median-separated four-lane road. Sand Hill Road provides direct access to the project driveway at its intersection with Sharon Park Drive.
Santa Cruz Avenue is a north-south arterial between Junipero Serra Boulevard and Orange Avenue, and an east-west arterial between Orange Avenue and El Camino Real. In the vicinity of the project, Santa Cruz Avenue is a four-lane road. South of Junipero Serra Boulevard, Santa Cruz Avenue transitions into Alpine Road. Santa Cruz Avenue provides access to the project via Sand Hill Road.
Junipero Serra Boulevard is a north-south arterial that connects Sand Hill Road (as Santa Cruz Avenue) and Page Mill Road. South of Page Mill Road, Junipero Serra Boulevard becomes Miranda Avenue. In the vicinity of the project site, this road is two lanes wide and provides access to the project site via Sand Hill Road.
Sharon Park Drive is a two-lane collector street that extends northward from Sand Hill Road at the project driveway location. It immediately bends to the west, ultimately terminating within the Sharon Heights Golf & Country Club residential development. Sharon Park Drive serves a mix of commercial and residential uses and has a wide, landscaped median.
Monte Rosa Drive is a local street that connects Sand Hill Road and Sharon Park Drive. Monte Rosa Drive serves residential uses, as well as a private elementary school, on the north side of Sand Hill Road.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 138 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 1 (! El Camino Real Alameda de Las Pulgas
Santa Cruz Ave Arboretum Rd
LEGEND
= Site Location Sand Hill Rd
(!X = Study Intersection Santa Cruz Ave
= City of Menlo Park
= Class I Bike Paths = Class II Bike Lanes
= Class III Bike Routes (!10
(!2 280 Sharon Park Dr
Saga Ln Sandhill (!3 (!4 Junipero Serra Blvd (!5 Rd Sand Hill Rd BrannerBrann Dr (!8 (!6 (!7 Addison er (!9 Wesley Dr Alpine Rd
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
INTERSECTIONS AND BICYCLE FACILITIES FIGURE 12
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 140 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Existing Transit Network
Existing transit service to the project area is provided by San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans) and the Stanford University Marguerite Shuttle Service. Other transit services (VTA bus services and Caltrain) are provided at the Palo Alto and Menlo Park Caltrain Stations, which are located approximately 2.1 and 2.3 miles, respectively, from the project site.
SamTrans
Route 86 (Menlo Atherton High-Indian Crossing/Alpine) only runs on school days between Corte Madera School in Portola Valley and Menlo-Atherton High School. In the morning, it provides between one and three eastbound runs from 7:04 AM to 9:05 AM. In the afternoon, it provides one westbound run at 3:25 PM. The closest stop to the project site is at the Sharon Park Drive/Sharon Drive station, less than a quarter mile away. This route includes a stop at the Menlo Park Caltrain Station.
Route 87 (Woodside High-Portola Valley) only runs on school days between the Portola/Old La Honda station and the Woodside High station. In the morning, it provides one eastbound run starting at 7:00 AM. In the afternoon, it provides three westbound runs between 12:15 PM and 3:25 PM. The closest stop to the project site is at the Santa Cruz Avenue and Palo Alto Way station, located approximately a quarter mile from the project site.
Route 286 (Ringwood/Arlington-Sharon Park) provides weekday service between the Ringwood/Arlington station and the Monte Rosa/Eastridge station. The route provides four eastbound and four westbound runs between 7:00 AM and 5:30 PM. The closest stop to the project site is at the Sharon Park Drive/Sharon Drive station, less than a quarter mile away. This route includes a stop at the Menlo Park Caltrain Station.
Marguerite Shuttle Service
Marguerite is Stanford University’s free public shuttle service, which travels around campus and connects to nearby transit, shopping, dining, and entertainment destinations. The SLAC shuttle line operates Monday through Friday, year-round, between the SLAC and Hoover Tower. The shuttle runs on 20- to 30-minute headways between 7:05 AM and 9:05 PM. The nearest shuttle stops are located on Sand Hill Road at the Sharon Park Drive intersection.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle Classifications
There are three bikeway classifications in the City of Menlo Park:
Class I Bikeway: Typically called a “bike path,” a Class I bikeway provides bicycle travel on a paved right-of-way completely separated from any street or highway. Class II Bikeway: Often referred to as a “bike lane,” a Class II bikeway provides a striped and stenciled lane for one-way travel on a street or highway. Class III Bikeway: Generally referred to as a “bike route,” a Class III bikeway provides for shared use with pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic and is identified only by signing.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 141 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Bicycle lanes provide a striped lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or highway and are designed for the exclusive use of cyclists, with certain exceptions. For instance, right turning vehicles must merge into the lane before turning, and pedestrians can use the bicycle lane when there is no adjacent sidewalk. A bicycle route may be identified on a local residential or collector street when the travel lane is wide enough and the traffic volume is low enough to allow both cyclists and motor vehicles.
Existing Facilities
The project site is well-served with bicycle facilities. Currently, Class I bicycle facilities exist on the east side of Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road south of Sand Hill Road, and on the south side of Sand Hill Road between Santa Cruz Avenue and Stock Farm Road. Class II bicycle facilities exist on both sides of Sand Hill Road, on both sides of Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road south of Sand Hill Road, on both sides of Santa Cruz Avenue between Orange Avenue and University Drive, on both sides of Junipero Serra Boulevard, and on both sides of Alameda de las Pulgas between Liberty Park Avenue and Jefferson Avenue. Class III bicycle facilities exist on Santa Cruz Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas between Sand Hill Road and Avy Avenue. Existing bicycle facilities can be seen in Figure 12.
Pedestrian facilities in the area include sidewalks, crosswalks at intersections, and actuated pedestrian signals.
Sidewalks are provided intermittently throughout the area, although sidewalks are provided on all roads in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Portions of Sand Hill Road lack sidewalks, and Alpine Road lacks sidewalks entirely. Sidewalks exist along the westbound side of Sand Hill Road east of Lawler Ranch Road, and along the eastbound side of Sand Hill Road east of Saga Lane.
Crosswalks and actuated pedestrian signal heads are provided at all of the study intersections in the vicinity of the project site, listed in Table 4.16-2, with the exception of the following locations:
Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road and Junipero Serra Boulevard Interstate 280 northbound off-ramps and Sand Hill Drive
Also, two legs of the Sand Hill Road/Sharon Park Drive intersection lack crosswalks and pedestrian signals.
Study Intersections and Methodology
Potential impacts of the proposed project were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City of Menlo Park, the City of Palo Alto, San Mateo County, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The VTA administers the Santa Clara County CMP. None of the roadway segments included in the study are under the jurisdiction of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) CMP.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 142 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Level of Service
Existing and projected traffic conditions at the project study intersections were evaluated using the level of service (LOS) standards of the City of Menlo Park, the City of Palo Alto, and San Mateo County. Level of Service is a quantitative description of operating conditions ranging from LOS A, free-flow conditions with little to no delay, to LOS F, jammed conditions with excessive delays. The level of service defined as acceptable by the City of Menlo Park is LOS D or better for signalized intersections on an arterial roadway. The City of Palo Alto level of service standard is LOS E or better. San Mateo County intersections should show an overall average LOC C, with no individual intersection movement operating at less than LOS D, to be considered acceptable. On occasion, an overall LOS D may be allowed for peak periods in dense urban conditions per the City’s discretion. No unsignalized intersections were included in the study. Table 4.16-1 shows the level of service descriptions and thresholds for signalized intersections.
Table 4.16-1: Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Control Delay Total Delay LOS Description (seconds per vehicle) Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive A during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle Up to 10.0 lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay. Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or B short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, 10.1 to 20.0 causing higher levels of average vehicle delay. Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to C appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is 20.1 to 35.0 significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal D progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity 35.1 to 55.0 (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, E 55.1 to 80.0 long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, when arrival Greater than F flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor 80.0 progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels. Source: Transportation Research Board. 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. 2000. Pages 10-16.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 143 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Baseline Traffic Conditions
The analysis was designed to identify and evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding transportation infrastructure in the project vicinity. Project impacts were evaluated following the guidelines of the City of Menlo Park and the C/CAG of San Mateo County. Since the proposed project would generate fewer than 100 peak hour trips, a CMP analysis was not required.
The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) studied ten signalized intersections and four roadway segments in the vicinity of the project. The intersections are listed below in Table 4.16-2. Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak traffic travel periods.
