Menlo Park City Council
September 20, 2022

3. Provision of Data to Air Quality and Noise Consultants. It is anticipated that the Air Quality and Noise consultants will need traffic and VMT data for their analysis. This task includes Hexagon staff time to coordinate with the consultants on the data needs, formats, and providing the requested data.

Non-CEQA Operations Analysis

4. Selection of Study Intersections, Freeway Segments and Freeway Ramps. Hexagon will coordinate with the project team and City staff to determine the list of study intersections, freeway segments, and freeway ramps. Decisions such as whether traffic currently generated by existing uses on site, or traffic that can be generated by existing uses on site at full occupancy can be credited towards project trip generation could affect the study scope. This proposal assumes a budget for up to 25 key intersections, 2 freeway segments, and 4 freeway ramps. Additional budget and schedule would be needed if the scope needs to include additional locations.

5. Site Reconnaissance. The physical characteristics of the site and the surrounding roadway network will be reviewed to identify existing roadway cross-sections, intersection lane configurations, traffic control devices, and surrounding land uses.

6. Observation of Existing Traffic Conditions in the Study Area. Field observations of existing traffic conditions will be limited to field-verifying signal timing at signalized intersections during peak hours. Due to COVID conditions, field observations of intersection-level operational issues are not included in this proposal.

7. Data Collection. It is assumed that intersection counts at most study intersections will be provided by City staff. Counts at unsignalized intersections may not be available from the City. Intersection counts collected during COVID conditions will be compared against nearby locations with COVID and pre-COVID counts. This proposal includes collecting peak hour (7-9 AM, and 4-6 PM) turning movements counts at up to 10 locations.

Pedestrian and bicycle counts will be included.

8. Evaluation of Existing Conditions. Existing traffic conditions will be evaluated based on existing traffic volumes at the study intersections. The existing traffic conditions at the key study intersections will be evaluated using the software Vistro, which employs the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6
th Edition methodology for intersection analyses and is the designated level of service methodology for the City of Menlo Park.

9. Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment. Estimates of trips to be added to the surrounding roadway network by the proposed project will be based on the trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Potential trip reductions for the project location and mixed-use design will be estimated using the latest MXD model. Trips generated by existing uses on site will be credited based on City input (see Task 3).

Hexagon will run the citywide travel demand forecasting model to determine the trip distribution pattern for the project. Site-generated traffic will be assigned to the roadway network based on the trip generation and distribution pattern. The trip generation, Page G-8.306
Mr. Leo Mena
July 22, 2022

distribution, and assignment estimates will be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to initiation of the subsequent tasks.

10. Evaluation of Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes represent a nearterm horizon when the project is anticipated to be completed. Hexagon will work with the team and City staff to define the horizon year. A list of approved, and not-yet constructed or occupied projects will be obtained from City staff. Hexagon will use the travel demand forecasting model to forecast intersection-level traffic volumes and freeway volumes. The model’s land use for the project zone will be reviewed to determine whether additional modifications are needed to generate the background conditions traffic volumes.

Intersection LOS analysis will be completed using the Vistro software.

11. Evaluation of Background Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic will be added to the background condition traffic volumes. Intersection levels of service under project conditions will be evaluated using the Vistro software. Intersection level of service calculations will be conducted to estimate project traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours after the completion of the proposed project. Intersection adverse effects associated with the project will be evaluated relative to background conditions.

12. Evaluation of Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes represent a 2040 horizon assuming the buildout of the City’s General Plan, as well as any approved or pending General Plan Amendments. Hexagon assumes that either the cumulative + project model run completed for the Willow Village project, or the cumulative + project model run complete for the Housing Element Update project will be used to represent cumulative conditions. This task does not assume a new model run. The model’s land use for the project zone will be reviewed to determine whether additional modifications are needed to generate the cumulative conditions traffic volumes. Intersection LOS analysis will be completed using the Vistro software.

13. Evaluation of Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic will be added to the cumulative condition traffic volumes. Intersection levels of service under project conditions will be evaluated using the Vistro software. Intersection level of service calculations will be conducted to estimate project traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Intersection adverse effects associated with the project will be evaluated relative to cumulative conditions.

14. Freeway Segment and Ramp Analysis. The magnitude of project trips on freeway segments and ramps near the site will be determined based on the trip assignment task described above. The number of trips on nearby freeway segments and ramps will be compared to the CMP’s threshold. The results of this task will be documented in the traffic study.

15. Site Access, On-Site Circulation and Parking. A review of the project site plan will be performed to determine the overall adequacy of the site access and on-site circulation in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and to identify any access or circulation issues that should be improved. Parking will be evaluated relative to the City’s parking code.

Page G-8.307
Mr. Leo Mena
July 22, 2022

16. Signal Warrant Analysis. This proposal assumes that the intersection analysis will include unsignalized intersections. The need for future signalization of these unsignalized study intersections will be evaluated on the basis of the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant 3 – Part B) in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The warrant will be evaluated using peak-hour volumes for all study scenarios.

17. Evaluation of Vehicle Queuing. For selected locations where the project would add a significant number of left-turning vehicles, the adequacy of existing/planned storage at turn pockets will be assessed by means of comparison with expected maximum vehicle queues. Vehicle queues will be estimated using a Poisson probability distribution.

18. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities. A qualitative analysis of the project’s effect on transit service in the area and on bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the study area will be included in the traffic report. This includes sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and amenities to promote the safe use of alternate modes of transportation, and connections to the existing bicycle and pedestrian network.

19. Peer Review of TDM Plan. Hexagon will conduct a comprehensive peer review of the applicant-provided Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Hexagon will summarize our comments in a draft memorandum and will respond to one round of comments from City of Menlo Park and prepare a final memorandum. This task also includes a peer review of the Final TDM Plan.

20. Variant Analysis. For the project-proposed variant of including up to 600 housing units, Hexagon will qualitatively discuss the project’s VMT impacts, and conduct a quantitative evaluation of the non-CEQA operational issues (intersection LOS analysis, freeway and freeway ramp analysis, queuing analysis, and parking analysis). This proposal assumes that the variant analysis will not materially change the site plan, so a site plan review is not included as part of this task.

21. Description of Recommendations. Based on the results of the level of service calculations, operational issues of the site-generated traffic will be identified and described. Recommendations will be formulated that identify the locations and types of improvements or modifications necessary to alleviate the operational issues.

Improvements could include street widenings, lane additions, changes in lane usage, or modifications to existing traffic signals.

Reports and Meetings

22. Meetings. The fee estimate includes Hexagon staff attendance at the project kickoff meeting, three public hearings, and ten team meetings with the Consultant team/City staff.

Additional meetings will require additional budget authorization.

23. EIR Transportation Chapter. Hexagon will author the EIR Transportation Chapter and include all CEQA-related and any necessary non-CEQA contents. This task includes three rounds of report revisions.

Page G-8.308
Mr. Leo Mena
July 22, 2022

24. TIA Report. Hexagon will prepare a separate TIA report documenting our study methodology and findings for all tasks performed. This task includes three rounds of report revisions.

25. Response to Public Comments. Hexagon will prepare response to public comments as requested (i.e. NOP comments, draft EIR comments). This task assumes up to 40 hours of staff time in preparing responses to comments.

Time of Performance
Since the EIR Transportation Chapter may or may not include non-CEQA analysis, the schedule below assumes that the administrative draft of the EIR Transportation Chapter and the TIA report will be submitted together, at the conclusion of the initial analysis. Barring any unforeseen delays, the administrative drafts will be submitted approximately 12 weeks (major milestones are described below) after: (1) authorization to proceed, and (2) receipt of all required data (such as new count data, the City’s approved trips inventory, and project related information). Upon receiving the first and second rounds of review comments, Hexagon will revise the report within 2 weeks. Upon receiving the third round of review comments, assumed to be minor editorial comments, Hexagon will revise the report within 1 week.

Major Milestones
Week Milestone
Week 3 Provide draft trip generation, distribution and assignment for City review and approval (assume 2-week City review time)
Week 5 Provide preliminary VMT results for City review (assume 2-week City review time) Week 8 Provide preliminary results for non-CEQA analyses (assume 2-week City review time)
Week 12 Provide administrative draft EIR Transportation Chapter, TIA report, and data needs for AQ/Noise
Page G-8.309
Mr. Leo Mena
July 22, 2022

Cost of Services
The fee for the scope of services will be based on time and expenses up to a maximum budget of $125,000 (see Table 2 for budget breakdown). Also attached is Hexagon’s billing rate by position.

Work not specifically specified in this scope are considered out-of-scope (such as analyzing additional variants, alternatives, revised project description after project initiation), and will require additional budget authorization.

We appreciate your consideration of Hexagon Transportation Consultants for this assignment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.

Gary K. Black
President
Ollie Zhou, T.E.

Principal Associate
Page G-8.310
Mr. Leo Mena
July 22, 2022

Table 1
Budget by Task
Hexagon 2022 Billing Rates
Professional Classification Rate per Hour
President $300
Principal $260
Senior Associate II $240
Senior Associate I $220
Associate II $200
Associate I $175
Planner/Engineer II $155
Planner/Engineer I $130
Admin/Graphics $110
Senior CAD Tech $95
Technician $75
Direct expenses are billed at actual costs, with the exception of mileage, which is reimbursed at the current rate per mile set by the IRS.

Billing rates shown are effective January 1, 2022 and subject to change January 1, 2023. # Task President
Principal
Associate Associate Engineer
Admin/
Graphics
Direct
Expenses Budget
1 VMT Analysis 4 16 5,360$
2 VMT Mitigation 4 16 5,360$
3 Provision of Data to AQ/Noise 8 8 3,680$
4 Selection of Intersections, Freeway Segments, Ramps 4 2 1,260$ 5 Site Reconnaissance 4 $ 800
6 Traffic Condition Observations 8 $ 1,340$ 100
7 Data Collection 8 2,600$ 3,840$
8 Evaluation of Existing Conditions 4 16 4,240$
9 Trip Generation, Distribution, Assignment 2 4 8 8 2 4,700$ 10 Background Conditions 4 16 4,240$
11 Background + Project Conditions 4 $ 800
12 Cumulative Conditions 4 16 4,240$
13 Cumulative + Project Conditions 4 $ 800
14 Freeway Segment and Ramp Analysis 16 4,160$
15 Site Access, On-Site Circulation, Parking 4 8 2,640$ 16 Signal Warrant Analysis 4 $ 620
17 Vehicle Queuing 4 4 1,420$
18 Bike, Pedestrian and Transit Facilities 2 8 2,120$
19 Peer Review of TDM Plan 2 8 24 7,480$
20 Variant Analysis 8 20 6,080$
21 Description of Recommendations 4 8 8 4,880$
22 Meetings 10 24 9,240$
23 EIR Transportation Chapter 10 20 60 4 20,640$
24 TIA Report 4 20 50 14,150$
25 Response to Public Comments 10 30 10,800$
Total 50 200 208 82 8 2,700$ 125,000$
Page G-8.311
Appendix C
Keyser Marston Associates Scope of Work
Page G-8.312
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
L:\EPS\S Mateo Co\22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR\Proposal\5 - Subs\KMA\Scope.docx Scope of Services to Prepare a Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) for the Parkline Project
The following scope of services is for preparation of a Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) addressing the Parkline Project (“Project”). The HNA will address the following major housingrelated topics, to the extent possible:
1) Net impact on housing supply and housing need by income level considering:
a. Housing supply added by the Project;
b. Net impact on worker housing need from removal of existing commercial buildings from the Project site and replacement with new office / R&D buildings, with no net increase in non-residential floor area; and
c. Added worker housing need associated with off-site retail and other services to residents of the new residential units.
2) Estimated geographic distribution of housing needs by jurisdiction; and 3) Qualitative evaluation of potential influence on the regional housing market and potential to cause or contribute to the displacement of existing residents in nearby communities that are vulnerable to displacement.

These housing-related impacts are not required to be analyzed under CEQA but may be of interest to decision-makers and/or the public in evaluating the merits of the Project. The HNA scope and methodology will be generally consistent with HNAs for prior projects in Menlo Park.

As the Project adds residential uses but does not result in a net increase in non-residential floor area, the analysis of potential displacement impacts will be qualitative in nature, consistent with HNAs for previous projects in Menlo Park that were primarily residential in nature.

Task 1 – Project Initiation and Data Collection
The purpose of this task is to identify the availability of data necessary to complete the HNA, identify key analysis inputs and assumptions, and refine the approach to the assignment. As part of this task, KMA will:
(1) Provide a list of data needs to complete the HNA and work with the prime consultant and the City’s project team as necessary to gather the necessary data. (2) Meet with City staff, its consultants, and the project sponsor team to: (a) discuss data and analysis alternatives (b) review technical methodology and approach (c) discuss and agree on schedule.

Page G-8.313
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2
L:\EPS\S Mateo Co\22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR\Proposal\5 - Subs\KMA\Scope.docx Task 2 – Net impact on housing supply and housing need by income category KMA will quantify, by affordability level, the net impact on housing supply and housing demand associated with the Project. The analysis will address the following:
a. Housing Supply Addition by Income Level – The 400 residential units to be added to the housing supply by the Project will be summarized based on the income level(s) applicable to the Below Market Rate (BMR) affordable units and the estimated income level(s) applicable to the market rate units. The income level(s) for market rate units will be estimated based on an analysis of market rents for comparable units. b. Net Impact to Worker Housing Demand – The net impact to worker housing demand will be based on the estimated net change in employment levels from removal of the existing commercial buildings and construction of the new office / R&D space and office amenity building, combined with household size ratios developed from Census data. The net impact to housing demand by income level will be estimated using a methodology consistent with other recent HNAs prepared for the City. The analyses utilize a combination of Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census, and California Employment Development Department data to estimate the household incomes of workers. The analysis will address two scenarios regarding the mix of office / R&D and life sciences tenants since this mix may vary in response to future tenant needs. c. Housing Demand for Off-site Jobs Supported by Residential – Development of new residential units adds to the demand for services such as retail, restaurants, healthcare and education. KMA will prepare an analysis to estimate housing demand by income for workers associated with off-site services to residential units. The analysis will follow a series of steps linking the estimated incomes of residents living in the new units, their demand for goods and services, the number of jobs associated with providing these services, and the housing need by income level of the workers who fill those jobs.

Multiplier effects will be considered as part of the analysis. d. Net Housing Demand / Supply Effect – The net housing supply / demand effects will be computed by combining the findings of the above analyses, including each of the two scenarios regarding the mix of office / R&D and life sciences tenants.

Task 3 - Commuting and Geographic Distribution of Housing Supply / Demand Effects The prior task determines the total housing supply and demand effects irrespective of geography. In this task, the geographic distribution is estimated. The new housing units will be located in Menlo Park while the net change in worker housing needs will reflect the locations where workers live. Estimates of geographic distribution of housing demand effects will be based upon data on commute patterns available through a special tabulation of the U.S. Census and could also incorporate any available commute data for the existing non-residential space.

Page G-8.314
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3
L:\EPS\S Mateo Co\22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR\Proposal\5 - Subs\KMA\Scope.docx Task 4 – Relationship to Regional Housing Market and Potential to Contribute to Displacement
Lower income communities in the Bay Area have become increasingly vulnerable to displacement of existing residents. Employment growth, constrained housing production, and rising income inequality are among the factors that have contributed to increased displacement pressures, especially within lower income communities in locations accessible to employment centers where many households are housing-cost burdened. In this task, KMA will draw on the findings of the prior tasks and context materials assembled for prior HNAs prepared for other projects to provide a qualitative evaluation of the potential housing market effects.

The proposed qualitative discussion of housing market effects and displacement is more limited in scope than for past HNAs addressing projects that result in a significant increase in nonresidential uses. The proposed approach reflects the nature of the Project, which adds housing while maintaining the same amount of employment space.

Task 5 – Project Variant
The report will include a discussion of a Project variant with 600 residential units. KMA will quantify and summarize the net impact on housing demand and supply for the Project variant consistent with Tasks 2 and 3. For the Task 4 analysis of displacement impacts, a limited qualitative discussion of the variant will be provided.

Task 6 – Report Preparation
The methodology, data sources, results and implications of the HNA will be documented in a written report. This scope assumes one draft version of the report for review and one final report.

Task 7 – Responses to DEIR Comments
KMA anticipates assisting the City and the prime consultant in preparing responses to comments on the Draft EIR. KMA’s focus will be on comments that are directly related to the HNA. We have included a time and materials budget allowance for KMA to assist with preparation of responses to comments.

