Menlo Park City Council
March 22, 2022

Police PD-035 Registrants: Sex Offenders - Adults P, or Death of Registrant P, or Death of Registrant Mag,
Mfr,
OD,
Ppr
S/M/I
Yes:

After QC
& OD
Department Preference; After 2021, Offenders can petition Court for removal 10 or 20 years after offense, provided there are no subsequent offenses; Pursuant to PC §290 et seq.

Police PD-036 Restraining Orders Expiration of Order Expiration of Order Ppr Department Preference; Non- records (Superior Court is OFR); GC §34090Police PD-037 RMS Database Indefinite Indefinite Yes Mag Data Fields / Records are interrelated; GC §34090Police PD-038 Subpoenas and Subpoena Logs 2 years 2 years Ppr GC §34090Police PD-039 Suspect ID Jackets No Activity + 10 years No Activity + 10 years Mag, Ppr Consistent with Felony Crime Report retentions; Registration is required for 5 years; GC §34090, H&S §11590 et seq., H&S §11594(a) Police PD-040 Traffic Complaints 2 years 2 years Mag, Ppr GC §34090 Police PD-041 Training Records
Transfer to
Human
Resources
upon
Separation
Transfer to
Human
Resources
upon
Separation
Mag,
Mfr,
OD,
Ppr
S / I
Yes:

After 1
year
Department Preference; GC §34090
CITY OF MENLO PARK CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 89 of 106
Page E-6.107
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-1 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

PUBLIC WORKS
Fire, Public
Works PW-001
Employee Exposure Records: HazMat Exposure Records / OSHA Log 200, MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) / SDS (Safety Data Sheets) 2 years 28 years 30 years Yes (all)
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S
Yes:

When
Inactive
Claims can be made for 30 years for toxic subst. exposure; EEOC/FLSA/ADEA (Age) requires 3 years for promotion, demotion, transfer, selection, or discharge; State Law requires 2 -3 years; 29 CFR 1627.3(b)(ii), 8 CCR §3204(d)(1) et seq., GC §§12946,34090 Public
Works PW-002
Equipment Inventory, Maintenance & Operations (e.g. pump stations, reservoir stations, etc.) 5 years 5 years Yes Mag, Ppr
Covers auditing standards; Statute of Limitations for contracts is 4 years; CCP §§ 337 et seq.; GC §34090 Plann. /
Public
Works
PW-003 Flood Control & Disaster Files (e.g. pump systems, CIP systems) P P Yes (all) Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: 1 year statewide guidelines propose 2 years; GC §34090 Public
Works PW-004 Offers of Dedication
When No
Longer
Required
When No
Longer
Required
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S
Yes:

After
Inactive
GC §34090
Public
Works PW-005 Potential Claims 2 years 2 years Yes (all) Mag, Ppr GC §34090 Lead Dept:

City
Manag.,
Plann., or
Public
Works
PW-006 Real Estate Appraisal Reports: Property NOT purchased 2 years 2 years Mag, Ppr Statewide Guidelines show 2 years; GC §§34090, 6254(h) CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 90 of 106
Page E-6.108
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-2 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Lead Dept:

City
Manag.,
Plann., or
Public
Works
PW-007 Real Estate Appraisal Reports: Purchased Property 2 years 5 years 7 years Yes: Until Purchase Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: After Inactive Auditing standards are 7 years after audit; time is sufficient to establish tax increment; Statewide Guidelines show 2 years; GC §§34090, 6254(h) Finance PW-008 Refundable Deposits (Building or Planning Permits, etc.) When No Longer Required When No Longer Required Yes: Until Closed Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr Finance maintains originals; GC §34090.7 Public
Works PW-009 State of California Information Files (CalTrans) 2 years 10 years 10 years Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: 1 year Administrative Value; GC §34090 Human
Resources PW-010 Training, Including Safety Training (Not Hazardous Materials) Copies -
When No
Longer
Required
Copies -
When No
Longer
Required
Mag,
Ppr
HR is OFR (all originals should be sent to HR, the department maintains a copy); OSHA requires 1 year; 8 Cal. Cod Reg. 3203(b)(2); GC §34090 Public
Works PW-011 Traffic Collision Reports (copies of Sheriff's report) 10 years 10 years Mag, Ppr Department Preference; GC §34090 Public
Works PW-012 Traffic Counts, Summaries, Reports 5 years 5 years Mag, Ppr Department Preference; GC §34090 Public
Works PW-013 Traffic Information Files 5 years 5 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S Yes: 1
year
Department Preference; GC §34090
Public
Works PW-014 Traffic Legends (painting) 5 years P P
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S Yes: 1
year
Department Preference; GC §34090
Public
Works PW-015 Traffic Signals: Maintenance, Timing, Signs & Marking installations 5 years P P Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: 1 year Department Preference; GC §34090 CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 91 of 106
Page E-6.109
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-3 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Public
Works PW-016 Traffic Speed Surveys 5 years 5 years Mag, Ppr Department Preference; Statewide guidelines propose 2 years; GC §34090 Public
Works PW-017
Underground Service Alerts from Utility Companies "USA's" - (Digging on Property) 3 years 3 years Ppr GC §§4216.2(fd) & 4216.3(d), GC §34090 Public
Works PW-018 Vehicle Maintenance History (Public Works Vehicles only) Life of Vehicle + 2 years Life of Vehicle + 2 years Mag, Ppr Covers all statute of limitations; CHP requires life of vehicle; OSHA requires 1 year; GC §34090 Public
Works /
Division
Providing
Service /
Work
PW-019
Work Orders / Service Requests / Job Requests / Service Repair Orders CMMS DATABASE (Computerized Maintenance Management System) Indefinite Indefinite Mag Data is interrelated; GC §34090 Public
Works /
Division
Providing
Service /
Work
PW-020
Work Orders / Service Requests / Job Requests / Service Repair Orders - All Information Entered in CMMS Database When No
Longer
Required
When No
Longer
Required
Mag,
Ppr
Preliminary drafts (the database is the original); GC §34090 Public
Works /
Division
Providing
Service /
Work
PW-021
Work Orders / Service Requests / Job Requests / Service Repair Orders - NOT entered in CMMS Database (or partial information entered into CMMS Database)(Division providing service retains originals; Division requesting service is considered a copy) 5 years 5 years Mag, Ppr City preference; CCP §§338 et seq., 340 et seq., 342, GC §§945.6, GC §34090 CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 92 of 106
Page E-6.110
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-4 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

ENGINEERING
Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-022 Annexations, Abandonments 2 years P P Yes: Until Completed Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: 1 year GC §34090 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-023
Assessment District Projects (Maps, Engineer's Report, Diagrams, Spreadsheets, Improvement Plans - e.g. water, sewer, undergrounding) 2 years P P Yes: Until Completed Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: 1 year City Clerk Maintains Originals; GC §34090 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-024 Bonds - Project Funding
When No
Longer
Required
When No
Longer
Required
Yes: Until
Completed
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
Finance is OFR; GC §34090.7
Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-025
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP): Administration File Project Administration, Certified Payrolls, Construction Manager's Logs, Daily Inspections, Daily Logs, Hazardous Materials Plans, Meeting Minutes, Photos, Project Schedules, Progress meetings, Punch Lists, Real Estate Appraisals, RFIs & Responses, Soil Reports, Studies, Submittals, Successful Proposal, Surveys, etc.

Upon
Completion
10 years or
After
Funding
Agency
Audit, if
required,
whichever is
longer
Completion
+ 10 years
or After
Funding
Agency
Audit, if
required,
whichever is
longer
Yes: Until
Completed
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S/I
Yes:

After QC
& OD
Some grant funding agencies require audits; Statute of Limitations for Errors & Omissions is 10 years; Published Audit Standards=4-7 years; Statute of Limitations: Contracts & Spec's=4 years, Wrongful Death=comp. + 5 years, Developers=comp. + 10 years; Statewide guidelines propose termination + 5 years; CCP §337 et. seq., GC §34090 CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 93 of 106
Page E-6.111
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-5 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-026
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP): Permanent File Specifications & Addenda, Change Orders, CEQA / Environmental Documents - EIRs, Negative Declarations, Exemptions, Materials Testing Reports, etc.

Upon
Completion PP Yes: Until Completed Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S/I Yes: After QC & OD Department preference; retained for disaster preparedness purposes; Statewide guidelines propose Permanent for Infrastructure plans; Final environmental determinations are required to be kept a "reasonable period of time"; 14 CCR §15095(c); CCP §337 et. seq.,GC §34090 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-026 Drawings / As-Builts (Improvement Plans, Grading, Utility) Completion + 2 years P P Yes (all) Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: 1 year Some maps are also retained by Planning; Selected maps are retained in Public Works for administrative purposes; GC §34090, 34090.7 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-027 Easements 2 years P P Yes (all)
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S
Yes:

After
Inactive
Department Preference; Recorded, therefore also maintained by City Clerk; GC §34090, 34090.7 Planning PW-028 Encroachments (Planning Review File) When No Longer Required When No Longer Required Mag, Ppr Planning is OFR; GC §34090.7 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-029 Encroachments (Structures - e.g. awnings, signs, etc.) 2 years P P Yes (all) Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: After Inactive Statewide guidelines propose Permanent; GC § 34090 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-030
Encroachments (Temporary - e.g. construction street openings, sidewalk ramps, debris box, etc.) 2 years 2 years Mag, Ppr GC §34090
CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 94 of 106
Page E-6.112
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-6 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-031
Maps, Base Maps - Final (Drainage, Grading, Subdivision, Survey, Parcel Maps, Lot Line Adjustments, Utility, Street Light, Water, etc.) P P Yes (all)
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S Yes: 1
year
Some maps are recorded and maintained by City Clerk; some maps are also retained by Planning; Selected maps are retained in Public Works for administrative purposes; GC §34090, 34090.7 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-032
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program (includes enforcement actions) 5 years 5 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S Yes: 1
year
Statewide guidelines propose permanent; Federal law requires between 3-5 years for hazardous materials discharge; 40 CFR 122.28 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-033 Offers of Dedication (property) 2 years P P
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S
Yes:

After
Inactive
Land records; GC §34090
Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-034 Plan Drawings (e.g. water, sewer, storm drain, etc.) P P Yes (all) Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: 1 year Some maps are also retained by Planning; Selected maps are retained in Public Works for administrative purposes; GC §34090, 34090.7 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-035
Preliminary Studies / Project Assessments (Not Acquired): Title Reports, Environmental Reports, etc.
2 years 8 years 10 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S
Yes:

After
Inactive
Department Preference; GC §34090
Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-036 Prevailing Wages, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises 2 years after revised 2 years after revised Mag, Ppr Non-record used for reference; GC § 34090 CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 95 of 106
Page E-6.113
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-7 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-037
Projects & Facilities: INFRASTRUCTURE Final Specifications and Plans (Buildings, Improvement Plans, Park Improvements, Right of Way, Sewers, Street Widening, etc.) Completion
+ 2 years P P Yes (all)
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S Yes: 1
year
Statewide guidelines propose 7 years; 2 years for blueprints & specifications; Statute of Limitations is 4 years; 10 years for Errors & Omissions; CCP §§337. 337.1(a), 337.15, GC §34090 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-038
Projects: NON-INFRASTRUCTURE Final Specifications and Plans (Curb repairs, Slurry Seals, Street Paving, Tree Trimming, etc).

Completion
+ 2 years 3 years Completion + 5 years Yes: Until Completed Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: After Inactive Statewide guidelines propose Term + 5 years, 2 years for blueprints & specifications; Statute of Limitations is 4 years; 10 years for Errors & Omissions; CCP §§337. 337.1(a), 337.15, GC§34090 Finance PW-039
Property Acquisition Projects (All): Correspondence, copies of permanent documents, etc.

Copies -
When No
Longer
Required
Copies -
When No
Longer
Required
Yes: Until
Completed
Mag,
Ppr
Original Deeds or other Recorded Documents are maintained by the City Clerk, depending upon the project; All original agreements are maintained by Finance; GC §34090.7 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-040
Refundable and Security Deposits (Charged to developers to cover project fees) 2 years 3 years 5 years Yes: Until Completed Mag, Ppr For auditing purposes; published articles show 3 years; Other city shows permanent; GC §34090 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-041 Resource Files: (ABAG, etc.)
When No
Longer
Required
When No
Longer
Required
Mag,
Ppr GC §34090
Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-042 Staff Reports (City Council) P P Yes: Until Completed Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: 1 year City Clerk Maintains Originals for 5 years; GC §34090 CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 96 of 106
Page E-6.114
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-8 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-043 Streets, Storm Drains, Lot Line Adjustments, Parcel Maps, etc. P P Yes (all) Department Preference; Planning also maintains some originals; GC § 34090 et seq.

Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-044 Subdivisions Completion + 2 years P P Yes (all) Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: 1 year Department Preference (City Clerk is OFR); GC §34090.7 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-045 Survey Information (Legal plats and descriptions, Survey data and maps) Completion + 2 years P P Yes (all) Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: 1 year Department Preference; GC §34090 Public
Works /
Engineer.

PW-046 Tree Database (West Coast Arborists) Indefinite Indefinite Yes Mag Data Fields / Records are interrelated; GC §34090

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
Public
Works /
Env.

PW-047 Energy Conservation 5 years 5 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S No Department Preference; GC §34090 et. seq.

Public
Works /
Env.

PW-047 NPDES - Public Information 5 years 5 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S No
Department Preference; Monitoring records required for 3 years; 40 CFR §§122.21, 122.41; 122.44; GC §34090 et. seq.

Public
Works /
Env.

PW-048 Tree Maps & Plats Until Superseded PP Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S / I Yes: 2 years Department Preference; GC §34090 Public
Works /
Env.

PW-049 Tree Maintenance 2 years 1 year 3 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years
Department Preference; GC §34090
Public
Works /
Env.

PW-050 Tree Removal Permits 2 years 3 years 5 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years
Department Preference; GC §34090
CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 97 of 106
Page E-6.115
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-9 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Public
Works /
Env.

PW-051 Solid Waste Recycling and Administration 5 years 5 years Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S No Department Preference; GC §34090 et. seq.

Public
Works /
Env.

PW-052 Water Pollution Prevention Program (NPDES) 5 years 5 years Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S No Department Preference; Monitoring records required for 3 years; 40 CFR §§122.21, 122.41; 122.44 GC §34090 et. seq.

MAINTENANCE / FLEET SECTION
Maint. /
Fleet PW-053 Accident Reports (vehicles and equipment) - NOT a Police Report 3 years 3 years Mag, Ppr Covers statute of limitations; CCP §337 et seq.; GC §34090 Police PW-054 Accident Reports (vehicles and equipment) - Police Reports Copies -
When No
Longer
Required
Copies -
When No
Longer
Required
Mag,
Ppr
Police is OFR - Do not retain in Department because it contains some private information; GC §34090.7 Maint. /
Fleet PW-055 Equipment Work Request
When No
Longer
Required
When No
Longer
Required
Mag,
Ppr
The "original" record (Pink) is maintained in other departments; GC §34090 Maint. /
Fleet PW-056 Vehicle Maintenance History
Life of
Vehicle + 2
years
Life of
Vehicle + 2
years
Mag,
Ppr
Consistent with CHP requirements; OSHA requires 1 year; 8 CCR §3203(b)(1); GC §34090 Maint. /
Fleet PW-057 Vehicle Service Requests, Inspections, or Work Orders Life of
Vehicle or
CHP
Inspection
Life of
Vehicle or
CHP
Inspection
Mag,
Ppr
Some functions are outsourced to Contractors; GC §34090 CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 98 of 106
Page E-6.116
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-10 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

MAINTENANCE / STREETS
Maint. /
Streets PW-058
Material Data Safety Sheet (MSDS) / Safety Data Sheets (SDS) / Chemical Use Report Form (or records of the chemical / substance / agent, where & when it was used) 30 years 30 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S
Yes:

After QC
& OD
Previous MSDS may be obtained from a service; MSDS may be destroyed as long as a record of the chemical / substance / agent, where & when it was used is maintained for 30 years;Applies to qualified employers; 8 CCR 3204(d)(1)(B)(2 and 3), 29 CFR 910.1020(d)(1)(ii)(B), GC §34090 Maint. /
Streets PW-059 Pavement Maintenance Inventory Records Data Superseded Data Superseded Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: After 1 year GC § 34090 Maint. /
Streets PW-060
Pavement Maintenance Inventory Records - "Deep Lift" or "Skin Patching" (repair) 2 years 2 years Mag GC § 34090
Maint. /
Streets PW-061 Streets 5 years 5 years Mag, Ppr Department Preference; GC § 34090 Maint. /
Streets PW-062 Traffic Legends (painting) 5 years 5 years Mag, Ppr Covers all Statute of Limitations; Department Preference; GC §34090, CCP §337 et seq.

Maint. /
Streets PW-063 Traffic Signs 5 years 5 years Mag, Ppr
City Clerk maintains originals of installation / ownership, etc; Covers all Statute of Limitations; Department Preference; GC §34090, CCP §337 et seq.

CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 99 of 106
Page E-6.117
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-11 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Maint. /
Streets PW-064 Tree Database (West Coast Arborists) Indefinite Indefinite Yes Mag Data Fields / Records are interrelated; GC §34090 Public
Works /
Division
Providing
Service /
Work
PW-065
Work Orders / Service Requests / Job Requests / Service Repair Orders CMMS DATABASE (Computerized Maintenance Management System) Indefinite Indefinite Mag Data is interrelated; GC §34090 Public
Works /
Division
Providing
Service /
Work
PW-066
Work Orders / Service Requests / Job Requests / Service Repair Orders - All Information Entered in CMMS Database When No
Longer
Required
When No
Longer
Required
Mag,
Ppr
Preliminary drafts (the database is the original); GC §34090 Public
Works /
Division
Providing
Service /
Work
PW-067
Work Orders / Service Requests / Job Requests / Service Repair Orders - NOT entered in CMMS Database (or partial information entered into CMMS Database)(Division providing service retains originals; Division requesting service is considered a copy) 3 years 3 years Mag, Ppr City preference; CCP §§338 et seq., 340 et seq., 342, GC §§945.6, GC §34090

MAINTENANCE / WATER
Water PW-068 Backflow Inspections / Approvals 5 years 5 years Ppr Domestic water system inspection with County administration (State Program - Title 17) GC §34090 (City took over from San Mateo County in 2009) CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 100 of 106
Page E-6.118
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-12 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Water PW-069 Chains of Custody 2 years 10 years 12 years Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years
Lead and Copper are required for 12 years or 2 compliance cycles (some compliance cycles are nine years); 22 CCR 64400.25; 22 CCR §64470, 40 CFR 141.33(a); 40CFR 141.91 Water PW-070
Chemical Reports, includes Bacterial Analysis (Chlorine, Nitrates, etc.) weekly water testing 2 years 8 years 12 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years
State law requires 12 years, Federal 10 years; 40 CFR 141.33(a); 22 CCR §64692 Water PW-071 Correspondence: EPA, DHS 2 years 3 years 5 years Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S Yes: 2
years
Department Preference; GC §34090
Water PW-072
Customer Concerns / Customer Complaints: Odor / Taste / Visual Complaints about Potable Water 5 years 5 years Mag, Ppr
5 years is required in State and Federal law for any complaints; 40 CFR 122.41(j)(2) & 40 CFR 141.33(b); 22 CCR 64470(a) Water PW-073 FEMA Community Assistance 2 years 8 years 10 years Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years
Department Preference; GC §34090
Water PW-074 FEMA Flood Insurance Maps, Letters of Map Amendments Until Superseded PP Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S / I Yes: 2 years Department Preference; GC §34090Water PW-075 Geothermal Logs 2 years P P Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years Historical Data; GC §34090
Water PW-076 Groundwater Contamination 2 years P P
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years Historical Data; GC §34090
CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 101 of 106
Page E-6.119
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-13 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Water PW-077 Groundwater Levels, Data Trends 2 years P P Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years Historical Data; GC §34090
Water PW-078 Groundwater Monitoring Well Route Book PP Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S / I Yes: 2 years Department Preference; GC §34090 Water PW-079 Lab Analysis (e.g. Bayfront Park) 2 years 8 years 12 years Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years
Lead and Copper are required for 12 years or 2 compliance cycles (some compliance cycles are nine years); 22 CCR 64400.25; 22 CCR §64470, 40 CFR 141.33(a); 40CFR 141.91 Water PW-080 Meter Installation & Maintenance Life of Meter Life of Meter Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years GC §34090
Water PW-081 NPDES Reports (e.g. 1/2 year deliverable) 3 years 3 years Mag, Ppr Monitoring records required for 3 years;40 CFR §§122.21, 122.41, 122.44 Water PW-082 Permits: Road Work (issued by Others) Completion of Project + 2 years Completion of Project + 2 years Ppr GC §34090 Water PW-083 Test Wells (e.g. Bayfront Park - may be done by private entities) 2 years Closing of Well Closing of Well Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S / I Yes: 2 years Administrative Value for monitoring wells; GC §34090 Water PW-084 Variances, Exemptions (water) Expiration + 5 years Expiration + 5 years Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S No 40 CFR 141.33(d) Water PW-085
Violations, Investigations and Corrective Actions: WATER DISTRIBUTION Last Action
+ 5 years
Last Action
+ 5 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years 40 CFR 141.33(b)
CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 102 of 106
Page E-6.120
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-14 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Water PW-086
Vulnerability Assessment / Emergency Response Plan / Risk & Resiliency Assessment / Hazard Mitigation Plan When
Superseded -
Minimum 2
years
When
Superseded -
Minimum 2
years
Mag,
Ppr Confidential; 42 USC 300i-2(d); GC §34090 et seq.

Water PW-087 Water - General 10 years 10 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
GC § 34090
Water PW-088 Water Level Data Sheets - Reservoirs PP Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S / I Yes: 2 years Administrative Value; GC §34090 Water PW-089 Water Plans (Various Projects) Completion + 5 years PP Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: When Inactive Drafts should be destroyed; All infrastructure contracts are permanent for emergency preparedness; Statute of Limitations is 4 years; 10 years for Errors & Omissions; CCP §§337. 337.1(a), 337.15, GC §34090 Water PW-090 Water Service Connections 2 years 3 years 5 years Mag, Ppr Department preference; covers auditing standards; GC §34090Water PW-091 Water Suppliers 10 years 10 years Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
GC § 34090
Water PW-092 Water Permit Index / Key P P Yes
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I No GC §34090
Water PW-093 Well Logs (e.g. Bayfront Park)
When No
Longer
Required
When No
Longer
Required
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years
Non-records (private entities perform this); GC §34090
CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 103 of 106
Page E-6.121
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-15 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Water PW-094
Well Measurements, Production: Daily Water Production, Water Meters 2 years P P
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I Yes: 2
years
Department Preference; GC §34090
Water PW-095 Well Record Books, Graphs, Monitoring 2 years P P Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S / I Yes: 2 years Department Preference; GC §34090

TRANSPORTATION
Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-096 Traffic Counts, Summaries, Reports 5 years 15 years 20 years Mag, Ppr Department Preference; GC §34090 Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-097 Bicycle Safety Training Program 2 years 2 years Mag, Ppr GC §34090 Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-098 Streets, Intersections 5 years 5 years 10 years Mag, Ppr Department Preference; GC §34090 Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-099 Traffic Information Files (does not include Accident Reports) 5 years 5 years 10 years Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: After QC & OD Department Preference; GC §34090 Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-100 Traffic Legends (painting) 5 years P P
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S
Yes:

After QC
& OD
Department Preference; GC §34090
Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-101 Traffic Signals: Maintenance, Timing, Signs & Marking installations 5 years P P Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: After QC & OD Department Preference; GC §34090 Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-102 Traffic Reports (except those that are historically significant) 5 years 5 years 10 years Mag, Ppr Department Preference; Statewide guidelines propose 2 years; GC §34090 CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 104 of 106
Page E-6.122
Ver. 4.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: PUBLIC WORKS Page PW-16 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-103 Traffic Speed Surveys 5 years 5 years 10 years Mag, Ppr Department Preference; Statewide guidelines propose 2 years; GC §34090 Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-104 Transportation Funding Programs (ISTEA, etc.) 2 years After
Funding
Agency
Audit, if
Required -
Minimum 4
years
After
Funding
Agency
Audit, if
required -
Minimum 4
years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S / I
Yes:

When
Inactive
Uniform Admin. Require. for Grants to Local Govern. is 3 years from expenditure report; HUD 2228.2 rev-3, 24 CFR 85.42, 24 CFR 982.158,29 CFR 97.42, GC §34090; Grant issuer hasrequirements under various CFR's Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-105 Transportation Plans, Projects & Infrastructure 5 years P P Mag, Mfr, OD, Ppr S Yes: After QC & OD Department Preference; GC §34090 Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-106
Transportation Systems Management Program (TSM) - Shuttles 5 years 5 years Mag, Ppr
Consistent with CHP inspection requirements; OSHA Requires 1 year; Cal. Code Reg. 3203(b)(1), GC §34090 Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-107 Traffic Studies 5 years 5 years 10 years
Mag,
Mfr, OD,
Ppr
S
Yes:

After QC
& OD
GC §34090
Public
Works. /
Trans.

PW-108 Truck Permits 4 years 4 years Yes: While Active Mag, Ppr Covers all Statute of Limitations; GC §34090, CCP §337 et seq.

CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 105 of 106
Page E-6.123
Ver. 7.0 RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE: SUSTAINABILITY Page SUS-1 Office of
Record
Retention
No. Records Description Retention / Disposition Comments / Reference (OFR) Active (On-Site) Inactive (Off-Site / Imaged) Total Retention Vital? Media Image: I=Import M=Mfr S=Scan Destroy Paper after Imaged & QC'd? If the record is not listed here, refer to the Retention for City-Wide Standards Retentions begin when the act is completed, and imply a full file folder (e.g. last document + 2 years), since destruction is normally performed by file folder.HOLDS: Litigation, claims, complaints, pending records requests, audits and/or investigations suspend normal retention periods (retention resumes after settlement or completion).

SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability SUS-001 Construction & Demolition Debris Re- use and Recycling 2 years 2 years Mag, Ppr GC §34090Sustainability SUS-002 Construction & Demolition Debris Re- use and Recycling Database (Green Halo) Indefinite Indefinite Yes Mag Data Fields / Records are interrelated; GC §34090Sustainability SUS-003 Recycling / AB 939 Compliance / Tonnage Reports 2 years 2 years Mag, Ppr GC §34090Sustainability SUS-004 Sustainability Initiatives (Other) 2 years 2 years Mag, Ppr GC §34090 CITY OF MENLO PARK, CA. ©2001 Gladwell Governmental Services, Inc. (909) 337-3516 - all rights reserved Adopted: 11/27/2001- Resolution 5351 Amended: 09/27/2005 - Resolution 5625 Amended: 11/15/2011 - Resolution 6031 Amended: 05/26/2020 - Resolution 6554 Resolution No. 6554 Page 106 of 106
Page E-6.124
City Manager's Office

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

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 3/22/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-058-CC
Consent Calendar: Adopt a resolution to 1) withdraw from California Community Housing Agency
membership and 2) provide notice to California
Community Housing Agency of the withdrawal
from the joint exercise of powers agreement
relating
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to 1) withdraw from California Community Housing Agency (CalCHA) membership and 2) provide notice to California Community Housing Agency of the withdrawal from the joint exercise of powers agreement (JPA) relating (Attachment A.) Policy Issues
The City of Menlo Park supports a full range of housing options affordable to different income levels, as identified in the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element.

Background
In July 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6510 (Attachment B) authorizing the City to become a member agency of CalCHA. The City Council further authorized the City to enter into a JPA with CalCHA and to enter into purchase option agreements with CalCHA.

CalCHA was formed pursuant to a joint powers authority with two original charter members, Kings County and the Housing Authority of Kings County. CalCHA is a political subdivision of the State of California under the Joint Powers Act and is authorized to issue revenue bonds and to conduct a range of activities including acquisition, ownership, maintenance and operation of any property. Additional cities, counties, and other local government entities may, and have, joined CalCHA. This includes the cities of Mountain View, Hayward, Walnut Creek, Dublin, Livermore, Larkspur, Santa Rosa, Fairfield and Napa, among others.

CalCHA currently partners with Catalyst Capital to issue revenue bonds and redevelop housing developments. Because CalCHA is a quasi-governmental entity, the revenue bonds can be issued without certain tax credit-based financing limitations.

In 2019 Catalyst Housing Group intended to submit an offer to purchase 777 Hamilton Avenue, with CalCHA bond financing, contingent upon City Council approval of the resolution to become a member of CalCHA. Catalyst Housing Group was not successful in acquiring the property. Staff is not aware of any essential middle-income rental housing created within City limits.

Staff has become aware of concerns of these arrangements in terms of property tax implications and ability AGENDA ITEM E-7 Page E-7.1
Staff Report #: 22-058-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org to actually produce the desired affordable housing as reflected in the November 2021 memo on the JPA Bond Proposals for Government-Owned Middle-Income Housing in California by the California Housing Partnership, CSG Advisors and HR&A Advisors Inc. (Attachment C.) Analysis
Staff has prepared the attached resolution for the City Council’s consideration. At this time, staff believes it would be in the best interest of the City to withdraw membership from CalCHA until staff can more fully analyze the implications of being a member. Staff does not believe that withdrawing from CalCHA would preclude the City from rejoining CalCHA or another similar JPA acting on behalf of private developers, at a future time.

Impact on City Resources
This action has no impact on City resources.

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

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

Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Resolution No. 6510
C. JPA Bond Proposals for Government-Owned Middle-Income Housing in California Report prepared by:

Justin Murphy, Interim City Manager
Page E-7.2
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6510 AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO (1) WITHDRAW THE CITY OF MENLO PARK FROM CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY HOUSING AGENCY (CALCHA) MEMBERSHIP, AND (2)
PROVIDE NOTICE TO CALCHA OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK’S

WITHDRAWAL FROM THE JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT

RELATING TO THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY HOUSING AGENCY
WHEREAS, one of the primary goals of the City of Menlo Park (the City) is to meet the growing housing needs of its residents by actively supporting the production, preservation and protection of market-rate and affordable rental housing for all; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to withdrawal membership from CalCHA pursuant to Section 12 of the joint exercise of powers agreement relating to the California Community Housing Agency; and WHEREAS, the City proposes to authorize its city manager or designee to notify CalCHA of the City’s withdrawal from the Purchase Option Agreements with CalCHA for all essential middleincome rental housing created within City limits.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Menlo Park hereby resolves as follows:

1. Resolution No. 6510 (Exhibit A) is hereby rescinded and shall have no further force or effect; as such the City no longer supports and approves CalCHA’s issuance of tax-exempt bonds and the City no longer authorizes the city manager to enter into purchase option agreements with CalCHA.

2. The City hereby withdraws its membership in the California Community Housing Agency (CalCHA) and directs the City Manager to issue written notice of such withdrawal to CalCHA.

3. The City hereby withdraws from the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Community Housing Agency between CalCHA and the City (Exhibit B) and directs the city manager to issue written notice to CalCHA regarding the City’s withdrawal from said Agreement pursuant to section

SEVERABILITY
If any term, provision, or portion of these findings or the application of these findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.
//
//
//
ATTACHMENT A Page E-7.3
I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the twenty-second day of March, 2022, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits
A. Resolution No. 6510
B. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Community Housing Agency between CalCHA and the City
Resolution No. XXXX

EXHIBIT A Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

EXHIBIT B Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Resolution No. XXXX

Page E-7.31
Page E-7.32
Page E-7.33
Page E-7.34
Page E-7.35
Page E-7.36
Page E-7.37
Page E-7.38
Page E-7.39
Page E-7.40
Page E-7.41
Page E-7.42
Page E-7.43
Page E-7.44
Page E-7.45
Page E-7.46
Page E-7.47
Page E-7.48
Page E-7.49
Page E-7.50
Page E-7.51
Page E-7.52
Page E-7.53
Page E-7.54
Page E-7.55
Page E-7.56
To: California Local Governments
Date: November 2021
Re: JPA Bond Proposals for Government-Owned Middle-Income Housing in California

PURPOSE OF THIS MEMO

During the last two years, local governments in California have been inundated with proposals to authorize government-owned middle-income housing funded by tax-exempt bonds and paired with an exemption from property taxes. Proponents argue that these proposals will help local governments meet housing demand in the “missing middle” – i.e., households who earn too much to qualify for subsidized housing, but not enough to afford market-rate housing. The proposals are sponsored by Joint Powers Authorities (“JPAs”) that serve as conduit issuers of financing on behalf of local governments. JPAs work with private sector real estate investors acting as asset managers.

To date, approximately $5 billion of such bonds have closed to buy 9,000 apartments at an average investment per unit over $540,000, with a portion of such units restricted for middle-income households.

The total financing is quickly dwarfing the $3.7 billion in annual allocations of Low-Income Housing Tax Credits for low- and very low-income households in in California.

Yet these proposals involve a type of unrated bond, ownership structure, asset management roles, and affordability levels which have rarely been used before. They create major risks for the projects themselves and the long-term affordability for which all local taxing entities are foregoing property tax revenues. The JPA proposals do not fully describe these risks but rather emphasize the potential windfall when local government gain control of the buildings (typically between the 15th and 30th year of bond financing) and limited liability. There is no current limit on the number of such potential transactions or the fiscal or real estate risks this program will create in California.

Our organizations – leading advisors and consultants on affordable housing for public agencies in California and nationally – have been asked by more than a dozen local governments to evaluate these proposals, identify issues and challenges, and make recommendations. Having spent decades working on affordable housing financing for public agencies, we are highly committed to finding solutions that create and maintain affordability at a wide range of income levels. We are equally committed to doing so in ways that are effective and safe in the long run, and do not result in enormous and avoidable problems. Our organizations are independent and have no financial stake one way or the other in local government decisions on these projects. Our experience is described in an Appendix. Our only purpose and role are to help address affordability and financing needs in ways that will be successful and sustainable long-term for the projects, their tenants, their communities, and local governments.

Given the importance of this issue, we have worked together to outline the major features of the JPA proposals, their potential risks and the specific conditions and criteria under which we collectively believe local governments can safely and prudently consider proposals for such government-owned middleincome housing. Especially since no State law regulates government-owned middle-income housing bond programs to assure meaningful affordability benefits, in the way that State law now governs housing owned and financed by housing authorities, these criteria are essential for local governments reviewing these proposals. More specifically these three criteria are:

Page E-7.57
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

2 1. The local government believes that government-owned middle-income housing is itself a good idea and would itself be willing to own and finance such developments on these terms with this same type of debt – whether or not the JPA was involved.

2. The direct affordability benefit, on units where rents are being reduced more than 10% below existing rents, is greater than the total local property taxes all taxing entities would receive if the property were sold to a private owner.

3. To avoid the project being extraordinarily risky – and jeopardizing its future affordability – the project must be able to pay off all debt without relying on future income growth. The debt service coverage ratio (the reasonably projected cash flow compared to the debt and related payments required to amortize all debt) must therefore be at least 1 to 1 from the beginning.

PART ONE: JPA PROPOSALS FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSING While the individual proposals differ slightly, each involves the following eight structural elements. Our focus is on the fundamental features being proposed, recognizing that there are continuing variations and changes as these proposals evolve in response to local concerns.

1. Require local government use its power to purchase, own and finance property through the JPA. By joining the JPA program, the local government’s authority to own and finance public facilities -- such as city halls and parks, and which has almost never been used for rental housing – is transferred to the JPA. The JPA uses that local government power to acquire large, generally high-end apartment complexes. Such governmental authority has rarely been used for housing, and almost always by experienced housing authorities.

2. Restrict rents at limited discount to market rents for middle income households. In return for agreeing to government ownership and the resulting exemption from property taxes, a portion of the units are restricted to tenants typically earning 80% to 120% of Area Median Income (“AMI”) for as long as the bonds are outstanding (i.e., typically 15-30 years). The percentage of units for different income brackets varies from one proposal to the next, as does the reduction from current market rents. The maximum rent has typically been set at 35% of the maximum income, as opposed to the 30% of maximum income (net of tenant-paid utilities) required by federal and state housing programs. (In response to this concern, some proposals now show rents at 30% of maximum income or have focused benefits on lower income tenants).

While some projects provide a significant reduction from current market rent for units restricted below 80%, there is generally little or no reduction for units at 120% of AMI. Such 120% units are effectively at market rates and would be the same regardless of the program.

The cash flow assumptions require significant ongoing growth in net operating income on both restricted and market units to repay the bonds.

Page E-7.58
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

3 3. Require foregoing the property taxes on such middle-income housing, including on both the restricted and non-restricted units. The approving local government and all other taxing entities give up the property taxes for both the restricted and unrestricted units as long as the project remains government owned. This has several important consequences. o Given that the seller has offered the property for sale, the taxes being foregone are not simply the same amount that has been paid in the past, but the amount a new private buyer would otherwise pay based on the sale price today (and any proposed rehabilitation). This is often substantially greater than the past taxes.
o The local government is not the only taxing entity impacted. The total amount foregone by K-12 and community college school districts (or back-filled by the State), counties and other taxing entities not involved in the approval process is five to eight times greater than that lost by the local government. In each of the proposals we have examined, the total property taxes foregone by all taxing entities are greater than the annual reduction in rents, often by significant margins. o While some recent proposals offer the local government a ‘host’ fee to make up the reduction from past taxes, they do not cover the far greater lost taxes of other entities. o The greater the number of units acquired under these proposals, the more severe the financial impact.
o From the appraisals we have reviewed, the values and prices being paid for these properties inappropriately include the future value of the taxes the governments are being asked to forego – leading project sponsors to pay the for-profit private sellers more than private buyers might on the open market.
o Some more recent proposals have sought to compensate the local government itself (but not the other taxing entities), further differentiating the benefits to the local government versus other public agencies and, in many cases, reducing the debt service coverage on the bonds.

4. Utilize unrated tax-exempt bonds with riskier featuresthan almost all affordable and rental housing financing in the United States. These bond issues have several key features:
o There is no credit enhancement, unlike publicly sold multifamily revenue bonds for other affordable housing developments; no bank or federal agency provides any security for the bonds. o The bonds are structured as interest only (i.e., non-amortizing). o The loan to value ratio is more than 100% (compared to a typical maximum of 75% to 80% on bank, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac financings).
o The initial debt service coverage ratio, which compares the net income after payment of operating costs to the debt service payments, even on an interest-only basis is less than 1.0. o Instead of being able to show the strong positive coverage for fully amortizing debt required by major lenders, the initial income from the JPA projects is far below that needed to amortize the bonds. Instead of the 1.15 coverage required by major lenders, many of these projects start out at less than .70.
o As a result, unlike virtually all financing for affordable and market-rate rental housing, the debt cannot be repaid based on current net operating income, but depends on assumed future growth. o In addition to a Series A Bond to pay for acquisition, financing, reserves and other costs, the structure includes a subordinate Series B Bond. This B bond does not provide any moneys to cover project costs, but is given to the private project sponsor who initiates the deal. This B Bond, effectively a form of preferred equity, carries a tax-exempt interest rate that is typically 10%, and Page E-7.59
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

4 is required to be paid by the project prior to the local government in the repayment schedule. It is typically structured as a capital appreciation bond that compounds until it is finally paid. o In the event of a bond default, since there is no credit enhancer, loan servicer or majority holder of the A bonds to make decisions, a committee of bondholders would have to be created to work with the bond trustee to try to arrange a workout or foreclosure sale, with potential losses to bondholders and substantial litigation costs.

5. Provide an extraordinary level of compensation for the service providers on such governmentowned housing – the JPA, private developer acting as project sponsor and bond underwriter. They receive compensation in the form of up-front and/or ongoing fees and subordinate bonds, which have totaled more than $10 million on each of the projects we have reviewed.

6. No traditional landlord or responsible party. The projects are structured without financial responsibility by any party for future cash shortfalls. None of the parties – the local government who is the beneficial owner, the JPA and the project sponsor – have any legal responsibility or obligation to provide any funds to cover future problems or debt service. Therefore, if the building does not achieve rent growth expectations or runs into other financial issues, the only monies available are temporary reserves that must ultimately be repaid to bondholders. There is no landlord or owner with any financial responsibility for covering problems.

7. Make the local government the beneficial owner of the property, with the right to purchase (and or re-sell) the property in 15 years, after paying off all outstanding bonds. Since the property is being acquired and the bonds are being issued on behalf of the local government, the local government is the beneficial owner, and has the right after 15 years to purchase the property under a public benefit agreement by paying off all outstanding Series A and Series B Bonds (together with any additional debt that may be incurred under the bond indenture, without the local government’s consent). The local government may retain the property or sell it, and may do either without maintaining the affordability for which the project was initially acquired. Indeed, there is a tension between retaining the affordability and such potential gain.

This ownership right may or may not result in any upside to the local government. Proposals assume net operating income (including from rent-restricted units) grows at the same pace as operating expenses -- whereas lenders and California agencies require assuming that expenses grow faster than income. Such projections, with no recessions, problems or unanticipated major repair needs, therefore show highly optimistic windfall returns to local government, as they would for any buyer of 100% leveraged real estate. These assumed returns are highly speculative.

8. Restrict affordability for the term of the bond on a portion of the units. Affordability is controlled through a regulatory agreement administered by the JPA. Sample forms of regulatory agreement we have reviewed:
o Do not allow the local government (or tenants) to have any ability to enforce it; o Provide no minimum compliance period, which terminates upon final payment of the bonds; o Terminate in the event of foreclosure because of default on the A or B Bonds; o Are limited to ‘best efforts’ at compliance;
Page E-7.60
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

5 o Can be removed if bond counsel for the JPA determines the restrictions are not required to maintain tax-exemption on the on the bonds.

These limitations are very different than the 55-year affordability covenant required for tax credit projects and many other affordable housing programs in California. Projects structured with these minimum terms do not qualify for Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) credit under state law.

Indeed, recently passed AB 787 allows 25% RHNA credit for the units in those projects which are restricted to tenants below 100% of median income, with at least a 10% reduction from current rents and 55-year affordability requirements. Meeting at least this standard is one of the criteria we believe local government would benefit from requiring in evaluating JPA proposals.

PART TWO. RISKS INVOLVED IN THESE PROPOSALS
Although these proposals are being presented as a new approach for addressing housing affordability, the fundamental idea of local governments using tax-exempt bonds to directly acquire market housing has been tried by public agencies in the past. So have efforts to finance apartment projects with unrated housing bonds or using underwriting standards that do not meet market norms.

California local governments should be aware of the results of these past efforts and the problems that have arisen. This is especially important since the success, sustainability and positive reputation of affordable housing in California and the U.S. for the past 40 years has been based on using standard loan underwriting and adequate financial resources, rather than on taking significant financial risks to cover the typical ‘gap’ to acquire or develop housing with below-market rents.

Reasons for Standard Underwriting Requirements. Major lenders who make permanent multi-family loans – both for affordable and market-rate housing developments – require the project show that net operating income can amortize all debt with level debt service payments (as on a home mortgage) without relying on future inflation. This is required by all major banks, affordable lender consortiums, such as CCRC (the California Community Reinvestment Consortium), Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and the Federal Housing Administration.

There is a reason why lenders consistently require projects to meet at least 1.15 debt coverage. There is an extensive history of financial problems and defaults on projects which take greater risks, and which have no financial cushion to deal with downturns, recessions, inflation in operating expenses, and needs for major repairs. This is especially relevant for projects such as those proposed, which have 100%+ financing with no equity and no ownership entity with resources or providing guarantees to deal with future problems.

We have outlined in the Appendix decade after decade the extraordinary problems that have occurred when public agencies, bond underwriters and investors, lenders, rating agencies and some of the most successful developers in the country have deviated from standard underwriting requirements – in ways that were in fact less risky than these JPA proposals.

Page E-7.61
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

6 The lesson from all these examples is simple. Rather than assume there will not be significant problems, they are in fact likely to occur, and the greater the deviation from normal underwriting standards the more likely this is.

Should This Past History Be Ignored? Proponents of these JPA proposals give four reasons why local governments should not view these projects as risky.

1. The Bond Structure Does Not Require Scheduled Amortization of Principal and Funds Large Reserves. The JPA financings, like interest-only loans prior to the 2008-2009 financial crisis, do not require scheduled amortization. This provides more temporary flexibility as do the reserves funded by bond proceeds. Nonetheless all the principal on the A and B Bonds is required to be repaid, and all the reserves must be replenished and paid back to bondholders. While providing temporary liquidity, these features do not change the fundamental risk of being able to pay back all bond interest and principal. Indeed, the more such reserves are planned to be used, the more the project’s net income will need to grow to ever repay those advances.

2. That Bond Investors Are Willing to Purchase These Bonds Indicates That the Risks Are Minimal.

Experience over many decades shows that purchasers of unrated municipal bonds have less ability, time and discipline for evaluating the risks of multi-family financings than major banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A simple example was in the 1980s when Oxford development, then one of the largest developers in the country, structured 26 issues of unrated bonds for rental projects across the country; investors were more than willing to buy the bonds that were marketed for all of them, , yet all of these 26 defaulted, except one in San Mateo County that CSG helped design with provisions to avoid a bond default. That investors are willing to buy these JPA bonds shows their desire to obtain extra yield in today’s low-rate environment while discounting risks, rather than a lack of risk. It was precisely the willingness of bond investors to buy unrated bonds for market-rate housing that led to workouts and defaults for several Pacific Northwest housing authorities.

3. These Projects -- Being Purchased at This Time and in California’s Housing Markets -- Are Different and Will Be Less Risky. The demand for rental housing in many markets in California and the rents being commanded are, indeed, at all-time highs. This can lead to the assumption that historical market forces – future recessions, inflation in operating costs, competition from other projects – will not apply and that net operating income will always continue to grow. Such a picture of the future is not new.

All the past projects described in the Appendix were undertaken with precisely the same type of optimistic beliefs in future projections.

There are, in fact, particular reasons to be wary of the risks involved today. These current proposals are designed to purchase high-end apartment complexes at a time when income capitalization rates are extraordinarily low; many of these projects are based on capitalization rates of about 4%, and some well below that. That means that the projects are being sold for 25 or more times the current net operating income (before rents are reduced). The last time capitalization rates were so low was in 2006 and 2007 before the national financial crisis, and before that just prior to 1990s real estate recession and the savings and loan crisis. That is, prices are at historic highs relevant to rents. Such prices are driven not only by low interest rates for borrowers but, as project sponsors have indicated to us, by real estate investment funds with significant amounts of capital seeking alternative investments as they shy away from retail and office developments because of the pandemic.

Page E-7.62
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

7 Trying to buy multi-family housing properties at these prices, with no equity and relying on 100% financing – while reducing rents with no other source of funding to cover the affordability gap except the elimination of property taxes – means that the proposals ‘solve’ the affordability gap by relying on assumed future inflation. Like loans made in the run-up to past financial crises, these proposals seek to make financings work by stretching underwriting standards and making optimistic assumptions about the future.

Indeed, there is no better illustration of the uncertainties and risks in these JPA projections than the official Notices posted in October 2021 by the JPA for the first of these transactions in Santa Rosa from 2019. Since issuance, the actual results have varied so much from projections that the JPA has issued multiple notes for additional funds at 10% interest from the project sponsor, and is considering restructuring the entire bond issue. While other JPA transactions have somewhat different provisions for subordination of sponsor and JPA fees, what matters is that the original revenue projections have not been met, starting just months after closing – let alone for the next 30 years.

4. The Local Government Is Not At Risk. JPA proponents’ simplest answer to the question of risk is that no party – neither the local government, the project sponsor nor the JPA itself – bears any legal risk if there is a future problem with the project. That no party, including the local government itself, is legally or financially responsible is precisely why local government should care about what may happen.
o The project is being undertaken under the powers of and for the local government to benefit a portion of its future tenants over the long-term – the only public purpose for which it can be undertaken – at significant cost to the local government and all taxing entities. Projects which fail, which run out of cash reserves to pay debt service, operating expenses and repair costs, and especially when they go through protracted default proceedings, typically result in major management and maintenance problems. These adversely affect tenants, neighbors, public safety and the community. And in the event of foreclosure, the affordability for which the local government and other taxing entities forewent all their property taxes, is lost. o If tenants or neighbors have problems or complaints, there is only one logical local party to raise them with. Since there is no traditional landlord, it is a government-owned property, the property was purchased on behalf of the local government who approved the transaction and is the beneficial owner, and the local government is the one party with deep pockets who could address the problems, the place to complain and seek help will be the local government’s legislative body.

This has happened in numerous cities on publicly acquired properties. Experience has shown that a large, concerned and geographically concentrated group of middle-income tenants worried about conditions at their property can provide a powerful and articulate voice at local council meetings.
o Problems with these unusually risky financings for middle-income housing can jeopardize support at all levels for the entire affordable housing finance system that all local governments, together with non-profit and for-profit developers, tax credit investors, advocates and others have built for helping very low- and low-income tenants in California.

We have outlined these risks and their consequences to be certain that housing efforts to help moderate and middle-income households are designed in ways that can be sustained in the long run.

Page E-7.63
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

8 PART THREE: CRITERIA FOR DECIDING ON PROPOSALS FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED MIDDLE-INCOME

HOUSING
Following are the key criteria we believe local officials would benefit from using in deciding whether to approve government-owned middle-income housing.

1. Would the local government undertake such ownership and financing itself, regardless of the offer from the sponsor and JPA?
The power to acquire, own, finance and exempt such apartments from the tax rolls rests with local government and no one else. The local government should approve such a project if it believes that government-owned middle-income housing is itself a good idea and if it would be willing to own and finance such developments on these terms itself with this type of debt.

The JPA is solely a means for carrying out the project on the local government’s behalf, and is a mechanism for limiting the local government’s direct legal risk. It is a means, not a reason for undertaking the project. Simply being able to distance itself from the use of its own powers for a project of which it is the beneficial owner is not a reason for a local government to undertake the project in the first place.

This criterion is especially important because, while the local government legally has no financial liability, if tenants or neighbors have problems or complaints, they will be raised most likely with the local government, which is the party that approved the transaction, on whose behalf the purchase and financing has occurred, which invested its own and other local governments’ foregone property taxes, and which has all the financial upside from the property.

2. Are the housing affordability benefits greater than the foregone property tax? Before considering the risks involved in these proposals, the most basic question is whether the affordability benefits are at least equal to the foregone property taxes. This criterion has several key components.

First, housing affordability is the only reason for considering such a proposal. The local government should evaluate a JPA proposal solely as a means of providing housing affordability, not as a speculative investment in the future value of apartment buildings. The only public purpose for which local government can provide its powers for acquiring, owning and financing privately owned apartment buildings is providing affordable housing, rather than speculating on future values in real estate. This should therefore be the basis of its decision.

We stress this point because the proposals received by the local government often focus on the local government’s possible upside from reselling the property in the future. We do not think any local government should make decisions based on the speculative returns provided, because of the (i) many market uncertainties involved as to future rents and operating expenses, interest rates and market capitalization rates, (ii) the uncertainties that will affect any such future local government Page E-7.64
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

9 decision given the need and demand for affordability at the property itself, and most fundamentally, (iii) local government is not in the business of, nor has as its purpose, buying up private properties in the hope of making windfall profits in the future. Indeed, counting on future windfall financial gains to the local government from maximizing sale proceeds run against the very purpose for which it undertook the project: providing housing affordability.