Existing Traffic Volumes and Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection LOS analysis under existing conditions are summarized in Table 4.16- 2. The results show that one of the signalized intersections within the City of Menlo Park (Santa Cruz Avenue and Sand Hill Road) operates at an unacceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour of traffic. All other intersections operate at acceptable levels of service, based on their respective LOS standards.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 144 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Table 4.16-2: Existing Levels of Service Existing Juris- Peak Average Project Intersection diction Hour Delay LOS (seconds) 1. El Camino Real and Sand Hill AM 24.1 C Palo Alto Road* PM 34.8 C 2. Santa Cruz Avenue and Sand Hill AM 61.4 E Menlo Park Road PM 40.7 D 3. Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road AM 45.6 D Menlo Park and Junipero Serra Boulevard PM 49.9 D 4. Sharon Park Drive and Sand Hill AM 23.7 C Menlo Park Road PM 21.2 C AM 7.9 A 5. Branner Drive and Sand Hill Road Menlo Park PM 8.7 A AM 17.4 B 6. Saga Lane and Sand Hill Road Menlo Park PM 24.9 C 7. Addison Wesley and Sand Hill AM 16.3 B Menlo Park Road PM 15.3 B 8. Sand Hill Circle and Sand Hill Caltrans/ AM 6.3 A Road Menlo Park PM 39.5 D 9. I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp and Caltrans/ AM 43.4 D Sand Hill Road Menlo Park PM 8.9 A 10. Alameda de las Pulgas and Santa San Mateo Cruz Avenue County AM 25.9 C Eastbound Approach 30.8 C Westbound Approach 40.6 D Northbound Approach 19.3 B Southbound Approach 25.2 C PM 25.3 C Eastbound Approach 35.6 D Westbound Approach 43.5 D Northbound Approach 21.1 C Southbound Approach 20.6 C * = Santa Clara County CMP Intersection Italicized = LOS for an individual intersection approach.
Traffic conditions in the field were observed in order to identify existing operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of calculated levels of service. The purposes of this effort were 1) to identify any existing traffic problems that may not be directly related to intersection level of service, and 2) to identify any locations were the LOS calculation does not accurately reflect level of service in the field.
Existing Roadway Segment Analysis
Vehicle counts were completed along four roadway segments for 24 hours over a seven-day period in May 2016. The weekday average daily traffic (ADT) volume for each roadway segment was calculated using the Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday counts to represent a typical weekday. The four roadways analyzed for existing conditions are:
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 145 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Sharon Park Drive between Sand Hill Road and Sharon Road (ADT: 10,249) Santa Cruz Avenue between Sand Hill Road and Alameda de las Pulgas (ADT: 23,659) Santa Cruz Avenue between Oakdell Drive and Orange Avenue (ADT: 10,017) Monte Rosa Drive between Sand Hill Road and Sharon Park Drive (ADT: 3,217)
4.16.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing development (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no traffic or transportation impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2-acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property. a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Definitions of Significant Intersection Impacts
Impacts on intersections are based on the significance criteria and thresholds of the jurisdiction in which the intersection is located. For this analysis, significance criteria for impacts on intersections are based on the Cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto and San Mateo County Level of Service Standards. Project impacts were also analyzed according to the Santa Clara (VTA) County Congestion Management Program (CMP) methodology for the CMP-designated intersections.
City of Menlo Park
The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Menlo Park if for either peak hour:
1. The addition of project traffic causes an intersection on a collector street operating at LOS A through LOS C to operate at an unacceptable LOS D or worse, or increase the average vehicle delay at the intersection by 23 seconds or more, whichever occurs first; or 2. The addition of project traffic causes an intersection on an arterial street or a local approach to a State-controlled (Caltrans) intersection operating at LOS A through LOS D to operate at an unacceptable LOS E or F, or increase the average vehicle delay at the intersection by 23 seconds or more, whichever occurs first; or 3. The addition of project traffic causes an increase of more than 0.8 seconds of average delay to vehicles on all critical movements of intersections operating at a near-term LOS D or worse for collector streets and at a near-term LOS E or F for arterial streets; or
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 146 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4. The addition of project traffic causes an increase of more than 0.8 seconds of delay to vehicles on the critical movements of local approaches to State-controlled (Caltrans) intersections operating at a near-term LOS E or F.
City of Palo Alto
The signalized study intersection at El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road is located in the City of Palo Alto. Although the City of Palo Alto maintains jurisdiction over this intersection, the VTA’s CMP level of service standard is applied to all CMP intersections in the City of Palo Alto. The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection in the City of Palo Alto if for either peak hour:
1. The level of service at the intersection degrades from an acceptable LOS E or better under near-term (no project) conditions to an unacceptable LOS F under near-term plus project conditions; or 2. The level of service at the intersection is an unacceptable LOS F under near-term (no project) conditions and the addition of project trips causes both the critical-movement delay at the intersection to increase by four or more seconds and the volume to capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by one percent or more.
San Mateo County
The signalized study intersection at Alameda de las Pulgas and Santa Cruz Avenue is located in San Mateo County and is therefore subject to County level of service standards. The project is said to create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions in San Mateo County if for either peak hour:
1. The project would cause an intersection currently compliance with the LOS standard to operate at a level of service that violates the standard overall LOS C with no individual movement operating at worse than LOS D; or 2. The project would cause an intersection currently not in compliance with the LOS standard to operate at a level of service that violates the standard LOS and increases average control delay at the intersection by four seconds or more.
Per the County’s discretion, an overall LOS D may be allowed at an intersection for peak periods in dense urban conditions. The intersection of Alameda de las Pulgas and Santa Cruz Avenue is considered to be within a dense urban location.
Project Effects
Near-term conditions represent traffic conditions at the time of expected occupancy of the proposed project and include traffic from approved developments in the project vicinity. An ambient growth rate of one percent per year compounded annually is added to the existing conditions for three years to determine the near-term conditions. Approved project trips from nearby developments in the Cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto and the Town of Atherton were added to the projected three year volumes to generate near-term conditions volumes. The near-
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 147 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
term scenario represents a short-term horizon year of 2019, at which time the proposed project is expected to be built and fully occupied.
Near-Term Plus Project Conditions
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitude of traffic traveling to and from the project site was estimated for the AM and PM hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions from which the project trips would travel were estimated. In the project trip assignment, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and intersections.
Trip generation for the proposed office building was estimated based on calculating the average trip generation rates for similar office buildings in Menlo Park, based on square footage. The proposed office building is estimated to produce 47 (38 inbound and 9 outbound) trips during the AM peak hour and 36 (4 inbound and 32 outbound) trips during the PM peak hour. Project trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 4.16-3. For near-term plus project conditions, the project trip estimates were then added to the near-term traffic volumes to derive near-term plus project traffic volumes.
Table 4.16-3: Project Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour2 PM Peak Hour2 Land Use Size Daily Trips1 In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Office 39, 510 sf 302 38 9 47 4 32 36 Development 1Daily Rate of 7.64 per 1,000 sf calculated by applying the ITE peak hour ration of 13.83 percent of daily. Daily Rate =0.5*(AM Peak Hour Rate+ PM Peak Hour Rate)/(Peak Hour Ratio). 2Peak hour rates (AM Peak Hour = 1.20; PM Peak Hour =0.92) based on 2016 driveway counts conducted at three comparable office buildings in Menlo Park (refer to Table 4 in Appendix H). Daily and Peak Hour trip rates are per 1,000 square feet.
Intersection Analysis
The results of the intersection LOS analysis under near-term plus project conditions are summarized in Table 4.16-4.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 148 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Table 4.16-4: Near-Term Levels of Service
Near-Term Near-Term Plus Project Peak Project Intersection Change Hour Average Average LOS LOS in Delay Delay Delay 1. El Camino Real and Sand Hill AM 24.4 C 24.5 C 0.10 Road PM 35.2 D 35.2 D 0.00 2. Santa Cruz Avenue and Sand Hill AM 62.4 E 62.5 E 0.02 Road PM 42.7 D 43.2 D 0.46 3. Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road AM 49.2 D 49.4 D 0.16 and Junipero Serra Boulevard PM 53.5 D 53.5 D -0.02 4. Sharon Park Drive and Sand Hill AM 25.0 C 24.4 C -0.57 Road PM 22.6 C 26.1 C 3.49 5. Branner Drive and Sand Hill AM 5.9 A 6.0 A 0.10 Road PM 6.3 A 6.4 A 0.08 AM 22.5 C 22.9 C 0.46 6. Saga Lane and Sand Hill Road PM 28.0 C 28.2 C 0.23 7. Addison Wesley and Sand Hill AM 17.7 B 17.9 B 0.20 Road PM 16.8 B 16.8 B -0.03 8. Sand Hill Circle and Sand Hill AM 5.2 A 5.2 A 0.01 Road PM 47.5 D 48.5 D 1.01 9. I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp and AM 50.8 D 53.7 D 2.89 Sand Hill Road PM 9.2 A 9.2 A 0.02 10. Alameda de las Pulgas and Santa Cruz Avenue AM 26.2 C 26.4 C 0.20 Eastbound Approach 30.8 C 30.8 C 0.00 Westbound Approach 41.5 D 41.9 D 0.40 Northbound Approach 19.4 B 19.4 B 0.00 Southbound Approach 25.6 C 25.7 C 0.10 PM 25.7 C 25.7 C 0.00 Eastbound Approach 35.6 D 35.6 D 0.00 Westbound Approach 42.2 D 42.2 D 0.00 Northbound Approach 21.9 C 22.0 C 0.10 Southbound Approach 21.4 C 21.5 C 0.10 Bold = Significant impact. Italicized = LOS for an individual intersection approach. Delay times are listed in seconds.