Page G-8.315
Appendix D
Project Schedule
Page G-8.316
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Milestone
1 Parkline Project EIR 302 days? Mon 9/5/22 Tue 10/31/23 No 2 Task 1: Project Kick Off and Site
Visit
6 days Mon 9/5/22 Mon 9/12/22 No
3 Notice to Proceed 1 day Mon 9/5/22 Mon 9/5/22 No
4 Kick Off Meeting and Site Visit 1 day Mon 9/12/22 Mon 9/12/22 No 5 Task 2: Prepare Project
Description and Data Needs
35 days Tue 9/6/22 Mon 10/24/22 No
6 Provide Data Needs to City 10 days Tue 9/6/22 Mon 9/19/22 No 7 City Responds to Data Needs 10 days Tue 9/20/22 Mon 10/3/22 No 8 Prepare Project Description 5 days Tue 10/4/22 Mon 10/10/22 No 9 City Reviews Project
Description
10 days Tue 10/11/22 Mon 10/24/22 No
10 Task 3: Project Scoping 54 days Tue 9/13/22 Sat 11/26/22 No 11 Rincon drafts NOP 20 days Tue 9/13/22 Mon 10/10/22 No 12 City Reviews NOP 10 days Tue 10/11/22 Mon 10/24/22 No 13 Rincon Finalizes NOP 3 days Tue 10/25/22 Thu 10/27/22 Yes 14 NOP Review Period 30 edays Thu 10/27/22 Sat 11/26/22 No 15 Scoping Meeting 1 day TBD TBD No
16 Task 4: Tech Studies 95 days Tue 9/6/22 Mon 1/16/23 No 17 Task 4.1: TIA 60 days Tue 9/13/22 Mon 12/5/22 No
18 Trip Gen, Dist, Assignment
for Review
5 days Tue 9/13/22 Mon 9/19/22 No
19 City Approves Trip Gen,
Dist, Assignment
10 days Tue 9/20/22 Mon 10/3/22 No
20 Preliminary VMT Results 10 days Tue 10/4/22 Mon 10/17/22 No 21 City Reviews Preliminary
VMT
10 days Tue 10/18/22 Mon 10/31/22 No
22 Non-CEQA Results 5 days Tue 11/1/22 Mon 11/7/22 No
23 City Reviews Non-CEQA
Results
10 days Tue 11/8/22 Mon 11/21/22 No
24 Admin Draft EIR, Transpo
Chapter, Data Needs for AQ
and Noise
10 days Tue 11/22/22 Mon 12/5/22 No
25 Task 4.2: HNA 85 days Tue 9/20/22 Mon 1/16/23 No
26 KMA Prepares HNA 60 days Tue 9/20/22 Mon 12/12/22 No 27 City Reviews HNA 15 days Tue 12/13/22 Mon 1/2/23 No
28 KMA Finalizes HNA 10 days Tue 1/3/23 Mon 1/16/23 No
10/27
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Qtr 4, 2022 Qtr 1, 2023 Qtr 2, 2023 Qtr 3, 2023 Qtr 4, 2023 Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Parkline Project Schedule - V1

Project: Parkline Schedule
Date: Fri 7/29/22
Page G-8.317
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Milestone
29 Task 4.3: Phase I 30 days Tue 9/13/22 Mon 10/24/22 No 30 Peer Review Phase I 20 days Tue 9/13/22 Mon 10/10/22 No 31 Response to Peer
Review/Finalization
10 days Tue 10/11/22 Mon 10/24/22 No
32 Task 4.4: HRE 30 days Tue 9/13/22 Mon 10/24/22 No
33 Peer Review HRE 20 days Tue 9/13/22 Mon 10/10/22 No
34 P&T Responds to Peer
Review/Finalization
10 days Tue 10/11/22 Mon 10/24/22 No
35 Task 4.5: Archaeological
Resources Techincal Report
81 days Tue 9/13/22 Tue 1/3/23 No
36 CHRIS Records Search 30 days Tue 9/13/22 Mon 10/24/22 No 37 Pedestrian Survey 1 day Tue 10/25/22 Tue 10/25/22 No 38 SLF Search 40 days Tue 9/13/22 Mon 11/7/22 No
39 Tech Report Admin Draft 30 days Wed 10/26/22 Tue 12/6/22 No 40 City comments on Tech
Report
10 days Wed 12/7/22 Tue 12/20/22 No
41 Final Tech Report 10 days Wed 12/21/22 Tue 1/3/23 No 42 Task 4.6: Peer Review
AQ/GHG Report
50 days Tue 9/6/22 Mon 11/14/22 No
43 Report Provided to Rincon 20 days Tue 9/6/22 Mon 10/3/22 No 44 Peer Review Report 15 days Tue 10/4/22 Mon 10/24/22 No 45 Response to Peer
Review/Finalization
15 days Tue 10/25/22 Mon 11/14/22 No
46 Task 4.7: Peer Review Bio
Report
50 days Tue 9/6/22 Mon 11/14/22 No
47 Report Provided to Rincon 20 days Tue 9/6/22 Mon 10/3/22 No 48 Peer Review Report 15 days Tue 10/4/22 Mon 10/24/22 No 49 Response to Peer
Review/Finalization
15 days Tue 10/25/22 Mon 11/14/22 No
50 Task 4.8: Peer Review Hydro
Study
50 days Tue 9/6/22 Mon 11/14/22 No
51 Study Provided to Rincon 20 days Tue 9/6/22 Mon 10/3/22 No 52 Peer Review Study 15 days Tue 10/4/22 Mon 10/24/22 No 53 Response to Peer
Review/Finalization
15 days Tue 10/25/22 Mon 11/14/22 No
54 Task 5: Admin Draft EIR 87 days Tue 10/25/22 Wed 2/22/23 No 55 Bio 15 days Tue 11/15/22 Mon 12/5/22 No
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Qtr 4, 2022 Qtr 1, 2023 Qtr 2, 2023 Qtr 3, 2023 Qtr 4, 2023 Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Parkline Project Schedule - V1

Project: Parkline Schedule
Date: Fri 7/29/22
Page G-8.318
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Milestone
56 AQ, GHG, Noise 15 days Tue 11/15/22 Mon 12/5/22 No
57 Cultural 10 days Wed 1/4/23 Tue 1/17/23 No
58 Hazards 20 days Tue 10/25/22 Mon 11/21/22 No
59 Hydro 15 days Tue 11/15/22 Mon 12/5/22 No
60 Transportation 10 days Tue 12/6/22 Mon 12/19/22 No
61 Other Env Sections 5 days Wed 1/18/23 Tue 1/24/23 No 62 Alternatives and Other CEQA 20 days Wed 1/25/23 Tue 2/21/23 No 63 Rincon Completes Admin
Draft EIR
1 day Wed 2/22/23 Wed 2/22/23 Yes
64 Task 6: Screencheck Draft EIR 40 days Thu 2/23/23 Wed 4/19/23 No 65 City Reviews Admin Draft EIR 20 days Thu 2/23/23 Wed 3/22/23 No 66 Prepare Screencheck EIR 20 days Thu 3/23/23 Wed 4/19/23 Yes 67 Task 7: Public Draft EIR 72 days Thu 3/23/23 Sat 7/1/23 No 68 Prepare NOA, NOC, Summary
Form
20 days Thu 3/23/23 Wed 4/19/23 No
69 City Reviews Screencheck EIR,
NOA, NOC, Summary Form
10 days Thu 4/20/23 Wed 5/3/23 No
70 Public Draft EIR 10 days Thu 5/4/23 Wed 5/17/23 Yes
71 Public Review Period 45 edays Wed 5/17/23 Sat 7/1/23 No 72 Public Hearing 1 day TBD TBD No
73 Task 8: Final EIR 75 days Mon 7/3/23 Fri 10/13/23 No 74 Prepare Admin Final EIR 25 days Mon 7/3/23 Fri 8/4/23 Yes 75 Ciy Reviews Admin Final EIR 20 days Mon 8/7/23 Fri 9/1/23 No 76 Prepare Screen Check Final
EIR
10 days Mon 9/4/23 Fri 9/15/23 Yes
77 Prepare Findings of Fact,
Statement of Overriding
Considerations
30 days Mon 8/7/23 Fri 9/15/23 Yes
78 City Reviews Screen Check
Final EIR, Findings, Statement
of Overriding Considerations
10 days Mon 9/18/23 Fri 9/29/23 No
79 Final EIR, Final Findings, Final
Statement of Overriding
Considerations
10 days Mon 10/2/23 Fri 10/13/23 Yes
2/22
4/19
5/17
8/4
9/15
9/15
10/13
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Qtr 4, 2022 Qtr 1, 2023 Qtr 2, 2023 Qtr 3, 2023 Qtr 4, 2023 Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Parkline Project Schedule - V1

Project: Parkline Schedule
Date: Fri 7/29/22
Page G-8.319
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Milestone
80 Task 9: Final EIR Hearing and
NOD
12 days? Mon 10/16/23 Tue 10/31/23 No
81 10 day review for public
agencies
10 days Mon 10/16/23 Fri 10/27/23 No
82 Public Hearing (After this
Date)
1 day Mon 10/30/23 Mon 10/30/23 No
83 File NOD 1 day? Tue 10/31/23 Tue 10/31/23 Yes
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Qtr 4, 2022 Qtr 1, 2023 Qtr 2, 2023 Qtr 3, 2023 Qtr 4, 2023 Task
Split
Milestone
Summary
Project Summary
Inactive Task
Inactive Milestone
Inactive Summary
Manual Task
Duration-only
Manual Summary Rollup
Manual Summary
Start-only
Finish-only
External Tasks
External Milestone
Deadline
Progress
Manual Progress
Parkline Project Schedule - V1

Project: Parkline Schedule
Date: Fri 7/29/22
Page G-8.320
Appendix E
Cost Proposal
Page G-8.321
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR
Cost Estimate

Supervisor Archaeologist I 240.00 2.00 480.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 4.4: HRE Peer Review 33.00 7,037.00 0.00 7,037.00
Production Specialist I 105.00 1.00 105.00
Planner III 170.00 24.00 4,080.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 2.00 448.00
Principal I 285.00 2.00 570.00
Director I 285.00 4.00 1,140.00
Task 4.3: Phase I Peer Review 33.00 6,343.00 0.00 6,343.00 Senior Planner II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 4.2: HNA 5.00 1,181.00 0.00 1,181.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 4.1: TIA 5.00 1,181.00 0.00 1,181.00
Task 4: Technical Studies 218.00 44,333.00 982.50 45,315.50 Production Specialist I 105.00 1.00 105.00
Planner II 153.00 8.00 1,224.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 2.00 570.00

15.00 2,795.00 0.00 2,795.00
Task 3: Project Scoping 15.00 2,795.00 0.00 2,795.00
Planner II 153.00 16.00 2,448.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 8.00 1,792.00
Principal I 285.00 4.00 1,140.00

28.00 5,380.00 0.00 5,380.00
Task 2: Project Description and Data Needs 28.00 5,380.00 0.00 5,380.00 Travel - Mileage 62.50
Senior Planner II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 4.00 1,140.00

8.00 2,036.00 62.50 2,098.50
Task 1: Project Kickoff and Site Visit 8.00 2,036.00 62.50 2,098.50 22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR Rate Hours Labor Budget Direct Expenses Total Budget
Page G-8.322
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR
Cost Estimate

Planner II 153.00 16.00 2,448.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 2.00 448.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.1: Introduction 19.00 3,181.00 0.00 3,181.00
Task 5: Administrative Draft EIR 604.00 107,353.00 1,159.00 108,512.00 Senior Planner II 224.00 2.00 448.00
Supervisor Planner I 240.00 18.00 4,320.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 4.8: Hydro Peer Review 21.00 5,053.00 0.00 5,053.00 Biologist IV 184.00 24.00 4,416.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 2.00 448.00
Senior Biologist II 224.00 2.00 448.00
Principal II 295.00 1.00 295.00
Task 4.7: Bio Peer Review 29.00 5,607.00 0.00 5,607.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 28.00 6,272.00
Principal I 285.00 2.00 570.00
Task 4.6: AQ/GHG Peer Review 30.00 6,842.00 0.00 6,842.00 Archaeologist II 153.00 20.00 3,060.00
Senior Archaeologist I 208.00 20.00 4,160.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 2.00 448.00
Supervisor Archaeologist I 240.00 2.00 480.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Cultural Resources Technical Report 45.00 8,433.00 0.00 8,433.00 Travel - Mileage 62.50
Archaeologist II 153.00 8.00 1,224.00
Pedestrian Survey 8.00 1,224.00 62.50 1,286.50
Archaeologist II 153.00 4.00 612.00
Senior Archaeologist I 208.00 1.00 208.00
NAHC Search 5.00 820.00 0.00 820.00
Record Search 920.00
Archaeologist II 153.00 4.00 612.00
CHRIS Search 4.00 612.00 920.00 1,532.00
Task 4.5: Cultural Resources Technical Report 62.00 11,089.00 982.50 12,071.50 Senior Archaeologist I 208.00 28.00 5,824.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 2.00 448.00
22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR Rate Hours Labor Budget Direct Expenses Total Budget
Page G-8.323
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR
Cost Estimate

Senior Planner II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.3.5: Hazards and Hazardous Materials 25.00 4,241.00 0.00 4,241.00 Record Search 575.00
Printing & Production 24.00
GIS/CADD Specialist I 131.00 1.00 131.00
Archaeologist I 136.00 1.00 136.00
Planner II 153.00 20.00 3,060.00
Archaeologist II 153.00 10.00 1,530.00
Senior Archaeologist II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.3.4: Geology and Soils 37.00 6,038.00 599.00 6,637.00 Archaeologist II 153.00 4.00 612.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 1.00 224.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
AB 52 and SB 18 Letter Package 6.00 1,121.00 0.00 1,121.00 Technical Editor 130.00 1.00 130.00
Archaeologist II 153.00 4.00 612.00
Senior Archaeologist I 208.00 15.00 3,120.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 3.00 855.00
Task 5.3.3: Cultural Resources and TCR 33.00 6,734.00 0.00 6,734.00 Biologist IV 184.00 20.00 3,680.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 2.00 448.00
Senior Biologist II 224.00 2.00 448.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.3.2: Biological Resources 25.00 4,861.00 0.00 4,861.00 Planner II 153.00 32.00 4,896.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 16.00 3,584.00
Principal I 285.00 6.00 1,710.00
Task 5.3.1: Air Quality, GHG, Energy 54.00 10,190.00 0.00 10,190.00 Planner II 153.00 16.00 2,448.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.2: Project Description 21.00 3,629.00 0.00 3,629.00 22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR Rate Hours Labor Budget Direct Expenses Total Budget
Page G-8.324
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR
Cost Estimate

Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.3.13: Effects Found To Be LTS or NI 10.00 1,733.00 0.00 1,733.00 Planner II 153.00 32.00 4,896.00
Senior Supervisor Planner II 258.00 4.00 1,032.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.3.12: Utilities and Service Systems 37.00 6,213.00 0.00 6,213.00 Senior Planner II 224.00 30.00 6,720.00
Principal I 285.00 4.00 1,140.00
Task 5.3.11: Transportation 34.00 7,860.00 0.00 7,860.00 Planner II 153.00 12.00 1,836.00
Senior Supervisor Planner II 258.00 4.00 1,032.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.3.10: Public Services and Recreation 17.00 3,153.00 0.00 3,153.00 Planner II 153.00 20.00 3,060.00
Senior Supervisor Planner II 258.00 4.00 1,032.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.3.9: Population/Housing 25.00 4,377.00 0.00 4,377.00 Travel - Mileage 100.00
Sound Level Field Monitoring Package 440.00
Meals 20.00
Planner II 153.00 80.00 12,240.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 26.00 5,824.00
Principal I 285.00 4.00 1,140.00
Task 5.3.8: Noise and Vibration 110.00 19,204.00 560.00 19,764.00 Planner II 153.00 20.00 3,060.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.3.7: Land Use and Planning 25.00 4,241.00 0.00 4,241.00 Planner II 153.00 20.00 3,060.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.3.6: Hydrology & Water Quality 25.00 4,241.00 0.00 4,241.00 Planner II 153.00 20.00 3,060.00
22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR Rate Hours Labor Budget Direct Expenses Total Budget
Page G-8.325
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR
Cost Estimate

Task 8.1: Admin Final EIR 110.00 20,478.00 0.00 20,478.00 Task 8: Final EIR 185.00 33,437.00 0.00 33,437.00
Planner II 153.00 6.00 918.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 8.00 1,792.00
Principal I 285.00 2.00 570.00
Task 7.2: Noticing 16.00 3,280.00 0.00 3,280.00
Production Specialist I 105.00 16.00 1,680.00
Planner II 153.00 12.00 1,836.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 8.00 1,792.00
Principal I 285.00 4.00 1,140.00
Task 7.1:Public Draft EIR 40.00 6,448.00 0.00 6,448.00
Task 7: Public Draft EIR and Noticing 56.00 9,728.00 0.00 9,728.00 Production Specialist I 105.00 12.00 1,260.00
Planner II 153.00 54.00 8,262.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 24.00 5,376.00
Principal I 285.00 4.00 1,140.00

94.00 16,038.00 0.00 16,038.00
Task 6: Screen Check Draft EIR 94.00 16,038.00 0.00 16,038.00 Production Specialist I 105.00 12.00 1,260.00
Technical Editor 130.00 12.00 1,560.00
Task 5.6: Editing and Formatting 24.00 2,820.00 0.00 2,820.00 Planner II 153.00 40.00 6,120.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 10.00 2,240.00
Principal I 285.00 4.00 1,140.00
Task 5.5: Alternatives 54.00 9,500.00 0.00 9,500.00
Planner II 153.00 20.00 3,060.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 8.00 1,792.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 5.4: Other CEQA 29.00 5,137.00 0.00 5,137.00
Planner II 153.00 8.00 1,224.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 1.00 224.00
22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR Rate Hours Labor Budget Direct Expenses Total Budget
Page G-8.326
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR
Cost Estimate

Project Accountant 110.00 16.00 1,760.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 80.00 17,920.00
Principal I 285.00 20.00 5,700.00
116.00 25,380.00 0.00 25,380.00
Task 10: Project Management 116.00 25,380.00 0.00 25,380.00 Planner II 153.00 2.00 306.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00

7.00 1,487.00 0.00 1,487.00
Task 9: Final EIR Circulation, Presentation, NOD 7.00 1,487.00 0.00 1,487.00 Production Specialist I 105.00 2.00 210.00
Planner II 153.00 16.00 2,448.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 6.00 1,344.00
Principal I 285.00 2.00 570.00
Task 8.4: Findings of Fact and SOC 26.00 4,572.00 0.00 4,572.00 Production Specialist I 105.00 4.00 420.00
Planner II 153.00 4.00 612.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 2.00 448.00
Principal I 285.00 1.00 285.00
Task 8.3: Final EIR 11.00 1,765.00 0.00 1,765.00
Production Specialist I 105.00 6.00 630.00
Planner II 153.00 20.00 3,060.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 8.00 1,792.00
Principal I 285.00 4.00 1,140.00
Task 8.2 Screencheck Final EIR 38.00 6,622.00 0.00 6,622.00 Production Specialist I 105.00 12.00 1,260.00
Biologist II 153.00 6.00 918.00
Planner III 170.00 50.00 8,500.00
Senior Archaeologist I 208.00 6.00 1,248.00
Senior Planner II 224.00 24.00 5,376.00
Senior Biologist II 224.00 4.00 896.00
Principal I 285.00 8.00 2,280.00
22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR Rate Hours Labor Budget Direct Expenses Total Budget
Page G-8.327
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR
Cost Estimate

Traffic Engineering Subconsultant 143,750.00
Consultant (General) 51,750.00
Printing & Production 3,000.00
Postage, Shipping, Delivery 287.50

0.00 0.00 198,787.50 198,787.50
Reimbursable Expense 0.00 0.00 198,787.50 198,787.50
GIS/CADD Specialist II 146.00 40.00 5,840.00

40.00 5,840.00 0.00 5,840.00
Task 11: GIS Services 40.00 5,840.00 0.00 5,840.00
Project Total 1,371.00 253,807.00 200,991.50 454,798.50 22-13253 Menlo Park, Parkline EIR Rate Hours Labor Budget Direct Expenses Total Budget
Traffic Engineering Subconsultant 143,750.00
Consultant (General) 51,750.00
Travel - Mileage 225.00
Sound Level Field Monitoring Package 440.00
Record Search 1,495.00
Printing & Production 3,024.00
Postage, Shipping, Delivery 287.50
Meals 20.00
Direct Expenses Subtotal 200,991.50
Direct Expenses Summary Amount
Page G-8.328
Office Locations
rinconconsultants.com
Carlsbad
2215 Faraday Avenue
Suite A
Carlsbad, California 92008
760-918-9444
Fresno
7080 North Whitney Avenue
Suite 101
Fresno, California 93720
559-228-9925
Los Angeles
250 East 1st Street
Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
213-788-4842
Monterey
2511 Garden Road
Suite C-250
Monterey, California 93940
831-333-0310
Oakland
449 15th Street
Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
510-834-4455
Redlands
1980 Orange Tree Lane
Suite 105
Redlands, California 92374
909-253-0705
Sacramento
4825 J Street
Suite 200
Sacramento, California 95819
916-706-1374
San Diego
8825 Aero Drive
Suite 120
San Diego, California 92123
760-918-9444
San José
99 South Almaden Boulevard
San José, California 95113
408-577-3008
San Luis Obispo
1530 Monterey Street
Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
805-547-0900
Santa Barbara
209 East Victoria Street
Santa Barbara, California 93101
805-319-4092
Ventura (headquarters)
180 North Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, California 93003
805-644-4455
Page G-8.329
AUGUST 1, 2022

EIR PREPARATION

AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SERVICES

FOR THE PROPOSED PARKLINE PROJECT

CITY OF MENLO PARK

PROPOSAL FOR
ATTACHMENT G Page G-8.330
157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net LSA is a business name of LSA Associates, Inc.