Focusing on the public purpose the local government knows it is achieving in approving such a proposal makes decisions simpler and clearer.

Second, make certain the affordability benefits are real. Since affordability is the local government’s only purpose for such a proposal, it is important to know what is being achieved.

Given the complexity of the proposals – multiple tiers of units, rents based on 35% of maximum income rather than 30%, uncertainties as to market rents because of the pandemic, often modest reductions compared to those market rents which are often still well above median given the high end nature of the buildings involved, and gradual phase-in of restrictions since existing higher income tenants will not be displaced – it is not particularly easy to measure the actual affordability benefit of many JPA proposals.

From our experience and as required in AB 787 to receive even partial RHNA credit, the only units for which a local government should consider affordability benefits are those restricted to tenants below 100% of median income where rents will be reduced at least 10%. We also think that to assure affordability, rents should be limited to 30% of the maximum of any income band.

Having narrowed down which units are providing affordability, the local government can then measure what would be the rent reduction for tenants in these units.

Third, target the affordability to meet local needs. In reviewing JPA proposals, various cities have required that affordability be designed to meet local needs, including focusing on units below 80% of median income where affordability is generally most needed according to each community’s Housing Element and RHNA goals, and prioritizing tenant groups such as teachers, public employees and others, whose ability to remain in the community may be especially crucial. Since local taxing entities are paying for the affordability, local government should design it to provide meaningful public benefit. The California Housing Partnership’s analysis of proposed rent data from a number of JPA transactions collected by the Los Angeles Times versus median rents indicate that while the proposed rents may offer slight reductions from current rents charged in the luxury apartments being purchased on a portion of the units, they are still above median market rents for the area, leading us to question whether there is any real public benefit in terms of creating access to affordable rentals.

Fourth, assure the affordability benefits will be provided and maintained. Since the local government and all other taxing entities are giving up their property taxes to provide such affordability, it is essential to know that the affordability benefits will occur for the duration of the promised period. Therefore, local government should require for any such government-owned middle-income housing:

Page E-7.65
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

10 o the 55-year covenant under AB 787,
o that the local government have the right to enforce such agreement, o that the local government receive annual compliance reports, and o since the affordability agreement is the reason local government is providing its powers for the purchase and financing of the property, that the affordability requirements remain, whether or not they may be required for federal tax law.

Fifth, compare the affordability benefits against the taxes being foregone. As noted above, the foregone taxes are those that a private buyer purchasing at the same price would have to pay.

Since the cost of these foregone taxes falls not only on the local government itself but on other taxing entities as well, and their ability to provide services in the community, the foregone taxes are the total for all taxing entities.

Proponents of these proposals have argued that tax reductions for school districts may be backfilled by the state. We understand, however, that under the current tests in Proposition 98 for public school funding, the state would no longer back-fill such foregone taxes. More broadly, given the plethora of JPA proposals and their ability to convert essentially all market-rate major apartment developments in the state, local governments should take into account all the property taxes that will be lost.

Affordable housing developments for very low-income tenants are, of course, exempted from property taxes in California. What distinguishes these JPA proposals are the much higher level of rents, the modest amount of rental reductions, and the level of risk of these proposals that can jeopardize the proposed affordability.

3. Are the financial risks of the project limited and reasonable? The one public purpose for which the local government would give its powers to the JPA to undertake such projects – and for which taxing entities are foregoing their property taxes – depends on the project’s future financial sustainability. If the property is foreclosed, the affordability provisions are terminated. This is true of typical tax credit projects as well, but they are structured with standard

1.15 debt coverage, whereas these JPA projects are far riskier and at far greater risk of losing all their affordability.

Such loss of affordability, together with the concern about what happens to the tenants, neighbors, community and complaints to local government itself if there are future problems, means that the local government should take very seriously the financial soundness of the government-owned project being undertaken on its behalf.

That the local government itself is not legally and financially responsible, and indeed that no entity is financially responsible for the future of the project, is not a reason to approve such a project. Local governments in California that have gone through past recessions and financial crises and their impacts should be acutely aware of what can happen in real estate and financial market cycles.

Page E-7.66
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

11 As organizations with decades of experience in housing finance throughout California, we think that deviating from the normal underwriting standards of all major banks and federal entities creates serious risks. The greater the deviation, the greater the risk. We particularly think that relying on future growth in net operating income to repay debt is extremely dangerous.

We would therefore not recommend that any local government approve a project where current net operating income (reduced by the rent restrictions on all restricted units) would not be able to pay level amortizing debt service on all the bonds over a 35-year amortization period. This standard of 1:1 coverage on what will be needed to pay back the bonds is significantly lower than required by banks and federal entities but is to us an absolute minimum.

That the bonds do not require scheduled amortization and fund reserves is desirable and creates greater flexibility. This is a useful additional feature, not a substitute for the most basic standard of loan underwriting and of local government financing itself – looking at what a project can support today, not relying on how much better one hopes it could do if there is inflation tomorrow.

Why These Criteria Are Essential
The criteria outlined above provide a minimum threshold, in our view, for proceeding with governmentowned middle-income housing. Whether projects are feasible within these criteria will depend on the prices being paid, the compensation to service providers, the actual economics and the taxes being foregone. Waiving such criteria does not solve the long-term problem of providing affordability sustainably to targeted income households.

That proposed financings may not be feasible with even this very minimum level of underwriting standards does not mean that local governments should ignore the needs of tenants in these income groups. Indeed, that local governments are willing to consider foregoing property taxes to help provide affordability for such tenants means that they should find ways of using their tax revenues to address these needs in ways that are financially sound.

There have been various efforts around the country to help meet the needs of households in these income groups, particularly those earning between 60% and 100% of median income who still need help in higher cost urbanized coastal areas. Any local government focused on these needs, especially given the affordability crisis in California, and willing to consider foregoing (or using) its tax revenues to help them, should actively explore more established options that are financially sound.

Proposals for borrowing and spending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars for government-owned middle-income housing are not a cost-free nor risk-free way to address these needs. Such proposals should only be considered where they meet a very minimum standard to assure future sustainability.

An approach that a local government considering such proposals could follow is:
• First establish these most basic requirements to avoid future problems for tenants, neighbors, projects and communities, and
Page E-7.67
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

12 • Then use a competitive process for selecting service providers who compete on the minimum level of affordability they will deliver, how they will assure long-term affordability, the type of properties that will be targeted, and the compensation that service providers will receive – while meeting and being committed to these most basic requirements. • The regulatory agreement should give local government the power to enforce all the terms of the regulatory agreement.

What we have learned from many decades of helping local governments deal with housing needs is that precisely because housing is an opportunity-driven activity – as economics change, as owners decide to sell – it is that much more essential for government to have a clear, disciplined approach and standards for dealing with those opportunities. The Appendix describes what has happened when this has not been the case.

Page E-7.68
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

13 APPENDIX

OUR EXPERIENCE IN HOUSING FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES
CSG Advisors has been the leading financial advisor on housing revenue bonds in the United States for each of the last 20 years, according to Securities Data. Headquartered in San Francisco, we have advised public agencies on more than 3,000 multi-family projects; served as HUD’s national consultant on complex multi-family bond refunding requests; served as the Resolution Trust Corporation’s national financial advisor on all tax-exempt assets from savings and loans; helped design what became the U.S. Treasury’s New Issue Bond Program after the financial crisis, financing homes for 110,000 first-time homebuyers and 40,000 affordable rental units; and have represented more than 50 California municipalities on affordable housing since 1980.

HR&A Advisors, Inc. is a national real estate advisory, economic development and public policy consultant. The firm was founded in Los Angeles 45 years ago and has deep experience in all aspects of affordable housing needs analysis, and the design of plans, programs, policies, regulations and financing programs to encourage the production of affordable housing. These services are provided to a wide range of governmental agencies, non-profit organizations and institutions. HR&A also works extensively with private developers to analyze the feasibility of new market-rate housing and many other kinds of real estate developments.

The California Housing Partnership is a state-created private nonprofit technical assistance organization that creates and preserves affordable and sustainable homes for Californians with low incomes by providing expert financial and policy solutions to nonprofit and public partners. Since 1988, the Partnership’s on-the-ground technical assistance, applied research, and legislative leadership has leveraged more than $25 billion in private and public financing to preserve and create more than 75,000 affordable homes and to provide training to more than 30,000 people.

HISTORY OF BOND FINANCINGS FOR RENTAL HOUSING
Following are some examples of experience with past bond financings for rental housing that were generally structured with less risky underwriting than the new JPA proposals. The troubled history of these financings is therefore especially critical in understanding the risks in these new proposals. • CSG served as the national financial advisor for all tax-exempt assets for the Resolution Trust Corporation, established by Congress in the 1990s to manage failed savings and loan associations. This included over 800 apartment developments, many in the Inland Empire and Southern California generally. We also served as financial advisor to numerous California issuers on restructurings of troubled multi-family bond issues with developers as strong as The Irvine Company and Lincoln Properties.

Like the JPA proposals, these projects had rents close to market rates (based on units rented to households at 80% of median income). Initial loan to cost was sometimes 90% or even approached 100% but, unlike these JPA proposals, not over 100%. Debt to income ratios were sometimes as low as 1.1 to 1, but not, like these JPA proposals, initially negative.

Page E-7.69
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

14 Nonetheless, these projects defaulted, and federal regulatory agencies required that banks not rely on the type of trended rents assumed in these JPA proposals. • In the mid-2000s, a major, highly regarded national non-profit developer evaluated what had happened on bond financings it had completed without any cash equity, and underwritten at

1.1 to 1 for fully amortizing debt service (far above the approximately .8 or less for fully amortizing debt service on JPA proposals). Competition from newer apartment developments in markets with little constraint on land for new development had weakened rents and created competition; this put pressure on having adequate funds to adequately cover operating expenses.
• Standard & Poor’s for several decades issued ratings of apartment developments that – like the JPA proposals – did not have any bank, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other credit enhancer that had underwritten the project and recognized that it was at direct financial risk. Rather such bonds, initially rated A or higher, under S&P’s Affordable Housing Program, were simply sold to the public. Again, the loan underwriting was less aggressive than on the JPA proposals, but a significant number of these bond issues defaulted, and Standard & Poor’s dropped its ratings on many more.
• Perhaps the example most germane to the JPA proposals is that of housing authorities in the Pacific Northwest. Starting in the mid-1980s, several of these authorities began to purchase existing market-rate apartment developments using 100% tax exempt bond financing and the exemption from property taxes – the same basic model as the JPA proposals.

King County Housing Authority, the most successful of these, used such governmental purpose bonds, but with several key differences from the JPA model. - All these properties had net operating income at least equal to fully-amortized debt service; it did not rely on projections of continuing growth in net operating income to repay debt.
- Properties purchased had relatively modest rents and thus some insulation from competition from new development.
- The Authority set aside monies from its own reserves, not simply bond proceeds that had to be repaid, to cover potential shortfalls, and did indeed have to advance its funds. - The Authority as the issuer of the bonds had public staff with decades of experience in dealing with apartment development and understanding the risks involved, and. - The Authority recognized that it was ultimately financially responsible for solving problems that might arise.

Despite these additional safeguards, the Authority did have to advance its own funds on one of these projects. It also learned a hard lesson from the ‘turbo-charged’ debt repayment structure, requiring all increased net operating income to pay down the bond deb. This feature is promoted as a benefit of the JPA proposals. However, the Authority found that in fact created enormous problems. When major repair needs arose, the Authority could not use the increased Page E-7.70
To: California Local Governments
November 2021

15 income to address those needs. The Authority ultimately refinanced 5 of these properties solely to remove this feature.

Much more disturbing, however, was the experience of several other Pacific Northwest housing authorities that used 100% bond financing, again with at least positive debt coverage to start. There were numerous project shortfalls, reserves were depleted, with adverse impacts on properties, the authorities and/or bondholders, and at least one authority had to be taken over by its County.
• As a current example, the BondBuyer is replete with stories of defaults and bankruptcies on a series of projects financed by the Illinois Finance Authority between 2016 and 2018 for the nonprofit Better Housing Foundation to purchase 5 portfolios of existing apartment developments.

By 2019, all 5 portfolios financed, totaling over $170 million, were in default. Unlike the JPA transactions, these bond issues initially were rated, many with BBB to A ratings from Standard and Poor’s. Nonetheless, these defaults are leading to investor lawsuits have drawn the scrutiny of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This history of bond financings is sobering. When issuers have stretched normal underwriting standards to borrow more money or try to create affordability by taking on more risk the results have undermined – rather than strengthened – support for affordable housing.

Page E-7.71
Community Development
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 3/22/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-051-CC
Regular Business: Consider and adopt a resolution approving the Water Supply Assessment for the Commonwealth
Building 3 Project
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the water supply assessment (WSA) prepared for the proposed Commonwealth Building 3 Project located at 162-164 Jefferson Drive.

Policy Issues
In determining whether to approve the WSA for the proposed project, the City Council is acting as the governing body for Menlo Park Municipal Water (MPMW) and shall consider if sufficient water supply is available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years within a 20-year projection to meet the projected demand associated with the proposed project. In considering water supply availability, MPMW is charged with determining if the City’s water supplies are sufficient to serve the project, taking into consideration planned growth within the MPMW service area. In considering water availability, MPMW is not considering the merits of the proposed project. Approving the WSA is not equivalent to a commitment to serve the proposed project. Further, this action does not obligate the City to approve the proposed project. The State Water Code requires that the governing body of the water provider approve the WSA.

These requirements were subsequently added to Section 15155(b) of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project requires the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) pursuant to CEQA. Approving the WSA allows the City to incorporate the WSA into the EIR for the proposed project.

The Planning Commission and the City Council will ultimately be required to consider the merits of the proposed project, including its consistency with the City’s general plan, municipal code, zoning ordinance regulations and development standards, and other adopted policies and programs of the City such as below market rate (BMR) housing program and provision of community amenities in exchange for bonus level development. The Planning Commission will make recommendations to the City Council regarding applications for land use approvals required for the proposed project and the City Council will be the final decision-making body regarding the certification of the final EIR and the conditional development permit (CDP) amendment.

Background
Senate Bill 610 added Section 10910 to the California State Water Code and requires the availability of AGENDA ITEM F-1 Page F-1.1
Staff Report #: 22-051-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org water supplies be considered for large development projects, including office complexes with more than 250,000 square feet of office space or more than 1,000 employees. While the proposed project would be slightly less than 250,000 square feet, the building is anticipated to be occupied by more than 1,000 employees, and thus would be subject to the requirements of Section 10910. The State Water Code requires that a WSA analyze current and future water supplies as well as the current and projected water demands within the utility’s service area. If the assessment identifies deficiencies in the local water supplies, the water provider is required to identify measures to reduce water usage or to identify additional water supplies.

The proposed project is within the Bayfront area that was comprehensively rezoned to office, life sciences and residential mixed-use zoning districts as part of the City’s general plan update (known as ConnectMenlo.) ConnectMenlo enabled development potential for up to 4,500 new multifamily residential units, 2.3 million square feet of new non-residential uses (including 1.4 million square feet of life sciences research and development uses), and 400 new hotel rooms. The proposed project is located within the ConnectMenlo study area and is included within the development capacity. MPMW’s 2015 and 2020 Urban Water Management Plan accounted for the development potential from ConnectMenlo in its water demand projections.

Site location
The project site encompasses three parcels totaling 13.3 acres. The project site is directly north of US Highway 101 and bounded by Jefferson Drive and office buildings to the north, the currently inactive Dumbarton Corridor rail line to the east, Highway 101 to the south, and office and light industrial buildings to the west. Farther north of the project site are other properties zoned O-B (Office-Bonus) and R-MU-B (Residential Mixed Use, Bonus) with a mix of office, research and development (R&D), and light industrial uses; State Highway 84 (Bayfront Expressway); and the San Francisco Bay. Kelly Park, the Menlo Park Community Campus project (under construction), and other properties zoned P-F (Public Facilities) and U (Unclassified) are located east of the project site in the Belle Haven neighborhood. The Sequoia Union High School District’s TIDE Academy is located at 150 Jefferson Drive, approximately 185 feet west of the project site.

The project site is accessible from Commonwealth Drive and Jefferson Drive through a private access road that connects the two public streets. Two office buildings were constructed on the project site in 2015 through a CDP. A location map is included as Attachment B.

Proposed Commonwealth Building 3 Project
The project applicant, The Sobrato Organization, proposes to demolish existing surface parking lots and landscape areas along the Jefferson Drive frontage, as well as parking and landscape areas north and east of the two existing office buildings on the project site. A new four-story office building with approximately 249,500 square feet of gross floor area (GFA), anticipated to accommodate approximately 1,996 employees, would be constructed north of the existing office buildings, a four-level parking structure would be constructed in the triangular area east of the existing office buildings that would include 1,061 parking spaces. The proposed project also would convert a portion of the existing parking lot near Jefferson Drive into publicly accessible open space. Since the existing site development was permitted through a CDP, a CDP amendment would be required for the proposed project. A link to the most recent plans for the proposed PROJECT is included as Attachment C. The City anticipates releasing the Draft Page F-1.2
Staff Report #: 22-051-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org EIR for the proposed project during the second quarter of 2022.

MPMW
MPMW provides water services to approximately half of the city in two zones (the Upper Zone and Lower Zone), with 4,296 service connections as of 2020. The remainder of the City is served by California Water Service, O’Connor Tract Co-operative Water Company, and Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company.

MPMW purchases all potable water supplies from the Regional Water System, which is operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC.) The project WSA is included as Exhibit A to Attachment A and provides more detail on MPMW and its water supply.

The SFPUC Regional Water System supplies water to both retail and wholesale customers. Retail customers include residents, businesses, and industries located within the City and County of San Francisco’s boundaries. Wholesale customers include 26 cities and water supply agencies in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, including MPMW.

MPMW is a member agency of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and purchases treated water from the SFPUC Regional Water System in accordance with the November 2018 Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, which was adopted in 2019. The term of the agreement is 25 years, with a beginning date of July 1, 2009, and an expiration date of June 30, 2034. Per the agreement, MPMW has an individual supply guarantee (ISG) of 1,630 million gallons per year, supplied by the SFPUC Regional Water System. Over the last five years (2016-2020) MPMW has purchased between 52 percent to 66 percent of its ISG.

As summarized in the WSA, the reliability of the MPMW potable water supply is described in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, adopted by the City Council in May 2021, and the SFPUC 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, adopted in June 2021. The reliability of potable water supply via the SFPUC Regional Water System is highly dependent on the potential implementation of the 2018 Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. The Amendment would require the release of 40 percent of the “unimpaired flow” of the Stanislaus, Merced, and Tuolumne Rivers in order to increase the salmonid fish populations from February to June in every type of year, whether wet, normal or critically dry, making the reliability to provide sufficient potable water in dry years uncertain. However, the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment has not been implemented at this time. Therefore, the WSA provides two analyses of water availability, with and without implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. Consistent with assumptions in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is assumed to begin in 2023.

Analysis
The WSA evaluates the demand for water and available water supplies over a 15-year period, in five year increments, starting in 2025 through 2040.

According to the WSA, the projected water demand for the proposed project is 13.7 million gallons per year (MG/yr.) The WSA prepared for the proposed project does not include the use of recycled water but the proposed project would be dual plumbed in order to be ready to use recycled water if recycled water becomes available in the Bayfront Area. Planning for a recycled water facility in the Bayfront area is Page F-1.3
Staff Report #: 22-051-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org ongoing and is being led by West Bay Sanitary District (WBSD.) The ConnectMenlo total annual potable water demand at buildout is expected to be 343 MG/yr of which this proposed project would be using approximately 4 percent.

In the MPMW 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, projected normal year supplies are shown to be adequate to satisfy MPMW’s projected normal year demands. However, in the MPMW 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and as reflected in the WSA for the proposed project, MPMW’s purchased supplies from the SFPUC Regional Water System assume dry year supply reductions as a result of the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, which significantly reduces dry year allocations for the SFPUC wholesale customers. Based on the above mentioned uncertainty, the WSA for the proposed project provides findings for two scenarios, one assuming implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment and one assuming that the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is not implemented. The findings of each scenario are summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of WSA findings
Implementation of BayDelta Plan AmendmentNo Bay-Delta Plan Amendment
Normal years Sufficient supply exists Sufficient supply exists Single dry year 27 to 32 percent reductions
required Sufficient supply exists
Multiple dry years 27 to 44 percent reductions
required

16.5 percent reduction
required in fourth and fifth
consecutive dry year
Actions required to respond to shortfalls
Implementation of Water
Shortage Contingency Plan,
up to shortage level 5
Implementation of Water
Shortage Contingency Plan,
up to shortage level 2
As shown, under the scenario where implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is assumed (the most conservative scenario from a water supply perspective), there are significant water reductions required in single and multiple dry years. In case there is a shortage, MPMW expects to meet these supply shortfalls through water demand reductions or other shortage response actions by implementation of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which was adopted by the City Council along with the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan in May 2021. Additional information on MPMW’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan is provided in Chapter 8 of MPMW’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. A link to the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan is included in Attachment D.

Assuming implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, up to shortage level 5 of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan may be reached. These shortage levels include actions such as the following to reduce water consumption:
• Increase public outreach, with a focus on the top 30 percent of water users in each customer category; • Set limits on irrigation, including frequency, hours, new installations and methods (such as drip, microspray and hand watering), and more significant restrictions on turf irrigation; • Set limits on use of potable water for pools, washing vehicles, construction and dust control, and commercial vehicles (street sweeping, cleaning, etc.);
• Halt installation of new connections (for projects that are not necessary to protect health, safety and Page F-1.4
Staff Report #: 22-051-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org welfare) and halt statements of availability to serve new potable water connections; and/or • Develop water budgets for all customers.

Under the scenario where the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is not implemented, the projected supply shortfalls are significantly less. Similar to the above described scenario, should a water supply shortage occur, the MPMW expects implementation of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan, but at a less significant shortage level with less severe restrictions.

Other actions that MPMW will take in event of a shortage include utilizing its recently constructed emergency supply well as supply augmentation, coordination with other agencies, implementing a drought surcharge, and increasing water waste education and patrols. Future emergency water supply and shortage projects are also continuing to be developed.

The water demand associated with buildout of ConnectMenlo, which includes the proposed project, is included in the MPMW water demand projections in its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, and the proposed project would be subject to the same water conservation and water use restrictions as other users within the MPMW system. Based on the data and analysis in the WSA and the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, MPMW would have an adequate supply to provide water for the proposed project during normal, single dry year, and multiple dry years for at least 20 years, and actions have been identified in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan that would help address any potential shortages if the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented. The actions would ensure that water deliveries are available for all service connections within the MPMW service area and would apply to all users, similar to the actions taken by the City Council March 1, 2022, in response to the ongoing drought. In light of these current conditions, the City Council declared a water shortage emergency condition pursuant to Water Code section 350 and adopted a resolution to implement the Water Shortage Contingency Plan Stage 1 and adopt a Water Conservation Plan to enforce the State Water Resources Control Board’s emergency regulations prohibiting wasteful water use practices.

The City Council’s action at this time is limited to approving the WSA. Approval of the WSA does not commit the City to certifying the EIR or approving the proposed project when those actions are eventually considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. The recommended resolution approving the WSA is included in Attachment A and the WSA is appended to the resolution as Exhibit A.

Impact on City Resources
The project applicant is required to pay planning, building and public works permit fees, based on the City’s master fee schedule, to fully cover the cost of staff time spent on the review of the proposed project.

The project applicant is also required to fully cover the cost of work by consultants performing environmental review and additional analyses to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed project, including the cost of preparing the WSA.

Environmental Review
City approval of the WSA does not require review under CEQA. The proposed project for which the WSA was prepared will be evaluated for its environmental impacts in compliance with CEQA. The EIR for the Page F-1.5
Staff Report #: 22-051-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org proposed project is being prepared to evaluate the effects of the proposed project on the environment.

The EIR will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council as the proposed project proceeds through the public hearing process.

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

Attachments
A. Draft City Council resolution approving the WSA for the Commonwealth Building 3 project; Exhibit A to Attachment A – WSA
B. Project location map
C. Hyperlink – project plans: beta.menlopark.org/files/sharedassets/public/communitydevelopment/documents/projects/under-review/162-164-jefferson-drive/20210712-commonwealthbuilding-3-project-plans.pdf D. Hyperlink – City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan:
beta.menlopark.org/files/sharedassets/public/public-works/documents/water/2020-urban-watermanagement-plan-june-2021_202107152258020921.pdf Report prepared by:

Payal Bhagat, Contract Principal Planner
Report reviewed by:

Kyle Perata, Acting Planning Manager
Nikki Nagaya, Public Works Director
Michael Biddle, Assistant City Attorney
Page F-1.6
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK

APPROVING THE WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE
COMMONWEALTH BUILDING 3 PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park (“City”) through Menlo Park Municipal Water is the public water supplier; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City is the governing body of Menlo Park Municipal Water; and
WHEREAS, the City approved and adopted the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan on May 25, 2021; and
WHEREAS, California Water Code Section 10910 and Section 15155 of the State CEQA Guidelines require a public water utility to prepare a water supply assessment for development applications for “water-demand projects” which include, but are not limited to, commercial office projects having more than 250,000 square feet of office space or more than 1,000 employees; and
WHEREAS, The Sobrato Organization (applicant) has submitted land use application for the development of a 249,500 square foot, four story office building, which would accommodate approximately 1,996 employees, a four-level parking structure accommodating 1,061 parking spaces, and conversion of an existing parking lot into publicly accessible open space on property located at currently addressed 162 and 164 Jefferson Drive, Menlo Park, California (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project qualifies as a “water-demand project”, and therefore, the City required the Applicant to fund the contract for the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, Section 10910(g) of the California Water Code and Section 15155(b) of the CEQA Guidelines require the governing body of a public water system that will serve a “water-demand project” to consider a water supply assessment at a regular or special meeting; and WHEREAS, the Water Supply Assessment for the proposed Project, prepared by West Yost for Menlo Park Municipal Water, completed on February 7, 2022, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (Project WSA), was provided to and considered by the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting on March 22, 2022.