The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that, measured against each jurisdiction’s level of service standards, one study intersection (Santa Cruz Avenue and Sand Hill Road during the AM peak hour) would continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service (E). The addition of project trips would not degrade the level of service at this study intersection, or increase the overall average delay or approach leg delay at the study intersection to a level that would result in a significant impact. All other intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 149 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Roadway Segment Analysis
Projected roadway segment traffic volumes under near-term conditions, without the addition of project-generated traffic, were estimated by applying a one-percent growth factor over three years to the existing ADT for each roadway segment. These near-term ADT volumes were used as the basis for determining if the addition of project-generated traffic would create a significant impact.
Table 4.16-5: Near-Term Average Daily Traffic Near-Term Plus Near-Term Project Project Roadway Capacity Existing % % ADT ADT ADT Change Change Sharon Park Drive (Sand 10,000 10,249 10,560 3.0% 10,566 0.1% Hill Road to Sharon Road) Santa Cruz Avenue (Sand Hill Road to Alameda de las -- 23,659 24,376 3.0% 24,473 0.4% Pulgas) Santa Cruz Avenue (Oakdell 20,000 10,017 10,321 3.0% 10,366 0.4% Drive to Orange Avenue) Monte Rosa Drive (Sand Hill Road to Sharon Park 1,500 3,122 3,217 3.0% 3,217 0.0% Drive)
Based on the roadway segment analysis, the project would have no impact on the Monte Rosa Drive ADT, and would not create a significant impact on any study roadway segment. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Freeway Impacts
Interstate 280 is located approximately 1.5 miles west of the project site. The proposed project was not required to analyze freeway impacts due to the relatively small size of the development and project-related freeway trips. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Impacts to Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Modes of Transportation
Public Transit
Stanford’s free public Marguerite shuttle service stops at the Sharon Park Drive/Sand Hill Road intersection. In addition, the project area is served by multiple SamTrans bus lines with a connection to the Menlo Park Caltrain Station. Due to the small size of the project, it is estimated that these new riders could be accommodated by the current available capacities of the existing bus and commuter rail services. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 150 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Bicycle Access
The project site is served by existing bicycle facilities. Currently, Class I bicycle facilities exist on the east side of Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road south of Sand Hill Road and on the south side of Sand Hill Road between Santa Cruz Avenue and Stock Farm Road. Class II bicycle facilities exist on both sides of Sand Hill Road, on both sides of Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road south of Sand Hill Road, on both sides of Santa Cruz Avenue between Orange Avenue and University Drive, on both sides of Junipero Serra Boulevard, and on both sides of Alameda de las Pulgas between Liberty Park Avenue and Jefferson Avenue. Class III bicycle facilities exist on Santa Cruz Avenue and Alameda de las Pulgas between Sand Hill Road and Avy Avenue.
No improvements would be necessary to accommodate the proposed project, and implementation of the project would not directly affect existing bicycle facilities. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian facilities in the study area include sidewalks, crosswalks at intersections, and actuated pedestrian signals. Sidewalks are provided intermittently throughout the area, although sidewalks are provided on all roads in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Portions of Sand Hill Road lack sidewalks, and Alpine Road lacks sidewalks entirely. Sidewalks exist along the westbound side of Sand Hill Road east of Lawler Ranch Road, and along the eastbound side of Sand Hill Road east of Saga Lane.
Crosswalks and actuated pedestrian signal heads are provided at all study intersections with the exception of the following locations:
Santa Cruz Avenue/Alpine Road and Junipero Serra Boulevard Interstate 280 Northbound Off-Ramps and Sand Hill Road
The project is located directly across Sand Hill Road from the Sharon Park Shopping Center, which would attract pedestrian trips between the shopping center and the proposed office development. Currently, this intersection only provides pedestrian crosswalks on the north and east legs of the intersection. To improve pedestrian connectivity, the project proponent would add crosswalks on the west and south legs of the intersection. The signal at this location, as it currently operates, would not require any phasing modification to allow for the additional pedestrian crossings.
The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on the existing pedestrian facilities in the study area. No additional project-sponsored pedestrian improvements would be necessary. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 151 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Other Transportation and Site Access Considerations
Queuing Analysis
For the purpose of the queuing analysis, five or more peak hour vehicle trips were considered a noteworthy number of left turns. Accordingly, not all of the study intersections were evaluated for left-turn vehicle queues. The vehicle queuing and turn pocket storage analysis was completed for the study intersection that would provide access to the project site: Sharon Park Drive and Sand Hill Road. The project would add fewer than five peak hour vehicle trips per lane to the left-turn movements at all other study intersections.
The movements analyzed include the northbound approach shared left/thru/right lane (project driveway) and the westbound left-turn lane on Sand Hill Road. The amount of vehicle storage provided for the northbound and westbound movements at the intersection of Sharon Park Drive and Sand Hill Road would be adequate to serve the volumes under all traffic scenarios, and no queuing issues are expected to occur.
On-Site Circulation
The proposed project plan would provide drive aisles accessible from the existing driveway. These drive aisles would lead to the surface level parking lot, as well as connect to drive aisles at the front and back of the site. The rear drive aisle would provide access to the below-grade parking garage levels. The project would ensure that no structure or landscaping obstructs the vision of drivers turning on the existing driveway or proposed drive aisles.
Parking
The project proposes two ramps to the Level 1 basement parking. One internal ramp on parking Level 1 would provide access to the Level 2 basement parking. Two dead end drive aisles are planned for both parking levels. Adequate space would be provided for most vehicles to back completely out of a parking space to exit the dead end without the need to perform a three-point maneuver. All visitor parking would be provided in the surface lot.
The proposed project is required to provide one parking space per 250 square feet of floor area as a C-1-C zoned district. This equates to 158 total parking spaces required to serve the office development. The project proposes 159 total parking spaces for the development, including 40 spaces in the surface parking lot and 119 spaces in the below-grade parking garage. The number of parking spaces provided exceeds the requirements based on the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code.
Bicycle Parking
There are currently no bicycle parking requirements in the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code, and therefore, it is up to the individual developments to provide bicycle racks for employees.
The project proposes to provide 16 total bicycle parking spaces, including eight short-term bike racks beneath the arcade on the ground level and eight long-term bike lockers on the first level
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 152 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
of the parking garage. The proposed bicycle parking is based on the California Green Building Standards Code developed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
No roadway segments or intersections in the project area are under the jurisdiction of the San Mateo County CMP. The intersection at El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road, located in the City of Palo Alto, is subject to the LOS standards of the Santa Clara County CMP. The Palo Alto level of service standard for this CMP intersection is LOS E or better.
Under existing conditions, the El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road intersection operates at a LOS C during the AM peak hour and a LOS C during the PM peak hour. In the near-term scenario, the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS C during the AM peak hour and a LOS D during the PM peak hour. Under near-term plus project conditions, the intersection is expected to operate at a LOS C during the AM peak hour and a LOS D during the PM peak hour. The project is expected to increase the average delay by 0.10 second during the AM peak hour, and would have no effect on the average delay during the PM peak hour. Tables 4.16-2 and 4.16-3 summarize the existing and near-term LOS conditions, respectively.
The addition of project trips would not generate any potentially significant impacts at the El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road intersection, based on the standards of the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara County CMP. No other roadway segments or intersections in the project area are subject to a CMP. [Less Than Significant Impact] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Palo Alto Airport is located approximately five miles northeast of the project site. San Carlos Airport is located approximately seven miles north of the project site. Moffett Federal Airfield is located approximately eight miles east of the project site. The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns. [No Impact] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Access to the proposed project site is provided by the existing signalized intersection at Sharon Park Drive and Sand Hill Road. The project would not change access to the site. The proposed office building would share the existing driveway south of Sand Hill Road, which provides access to the Hewlett Foundation headquarters and Meyer-Buck House. [No Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 153 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Emergency vehicle access would be provided by a fire lane along the northern portion of the proposed project site. An emergency vehicle turnaround area would be provided on the western site of the building. [Less Than Significant Impact] f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Based on the project site’s location, it is reasonable to assume that some of the trips generated by the project would occur as public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian trips.
Transit Facilities
The Marguerite shuttle service stops at the Sharon Park Drive and Sand Hill Road intersection. In addition, the project area is served by multiple SamTrans bus lines with a connection to the Menlo Park Caltrain Station. Due to the small size of the project, it is estimated that these new riders could be accommodated by the current available capacities of the existing bus and commuter rail services. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the area include sidewalks, crosswalks at intersections, and actuated pedestrian signals. Crosswalks and actuated pedestrian signal heads are provided at eight of ten study intersections. The project proponent would develop signalized pedestrian crossing across the west and south legs of the Sharon Park Drive and Sand Hill Road intersection, improving connectivity between the proposed office and the Sharon Park Shopping Center. [Less Than Significant Impact]
Bicycle Facilities
The area is well-served by Class I, Class II, and Class III bicycle facilities. No improvements to off-site bicycle facilities are necessary. The project proposes to include eight long-term and eight short-term bicycle parking spaces on-site, in compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code and in conformance with Menlo Park General Plan Policy II D-4 and the Menlo Park Comprehensive Bicycle Development Plan. [Less Than Significant Impact]
4.16.4 Conclusion
The project would result in a less than significant impact to transportation and traffic. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 154 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
4.17.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 1, 3 the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new 1, 3, 25 water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new 1, 3 stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 1, 3 serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 1, 3, 26 treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 1, 3, 4 capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
4.17.2 Setting
Water Services
In the City of Menlo Park, potable water is supplied by four water utility companies: the Menlo Park Municipal Water District, California Water Service, O’Connor Tract Co-operative Water District, and Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company. Water service to the project site is provided by California Water Service, which serves approximately 1.7 million customers.