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

POINT RICHMOND

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
August 1, 2022
Corinna D. Sandmeier
Acting Principal Planner
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
[email protected]
Subject: Response to RFP – Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Preparation and Environmental Consultant Services – Parkline Project
Dear Ms. Sandmeier:

LSA is pleased to submit this proposal to provide environmental consulting services to the City of Menlo Park (City) and to prepare the Parkline Project EIR, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

We are confident that LSA can provide the City with the essential project management and strategic thinking skills, combined with our expertise in environmental and policy issues, that will be needed to deliver a technically thorough and legally robust EIR for this project.

LSA is a full-service multidisciplinary environmental planning and project management professional services firm committed to providing the City with accurate, prompt, and efficient environmental documentation services. LSA has offered these services for more than 46 years, and today the firm employs over 145 environmental professionals, including specialists in environmental and land use planning, transportation, biological resources, architectural and historic resources, archaeology, paleontology, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geographic information systems, and noise and vibration. Our key qualifications for conducting this work are:
▪ The availability and commitment of LSA’s senior project management team, Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal/Project Manager, and Matthew Wiswell, AICP, Senior Planner/Assistant Project Manager, who will see the project through from beginning to end;
▪ Our previous experience preparing environmental documents for projects throughout Northern California and specifically within the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) and Peninsula, including the City of Menlo Park;
▪ The commitment of LSA’s in-house technical experts and selected subconsultants with local knowledge and expertise; and
▪ The ability to work collaboratively with agencies, project sponsors, design teams, and technical consultants, and to communicate effectively with diverse audiences in highly charged public forums.

Our team brings experience in preparing environmental documents for a wide range of land development projects in diverse settings throughout the Bay Area, including a number of residential, life sciences, research and development, and office campus projects. We have prepared comprehensive and focused EIRs for a number of high-profile projects in recent years, and these documents have been subject to and have withstood a high level of scrutiny. Our solid understanding of the CEQA environmental review process and other environmental laws helps us to anticipate our clients’ needs and provide a customized approach to each assignment, while balancing cost efficiency, schedule constraints, and regulatory requirements.

Page G-8.331
ii | P a g e
Theresa Wallace, AICP, will serve as the Principal in Charge and Project Manager and brings 19 years of experience in managing and preparing a variety of environmental documents for CEQA compliance throughout the Bay Area. She will be supported by senior level technical staff, including Matthew Wiswell, AICP, Senior Planner, as the Assistant Project Manager. Theresa and Matthew have successfully completed four Focused EIRs for projects within the Bayfront Area of the City over the last 3 years, and both are based out of LSA’s Bay Area office, located in Point Richmond.

LSA’s in-house technical specialists will complete the biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise analyses, and conduct peer review of project sponsor-prepared studies as needed. Technical support will be provided by staff in our Point Richmond, Clovis, and San Luis Obispo offices.

To supplement our team, we have included our longstanding teaming partners, with particular experience working in Menlo Park and other cities on the Peninsula:
▪ Hexagon Transportation Consultants to provide the transportation and circulation analysis; ▪ Baseline Environmental Consulting to provide geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality analyses;
▪ BAE Urban Economics to provide a Housing Needs Assessment; and ▪ Environmental Vision to provide shadow diagrams and visual simulations, as an optional task.

We believe that the LSA team offers efficiencies in terms of both timeline and cost given our recent experience within the city and ability to maximize the expertise of our own in-house technical specialists and long-term teaming partners. With the use of our in-house and select technical specialists, LSA’s project manager can ensure that the team is committed to the submittal due dates provided in our agreed-upon schedules and that our quality assurance and quality control procedures are followed.

We approach this assignment with a great deal of enthusiasm and look forward to the opportunity to assist you with this project. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact me by email at [email protected] or by phone at (510) 236‐6810.

Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

Theresa Wallace, AICP
Principal
Page G-8.332
i | P a g e
Table of Contents

1. Project Understanding and Approach.......................................................................................................1

2. Proposed Work Program...........................................................................................................................7

3. Cost Estimate ..........................................................................................................................................26

4. Project Schedule .....................................................................................................................................32

5. Project Team...........................................................................................................................................33

6. Relevant Qualifications and References.................................................................................................41

7. Conflict of Interest and Disclosures........................................................................................................52

8. Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity...............................................................................................................53 Appendix A: Transportation Impact Analysis Scope of Work .....................................................................55 Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Scope of Work ...........................................................................63 Appendix C: Resumes ..................................................................................................................................68 Page G-8.333
1 | P a g e

1. Project Understanding and Approach
LSA understands that the City of Menlo Park (City) is seeking an environmental consultant to prepare the environmental review documentation for the proposed Parkline Project (proposed project), pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and to provide all necessary environmental consulting services in connection with this effort. In response to the City’s Request for Proposals (RFP), dated June 1, 2022, LSA has developed an approach and work program that will achieve the City’s objectives for environmental review and has assembled a project team that provides the full range of required expertise.

This section outlines our project understanding and approach to environmental review and provides an overview of our management approach and the key strengths of the project team. Section 2 provides our proposed work program; the cost estimate and schedule are presented in Sections 3 and 4, respectively.

The LSA project team is identified in Section 5, and relevant experience and references are listed in Section

6. Our conflict of interest statement and disclosures are included in Section 7. Our efforts related to diversity, equity, and inclusion are identified in Section 8.

Project Understanding
Our project understanding and approach to environmental review are based on the information and background materials provided in the RFP and our familiarity with the project site and vicinity.

The approximately 63.2-acre project site is made up of five parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 062-390- 660, -670, -730, -760, and -780) located at 333 Ravenswood Avenue near the Downtown Area and Menlo Park Caltrain Station. The project site is generally bounded by Ravenswood Avenue to the northwest; Middlefield Road to the northeast; commercial uses to the east; residential uses to the east and south; and Laurel Street, residential uses, and institutional uses, including Menlo Park City Hall, to the west.

The project site is developed with 38 existing buildings that total approximately 1.38 million gross square feet and contain a mix of amenity, office, research and development (R&D), and support uses. The project site was first developed in 1864 and used as a residential estate until World War II, when approximately 20 buildings were constructed and occupied by Dibble General Hospital, which was operated by the United States military. The remaining 18 buildings on the project site were built by SRI International (SRI) between the 1960s and 1980s. The campus is closed to the public and mostly surrounded by a security fence with limited access points. A total of 1,375 trees are located on the project site, approximately 565 of which are heritage trees.

The project sponsor, Lane Partners, LLC, on behalf of SRI, proposes to redevelop the site with a new transit-oriented, mixed-use district called Parkline (also referred to herein as the “proposed project”). The proposed project would consist of a new mixed-use neighborhood with new housing units at a range of affordability levels, a new R&D campus that would replace and consolidate SRI’s existing facilities, more than 25 acres of public open space, and infrastructure improvements including new bicycle and pedestrian connections. All but three of the existing buildings on the campus would be demolished.

The new residential district would include a total of 400 new rental units, which would consist of 381 units located within three multifamily buildings ranging from three to five stories in height and 19 rental townhouses located adjacent to the Classics of Burgess neighborhood. The residential district would be Page G-8.334
2 | P a g e
approximately 10 acres in size and would be located on the northwestern corner of the project site. As a variant to the project as currently proposed, up to 600 residential units may be developed by increasing building heights, as well as including additional residential units on a separate 1-acre portion of the site in the vicinity of the proposed community athletic field.

The office/R&D portion of the proposed project would consist of five new buildings ranging from approximately 166,000 to 245,000 square feet in size, totaling approximately 1.1 million square feet of space. SRI would continue to occupy approximately 284,000 square feet of R&D space within the three existing buildings that would be retained. Implementation of the proposed project would result in no net increase in office/R&D square footage.

A publicly accessible community open space area would be located at the northeast corner of the site at the intersection of Ravenswood and Middlefield Avenues. This open space would include community open spaces, such as a recreational field, a community building, public parking, a children’s play area, and other activity areas. A central “green” space would be located between the office/R&D buildings and would include a variety of large open spaces, flexible lawns, and plaza spaces. Smaller landscaped areas adjacent to the proposed buildings would provide outdoor seating. The proposed project would also include new pathways for bicycles and pedestrians, including a multiuse bicycle and pedestrian path along Ravenswood Avenue, an internal loop road with Class II and III bicycle lanes, and a bicycle and pedestrian path along Burgess Avenue. The proposed project would be designed to promote pedestrian access from the northwest (to and from the Caltrain Station) and would provide multiple pedestrian access points throughout the site.

For each of the three residential buildings, parking would be provided within above-grade, one-story garages. Each of the townhouses would have parking spaces within private garages located in each unit.

Parking for the office/R&D districts would be provided in a combination of surface parking lots, aboveground structures, and two one-level underground garages below two of the new buildings. Two of the parking garages would be five stories tall and include six levels of parking, while the third garage would be three stories tall and include four levels of parking. Public parking would be provided within a parking lot adjacent to the recreational field and community building. A total of 3,230 parking spaces would be provided throughout the project site, including 2,300 within parking garages, 500 surface parking spaces, and 430 residential spaces.

LSA understands that the Master Plan for the site is preliminary and the housing density and nonresidential land uses may change prior to commencement of environmental review. In addition to environmental review, the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to apply the High Density Transit Oriented Development designation across the entire project site, a Zoning Amendment that would create two new zoning districts, a rezoning to apply the new districts to the site, a conditional development permit, a development agreement, an architectural control permit, a heritage tree removal permit, and a vesting tentative map.

Technical Approach
The City is the Lead Agency for environmental review of the proposed project. Based on our review of the City’s RFP, review of the project background materials, and familiarity with the local area, LSA believes that a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the appropriate environmental document to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. Our detailed approach to preparation of the EIR is detailed in Section 2, Proposed Work Program.

Page G-8.335
3 | P a g e
The EIR and environmental review process in general will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the proposed project. Issues specific to each technical topic to be evaluated under CEQA are detailed in the proposed work program. Our proposed work program is intended to accomplish the following key objectives:
▪ Collaborate with the City and project sponsor to define the project for CEQA purposes in order to craft an appropriately detailed project description that accurately reflects all elements of the proposed project, including the project variant.
▪ Utilize LSA’s experience preparing environmental documents for residential mixed-use, life sciences, R&D, and office campus projects and projects within Menlo Park to customize the environmental review effort to address the unique
characteristics of the project site and proposed project. ▪ Achieve a high level of communication and interaction among the project team so that the CEQA environmental analyses and public outreach efforts consider the range of
environmental constraints that could affect project
development.
▪ Make the environmental documentation as accessible and relevant as possible through thoughtful and concise writing and use of data-rich graphics.
▪ Provide a rigorous project-level analysis of the environmental effects of each phase of the proposed development.
▪ Use and leverage the LSA team’s technical expertise to prepare an environmental review document that addresses and responds to agency and public concerns about the project. ▪ Maximize the use of background materials and previous environmental documents that have already been assembled for the project site.

The EIR will include all of the topics required by CEQA. All issue topics will be comprehensively addressed at a level appropriate for the proposed project. LSA will peer review and make use of the relevant technical studies prepared by the project sponsor team, and will coordinate the availability, timing, and review of these studies prior to conducting in-house technical reviews. The project variant will also be thoroughly evaluated and addressed in each topical section, and potential impacts and mitigation measures applicable to the project variant will be clearly identified and differentiated, as necessary.

It is anticipated that up to two alternatives, in addition to the No-Project alternative, will be evaluated in the EIR. While most of the analysis will focus on a qualitative comparison of project impacts, LSA understands that a more comprehensive and quantitative analysis of some or all of the project alternatives may be necessary, and this is reflected in our scope of work.

Three optional tasks are included in the proposed work program: 1) visual simulations; 2) shadow diagrams; and 3) SB 7 Environmental Leadership record and analysis.

Key Issues:
- Development of a stable and
conservative project
description early on in the
process
- Presenting and analyzing the
project variant in a way that is
easily differentiated from the
impacts of the project as
proposed
- Planning and policy consistency
- Historic resources
- Transportation and circulation
- Population, employment and
housing
- Greenhouse gas emissions
- Hazardous materials
- Visual resources
- Public services
Page G-8.336
4 | P a g e
Management Approach
Effective project management is critical to the success of an environmental analysis. We believe that the ability of LSA staff to work independently of, but in close communication with, City staff is one of our greatest assets. The following summarizes the key strengths of the LSA team and management approach:
▪ Commitment and Availability of Local Senior Staff. LSA is committed to having senior staff involved in projects,
including close collaboration with the project manager and technical staff. The LSA team will be directed and managed by a Principal of the firm, who will oversee the project and technical analyses, coordinate with the project team, and ensure that all tasks are completed in an efficient, costeffective, and timely manner. The Principal/Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager will manage the day-to-day activities of the project from our San Francisco Bay Area office and represent the project team at all meetings and hearings.

LSA’s identified Project Manager and Assistant Project
Manager are available to begin work upon notice to proceed and will see the project through from beginning to end. ▪ Proactive Project Management. LSA provides comprehensive, active project management, ensuring overall project quality, coordination, and timeliness. Each of LSA’s assigned staff members is skilled at anticipating and dealing with issues that may arise during the course of the project. Rather than postpone difficult issues or unpleasant news, LSA’s style is to raise issues early and solve problems.
▪ Communication and Responsiveness. Our project managers and associates are trained to communicate – by memo, by email, by videoconference, and by phone – in ways that are clear, concise, and early enough that decisions requiring higher level input can be addressed before they become problems. We will travel to City offices to meet when face-to-face dialogue will be the most effective form of communication. We encourage the establishment of regular team teleconferences to provide progress updates. We will prepare agendas and minutes for team meetings and maintain an ongoing list of action items. In addition to regularly established meetings, LSA’s Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager work as a team and either one will be available to respond to calls and emails in a timely manner as client needs arise.
▪ Commitment to Schedule and Cost Control. Meeting the client’s schedule is a primary focus of project management for all work undertaken by LSA. We seek to initiate the planning and review process with a clear understanding of the realistic dates for the receipt of analyses and the completion of technical studies that are key milestones on the critical path for completing the project. We take a very proactive approach to managing our technical subconsultants to ensure that they are committed to meet the agreed-upon project schedules. It is our policy that if we identify serious concerns that jeopardize the adequacy of our analysis, we immediately notify the client to discuss possible solutions and the effect of these solutions on the schedule. On a weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis, our planning staff conducts workload meetings to determine work assignments by individual staff and to allocate resources to ensure that we meet agreed-upon deadlines. LSA will review the project Key Management Considerations:
- Project will be managed from
our San Francisco Bay Area
office
- Senior staff are committed and
available to see the project
through from beginning to end
- We are communicative and
responsive to client needs and
return calls and emails
promptly
- Regular review of schedule and
key milestone dates and
flexibility to adjust and meet
project demands as needed
- Established quality control
procedures are followed for
every project
Page G-8.337
5 | P a g e
schedule with the team on a bi-weekly basis and adapt as needed to ensure that key milestone dates are achieved.

Conducting all steps necessary for creation and approval of the required environmental review requires not only strict adherence to established timelines and schedules of the project, but also close management of costs associated with the project. To this end, LSA employs several management tools including topic-specific budgeting tables, subconsultant progress updates, and regularly scheduled budget reporting and updates to the client to accurately track and monitor the overall budget through to project completion. Operating within the budget and schedule constraints of the project enables LSA to deliver the highest-quality product within the agreed-upon timeline and financial limits. LSA uses Deltek accounting software for both its project management and accounting functions. Deltek is a totally integrated project management and accounting software developed for the architecture, planning, and engineering industry that is auditable and secure, and it provides our project managers with real-time access to project data and the ability to track hours and costs according to client specifications. LSA prepares budgets that are realistic for the scope of services to be performed and verifies that the amounts we bill are in line with our budget and work performed each month. We deal promptly with requests for out-of-scope work or work at a level not anticipated in our approved scope.
▪ Established Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures. LSA maintains high quality throughout the life of each project, not merely at the end of the project. LSA’s overall goal is to improve quality on each subsequent project. This requires implementation of strategies to improve quality at the very beginning of each project and carrying those strategies throughout a project and beyond. LSA’s Quality Control Plan and Procedures include these specific management tasks:
○ Assign the most appropriate Project Manager to the project and ensure that person’s availability throughout the project.
○ During contract negotiations, the LSA Project Manager and Principal in Charge, along with the client, will systematically review the work program to ensure that all parties have a clear understanding of the project objectives and scope of work. ○ Assign a project team with experience in the area and/or on similar projects and ensure staffing availability.
○ Include Principal review of all work performed prior to submittal to the client. Principal review ensures that LSA’s study methodology, analysis, and conclusions are sound and that quality standards are met.
○ Ensure that applicable agency standards, policies, and procedures are understood and adhered to by all project team members.
○ Ensure timely completion of project deliverables.
○ Review project status with the client at regular project intervals, to ensure implementation of the original scope of work and harmonious functioning of all team members. Identify any potential conflicts with schedule or budget due to potential changes in scope or client direction. ○ Review performance with the client on a regular basis to make any adjustments required for successful project completion and to determine improvements for future projects. ▪ Understanding of City Staff Needs. Through our experience working with public agencies, we know that City staff can be stretched thin by the time and effort required to manage the planning and Page G-8.338
6 | P a g e
environmental review process. All of the materials we submit will be as thoughtful and complete as possible, and in full compliance with the City’s environmental review processes and procedures and our own quality control procedures. We will respond promptly and thoroughly to City comments and facilitate the document review process by providing “red line/strikeout” versions of documents, showing the explicit changes made between drafts. Reviewer comments will be retained in the red line/strikeout versions.
▪ Client Satisfaction. LSA has a reputation for providing quality services and quickly responding to client requests. We encourage you to contact LSA’s references provided in Section 6 for their opinion regarding the quality of our work, management of budget and schedule, and attentiveness to project needs.