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

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Menlo Park hereby resolves as follows:

1. The Project WSA identified in this resolution, is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference as it set forth in full.

ATTACHMENT A Page F-1.7

2. The City Council hereby approves the Project WSA as a water supply assessment for the proposed Project in compliance with Water Code section 10910 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines section 15155 and directs City staff to include the Project WSA in the environmental review of the proposed Project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

3. The City Council’s action as reflected in this resolution is limited to approving the Project WSA for the proposed Project. Nothing in this resolution or the City Council’s approval of the Project WSA shall be construed as requiring the City or its City Council to consider, act on approve, conditionally approve, deny, or take any other action on the land use applications for the proposed Project.

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

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

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

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits
A. Project Water Supply Assessment
Resolution No. XXXX

PREPARED BY
Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment

PREPARED FOR
Menlo Park Municipal Water
FEBRUARY 2022
EXHIBIT A Resolution No. XXXX

FEBRUARY 2022
EARYEAR2020
Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
Prepared for
Menlo Park Municipal Water
Project No. 648-12-18-03
02-07-22
Project Manager: Elizabeth Drayer, PE Date
02-07-22
QA/QC Review: Polly Boissevain, PE Date
Resolution No. XXXX

W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
i Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1 Overview................................................................................................................................................. 1 Projected Water Demands..................................................................................................................... 1 Water Supply Availability and Reliability................................................................................................ 2

1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................4

1.1 Legal Requirement for a Water Supply Assessment ........................................................................ 4

1.2 Need for and Purpose of Water Supply Assessment ....................................................................... 5

1.3 Water Supply Assessment Preparation, Format, and Organization................................................. 5

2.0 Description of the Proposed Project..............................................................................................6

2.1 Proposed Project Location and Overview ........................................................................................ 6

2.2 Projected Water Demand for the Proposed Project........................................................................ 8

2.3 Proposed Project Relationship to ConnectMenlo .......................................................................... 10

3.0 Required Determinations ...........................................................................................................12

3.1 Does SB 610 Apply to the Proposed Project?................................................................................. 12

3.2 Does SB 221 Apply to the Proposed Project?................................................................................. 13

3.3 Who is the Identified Public Water System?.................................................................................. 13

3.4 Does the Identified Public Water Supplier have an adopted UWMP and does the UWMP include the projected water demand for the Proposed Project? ..................................... 14

4.0 Menlo Park Municipal Water System ..........................................................................................15

4.1 Water Service Area......................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 Population ...................................................................................................................................... 15

5.0 Menlo Park Municipal Water Demands.......................................................................................16

5.1 Historical and Existing Water Demand........................................................................................... 16

5.2 Future Water Demand.................................................................................................................... 16

5.3 Dry Year Water Demand................................................................................................................. 17

6.0 Menlo Park Municipal Water Supplies.........................................................................................18

6.1 Water Supply Overview.................................................................................................................. 19

6.2 Water Supply from the SFPUC RWS ............................................................................................... 19

6.3 Groundwater Supply ...................................................................................................................... 19

6.3.1 Groundwater Basin Description............................................................................................ 19

6.3.2 Emergency Water Storage/Supply Project ........................................................................... 20

6.4 Recycled Water Supply................................................................................................................... 21

6.5 Summary of Existing and Additional Planned Future Water Supplies ........................................... 21 Resolution No. XXXX

W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
ii Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Table of Contents

7.0 Water Supply Reliability .............................................................................................................22

7.1 SFPUC RWS Reliability .................................................................................................................... 22

7.1.1 Potential Impacts of the 2018 Bay-Delta Plan Amendment on SFPUC RWS Reliability ....... 22

7.1.2 Allocation of RWS Supplies During Supply Shortages........................................................... 24

7.1.3 Alternative Water Supply Program....................................................................................... 26

7.2 MPMW Water Supply Reliability .................................................................................................... 27

8.0 Determination of Water Supply Sufficiency Based on the Requirements of SB 610 .......................29

9.0 Water Supply Assessment Approval Process ...............................................................................33

10.0 References...............................................................................................................................34

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Estimated Water Demand for the Proposed Project ............................................................ 9 Table 2-2. Proposed Project Impact on ConnectMenlo Study Area Potable Water Demand.............. 11 Table 3-1. Does the Proposed Project Meet the SB 610 Definition of a “Project”?............................. 12 Table 3-2. Projected Future Water Demand – Normal Years............................................................... 14 Table 4-1. MPMW Service Area Existing and Projected Population .................................................... 15 Table 5-1. Historical Water Demand .................................................................................................... 16 Table 5-2. Projected Future Water Demand – Normal Years............................................................... 17 Table 5-3. Projected Future Water Demand – Dry Years..................................................................... 17 Table 6-1. MPMW Current and Projected Future Water Supplies – Normal Years............................. 21 Table 7-1. Tier One Plan Water Shortage Allocations.......................................................................... 25 Table 7-2. Projected MPMW Water Supplies with Bay-Delta Plan Amendment................................. 27 Table 7-3. Projected MPMW Water Supplies without Bay-Delta Plan Amendment ........................... 28 Table 8-1. MPMW Summary of Water Demand Versus Supply with Bay-Delta Plan Amendment During Hydrologic Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years.................... 30 Table 8-2. MPMW Summary of Water Demand Versus Supply without Bay-Delta Plan Amendment During Hydrologic Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years.................... 32

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1. Proposed Project Location ................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-2. Proposed Project Site Plan ................................................................................................... 7 Resolution No. XXXX

W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
iii Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Table of Contents

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Commonwealth Building 3 Project Water Use Budget Appendix B. Regional Water System Supply Reliability and UWMP 2020 (June 2021)

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AF Acre-Feet
AWSP Alternative Water Supply Planning Program
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Menlo Park
DWR State of California Department of Water Resources
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
gal/yr Gallons Per Year
gsf Gross Square Foot
ISG Individual Supply Guarantee
MG/yr Million Gallons Per Year
mgd Million Gallons Per Day
MPMW Menlo Park Municipal Water
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
Proposed Project Commonwealth Building 3 Project
RWS San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Regional Water System SB Senate Bill
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
WBSD West Bay Sanitary District
WRF Water Reuse Facility
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WSAP Water Shortage Allocation Plan
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WSE Study Water Supply Evaluation Study
WSIP Water System Improvement Program
Resolution No. XXXX

W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
1 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview
This Water Supply Assessment (WSA) has been prepared for Menlo Park Municipal Water (MPMW) by West Yost in accordance with California Water Code sections 10910 through 10915 in connection with the proposed Commonwealth Building 3 Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project includes a new approximately 249,500 gross square foot (gsf) office building (Building 3) that would accommodate approximately 1,996 employees, an approximately 404,464 gsf parking structure with 1,340 parking spaces, and the conversion of an existing surface parking lot to a community park that would be privately owned but publicly accessible.

The Proposed Project is located in the Bayfront Area of the City of Menlo Park (City) within the Lower Zone of MPMW’s service area. The Bayfront Area is between Highway 101 and Bayfront Expressway and is generally comprised of office, life sciences, mixed use residential, light industrial, commercial, and commercial business park land uses.

In 2016, the City completed a multi-year planning effort to update the Land Use and Circulation Elements of its General Plan for the 2040 planning horizon. This General Plan Update process was known as ConnectMenlo. ConnectMenlo reaffirmed existing remaining development potential throughout the City and incorporated land use changes in the Bayfront Area, including development potential for up to 4,500 new multi-family residential units, 2.3 million square feet of new non-residential uses (including

1.4 million square feet of Life Sciences research and development (R&D) uses), and 400 new hotel rooms.

The Proposed Project, located within the ConnectMenlo study area, is within this development capacity.

Projected Water Demands
The projected water demands for buildout of the Proposed Project have been calculated based on CALGreen and Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) standards. The projected water demand for the Proposed Project is 13.7 million gallons per year (MG/yr).

ConnectMenlo identifies the maximum development that could occur in the ConnectMenlo study area, including potential bonus-level increased development, and the ConnectMenlo EIR further studied the maximum development potential by more specific land uses. MPMW and the City’s Planning Division are actively tracking projects within the ConnectMenlo study area on a cumulative basis to ensure that developed projects remain within the maximum development permitted through ConnectMenlo and that the approved projects would be consistent with the ConnectMenlo EIR. The Proposed Project, if approved, would be within this permitted cumulative development total identified in ConnectMenlo and studied in the EIR. Because the Proposed Project is within the maximum development studied in ConnectMenlo, the water demand for the Proposed Project is included in the ConnectMenlo EIR and MPMW 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) water demand assumptions.

The Proposed Project does not include the use of recycled water, but will include the installation of water efficient fixtures and implementation of water conservation practices. The Proposed Project will also be dual-plumbed for recycled water use, should recycled water use become feasible in the future. Summaries of the availability and reliability of potable water supplies to serve the projected water demands for the Proposed Project are discussed below.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
2 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Water Supply Availability and Reliability
As discussed in this WSA, MPMW purchases all of its potable water supplies from the Regional Water System (RWS), which is operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). MPMW is a Wholesale Customer of the SFPUC. The availability and reliability of MPMW’s water supplies as described in this WSA are based primarily on information contained in the MPMW 2020 UWMP and the SFPUC 2020 UWMP. The MPMW 2020 UWMP is incorporated by reference into this WSA.

The reliability of the SFPUC RWS supply is highly dependent on the assumption of whether or not the 2018 Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented. The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment was adopted in December 2018 by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to establish water quality objectives to maintain the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. The adopted Bay-Delta Plan Amendment was developed with the stated goal of increasing salmonid populations in three San Joaquin River tributaries (the Stanislaus, Merced, and Tuolumne Rivers) and the Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment requires the release of 40 percent of the “unimpaired flow” on the three tributaries from February through June in every year type, whether wet, normal, dry, or critically dry. The implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment significantly impacts the SFPUC RWS supply reliability in dry years; however, the actual implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is uncertain.

Because of the uncertainties surrounding the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, this WSA presents findings for two scenarios, one assuming the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented and one assuming that the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is not implemented.

Under the scenario where it is assumed the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented, the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the Proposed Project in normal years will meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to MPMW’s existing and planned future uses through 2040. However, with the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, significant supply shortfalls are projected in dry years for agencies that receive water supplies from the SFPUC RWS, as well as other agencies whose water supplies would be affected by the Amendment. For MPMW, supply shortfalls are projected in single dry years (ranging from 27 to 32 percent) and in multiple dry years (ranging from 27 to 44 percent) through 2040, with similar shortfalls through 2045 based on SFPUC’s analysis.

If supply shortfalls do occur, MPMW expects to meet these supply shortfalls through water demand reductions and other shortage response actions by implementation of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP). The projected single dry year shortfalls would require implementation of Stage 3 or 4 of the MPMW WSCP, and the projected multiple dry year shortfalls would require implementation of Stage 3, 4 or 5 of the MPMW WSCP. The Proposed Project would be subject to the same water conservation and water use restrictions as other water users within the MPMW system.

Under the scenario where it is assumed the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is not implemented, the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the Proposed Project in normal years, single dry years and multiple dry years will meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to MPMW’s existing and planned future uses through 2040. A 16.5 percent supply shortfall is projected during the fourth and fifth consecutive dry years for base year 2045 based on SFPUC’s analysis.

These projected supply shortfalls are significantly less than the projected supply shortfallsif the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented. If supply shortfalls do occur, MPMW expects to meet these supply shortfalls through water demand reductions and other shortage response actions by implementation of Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
3 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
its WSCP. The projected multiple dry year shortfalls in 2045 would require implementation of Stage 2 of the MPMW WSCP. The Proposed Project would be subject to the same water conservation and water use restrictions as other water users within the MPMW system.

As described in this WSA, the SFPUC is implementing an Alternative Water Supply Planning Program to investigate and plan for new water supplies to address future long-term water supply reliability challenges and vulnerabilities on the RWS. Also, MPMW is implementing an Emergency Water Storage/Supply Project to provide a backup water supply to MPMW’s Lower Zone, which the project site is located within.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
4 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Commonwealth Building 3 Project (Proposed Project) includes a proposed four-story 249,500 gross square foot (gsf) office building, a four-story 404,464 gsf parking structure, and the conversion of an existing surface parking lot to a community park in the Bayfront Area of the City of Menlo Park (City) in the Menlo Park Municipal Water (MPMW) service area.

The purpose of this Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is to support the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Project. The following sections describe the legal requirement for the WSA and the project background.

1.1 Legal Requirement for a Water Supply Assessment
California Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) and Senate Bill 221 (SB 221) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and SB 221 were companion measures which sought to promote more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Both statutes require detailed information regarding water availability to be provided to the city and county decision-makers prior to approval of specified large development projects. The purpose of this coordination is to ensure that prudent water supply planning has been conducted, and that planned water supplies are adequate to meet existing demands, anticipated demands from approved projects and tentative maps, and the demands of proposed projects.

SB 610 amended California Water Code sections 10910 through 10915 (inclusive) to require land use lead agencies to:
• Identify any public water purveyor that may supply water for a proposed development project1
• Request a WSA from the identified water purveyor
The purpose of the WSA is to demonstrate the sufficiency of the purveyor’s water supplies to satisfy the water demands of the proposed development project, while still meeting the water purveyor’s existing and planned future uses. Water Code sections 10910 through 10915 delineate the specific information that must be included in the WSA.

SB 221 amended State law (California Government Code section 66473.7) to require that approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions2requires an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply. SB 221 was intended as a fail-safe mechanism to ensure that collaboration on finding the needed water supplies to serve a new large residential subdivision occurs before construction begins. It should be noted that SB 221 does not apply to the Proposed Project as the Proposed Project does not include a residential subdivision.
1 The definition of a “project” is provided in Water Code section 10912(a) and is discussed further in Section 3.1 of this WSA.
2 Per Government Code Section 66473.7(a)(1) subdivision means a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
5 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

1.2 Need for and Purpose of Water Supply Assessment
The purpose of this WSA is to perform the evaluation required by SB 610 (Water Code sections 10910 through 10915) in connection with the Proposed Project, located within MPMW’s service area.

This WSA does not reserve water, or to function as a “will serve” letter or any other form of commitment to supply water (see Water Code section 10914). The provision of water service will continue to be undertaken in a manner consistent with applicable policies and procedures, consistent with existing law.

This WSA for the Proposed Project has been prepared by West Yost, as requested by MPMW, the responsible water purveyor for the Proposed Project.

1.3 Water Supply Assessment Preparation, Format, and Organization The format of this WSA is intended to follow Water Code sections 10910 through 10915 to clearly delineate compliance with the specific requirements for a WSA. This WSA includes the following sections:

Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Description of the Proposed Project
Section 3: Required Determinations
Section 4: Menlo Park Municipal Water System
Section 5: Menlo Park Municipal Water Demands
Section 6: Menlo Park Municipal Water Supplies
Section 7: Water Supply Reliability
Section 8: Determination of Water Supply Sufficiency Based on the Requirements of SB 610 Section 9: Water Supply Assessment Approval Process
Section 10: References
Relevant citations of Water Code sections 10910 through 10915 are included throughout this WSA in italics to demonstrate compliance with the specific requirements of SB 610.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
6 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The following sections describe the Proposed Project, including the Proposed Project’s location, proposed land uses, and projected water demand.

2.1 Proposed Project Location and Overview
The Proposed Project is located in the Bayfront Area of the City, in MPMW’s service area. The Bayfront Area is generally comprised of office, life sciences, mixed use residential, light industrial, commercial, and commercial business park land uses between Highway 101 and the Bayfront Expressway.

The Proposed Project consists of two sites, the Commonwealth Site and the Jefferson Site, and is bounded by Jefferson Drive and office buildings to the north, the currently inactive Dumbarton Rail Corridor to the southeast, and US 101 to the south. The Proposed Project site is shown on Figure 2-1.

Source: Figure 2-1, Initial Study Commonwealth Building 3 Project, prepared by ICF, dated May 2019.

Figure 2-1. Proposed Project Location
Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
7 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
The Sobrato Organization (Project Sponsor) is proposing to construct an approximately 249,500 gsf office building and an approximately 404,464 gsf parking structure as part of the proposed Commonwealth Building 3 Project. The Proposed Project site is within the existing Commonwealth Corporate Center property, which includes the Commonwealth Site at 162 and 164 Jefferson Drive and the Jefferson Site (also 164 Jefferson Drive). Two existing buildings (Buildings 1 and 2), currently occupied by Meta (referred to by Meta as Buildings 27 and 28), were constructed as part of the Commonwealth Corporate Center Project. The Proposed Project would add a four-story office building (Building 3) and a four-story parking structure with 1,340 parking spaces to the Proposed Project site. In addition to the proposed Building 3 and parking structure at the Commonwealth Site, the Jefferson Site would be converted from an existing surface parking lot to a community park that would be privately owned but publicly accessible. The Proposed Project site plan is shown on Figure 2-2.

Source: Commonwealth Building 3 Planning Application Sheet L1.01 Illustrative Landscape Plan, prepared by Architectural Technologies, Inc., dated July 2021.

Figure 2-2. Proposed Project Site Plan
Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
8 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

2.2 Projected Water Demand for the Proposed Project
The Proposed Project site was rezoned Office-Bonus (O-B) in 2016 through the ConnectMenlo process. As such, its development is required to comply with the City Municipal Code Chapter 16.43 O Office District, including specifically Section 16.43.140 Green and Sustainable Building. In that section of the Municipal Code, the following specific requirements for water use efficiency and recycled water use are provided:

16.43.140 (3) Water Use Efficiency and Recycled Water.

A. Single pass cooling systems shall be prohibited in all new buildings.

B. All new buildings shall be built and maintained without the use of well water.

C. Applicants for a new building more than one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet of gross floor area shall prepare and submit a proposed water budget and accompanying calculations following the methodology approved by the City. For all new buildings two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) square feet or more in gross floor area, the water budget shall account for the potable water demand reduction resulting from the use of an alternative water source for all City-approved non-potable applications. The water budget and calculations shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Public Works Director prior to certification of occupancy. Twelve (12) months after the date of the certification of occupancy, the building owner shall submit data and information sufficient to allow the City to compare the actual water use to the allocation in the approved water budget. In the event that actual water consumption exceeds the water budget, a water conservation program, as approved by the City’s Public Works Director, shall be implemented. Twelve (12) months after City approval of the water conservation program, the building owner shall submit data and information sufficient to allow the City to determine compliance with the conservation program. If water consumption exceeds the budgeted amount, the City’s Public Works Director may prohibit the use of water for irrigation or enforce compliance as an infraction pursuant to Chapter 1.12 until compliance with the water budget is achieved.

D. All new buildings shall be dual plumbed for the internal use of recycled water.

E. All new buildings two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) square feet or more in gross floor area shall use an alternate water source for all City-approved non-potable applications. An alternative water source may include, but is not limited to, treated non-potable water such as graywater. An alternate water source assessment shall be submitted that describes the alternative water source and proposed non-potable application. Approval of the alternate water source assessment, the alternative water source and its proposed uses shall be approved by the City’s Public Works Director and Community Development Director. If Menlo Park Municipal Water has not designated a recycled water purveyor and/or municipal recycled water source is not available prior to planning project approval, applicants may propose conservation measures to meet the requirements of this section subject to approval of the City Council. The conservation measures shall achieve a reduction in potable water use equivalent to the projected demand of City-approved non-potable applications, but in no case shall the reduction be less than 30 percent (30%) compared to the water budget in subsection (3)(C) of this section. The conservation measures may include on-site measures, off-site measures or a combination thereof.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
9 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
F. Potable water shall not be used for dust control on construction projects.

G. Potable water shall not be used for decorative features, unless the water recirculates.

As required by the City Municipal Code described above, the Project Applicant prepared a Water Use Budget for the Proposed Project (see Appendix A). Because the Proposed Project building is less than 250,000 square feet, an Alternative Water Source Assessment is not required. It should be noted that recycled water use is not proposed for the Proposed Project; instead, the Proposed Project will install water efficient fixtures and implement water conservation measures, both in the design of the base building and tenant spaces, and in the optimization of the operations and employee practices. The Proposed Project will also be dual-plumbed for recycled water use, should recycled water use become feasible in the future.

The Proposed Project will comply with the City’s water use regulations by using ultra-low-flow fixtures within the building. Flow rates for the selected fixtures would be equal to or less than the 2016 CALGreen flow rates for commercial fixtures. The Project Applicant estimated water use for the Proposed Project using the following assumptions:
• Water usage for plumbing fixtures (including water closets, urinals, public lavatories, kitchen faucets and showerheads) were estimated using CALGreen standards • Water usage for food services were based on average of modeled water use for office buildings, restaurants, and efficient restaurants
• Water usage for irrigation is estimated based on the Maximum Applied Water Allowance in accordance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) • Water usage for cooling towers is estimated based on operational assumptions for the proposed building and weather data for the site.

A summary of the water demands for the Proposed Project, as estimated by the Project Applicant, is provided in Table 2-1. As shown, the projected water demand for the Proposed Project is 13.7 million gallons per year (MG/yr). Additional information on the water demand projections for the Proposed Project is provided in Appendix A.

Table 2-1. Estimated Water Demand for the Proposed Project(a) Water Use
Estimated Annual
Demand, gallons/yr
Plumbing Fixtures and Fittings (toilets, urinals) 1,393,408 Plumbing Fixtures and Fittings (lavatories, kitchen faucets, showers) 1,089,816 Food Services 9,081,800
Irrigation 892,323
Cooling Tower 1,273,144
Total (gallons per year, gal/yr) 13,730,491
Total (million gallons per year, MG/yr) 13.7
(a) As estimated for the Proposed Project by the Project Applicant in July 2020 (see Appendix A).

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
10 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

2.3 Proposed Project Relationship to ConnectMenlo
In 2016, the City completed a multi-year planning effort to update the Land Use and Circulation Elements of its General Plan for the 2040 planning horizon. This General Plan Update process was known as ConnectMenlo. ConnectMenlo reaffirmed existing remaining development potential within the City and incorporated land use changes in the Bayfront Area, including development potential for up to 4,500 new multi-family residential units, 2.3 million square feet of new non-residential uses, and 400 new hotel rooms.

A program-level EIR was prepared for ConnectMenlo. In conjunction with the ConnectMenlo EIR, a Water Supply Evaluation Study (WSE Study) was prepared to evaluate whether there would be sufficient water supply to meet the current and planned water demands within the service area during normal and dry hydrologic years over a 20-year time horizon. More specifically, the WSE Study includes:
• A summary of the WSA requirements articulated in Water Code §10910-10915 and a description of how they have been addressed in the WSE Study • A description and analysis of the current and projected future water demands for the ConnectMenlo project through the year 2040
• A description and analysis of the historical, current, and projected future water demands for the MPMW service area through the year 2040
• A description and analysis of the current and projected future water supplies for the MPMW service area through the year 2040
• A comparison of the water supplies and demands for MPMW’s water service area, including the projected water demands associated with the ConnectMenlo project The data in the WSE Study were based primarily on the MPMW 2010 UWMP, the draft MPMW 2015 UWMP (which was being developed at the same time as the WSE Study), information from City staff, and specific information from PlaceWorks (preparer of the 2016 ConnectMenlo General Plan Update and program-level EIR). The final adopted MPMW 2015 UWMP and the MPMW 2020 UWMP incorporated the ConnectMenlo projections.

ConnectMenlo identifies the maximum development potential that could occur within the ConnectMenlo study area, including potential bonus-level increased development, and the associated program-level EIR further defines the maximum development that can occur by specific land uses. MPMW and the City’s Planning Division are actively tracking projects within the ConnectMenlo study area on a cumulative basis to ensure that developed projects remain within the maximum development permitted by ConnectMenlo and are consistent with the program-level EIR.3 The Proposed Project, if approved, would be within this permitted cumulative development total for both ConnectMenlo and the associated program-level EIR.

Table 2-2 shows the Proposed Project’s impact on the cumulative water demand permitted for ConnectMenlo.
3 For projects that require a water budget, the City includes Conditions of Approval requiring annual monitoring to document water usage at or below the limits identified in the approved water budget. Exempt projects (below the water budget threshold) are not tracked.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
11 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Table 2-2. Proposed Project Impact on ConnectMenlo Study Area Potable Water Demand Demand Source Annual Water Demand, MG/yr
ConnectMenlo Total Potable Water Demand at Buildout(a) 343 Proposed Project Potable Water Demand(b) 14
Remaining Potable Water Demand for Other Projects within ConnectMenlo Study Area(c) 329
(a) Water Supply Evaluation Study for ConnectMenlo – General Plan and M-2 Area Zoning Update (Table 2), prepared by EKI, February 2016. The Water Supply Evaluation Study assumed that total water demand in the ConnectMenlo study area would be met using potable water. (b) From Table 2-1 above.
(c) Other projects in the ConnectMenlo study area currently in the planning stages include Willow Village with a projected net po table water demand of approximately 85 MG/yr and 1350 Adams Court with a projected potable water demand of approximately 5 MG/yr.