Most of California Water Service’s water in the Bear Gulch district (approximately 89 percent) is purchased from the City and County of San Francisco Regional Water System, operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). This water originates primarily in the Sierra Nevada and is transported via the Hetch Hetchy Water System, but also includes treated water from facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties. California Water Service’s remaining water (approximately 11 percent) is local surface water from a 1,300-acre watershed in the Woodside hills
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 155 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 and local groundwater. The surface water is collected and treated at a reservoir and treatment plant in Atherton.27
California Water Service’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan forecast that water supplies would be available to meet the district’s projected future water demands during normal and wet years through 2035, based on general growth estimates and supplier projections. During single- and multiple-year droughts, California Water Company expects reductions in available supply from the SFPUC. This decrease in imported water is anticipated to be made up through implementation of drought-year water conservation measures, the potential increased use of recycled water, and, as the groundwater basin allows, an increase in groundwater production.
Wastewater Services
The West Bay Sanitary District (WBSD) provides wastewater collection and conveyance services to the City of Menlo Park, Atherton, Portola Valley, and areas of East Palo Alto, Woodside, and unincorporated San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The WBSD wastewater is treated by Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW), formerly South Bayside Systems Authority (SBSA), which is the Joint Powers Authority that owns and operates a regional wastewater treatment plant in Redwood Shores. The Joint Powers Authority members include WBSD and the Cities of Redwood City, San Carlos, and Belmont.
WBSD’s service area encompasses 13 square miles and includes approximately 20,000 service connections to serve a population of 52,900. Base wastewater flow for the district is 4.6 million gallons per day, or approximately 87 gallons per capita per day.28 Wastewater from the proposed project site would flow to the Stowe Lane Pump Station, one of 12 pump stations operated by WBSD.
Storm Drainage
The City of Menlo Park’s Public Works Department owns, operates, and maintains the storm drainage system. The City has approximately 44 miles of storm drain pipe and 1,000 inlets or catch basins. The City stormwater drainage system consists of 17 individual systems that discharge into San Francisquito Creek, Atherton Chanel, and through East Palo Alto into the San Francisco Bay.
The project site is located within the San Francisquito Creek watershed. Runoff from the proposed office development area sheet flows east toward the Hewlett Foundation portion of the site, is picked up by a catch basin, and flows into an inlet structure on the northeast corner of the parcel along Sand Hill Road. City of Menlo Park sewer map C16 does not clearly show where this storm drain leads.
Solid Waste
Recology Incorporated provides solid waste collection and conveyance service for the City of Menlo Park. Collected recyclables, organics, and garbage are conveyed to the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos for processing and shipment. The Shoreway Environmental Center is owned by RethinkWaste (formerly South Bayside Waste Management Authority), which is a Joint Powers
27 California Water Service. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan – Bear Gulch District. June 2016. 28 West Bay Sanitary District. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. July 2011.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 156 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Authority comprised of twelve public agencies, including the Cities of Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, and San Mateo, San Mateo County, and the WBSD. The Shoreway Environmental Center is operated by South Bay Recycling under a contract with RethinkWaste. Materials are transferred from the Shoreway Environmental Center to Ox Mountain Landfill in Half Moon Bay, to other landfills, and to recycling facilities.
The City of Menlo Park is working to maintain the waste diversion goal of 50 percent set by state law in 1995. The City Municipal Code establishes diversion requirements for residential and commercial demolition and construction projects under Chapter 12.48. Commercial construction projects of 1,000 square feet or greater require diversion of 60 percent of total generated waste tonnage.
The Menlo Park City Council’s Work Plan for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 calls for, among other actions, the development of a Zero Waste Plan. Zero waste is defined as 90 percent overall diversion of non- hazardous materials from landfill and incineration, wherein discarded materials are reduced, reused, recycled, or composted. The Zero Waste Plan provides a guide to residential, commercial, and City programs to be put in place to achieve zero waste. As a first step in this process, Menlo Park completed a waste characterization study. For 2015, the City’s per capita disposal rate is 4.9 pounds per day, and the per employee disposal rate is 4.8 pounds per day.29
4.17.3 Impact Discussion
No modifications are proposed to existing development (i.e., Hewlett Foundation office building and Meyer-Buck House) and there would be no utilities impacts from the proposed annexation, General Plan Amendment, and prezoning in the developed eastern and central portions of the 14.2-acre site.
The following discussion, therefore, focuses on the effects of the office development proposed on the western portion of the property. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
The proposed project would construct a two-story office building with 39,510 square feet of office space. The incremental increase in development and wastewater generation would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB. [Less Than Significant Impact] b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The site is currently undeveloped. A recycled water line provides irrigation to trees and planters in the southern and eastern areas of the site. No additional water is used on the site, and no wastewater is generated. With implementation of the project, the site would be designated Professional and Administrative Office. The net increase in developed space (39,510 square
29 Menlo Park, City of. Request for Proposals for Zero Waste Plan, Rate Structure Analysis and Revision, and Consultation as Needed. May 2016.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 157 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
feet) would intensify the demand for water and the generation of wastewater on the project site over existing conditions.
The site is served by California Water Company, which sources water from the Bear Gulch Reservoir, groundwater, and SFPUC. In 2015, water usage for the Bear Gulch district included 28,404 acre-feet of purchased and imported water, 437 acre-feet of surface water, and 1,312 feet of groundwater. California Water Company’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan anticipates that the company is expected to meet project water demand through 2035 during wet, normal, single dry, and multiple dry year scenarios.
Based on a ratio of one person per 333 square feet of office space, the building could support an estimated 132 employees. It is estimated that the proposed project would utilize approximately 53 gallons of water per employee per day, for a total of 6973 gallons of indoor water use per day. 30 Assuming this rate, the project would use an approximate annual total of 2,545,145 gallons per year.
Sanitary sewer services would be provided for the project by WBSD. New sanitary sewer laterals would connect to the existing public sanitary sewer main located in Sand Hill Road. Flows from the project site would flow east along this line and south along the Alpine Road sewer main, which conveys flows to the Stowe Lane Pump Station.
It is estimated that the proposed project would generate approximately 5927 gallons per day of wastewater. Assuming this rate, the project would generate up to an annual total of 2,163,373 gallons per year.31
Based on the incremental increases in water demand and wastewater generation anticipated by the project on the overall capacity of California Water Company and WBSD, the project would not result in a significant impact on water or wastewater utilities. [Less Than Significant Impact] c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of this Initial Study, the proposed project would install approximately 40,814 square feet of impervious surface. Based on the inclusion of stormwater collection and treatment facilities on site, and the implementation of C.3 construction and post-construction measures, runoff on the site would not exceed the capacity of the City’s existing stormwater drainage system. The project would be required to construct storm drain facilities on site and connections to the storm drainage system as conditions of project approval. [Less Than Significant Impact]
30 City of Menlo Park. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Menlo Park Municipal Water District. June 2016. 31 URS. SFPUC Demand Study: Project Water Usage for Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency. Technical Memo. August 2006. 6973 gpd water demand (0.85) = 5927 gpd sewage generated.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 158 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The proposed 39,510-square foot office and landscaping would include sustainable and green building design features, as required by Menlo Park policies and regulations. These regulations include water efficiency requirements for new and renovated landscapes and construction.
Water is provided to the project site by California Water Company. The proposed office would increase water usage at the site, but would not significantly increase the Bear Gulch district’s water usage. In 2015, the district used 28,404 acre-feet of purchased and imported water, 437 acre-feet of surface water, and 1,312 feet of groundwater. [Less Than Significant Impact] e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
WBSD provides wastewater treatment services to a population of 52,900. Base wastewater flow for the district is 4.6 million gallons per day, approximately 87 gallons per capita per day. The proposed office would employ an estimated 132 people. The incremental increase in wastewater treatment required by the project is not expected to exceed WBSD’s capacity to serve demand. [Less Than Significant Impact] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
The proposed project would develop 39,510 square feet of office use on the site. The employees at the project site would be expected to produce solid waste and recyclables.
Large amounts of construction waste would be generated during construction and demolition activities. At least 60 percent of this construction waste shall be recycled, in compliance with the City Municipal Code. Through recycling measures proposed for construction and post- construction periods, the project would not adversely affect the City’s compliance with the waste diversion requirements under state law.