Page G-8.339
7 | P a g e

2. Proposed Work Program
This section outlines the LSA team’s approach and specific work program for completing the Parkline Project EIR, in compliance with CEQA. An outline of the overall work program is presented in Table A.

Task 1. Project Initiation
The project initiation task will provide an opportunity for the LSA team to collaborate and strategize with City staff to refine our recommended approach and work program, as
appropriate, and assemble materials for the analysis of the project. Other key project initiation tasks will involve conducting a site visit, gathering and reviewing background information, preparing the project description, distributing the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and facilitating the scoping session.

1.1 Start-Up Meeting and Site Visit
LSA will meet with City staff to discuss expectations
regarding the tasks to be undertaken as part of the
environmental documentation effort for the proposed
project. As a part of the meeting, LSA will:
▪ Confirm the proposed scope of work and expectations
for use and peer review of background materials
provided by the project sponsor team;
▪ Identify relevant information and data needs regarding the project site, and environmental documents beyond
those the City and project sponsor have already made
available;
▪ Discuss the City’s desired approach to involving the
project sponsor team and various City departments
during preparation of the environmental
documentation and review of the administrative and
screencheck drafts;
▪ Discuss the overall environmental review schedule and associated milestones; and
▪ Review the required entitlements/planning approvals
and lead agency roles.

Table A: Work Program Outline
TASK 1. PROJECT INITIATION

1.1 Start-Up Meeting and Site Visit

1.2 Data Gathering, Evaluation, and Peer
Review

1.3 Project Description

1.4 Notice of Preparation and Scoping
Session

1.5 Work Program Refinement
TASK 2. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

MEASURES

2.1 Land Use and Planning

2.2 Population and Housing

2.3 Visual Resources

2.4 Biological Resources

2.5 Cultural and Tribal Resources

2.6 Geology and Soils

2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality

2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

2.9 Transportation

2.10 Air Quality

2.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2.12 Noise

2.13 Public Services and Recreation

2.14 Utilities and Service Systems

2.15 Energy
TASK 3. ALTERNATIVES
TASK 4. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT

CONCLUSIONS
TASK5. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT

5.1 Administrative Draft EIR

5.2 Screencheck Draft EIR

5.3 Printcheck Draft EIR

5.4 Public Review Draft EIR
TASK 6. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT

6.1 Administrative Draft RTC

6.2 Screencheck Draft RTC

6.3 Printcheck Draft RTC

6.4 Final RTC

6.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program

6.6 Findings of Fact and Statement of
Overriding Considerations

6.7 Administrative Record
TASK 7. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
TASK 8. MEETINGS
Page G-8.340
8 | P a g e
In conjunction with the start-up meeting, LSA staff will visit the project site and photograph the surroundings, document existing conditions and site features, and confirm information provided in the background studies or data provided by the City and the project sponsor.

1.2 Data Gathering, Evaluation, and Peer Review
Existing data and analyses applicable to the project site and vicinity will be collected, evaluated, and distributed to the project team. LSA is already very familiar with the City’s applicable planning, policy, and environmental documents, including ConnectMenlo and its Final EIR. LSA would request a list of the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval for reference and use in the EIR analysis. Applicable technical studies and background data provided by the project sponsor will also be collected and reviewed. Prior to preparation of the project description and initiation of the technical evaluations, LSA will request the following from the project sponsor, if not already provided:
▪ Site Survey Mapping and Data
▪ Conceptual Site Plan(s)
▪ Representative Building Elevations/Sections or Massing ▪ Grading Plan
▪ Landscape Plan
▪ Circulation Plan
▪ Stormwater Plan
▪ Utility Plan
▪ Photometric Lighting Plan
▪ List of Project Objectives
▪ Employment Data
The construction schedule and data by phase will also be requested, including depth of excavation, soil import/export, and equipment use and duration (worksheet to be provided by LSA). In the event that equipment data are not available, default assumptions will be used.

LSA will also collect and peer review any technical studies that may be provided by the project sponsor.

Peer review would concentrate on the methodologies and conclusions contained in the reports for legal and scientific adequacy and accuracy. Upon conclusion of the peer review tasks, the LSA team will provide a summary of the findings to the City for review and recommend any additional technical analyses that may be required. At this time, it is assumed that the following technical studies could be provided and may require peer review by the LSA team; peer review of these technical studies is accounted for under the corresponding technical topics in Task 2:

Deliverable: After the start-up meeting LSA will provide a summary of the meeting minutes, final schedule identifying key project milestones and dates, and a list of identified information needs (preliminary list identified in Task 1.2, below). LSA will also establish a file transfer link to be used throughout the course of the project.

Page G-8.341
9 | P a g e
▪ Biological Resources Assessment (refer to Task 2.4).
▪ Historic Resources Evaluation (refer to Task 2.5)
▪ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Site Assessment Report(s) (Task 2.8) ▪ Transportation Demand Management Plan (Task 2.9)
▪ Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Analyses (refer to Tasks 2.10, 2.11, and 2.15) It is also assumed that the project sponsor will provide a Geotechnical Study, stormwater and drainage studies and plans, infrastructure studies, and other similar technical studies. It is assumed that the adequacy of these studies will be verified by the City and will not require formal peer review by LSA.

1.3 Project Description
Based on the submitted site plans, technical studies completed for the proposed project, and consultation with City staff and the project team, LSA will draft a project description that includes all elements necessary to comply with CEQA, including, but not limited to, the purpose, phasing, and physical elements of the project, including building use, square footage, and height. LSA will also request existing and anticipated employment data. The project description will include maps showing the existing conditions on and adjacent to the site, and the location and boundaries of the proposed project, as well as a written description of the existing uses so that the changes between existing conditions and proposed uses can be identified by phase. In addition, the project description will include a discussion of the background, objectives of the project, and construction phasing plan. The project description will describe the overall approval process for the project and identify all discretionary and anticipated subsequent approvals. All relevant agencies and reviewing bodies will also be identified.

LSA will also prepare a base map of the project site and vicinity for use in the environmental document, using the best available information from the City. The base map will be used to illustrate the features of the site and its vicinity, such as streets and surrounding land uses, general plan designations, and zoning.

Copies of the base map will be available for consultant and City staff use during meetings and presentations.

Crafting an appropriately detailed and illustrated project description is often the single most timeconsuming (as well as important) element of a CEQA review document. LSA will work closely with the City to ensure that the project description provides a level of detail appropriate for CEQA analysis. Up to two drafts of the project description will be submitted to the City and project sponsor for review and comment before the LSA team begins conducting any impact analyses. The information compiled as part of this task will inform the project description used in the NOP and the Draft EIR.

Deliverable: Memorandum(s) documenting the peer review findings for each sponsor-prepared technical study and recommendations for supplemental technical analysis Deliverable: Administrative Draft Project Description (up to two rounds) Page G-8.342
10 | P a g e

1.4 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Session
LSA will prepare an NOP in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. The NOP will include a project description, location map, and outline of the expected environmental topics to be covered in the EIR. LSA will be responsible for distributing the NOP to the State Clearinghouse. In addition, LSA will work with the City to circulate the NOP to the appropriate local, regional, State, and federal agencies, as well as additional distribution and posting consistent with City practices. Following the 30-day comment period, LSA will prepare a summary of all comments received, distribute comments to members of the LSA team as necessary, and recommend any needed changes to the proposed work program (see Task 1.5).

LSA will also attend and present at one public scoping session for the EIR. The Principal in Charge/Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager will attend the session, present the EIR and scoping process, and assist City staff as necessary. For the purposes of this scope and cost estimate, it is assumed that the scoping session will be conducted virtually, although LSA could attend in person in the event that meetings will be conducted in person. The NOP, along with the written comment letters received on the NOP, will be included in an appendix of the EIR.

As part of the scoping process, LSA will conduct the appropriate outreach with responsible and trustee agencies, which include federal, State, regional, and local agencies, as well as tribal representatives (per Assembly Bill [AB] 52). This outreach is considered under each technical topic described in Task 2, as appropriate.

Deliverable: Draft and Final NOP; scoping meeting presentation materials; and summary of scoping meeting minutes. Agency outreach and communications will occur as part of Task 2.

1.5 Work Program Refinement
It may be necessary to refine the work program in accordance with information compiled in the above subtasks. Upon receipt and review of all of the comments on the NOP (see Task 1.4) and taking into consideration comments heard at the scoping session, LSA will work with City staff to refine the scope of work and budget, if necessary, to address any environmental issues that are not yet adequately addressed in this revised work program.

Deliverable: Memorandum detailing revisions to the proposed work program and cost estimate, if required
Task 2. Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
The setting, impacts, and mitigation measures documentation for each of the issue areas described below will be incorporated into the EIR. All issue topics identified in the State CEQA Guidelines, Article 9, will be comprehensively addressed. The topics below are presented in the order in which we suggest the EIR be organized, to allow decision-makers, responsible agencies, and the public to easily read the document through from beginning to end as certain topical discussions build upon previous analyses (e.g., the air quality discussion will build upon data gathered as part of the transportation analysis). Cross referencing to previous discussions will be utilized as necessary to reduce repetitiveness. LSA will confirm the organizational outline of the EIR before proceeding with the analysis.

Page G-8.343
11 | P a g e
The analysis for each issue topic will clearly describe the affected environment and the environmental consequences of implementation of the project as proposed, as well as the project variant. The agreed upon significance thresholds, which will be based on the CEQA Guidelines and City policies and standards, will be clearly stated within each section and will be used to determine impacts. Where relevant, impacts will be separately identified by their occurrence during either the construction or operations periods and differentiated between the proposed project and the project variant. Standard Conditions of Approval and/or feasible mitigation measures (as well as the residual impacts or effects of each measure) will be identified. It is assumed that the project variant will be addressed in each topical section of the EIR; however, the EIR could include a separate chapter that specifically addresses the impacts and applicable mitigation measures associated with the project variant.

Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate potential environmental impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively significant. These impacts can result from the proposed project alone or together with other projects. Each of the topical sections discussed below will include an analysis of cumulative effects. The analysis of cumulative effects will address the potential impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with other past, present, or probable future projects. Reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project’s contribution to any significant cumulative effects will be identified.

It is assumed that the cumulative analysis will rely on both a list-based and projections level approach, using information provided by the City, as needed. The preferred method for conducting the cumulative impact analysis will be developed and agreed upon prior to conducting the impact analysis.

Deliverable: Proposed outline of the Draft EIR organization, including evaluation of the project variant, and draft significance thresholds

2.1 Land Use and Planning
The project site is currently occupied by the SRI campus, which includes 38 buildings totaling approximately 1.38 million square feet in size. Existing land uses at the site and the nearby vicinity include office and R&D, as well as residential, institutional, commercial, and recreational uses. Implementation of the General Plan Amendment would allow for residential, public and quasi-public, and recreational uses on the project site in addition to the office/R&D uses and establish a maximum residential density at 40 dwelling units per acre and a commercial floor area ratio of 0.6. The Zoning Amendment would create two new zoning districts, one specific to the residential district and one specific to the commercial district.

Each district would establish discrete development standards in accordance with the uses and features included in the proposed project. The proposed redevelopment of the site would alter the existing land use characteristics of the site and immediate vicinity. LSA will describe the land uses on and surrounding the project site. Existing on-site and surrounding land uses will be described based on the base map task identified in Task 1.3, information gathered on the site visit, and information provided by the City and project sponsor.

Development of the proposed project would require a number of planning approvals. This section will include a comprehensive discussion of applicable local and regional planning documents and land use policies relevant to the project area and proposed development. The proposed project will be compared to the policies and guidelines adopted by the City of Menlo Park, including the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Land use plan compliance and conflicts will be described, and procedural mitigation will be outlined, as appropriate. Any policy inconsistencies and potential planning conflicts will be identified in a table format, and the potential policy conflicts will be described in greater textual detail. Under CEQA, Page G-8.344
12 | P a g e
policy conflicts in and of themselves (in the absence of direct physical effects) are not considered to have a significant effect on the environment and will therefore be differentiated from impacts described in the other topical sections of the EIR. Any physical impacts associated with policy conflicts will be addressed in the appropriate technical sections.

2.2 Population and Housing
The proposed project would result in the redevelopment of the project site with office/R&D, residential, and public uses and is expected to result in a direct increase in population. The proposed project would not be expected to result in indirect population growth as a result of employment increases as there would be no net increase in nonresidential space. Employment data will be requested to confirm this assumption. The extension of roadways and other infrastructure is not anticipated to increase opportunities for growth in the area as the project site is surrounded by development on all sides.

BAE Urban Economics will prepare a Housing Needs Assessment (HNA), which will form the basis of the analysis in this section of the EIR. BAE’s scope of work for the HNA is included in Attachment B. The existing demographics of the area will be identified and described based on the most current data available, including the General Plan, Plan Bay Area 2040 (which includes projections) and Plan Bay Area 2050, Department of Finance population and housing estimates, and Census data. Population growth associated with the proposed project will be determined through the preparation of the project description in consultation with the City. LSA will assess the population and housing impacts that will be created by the proposed project, only to the extent that they will directly or indirectly result in physical changes to the environment.

2.3 Visual Resources
The existing setting would be altered by the construction of new residential and commercial buildings and the removal of existing buildings, including the removal of buildings considered to be historic resources for the purposes of CEQA. The new development would be visible from public vantage points primarily available from surrounding roadways and open spaces, including Burgess Park. LSA will describe the area's existing visual character using photographs, mapping, and narrative, and will include views from and to the site, noting the site’s visibility as seen from key public vantage points located within the vicinity. The visual attributes and patterns of the project site and its surroundings will be assessed according to the following descriptive categories: site location and spatial organization, land form, water courses, vegetation, land uses, cultural features, and specific objects having aesthetic significance.

Effects of the proposed development on the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings will be described and analyzed. LSA will address the project’s potential visibility and visual contrast and compatibility as seen from key public view corridors and sensitive viewing locations. In addition, the proposed lighting standards will be described and potential changes to nighttime views of the site will be assessed. Mitigation measures will be identified, if required.

Optional Task 1: Visual Simulations
Using advanced computer modeling and rendering techniques, Environmental Vision will produce accurate, photo-based conceptual simulations to illustrate future building massing associated with the proposed development as seen from representative public viewpoints. Site photography and up to 8 Page G-8.345
13 | P a g e
review photographs are assumed. Up to three visual simulations could be produced, all though additional simulations could be prepared for an additional fee.

Optional Task 2: Shadow Diagrams
Environmental Vision will produce a shadow analysis of the proposed project based on computer modeling of shadow effects associated with the proposed building massing. Project design assumptions developed for the visual simulations would be used. Times of day and sensitive locations for the analysis will be confirmed with the project team.

Shadows for three times of day (9 am, 12 noon and 3 pm) will be shown at three times of year: winter and summer solstices (December 21 and June 21), when the sun is at its lowest and highest, and spring or fall equinoxes (March 21 or September 21), when day and night are of equal length. A total of nine (9) black and white diagrams showing existing and net new project shadow patterns will be produced. The diagrams will be based on computer modeling of shadow effects associated with the proposed building massing. A brief written summary of technical methodology and assumptions will also be prepared if requested.

2.4 Biological Resources
The project site is primarily developed with existing surface parking lots, existing buildings, and landscaped vegetation, although there are a total of 1,375 trees located on the project site, approximately 565 of which are heritage trees. Due to the urbanized setting of the project site and surroundings, the site is unlikely to support sensitive habitats or special-status wildlife or plant species. Large trees and any unoccupied buildings on the site could however provide roosting sites for bats. LSA biologists will review available literature and data bases to determine the special-status plants and animals known from the region and that occur in habitats similar to those present on the site. An LSA biologist will conduct a reconnaissance field visit to the site to verify conditions are as described in the Biological Resources Assessment and Arborist Report to be prepared by the project sponsor. Any discrepancies identified in the Biological Resources Assessment will be identified in a memorandum. Using information collected from the field review and review of the reports provided by the project sponsor, LSA will determine potential impacts to biological resources resulting from project implementation. Mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, and/or compensate for significant impacts will be recommended if necessary.

2.5 Cultural and Tribal Resources
According to a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) prepared in April 2022 by Page & Turnbull, three buildings on the project site (Building A, Building E, and Building 100) appear individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). These three buildings are considered to be historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. In addition, the approximately 63-acre site contains the potential SRI International Campus Historic District, which appears eligible for listing in the California Register and is also considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The eligible historic district has 26 contributing buildings and 2 contributing landscape features, as well as 13 noncontributing buildings.

An LSA architectural historian will peer review Page & Turnbull’s HRE and prepare a memorandum documenting peer review comments and findings and will utilize this analysis to prepare the built environment historic resources analysis for the EIR. Field reviews and supplemental archival and background research are not assumed to be required once adequate peer reviewed historic resource Page G-8.346
14 | P a g e
evaluation is provided by the project sponsor, although these additional tasks could be completed with use of the contingency, if necessary.

To support the EIR analysis for the evaluation of archaeological resources, an LSA archaeologist will request a cultural resources records search from the Northwest Information Center for the project site and a 0.5-mile search radius. LSA will also conduct background research to assist in determining the archaeological sensitivity of the project site, including requesting a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission. Following receipt of the records search results, an LSA archaeologist will conduct a field survey of nonbuilding and unpaved areas of the project site. LSA will then prepare a technical letter report summarizing the records search results and additional background research. The letter report will also include recommendations regarding archaeological resources as appropriate. This scope assumes that no archaeological cultural resources will be identified in the project site as a result of the records search or field survey.

As of July 2015, the provisions of AB 52 provide for consultation with Native American tribal organizations during the CEQA process. Prior to release of an EIR for a project, a lead agency must provide the opportunity to consult to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area in which a project is located, and must conduct such consultation, if requested by the tribes in writing within 30 days of notification of the proposed project. Should any Native American tribes have concerns about Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) within the project site, consultation outreach should document potential impacts to such resources, as well as feasible means to avoid, or significantly reduce, impacts to those resources during project implementation.

On behalf of the City, LSA will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento to request a review of its Sacred Lands File for the project site, as well as a list of tribes that have requested notification pursuant to the requirements of AB 52 for projects within the City’s jurisdiction. LSA will prepare an AB 52 draft outreach letter template for use by the City in sending this correspondence on City letterhead, which will notify tribes of the opportunity to consult on the potential for encountering TCRs during the project. This scope assumes that the City will print and distribute consultation letters to tribes.

This section of the EIR will be prepared based on the results of the finalized HRE, the archaeological resources study, the results of the NAHC Sacred Lands File search, and the outcome of any consultation between the City and local tribal governments.