These projects are still in the planning stage so their projected water demands are subject to change. Recently approved projects subject to water budgets and annual water usage limits include Menlo Portal and Menlo Uptown which are anticipated to use 12. 6 and 9.1 MG/yr, respectively.

The remaining potable water demand for other projects within the ConnectMenlo study area shown in Table 2-2 is available to serve both approved, but not yet constructed, and future projects (whether or not they require a WSA).

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
12 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

3.0 REQUIRED DETERMINATIONS
The following sections describe the required determinations for a WSA.

3.1 Does SB 610 Apply to the Proposed Project?
10910 (a) Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part. 10912 (a) “Project” means any of the following:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. (5) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
(6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. (7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project.

As shown in Table 3-1, the Proposed Project does meet the definition of a “Project” as specified in Water Code section 10912(a). The Proposed Project has not been the subject of a previously adopted WSA and has not been included in an adopted WSA for a larger project. Therefore, according to Water Code section 10910(a), a WSA is required for the Proposed Project.

Table 3-1. Does the Proposed Project Meet the SB 610 Definition of a “Project”? SB 610 Project Definition Components
Proposed Project
Quantity
Meets the SB 610
Definition of a
“Project”?
Residential > 500 dwelling units N/A NO
Retail > 1,000 employees or > 500,000 sf N/A NO
Commercial Office Building > 1,000 employees or > 250,000 sf 1,996 employees 249,500 sf YES
Hotel/Motel > 500 rooms N/A NO
Industrial Plant/Park > 1,000 employees or > 40 acres or > 650,000 sf N/A NO Mixed Use Project that includes one or more of the above N/A NO A Project that would demand the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project N/A NO
SB 610 Required? -- YES
Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
13 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
The City has also determined that the Proposed Project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that an EIR is required. Because the Proposed Project’s location and development parameters are consistent with ConnectMenlo, the ConnectMenlo Program-level EIR serves as the first tier environmental analysis for the Project. However, an EIR will be prepared for the Proposed Project to address impacts that need further discussion and/or mitigation beyond that provided in the ConnectMenlo EIR, as well as to satisfy the requirements of a settlement agreement between the City of Menlo Park and the City of East Palo Alto. The EIR will utilize the findings of this WSA as appropriate in the EIR for the Proposed Project.

3.2 Does SB 221 Apply to the Proposed Project?
In 2001, SB 221 amended State law to require that approval by a city or county of certain residential subdivisions requires an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply. Per California GovernmentCode section66473.7(a)(1), a subdivisionmeans a proposedresidential development of more than 500 dwelling units. The Proposed Project does not include a residential subdivision, so the requirements of SB 221 do not apply to the Proposed Project.

3.3 Who is the Identified Public Water System?
10910(b) The city or county, at the time that it determines whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required for any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall identify any water system that is, or may become as a result of supplying water to the project identified pursuant to this subdivision, a public water system, as defined by Section 10912, that may supply water for the project
10912 (c) “Public water system” means a system for the provision of piped water to the public for human consumption that has 3,000 or more service connections… The Proposed Project is located in the City within MPMW’s service area. MPMW’s service area consists of three zones: the Lower Zone (located north and east of El Camino Real and serves residential, small commercial, and light industrial land uses), the High Pressure Zone (located in northern Menlo Park between Highway 101 and Bayfront Expressway, north of Chilco Street, and serves multi-family residential, commercial and light industrial, and a mobile home park outside the City’s northern-most boundary), and the Upper Zone (located in the southwest portion of Menlo Park near Interstate 280 and geographically and hydraulically disconnected from the other pressure zones). The Proposed Project is located in MPMW’s Lower Zone. Therefore, MPMW is the identified public water system for the Proposed Project.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
14 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

3.4 Does the Identified Public Water Supplier have an adopted UWMP and does the UWMP include the projected water demand for the Proposed Project?
10910(c)(1) The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision (b) to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610).

The City’s most recently adopted UWMP is the 2020 UWMP, which was adopted in May 2021. The MPMW 2020 UWMP is incorporated by reference into this WSA.

The MPMW 2020 UWMP incorporated the future population, employment and water demand projections for buildout of the General Plan, including the additional allowable development associated with ConnectMenlo and other major development projects within the MPMW service area. 4 As described in
Section 2.3 of this WSA, ConnectMenlo identifies the maximum development potential that could occur within the ConnectMenlo study area, including potential bonus-level increased development, and the associated program level EIR further defines the maximum development that can occur by specific land uses. MPMW and the City’s Planning Division are actively tracking projects within the ConnectMenlo study area on a cumulative basis to ensure that developed projects remain within the maximum development permitted in ConnectMenlo and would be consistent with the program-level EIR. The Proposed Project, if approved, would be within this permitted total development potential permitted for both ConnectMenlo and the associated program-level EIR. Therefore, the water demand for the Proposed Project is included in the MPMW 2020 UWMP water demand.

Table 3-2 presents the projected future water demand for buildout of the General Plan, which would include the Proposed Project, in normal years as presented in the MPMW 2020 UWMP. Additional discussion on the MPMW’s existing and projected water demands is provided in Section 5 of this WSA.

Table 3-2. Projected Future Water Demand – Normal Years 2020 (Actual), MG
Projected Water Demand after Passive and Active Conservation, MG 2025 2030 2035 2040
1,069 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 4-5.
4 MPMW 2020 UWMP, Section 3.2 Land Uses within Service Area, page 18.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
15 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

4.0 MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM
The following sections describe the MPMW existing water service area, including existing and projected population.

4.1 Water Service Area
MPMW is located within the City, along the San Francisco Peninsula in San Mateo County, between the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City. MPMW provides water service to approximately half of the City, serving an area of approximately 9 square miles. The remainder of the City is served by California Water Service, O’Connor Tract Co-operative Water Company, and Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company.

There were 4,296 MPMW service connections as of 2020. Land uses throughout the water service area consist primarily of residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Customer service connections include residential users, industrial connections, commercial service connections, irrigation accounts, and ‘Other’ connections (including temporary services and sales, private fire services, and hydrant services).

4.2 Population
The MPMW service area is largely built-out, with future growth trends principally due to redevelopment within the Bayfront Area. As shown in Table 4-1, the total population within the MPMW service area is projected to increase to 30,184 people by 2040, a 65 percent increase from the current 2020 population of 18,276 people. The City’s Planning Division expects more than 40 percent of the projected population increase to occur within the next five years (2020 through 2025) based on approved and pending projects in the Bayfront Area (driven by the ConnectMenlo General Plan). The MPMW service area includes areas outside of the Bayfront Area; however, given the focus of the ConnectMenlo General Plan Update on land use changes within the Bayfront Area, most population growth through 2040 is expected to occur in that geographic area.5
Table 4-1. MPMW Service Area Existing and Projected Population Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Population Served 18,276 23,383 25,166 27,675 30,184
Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 3-1.
5 The City is conducting the required update to its Housing Element that would likely increase population growth outside of the Bayfront Area, some of which may be located within the MPMW’s Upper Zone.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
16 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

5.0 MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL WATER DEMANDS
10910(c)(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f) and (g).

The descriptions provided below for the City’s water demands are based on the MPMW 2020 UWMP (adopted in May 2021).

5.1 Historical and Existing Water Demand
Table 5-1 shows the MPMW water demand (based on water production) for 2010 through 2020.

According to MPMW’s 2020 UWMP, from 2010 through 2020, the service area population had grown by about 24 percent, while the total volume of water sold increased by just 1.6 percent. The decrease in water demand from 2013 to 2016 can be attributed to mandatory statewide restrictions issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) during the drought and water conservation efforts by the City’s residents and businesses. Since 2016, there has been a rebound in demand.

Table 5-1. Historical Water Demand
Year Potable Water Demand, MG
2010 1,052
2011 1,033
2012 1,079
2013 1,189
2014 1,030
2015 883
2016 898
2017 1,003
2018 1,108
2019 1,028
2020 1,069
Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 4-2.

5.2 Future Water Demand
Table 5-2 shows MPMW’s projected normal year water demands through 2040 as included in MPMW’s 2020 UWMP. These projections are based on anticipated future water demands corresponding to buildout of the City’s current General Plan, including development of ConnectMenlo and other planned projects within MPMW’s service area. The projected increase in demand reflects a rebound in water use following the end of the suppressed demands due to the 2015-2016 drought and an accelerated growth in employment due to planned development projects.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
17 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Table 5-2. Projected Future Water Demand – Normal Years 2020 (Actual), MG
Projected Water Demand after Passive and Active Conservation, MG 2025 2030 2035 2040
1,069 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 4-5.

5.3 Dry Year Water Demand
As shown in Table 5-1, MPMW’s 2015 and 2016 demands were significantly lower than the demand in previous years. This reduction in demands occurred in response to the drought and mandated statewide reductions in urban potable water usage.

Following the drought, MPMW updated the stages of action to be taken in response to water supply shortages. The updated stages of action are included in Chapter 8 of the MPMW 2020 UWMP and are reflected in MPMW’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) (included in Appendix K of the MPMW 2020 UWMP). MPMW has also implemented a demand management program with mandatory prohibitions that are in force at all times, as described in Chapter 8 of the MPMW 2020 UWMP. The projected future water demand presented in Table 5-2 includes continued implementation of the existing demand management program and is based on future normal hydrologic years.

Under dry water year conditions, MPMW anticipates implementing the demand reduction measures outlined in the WSCP as appropriate to reduce water demands to match the reduction in the supply.

However, to be conservative, the MPMW 2020 UWMP and this WSA do not assume additional water conservation will occur in single dry or multiple dry years, even though additional water conservation is likely to occur during dry years or other water supply shortages as a result of MPMW implementing additional water conservation measures.

Table 5-3 presents the projected future single and multiple dry year water demand, as presented in the MPMW 2020 UWMP.

Table 5-3. Projected Future Water Demand – Dry Years
Hydrologic Condition
Demand
Reduction(a)
Projected Water Demand, MG
2025 2030 2035 2040
Single Dry Year(b) 0% 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Multiple Dry Years(c,d) 0% 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
(a) Conservatively assumes no demand reduction in dry years. Demands may be reduced in dry years as a result of MPMW’s implementation of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan; however, such a demand reduction is not assumed or relied upon for the purposes of the Single Dry Year and Multiple Dry Year evaluations for this WSA. (b) Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 7-5.
(c) Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 7-6.
(d) Represents demands for each year of the 5-year multiple dry year period.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
18 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

6.0 MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES
10910(c)(2) If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions (d), (e), (f) and (g). 10910(d)(1) The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system…under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts. 10910(e) If no water has been received in prior years by the public water system…under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, the public water system…shall also include in its water supply assessment…an identification of the other public water systems or water service contract holders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, to the same source of water as the public water system. 10910(f) If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment. (1) A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project.
(2) A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most recent bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition.
(3) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historical use records. (4) A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historical use records.
(5) An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph (1), that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 10631.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
19 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
As described in Section 3.4 of this WSA, the projected water demand associated with buildout of ConnectMenlo, which includes the Proposed Project, was accounted for in MPMW’s most recently adopted UWMP. The descriptions provided below for MPMW’s water supplies are based on the MPMW 2020 UWMP (adopted in May 2021) and the SFPUC 2020 UWMP (adopted in June 2021).

6.1 Water Supply Overview
MPMW currently purchases all of its potable water supplies from the SFPUC RWS. MPMW has reservoirs in its Upper Zone to provide for emergency supply and an emergency groundwater well has been constructed at MPMW’s Corporation Yard. Additional groundwater wells and reservoirs for emergency supply are in the planning stages for the Lower Zone and the High Pressure Zone.

Recycled water supplied by West Bay Sanitary District (WBSD) is currently utilized within the MPMW service area for irrigation at the Sharon Heights Golf & Country Club and is under development for the Bayfront Area. According to the MPMW 2020 UWMP, MPMW plans to utilize up to 120 MG/yr of recycled water from WBSD for landscape and golf course irrigation and commercial non-potable applications at Sharon Heights and in the Bayfront Area.

6.2 Water Supply from the SFPUC RWS
The SFPUC RWS supplies water to both retail and wholesale customers. Retail customers include residents, businesses, and industries located within the City and County of San Francisco’s boundaries.

Wholesale customers include 26 cities and water supply agencies in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, including MPMW.

MPMW is a member agency of Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and purchases treated water from the SFPUC RWS in accordance with the November 2018 Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties which was adopted in 2019. The term of the agreement is 25 years, with a beginning date of July 1, 2009 and an expiration date of June 30, 2034. Per the agreement, MPMW has an Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) of 4.456 million gallons per day (mgd), or 1,630 million gallons per year, supplied by the SFPUC RWS. Over the last five years (2016-2020) MPMW has purchased between 52 percent and 66 percent of its ISG.

Additional discussion of the SFPUC RWS water supplies is provided in MPMW’s 2020 UWMP and SFPUC’s 2020 UWMP.

6.3 Groundwater Supply
MPMW does not rely upon groundwater supplies for its potable water supply since the entirety of the MPMW supply is purchased from the SFPUC RWS. However, MPMW has undertaken a multi-year Emergency Water Storage/Supply Project to construct emergency groundwater wells. As such, this WSA evaluates groundwater basin conditions pursuant to Section 10910(f).

6.3.1 Groundwater Basin Description
The MPMW service area overlies the southern end of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin’s San Mateo Plain Groundwater Subbasin (DWR basin number 2-9.03; DWR, 2004; or “subbasin”). The subbasin is not adjudicated, nor has it been found by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to be in a condition Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
20 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
of overdraft. As part of the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the subbasin was ranked as a “very low priority” basin under the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring basin prioritization process. As such, the basin is not subject to the requirements of SGMA.

Located within the 45-square mile San Francisquito Creek Watershed, the MPMW service area contains both mountainous bedrock terrain and comparatively flat alluvial deposits. Coarse- and fine-grained alluvial deposits from the San Francisquito Creek can be found in the MPMW service area. There is a shallow aquifer and a deep aquifer that has an upper and a lower zone in the MPMW service area. Both aquifers lie beneath a laterally extensive confining layer. The shallow aquifer is unconfined while the deep aquifer is semi-confined. Pump tests and empirical transmissivity data show that it is feasible to develop a municipal supply from the groundwater subbasin. It is estimated that the groundwater subbasin can be as thick as 1,000 feet in some locations.

Groundwater in the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin naturally flows toward the San Francisco Bay from the uplands in the southwest. Reverse groundwater gradients, from the San Francisco Bay toward the uplands, have been seen when pumping has exceeded the rate of recharge. The estimated annual recharge rate of the San Francisquito Creek watershed ranges from 4,000 to 8,000 AF per year, 3.6 to

7.2 mgd.

Additional discussion of the groundwater conditions and groundwater management is provided in MPMW’s 2020 UWMP.

6.3.2 Emergency Water Storage/Supply Project
The MPMW Emergency Water Storage/Supply Project intends to provide a backup water supply to MPMW’s Lower Zone, which lacks emergency storage, in the event water from the SFPUC RWS is reduced or unavailable. The MPMW Emergency Water Storage/Supply Project will provide a total capacity of up to 3,000 gpm, or approximately 4.32 mgd, between two to three wells at separate locations. MPMW initiated the project in 2010 and completed site screening, site ranking, and detailed engineering and hydrologic evaluation in 2013, including extensive community engagement. The City selected the Corporation Yard at 333 Burgess Drive for the first well, completed the CEQA evaluation in 2016, and drilled the well in 2017. Construction of the well facility (e.g., generator, disinfection equipment, associated piping) was completed in late 2020, and MPMW is working with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to permit the well. MPMW is also investigating locations for a future underground reservoir for the Lower Zone and High Pressure Zone.

The SWRCB Division of Drinking Water classifies wells as “active” or “standby.” Active wells, with water quality testing requirements every 3 years, must meet all primary and secondary standards and have no restrictions on when the well can be used. Standby wells, with water quality testing requirements every 9 years, must meet all primary standards (but not secondary standards) and have restrictions that the well cannot be used for more than 14 days per year or more than 5 consecutive days. To provide flexibility, the City plans to permit its emergency wells as “active” wells as long as primary and secondary standards can be met. The City’s plan is to use the wells for emergency purposes only, but have the flexibility to provide well water during emergencies that last more than 14 days per year or more than 5 consecutive days.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
21 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

6.4 Recycled Water Supply
WBSD provides wastewater collection services to the MPMW service area. WBSD also acts as the recycled water purveyor in MPMW’s Upper Zone and WBSD is developing a recycled water system to serve the Lower Zone and High Pressure Zone.

Currently, recycled water is only used at the Sharon Heights Golf & Country Club, which is a 170-acre property located in the Upper Zone of MPMW’s service area. The recycled water system consists of the Sharon Heights Recycled Water Facility, a pump station, recycled water distribution pipelines to the golf course irrigation system, and a solids disposal pipeline. In 2020, the satellite wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) provided 20 MG of recycled water to the Sharon Heights Golf & Country Club, offsetting demand in potable water purchased from SFPUC. A second phase of the project, in the very early planning stages, could supply approximately 28 MG of recycled water over seven months a year to the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center for irrigation and industrial uses such as for cooling towers.

Planning for a similar recycled water facility in the Bayfront Area is ongoing. WBSD has completed a feasibility study exploring the viability of a Resource Recovery Center at WBSD’s former treatment plant behind Bedwell Bayfront Park, which could produce approximately 500,000 gallons per day of recycled water for reuse (the MPMW 2020 UWMP projects an annual recycled water supply of 72 MG/yr from this new facility). The feasibility study concluded that the project is feasible. In a public/private partnership with Meta, the WBSD Board of Directors spearheaded the effort to install 2,800 feet of purple recycled water pipe parallel with the storm drainpipe Meta was replacing on Chilco Street. This pipe will be used to distribute recycled water in the area. According to WBSD, recycled water will be used for irrigation, industrial purposes, firefighting, public fill stations and toilet flushing in the Bayfront Area.

6.5 Summary of Existing and Additional Planned Future Water Supplies
Table 6-2 provides a summary of MPMW’s current and projected future normal year supplies as presented in MPMW’s 2020 UWMP. The availability and reliability of MPMW’s water supplies in dry years is discussed in Section 7 of this WSA.

Table 6-1. MPMW Current and Projected Future Water Supplies – Normal Years Water Source
Water Supply, MG
2020
Actual(a,b) 2025(c) 2030(c) 2035(c) 2040(c)
Potable Water - Purchased from SFPUC
RWS 1,069 1,630 1,630 1,630 1,630
Recycled Water – Sharon Heights
Recycled Water Facility 20 48 48 48 48
Recycled Water – Bayfront Recycled
Water Facility -- 0 72 72 72
Total 1,089 1,678 1,750 1,750 1,750
(a) 1,069 MG represents only 65.5% of the ISG to MPMW.
(b) Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 4-7.
(c) Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 6-9.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
22 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

7.0 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY
10910(c)(4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
10911(a) If, as a result of its assessment, the public water system concludes that its water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, the public water system shall provide to the city or county its plans for acquiring additional water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. If the city or county, if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), concludes as a result of its assessment, that water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, the city or county shall include in its water supply assessment its plans for acquiring additional water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. Those plans may include, but are not limited to, information concerning all of the following:
(1) The estimated total costs, and the proposed method of financing the costs, associated with acquiring the additional water supplies.
(2) All federal, state, and local permits, approvals, or entitlements that are anticipated to be required in order to acquire and develop the additional water supplies. (3) Based on the consideration set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2), the estimated timeframes within which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), expects to able to acquire additional water supplies.

The current reliability of MPMW’s water supply is largely dependent upon its water supply contract with SFPUC and SFPUC’s water supply reliability. The reliability discussion provided below is based on the MPMW 2020 UWMP (adopted in May 2021) and the SFPUC 2020 UWMP (adopted in June 2021). It should be noted that SFPUC’s 2020 UWMP extends to a 2045 horizon year, which is beyond the statutorily required horizon year of 2040 presented in the MPMW 2020 UWMP.

7.1 SFPUC RWS Reliability
Information regarding the reliability of the SFPUC RWS was provided to MPMW by BAWSCA, in coordination with SFPUC, during the preparation of the MPMW 2020 UWMP. The following sections describe the potential impacts of the 2018 Bay-Delta Plan Amendment on SFPUC RWS reliability, allocation of RWS supplies during supply shortages, as well as SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Planning Program designed to investigate and plan for new water supplies to address future long-term water supply reliability challenges and vulnerabilities on the RWS.

7.1.1 Potential Impacts of the 2018 Bay-Delta Plan Amendment on SFPUC RWS Reliability In December 2018, the SWRCB adopted amendments to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan Amendment) to establish water quality objectives to maintain the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. The SWRCB is required by law to regularly review this plan. The adopted Bay-Delta Plan Amendment was developed with the stated goal of increasing salmonid populations in three San Joaquin River tributaries (the Stanislaus, Merced, and Tuolumne Rivers) and the Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment requires the release of 40 percent Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
23 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
of the “unimpaired flow” on the three tributaries from February through June in every year type, whether wet, normal, dry, or critically dry.

The SWRCB has stated that it intends to implement the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment on the Tuolumne River by the year 2022, assuming all required approvals are obtained by that time. But implementation of the Plan Amendment is uncertain for several reasons:
• Since adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, over a dozen lawsuits have been filed in both state and federal court, challenging the SWRCB’s adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, including two legal challenges filed by the federal government, at the request of the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation in state and federal courts. These cases are in the early stage and there have been no dispositive court rulings to date. • The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is not self-implementing and does not allocate responsibility for meeting its new flow requirements to the SFPUC or any other water rights holders. Rather, the Plan Amendment merely provides a regulatory framework for flow allocation, which must be accomplished by other regulatory and/or adjudicatory proceedings, such as a comprehensive water rights adjudication or, in the case of the Tuolumne River, the 401 certification process in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) relicensing proceeding for Don Pedro Dam. The license amendment process is currently expected to be completed in the 2022-23 timeframe. This process and the other regulatory and/or adjudicatory proceedings would likely face legal challenges and have lengthy timelines, and quite possibly could result in a different assignment of flow responsibility (and therefore a different water supply impact on the SFPUC). • In recognition of the obstacles to implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, SWRCB Resolution No. 2018-0059 adopting the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment directed staff to help complete a “Delta watershed-wide agreement, including potential flow measures for the Tuolumne River” by March 1, 2019, and to incorporate such agreements as an “alternative” for a future amendment to the Bay-Delta Plan to be presented to the SWRCB “as early as possible after December 1, 2019.” In accordance with the SWRCB’s instruction, on March 1, 2019, SFPUC, in partnership with other key stakeholders, submitted a proposed project description for the Tuolumne River that could be the basis for a voluntary substitute agreement with the SWRCB (“March 1st Proposed Voluntary Agreement”). On March 26, 2019, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 19-0057 to support SFPUC’s participation in the Voluntary Agreement negotiation process. To date, those negotiations are ongoing under the California Natural Resources Agency and California Environmental Protection Agency and the leadership of the Newsom administration. The negotiations for a voluntary agreement have made significant progress since an initial framework was presented to the SWRCB on December 12, 2018. The package submitted on March 1, 2019 is the product of renewed discussions since Governor Newsom took office. While significant work remains, the package represents an important step forward in bringing together diverse California water interests.6
6 In late October 2021, State regulators announced that these negotiations stopped before an agreement was reached. It is unclear whether or when negotiations might be reinitiated.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
24 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Because of the uncertainties surrounding the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, the SFPUC 2020 UWMP analyzed two supply scenarios, one with the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment assuming implementation starting in 2023, and one without the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. Results of these analyses are summarized as follows:
7 • If the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented, SFPUC will be able to meet its contractual obligations to its wholesale customers as presented in the SFPUC 2020 UWMP in normal years but would experience significant supply shortages in dry years. In single dry years, supply shortages would range from 36 to 46 percent. In multiple dry years, supply shortages would range from 36 to 54 percent. Implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment will require rationing in all single dry and multiple dry years through 2045. • If the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is not implemented, SFPUC would be able to meet 100 percent of the projected purchases of its wholesale customers during all year types through 2045 except during the fourth and fifth consecutive dry years for base year 2045 when 15 percent wholesale supply shortages are projected.

In June 2021, in response to various comments from wholesale customers regarding the reliability of the RWS as described in SFPUC’s 2020 UWMP, the SFPUC provided a memorandum describing SFPUC’s efforts to remedy the potential effects of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. As described in the memorandum (included in Appendix B of this WSA), SFPUC’s efforts include the following:
• Pursuing a Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement
• Evaluating the drought planning scenario in light of climate change • Pursuing alternative water supplies
• In litigation with the State over the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment • In litigation with the State over the proposed Don Pedro FERC Water Quality Certification

7.1.2 Allocation of RWS Supplies During Supply Shortages The wholesale customers and SFPUC adopted the November 2018 Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement in 2019, which included a Water Shortage Allocation Plan (WSAP) to allocate water from the RWS to retail and wholesale customers during system-wide shortages of 20 percent or less, including such shortages occurring as a result of implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. The WSAP has two tiers which are described below.
• The Tier One Plan allocates water between SFPUC and the wholesale customers collectively based on the level of the shortage (up to 20 percent). This plan applies only when SFPUC determines that a system-wide water shortage exists and issues a declaration of a water shortage emergency under California Water Code Section 350. The SFPUC may also opt to request voluntary cutbacks from San Francisco and the wholesale customers to achieve necessary water use reductions during drought periods. The allocations outlined in the Tier One Plan are provided in Table 7-1.
7 BAWSCA Drought Allocation Tables by Agency (Table E: Percent Cutback to the Wholesale Customers With BayDelta Plan and Table N: Percent Cutback to the Wholesale Customers Without Bay-Delta Plan), dated April 1, 2021.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
25 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Table 7-1. Tier One Plan Water Shortage Allocations
System-Wide Reduction
Required, percent
Share of Available Water, percent
SFPUC Wholesale Customers
≤ 5 35.5 64.5
6 to 10 36.0 64.0
11 to 15 37.0 63.0
16 to 20 37.5 62.5
• The Tier Two Plan allocates the collective wholesale customer share among the wholesale customers based on a formula that accounts for each wholesale customer’s ISG, seasonal use of all available water supplies, and residential per capita use. BAWSCA calculates each wholesale customer’s Allocation Factors annually in preparation for a potential water shortage emergency.