The City of Menlo Park has secured landfill capacity for the City’s solid waste through its membership in RethinkWaste. The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in waste conveyed to the Shoreway Environmental Center, or be served by a landfill without sufficient capacity. [Less Than Significant Impact]
4.17.4 Conclusion
The project would result in a less than significant impact to utilities and service systems. [Less Than Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 159 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
4.18.1 Environmental Checklist
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Checklist Significant With Significant No Impact Source(s) Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to 1-26 degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are 1-26 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have the potential to 1-26 achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? d) Does the project have environmental effects 1-26 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
4.18.2 Impact Discussion a) Does the project have the potential do degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or threatened plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Under Section 15065(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, a finding of significance is required if a project “has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.”
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 160 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
The project would not result in significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems, with conditions of approval included in the project and required by the City.
With the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the proposed project and described in the air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise and vibration sections of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project] b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
Under section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” As defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.”
As identified elsewhere in this Initial Study, the potential environmental impacts from the proposed project are primarily limited to the construction period, which is estimated at approximately 15 months. It is possible that other proposed construction schedules in the area may overlap with the project, but the overlap is likely to be minimal, and the proposed project includes measures to minimize disturbance to adjacent land uses, in conformance with the General Plan and standard Menlo Park conditions of approval. With implementation of General Plan policies, as well as identified mitigation measures, the construction impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Implementation of the project could result in the loss of up to 19 trees. All trees removed would be replaced on-site consistent with the City’s tree replacement policy. The project would have no long-term effect on the availability of trees as nesting/and or foraging habitat.
Traffic-related impacts are not limited to the project construction period. A cumulative impact evaluation, in which traffic is estimated and analyzed over a 10-year period, was not completed as part of this analysis due to the small size of the project.32 Cumulative impacts to biological resources, water quality, air quality and GHG emissions would also be less than cumulatively considerable at this urban infill location. [Less Than Significant Cumulative Impacts]
32 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2131 Sand Hill Road Office Development Traffic Impact Analysis. November 8, 2016. Page 4.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 161 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017 c) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
Construction of the project would not result in the conversion of an agricultural site to urban uses or otherwise commit resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. The project proposes to develop a vacant site surrounded by urban uses. The operational phase would consume energy for multiple purposes including building heating and cooling, lighting, and electronics. Energy, in the form of fossil fuels, would be used to fuel vehicles traveling to and from the project site. The project would result in an increase in demand upon nonrenewable resources; however, the project is required to comply with the City’s Green Building Ordinance. The proposed project would be designed to achieve minimum LEED Silver certification. The project would incorporate a variety of design features including site design, landscape design, building envelope performance, and material selections to reduce energy use and conserve water.
With implementation of the mitigation measures included in the project and compliance with City General Plan policies and regulations, the proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. [Less Than Significant Impact] d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Consistent with Section 15065(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Under this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor must be treated as significant if it would cause substantial adverse effects to humans, either directly or indirectly. This factor relates to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals. While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be represented by all of the designed CEQA issues, those that could directly affect human beings include air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise and vibration. However, implementation of mitigation measures and General Plan policies and regulations would reduce those impacts to a less than significant level. No other direct or indirect effects on human beings have been identified. [Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 162 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
4.19 SUMMARY TABLE OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
Air Quality Impacts
Impact AIR-1: Construction MM AIR-1.1: Measures to Control Dust Emissions: activities, particularly during site The contractor shall implement the following Best preparation and grading, could Management Practices that are required of all projects: temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging [Significant Impact] areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Impact AIR-2: Construction MM AIR-2.1: Selection of Construction Equipment: activities could cause the maximum The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the residential excess cancer risk to off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project exceed the Bay Area Air Quality would achieve a fleet-wide average 85 percent reduction
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 163 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
Management District significance in PM2.5 exhaust emissions or more. Such equipment threshold. [Significant Impact] selection would include the following requirements:
All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operated on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, be equipped with California Air Resources Board-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent, and/or Use of alternatively-fueled equipment (e.g., Liquefied Petroleum Gas [LPG]-powered lifts), alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels), added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures listed above provided that these measures are approved by the City and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to a less than significant level. Measures to be used shall be approved by the City of Menlo Park Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading permits, and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than significant.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Biological Resources Impacts
Impact BIO-1: Construction MM BIO-1.1: Worker Environmental Awareness activities could impact Nuttall’s Training: Prior to any construction activities, an woodpecker that could nest within tree approved biologist will conduct a training session for all cavities of the large oak trees on site. construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will [Significant Impact] include descriptions of Nuttall’s woodpecker, its habitat, importance of the species, and the limits of work boundaries associated with the project.
MM BIO-1.2: Nesting Bird Avoidance: To the greatest extent feasible, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be completed between September 1 and February 14, to avoid the general nesting period for birds.
MM BIO-1.3: Preconstruction Survey: A preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be completed by a qualified biologist prior to vegetation removal or any construction-related activity (including site preparation) that occurs during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31) in order to determine if
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 164 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
nesting birds and their territories are located within 500 feet of the project site. If no special status bird nests are identified with 500 feet during the preconstruction survey, construction-related activities will be allowed to proceed.
MM BIO-1.4: Buffer Zone: If active nests are observed during the preconstruction survey, the project applicant, in coordination with City staff as appropriate, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (usually 100 feet for perching birds and 300 feet for raptors). The no- disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Impact BIO-2: The proposed project MM BIO-2.1: Tree Replacement: The applicant shall would require the removal of 19 trees offset the loss of trees by planting replacement trees at for construction. Six of these trees are the project site. Two replacement trees per Heritage tree, considered Heritage trees by the City and one replacement tree per non-Heritage tree, shall be of Menlo Park. [Significant Impact] planted, for a total of 25 replacement trees. If additional trees are removed due to project impacts, replacement trees will be required at the same ratios.
MM BIO-2.2: Tree Preservation Measures: All existing on-site trees to remain shall be trimmed and fertilized by a licensed arborist prior to commencement of grading or demolition operations.
MM BIO-2.3: Tree Protection Measures: A Tree Protection Zone of at least ten feet shall be established around each tree to be preserved. No grading, excavation, construction, or storage of materials shall occur within that zone.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Cultural Resources Impacts
Impact CUL-1: Construction MM CUL-1.1: Discovery of Cultural Materials: If activities could impact unknown prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are archaeological resources. [Significant unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, all work Impact] within 50 feet of the find shall halt and the City must be notified. A qualified archaeologist and Native American
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 165 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
representative shall inspect and evaluate the findings within 24 hours of discovery. Prehistorical material might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat- affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, milling slabs); and battered-stone tools such as hammerstones and pitted stones. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, shall develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Impact CUL-2: Construction MM CUL-2.1: Discovery of Paleontological Resources: activities could impact unknown In the event that a fossil is discovered during paleontological resources. construction of the project, all work on the site will stop [Significant Impact] immediately until a qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. The City shall be notified if any fossils are discovered. Treatment may include preparation and recovery of fossil material so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The project proponent shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the paleontologist.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Impact CUL-3: Construction MM CUL-3.1: Discovery of Human Remains: In the activities could impact unknown event of the discovery of human remains during human remains. [Significant Impact] construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50-foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified immediately and shall then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, he/she shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who will notify the person the NAHC identifies as the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. If the MLD does not make recommendations regarding the disposal of the remains within 48 hours, the
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 166 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Geology and Soils Impacts
Impact GEO-1: Non-contiguous MM GEO-1.1: Engineering Measures: To reduce the expansive soils were observed on the potential for damage to the planned at-grade structures, project site, and could cause a footings shall extend below the zone of seasonal substantial risk during and after moisture fluctuation. In addition, moisture changes shall subsurface excavation activities. be limited by using positive drainage away from the [Significant Impact] building as well as limiting landscaping watering. If the expansive clay layer is encountered beneath concrete flatwork, pavements, or pavers, the non-expansive fill layer shall be increased.
MM GEO-1.2: Construction Moisture Conditioning: To minimize soil volume changes, the contractor shall keep all exposed expansive soil subgrade (and also trench excavation side walls) moist until protected by overlying improvements (or trenches are backfilled). If expansive soils are allowed to dry out significantly, reconditioning may require several days of re-wetting, or deep scarification, moisture conditioning, and re- compaction.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Impact HAZ-1: Although unlikely, MM HAZ-1.1: Soil and Groundwater Sampling: Prior localized contamination could be to issuance of a grading permit, the project shall encountered during construction complete focused sampling and analysis under the activities. [Significant Impact] oversight of the San Mateo County Health System, or other appropriate oversight agency, in accordance with a Work Plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the oversight agency. The Work Plan shall be approved prior to site clearing or excavation and include appropriate risk-based screening levels for comparison of the sampling results.