2.6 Geology and Soils
The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo (AP) Fault Zone; however, the project site is located in a seismically active area. A significant earthquake on one of the regional faults near the project site will likely produce very strong ground shaking during the life of the project. Based on the Geotechnical Evaluation to be provided by the project sponsor and other available reports and maps, Baseline will prepare a summary of the geologic setting and regulatory framework related to geology and soils for the EIR. Baseline will evaluate potential impacts related to geology and soils and will develop mitigation measures, as needed, to reduce the potential impacts related to geology and soils to a less-than-significant level.

LSA will complete a fossil locality search through the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) at the University of California, Berkeley to establish the status and extent of previously recorded paleontological resources within the project area, as well as within the same or similar deposits as those Page G-8.347
15 | P a g e
found in the project area. This locality search will help determine the types of paleontological resources that may be encountered during project development. LSA will examine current geologic maps of the project area and review relevant geological and paleontological literature, as well as project plans and the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the project. This literature review will determine which geologic units are present within the project area and provide additional information regarding the types of paleontological resources that may occur in those deposits, their scientific significance, and potential methods to mitigate impacts to those resources. Although a field survey is generally also conducted to identify any paleontological resources and note the sediments at the surface, because the proposed project area is developed with buildings, parking areas, and landscaping, a field survey is not warranted.

LSA will document the results of this research, discuss the potential for the project to impact paleontological resources, and, if needed, include mitigation measures to minimize these impacts in the paleontological resources section of the EIR.

2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality
Baseline will evaluate the project’s potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality. Federal Emergency Management Agency mapping indicates that the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. Baseline will evaluate potential impacts of the project related to stormwater runoff quality, drainage systems, erosion and sedimentation, groundwater resources, and flooding. Baseline assumes that any hydrology-related technical reports, (e.g., stormwater control plan or drainage study) if provided by the project sponsor, would be adequate for CEQA review purposes and Baseline would not perform a peer review of the calculations or methodology presented in hydrology-related technical reports.

Existing laws and regulations for hydrology and water quality that would be applicable to the project will be discussed, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction and post-construction requirements. Baseline will evaluate the project’s proposed approach to regulatory compliance. Baseline will develop mitigation measures, if necessary, to minimize any identified impacts to a less-than-significant level.

2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Baseline will evaluate potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials in accordance with CEQA requirements for the project. Demolition of existing structures could require the disturbance of hazardous building materials (e.g., lead and asbestos). The routine transportation and use of hazardous materials (e.g., fuel, oils, and paints) would occur during project construction. The routine transportation, storage, and use of hazardous materials would also occur during operation of the proposed research and development facilities at the project site. Baseline will discuss the potential for use, transport, and releases of hazardous materials to occur during project construction and operation. Existing laws and regulations for hazards and hazardous materials that would be applicable to the project will be discussed.

A preliminary review of the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker database indicates that the project site has two leaking underground storage tank (UST) cases that were closed in the 1990s: one for a gasoline UST and one for a diesel UST. Baseline understands that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a Site Assessment Report have been prepared for the project site. Baseline will perform a peer review of these documents and prepare a brief memo indicating whether additional environmental investigation and/or remediation activities may be required for the project site. Baseline will also discuss potential impacts associated with implementation of emergency response plans and proximity to Palo Page G-8.348
16 | P a g e
Alto Airport. Baseline will develop mitigation measures, as necessary, to minimize any identified impacts to a less-than-significant level.

2.9 Transportation
This section of the EIR will be entirely based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to be prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. The detailed scope of work for this effort is included in Appendix A. The TIA and technical analyses must be deemed adequate by City staff prior to preparation of the EIR section, to avoid duplicative efforts. The TIA will include a description of the transportation and circulation setting within the study area and evaluate: the project’s trip generation against local and regional thresholds for significance; all applicable City programs, plans, ordinances, and policies addressing circulation systems (including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities); the project’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b); the project’s geometric design features and adequacy of site access; and feasible mitigation measures, if necessary. The discussion of Level of Service (LOS) will be incorporated into the EIR section as an informational item and to evaluate conformance with General Plan policies, and potential improvements to the circulation system would be identified as potential conditions of project approval (and not mitigation measures). LSA and Hexagon will discuss this approach with the City before proceeding with the preparation of the EIR section. Hexagon will prepare the EIR section, with assistance from LSA. Hexagon will also peer review the project sponsor’s Transportation Demand Management proposal.

2.10 Air Quality
Development activity associated with implementation of the project could increase pollutant concentrations in Menlo Park through increased vehicle trips and construction. This increase could contribute to existing air pollution in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and has the potential to exceed regional air emission thresholds established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).

Construction activities associated with project development, including demolition, grading, and ground disturbance, could increase concentrations of particulate matter. Increased air pollution could affect compliance with existing air quality plans.

LSA understands that the project sponsor may provide a technical air quality analysis. However, this scope assumes that LSA will prepare an air quality analysis to be included in the EIR section and that this analysis will be based, in part, on the technical information provided in the TIA prepared by Hexagon (i.e., trip generation and VMT analysis). Supporting technical analysis, such as modeling output, will be included as an appendix to the EIR. In the event that the project sponsor supplies a technical air quality analysis within the appropriate timeframe, the scope and cost of LSA’s tasks related to air quality could be reduced. This topic may be discussed at the project kick off meeting (Task 1.1).

The EIR section will include a description of the regulatory framework for air quality, including existing air quality laws and regulations and the roles of the local agencies, including the California Air Resources Board (CARB), BAAQMD, and City of Menlo Park. Project setting meteorological and air quality data developed through the CARB and climatological and air quality profile data gathered by the BAAQMD will be utilized for the description of existing ambient air quality. The most recently published air quality data from air quality monitoring stations in the vicinity of the project site for the past 3 years will be included to characterize existing air quality. In addition, regulatory documents, professional publications, and past LSA experience in the project area will supplement background information.

Page G-8.349
17 | P a g e
LSA will review adopted plans related to clean air in the State of California and the BAAQMD and determine the project’s consistency with these plans. Construction equipment exhaust would also be a source of air pollution. LSA will calculate the regional construction emissions using the latest version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and will determine if emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Regional emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with long-term operations from vehicle trips will be calculated with CalEEMod. In addition, emissions associated with stationary sources, such as on-site energy consumption, use of backup generators, or landscaping equipment will be estimated. Operational‐period emissions will be analyzed to determine if emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.

Based on the anticipated construction activity and proximity of the nearest sensitive receptors, LSA will prepare a construction Health Risk Assessment (HRA) to identify any potentially significant health risk impacts resulting from construction of the proposed project. The HRA will address all applicable City, BAAQMD, and State requirements. The HRA will determine the increased cancer risk and noncancer health risks to nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., people living nearby) from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) from construction-related sources. LSA will compare the results of the HRA with the BAAQMD’s health risk thresholds. The proposed project will also be assessed to determine if it would result in objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Practical mitigation measures will be identified to address any significant project or cumulative impacts. Both an evaluation of the potential mitigation measures and a discussion of their effectiveness will be provided.

2.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction and operation of the proposed project would result in the consumption of fuel and energy resulting in the emission of greenhouse gases. Typically, an individual project does not generate sufficient greenhouse gas emissions to influence global climate change significantly on its own; therefore, the issue of global climate change is cumulative in nature. Implementation of the project, through construction and operational activities, would generate greenhouse gas emissions that would cumulatively contribute to global climate change.

LSA will prepare the greenhouse gas section of the EIR and will summarize up-to-date information related to global climate change, along with the climate/meteorology conditions in the project area, and the State and regional setting. The existing regulatory framework for global climate change will also be described, including applicable federal, State, and City of Menlo Park policies, regulations, and programs.

LSA will provide a qualitative assessment of greenhouse gas emissions associated with all relevant sources related to the project based on the BAAQMD’s CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts. LSA will also provide a qualitative assessment of the project’s consistency with relevant plans and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Where necessary, practical mitigation measures will be identified to address any significant project or cumulative impacts.

Mitigation may include additional sustainable development practices and design measures such as transportation demand management measures, site disturbance reduction measures, energy conservation measures and renewable energy sources, solid waste reduction measures, sustainable solid waste management practices, and water conservation and efficiency measures, over and above any already identified by the project sponsor.

Page G-8.350
18 | P a g e

2.12 Noise
The project site is bounded by major roadways and a commute corridor. The site also lies in close proximity to a number of residential, institutional, and commercial office uses that may contain sensitive receptors. The proposed project would generate new vehicle trips in the project vicinity as well as mechanical equipment and commercial operations, which could expose surrounding uses to an unacceptable increase in noise levels. In addition, construction activities could result in short-term increases in noise and vibration levels, particularly if pile driving is implemented. LSA will prepare the noise section of the EIR based on project plans and details. This section will include a comprehensive noise impact assessment, including an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed project on the existing and future environment in the project vicinity and a determination as to whether the project would result in exposure of individuals to unacceptable noise or vibration levels.

Applicable State of California and City of Menlo Park noise, vibration, and land use compatibility criteria for the project area will be identified. Noise standards including General Plan Noise Element Policies and the City Noise Ordinance will be discussed. Existing sources of noise in the project vicinity, such as existing commercial operations nearby, traffic on adjacent roadways, freeway, and railroad corridors, and aircraft activities, will be identified. Existing noise-sensitive land uses in the project site vicinity will also be identified using aerial images and field reconnaissance. Existing noise conditions will be documented based on the results of up to two long-term, 24-hour, and two short-term, 20-minute, noise measurements in the project vicinity.

The construction noise impact will be evaluated in terms of maximum levels (Lmax) and/or hourly equivalent continuous noise levels (Leq) and their frequency of occurrence. The vibration impacts will be evaluated and compared to the applicable City standards. If City standards are not available, Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual criteria will be utilized. The impact analysis will be based on the sensitivity of the area and the requirements of the Municipal Code.

Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures will be identified to address potential adverse construction-related short-term noise and vibration impacts on sensitive receptors.

The EIR will analyze both the project as proposed and the project variant and will complete the following tasks for each. LSA will evaluate noise impacts from project-related and cumulative vehicular trips.

Projections of the future noise levels along selected roadway segments will be provided in a table format to show the relationship between vehicle-related noise and distance from the roadway. In addition, LSA will quantitatively analyze operational impacts from stationary noise sources, such as new mechanical equipment such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems, and any other projectrelated noise associated with the proposed project. Both stationary and mobile operational noise impacts for both on-site and off-site sensitive land uses will be assessed.

As warranted, LSA will identify practical measures to address significant project or cumulative noise impacts. Any measures required to reduce the project’s short-term construction and/or long-term noise impacts to acceptable levels will also be identified. Both an evaluation of the potential measures and a discussion of their effectiveness will be provided. Lastly, LSA will incorporate measures designed to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to meet applicable standards for the proposed on-site buildings.

Page G-8.351
19 | P a g e

2.13 Public Services and Recreation
The proposed project would result in the addition of new residential uses to the project site and the reconfiguration of commercial uses on the site (but no increase in commercial square footage), and therefore would increase demand for fire, police, and public works (utilities and maintenance) services within the city, result in an increase in school-aged children within the city, and increase the use of recreational facilities within the city and region. The EIR will include a concise summary of each agency that would provide service to the site, their individual responsibilities, and existing service constraints.

LSA will review the General Plan EIR, as well as other background reports, and then work with the City to contact each service provider to determine if they have any concerns about providing services to the proposed project or physical constraints to doing so. The assessment in the EIR will examine the demand for services generated by the new uses on the site, and the physical impacts of this demand on existing public services. The need for coordination among facility and service providers and the project sponsor for on- or off-site improvements will be addressed to ensure that any potentially significant impacts are mitigated to less-than-significant levels.

This section of the EIR will also include an evaluation of potential impacts to parks and recreation. The EIR will identify existing neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities in the vicinity and describe the operation and maintenance of these facilities. Impacts to these facilities and the services provided will be evaluated. Mitigation measures will be identified to reduce impacts to public services and recreation, as necessary.

2.14 Utilities and Service Systems
The project site is currently served by water, wastewater, solid waste disposal, and other utility services.

The proposed project would increase the demand for water, wastewater, solid waste, telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas service and could require installation of new infrastructure both on and off the site. Storm drainage issues would be evaluated in the hydrology and water quality section of the EIR (refer to Task 2.7).

The EIR will include a concise summary of each agency that would provide service to the site, their individual responsibilities, and existing service constraints. LSA will review the General Plan EIR, technical studies provided by the project sponsor, and other background reports and then contact each service provider to determine if they have any concerns about providing services to the proposed project or physical constraints to doing so. The assessment in the EIR will examine the demand for services generated by the change in use on the site, and the physical impacts of this demand on existing utility services and infrastructure.

Senate Bill 610 requires an assessment of whether available water supplies are sufficient to serve the demand generated by new projects of a certain size. The proposed project would include more than 250,000 square feet of commercial office building space and may include more than 500 residential units with implementation of the project variant, and therefore a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) would be required. This scope of work assumes that the WSA will be prepared by Menlo Park Municipal Water through a separate consultant. The results of the WSA will be incorporated into the EIR analysis, and mitigation measures will be recommended, as necessary.

Page G-8.352
20 | P a g e

2.15 Energy
The proposed project would increase the demand for energy consumption during both construction and operation of the proposed project, including diesel fuel use for construction off-road equipment, diesel and gasoline fuel use for construction on-road vehicles, diesel and gasoline fuel use from vehicle trips generated by the project, operational natural gas usage, and operational electricity consumption.

Therefore, LSA will prepare an energy analysis, which will be included as a section of the EIR. Supporting technical analysis, such as modeling output, will be included as an appendix to the EIR.

LSA will estimate construction-period energy usage associated with diesel fuel use for construction offroad equipment and diesel and gasoline fuel use for construction on-road vehicles, using the results of CalEEMod and fuel consumption provided in CARB’s EMFAC2021 model. Once operational, energy use consumed by the proposed project would be associated with natural gas use, electricity consumption, and fuel used for vehicle trips associated with the project. LSA will estimate natural gas and energy consumption using default energy intensities by building type in CalEEMod. Fuel use associated with vehicle trips generated by the proposed project will be calculated based on the trip generation rates identified in the project’s trip generation estimates and vehicle fuel consumption provided in EMFAC2021.

This analysis will also address the project’s compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards. For purposes of this analysis, impacts to energy resources will be considered to be significant if the project would result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy.

Task 3. Alternatives
The LSA team will identify and fully evaluate up to three feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would avoid or reduce significant impacts, one of which will be the CEQA-required No Project alternative.

The alternatives will be developed in consultation with City staff and will be informed by input received during the scoping session and in response to the NOP, and the significant impacts of the project that are identified in the impact analysis for each topical section of the EIR. Alternatives considered but rejected from further analysis will be identified.

According to the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives can be evaluated in less detail than the project, and the discussion for each issue topic will be of sufficient detail to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of each alternative, and to provide some qualitative conclusions regarding the alternatives. In addition, it is assumed that quantitative evaluation of issues related to transportation, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions may also be required. A summary table will be included in this section that identifies the level of significance of each environmental topic for each alternative as compared to implementation of the proposed project. Based on this analysis, the Environmentally Superior Alternative will be identified (as required by CEQA).

Task 4. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions
LSA will prepare the appropriate conclusions to fulfill CEQA requirements by providing an assessment of several mandatory impact categories, including:
▪ Growth-inducing impacts;
▪ Significant irreversible environmental changes;
▪ Unavoidable significant environmental impacts; and
Page G-8.353
21 | P a g e
▪ Effects found not to be significant.

It is currently assumed that the topics of agriculture and forestry resources, mineral resources, and wildfire will be scoped out of the EIR analysis, and therefore will only be briefly addressed in the Effects Found Not to be Significant discussion.

Task 5. Draft Environmental Impact Report
LSA will prepare four versions of the Draft EIR, including an Administrative Draft, a Screencheck Draft, a Printcheck Draft, and a Public Review Draft.

5.1 Administrative Draft EIR
The information developed in Tasks 1 through 4 will be organized into an Administrative Draft EIR. In addition to each of the topical sections, the EIR will include the following components:
▪ Introduction
▪ Executive Summary
▪ Project Description (including Background)
▪ Environmental and Regulatory Setting, Impacts (Project, Project Variant, and Cumulative), and Mitigation Measures
▪ Alternatives to the Proposed Project
▪ CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions
▪ List of EIR Preparers
▪ List of Persons and Organizations Contacted
▪ References
▪ Technical Appendices
One digital version (in both Word and PDF formats) of the Administrative Draft EIR will be provided to City staff for distribution, review, and comment. LSA will discuss comments on the Administrative Draft EIR with the City over the phone or via videoconference.

Deliverable: One electronic version of Administrative Draft EIR

5.2 Screencheck Draft EIR
LSA will amend the Administrative Draft EIR based on a single set of noncontradictory comments provided by City staff. One digital version (in both Word and PDF formats) of the Screencheck Draft EIR will be provided to City staff for distribution, review, and comment. LSA will also provide an electronic version of the Screencheck Draft that retains all comments and edits on the Administrative Draft in tracked changes, for City staff to easily verify that all requested changes have been made and all comments addressed.

Deliverable: One electronic version of the Screencheck Draft EIR (clean and tracked changes versions) Page G-8.354
22 | P a g e

5.3 Printcheck Draft EIR
LSA will amend the Screencheck Draft EIR based on a single set of consolidated noncontradictory comments provided by the City. Electronic versions of the Printcheck Draft will be provided for review by City staff to verify that all requested changes have been made. LSA will also provide a compare version of the Printcheck Draft. This version will show text changes made to the Screencheck Draft EIR in underline and strikeout for the City to more easily confirm that all comments and edits are fully incorporated into the Printcheck Draft.

Deliverable: One electronic version of the Printcheck Draft EIR (clean and tracked changes versions)

5.4 Public Review Draft EIR
Upon successful completion and approval of the Printcheck Draft EIR, LSA will provide up to 15 paper copies of the Public Review Draft EIR for public distribution and submittal to the City. A high-resolution compiled electronic PDF version will be provided, as will a hyperlinked PDF version suitable for posting on the City’s website (i.e., individual, searchable low-resolution chapters). Word versions will also be provided for the City’s files.

LSA will prepare the Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) and can be responsible for distribution of the Public Review Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse. It is assumed that the City will be responsible for local noticing and distribution.

Deliverable: Up to 15 paper copies of the Public Review Draft EIR, as well as electronic versions of the Draft EIR, NOA, and NOC
Task 6. Final Environmental Impact Report
Following the 45-day public review period of the Draft EIR, LSA will prepare the Response to Comments (RTC) Document. The RTC Document, together with the Draft EIR, will comprise the Final EIR. LSA will prepare four versions of the RTC Document, including the Administrative Draft, the Screencheck Draft, the Printcheck Draft, and a Final Draft. As part of the Final EIR, LSA will also prepare and produce a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Administrative Record.