BAWSCA recognizes that the Tier Two Plan was not designed for RWS shortages greater than 20 percent, and in a memorandum dated March 1, 2021, BAWSCA provided a refined methodology to allocate RWS supplies during projected future single dry and multiple dry years in the instance where supply shortfalls are greater than 20 percent for the purposes of the BAWSCA member agencies’ 2020 UWMPs. The revised methodology developed by BAWSCA allocates the wholesale supplies as follows:
• When the average Wholesale Customers’ RWS shortages are 10 percent or less, an equal percent reduction will be applied across all agencies. This is consistent with the existing Tier Two requirements in a Tier Two application scenario. • When average Wholesale Customers’ shortages are between 10 and 20 percent, the Tier Two Plan will be applied.
• When the average Wholesale Customers’ RWS shortages are greater than 20 percent, an equal percent reduction will be applied across all agencies.

In another memorandum dated February 18, 2021, BAWSCA explains that in actual RWS shortages greater than 20 percent, BAWSCA Member Agencies would have the opportunity to negotiate and agree upon a more nuanced and equitable approach. This would likely consider basic health and safety needs, the water needs to support critical institutions, and minimizing economic impacts on individual communities and the region. As such, the allocation method described in the MPMW 2020 UWMP is only intended to serve as the preliminary basis for the 2020 UWMP supply reliability analysis. The analysis provided in the SFPUC 2020 UWMP and the MPMW 2020 UWMP does not in any way imply an agreement by BAWSCA member agencies as to the exact allocation methodology. BAWSCA member agencies are in discussions about jointly developing an allocation method that would consider additional equity factors in the event that SFPUC is not able to deliver its contractual supply volume, and its cutbacks to the RWS supply exceed 20 percent.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
26 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

7.1.3 Alternative Water Supply Program
In early 2020, the SFPUC began implementation of the Alternative Water Supply Planning Program (AWSP), a program designed to investigate and plan for new water supplies to address future long-term water supply reliability challenges and vulnerabilities of the RWS particularly in light of the possible implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment.

Included in the AWSP is a suite of diverse, non-traditional supply projects that, to a great degree, leverage regional partnerships and are designed to meet the water supply needs of the SFPUC Retail and Wholesale Customers through 2045. As of the most recent Alternative Water Supply Planning Quarterly Update, SFPUC has budgeted $264 million over the next ten years to fund water supply projects. The drivers for the program include: (1) the adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment and the resulting potential limitations to RWS supply during dry years; (2) the net supply shortfall following the implementation of SFPUC’s Water System Improvement Plan (WSIP)8; (3) San Francisco’s perpetual obligation to supply 184 mgd to the Wholesale Customers; (4) adopted Level of Service Goals to limit rationing to no more than 20 percent system-wide during droughts; and (5) the potential need to identify water supplies that would be required to offer permanent status to interruptible customers.

The SFPUC is considering several water supply options and opportunities to meet all foreseeable water supply needs, including surface water storage expansion, recycled water expansion, water transfers, desalination, and potable reuse. These efforts and their expected benefit to supply reliability are listed below, and described in further detail in the MPMW 2020 UWMP and SFPUC 2020 UWMP:
• Daly City Recycled Water Expansion (Regional; Normal and Dry-Year Supply) • Alameda County Water District – Union Sanitary District Purified Water Partnership (Regional; Normal and Dry-Year Supply)
• Crystal Springs Purified Water (Regional; Normal and Dry-Year Supply) • Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion (Regional; Dry Year Supply) • Bay Area Brackish Water Desalination (Regional; Normal and Dry-Year Supply) • Calaveras Reservoir Expansion (Regional; Dry Year Supply) • Groundwater Banking (Dry Year Supply)
• Inter-Basin Collaborations
Capital projects under consideration would be costly and are still in the early feasibility and conceptual planning stages. The exact yields from these projects are not quantified at this time, as these supply 8 The Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) is a $4.8 billion dollar, multi-year capital program to upgrade the SFPUC's regional and local water systems. The program repairs, replaces, and seismically upgrades crucial portions of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System. The program consists of 87 projects (35 local projects located within San Francisco and 52 regional projects) spread over seven counties from the Sierra foothills to San Francisco. The San Francisco portion of the program is 100 percent complete as of October 2020. The Regional portion is approximately 99 percent complete. The current forecasted date to complete the overall WSIP is May 2023. Additional information on the WSIP is provided in Chapter 7 of MPMW’s 2020 UWMP.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
27 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
projects would take 10 to 30 years to implement and the exact amount of water that can be reasonably developed is currently unknown.

As with traditional infrastructure projects, there is a need to progress systematically from planning to environmental review, and then on to detailed design, permitting, and construction of these alternative water supply projects. Given the complexity and inherent challenges, these projects will require a long lead time to develop and implement. SFPUC staff have developed an approach and timeline to substantially complete planning and initiate environmental review by July 2023 for a majority of the alternative water supply projects under consideration.

Additional information on the AWSP is provided in Chapter 7 of MPMW’s 2020 UWMP.

7.2 MPMW Water Supply Reliability
In the MPMW 2020 UWMP, projected normal year supplies are shown to be adequate to satisfy MPMW’s projected normal year demands. However, in the MPMW 2020 UWMP, and this WSA, MPMW’s purchased supplies from the SFPUC RWS assume dry year supply reductions as a result of the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, which significantly reduces dry year allocations for SFPUC wholesale customers. Recycled water is estimated to be available during all hydrologic years at a volume that meets MPMW’s projected recycled water demands.

Table 7-2 shows MPMW’s projected supplies during normal, single dry and multiple dry years through 2040 based on the assumptions in the MPMW 2020 UWMP which assumes implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. Based on the SFPUC’s analysis, similar water supply quantities would be available to MPMW in 2045 under the various hydrologic conditions. 9 Table 7-2. Projected MPMW Water Supplies with Bay-Delta Plan Amendment Hydrologic Condition
Projected Water Supply, MG(a)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year(b) 1,678 1,750 1,750 1,750
Single Dry Year(c) 877 978 1,018 1,062
Multiple Dry Years – Year 1(d) 877 978 1,018 1,062
Multiple Dry Years – Year 2(d) 760 854 887 927
Multiple Dry Years – Year 3(d) 760 854 887 927
Multiple Dry Years – Year 4
(d) 760 854 887 832
Multiple Dry Years – Year 5
(d) 760 854 824 832
(a) Includes projected potable water supply from the SFPUC RWS and projected recycled water supply (48 MG/yr in 2025 and 120 MG/yr for 2030 to 2040) (see Table 6-1).
(b) Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 7-4.
(c) Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 7-5.
(d) Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 7-6
9 BAWSCA Drought Allocation Tables by Agency (Table K: Individual Agency Drought Allocations, Base Year 2045, With Bay-Delta Plan), dated April 1, 2021.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
28 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
The water supply estimates provided in Table 7-2 use the best available data at the time of the MPMW 2020 UWMP, but do not account for the following factors:
• Potential changes to the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment as discussed in Section 7.1.1 of this WSA
• Climate change impacts on the SFPUC RWS
• Potential delays in completion of the WSIP10
For comparison purposes, the SFPUC 2020 UWMP also evaluated a scenario without implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. Table 7-3 shows MPMW’s projected supplies during normal, single dry and multiple dry years for 2025 through 2040 assuming that the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is not implemented. SFPUC’s analysis indicated that it would be able to meet 100 percent of the wholesale projected purchases during all year types through 2045 except during the fourth and fifth consecutive dry years for base year 2045 when a 16.5 percent supply shortfall is projected for MPMW (note that 2045 supplies are not shown in Table 7-3 as they were not shown in MPMW’s 2020 UWMP).

Table 7-3. Projected MPMW Water Supplies without Bay-Delta Plan Amendment Hydrologic Condition
Projected Water Supply, MG(a)
2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year(b) 1,678 1,750 1,750 1,750
Single Dry Year(c) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
Multiple Dry Years – Year 1(c) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
Multiple Dry Years – Year 2(c) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
Multiple Dry Years – Year 3(c) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
Multiple Dry Years – Year 4
(c,d) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
Multiple Dry Years – Year 5
(c,d) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
(a) Includes projected potable water supply from the SFPUC RWS (based on projected purchases) and projected recycled water supply (48 MG/yr in 2025 and 120 MG/yr for 2030 to 2040) (see Table 6-1). (b) Source: MPMW 2020 UWMP, Table 7-4.
(c) Source: BAWSCA Drought Allocation Tables by Agency (Table A: Wholesale RWS Actual Purchases in 2020 and Projected Purchases for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045), dated April 1, 2021. Totals include projected recycled water supply. (d) A 16.5 percent reduction in supply from the SFPUC RWS is projected for MPMW in the fourth and fifth years of a multiple dry year drought, but not until 2045 (BAWSCA Drought Allocation Tables by Agency (Table O2: Individual Agency Drought Allocations, Base Year 2045, Without Bay-Delta Plan), dated April 1, 2021.
10 The San Francisco portion of the WSIP is 100 percent complete as of October 2020. The Regional portion of the WSIP is approximately 99 percent complete. The current forecasted date to complete the overall WSIP is May 2023.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
29 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

8.0 DETERMINATION OF WATER SUPPLY SUFFICIENCY BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF SB 610
10910(c)(4) If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision (b), the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses.
10911 (a) If, as a result of its assessment, the public water system concludes that its water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, the public water system shall provide to the city or county its plans for acquiring additional water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies.

Because of the uncertainties surrounding the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, this WSA presents findings for two scenarios, one assuming the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented and one assuming that the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is not implemented.

Table 8-1 summarizes the scenario where it is assumed the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented.

Under this scenario, the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the Proposed Project in normal years will meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to MPMW’s existing and planned future uses, through 2040. However, with the implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, significant supply shortfalls are projected in dry years for agencies that receive water supplies from the SFPUC RWS, as well as other agencies whose water supplies are affected by the Amendment. For MPMW, supply shortfalls are projected in single dry years (ranging from 27 to 32 percent) and in multiple dry years (ranging from 27 to 44 percent) through 2040. Based on SFPUC’s analysis, similar supply shortfalls would occur through 2045.

If supply shortfalls do occur, MPMW expects to meet these supply shortfalls through water demand reductions and other shortage response actions by implementation of its WSCP. 11 The projected single
dry year shortfalls would require implementation of Stage 3 or 4 of the MPMW WSCP, and the projected multiple dry year shortfalls would require implementation of Stage 3, 4 or 5 of the MPMW WSCP.

As described in Section 7.1.3 of this WSA, the SFPUC is implementing an Alternative Water Supply Planning Program to investigate and plan for new water supplies to address future long-term water supply reliability challenges and vulnerabilities on the RWS. Also, as described in Section 6.3.2 of this WSA, MPMW is implementing an Emergency Water Storage/Supply Project to provide a backup water supply to MPMW’s Lower Zone. However, because these potential additional supplies are still being developed, they are not included in Table 8-1.
11 A main focus of MPMW’s planned demand reduction measures is to increase public outreach and keep customers informed of the water shortage emergency and actions they can take to reduce consumption. The City will utilize its emergency supply well(s) as supply augmentation during WSCP Stages 5 and 6. Other actions that the City will take will include coordination with other agencies, implementing drought surcharge, increasing water waste patrols, etc. Additional information on MPMW’s WSCP is provided in Chapter 8 of MPMW’s 2020 UWMP.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
30 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Table 8-1. MPMW Summary of Water Demand Versus Supply with Bay-Delta Plan Amendment During Hydrologic Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years Hydrologic Condition
Supply and Demand Comparison, MG
2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year
Available Water Supply(a) 1,678 1,750 1,750 1,750
Total Water Demand(b) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 382 405 340 267
Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - -
Single Dry Year
Available Water Supply(c) 877 978 1,018 1,062
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) (419) (367) (392) (421)
Percent Shortfall of Demand 32% 27% 28% 28%
Multiple Dry Years
Multiple-Dry
Year 1
Available Water Supply(c) 877 978 1,018 1,062
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) (419) (367) (392) (421)
Percent Shortfall of Demand 32% 27% 28% 28%
Multiple-Dry
Year 2
Available Water Supply(c) 760 854 887 927
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) (536) (491) (523) (557)
Percent Shortfall of Demand 41% 37% 37% 38%
Multiple-Dry
Year 3
Available Water Supply(c) 760 854 887 927
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) (536) (491) (523) (557)
Percent Shortfall of Demand 41% 37% 37% 38%
Multiple-Dry
Year 4
Available Water Supply(c) 760 854 887 832
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) (536) (491) (523) (652)
Percent Shortfall of Demand 41% 37% 37% 44%
Multiple-Dry
Year 5
Available Water Supply(c) 760 854 824 832
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) (536) (491) (586) (652)
Percent Shortfall of Demand 41% 37% 42% 44%
(a) From Table 6-1 of this WSA.
(b) From Table 5-2 of this WSA.
(c) From Table 7-2 of this WSA.
(d) From Table 5-3 of this WSA.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
31 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Table 8-2 summarizes the scenario where it is assumed the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is not implemented. Under this scenario, the total projected water supplies determined to be available for the Proposed Project in normal years, single dry years and multiple dry years will meet the projected water demand associated with the Proposed Project, in addition to MPMW’s existing and planned future uses, through 2040. As described in Section 7.2, based on SFPUC’s analysis, a 16.5 percent supply shortfall is projected during the fourth and fifth consecutive dry years for base year 2045 (note that 2045 supplies and demands are not shown in Table 8-2 as they were not shown in MPMW’s 2020 UWMP). These projected supply shortfalls are significantly less than the projected supply shortfalls if the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented.

If supply shortfalls do occur, MPMW expects to meet these supply shortfalls through water demand reductions and other shortage response actions by implementation of its WSCP. 12 The projected multiple
dry year shortfalls in 2045 would require implementation of Stage 2 of the MPMW WSCP.

The water demand associated with buildout of ConnectMenlo, which includes the Proposed Project, is included in the MPMW water demand projections in its 2020 UWMP, and the Proposed Project would be subject to the same water conservation and water use restrictions as other water users within the MPMW system.
12 A main focus of MPMW’s planned demand reduction measures is to increase public outreach and keep customers informed of the water shortage emergency and actions they can take to reduce consumption. The City will utilize its emergency supply well(s) as supply augmentation during WSCP Stages 5 and 6. Other actions that the City will take will include coordination with other agencies, implementing drought surcharge, increasing water waste patrols, etc. Additional information on MPMW’s WSCP is provided in Chapter 8 of MPMW’s 2020 UWMP.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
32 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022
Table 8-2. MPMW Summary of Water Demand Versus Supply without Bay-Delta Plan Amendment During Hydrologic Normal, Single Dry, and Multiple Dry Years Hydrologic Condition
Supply and Demand Comparison, MG
2025 2030 2035 2040
Normal Year
Available Water Supply(a) 1,678 1,750 1,750 1,750
Total Water Demand(b) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 382 405 340 267
Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - -
Single Dry Year
Available Water Supply(c) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 48 120 120 120
Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - -
Multiple Dry Years
Multiple-Dry
Year 1
Available Water Supply(c) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 48 120 120 120
Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - -
Multiple-Dry
Year 2
Available Water Supply(c) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 48 120 120 120
Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - -
Multiple-Dry
Year 3
Available Water Supply(c) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 48 120 120 120
Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - -
Multiple-Dry
Year 4
Available Water Supply(c) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 48 120 120 120
Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - -
Multiple-Dry
Year 5
Available Water Supply(c) 1,344 1,465 1,530 1,603
Total Water Demand(d) 1,296 1,345 1,410 1,483
Potential Surplus (Deficit) 48 120 120 120
Percent Shortfall of Demand - - - -
(a) From Table 6-1 of this WSA.
(b) From Table 5-2 of this WSA.
(c) From Table 7-3 of this WSA.
(d) From Table 5-3 of this WSA.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
33 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

9.0 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT APPROVAL PROCESS
10910 (g)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the governing body of each public water system shall submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 90 days from the date on which the request was received.

The governing body of each public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this act pursuant to subdivision (b), shall approve the assessment prepared pursuant to this section at a regular or special meeting.

The Menlo Park City Council must approve this WSA at a regular or special meeting. This WSA will be included in the Draft EIR being prepared for the Proposed Project.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project
Water Supply Assessment
W-C-648-12-18-03-WP-R-648-WSA
34 Menlo Park Municipal Water
February 2022

10.0 REFERENCES
Architectural Technologies, Inc., 2021. Commonwealth Building 3 Planning Application, Sheet L1.01 Illustrative Landscape Plan. July 2021.

Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, 2021. Drought Allocation Tables by Agency. April 1, 2021.

City of Menlo Park. City Municipal Code Chapter 16.43 O Office District.

Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., 2016a. Water Supply Evaluation Study, ConnectMenlo – General Plan and M-2 Area Zoning Update, Menlo Park, California. Prepared for: City of Menlo Park. February 3, 2016.

Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. 2016b. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for Menlo Park Municipal Water District.

June 2016.

EKI Environment and Water, Inc. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Menlo Park Municipal Water District. June 2021. Includes the MPMW Water Shortage Contingency Plan as Appendix K.

ICF. 2019. Initial Study for Commonwealth Building 3 Project. May 2019.

PlaceWorks. 2016. ConnectMenlo Draft Environmental Impact Report. General Plan Land Use & Circulation Elements and M-2 Area Zoning Update. June 2016
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. April 2016.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2019. Water Supply Reliability Information for BAWSCA Member Agencies’ Water Supply Assessments. July 2019.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco. June 2021.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2021. Memorandum regarding Regional Water System Supply Reliability and UWMP 2020. June 2021.

Winzler & Kelly. 2014 (originally published June 2011 and amended November 2014). City of Menlo Park Final 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and Update to the Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

Resolution No. XXXX

Commonwealth Building 3 Project Water Use Budget
Appendix A
Resolution No. XXXX

General Project Information:

Project Name
General Description/Background
Applicant Information
Project Address
Project Lot Size 578,472 Sq. Ft.

Building Size (Gross Sq. Ft.) 249,500 Sq. Ft.

Land Use Designation
Estimated Project Completion Date: 2021
Water Budget Calculator Information:

Description:

Spreadsheet Information:

Overview:

A. "Green Tabs" Provide primary input and output information for the Water Budget B. "Blue" Tabs - Contain Reference Information, Reference Tabs further explained below. Specific project calculation assumptions are given within each tab.

Water Use Analysis Calculator
This spreadsheet is used to analyze the water usage for a project. It provides gallons per year water usage and as well water available for collection & treatment.

This spreadsheet is a tool for determining the best water conservation options for a project.

This spreadsheet auto creates graphs to include in reports/presenations.

Commonwealth
The project is a 4-story 249,500 SF Class-A office building with a 4-story parking structure. The project expands the existing campus 2 building campus.

Zoning: O-B
General Plan Land Use: Office
TBD Jefferson Drive
Menlo Park, CA
The Sobrato Organization:
599 Castro Street, Suite 400, Mountain View, CA 94041
4a. Provides snips from a Formal document referenced to provide a quantitative figure for water consumed in the food service portion of the building (gal/meal). 4a. Provides snips from the WELO report generated by the Irrigation consultant to document the assumption made for water consumed by irrigation at the site.

Tab 1: Fixture Water Usage Tab
2a. Fixture flow rates and daily usage have been utilized to calculate annual fixture and water usage. 3a. Cooling tower water consumption calculated based on annual weather conditions for the site and assumptions based on total cooling load for the buidling type. Assumptions given within tab.

Tab 4: Water Use Per Meal
Tab 5: Irrigation Demand
1a. Basis of design for individual fixture flow rates and daily usage have been input. Assumptions given within Tab.

Tab 3: Cooling Tower
Tab 2: Annual Fixture Water Usage Tab
P://Standard Project Files/Plumbing/Rainwater Reclamation/CW3 Updated Water Budget (TSO & PAE) 07.15.20 .xlsx Resolution No. XXXX

General Office 249,500 260 125 0.50 998 998 1,996 Employees Retail, general 0 365 500 0.50 0 0 0 Retail
Service (e.g. financial, auto) 0 310 500 0.50 0 0 0 Employees Restaurant 0 310 435 0.50 0 0 0 Transients
Grocery Store 0 365 550 0.50 0 0 0 Transients
Medical office 0 240 225 0.50 0 0 0 Transients
R&D or laboratory 0 240 400 0.50 0 0 0 Retail
Warehouse, distribution 0 310 2,500 0.50 0 0 0 Transients Warehouse, storage 0 310 20,000 0.50 0 0 0 Transients
Educational, daycare 0 180 630 0.50 0 0 0 Students
Educational, K-12 0 180 1,300 0.50 0 0 0 Students
Educational, postsecondary 0 180 2,100 0.50 0 0 0 Students User Defined 0 288 30 0.50 0 0 0 Retail
User Defined 0 250 100 0.50 0 0 0
User Defined 0 250 100 0.50 0 0 0
Total 249,500 - - - 998 998 1,996
Program Area (sf) Operation
(days/year) Bedrooms (#) Occupancy (people/bedroom) Total People (#/day) Market Rate Multifamily 0 365 0 1.5 0
Low Income Multifamily 0 365 0 2.0 0
Total 0 - 0 - 0
CALGreen
1,328,538
0 64,870
389,220
0 0
233,532
0 467,064
0 0
0 1,393,408
1,089,816
2,483,224
856,284
6,803
10 3
1,244
Public Occupancy
Program Area (sf) Male (#/day) Female (#/day) Total People (#/day) Occupancy Type Operation (days/year)
Occupant Density
(sf/person) Occupancy Ratio M/F (-)
Total Flow Fixture Water Use (gal/year)
Total Water Use (gal/sf/year)
Total Water Use (gal/person/day)
Total Water Use (gal/person/year)
Residential Showerhead (gal/year)
Residential Clothes Washer (gal/year)
Residential Dishwasher (gal/year)
Total Greywater Available (gal/year)
Total Water Use (gal/day)
Total Water Use (gal/year)
Total Flushing Water Use (gal/year)
Residential Occupancy
Kitchen Faucet (gal/year)
Showerhead (gal/year)
Residential Lavatory (gal/year)
Residential Kitchen Faucet (gal/year)
Fixture
Water Closet (gal/year)
Urinal (gal/year)
Water Usage - Plumbing Fixtures
Residential Water Closet (gal/year)
Public Lavatory (gal/year)
Public Lavatory - Metered (gal/year)
Resolution No. XXXX

260
1,996 Consistent with Occupants assumptions for building. 25%
Lunch Meals served/day (%of occupants) 100%
Dinner Meals served/day (% of occupants) 50%
Total Meals served/day 3,493 Based on % occupants which eat meals per day

10.0 `
34,930
9,081,800
36 17.5
4,550
94,866 sf Percent Monthly Usage

43.00 January 0%

4.25 February 1%

0.50 March 5%

0.30 April 9%

0.75 May 14%

0.75 June 15%
July 18%
2,445 August 16%
892,323
Max. Applied Water Allowance for site.

Refer to Ref-Irrigation Tab
September
14%
9 October 8%
1 November 2%
447 December 0%
1,273,144
Refer to Ref-CoolingTowerCalc for
assumptions
January 1%
February 2%
3,488 March 5%
1,273,144 April 8%
5 May 10%
2 June 12%
638 July 20%
August 20%
September 12%
October 7%
November 2%
December 1%
ASSUMPTIONS & NOTES: WEB LINK:
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance/

2. Occupant density based on assumption given by Architects on 02/06/2019

3. Total Building area and program provided by Owner on 01/30/2019

4. Operational days per year assumes business calendar year which excludes weekends and federal holidays

5. Water usage per meal (gal/meal) is based on Appendix E (page 62)Modeled Water Use in Office Buildings, Water Supply Evaluation Study Feb 2016 https://www.menlopark.org/DocumentCenter/View/9587/020916-ConnectMenlo-WSE-2016-02-04-FINAL?bidId= Meals per day has been updated to reflect the maximum
assumed meals per day. Previously provided the minimum.

Water Usage - Irrigation
see note #1
Percent Monthly Usage
Water Usage - Cooling Tower
Water Consumption (gal/year)
Evaporation Rate (ET˳)
Effective Precipication (Eppt)
Plant Water Use (PF) - Medium
Plant Water Use (PF) - Low
Irrigation Efficency (IE) - Overhead Sprinkler
Irrigation Efficency (IE) - Drip
Total Water Use (gal/sf/year)
Total Water Use (gal/sf/year)
Total Water Use (gal/person/day)
Total Water Use (gal/person/year)
Total Water Use (gal/day)
Total Water Use (gal/year)
Total Water Use (gal/sf/year)
See Note 5.

Based on Average of Modeled Water Use for Office buildings, Water Usage (gal/meal) Restaurants and Efficient Restaurants.