MM HAZ-1.2: Hazardous Materials Disposal: If evidence of a hazardous material is discovered during construction (or pre-construction soil testing), work will be stopped in the immediate area and soil samples will be
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 167 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
collected and analyzed by a qualified environmental professional to determine the type and extent of release and potential health effects to construction workers. The analytical results will be compared against applicable hazardous waste criteria, and if necessary, the investigation will provide recommendations regarding management and disposal of affected soil (and groundwater). Any contaminated soil and/or groundwater found in concentrations above developed thresholds shall be removed and disposed of according to California Hazardous Waste Regulations. Special health and safety measures and/or soil management procedures may also be required during project construction.
MM HAZ-1.3: Soil Characterization: Soil materials removed from the site shall be characterized and disposed of according to the California Hazardous Waste Regulations. Contaminated soil that exceeds regulatory thresholds shall be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering and dust controls, in accordance with local, State and federal laws. Any contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be disposed of at a licensed hazardous materials disposal site.
MM HAZ-1.4: Hazardous Materials Cleanup: If detected at levels that exceed regulatory thresholds, the extent of contamination shall be identified, and recommendations for a Health and Safety Plan, Soil Management Plan, and methods for cleanup shall be implemented, as applicable. This work shall be performed under the oversight of a regulatory agency, such as the San Mateo County Health System, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the Department of Toxic Substances Control, with copies of all documentation provided to the City of Menlo Park.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Impact HYD-1: Construction MM HYD-1.1: State of California Construction General activities could temporarily increase Permit: A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Stormwater pollutant loads. Outdoor work and Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared for storage could degrade water quality construction projects disturbing one acre or more of land. downstream of the project site. [Significant Impact]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 168 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
Proof of coverage under the Construction General Permit shall be attached to the building plans.
MM HYD-1.2: Best Management Practices: The project will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants including sediments associated with construction activities in accordance with the SWPPP and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The project shall prepare an Erosion Control Plan to the satisfaction of the City of Menlo Park Public Works Department. The Erosion Control Plan may include but is not limited to BMPs specified in the Manual of Standards Erosion and Sediment Control. The project shall implement the following erosion and sediment control measures where appropriate:
Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials/wastes properly to prevent contact with stormwater; Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated; Train and provide BMP instruction to all employees and subcontractors; Protect all storm drain inlets in the vicinity of the site using sediment controls such as berms, fiber rolls, or filters; Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; Delineate with field marker clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones, trees, and drainage courses; Complete clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering and obtain all necessary permits; Trap sediment on-site using sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, check dams, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stockpiles, etc.; Divert on-site runoff around exposed areas; divert off-site runoff around the site using swales and dikes; and
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 169 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate.
MM HYD-1.3: Outdoor Storage Areas (Including Garbage Enclosures): Outdoor storage areas (for storage of equipment or materials which could decompose, disintegrate, leak, or otherwise contaminate stormwater runoff), including garbage enclosures, shall be designed to prevent the run-on of stormwater and runoff of spills by all of the following:
Paving the area with concrete or other non- permeable surface; Covering the area; and Sloping the area inward (negative slope) or installing a berm or curb around its perimeter. There shall be no storm drains in outdoor storage areas.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Impact HYD-2: The addition of MM HYD-2.1: Municipal Regional Permit: The project impervious surfaces could shall comply with the requirements of the Municipal substantially alter the drainage pattern Regional Permit (MRP), as well as other local, state, and of the project site, causing erosion or federal requirements. The project shall comply with siltation on- or off-site. [Significant provision C.3 of the MRP, which provides performance Impact] standards for the management of stormwater for new development, and any new requirements.
MM HYD-2.2: Landscape Design: For non-residential buildings, landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. Examples include:
No steep slopes exceeding 10 percent; Using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; Installing plants with low water requirements; and Installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones.
MM HYD-2.3: Efficient Irrigation: For residential and non-residential buildings, common areas shall employ efficient irrigation to avoid excess irrigation runoff. Examples include:
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 170 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
Setting irrigation timers to avoid runoff by splitting irrigations into several short cycles; Employing multi-programmable irrigation controllers; Employing rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after significant precipitation; Use of drip irrigations for all planter areas which have a shrub density that will cause excessive spray interference of an overhead system; and Use of flow reducers to mitigate broken heads next to sidewalks, streets, and driveways.
MM HYD-2.4: Stormwater Treatment: Stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the San Mateo County “C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance.” The County’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select Low Impact Development (LID) types of stormwater controls and the types of projects that are exempt from this requirement.
LID treatment measures include rainwater harvesting, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment. Biotreatment is allowed only if it is infeasible to treat the specified amount of runoff with rainwater harvesting, infiltration, and evapotranspiration.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Noise and Vibration Impacts
Impact NOI-1: Rooftop mechanical MM NOI-1.1: Mechanical Equipment Selection: A units, such as heating, ventilation, and qualified acoustical consultant shall review final site air conditioning systems, could exceed plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to nighttime noise limits for the issuance of building permits to calculate expected residential neighborhood adjacent to interior noise levels as required by City policies and State the project site. [Significant Impact] noise regulations. Mechanical equipment shall be selected to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the City’s noise level requirements. The acoustical consultant shall review mechanical noise, as these systems are selected, to determine specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the City’s noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to, selection of equipment that emits low noise levels and installation of noise barriers, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 171 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
nearest receptors. Results of the acoustical consultant’s analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatment, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of any building permits.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
Impact NOI-2: Construction MM NOI-2.1: Construction Work Hours: Reasonable activities could exceed Menlo Park regulation of the hours of construction, as well as Municipal Code noise limitations for regulation of the arrival and operation of heavy residential and commercial properties equipment and the delivery of construction materials, are and ambient noise increases. necessary to protect the health and safety of persons, [Significant Impact] promote the general welfare of the community, and maintain quality of life. Construction activities will be completed in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, which limits construction work to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and prohibits construction on weekends and holidays.
MM NOI-2.2: Best Management Practices: The construction crew shall develop a construction noise plan to reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site and minimize disruption and annoyance at existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. BMPs will include, but are not limited to, the following available controls:
Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible, to screen stationary noise-generating equipment from adjoining sensitive land uses. Temporary noise barrier fences would provide a five dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier interrupts the line-of- sight between the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is constructed in a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps. Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, as far from sensitive receptors as is feasible. If they must be located near receptors, adequate muffling
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 172 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS MITIGATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
(with enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used. Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive receptors. Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. Locate material stockpiles, as well as maintenance/equipment staging and parking areas, as far as feasible from residential receptors. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise- generating construction activities. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
[Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated in the Project]
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 173 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Checklist Sources
1. CEQA Guidelines – Environmental Thresholds (Professional judgment and expertise and review of project plans). 2. Menlo Park, City of. General Plan. Updated April 1, 2014. 3. Menlo Park, City of. Housing Element Update, General Plan Consistency Update, and Zoning Ordinance Amendments Environmental Assessment. April 4, 2013. 4. Menlo Park, City of. Municipal Code. January 26, 2016. 5. California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, San Mateo County. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed October 3, 2016. 6. California Department of Conservation. San Mateo County Important Farmland Map 2014. Map. February 2016. 7. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2131 Sand Hill Office Development Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. October 11, 2016. 8. WRA Consultants, Inc. Sand Hill Road Biological Reconnaissance Letter. July 26, 2016. 9. HortScience, Inc. Arborist Report: 2131 Sand Hill Road. September 8, 2015. 10. Cornerstone Earth Group. Geotechnical Investigation. May 20, 2016. 11. California Geological Survey. Seismic Hazard Zones. October 18, 2006. 12. Aquifer Sciences, Inc. Phase I Environmental Assessment: 2131 Sand Hill Road. June 7, 2016. 13. Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Final Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Palo Alto Airport. November 8, 2012. 14. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – San Mateo County. November 7, 2015. 15. San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. January 4, 2013. 16. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06081C0312E. Map. Effective Date: May 18. 2009. 17. San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services. Hazard Mitigation Plan. July 2016. 18. Association of Bay Area Governments. Dam Failure Inundation Maps and Landslide Maps. GIS Viewer. April 25, 2005. 19. San Mateo County. General Plan. Updated December 2015. 20. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2131 Sand Hill Road Office Development Project Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment. October 3, 2016. 21. Menlo Park Fire Protection District. http://www.menlofire.org. 22. Menlo Park Police Department. http://www.menlopark.org/288/Police . 23. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2131 Sand Hill Road Office Development Traffic Impact Analysis. November 8, 2016. 24. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2013 Congestion Management Program. October 2013. 25. California Water Service. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan – Bear Gulch District. June 2016. 26. West Bay Sanitary District. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. July 2011.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 174 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments. Dam Failure Inundation Maps and Landslide Maps. GIS Viewer. April 25, 2005. Available at: http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/
Association of Bay Area Governments. Fault Maps. Available at: http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/
Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area 2040. Available at: http://www.planbayarea.org/the-plan.html
Aquifer Sciences, Inc. Phase I Environmental Assessment: 2131 Sand Hill Road. June 7, 2016.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15, 2010.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Updated May 2012.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Regulation 2 Permits, Rule 5, New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report – California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance. October 2009.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Health Risk Assessments for Proposed Land Use Projects. July 2009.