6.1 Administrative Draft RTC
The LSA team will formulate responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, including written comments received from the public and agencies, and prepare an Administrative Draft RTC Document.

Included in this document will be: 1) a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; 2) copies of all written comments, and the responses to these comments; 3) written comments and any verbal comments received at a public hearing and responses to these comments; and 4) any necessary revisions to the Draft EIR. The cost estimate in Section 3 shows the level of professional effort assumed for this task. In the event that an unexpectedly large volume of comments is received, comments are submitted in the form of an organized letter-writing campaign, or a substantial package of comments is submitted by a law firm representing community organizations, a scope and budget adjustment may be required.

Page G-8.355
23 | P a g e
Upon receipt of all the comments received during the 45-day review period, LSA will discuss the best approach to the responses document with the City. At this time, LSA will also identify if any adjustments to the budget (or use of contingency funds) will be needed to cover work beyond the assumed level. This scope of work assumes that no new technical analyses will be required to respond to comments.

The Administrative Draft RTC Document will be submitted to the City in electronic format (Word and PDF files) for staff distribution, review, and comment. LSA will discuss comments on the Administrative Draft RTC Document with the City over the phone or via videoconference.

Deliverable: One electronic version of Administrative Draft RTC

6.2 Screencheck Draft RTC
LSA will amend the Administrative Draft RTC Document based on a single set of noncontradictory comments provided by City staff. One digital version (in both Word and PDF formats) of the Screencheck Draft RTC Document will be provided to City staff for distribution, review, and comment. LSA will also provide an electronic version of the Screencheck Draft that retains all comments and edits on the Administrative Draft in tracked changes, for City staff to easily verify that all requested changes have been made and all comments addressed.

Deliverable: One electronic version of the Screencheck Draft RTC (clean and tracked changes versions)

6.3 Printcheck Draft RTC
LSA will amend the Screencheck Draft RTC Document based on a single set of noncontradictory comments provided by City staff. One digital version (in both Word and PDF formats) of the Printcheck Draft RTC Document will be provided to City staff for distribution, review, and comment. LSA will also provide an electronic version of the Printcheck Draft that retains all comments and edits on the Screencheck Draft in tracked changes, for City staff to easily verify that all requested changes have been made and all comments addressed.

Deliverable: One electronic version of the Printcheck Draft RTC (clean and tracked changes versions)

6.4 Final RTC
Upon successful completion and approval of the Printcheck RTC Document, LSA will provide up to 15 paper copies of the RTC Document for public distribution and submittal to the City. A high-resolution compiled electronic PDF version will be provided, as will a PDF version suitable for posting on the City’s website (i.e., individual, searchable low-resolution chapters). Word versions will also be provided for the City’s files. LSA will provide a draft Notice of Determination (NOD) for the City to file with the City Clerk upon certification of the EIR.

Deliverable: Up to 15 paper copies of the Final RTC Document (to be confirmed) and electronic copy of the NOD
Page G-8.356
24 | P a g e

6.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
LSA will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project and will identify responsibility for implementing and monitoring each mitigation measure, along with monitoring triggers and reporting frequency, subject to approval by City staff. LSA will also work closely with City staff to ensure the program is prepared in a format that will be easy for staff to implement and be tailored to the City’s procedures. The Administrative Draft MMRP will be provided with the Administrative Draft RTC Document (under Task 6.1), and the Final MMRP will be provided with the Final EIR.

Deliverable: Up to 15 paper copies and one electronic copy of the Final MMRP

6.6 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations LSA will prepare a draft of the Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (if necessary) for use by the City. The Findings will include the following: a record of proceedings for the City's decision on the project; a summary description of the project; identification of potentially significant effects of the project which were determined to be mitigated to a less-than-significant level; identification of the project’s potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant, and do not require mitigation; cumulative effects; feasibility of project alternatives; and the City's Statement of Overriding Considerations (if significant unavoidable impacts are identified).

Deliverable: Electronic copy of the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations

6.7 Administrative Record
This task will include compilation of the Administrative Record in electronic format, organized by subject.

The Administrative Record will be maintained throughout the environmental review process and will be finalized as part of the Final EIR.

Deliverable: Electronic copy of the Draft EIR and Final EIR Administrative Record Optional Task 3: SB 7 Environmental Leadership Record and Analysis The project sponsor may request review for qualification as an Environmental Leadership Development Project (ELDP), pursuant to SB 7. An ELDP must meet certain use requirements, as well as achieve “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions. In order to qualify for the streamlining provisions under SB 7, a project must be certified as an ELDP project before January 1, 2024 and the Lead Agency must approve the project prior to January 1, 2025. The NOP should be issued prior to January 1, 2023.

As an optional task, LSA will assist with preparing the analysis for qualification as an ELDP and will provide the environmental review record for posting on the City website on a weekly basis or at a frequency agreed to by LSA and the City.

Task 7. Project Management
LSA’s Principal/Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager will undertake a variety of general project management tasks throughout the process of preparing the EIR and presenting it to decision-makers.

Page G-8.357
25 | P a g e
The Principal/Project Manager will be in charge of day-to-day activities associated with the project and will ultimately be responsible for quality assurance for all work undertaken. Project management tasks include regular client contact; oversight of subconsultants and team members; schedule coordination; contract negotiation and management; and development of products. The Project Manager will attend all meetings, maintain a project schedule, monitor the project budget in light of progress in the project schedule, and communicate any potential deviations with the City in a timely manner. The Project Manager will also provide direction to all team members that will ensure an internally consistent, coherent document. The Project Manager will review all subconsultant submittals and in-house prepared text, tables, and graphics before these materials are presented to the City as administrative review documents.

Task 8. Meetings
The Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager will be available throughout the environmental review period to meet with the project team to gather information, review progress, review preliminary findings, discuss staff comments, offer input into discussions on project modifications, and consult on CEQA procedural matters. To ensure the timely and accurate conveyance of information, LSA recommends that bi-weekly standing teleconference or
videoconference calls be established (up to 24 calls of approximately 1 hour are assumed). Attendees would be the Project Manager/Assistant Project Manager and select EIR team technical staff on an asneeded basis, as well as City staff. In the event that we all agree that any given call is unnecessary, it could be canceled the day before. Setting a day, time, and frequency would avoid the effort required to set up unscheduled calls. LSA will develop the agenda for these calls, and meeting notes and action items will be distributed. The meeting notes and action items will also serve as a monthly progress report.

LSA will also conduct outreach with the appropriate federal, State, regional, and local agencies to gather input on the project. This outreach will be conducted under the scoping phase (Task 1.4) and is accounted for under each appropriate technical topic identified in Task 2.

In addition to the project start-up meeting identified under Task 1.1 and the NOP scoping session identified under Task 1.4, the project management team and select technical staff as needed will be available to attend up to three 8-hour public hearings, including one Draft EIR and two Final EIR hearings.

It is assumed that LSA would attend and present findings related to the environmental review at these public hearings, as necessary. At this time, it is assumed that these meetings will be conducted in person.

For additional meeting attendance not identified in this scope of work, attendance would be billed on a time and materials basis and contingency funds could be utilized. The cost for the Project Manager’s attendance at additional meetings would be billed at the hourly rate ($270/hour).

To ensure the timely and
accurate conveyance of
information, LSA
recommends that bi-weekly
standing calls be established
Page G-8.358
26 | P a g e

3. Cost Estimate
For completion of the proposed scope of services within the timeline set forth in this proposal, we have provided a preliminary cost estimate in the form of a spreadsheet that details tasks by assigned personnel on the following pages.

The estimated cost of the LSA team’s labor and direct expenses to complete the environmental review documentation for the Parkline Project is $500,821. We have also identified a contingency amount of 5 percent of the total project cost ($25,000), which would not be used without written authorization from the City. The contingency amount is intended to allow LSA to quickly address any changes in the scope of work without the need to amend the contract agreement. With the contingency amount, the total contract would be $525,821.

We have also identified three optional tasks: 1) visual simulations ($10,500); 2) shadow diagrams ($6,300); and 3) SB 7 Environmental Leadership record and analysis ($12,000). With the addition of these optional tasks, the total contract amount would be $554,621.

We have also assumed that the air quality, GHG, and energy technical analyses will be prepared by LSA, for inclusion in the EIR analysis. In the event that the project sponsor’s technical studies provide some or all of the required technical information for the EIR, the scope of these tasks (Tasks 2.10, 2.11, and 2.15) could be reduced by up to 20 percent.

As you review the proposal and compare the work scope with the line-item budget, if you find that there are ways of economizing or believe that expansions are needed, we are more than willing to discuss potential modifications to both scope and budget.

This proposed budget is effective for 90 days from the date of this proposal.

LSA’s Standard Billing Rates, including in-house direct costs are attached after the Cost Proposal in Tables B and C.

Page G-8.359
Parkline Project EIR Cost Estimate
Principal‐in‐Charge, Project Manager
(Wallace)
Assistant Project Manager
Senior Environmental Planner
(Wiswell)
Environmental Planner
(Manheim)
Principal, AQ/GHG/Energy
(Fischer)
Senior Planner, Air Quality/GHG Specialist
(Carlucci)
Air Quality Modeling Specialist
(Villavazo)
Principal/ Noise and Vibration Specialist
(Stephens)
Mechanical Noise Engineer
(Abushanab)
Principal, Cultural Resources
(Sample)
Associate, Architectural Historian
(Hibma)
Associate, Paleontologist (Rieboldt)
Associate, Cultural Resources Manager
(Collison)
Field Archaeologist/Paleontologist (Staff)
Senior Biologist
(Kunna)
GIS
(Staff)
Document Management/Technical Editor
(Staff)
Graphics and Production
(Staff)
Principal Engineer
(Abelli‐Amen)
Environmental Engineer III
(Atabek)
Averaged Hourly Rate: $275 $138 $117 $245 $158 $143 $194 $122 $250 $138 $194 $148 $92 $149 $158 $122 $133 $225 $180

1.1 Start‐Up Meeting and Site Visit 688 $3,692 $0 $3,692

1.2 Data Gathering and Evaluation 668 $3,417 $0 $3,417

1.3 Project Description 12 16 28 6 12 16 $13,331 $0 $13,331

1.4 Notice of Preparation and Scoping Session 6 8 12 11 $4,417 $0 $4,417

1.5 Work Program Refinement 4 6 $1,928 $0 $1,928
34 44 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 13 17 $26,785 0 0 $0 $26,785

2.1 Land Use and Planning 6 12 32 62 $8,058 $0 $8,0582.2 Population and Housing 4 8 20 4 $5,039 $0 $5,039

2.3 Visual Resources 6 12 32 62 $8,058 $0 $8,058

2.4 Biological Resources 246 18 2 4 2 $5,558 $0 $5,558

2.5 Cultural and Tribal Resources 8 12 16 4 26 16 8 2 6 4 $14,994 $0 $14,994

2.6 Geology and Soils 2 4 612 16 $4,259 2 24 $4,770 $9,029

2.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 2 6 6 $2,111 330 $6,075 $8,186

2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2 6 6 $2,111 4 40 $8,100 $10,211

2.9 Transportation 12 16 16 6 $8,262 $0 $8,262

2.10 Air Quality 4 6 8 40 20 6 $13,801 $0 $13,8012.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4 6 8 40 6 $10,945 $0 $10,9452.12 Noise 4 6 10 40 2 6 $9,812 $0 $9,812

2.13 Public Services and Recreation 4 8 36 4 $6,916 $0 $6,916

2.14 Utilities and Service Systems 4 8 32 4 $6,446 $0 $6,446

2.15 Energy 1 2 6 40 2 $8,588 $0 $8,588
65 116 174 22 120 20 10 40 4 26 6 16 20 18 7 88 16 $114,959 9 94 $18,945 $133,90412 18 40 2 6 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 $14,974 0 4 $720 $15,694 1 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 $2,009 0 0 $0 $2,009

5.1 Administrative Draft EIR 16 20 16 12 4 $11,036 $0 $11,0365.2 Screencheck Draft EIR 12 18 20 2 6 2 6 1 2 24 12 $15,756 18 $1,665 $17,421

5.3 Printcheck Draft EIR 12 16 16 2 2 2 16 4 $11,067 2 $360 $11,4275.4 Public Review Draft EIR 6 8 12 12 8 $6,691 $0 $6,691 46 62 64 4 8 0 4 0 0 6 0 1 0 2 0 64 28 $44,551 1 10 $2,025 $46,576 TASK 5. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
TASK 1. PROJECT INITIATION
Subtotal for Task 2
TASK 4. CEQA‐REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS
TASK 3. ALTERNATIVES
Subtotal for Task 5Subtotal for Task 4
Subtotal for Task 1
TASK 2. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Subtotal for Task 3

LABOR COSTS
Team Total
LSA Total
BASELINE Total
LSA Baseline
27 | Page
Page G-8.360
Parkline Project EIR Cost Estimate
Principal‐in‐Charge, Project Manager
(Wallace)
Assistant Project Manager
Senior Environmental Planner
(Wiswell)
Environmental Planner
(Manheim)
Principal, AQ/GHG/Energy
(Fischer)
Senior Planner, Air Quality/GHG Specialist
(Carlucci)
Air Quality Modeling Specialist
(Villavazo)
Principal/ Noise and Vibration Specialist
(Stephens)
Mechanical Noise Engineer
(Abushanab)
Principal, Cultural Resources
(Sample)
Associate, Architectural Historian
(Hibma)
Associate, Paleontologist (Rieboldt)
Associate, Cultural Resources Manager
(Collison)
Field Archaeologist/Paleontologist (Staff)
Senior Biologist
(Kunna)
GIS
(Staff)
Document Management/Technical Editor
(Staff)
Graphics and Production
(Staff)
Principal Engineer
(Abelli‐Amen)
Environmental Engineer III
(Atabek)
Averaged Hourly Rate: $275 $138 $117 $245 $158 $143 $194 $122 $250 $138 $194 $148 $92 $149 $158 $122 $133 $225 $180

LABOR COSTS
Team Total
LSA Total
BASELINE Total
LSA Baseline

6.1 Administrative Draft RTC 16 20 32 2 4 4 2 4 1 2 16 12 $17,541 2 10 $2,250 $19,791

6.2 Screencheck Draft RTC 8 8 12 1 1 1 84 $6,819 14 $945 $7,7646.3 Printcheck Draft EIR 668 62 $4,417 12 $585 $5,0026.4 Final RTC 264 26 $2,887 $0 $2,8876.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 146 6 $2,264 $0 $2,264

6.6 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 4 16 4 $3,468 $0 $3,468

6.7 Administrative Record 8 24 $3,917 $0 $3,917
35 56 102 3 5 4 3 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 0 42 24 $41,312 4 16 $3,780 $45,092 36 26 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $15,606 0 0 $0 $15,606 60 60 18 12 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $30,886 0 4 $720 $31,606 289 386 480 43 139 24 25 40 4 42 6 18 20 22 13 221 87 $291,081 14 128 $26,190 $317,271 $850$750
$3,200
$137,500

5. BAE Urban Economics ‐ Housing Needs Assessment $41,250 $183,550$500,821
$25,000
$525,821
$10,500
$6,300
$12,000
TOTAL OPTIONAL TASKS $28,800

OPTIONAL TASKS

4. Hexagon Transportation Consultants ‐ Transportation Impact Analysis

1. Visual Simulations (Three Simulations)

2. Shadow Diagrams

3. SB 7 Environmental Leadership Record and Analysis

TOTAL LSA TEAM BUDGET (WITH CONTINGENCY)

TOTAL LABOR

1. Travel, Deliveries, Communication
TASK 6. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

3. Printing and Graphic Reproduction

TOTAL LSA TEAM BUDGET WITH CONTINGENCY
TASK 8. MEETINGS
TASK 7. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Subtotal for Task 7
CONTINGENCY AT 5 PERCENT

TOTAL LSA TEAM BUDGET (WITHOUT CONTINGENCY)
Subtotal for Task 8

TOTAL LSA TEAM BUDGET

CONTINGENCY FUNDS
Subtotal for Task 6

2. Maps; Plans; Reports; Database Searches

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS

DIRECT COSTS
28 | Page
Page G-8.361
29 | P a g e
Table B: LSA Hourly Billing Rates Effective June 2022
Job Classification
Hourly
Rate
Range1,2 Planning Environmental Transportation Air/Noise Cultural/
Paleontological
Resources Biology GIS
Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal Principal $180–400 Associate Associate Associate Associate Associate Associate Associate $130-250 Senior
Planner
Senior
Environmental
Planner
Senior
Transportation
Planner/Engineer
Senior Air
Quality/Noise
Specialist
Senior Cultural
Resources
Manager/
Paleontologist
Senior Biologist/
Botanist/Wildlife
Biologist/Ecologist/
Soil Scientist/
Herpetologist/
Arborist
Senior GIS
Specialist
$115–200
Planner Environmental
Planner
Transportation
Planner/Engineer
Air Quality/
Noise Specialist/
Climate Change
Specialist
Cultural Resources
Manager
Archaeologist/
Architectural
Historian/
Paleontologist
Biologist/Botanist/
Wildlife Biologist/
Ecologist/Soil
Scientist/
Herpetologist/
Arborist
GIS
Specialist
$85–165
Assistant
Planner
Assistant
Environmental
Planner
Assistant
Transportation
Planner/Engineer
Air Quality/
Noise Analyst
Cultural Resources
Analyst
Assistant Biologist/
Botanist/Wildlife
Biologist/Ecologist/
Soil Scientist/
Herpetologist/
Arborist
Assistant
GIS
Specialist
$85–125
Field Services
Senior Field Crew/Field Crew $85–105
Office Services
Graphics $125–150
Marketing $115–195
Office Assistant $85–135
Project Assistant $105–135
Research Assistant/Intern $75
Word Processing/Technical Editing $105–130

1. The hourly rate for work involving actual expenses in court (e.g., giving depositions or similar expert testimony) will be billed at $400 per hour regardless of job classifications.

2. Hourly rates are subject to review at least annually, on or about June 1 of each year, and may be adjusted to reflect changing labor costs at LSA’s discretion at that time.

Table C: LSA In-House Direct Costs Effective June 20221 Description Unit Cost Description Unit Cost
Reproduction (8.5 x 11) B/W $0.07 per page Total Station Surveying Instrument $50.00 per day Reproduction (8.5 x 11) Color $0.40 per page Level (Laser or Optical) $25.00 per day Reproduction (11 x 17) B/W $0.10 per page Laser Rangefinder $25.00 per day Reproduction (11 x 17) Color $0.75 per page Sound Meter $75.00 per day CD Production $5.00 per CD Sound Meter with Velocity Transducer $85.00 per day USB Flash Drive $5.00 per drive Aerial Photo Cost
Plotting $3.75 per sq. ft. Boat Rental $125.00 per day
Aerial Drone $200.00 per day Water Quality Meter $25.00 per day Mileage On-Road Current federal rate Night Vision Goggles $50.00 per unit per night Mileage Off-Road Current federal rate Wildlife Camera $25.00 per day GPS Unit $75.00 per day
1 Direct costs shall be reimbursed at cost plus 10 percent.