Total Water Use (gal/day)
Breakfast Meals served/day (% of Occupants)
Total Water Use (gal/year)
Consistent with Building Operational Days
Total Water Use (gal/person/year)
Total Water Use (gal/day)
Total Water Use (gal/person/day)
Total Landscape Area (sf)

1. Refer to Landscape Reference Tab, landscape data provided 02/20/2019. Landscape irrigation water volume utilized in water balance assumes irrigation uses Maximum Allocated Water Allowance value provided within WELO water budget for the site Food Service Operating Days per Year (#/year)
Total Water Use (gal/person/year)
Total Occupants Using Food Service Facility
Water Usage - Food Service
Total Water Use (gal/year)
Total Water Use (gal/person/day)
Resolution No. XXXX

Water Source Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total Flush Fixtures 116,117 116,117 116,117 116,117 116,117 116,117 116,117 116,117 116,117 116,117 116,117 116,117 1,393,408 Flow Fixtures 90,818 90,818 90,818 90,818 90,818 90,818 90,818 90,818 90,818 90,818 90,818 90,818 1,089,816 Irrigation 3,805 4,566 42,613 76,854 126,061 134,432 157,260 142,041 121,749 66,963 13,443 2,536 892,323 Cooling Tower 12,731 25,463 63,657 101,852 127,314 152,777 254,629 254,629 152,777 89,120 25,463 12,731 1,273,144 Food Service 756,817 756,817 756,817 756,817 756,817 756,817 756,817 756,817 756,817 756,817 756,817 756,817 9,081,800 Total 980,288 993,781 1,070,022 1,142,458 1,217,128 1,250,961 1,375,640 1,360,422 1,238,279 1,119,835 1,002,658 979,020 13,730,491 Water Usage Summary (gal)

0.0M

0.2M

0.4M

0.6M

0.8M

1.0M

1.2M

1.4M

1.6M
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

MONTHLY WATER CONSUMPTION SUMMARY
Flush Fixtures Flow Fixtures Food Service Cooling Tower Irrigation Water Usage (gallons)
Resolution No. XXXX

Water Closet (male) 1.28
Water Closet (female) 1.28
Urinal 0.125
Public Lavatory 0.25
Kitchen Faucet 0.45
Showerhead 9.00
Employees Transients Retail Students Residential
Water Closet (male) 1.28 gpf n/a 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.0
Water Closet (female) 1.28 gpf n/a 3.0 0.5 0.2 3.0 0.0
Urinal 0.125 gpf n/a 2.0 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.0
Public Lavatory 0.50 gpm 30 3.0 0.5 0.2 3.0 0.0
Kitchen Faucet 1.80 gpm 15 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Showerhead 1.80 gpm 300 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
ASSUMPTIONS & NOTES:

1. Fixture frequency of use and duration time per occupant and gender ratio are based on LEED Water Use Reduction - Additional Guidance

2. Baseline flow rates are based on CalGreen, LEED flow rates and project design flow rates are given for reference Individual Fixture Water Usage
Fixture Water Consumption
Fixture Type
Maximum Installed Duration
IP (sec)
Fixture Type CalGreen
(gal/use)
Default Uses per Day (FTE)
Water Usage - CALGreen
Resolution No. XXXX

Public Water
Closet Public Urinal Public Lavatory Public Lavatory -
Metered
Public Kitchen
Faucet
Public
Showerhead
General Office 1,037,920 518,960 1,556,880 1,556,880 518,960 51,896 Retail, general 0 0 0 0 0 0
Service (e.g. financial, auto) 0 0 0 0 0 0
Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grocery Store 0 0 0 0 0 0
Medical office 0 0 0 0 0 0
R&D or laboratory 0 0 0 0 0 0
Warehouse, distribution 0 0 0 0 0 0
Warehouse, storage 0 0 0 0 0 0
Educational, daycare 0 0 0 0 0 0
Educational, K-12 0 0 0 0 0 0
Educational, postsecondary 0 0 0 0 0 0
User Defined 0 0 0 0 0 0
User Defined 0 0 0 0 0 0
User Defined 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total: 1,037,920 518,960 1,556,880 1,556,880 518,960 51,896 Fixture Type gal/use Uses/Year Gal/Year
Public Water Closet 1.28 1,037,920 1,328,538 1,393,408 Flush Residential Water Closet 1.28 0 0 1,089,816 Flow
Public Urinal 0.13 518,960 64,870 2,483,224
Public Lavatory 0.25 1,556,880 389,220
Public Lavatory - Metered 0.00 1,556,880 0
Residential Lavatory 1.20 0 0
Public Kitchen Faucet 0.45 518,960 233,532
Residential Kitchen Faucet 1.80 0 0
Public Showerhead 9.00 51,896 467,064
Residential Showerhead 0.00 0 0
Residential Clothes Washer 0.00 0 0
Residential Dishwasher 0.00 0 0
Total 2,483,224
Annual Fixture Water Usage
Water Usage - CALGreen
Water Usage - CALGreen
Program
Public Uses/Year (dependant on occupant type)
Resolution No. XXXX

CALCULATION
Description: The intent of this spreadsheet is to calculate the water consumption for a cooling tower based on anticipated building loads and TMY3 weather data for the site.

Instructions:
1 Enter facility data into table below.
2 Enter TMY3 weather data into "TMY3" tab, from this website:
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1991-2005/tmy3/by_state_and_city.html Cooling Design Day Dry Bulb Temperature (F) 88.1
Chiller at Zero Capacity Dry Bulb Temperature (F) 55
Peak Chiller Capacity (Tons) 0
Chiller Efficiency at Peak Output (kW/Ton) 0.55
Drift (%) 0.005%
Cycles of Concentration 5
7:00 AM
7:00 PM
Weekdays
Cooling Plant Hours of Operation per Year 2581
Cooling Tower Load 9,365,963 BTUH
Full Load Evaporation Rate 1,123 GPH
Full Load Drift Rate 6 GPH
Full Load Blowdown 281 GPH
Full Load Water Use 1,410 GPH
Chiller Plant Operating Capacity Hours Percent Water Consumption >=100% Capacity 21 0.80% 29,214 gallons
75-99% Capacity 114 4.40% 140,955 gallons
50-74% Capacity 542 21.01% 481,706 gallons
25-49% Capacity 771 29.89% 413,434 gallons
0-24% Capacity 1134 43.92% 207,835 gallons
Total 2581 100% 1,273,144 Gallons
Peak chiller capacity based 375 sq. ft. per ton.

Cooling Tower Water Use

INPUTS NOTES
Refer to ASHRAE weather table "Cooling DB - 0.4%" for the site.

Outdoor Air Temperature where it is assumed that the chiller will be off (air-side economizer limit).

Manufacturer based value.

0.001 to 0.005% of the circulation rate are typical.
3-6 are typical, 10 is high. Varies greatly depending on make-up water quality.

Facility Hours of Operation
Daily Start Time
Daily End Time
Days of the Week

OUTPUTS NOTES
Hours of the year during operating hours when Outdoor Air Temperature is above 55 deg F.

One pound of water evaporated for 1,000 BTUH cooling tower load, water density is 8.337 lbs/1 gallon.

W:\Clients\648 City of Menlo Park\12-18-03 Jefferson Dr WSA\CORR\Received\CW3 Updated Water Budget (TSO & PAE) 07.15.20 .xlsx

3. Ref-CoolingTowerCalc
printed 7/29/2021
Resolution No. XXXX

Gallons Per Meal Assumption Reference
Resolution No. XXXX

PER UPDATE ON 02/18/2019
This table includes the "special landscape area"
This table is used for the MAWA for the site and to calculate the curve / monthly % irrigation Total Irrigation consumption for site includes a 10% safety factor added to the MAWA to account for adjustments to landscape area design.

GUZZARDO: PLANT FACTORS ARE BASED ON THE WUCOLS LIST FOR THE HIGHEST WATER USE PLANT WITHIN EACH HYDROZONE.

GUZZARDO: SPREADSHEET INPUT ERROR. 75% IS THE CORRECT IE. ATTACHED ADJUSTED WATER ESTIMATES INCLUDED IN RESPONSE.

MAWA 1,394,255 gallons
Site Irrigation Assumption 892,323 gallons
jan 3,806 0%
feb 4,567 1%
mar 42,623 5%
apr 76,873 9%
may 126,092 14%
jun 134,465 15%
jul 157,298 18%
aug 142,076 16%
sep 121,779 14%
oct 66,979 8%
nov 13,446 2%
dec 2,537 0%
total 892,541
Irrigation Water Use
- What is the basis of the
assumed Plant Factor (PF) for
each hydrozone. Provide
additional detail.
- Why does Zone 3 utilize an
Irrigation Efficiency (IE) of

0.81? If overhead spray, should
assume 0.75.

Resolution No. XXXX

Regional Water System Supply Reliability and
UWMP 2020 (June 2021)
Appendix B
Resolution No. XXXX

San Francisco
Water Power Sewer
Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
Try 415.554.3488
London N. Breed
Mayor
Sophie Maxwell
President
Anson Moran
Vice President
Tim Paulson
Commissioner
Ed Harrington
Corn rn issioner
Newsha AJaml
Corn missioner
Michael Carlin
Acting
General Manager
TO: SFPUC Wholesale Customers
FROM: Steven R. Ritchie, Assistant General Manager, Water DATE: June 2. 2021
RE: Regional Water System Supply Reliability and UWMP 2020 This memo is in response to various comments from Wholesale Customers we have received regarding the reliability of the Regional Water System supply and San Francisco's 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).

As you are all aware, the UWMP makes clear the potential effect of the amendments to the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on December 12, 2018 should it be implemented. Regional Water System-wide water supply shortages of 40-50% could occur until alternative water supplies are developed to replace those shortfalls. Those shortages could increase dramatically if the State Water Board's proposed Water Quality Certification of the Don Pedro Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing were implemented.

We are pursuing several courses of action to remedy this situation as detailed below.

Pursuing a Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement
The State Water Board included in its action of December 12, 2018 a provision allowing for the development of Voluntary Agreements as an alternative to the adopted Plan. Together with the Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts, we have been actively pursuing a Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement (TRVA) since January 2017. We believe the TRVA is a superior approach to producing benefits for fish with a much more modest effect on our water supply.

Unfortunately, it has been a challenge to work with the State on this, but we continue to persist, and of course we are still interested in early implementation of the TRVA.

Evaluating our Drought Planning Scenario in light of climate change Ever since the drought of 1987-92, we have been using a Drought Planning Scenario with a duration of 8.5 years as a stress test of our Regional Water System supplies. Some stakeholders have criticized this methodology as being too conservative. This fall we anticipate our Commission convening a workshop OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.

Resolution No. XXXX

regarding our use of the 8.5-year Drought Planning Scenario, particularly in light of climate change resilience assessment work that we have funded through the Water Research Foundation. We look forward to a valuable discussion with our various stakeholders and the Commission.

Pursuing Alternative Water Supplies
The SFPUC continues to aggressively pursue Alternative Water Supplies to address whatever shortfall may ultimately occur pending the outcome of negotiation and/or litigation. The most extreme degree of Regional Water System supply shortfall is modeled to be 93 million gallons per day under implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan amendments. We are actively pursuing more than a dozen projects, including recycled water for irrigation, purified water for potable use, increased reservoir storage and conveyance, brackish water desalination, and partnerships with other agencies, particularly the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts. Our goal is to have a suite of alternative water supply projects ready for CEQA review by July 1, 2023.

In litigation with the State over the Bay-Delta Plan Amendments On January 10, 2019, we joined in litigation against the State over the adoption of the Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Plan Amendments on substantive and procedural grounds. The lawsuit was necessary because there is a statute of limitations on CEQA cases of 30 days, and we needed to preserve our legal options in the event that we are unsuccessful in reaching a voluntary agreement for the Tuolumne River. Even then, potential settlement of this litigation is a possibility in the future.

In litigation with the State over the proposed Don Pedro FERC Water Quality Certification
The State Water Board staff raised the stakes on these matters by issuing a Water Quality Certification for the Don Pedro FERC relicensing on January 15, 2021 that goes well beyond the Bay-Delta Plan amendments. The potential impact of the conditions included in the Certification appear to virtually double the water supply impact on our Regional Water System of the Bay-Delta Plan amendments. We requested that the State Water Board reconsider the Certification, including conducting hearings on it, but the State Water Board took no action. As a result, we were left with no choice but to once again file suit against the State. Again, the Certification includes a clause that it could be replaced by a Voluntary Agreement, but that is far from a certainty.

I hope this makes it clear that we are actively pursuing all options to resolve this difficult situation. We remain committed to creating benefits for the Tuolumne River while meeting our Water Supply Level of Service Goals and Objectives for our retail and wholesale customers.
cc.: SFPUC Commissioners
Nicole Sandkulla, CEO/General Manager, BAWSCA
Resolution No. XXXX

180
220
149
4600
135
141
181
199
150
(High School)
209
235
101
162
180
165
155
230
194
193
201
160
150
1205
255
189
138
190
186
171
1150
1 1215
167
2 3
165
4 130
161
15 16
251
255
243
236
231
176
247
308
300
235
276
239
239
303
307
172
236
243
207
268
311
247
17 272
208
227
216
220
287
224 223
212
228
180
232
232
248
211
211
219
264
240
283
215
244
267
216
227
183
201
231
187
220 223
207
248
251
275
279
271
255
263
219
195
228
205
256
212
260
224
259
191
215
252
235
259
1056
304
1039
1051
1043
1047
1036
1107
18 1032
1103
1052
1048
1111
168
307
276
272
268
264
260
256
1115
179
1119
1027
14 1123
308 135 263 1101
1127
311
US HIGHWAY 101

CONSTITUTION DR

HEDGE RD

JEFFERSON DR

CHRYSLER DR

CHILCO ST
STATE HIGHWAY 84

OAKHURST PL

COMMONWEALTH DR
US HIGHWAY 101

CITY OF MENLO PARK

LOCATION MAP
DRAWN: TAS CHECKED:
164 JEFFERSON DRIVE
KTP DATE: 06/03/19 SCALE: 1" = 300' SHEET: 1
´

PROJECT

LOCATION
A1 ATTACHMENT B Page F-1.61
COMMONWEALTH BUILDING 3 PROJECT WSA
162-164 JEFFERSON DRIVEMarch 22, 2022 City Council Meeting F1-PRESENTATION
 Meeting Purpose
 Proposed Project Projected Water Demand Water Supply Availability Recommendation  Consider a water supply assessment (WSA) for the
Commonwealth Building 3 project – Council is acting as the governing body for Menlo Park Municipal Water (MPMW)
– WSA is required because the proposed project includes more than 250,000 s.f. of office (life sciences/R&D uses)
 The WSA evaluates whether sufficient water supply is available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years to meet project demand over 15-year period, starting 2025 through 2040 – Also accounts for planned growth in service area  Approving the WSA would not:
– Commit the City to serve water to the proposed project – Consider and/or endorse the merits of the project– Approve the project

MEETING PURPOSE
3  Approving the WSA would allow the City to incorporate the document into the project environmental impact report (EIR)– California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires governing body of water system that would supply water to the project to:• Determine whether the projected water demand of the project was included in the most recent urban water management plan (UWMP) • Prepare a water supply assessment to be adopted at a regular or special meeting of the governing body

MEETING PURPOSE
4  Site zoned O-B (Office-Bonus)
 13.3-acre parcel contains two
existing office buildings, 1,061 parking spaces, onsite amenities  249,500 s.f. of additional office
use, parking garage, publicly accessible open space proposed– Existing buildings would remain  Floor area ratio (FAR) for entire
site would be 88%
 Located in Lower Zone of MPMW
service area 5

PROPOSED PROJECT
 Proposed project incorporates conservation measures
– Ultra-low-flow fixtures within the building equipment– Water use for irrigation based on maximum applied water allowance in accordance with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO)  Purple pipe installation would allow the project to use recycled water when it becomes available in the area
 Project is within permitted cumulative development totals in:
– ConnectMenlo General Plan Update– ConnectMenlo water supply evaluation and EIR– MPMW 2015 and 2020 UWMPs

PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
6 WATER DEMAND
7  MPMW purchases all potable water from Regional Water System (RWS) operated by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission– MPMW has an individual supply guarantee of 1,630 million gallons/year through 2034
 Reliability of water supply in drought years affected by 2018 BayDelta Amendment implementation – Would require release of 40% of unimpaired flow of three San Joaquin River tributaries to increase salmonid fish populations each year from February through June
 WSA evaluates findings for a scenario where Bay-Delta Plan is implemented and one where it is not implemented

WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY
8 9

WATER SUPPLY AVAILABILITY
 Adopt resolution approving the WSA
– Incorporate changes staff read into the record through this presentation– Approval of WSA does not approve the proposed project

RECOMMENDATION
10 THANK YOU
Community Development
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 3/22/2022
Staff Report Number: 20-055-CC
Regular Business: Authorize the city manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with the M-Group
for the Housing Element Update project and appropriate
funds
Recommendation
Staff recommends the City Council authorize the city manager to execute an amendment to the professional services agreement with the M-Group for the Housing Element Update (Attachment A), in the amount of $ $490,052 for a total contract amount of $1,472,052 and appropriate $1,423,785 from unassigned fund balance in the general fund.

Policy Issues
Under California law every jurisdiction in the State is required to update its housing element every eight years and have it certified by the California Department of Housing and Community development (HCD.) The Housing Element must be consistent with the City’s General Plan and updated for compliance with State law and include goals, policies and implementing programs to facilitate the construction of new housing and preservation of existing housing to meet the needs across all income levels in the City.

Similarly, the City has obligations to meet State law requirements to update the City’s Safety Element for compliance with SB 379 and the preparation of an Environmental Justice Element per SB 1000. The proposed contract amendment would support the work needed to prepare the documents necessary to meet the requirements and the technical studies to help inform members of the public and decision-makers about the potential environmental and fiscal impacts associated with the project.

Background
In recognition of the state-mandated timeline, the complexity and the importance of the Housing Element process and its related work, the City Council unanimously identified the Housing Element Update as one of its top five project priorities in August 2020 for fiscal year 2020-21. Subsequently, the City Council amended the fiscal year 2020-21 budget by $1.69 million, including $1.5 million for the project components and the remaining funds for partial-year funding for 2.0 full-time equivalent personnel. The City was able to successfully recruit a senior planner to assist with the project, but the Community Development Director position has remained vacant. The City Council has continued to express support for the Housing Element Update as a top City priority.

In December 2020, staff issued an initial request for qualifications (RFQ) to seek a “prime consultant” to work with the City to assemble and manage a team of qualified consultants to accomplish the project. The RFQ was followed by a request for proposals (RFP) from two qualified firms and on March 23, 2021, after recommendation from two Housing Element interview panels, the City Council authorized the city manager to negotiate a scope of work and fee not to exceed $982,000, and execute a professional services agreement with the M-Group for the Housing Element update. The executed contract is included as AGENDA ITEM F-2 Page F-2.1
Staff Report #: 21-055-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Attachment B. Table 1 below identifies the consultant team members and their primary role for the project.

Table 1: Consultant team
Consultant Project component
M-Group Lead consultant; Housing Element, Environmental Justice Element and Safety Element
ESA Environmental impact report and water supply assessment Hexagon Transportation analysis for environmental review BAE Fiscal impact analysis, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) analysis and school construction cost estimates
ChangeLab Solutions Environmental Justice policy and engagement advisor Climate Resilient Communities* Lead public engagement and outreach for the Environmental Justice and Safety Elements
*Proposed subconsultant as part of contract amendment
In addition to the contract with the M-Group, the City has also engaged the services of other vendors to support the Housing Element Update. These services include printing and mailing citywide newsletters and simulcast Spanish interpretation at many of our virtual community meetings. The City works directly with these vendors and the fees for services are within the city manager’s contracting authority.

Analysis
The Housing Element Update is a complex, technical, and fast-moving project in order to meet statemandated requirements and deadlines. The original scope of work and budget includes a considerable amount of work for the consultant team and the team has accomplished a number of milestones in the past 10 months, including robust outreach, identification of potential housing opportunity sites, land use strategies, and policy themes to meet the City’s RHNA, and completion of the notice of preparation (NOP) to initiate the environmental review process. M-Group, the prime consultant, and the subconsultant team have remained committed to the project and responsive to meeting the project needs. As identified previously, this has required the consultants to perform tasks outside of the original scope and budget, and additional consultant resources to meet the demand and timeline of the project. The continued pace and expectations for the project would also require adjustments to the contract to complete the project by the State-mandated deadline. Staff is requesting a scope and budget amendment to M-Group’s professional service agreement for the Housing Element Update in the amount of $490,052 for a total contract amount of $1,472,052. Of this proposed budget augment, $44,860 would be for optional tasks for additional meetings, if needed. Staff is recommending the optional tasks at this time to provide flexibility and be timely in responding to meeting needs. The proposed scope and fees by consultant are provided in more detail in Attachment A and summarized below in Table 2 below.

Page F-2.2
Staff Report #: 21-055-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Table 2: Proposed scope and budget amendments
Consultant Original budget Proposed
budget augment
Optional
tasks
Total budget with
optional tasks
Prime consultant
M-Group $471,112 $197,525 $42,400 $711,037
Subconsultants
ESA $318,060 No change $318,060
Hexagon $64,250 $33,000 $97,250
BAE $56,395 No change $56,395
ChangeLab Solutions $30,000 $8,610 $2,460 $41,070
Climate Resilient Communities (CRC) N/A $186,318 $186,318 M-Group 9% contract management fee $42,183 $19,739* $61,922 $982,000 $445,192 $44,860 $1,472,052
*Applied to Hexagon and CRC
Consultant services scope and budget
The proposed amendments are generally categorized into three areas: 1) community outreach and engagement, 2) data and technical review and 3) project administration.

Community engagement
A key component of the Housing Element Update is community engagement and outreach. Over the past 10 months, the project team has conducted extensive outreach and engaged with the community members and other stakeholders across multiple touchpoints, including community, Commission and City Council meetings, smaller focus group discussions, pop up events and both print and digital media. These opportunities offered interested persons ways to learn about the project and/or provide their input. The requested budget includes tasks that have been performed to support these efforts. The proposed budget also includes work expected to occur during the remainder of the project and would strengthen the engagement and outreach efforts.

At the February 8, 2022 meeting, the City Council provided direction to staff to collaborate with a community based organization (CBO) to lead the outreach and engagement for the Environmental Justice and Safety Elements. In response, the project team is proposing to partner with Climate Resilient Communities (CRC.) CRC is a CBO focused on serving the underrepresented and empowering communities to implement climate solutions that bring unity and resilience. CRC was identified for their work in nearby communities of East Palo Alto and North Fair Oaks and more importantly, for their established relationships with the Belle Haven community, which is the primary area for the focus of the Environmental Justice element. CRC would be a new subconsultant to the M-Group and their proposed scope of work would be conducted in two primary phases: 1) community outreach and engagement before the release of the draft Environmental Justice and Safety Elements, 2) outreach after the release of the draft environmental impact report (EIR) and Environmental Justice and Safety Elements. Their scope includes an intense series workshops, focus groups, and a survey to further engage and solicit input from residents suffering from environmental injustices.

A key feature of the community engagement will include the Belle Haven Climate Change Community Team (CCCT), which is currently being established and would be comprised of residents, community service providers, faith-based leaders, business owners, community-based organizations and city affiliates. The CCCT conducted its first meeting on March 16 and is expected to have monthly meetings from March to December to support the work effort. While CRC facilitates the group, the CCCT would be communityPage F-2.3 Staff Report #: 21-055-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org driven and community-led. CRC will also partner with additional CBOs through the engagement process and a consultant (City Systems) to conduct a survey. CRC’s proposal is $186,318, which is a considerable portion of the proposed budget amendment, and would include personnel and subconsultants, translation of materials and interpretation at meetings, printing and mailing, as well as funding for food at meetings, gift cards for workshop and focus groups attendees, survey participants, and overhead costs. CRC would be the lead for all outreach and engagement related to the Environmental Justice and Safety Elements with MGroup and staff having limited roles, although some support and coordination will be needed. M-Group anticipates an additional $10,000 would be needed to support the CBO efforts. CRC has been collaborating with M-Group and staff on the preparations for an upcoming community meeting regarding the Environmental Justice and Safety Elements planned for April 5.

Data and technical review
The Housing Element Update has new technical and site inventory requirements. Given the complexity of the analysis and various considerations based upon feedback at City Council, Commission and community meetings, additional geographic information system (GIS) analysis for the land use inventory and mapping were performed and is anticipated to be needed to finalize maps for the final documents.

Staff is also requesting additional funding to support the preparation of a level of service (LOS) traffic analysis from Hexagon. While LOS is no longer an environmental threshold as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines requires an LOS analysis, unless exempt. Given the programmatic analysis of the Housing Element and the lack of any specific residential development project details, the LOS analysis would be at a higher level than typical, but still would be helpful as another point of information. The cost of the LOS analysis is $30,000.

ChangeLab solutions was brought on as part of the initial consultant team as a policy advisor for the preparation of the Environmental Justice Element. The proposed budget augmentation is to support the preparation and attendance at the upcoming community meeting planned for April 5 on the topic of Environmental Justice and two subsequent Planning Commission and/or City Council study sessions. There is an optional task for two additional Planning Commission and/or City Council meetings to support the adoption of the Environmental Justice element, and staff recommends that the optional tasks for a total of $11,070 be approved as part of the proposed budget.

Project Administration
A project of this scale requires close collaboration and coordination. The project team meets routinely once a week, in addition to topic-specific calls to discuss various work products and/or tasks. These meetings are important to keep the project advancing on the aggressive timeline, and an $49,000 is requested. In addition, the M-Group has assisted with a variety of Spanish translations, including presentations and proofreading newsletters, as well as and anticipates that additional time beyond what was originally budgeted will be needed for the remainder of Commission and City Council meetings. The proposed scope also includes an optional task for additional community, Commission, and City Council meetings in the event that the meetings are needed to support or review the project beyond what is already planned. The cost associated with this optional item is $42,400. Staff would recommend that the additional $42,400 be used as a contingency budget to support any unforeseen tasks rather than solely for additional meetings.