California Air Resources Board. Discussion Draft 2030 Target Scoping Plan. December 2, 2016.
California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Alameda County Superior Court (Case No. RG10548693).
California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Cal. Ct. App. 1st, Case No. A135335, August 13, 2013.
California Department of Conservation. San Mateo County Important Farmland Map 2014. Map. February 2016.
California Department of Finance. City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2016. Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones – San Mateo County. November 7, 2015.
California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, San Mateo County. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 175 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. 2005.
California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board. First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. May 22, 2014.
California Geological Survey. Seismic Hazard Zones. October 18, 2006.
California Office of Administrative Law. California Code of Regulations.
California Water Service. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan – Bear Gulch District. June 2016.
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Priority Development Area (PDA) Investment & Growth Strategy. May 2014.
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Southeastern San Mateo County Bicycling Routes. Map. May 2014.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06081C0312E. Map. Effective Date: May 18, 2009.
Hanson, C. Bruce. Paleontological Evaluation Report for the Envision San José 2040 General Plan, Santa Clara County, California. September 2010.
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2131 Sand Hill Road Office Development Traffic Impact Analysis. November 8, 2016.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2131 Sand Hill Office Development Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. October 11, 2016.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2131 Sand Hill Road Office Development Project Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment. October 3, 2016.
Menlo Park, City of. 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis. February 2008.
Menlo Park, City of. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the Menlo Park Municipal Water District. June 2016.
Menlo Park, City of. Climate Action Plan Update and Status Report. October 2015.
Menlo Park, City of. Comprehensive Bicycle Development Plan. January 2005.
Menlo Park, City of. El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan. June 2012.
Menlo Park, City of. General Plan. Updated April 1, 2014.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 176 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Menlo Park, City of. Housing Element Update, General Plan Consistency Update, and Zoning Ordinance Amendments Environmental Assessment. April 4, 2013.
Menlo Park, City of. Municipal Code. January 26, 2016.
Menlo Park, City of. Request for Proposals for Zero Waste Plan, Rate Structure Analysis and Revision, and Consultation as Needed. May 2016.
San Mateo County. General Plan. Updated December 2015.
San Mateo County. Zoning Regulations. Updated January 2016.
San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services. Hazard Mitigation Plan. July 2016.
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. January 4, 2013.
Menlo Park Police Department. Organizational Chart. April 2014.
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Final Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Palo Alto Airport. November 8, 2012.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2013 Congestion Management Program. October 2013.
Stanford Report. A new life for Meyer-Buck House closed after Loma Prieta. April 16, 2003. Available at: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/april16/buck-416.html
Jones, Laura. “2131 Sand Hill Road: Response to 12-22-17 comments.” Email. March 9, 2017.
University of California Berkeley Center for the Built Environment. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Building. 2013. Available at: http://www.cbe.berkeley.edu/mixedmode/wfhewlett.html
U.S. Geological Survey. Mineral Resources On-Line Spatial Data. Map. Available at: https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map.html. Accessed December 16, 2016.
West Bay Sanitary District. District Drawing 2010. Map. February 2010.
West Bay Sanitary District. Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. July 2011.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 177 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 178 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS
6.1 LEAD AGENCY
City of Menlo Park Community Development Department Tom Smith, Associate Planner
6.2 CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. Environmental Consultants and Planners Nora Monette, Principal Julie Wright, Project Manager Hannah Darst, Assistant Project Manager Zach Dill, Graphic Artist
Aquifer Sciences, Inc. Environmental Consultants Rebecca A. Sterbentz, President
Cornerstone Earth Group Geotechnical Engineers Erin L. Steiner, Senior Project Engineer
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Gary Black, President
HortScience, Inc. Horticultural Consultants Ryan Gilpin, Consulting Arborist
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Acoustics and Air Quality Engineers James Reyff, Principal Michael S. Thill, Principal
Sandis Civil Engineering Ken Olcott, President
WRA Environmental Consultants Patricia Valcarcel, Wildlife Biologist
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 179 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
This page is intentionally left blank
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 180 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
SECTION 7.0 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CITY OF MENLO PARK CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. INTRODUCTION
A. LEAD AGENCY AND ADDRESS
Community Development Department City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel Street Menlo Park, CA 94025
B. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Tom Smith, Associate Planner City of Menlo Park (650) 330-6730
C. PROJECT SPONSOR AND ADDRESS
Stanford University Land, Buildings & Real Estate 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304
D. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING
San Mateo County
General Plan: Medium Low Density Residential
Zoning District: R-E/S-9, APN 074-450-030 and -040 R-1/S-9, APN 074-450-050
E. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to construct a two-story, 39,510-square foot office building on undeveloped land in unincorporated San Mateo County. The project would also construct a 119-space, below-grade parking garage and 40 surface parking spaces. Of the 93 trees on the site, 19 would be removed, six of which are Heritage trees. New trees and landscaping would also be planted.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 181 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
The proposed office building would be located near the center of the project site fronting Sand Hill Road, with the surface parking lot located on the eastern side. The project would include new utility infrastructure. Amenities such as common areas, an employee patio, second-floor balconies, pedestrian walkways, and bicycle storage are included in the project design. The proposed two-story office building would extend to a total height of approximately 35 feet.
The project additionally proposes to annex the land parcel, which includes the adjacent Hewlett Foundation headquarters and Stanford’s Meyer-Buck House, into the City of Menlo Park. Under the proposed project, the existing parcel would be divided into two parcels, one containing the proposed office and Hewlett Foundation headquarters and the other containing the Meyer-Buck House. No other changes are proposed to the existing structures.
F. LOCATION OF PROJECT
The 14.2-acre project site consists of one parcel with three APNs (074-450-030, -040, and -050) located at 2131, 2121, and 2111 Sand Hill Road in unincorporated San Mateo County. The project site is located on the south side of Sand Hill Road, east of Stanford Hills Park and west of Santa Cruz Avenue.
Surrounding land uses include one-story, single-family residences to the south beyond a PG&E- maintained natural gas line easement. A one-story commercial shopping center and gas station are located to the north across Sand Hill Road, and the Stanford Golf Course is east of the site across Santa Cruz Avenue.
II. MITIGATION MEASURES
Air Quality
MM AIR-1.1: Measures to Control Dust Emissions: The contractor shall implement the following Best Management Practices that are required of all projects:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 182 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
MM AIR-2.1: Selection of Construction Equipment: The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average 85 percent reduction in PM2.5 exhaust emissions or more. Such equipment selection would include the following requirements:
All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operated on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, be equipped with California Air Resources Board-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 4 engines or equivalent, and/or Use of alternatively-fueled equipment (e.g., Liquefied Petroleum Gas [LPG]-powered lifts), alternative fuels (e.g., biofuels), added exhaust devices, or a combination of measures listed above provided that these measures are approved by the City and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to a less than significant level. Measures to be used shall be approved by the City of Menlo Park Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading permits, and demonstrated to reduce community risk impacts to less than significant.
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1.1: Worker Environmental Awareness Training: Prior to any construction activities, an approved biologist will conduct a training session for all construction personnel. At a minimum, the training will include descriptions of Nuttall’s woodpecker, its habitat, importance of the species, and the limits of work boundaries associated with the project.
MM BIO-1.2: Nesting Bird Avoidance: To the greatest extent feasible, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be completed between September 1 and February 14, to avoid the general nesting period for birds.
MM BIO-1.3: Preconstruction Survey: A preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be completed by a qualified biologist prior to vegetation removal or any construction-related activity (including site preparation) that occurs during the nesting season (February 15 through August 31) in order to determine if nesting birds and their territories are located within 500 feet of the project
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 183 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
site. If no special status bird nests are identified with 500 feet during the preconstruction survey, construction-related activities will be allowed to proceed.
MM BIO-1.4: Buffer Zone: If active nests are observed during the preconstruction survey, the project applicant, in coordination with City staff as appropriate, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (usually 100 feet for perching birds and 300 feet for raptors). The no- disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends.
MM BIO-2.1: Tree Replacement: The applicant shall offset the loss of trees by planting replacement trees at the project site. Two replacement trees per Heritage tree, and one replacement tree per non-Heritage tree, shall be planted, for a total of 25 replacement trees. If additional trees are removed due to project impacts, replacement trees will be required at the same ratios.
MM BIO-2.2: Tree Preservation Measures: All existing on-site trees to remain shall be trimmed and fertilized by a licensed arborist prior to commencement of grading or demolition operations.
MM BIO-2.3: Tree Protection Measures: A Tree Protection Zone of at least ten feet shall be established around each tree to be preserved. No grading, excavation, construction, or storage of materials shall occur within that zone.