Page G-8.362
30 | P a g e
Work Progress Estimation and Billing Methodology
LSA has in-depth experience in conducting successful monthly project accountability over a long-term planning effort. LSA uses Deltek accounting software for both its project management and accounting functions. Deltek is a totally integrated project management and accounting software developed for the architecture, planning, and engineering industry that is auditable and secure, and it provides our project managers with real-time access to project data and the ability to track hours and costs according to client specifications.

Invoices are prepared monthly and include a summary cover sheet and a detailed report of tasks completed with labor hours and costs by individual and direct expenses. The report is generated from weekly timesheets and bi-weekly or monthly expense reports entered into the Deltek system. Invoices can be prepared to client specifications but generally show the beginning and end dates of the billing period, total budget, previously billed, current fee, and remaining budget amounts by phase of work. For this contract, LSA would also add serial identification of progress bills.

Contract and Insurance
Although the City’s standard contract agreement was not circulated with the RFP, we have signed previous agreements with the City “as-is.” We have no concerns with the City’s standard agreement.

We have included a copy of our Evidence of Coverage that provides coverage limits, which are in keeping with industry standards for our profession.

Page G-8.363
31 | P a g e
Page G-8.364
32 | P a g e

4. Project Schedule
LSA would begin work upon Notice to Proceed. The preliminary work schedule for preparation and completion of the EIR according to the proposed work program described in Section 2 is shown in Table D. Currently, this schedule anticipates that the Final EIR would be ready for certification in the late summer of 2023.

We expect that this schedule will be adjusted to meet the environmental review objectives of the City and the project sponsor. As described above, the project schedule will be reviewed at the start‐up meeting.

Please note that LSA is ready and available to work with the City to adapt the schedule to fit ongoing priorities, holidays, and scheduling.

Table D: Preliminary Schedule
Milestone
Responsible
Party
Weeks to
Complete
Cumulative
Week Date
Notice to Proceed City -- -- September 6, 2022
Draft Project Description and Project Initiation Tasks LSA 4 4 October 4, 2022 Review Draft Project Description/Provide Inputs City/Sponsor 3 7 October 25, 2022 Prepare and Publish NOP LSA/City 2 6 October 25, 2022
30-Day Scoping Period -- 4 10 November 23, 2022
Complete Technical Study Peer Review** LSA 6 12 November 29, 2022 Provide Final Technical Studies Sponsor 4 16 December 27, 2022 Prepare Administrative Draft EIR LSA 18 18 February 21, 2023 Review Administrative Draft EIR City 3 21 March 14, 2023 Prepare Screencheck Draft EIR LSA 3 24 April 4, 2023
Review Screencheck Draft EIR City 2 26 March 28, 2023
Prepare Printcheck Draft EIR LSA 1 27 April 18, 2023
Review Printcheck Draft EIR City 1 28 May 2, 2023
Prepare and Publish Public Review EIR LSA/City 1 29 April 25, 2023 45-Day Public Review Period -- 6 35 June 9, 2023
Prepare Administrative Draft RTC and MMRP LSA 4 39 July 7, 2023 Review Administrative Draft RTC and MMRP City 2 41 July 21, 2023 Prepare Screencheck Draft RTC LSA 1 42 July 28, 2023
Review Screencheck Draft RTC City 1 43 August 4, 2023
Prepare Printcheck Draft RTC LSA 1 44 August 11, 2023
Review Printcheck Draft RTC City 1 43 August 18, 2023
Prepare and Distribute Public Review Final EIR LSA 1 44 August 25, 2023 EIR Certification City 1.5 46 September 5, 2023
* Some milestone dates may need to be adjusted for holidays ** Review timeline begins when technical studies are provided, assumed to be within 4 weeks of NTP Page G-8.365
33 | P a g e

5. Project Team
LSA Team Information
With over 145 employees firm wide, LSA has the depth and breadth of experience to cover almost every aspect of environmental documentation services for CEQA compliance. Our team of planners, in-house technical experts, and subconsultants will be led by Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal. She will be available throughout the duration of the project to provide consistent leadership.

We are joined by Hexagon Transportation Consultants for transportation and circulation; Baseline Environmental Consulting for geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality; BAE Urban Economics for the housing needs assessment; and Environmental Vision for the optional tasks of shadow diagrams and visual simulations. Below is a brief summary of our project team. Full resumes, including technical staff and subconsultants, are provided in Appendix C.

Project Management Team
Effective project management is critical to the success of environmental analysis, especially for complex projects.

Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal/Project Manager, will be supported by Matthew Wiswell, AICP, Senior Planner. Theresa will undertake a variety of general project management tasks throughout the environmental documentation period. With assistance from Matthew as the Assistant Project Manager, Theresa will be in charge of day-to-day activities associated with the project. Project management tasks include regular client contact; contract negotiation and management;
oversight of team members; schedule coordination; and
development of products. Theresa will provide direction to all team members that will ensure an internally consistent, coherent document. She will also review all text, tables, and graphics before these materials are presented to the City as administrative review documents. Theresa will also provide input on scope, budget, and scheduling of the project, and quality assurance for all work undertaken. She will strategize and work with Matthew to craft the project description on which the environmental analysis will be based and will advise on CEQA procedural matters as well as application of the CEQA Guidelines to this project. Qualifications for Theresa and Matthew are provided on the following page.

CEQA and environmental planning services for the Parkline Project EIR will be managed from LSA’s San Francisco Bay Area office, located in Point Richmond. We will be joined by staff from LSA’s Clovis and San Luis Obispo offices for technical support as needed.

An organization chart at the end of this section shows the complete project team and individual responsibilities.

LSA’s Point of Contact:

Theresa Wallace, AICP
Principal/Environmental Planner
157 Park Place
Point Richmond, CA 94801
[email protected]
(510) 236-6810
Page G-8.366
34 | P a g e
Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal
Project Role: Project Manager/Principal in Charge and QA/QC Theresa Wallace is a seasoned planner and project manager with 19 years of experience in preparing a variety of environmental documents including CEQA Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declarations and Environmental Impact Reports; and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) technical studies, Environmental Assessments, and Environmental Impact Statements. Theresa’s experience encompasses a wide array of public- and private-sector projects, including a number of residential, commercial, office, institutional, and mixeduse projects; as well as public park master plans and facilities and bicycle/pedestrian paths. She is adept at managing multidisciplinary teams and helping agencies navigate complex environmental review processes. She has managed the environmental review for a number of large-scale, high-profile projects throughout the Bay Area and is currently serving as Principal in Charge for LSA’s on-call CEQA contracts, including for the cities of Redwood City, San Carlos, Dublin, San Ramon, Concord, Berkeley, Milpitas, El Cerrito, and Hayward. She also serves as the primary point of contact for the pre-qualified consultant lists in the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. Some of her recent and ongoing relevant projects, which involve mixed-use residential/office and life science/R&D/office projects and redevelopment of large underutilized sites are:
▪ Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project EIR, City of San Rafael ▪ Sierra Point Biotech Towers Project EIR, City of Brisbane ▪ 111 Independence Drive Project EIR, City of Menlo Park ▪ Menlo Uptown Project EIR, City of Menlo Park
▪ Menlo Portal Project EIR, City of Menlo Park
▪ 600 Addison Street R&D Campus Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), City of Berkeley
▪ theLAB Life Sciences Project EIR, City of Berkeley
▪ 388 Vintage Park Drive Life Sciences Building EIR, City of Foster City ▪ 2 Davis Drive Life Sciences/Office Building Project EIR, City of Belmont ▪ Fifth and Mission (5M) Project EIR, Forest City/City and County of San Francisco Matthew Wiswell, AICP, Senior Environmental Planner
Project Role: Assistant Project Manager and Senior Planner Matthew Wiswell AICP, Planner, serves as both Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager and drafts the nontechnical sections of environmental documents. He is a CEQA specialist with a solid understanding of planning principles that he applies to environmental analysis. Matthew both manages and contributes to a variety of planning and environmental documents for development projects, infrastructure improvements, school facility improvements, and City-sponsored plans and programs. He recently served as the Assistant Project Manager for the 600 Addison Street Project for the City of Page G-8.367
35 | P a g e
Berkeley and represented the team at the Final IS/MND adoption hearing. He is also currently serving as the Project Manager for the Menlo Flats Project EIR for the City of Menlo Park and is the Assistant Project Manager for the 388 Vintage Park Drive EIR for the City of Foster City and theLAB Project Focused EIR for the City of Berkeley, both of which involve the redevelopment of underutilized commercial and industrial sites with life sciences uses. He also serves as the primary contact and Project Manager for LSA’s on-call contracts with the cities of El Cerrito and Milpitas.

Other Key Personnel
Our in-house technical expertise encompasses air quality, noise, greenhouse gas emissions, cultural, archaeological, and paleontological resources, and biological resources. We have provided detailed resumes for our in-house technical team in Appendix C. Preparation of technical inputs will be overseen by a Principal of the firm with expertise in the relevant discipline.

Amy Fischer, Principal Air Quality and GHG Emissions Specialist Amy Fischer serves as LSA’s senior air quality and global climate change lead for CEQA/NEPA and planning documents. She brings 20 years of experience in directing and conducting the air quality analysis and preparing the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sections for environmental documents.

Amy has a comprehensive knowledge of air quality modeling and development of air quality emission reduction measures, including those of the BAAQMD. She has prepared the air quality/health risk assessment and greenhouse gas analyses for all of LSA’s Bay Area projects. The majority of Amy’s projects conducted for LSA have been in accordance with the methodologies and assumptions recommended in the air quality impact assessment guidelines of the BAAQMD. She is thoroughly familiar with the updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and adopted thresholds of significance. She will be supported by Cara Carlucci, Senior Planner.

John T. (J.T.) Stephens, Principal and Senior Noise Specialist J.T. is a Senior Acoustical Specialist with more than 16 years of experience in noise and vibration studies to support CEQA documentation and a variety of other projects. J.T. is proficient in the use of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77- 108), the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 2.5, the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), SoundPLAN Noise Prediction Software, and INSUL, a noise prediction software for building façades and partitions. He is also responsible for performing noise monitoring surveys using a variety of Larson-Davis sound level meters. He will be supported by Moe Abushanab, Noise Engineer.

Page G-8.368
36 | P a g e
Michael Hibma, AICP, Associate/Architectural Historian
Michael Hibma has over 15 years of experience conducting historical research, field studies, and preparing historical sections of cultural resource reports, Initial Studies, and EIRs. He documents and evaluates historical built environmental cultural resources in accordance with the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places, and applicable local programs. He also conducts studies to address Section 106 of the National Preservation Act, and State and local regulations. Michael meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History and History (36 CFR Part 61). Michael regularly prepares Project Impacts Analyses (PIA) for development projects where built environment elements within or adjacent to a project site are listed in, or determined eligible for inclusion in, a national, State, or local list or inventory of cultural resources, and, therefore, would qualify as a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA, as well as per applicable city or county regulations. He also conducts peer reviews of built environment resource eligibility technical studies in support of CEQA environmental documentation.

Kerrie Collison, RPA, Associate/Senior Archaeologist
Kerrie is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (#28731436) with 12 years of archaeological and cultural resources management experience. She is skilled in preparing cultural resources reports for CEQA- and NEPA-level projects, conducting Native American outreach, assisting agencies with formal Native American consultation, and directing and participating in archaeological surveys and subsurface studies. She is proficient in lithic analysis and identifying the various stages of Native American stone tool production. Her field experience includes work in the California Central Coast; Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Orange, Riverside, Ventura, Mono, and Inyo; the Tahoe region of the Sierra Nevada; and the Great Basin. Kerrie also has experience collaborating on eligibility reports for the National Register and preparing archaeological reports for Section 404 permit applications. Lloyd Sample, Principal, will assist and oversee preparation of the cultural resources section of the EIR.

John Kunna, Associate/Senior Biologist
John is a Senior Biologist with over 20 years of wildlife biology experience. He manages environmental permitting projects from start to finish. He prepares due diligence and constraint analysis, develops permitting strategies, and manages technical studies including cultural resource assessments, reconnaissance-level and protocol-level botanical and wildlife surveys, and wetland delineations. He prepares statutory and categorical exclusion memoranda for CEQA documents, and he develops avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for biological resources for CEQA documents and permit applications. He develops and implements plans for special-status species monitoring and relocation, dewatering, restoration, and revegetation.

John has prepared applications for Habitat Conservation Plans as well.

Page G-8.369
37 | P a g e
John is an Independent holder of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit TE 40218B-0, which authorizes him to independently conduct permitted activities for the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Alameda striped racer, and San Francisco garter snake. He has also been approved by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or USFWS as an authorized or designated biologist for construction site monitoring and surveys for other special-status species, including the foothill yellow-legged frog, giant garter snake, western pond turtle, salt marsh harvest mouse, American badger, burrowing owl, Ridgway’s rail, and nesting migratory birds. Malcolm Sproul, Principal Biologist with over 40 years of experience, will assist John and oversee preparation of the biological resources section of the EIR.

Subconsultants
Baseline Environmental Consulting
Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) is a certified small business established in 1985. Baseline provides private- and public-sector clients with a range of services, including CEQA environmental impact assessment/compliance and hazardous materials management. Baseline brings over 30 years of
experience conducting geology, hydrology, and hazards CEQA analyses. Its staff of geologists, hydrogeologists, engineers, and environmental scientists has extensive expertise and experience preparing technical sections for IS/MNDs and EIRs.

Baseline’s hazardous materials management practice includes the preparation of Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs). Baseline has experience conducting soil and groundwater contamination investigations and, as required, associated cleanup. Typically, Baseline uses a risk-based approach to achieve site closures from applicable regulatory agencies. It works extensively with public agencies in developing general guidelines for development of contaminated urban sites.

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Hexagon) was
founded in 1998 in San Jose, with the goal of providing topquality, professional transportation consulting services to private and public entities. Hexagon provides services in all major aspects of transportation planning and traffic engineering.

Hexagon’s staff members have prepared thousands of studies, both large and small, over their professional careers. Hexagon’s public clients include city, county and state agencies and regional planning organizations. Hexagon has a wide range of private clients, including technology companies, developers, architects, civil engineers, and environmental firms.

Hexagon’s notable work experience in the City of Menlo Park includes the following projects:

Hexagon professionals have
worked with LSA for more than 10
years to provide comprehensive
traffic and transportation studies,
including Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) per CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3 for several projects
throughout the Bay Area.

The Hexagon team will be led by
Gary K. Black, AICP, and supported by
Ollie Zhou, T.E., Principal Associate.

Hexagon’s offices are located in
Pleasanton, San Jose, and Gilroy.

Baseline professionals have worked
with LSA for more than 20 years to
provide geology, hydrology, and
hazards services for CEQA
documentation. They have
partnered with LSA on numerous
projects throughout the Bay Area.

The Baseline team will be led by
Bruce Abelli-Amen, Principal.

Baseline’s offices are located in
Oakland.

Page G-8.370
38 | P a g e
▪ Willow Village EIR,
▪ Housing Element Update EIR,
▪ Update of the citywide travel demand model, and
▪ Various traffic studies for offices and hotels in the city.

BAE Urban Economics
BAE Urban Economics, Inc. (BAE) is an award-winning national urban economics and real estate consulting practice. Since 1986, it has completed more than 2,400 engagements for public agencies, nonprofit organizations, financial institutions, and real estate developers. BAE is led by seasoned professionals, who are responsible for project direction and quality control.

BAE offers a broad range of services oriented towards the nexus of market economics and feasibility and community-based planning. Some of BAE’s key practice areas include:
▪ Affordable and workforce housing needs
▪ Public finance and infrastructure financing
▪ Fiscal impacts and economic benefits analyses
▪ Economic development and revitalization
▪ Public policy analysis and strategy development
▪ Public-private partnership (P3) structuring and negotiation support ▪ Market and financial feasibility analyses
▪ Sustainability and transit-oriented development (TOD) The BAE team members are considered national experts in housing policy and have prepared hundreds of housing studies, including housing needs assessments, Housing Elements, affordable housing inclusionary and linkage fee studies, affordable housing and anti-displacement strategies for specific plans, residential development feasibility studies, and residential market studies.

BAE has prepared housing needs assessments for three recent projects in East Palo Alto and is currently in the process of completing a housing needs assessment for a proposed residential development in Menlo Park. In addition, its housing nexus studies for the cities of Los Angeles, Ventura, Berkeley, and Moab have included detailed housing needs assessments to evaluate the effect that new development has on local housing needs across income categories. BAE’s passion for the “triple bottom-line” of sustainable economics, community equity and social justice, and environment sustainability makes BAE unique among urban economists.

BAE’s team of 14 professionals are
considered national experts in
housing policy and have prepared
hundreds of housing studies.

The BAE team will be led by
Stephanie Hagar, Associate Principal.

BAE’s local office is located in
Berkeley.

Page G-8.371
39 | P a g e
Environmental Vision
Founded in 1993, Environmental Vision provides specialized planning and design consulting services that address the aesthetics and public perception of environmentally sensitive projects. The firm’s staff has extensive experience in preparing visual studies for a variety of projects located within sensitive and scenic viewsheds, including hillside, coastal, and watershed landscapes as well as historic and downtown districts.

Environmental Vision’s in-depth CEQA and NEPA expertise is complemented by advanced computer modeling and simulation capability. Project experience includes large-scale land development and specific plans, campus and hospital
improvements, mixed-use and hillside residential projects, and urban infill development as well as large-scale and complex infrastructure improvement projects located throughout the Bay Area and California. Environmental Vision’s technical capabilities are enhanced by advanced computer applications including:
▪ High-resolution visual simulation,
▪ Three-dimensional and viewshed modeling,
▪ High-resolution digital photo-documentation,
▪ Shadow modeling and analysis,
▪ Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and,
▪ Technical third-party review studies.

Environmental Vision is a certified
Small Business Enterprise and Green
Business. Environmental Vision has
partnered with LSA on numerous
environmental documents over the
past 20 years to provide visual and
shadow simulations for proposed
development projects
The Environmental Vision team will
be led by Chuck Cornwall,
Principal.

Environmental Vision’s office is
located in Berkeley.

Page G-8.372
40 | P a g e
Team Organization Chart
Page G-8.373
41 | P a g e

6. Relevant Qualifications and References
LSA serves as a “one-stop” choice for
documentation in compliance with
CEQA. We are thoroughly familiar with
the processes, procedures, and
technical requirements of all aspects of
the environmental review process. LSA
has also prepared numerous documents to satisfy the
requirements of specific regulatory agencies. This
expertise includes coordination with local, State, federal, and other governmental agencies in preparing and
processing environmental documents and technical
studies, managing public participation programs, issuing necessary legal notices, and incorporating each document into the relevant planning process. LSA’s project
managers employ innovative environmental review
approaches steeped in an intimate understanding of
CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and CEQA case law to
avoid redundant environmental review.