Staff believes that providing for this flexibility now would be helpful to prevent delays in the work. The MGroup as the prime consultant is also the project manager and responsible for coordinating all of the subconsultant work. A nine percent management fee is applied to the proposed subconsultant work, for a total of approximately $20,000. M-Group did not apply the management fee to ChangeLab Solution’s proposed scope.

Page F-2.4
Staff Report #: 21-055-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Budget appropriation
As part of the fiscal year 2020-21 budget, the City Council appropriated $1.5 million from the General Fund to support the Housing Element Update. The original M-Group professional services agreement amount was $982,000, which was encumbered that fiscal year. The remaining budget was anticipated to be left unassigned, but available for work on the Housing Element Update. With the proposed augmentations, the total contract amount would be $1,472,052, which would be within the allocated $1.5 budget.

As part of the fiscal year 2021-22 budget, any remaining contract amount and budgeted amount would typically be carried forward if a project is still active. In this case, the carryover would have been $905,785, for the contract and $518,000 as part of the unassigned $1.5 million budget. However, staff has determined that these funds were inadvertently not transferred, resulting in the Housing Element without a formal budget. The team has continuously worked to not delay the project while the budget was reviewed in more detail. To help with payments of invoices, funds from the General Capital Fund have been temporarily assigned to this project. An appropriation is now needed to support the Housing Element work that has been performed and to complete the contract. Staff is requesting the City Council appropriate funding from the unassigned fund balance (fund 100) to the general fund CIP (fund 501) to account for paid invoices and for future work associated with the proposed budget augmentation. The total appropriation would be $1,423,785 to restore the original $1.5 million budget from fiscal year 2020-21.

The City has been awarded two grants (Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) and Regional Early Action Planning (REAP)) totaling $190,491 for qualifying work on the Housing Element. In addition, the City was awarded a SB 2 grant for $160,000, which approximately $75,000 of the funds could be used to support zoning regulation amendments that reduce barriers to maximizing density and development. As part of the Housing Element, consideration will be given to potential zoning amendments in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan area that would help foster the production of housing. These grant funds totaling $265,491 could help offset the $1.5 million budget allocated to the Housing Element.

Impact on City Resources
As part of the fiscal year 2020-21 budget, the City Council appropriated $1.5 million from the general fund to support the Housing Element Update, which is a City Council priority. Staff is seeking use of the full $1.5 million budget to support work for the completion of the Housing Element Update. The total M-Group contract amount would be $1,472,052. The remainder of the $1.5 million would be used to support services such as the newsletter production and mailing, court reporter for the EIR public hearing and other support services. The budget appropriation would need to amend the fiscal year 2021-22 budget by $1,423,785.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines §§15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment. An EIR is being prepared to evaluate the Housing Element Update.

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

Page F-2.5
Staff Report #: 21-055-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Attachments
A. First amendment to contract with M-Group for Housing Element Update B. Executed contract with M-Group for Housing Element Update Report prepared by:

Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director
Report reviewed by:

Justin Murphy, Interim City Manager
Page F-2.6
CC Rev 20210301

AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
City Manager’s Office
701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025
tel 650-330-6620
Amendment #: 3223.1

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN

THE CITY OF MENLO PARK AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP (M-GROUP) THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into this __________________________, by and between the CITY OF MENLO PARK, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “CITY,” and METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP (M-GROUP), hereinafter referred to as “FIRST PARTY.”

1. Pursuant to Section 4 Compensation and Payment of Agreement No. 3223, (“Agreement”), Section 4A Compensation and Payment [amendment to section] to read as follows” “CITY shall pay FIRST PARTY an all-inclusive fee that shall not exceed $1,472,052 (an amendment of $490,052) as described in Exhibit "A," Scope of Services. All payments shall be inclusive of all indirect and direct charges to the Project incurred by FIRST PARTY. The CITY reserves the right to withhold payment if the City determines that the quantity or quality of the work performed is unacceptable.”
Except as modified by this Amendment, all other terms and conditions of Agreement No. 3223 remain the same.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written.

SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW
ATTACHMENT A Page F-2.7
2 CC Rev 20200301
FOR FIRST PARTY:

Signature Date
Printed name Title
Tax ID#
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Nira F. Doherty, City Attorney Date
FOR CITY OF MENLO PARK:

Justin I.C. Murphy, Interim City Manager Date
ATTEST:

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk Date
Page F-2.8
m-group a new design on urban planning
policy planning  urban design  environmental review  historic preservation  community engagement  staffing solutions m-group.us 51 E Campbell Ave, #1247, Campbell, CA 95009 408.340.5642

MEMORANDUM
Date: March 17, 2022
To: Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director From: Geoff I. Bradley, AICP, Principal, M-Group
Subject: Menlo Park Housing Element Update – Budget Augment Request This memo is updated and supersedes the previous budget request memos dated August 10, 2021, September 17, 2021, and December 6, 2021.

As M-Group moves forward with this multi-faceted project, we are seeing where task budgets are being exceeded due to unanticipated levels of effort required and out of scope tasks and meetings.

As indicated in the prior budget memos the following efforts have occurred outside the original scope of work or involved significantly more effort than planned for:
1) City Council Kick-off Meeting on May 25, 2021
2) Additional CEOC & Subcommittee meetings
3) Multiple reviews of documents including the city-wide housing survey 4) Additional Focus Groups and Pop-up events
5) Weekly project management meetings (every 2 weeks anticipated in scope) 6) Policy focused Housing Commission meeting (November 17, 2021) 7) Anticipated additional Commission and Council meetings as needed 8) Addition of a Community Based Organization to the project team 9) City request for Level of Service traffic analysis not required by CEQA As a result, we find the need to request additional budget in the following tasks:

M-Group Budget Augment
Task 1.1 – Project Kick off meeting. This task was envisioned for a traditional kick off meeting with city staff but was used to cover a meeting with the City Council as well as the city staff meeting. We request an additional budget to cover this overage. Request: $5,856 Task 1.2 – Updates to HC & PC. This task has exceeded the budgeted amount in an effort to cover a policy focused meeting with the Housing Commission, we request additional budget to cover the overage for the report, presentation and meeting time. Request: $2,626.

Task 1.4 – Project Management & Coordination. This task has exceeded the budgeted amount only part way through the project. We request this budget be increased to account for the numerous weekly meetings on a variety of topics (scope assumed one meeting every two weeks) as well as higher than expected project management time required.

Exhibit A
Page F-2.9
m-group.us 51 E Campbell Ave, #1247, Campbell, CA 95009 408.340.5642 We have also provided a variety of Spanish translations, including presentations, flashing solar signs and survey handouts. Additionally, M-Group staff is helping to record the Spanish version of meetings. This task budget increase would be to cover both the overages and an additional anticipated work through the project’s completion. Request: $49,000
Task 2.1 – CEOC Meetings(4) meetings and (2) CEOC subcommittee meetings. The time required for staff reports, presentations and meeting attendance has greatly exceeded what we expected for a committee of this type. M-Group has worked closely with staff for seven planned meetings and six attended due to a last minute cancellation due to lack of quorum. We request a budget increase to account for the expanded effort. Request: $18,000.

Task 2.3 – Community Engagement Plan. This task has exceeded the budgeted amount to address needed updates based on staff and CEOC input. Request: $3,269
Task 2.4 – Update Master Contact List. In response to expanded outreach efforts management of the Master Contact list has exceeded the budgeted amount. This task budget increase is to cover current overages and an anticipated additional work to maintain the list. Request: $2,249 Task 2.9 – General Survey. This task is over budget by which we request as a budget increase. The survey required numerous revisions and. We also assigned one of our Spanish speaking planners to support us in this effort including other on-going outreach efforts. Request: $6,915 Task 2.11 – Focus Groups. This task has expanded from five (5) focus groups to seven (7). We request a task budget increase consistent with the original budget’s cost per meeting. Request: $7,320 Task 2.12 – Interviews and Small Group Meetings. This task shifted from up to twenty-four (24) phone and/or video conference interviews to 14 small group interviews with additional outreach and coordination. We request a task budget increase to cover current overages. Request: $5,658 Task 2.13 – Community Meetings. Originally this task covered five (5) general outreach meetings, one for each council district. However, this task shifted to providing (6) city-wide meetings organized by topic and project process. Request: $16,888
Task 2.14 – Project Gallery. This task increase would cover budget overages and an additional anticipated work required for coordination at the two gallery locations. Request: $2,700 Task 2.15 – Farmers’ Market Pop-ups. This task has expanded from four (4) to eight (8) separate pop-up events and are requiring more staff people than anticipated due to the multiple simultaneous locations.

We request an additional budget for this task to cover existing overages and an additional budget for additional events. Request: $9,296
Task 2.18 – Coordination with Community Based Organization. In anticipation of a Community Based Organization (Climate Resilient Communities or CRC) partnering with the City to lead additional outreach efforts, this increase would cover M-Group services relating to those efforts. This includes document preparation and review, as well as staff attendance at outreach events. Request: $9,500 Tasks 3.3 & Task 3.4 – Planning Commission and City Council Meetings. Extensive work for the preparation of staff reports and presentations was required for the October 4, 2021, joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Housing Commission, as well as the October 26, 2021, and December 8, 2021, City Council meeting. Request: $18,768 and $8,348 for Tasks 3.3 and 3.4, respectively.

Page F-2.10
m-group.us 51 E Campbell Ave, #1247, Campbell, CA 95009 408.340.5642 Task 3.5 – Planning Commission Preferred Land Use Concept. This task exceeded the budget due to revisions to the Planning Commission Land Use Concepts in preparation of the October 26 City Council meeting. Request: $3,855
Tasks 4.6 & 4.7 – Compile and use GIS for Site Selection & AFFH. These tasks required more hours than planned due to the new requirements for fair housing as it affects the location of new housing. Here are some of the recent examples of GIS work required: Mapping all access maps (transit, employment, food, healthcare, park, school), AFFH data maps (median income, race demographics, TCAC Opportunity Areas), and Safety Element Maps (Earthquake Hazard, Evac Routes, FEMA Flood Hazard, Fire Hazard, Hazardous Waste, Sea Level Rise). Request: $1,258 and $10,119 to Tasks 4.6 and 4.7, respectively.

Task 4.14 – General GIS Mapping Services. This is a new task that addresses the general GIS Mapping Services that M-Group will provide in completing the project documents. The requested amount reflects time to prepare, edit and finalize additional maps. Request: $2,900 Tasks 7.1 & 7.2 – Draft plans to Planning Commission and Joint HC & PC Meeting. Based on the experience of preparing for prior meetings and resulting budget overages; an increase in budget is proposed for Tasks 7.1 and 7.2, respectively. Request: $2,000 per task.

Task 8 – Hexagon Transportation Services. Per the request of City staff, Hexagon Transportation Services is including a Level of Service (LOS) analysis. Request: $33,000 (plus 9% contract management fee).

Tasks 9.12, 9.13, 10.2, & 10.4 – NOP/Scoping Meeting, Draft EIR at Planning Commission, PC Adoption Hearing, Council Adoption Hearings (2). Collectively these tasks reflect the remaining formal meetings anticipated in the approved budget. Based on the experience of preparation and attendance efforts for prior meetings the budget augment includes the following additional increases: $1,000 for Task 9.12, $3,000 for Task 9.13, $1,000 for Task 10.2, and $4,000 for Task 10.4 Optional Augments. In the event that the City anticipates additional meetings with the community, Housing Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council an optional augment of included in the proposed budget. This amount would cover the cost of two of each meeting type. Cost per meeting type is as follows: Community Meeting ($4,200), Housing Commission ($5,000), Planning Commission ($6,000), and City Council ($6,000). Request: $42,400
In summary, M-Group is requesting $197,525 base budget increase. This will provide for past budget overages as well as future work to project completion. This budget proposal has been prepared in anticipation of future efforts and to accommodate changes to the previously approved project scope.

Should the City desire to provide greater flexibility for additional public meetings, an additional $42,400 optional budget is included. This would be a total budget augment for M-Group of $239,925.

Subconsultants - Additional Work
In addition to M-Group’s work several subconsultant scope additions are proposed:

ChangeLab Solutions. (Task 2.17) This task increase for $8,610 which includes participation of ChangeLab Solutions in Community Workshop #6, focused on Environmental Justice and Safety policies, and up to two study sessions with the Planning Commission or City Council. An additional augment of $2,460 noted in the ‘Optional’ increases category below would cover ChangeLab Solutions’ participation in an additional two (2) public meetings, either with the Planning Commission or City Council. Please see attached scope of work. (No Contract Management Fee).

Climate Resilient Communities (CRC) (Task 2.18)
Page F-2.11
m-group.us 51 E Campbell Ave, #1247, Campbell, CA 95009 408.340.5642 CRC will lead outreach efforts on Safety and Environmental Justice. CRC’s budget request is $186,318 (plus 9% Contract Management Fee). Please see attached scope of work for more details.

Hexagon Transportation Services. (Task 8)
Per the request of City staff, Hexagon Transportation Services is including a Level of Service (LOS) analysis in addition to the VMT analysis included in the current budget. The additional LOS analysis would increase the budget for this task by $33,000 (plus 9% Contract Management Fee). Please attached scope of work.

Total Contract Augment
Total Contract amendment $490,052.

Please see below for the summary of this request:

Task No. Task Budget Augment
Request

1.1 Project Kick off meeting $5,856

1.2 Updates to HC & PC $2,626

1.4 Project Management & Coordination $49,000

2.1 CEOC Meetings $18,000

2.3 Community Engagement Plan $3,269

2.4 Update Master Contact List $2,249

2.9 General Survey $6,915

2.11 Focus Groups $7,320

2.12 Interviews/Small Group Meetings $5,658

2.13 Community Meetings $16,888

2.14 Project Gallery $2,700

2.15 Farmers’ Market Pop-ups $9,296

2.18 Partner with Community Based Org. $9,500

3.3 Planning Commission $18,768

3.4 City Council $8,348

3.5 PC Preferred Land Use Concept $3,855

4.6 Compile GIS Shapefiles for Analysis $1,258

4.7 Use of GIS for Site Selection & AFFH $10,119

4.14 General GIS Mapping Services $2,900

7.1 Draft plans to PC $2,000

7.2 Joint HC & PC Meeting $2,000

9.12 NOP/Scoping Meeting $1,000

9.13 Draft EIR at Planning Commission $3,000

10.2 PC Adoption Hearing $1,000

10.4 Council Adoption Hearings (2) $4,000
SUB-TOTAL $197,525
*Optional As Needed Public Meetings (2 of each type) $42,400 M-Group TOTAL $239,925

2.17 ChangeLab Solutions (CLS) $8,610
Page F-2.12
m-group.us 51 E Campbell Ave, #1247, Campbell, CA 95009 408.340.5642 *Optional As Needed Public Meetings (2 w/CLS) $2,460

2.18 Climate Resilient Communities (CRC) $186,318

8.0 Hexagon – Transportation Analysis $33,000
9% contract management fee $19,739
Subconsultant Subtotal $250,127
Total Budget Augment $490,052
Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Attachment A: Budget Augment No. 1
Attachment B: Overall Budget
Attachment C: ChangeLab Solutions scope of work
Attachment D: Hexagon scope of work
Attachment E: CRC scope of work
Page F-2.13
m-group.us 51 E Campbell Ave, #1247, Campbell, CA 95009 408.340.5642 ATTACHMENT A – Budget Augment No. 1
Task No. Task Budget Augment Request

1.1 Project Kick off meeting $5,856

1.2 Updates to HC & PC $2,626

1.4 Project Management & Coordination $49,000

2.1 CEOC Meetings $18,000

2.3 Community Engagement Plan $3,269

2.4 Update Master Contact List $2,249

2.9 General Survey $6,915

2.11 Focus Groups $7,320

2.12 Interviews/Small Group Meetings $5,658

2.13 Community Meetings $16,888

2.14 Project Gallery $2,700

2.15 Farmers’ Market Pop-ups $9,296

2.18 Partner with Community Based Org. $9,500

3.3 Planning Commission $18,768

3.4 City Council $8,348

3.5 PC Preferred Land Use Concept $3,855

4.6 Compile GIS Shapefiles for Analysis $1,258

4.7 Use of GIS for Site Selection & AFFH $10,119

4.14 General GIS Mapping Services $2,900

7.1 Draft plans to PC $2,000

7.2 Joint HC & PC Meeting $2,000

9.12 NOP/Scoping Meeting $1,000

9.13 Draft EIR at Planning Commission $3,000

10.2 PC Adoption Hearing $1,000

10.4 Council Adoption Hearings (2) $4,000
Subtotal $197,525
*Optional Optional Public Meetings (2 of each) $42,400
M-Group Subtotal $239,925

2.17 ChangeLab Solutions (CLS) $8,610
*Optional Optional Public Meeting (2 w/CLS) $2,460

2.18 Climate Reslient Communities (CRC) $186,318

8.0 Hexagon – Transportation Analysis $33,000
9% Subconsultant Fee $19,739
Subconsultant Subtotal $250,127

TOTAL BUDGET AUGMENT REQUEST $490,052
Page F-2.14
m-group.us 51 E Campbell Ave, #1247, Campbell, CA 95009 408.340.5642 ATTACHMENT B – Overall Budget
Consultant
Original Budget
(sub fees incl. in M-Group) 4.16.22 Budget Augment Total New Budget M-Group $ 513,295 $ 239,925 $ 753,220
ESA $ 318,060 $ 0 $ 318,060
Hexagon $ 64,250 $ 33,000 $ 97,250
9% sub fee - $ 2,970 $ 2,970
BAE $ 56,395 - $ 56,395
9% sub fee - - -
ChangeLabs $ 30,000 $ 11,070 $ 41,070
9% sub fee - - -
Climate Resilient Comm. - $ 186,318 $ 186,318
9% sub fee - $ 16,769 $ 16,769
$ 982,000 $ 490,052 $ 1,472,052
Page F-2.15
2201 Broadway, Suite 502
Oakland, CA 94612
510.302.3380
changelabsolutions.org
March 11, 2022
To: Geoff I. Bradley, AICP, Principal & President, M-Group Sung H. Kwon, MCRP MBA AICP, Principal Planner, M-Group From: Erik Calloway, Managing Director, ChangeLab Solutions CC: Myla Howard, Development Manager, ChangeLab Solutions Subject: City of Menlo Park Housing Element Update: Community Engagement & Policy Consultation
ChangeLab Solutions is pleased to submit this scope proposal to M-Group for additional services related to the Menlo Park Housing Element update. ChangeLab Solutions will assist by participating in public meetings to give presentations and address questions about grounding the General Plan update in the most current and effective approaches to building healthy and equitable communities.

ABOUT CHANGELAB SOLUTIONS
ChangeLab Solutions is a nonprofit based in Oakland, California that works across the state and nation to advance equitable laws and policies that ensure healthy communities for all.

The firm’s multidisciplinary team of over 50 lawyers, planners, policy analysts, and other professionals works with community-based organizations, advocacy groups, state, local, and tribal governments, and anchor institutions to create thriving communities. ChangeLab Solutions holds a strong record of nearly 25 years of experience in building the capacity of diverse stakeholders to engage in policy and planning processes to create lasting systemic change.

ChangeLab Solutions works at the intersection of community engagement, equity-forward and context-sensitive policy and planning solutions, and innovative state and local legal interventions. Their services include convening diverse stakeholders and community members, undertaking in-depth legal research, developing model policies and planning documents, providing technical assistance, and delivering trainings. ChangeLab Solutions holds longstanding relationships with stakeholders and communities across California and is trusted for their evidence-based, community-centered solutions and vast array of expertise across a range of topic areas including land use, sustainability, housing, transportation, food systems, good governance, tobacco control, child care and schools, and more.

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND OBJECTIVE
ChangeLab Solutions understands that M-Group is assisting the City of Menlo Park to update the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan. As part of this update, the city is also preparing an Environmental Justice Element pursuant to the requirements of CA Senate Bill No. 1000 (SB1000). ChangeLab Solutions will provide technical assistance to this process to help ensure the updated Housing Element and Environmental Justice Element meet the following objectives stated in SB1000:

ATTACHMENT C – ChangeLab Solutions Scope of Work
Page F-2.16
changelabsolutions.org
2 “(h) (1) An environmental justice element, or related goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, that identifies disadvantaged communities within the area covered by the general plan of the city, county, or city and county, if the city, county, or city and county has a disadvantaged community. The environmental justice element, or related environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives integrated in other elements, shall do all of the following:
(A) Identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities by means that include, but are not limited to, the reduction of pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality, and the promotion of public facilities, food access, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity.
(B) Identify objectives and policies to promote civic engagement in the public decisionmaking process.
(C) Identify objectives and policies that prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.” SCOPE OF WORK:

Additional Task 1: Environmental Justice Support for Community Meeting #6 In collaboration with M-Group and City Staff, ChangeLab Solutions will prepare and present slides on environmental justice at Community Meeting #6. The content of the slides will be focused on the definition of environmental justice, CA state requirements for addressing environmental justice in General Plans, environmental justice conditions present in Menlo Park, and potential strategies to address those environmental justice conditions. M-Group will be responsible for setting deadlines and coordinating City Staff’s review of slide deck material as required. ChangeLab Solutions will attend, present, and be available to answer questions about these topics at Community Workshop #6.

TASK 1 BUDGET
Environmental Justice Support for Community Meeting #6 $6,150 Page F-2.17
changelabsolutions.org
3 Additional Task 2: Planning Commission and/or City Council Study Sessions ChangeLab Solutions will review study session packet materials produced by M-Group and/or City staff to help prepare for up to two Planning Commission and/or City Council Study Sessions. Additionally, ChangeLab Solutions will attend up to two Planning Commission, City Council, or Joint Study Sessions. At these meetings, ChangeLab Solutions will be available to answer questions about goals and policies in the public review draft general plan that advance community health and equity, as well as questions about how the public review draft general plan meets the requirements of SB1000. Please share study session dates with ChangeLab Solutions at least 3 weeks in advance of the meeting to ensure our staff is available to attend.

TASK 2 BUDGET
(2) x Study Sessions $2,460
Optional Additional Task 3: Planning Commission and/or City Council Adoption Hearings
ChangeLab Solutions will review adoption hearing packet materials produced by M-Group and/or City staff to help prepare for up to two Planning Commission and/or City Council Adoption Hearings. Additionally, ChangeLab Solutions will attend up to two Planning Commission and/or City Council adoption hearings. At these hearings, ChangeLab Solutions will be available to answer questions about goals and policies in the public review draft general plan that advance community health and equity, as well as questions about how the public review draft general plan meets the requirements of SB1000. Please share study session dates with ChangeLab Solutions at least 3 weeks in advance of the meeting to ensure our staff is available to attend.

TASK 3 BUDGET
(2) x Adoption Hearings $2,460

TOTAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES BUDGET
The total cost for completion of Additional Tasks 1-2 is $8,610. The total cost for completion of Additional Tasks 1, 2, and optional Task 3 is $11,070. ChangeLab Solutions strongly prefers to be compensated upon completion of the deliverables, versus on an hourly basis.

TIMELINE
The timeline, scope of services, and budget for this project is subject to mutual agreement between ChangeLab Solutions and M-Group.

Page F-2.18
March 2, 2022
Mr. Sung Kwon
M-Group
51 E. Campbell Avenue #1247
Campbell, Ca 95009
Re: Additional Service #1 for the Menlo Park Housing Element Update.

Dear Mr. Kwon:

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit this additional service proposal to conduct a level of service analysis for the Menlo Park Housing Element Update. Although level of service is no longer used in determining environmental impacts related to transportation, the analysis is still needed to ensure conformance with City’s performance policies. The level of service analysis will supplement the EIR analysis in determining adverse effects to key intersections in Menlo Park. The following tasks would be needed to complete the analysis:

1. Identification of Study Intersections. Hexagon will work with City staff to identify a list of key intersections to study based on the proposed sites and development intensities. This scope assumes 30 study intersections. Additional study intersections would require additional budget and will be analyze upon authorization.

2. Data Collection. It is assumed that the City’s 2019 data collection effort included AM (7:00 – 9:00 AM) and PM (4:00 – 6:00 PM) peak-hour traffic volumes for all study intersections. This scope does not include collection of new intersection turning movement data.

3. Evaluation of Existing Conditions. Existing traffic conditions will be evaluated based on existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. The existing traffic conditions will be analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodology, implemented in the Vistro software. Hexagon will utilize the citywide Vistro file to conduct the study. It is assumed that signal timing data for all study intersections contained in the Vistro file is correct. This scope does not include conducting field work to ascertain signal timing and phasing details.

4. Evaluation of Near-Term Conditions. Hexagon will utilize the City of Menlo Park travel demand model to forecast intersection traffic volumes under near-term (year 2031) conditions without the additional Housing Element development. The Vistro model will be used to evaluate AM and PM peak hour intersection levels of service under cumulative conditions.

5. Evaluation of Cumulative Conditions. Hexagon will utilize the City of Menlo Park travel demand model to forecast intersection traffic volumes under cumulative (year 2040) conditions without the additional Housing Element development. The Vistro model will be used to evaluate AM and PM peak hour intersection levels of service under cumulative conditions.

ATTACHMENT D – Hexagon Scope of Work
Page F-2.19
Mr. Sung Kwon
March 2, 2022