Cultural Resources
MM CUL-1.1: Discovery of Cultural Materials: If prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the find shall halt and the City must be notified. A qualified archaeologist and Native American representative shall inspect and evaluate the findings within 24 hours of discovery. Prehistorical material might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, milling slabs); and battered-stone tools such as hammerstones and pitted stones. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, shall develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
MM CUL-2.1: Discovery of Paleontological Resources: In the event that a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, all work on the site will stop immediately until a qualified professional paleontologist can assess the nature and importance of the find and recommend appropriate treatment. The City shall be notified if any fossils are discovered. Treatment may include
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 184 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
preparation and recovery of fossil material so that they can be housed in an appropriate museum or university collection and may also include preparation of a report for publication describing the finds. The project proponent shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations of the paleontologist.
MM CUL-3.1: Discovery of Human Remains: In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50-foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The San Mateo County Coroner shall be notified immediately and shall then determine whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, he/she shall within 24 hours notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), who will notify the person the NAHC identifies as the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. If the MLD does not make recommendations regarding the disposal of the remains within 48 hours, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance.
Geology and Soils
MM GEO-1.1: Engineering Measures: To reduce the potential for damage to the planned at- grade structures, footings shall extend below the zone of seasonal moisture fluctuation. In addition, moisture changes shall be limited by using positive drainage away from the building as well as limiting landscaping watering. If the expansive clay layer is encountered beneath concrete flatwork, pavements, or pavers, the non-expansive fill layer shall be increased.
MM GEO-1.2: Construction Moisture Conditioning: To minimize soil volume changes, the contractor shall keep all exposed expansive soil subgrade (and also trench excavation side walls) moist until protected by overlying improvements (or trenches are backfilled). If expansive soils are allowed to dry out significantly, reconditioning may require several days of re-wetting, or deep scarification, moisture conditioning, and re-compaction.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-1.1: Soil and Groundwater Sampling: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project shall complete focused sampling and analysis under the oversight of the San Mateo County Health System, or other appropriate oversight agency, in accordance with a Work Plan prepared by a qualified professional and approved by the oversight agency. The Work Plan shall be approved prior to site clearing or excavation and include appropriate risk-based screening levels for comparison of the sampling results.
MM HAZ-1.2: Hazardous Materials Disposal: If evidence of a hazardous material is discovered during construction (or pre-construction soil testing), work will be
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 185 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
stopped in the immediate area and soil samples will be collected and analyzed by a qualified environmental professional to determine the type and extent of release and potential health effects to construction workers. The analytical results will be compared against applicable hazardous waste criteria, and if necessary, the investigation will provide recommendations regarding management and disposal of affected soil (and groundwater). Any contaminated soil and/or groundwater found in concentrations above developed thresholds shall be removed and disposed of according to California Hazardous Waste Regulations. Special health and safety measures and/or soil management procedures may also be required during project construction.
MM HAZ-1.3: Soil Characterization: Soil materials removed from the site shall be characterized and disposed of according to the California Hazardous Waste Regulations. Contaminated soil that exceeds regulatory thresholds shall be handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering and dust controls, in accordance with local, State and federal laws. Any contaminated soils that are removed from the site shall be disposed of at a licensed hazardous materials disposal site.
MM HAZ-1.4: Hazardous Materials Cleanup: If detected at levels that exceed regulatory thresholds, the extent of contamination shall be identified, and recommendations for a Health and Safety Plan, Soil Management Plan, and methods for cleanup shall be implemented, as applicable. This work shall be performed under the oversight of a regulatory agency, such as the San Mateo County Health System, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the Department of Toxic Substances Control, with copies of all documentation provided to the City of Menlo Park.
Hydrology and Water Quality
MM HYD-1.1: State of California Construction General Permit: A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared for construction projects disturbing one acre or more of land. Proof of coverage under the Construction General Permit (CGP) shall be attached to the building plans.
MM HYD-1.2: Best Management Practices: The project will implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the discharge of stormwater pollutants including sediments associated with construction activities in accordance with the SWPPP and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The project shall prepare an Erosion Control Plan to the satisfaction of the City of Menlo Park Public Works Department. The Erosion Control Plan may include but is not limited to BMPs specified in the Manual of Standards Erosion and Sediment Control. The project shall
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 186 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
implement the following erosion and sediment control measures where appropriate:
Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants and non- stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials/wastes properly to prevent contact with stormwater; Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated; Train and provide BMP instruction to all employees and subcontractors; Protect all storm drain inlets in the vicinity of the site using sediment controls such as berms, fiber rolls, or filters; Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; Delineate with field marker clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones, trees, and drainage courses; Complete clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering and obtain all necessary permits; Trap sediment on-site using sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, check dams, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stockpiles, etc.; Divert on-site runoff around exposed areas; divert off-site runoff around the site using swales and dikes; and Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate.
MM HYD-1.3: Outdoor Storage Areas (Including Garbage Enclosures): Outdoor storage areas (for storage of equipment or materials which could decompose, disintegrate, leak, or otherwise contaminate stormwater runoff), including garbage enclosures, shall be designed to prevent the run-on of stormwater and runoff of spills by all of the following:
Paving the area with concrete or other non-permeable surface; Covering the area; and Sloping the area inward (negative slope) or installing a berm or curb around its perimeter. There shall be no storm drains in outdoor storage areas.
MM HYD-2.1: Municipal Regional Permit: The project shall comply with the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), as well as other local, state, and federal requirements. The project shall comply with provision C.3 of the MRP, which provides performance standards for the management of stormwater for new development, and any new requirements.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 187 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
MM HYD-2.2: Landscape Design: For non-residential buildings, landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. Examples include:
No steep slopes exceeding 10 percent; Using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; Installing plants with low water requirements; and Installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones.
MM HYD-2.3: Efficient Irrigation: For residential and non-residential buildings, common areas shall employ efficient irrigation to avoid excess irrigation runoff. Examples include:
Setting irrigation timers to avoid runoff by splitting irrigations into several short cycles; Employing multi-programmable irrigation controllers; Employing rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after significant precipitation; Use of drip irrigations for all planter areas which have a shrub density that will cause excessive spray interference of an overhead system; and Use of flow reducers to mitigate broken heads next to sidewalks, streets, and driveways.
MM HYD-2.4: Stormwater Treatment: Stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the San Mateo County “C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance.” The County’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select Low Impact Development (LID) types of stormwater controls and the types of projects that are exempt from this requirement.
LID treatment measures include rainwater harvesting, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment. Biotreatment is allowed only if it is infeasible to treat the specified amount of runoff with rainwater harvesting, infiltration, and evapotranspiration.
Noise and Vibration
MM NOI-1.1: Mechanical Equipment Selection: A qualified acoustical consultant shall review final site plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to issuance of building permits to calculate expected interior noise levels as required by City policies and State noise regulations. Mechanical equipment shall be selected to reduce impacts on surrounding uses to meet the City’s noise level requirements. The acoustical consultant shall review mechanical noise, as these systems are selected, to determine specific noise reduction measures necessary to reduce noise to comply with the City’s noise level requirements. Noise reduction measures could include, but are not limited to, selection of
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 188 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
equipment that emits low noise levels and installation of noise barriers, such as enclosures and parapet walls, to block the line-of-sight between the noise source and the nearest receptors. Results of the acoustical consultant’s analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatment, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of any building permits.
MM NOI-2.1: Construction Work Hours: Reasonable regulation of the hours of construction, as well as regulation of the arrival and operation of heavy equipment and the delivery of construction materials, are necessary to protect the health and safety of persons, promote the general welfare of the community, and maintain quality of life. Construction activities will be completed in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code, which limits construction work to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and prohibits construction on weekends and holidays.
MM NOI-2.2: Best Management Practices: The construction crew shall develop a construction noise plan to reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site and minimize disruption and annoyance at existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. BMPs will include, but are not limited to, the following available controls:
Construct temporary noise barriers, where feasible, to screen stationary noise-generating equipment from adjoining sensitive land uses. Temporary noise barrier fences would provide a five dBA noise reduction if the noise barrier interrupts the line-of-sight between the noise source and receptor and if the barrier is constructed in a manner that eliminates any cracks or gaps. Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be strictly prohibited. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, as far from sensitive receptors as is feasible. If they must be located near receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used. Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive receptors. Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists. Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 189 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
Locate material stockpiles, as well as maintenance/equipment staging and parking areas, as far as feasible from residential receptors. Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. The construction plan shall identify a procedure for coordination with adjacent residential land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance. Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
III. DETERMINATION
In accordance with local procedures regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and on the basis of that study recommends the following determination:
The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the implementation of the required mitigation measures, and therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required.
The Initial Study incorporates all relevant information regarding potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required.
IV. FINDINGS
Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:
A. As discussed in the preceding sections, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate historic or prehistoric sites.
B. As discussed in the preceding sections, both short-term and long-term environmental effects associated with the proposed project will be less than significant.
C. When impacts associated with the adoption of the proposed project are considered alone or in combination with other impacts, the project-related impacts are insignificant.
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 190 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017
D. The above discussions do not identify any substantial adverse impacts to people as a result of the proposed project.
E. This determination reflects the independent judgment of the City.
______Name/Title Date
2131 Sand Hill Road Office 191 Initial Study City of Menlo Park March 2017