LSA has prepared thousands of EIRs, Supplemental EIRs,
ISs, Environmental Assessments, Addendums, Negative
Declarations (NDs), MNDs, and Environmental Impact
Statements (EISs). LSA, and the project management team for this assignment in particular, has successfully
completed numerous environmental review documents
under contract to lead agencies for a wide range of
commercial, office, and residential redevelopment
projects on underutilized sites in urban and suburban
areas and on greenfield sites throughout the Bay Area and beyond.

Many of our planners are certified by the American
Institute of Certified Planners and are active members of the American Planning Association and Association of
Environmental Professionals.

With respect to ongoing education, LSA staff maintains
and supplements our knowledge, understanding, and
technical expertise in the application of CEQA by regularly attending workshops on recent court outcomes and
legislative amendments. Additionally, we regularly work with land use and CEQA attorneys who provide us with
specific suggestions as to how the most recent case law should be interpreted and incorporated into our EIRs and other CEQA documents.

LSA’s Expertise with Environmental
Documents Includes
the Following:
▪ Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs)
▪ Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declarations (IS/MNDs)
▪ Initial Studies (ISs)
▪ Categorical Exemptions (CEs)
▪ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Programs (MMRPs)
▪ Various environmental technical
reports including air quality, noise,
water quality, biology, and cultural
resources
LSA has a successful track record of
preparing environmental documents
that are technically sound and legally
robust as well as innovative and
solution-oriented.

LSA’s Key Strengths:
▪ Senior Staff Involvement
▪ Communication and Responsiveness
▪ Objective and Impartial Analysis
▪ Experienced Public Outreach
▪ Commitment to Schedule and Cost
Control
▪ Established Quality Assurance and
Quality Control Procedures
▪ Client Satisfaction
Page G-8.374
42 | P a g e
Project Experience
The LSA team possesses the breadth and depth of experience required to complete this assignment. As the City is aware, LSA recently prepared four focused EIRs for mixed-use residential and office projects located within the Bayfront Area of the City, as described below. LSA will use this experience and relevant documentation to inform the analysis of the currently proposed project, to the extent practical.

LSA is currently undertaking or has successfully completed numerous environmental documents, including comprehensive and focused project- and program-level EIRs, supplemental and subsequent CEQA documents, IS/MNDs, technical reports, and planning documents for projects with characteristics comparable to the services that are required for this assignment. The following projects highlight our experience with redevelopment activities occurring within existing commercial and industrialsettings that in some cases consist of large multi-block sites or campus environments. The topics of visual resources, hazards, transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise were common areas of focus for most of the projects described below. Theresa Wallace and/or Matthew Wiswell oversaw or managed all of these projects and represented the LSA team at all internal meetings and public hearings.

Focused EIRs for Residential and Office Mixed-Use Projects, City of Menlo Park (2019–2022)
The City of Menlo Park certified
the ConnectMenlo Final EIR in
2016. The ConnectMenlo Final
EIR provided a program-level
analysis of the development
potential envisioned for the
entire city, including within the
Bayfront Area, where the
Facebook campus is located. As
individual development projects
are proposed, each project is
subject to additional environmental review and the analysis tiers from the ConnectMenlo
Final EIR, as appropriate. LSA recently prepared Focused EIRs for three residential and mixed-use projects within the Bayfront Area, which are described below. For each project, LSA prepared an Initial Study to identify the potential project-specific impacts that warrant additional analysis in the EIR. For each project, the Focused EIRs evaluated the following topics:
▪ Population and Housing
▪ Transportation and Circulation
▪ Air Quality
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Noise
Page G-8.375
43 | P a g e
111 Independence Drive EIR
The proposed project includes development of an approximately 145,679-square-foot, eight-story multifamily apartment building with 105 dwelling units and associated improvements. The existing 15,000-square-foot single-story office building would be demolished as part of the proposed project.

The EIR evaluated project-specific impacts related to the topics described above and, on the basis of the technical evaluations, determined that all impacts of the project could be reduced to a less-thansignificant level with implementation of project-specific mitigation measures and mitigation measures identified in the ConnectMenlo Final EIR. This is the first environmental document in Menlo Park that evaluated transportation impacts according to the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) metric and applied the City’s newly adopted Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines to the analysis. LSA worked closely with the City and the applicant team to identify a range of feasible project alternatives, which included the base level and maximum buildout potential of the project site. The Final EIR was certified in April 2021.

Menlo Uptown EIR
The proposed project would result in
redevelopment of the project site with a maximum
of 441 multifamily rental units and 42 for-sale
townhomes, totaling approximately 471,986
square feet of residential use and approximately
2,940 square feet of office space, as well as
associated open space, circulation and parking,
and infrastructure improvements. The project site
is currently developed with two single-story
commercial office buildings and a single-story
industrial building totaling approximately 110,356
square feet. The Final EIR was certified in June
2021.

Menlo Portal EIR
This project proposes the redevelopment of the
project site with an approximately 326,581-grosssquare-foot, seven-story multifamily apartment building with approximately 335 dwelling units
and an approximately 34,868-gross-square-foot
commercial office building, which would include
approximately 1,600 gross square feet of childcare
space, as well as associated open space, circulation
and parking, and infrastructure improvements.

The site is currently developed with two singlestory office buildings and one warehouse/ industrial building with a small office component
totaling approximately 64,832 square feet in size.

The Final EIR was certified in July 2021.

Page G-8.376
44 | P a g e
Menlo Flats IS and EIR
The proposed project would include the
redevelopment of an approximately 1.38-acre site
located at 165 Jefferson Drive in Menlo Park. The site
is located within the City’s Residential Mixed UseBonus (R-MU-B) zoning district. The project includes demolition of the existing office building on the site
and construction of one eight-story, 158-unit mixeduse building with 14,442 square feet of ground floor commercial space, as well as associated
improvements. A total of 21 residential units (15
percent) would be dedicated below market rate units.

A total of 138 vehicular parking spaces would be
provided in a three-level podium parking garage. The
Final EIR was certified in March 2022.
600 Addison Project IS/MND, City of Berkeley (2020–2021) The 600 Addison Street Project involves
redevelopment of an 8.4-acre site into an R&D
campus. The project site is bordered by Addison
Street to the north, Bancroft Way to the south,
the UPRR mainline to the east, and Aquatic Park
to the west. The site is within a half mile of several
major transit stops, including the Berkeley
Amtrak stop. The proposed project would consist
of two separate R&D/Office buildings, totaling
approximately 461,822 gross square feet, each
with their own separate, four-story parking
structure. The proposed project would also
include off-site streetscape enhancements
adjacent to Aquatic Park. The existing buildings
and structures on this industrial site will be demolished.

Although the City originally anticipated that a Focused EIR would be required, LSA prepared an Initial Study as a preliminary review document and, on the basis of that analysis and in consultation with City staff, determined that the proposed project could qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. To support the conclusions in the environmental document, the LSA team peer reviewed the project applicant’s Geotechnical Study, Oak Tree Removal and Relocation Plan, Arborist Report, and Transportation Impact Analysis, and prepared a Draft Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for submittal to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. LSA also assisted the City with successful consultation with tribal representatives pursuant to AB 52. In addition to the environmental analysis, LSA also provided planning support services to assist with processing of the proposed project application materials and requested permits. The IS/MND was adopted in May 2021.

Page G-8.377
45 | P a g e
theLAB Project IS/MND, City of Berkeley (2021–2022)
The proposed theLAB Project involves
redevelopment of an approximately 3.02-acre
project site that is made up of portions of two
contiguous blocks bordered by Allston Way,
Fifth Street, Bancroft Way, and the UPRR
mainline in West Berkeley. The proposed
project would result in the creation of a life
science campus through a combination of new
construction, increased open space, and
enhancements to the public realm. All of the
existing buildings on the project site would be
demolished to allow for the construction of an
approximately 159,150-square-foot light
manufacturing and R&D building and an approximately 283,810-square-foot parking garage.

Although the City originally anticipated that a Focused EIR would be required, LSA prepared an Initial Study and Historic Resource Evaluation, and on the basis of those analyses and in consultation with City staff, determined that the proposed project could qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. To support the conclusions in the environmental document, the LSA team peer reviewed the project applicant's Archaeological Study and Transportation Impact Analysis. LSA also assisted the City with successful consultation with tribal representatives pursuant to AB 52. The Final IS/MND was adopted in May 2022. 388 Vintage Park Drive Project EIR, City of Foster City (2021–2022) The 388 Vintage Park Drive Project consists of
the redevelopment of a site with a life science
office building and associated site
improvements. The project sponsor is
proposing to demolish an existing restaurant
building and construct a new four-story, 68-
foot-tall building containing approximately
95,931 square feet of office and R&D space.

On the basis of a preliminary Initial Study
prepared by LSA, it was determined that a
Focused EIR would be required to further
evaluate the potentially significant impacts of
the project associated with land use,
aesthetics, transportation, air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems. To support the analysis, LSA incorporated the findings of a Water Supply Assessment, Shadow Study, and Transportation Impact Analysis and directed and managed the subconsultants for these tasks. LSA began work in spring 2021, and the City’s Planning Commission recommended certification of the Final EIR to the City Council in June 2022.

Page G-8.378
46 | P a g e
California State University Maritime Academy Master Plan EIR, CSU (2016–2018) The California State University Maritime Academy (CSUMA) campus is located in Vallejo and encompasses approximately 88 acres along the Morro Cove waterfront at the mouth of the Carquinez Strait. The campus is characterized by varied hillside and shoreline topography with a diversity of built environment and natural resources. LSA has provided environmental consulting services to the Maritime Academy for over 20 years and was selected to prepare the EIR for the updated Master Plan in 2016.

The Master Plan covers all aspects of campus
development over the next 15 years, including
student enrollment growth, overall campus
land use and design, building capacity and
placement, circulation and infrastructure, and
sustainability. Implementation of the Master
Plan will also double existing enrollment on the
campus, increasing the number of full time
equivalent (FTE) students to 2,200. To
accompany this growth in enrollment, over the
planning horizon the Master Plan anticipates an
increase of:
▪ 225,000 square feet in net new building
area;
▪ 300 faculty/staff;
▪ 900 new student housing beds; and
▪ 784 new parking spaces.

LSA prepared a comprehensive EIR to address
all aspects of Master Plan implementation. The
EIR also provides project-level analysis for the
near-term Phase 1 projects, as well as programlevel analysis to cover the remainder of the campus improvements up to the year 2032.

LSA’s engagement early on in the process of Master Plan development and coordination with the comprehensive consultant team was essential to ensure that community and environmental concerns were identified as early as possible and were adequately addressed in both the Master Plan and the EIR.

Page G-8.379
47 | P a g e
1548 Maple Street Townhome Community Project EIR, City of Redwood City (2016–2020)
The project applicant, Strada Development,
proposed a townhome community on the waterfront
that would create housing in an area rich in jobs but
lacking in housing, and provide public recreation
amenities via the Bay Trail, which would connect the
downtown to the waterfront. The proposed project
was comprised of 131 three-story units for sale,
market-rate townhomes at a density of 17 units per
acre, as well as associated open space, circulation
and parking, infrastructure, and grading
improvements. A variety of private and public open
space opportunities would be included, along with
262 parking spaces.

The project site was located within the Inner Harbor area of the city, which is an approximately 99-acre area primarily developed with light industrial, office, marina-oriented, and institutional uses. LSA prepared an Initial Study and EIR for the proposed project; issues examined in the EIR included land use and planning; biological resources; cultural resources; transportation and circulation; air quality; noise; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; and utilities and service systems.

The EIR examined a project variant for circulation and access improvements. The Final EIR was certified in May 2018. In 2020, LSA prepared an Addendum to the EIR to further evaluate refinements to the proposed site access and surrounding roadway configurations, which included a land swap agreement between Redwood City and San Mateo County and demolition of adjacent County-owned buildings. 5M Project EIR, City and County of San Francisco (2014–2016) As San Francisco seeks new ways to capture the
spirit of innovation and entrepreneurism that has
transformed much of the region, private
developers are proposing ways to translate this
energy into the physical landscape. The 5M
Project proposes to create a new mixed-use
development in the city that integrates the arts,
technology, transit-oriented housing and
commercial space, historic structures, and active
open space on a 4-acre site at the nexus of
downtown San Francisco and the SOMA
neighborhood.

The project, sponsored by Forest City, is one of the largest private development projects in San Francisco.

After buildout, the project site would contain approximately 1.8 million square feet of new and existing building space, approximately 35,000 square feet of open space, and a reconfigured street system. In addition, the project would result in the rehabilitation and reuse of the iconic Chronicle Building (1924) Page G-8.380
48 | P a g e
and Dempster Printing Building (1907) and the establishment of a Special Use District to promote sound design and an active pedestrian environment.

The sheer scale, size, and complexity of the project warranted a strategic approach to the environmental review effort. LSA’s work scope utilized a three-pronged approach to ensure a legally robust and onschedule EIR: 1) close coordination with the transportation review team (Planning Department staff, Municipal Transportation Agency staff, and LSA’s subconsultants) to ensure that that EIR technical analyses could proceed at the earliest possible date; 2) careful consideration of the unique uses and activity patterns proposed as part of the project; and 3) emphasis on a multidisciplinary review effort that allowed for an understanding of the interrelationships between disparate environmental topics. LSA allocated additional resources to certain EIR components and analyses expected to be subject to close scrutiny, including: definition of the project (in terms of a maximum building envelope and uses); effects of the proposed street closures/conversions on the pedestrian, bike, and motor vehicle circulation system; planning policy consistency (particularly in the context of the in-development Central Corridor Plan); changes to historic buildings and indirect impacts to nearby districts; and impacts to viewsheds and the urban design character of the area associated with a more intense development pattern. LSA worked closely with the City to create an environmental review document that helps readers understand the potential impacts of the project on many different scales – street, neighborhood, city, and region. The EIR was certified by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2016.

In the first published decision in which the courts have applied the principles articulated by the California Supreme Court in the recent Sierra Club v. County of Fresno decision (commonly referred to as the Friant Ranch case) regarding the standard of review for the adequacy of an EIR, certification of the 5M Final EIR was recently upheld by the trial and appeals courts, South of Market Community Action Network v. City and County of San Francisco (Forest City California Residential Development, Inc., et al. Real Parties in Interest) (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321. Construction of the first phase of the project began in June 2019. 2 Davis Drive Project EIR, City of Belmont (2019–Ongoing) The 2 Davis Drive Project involves the
redevelopment of a 3.4-acre project site with an
approximately 77,525-square-foot office/R&D
building, with three levels of office space above
one level of enclosed at-grade parking. The
existing warehouse building on the site was
determined to be eligible for listing in the City’s
Historical Resource Inventory. The proposed
project also includes dedication of a portion of
the site for the construction of a new fire station
and construction of a new right-turn lane at an
adjacent intersection. LSA provided peer
reviews of the applicant-prepared technical
studies, including a Transportation Impact
Analysis, Cultural Resources Study, Historical Resource Evaluation, and Biological Resources Assessment.

LSA prepared an Initial Study that determined a Focused EIR would be required to evaluate the topics of land use, biological resources, cultural resources, transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise. LSA began peer reviewing the technical studies in 2019, which led to a redesign of the project and additional technical evaluations. The Draft EIR is anticipated to be published in September 2022.

Page G-8.381
49 | P a g e
Northgate Redevelopment Project EIR, City of San Rafael (2021–Ongoing) The Northgate Redevelopment Project would
result in the redevelopment of the existing mall
with a mix of uses through the demolition of most
of the mall structures and ultimately two of the
anchor buildings. The project consists of
redevelopment of commercial spaces, the
construction of new commercial pads, new
structured and surface level parking facilities,
development of approximately 800 multifamily
dwelling units, and community open space
amenities. The redevelopment of the project site
is proposed to be completed in two phases
pursuant to the proposed 2025 Master Plan and
2040 Vision Plan.

LSA is preparing a comprehensive EIR to satisfy the requirements of CEQA. Tasks include peer review of applicant-prepared technical studies and preparation of all supplemental technical materials and reports.

The EIR will include a project-level analysis of the 2025 Master Plan and a program-level analysis of the 2040 Vision Plan (project buildout), to allow for future flexibility throughout the course of project implementation. The analysis conducted will separately identify the impacts and mitigation measures of each of the two phases of development.

The EIR is evaluating potential impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment, focusing on the following environmental topics: land use and planning, population and housing, cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, public services and recreation, utilities and service systems, and energy.

Sierra Point Towers Redevelopment Project EIR, City of Brisbane (2021–Ongoing) The project sponsor, HCP Life Science REIT Inc.,
(Healthpeak Properties Inc.), proposes to add
approximately 853,220 square feet of new life
science building space, consisting of offices, labs,
and R&D spaces, within two new office towers at
the northeastern portion of the project site,
which is located on the Sierra Point Peninsula in
the City of Brisbane. The two new towers would
be 9 and 14 stories in height and connected by a
bridge. The proposed project would also include
a third standalone building with amenities such as
food service, a gym, or a gathering space. The
existing buildings on the project site would be
preserved and incorporated into the new site plan.

Page G-8.382
50 | P a g e
Nearly all of the existing surface parking lots and the existing parking structure would be demolished.

Parking for the proposed project would be provided in a new 11-story, 3,771-space parking garage with multiple access points along both Marina Boulevard and Sierra Point Parkway. A total of 87 surface parking spaces would be provided within two surface parking lots that would serve a food-truck plaza and the amenity building. Redevelopment also includes a central open space and an event space. In addition to environmental review, the proposed project would require a zoning amendment to modify the height limit in the Sierra Point Design Guidelines, use permit modification of parking regulations, tentative parcel map, design review permit, and planning commission review of a grading permit.

LSA is preparing a comprehensive EIR for the proposed improvements. Areas of focus include transportation, greenhouse gas emissions, visual resources, and water supply.

Relevant Work Samples
As requested in the RFP, LSA submits the CEQA documents below as work samples in the following weblink: LSA Sample EIRs
▪ 1584 Maple Street Project EIR
▪ California Maritime Academy Physical Master Plan EIR
▪ 388 Vintage Park Drive Project EIR
Page G-8.383
51 | P a g e
References
We encourage you to contact our references regarding the quality of our work, management of budget and schedule, and attentiveness to project needs.

Reference Contact: Services Provided
Isidro Farias, Director of Capital Projects
(former CSUMA Facilities Director)
College of Marin
835 College Avenue
Kentfield, CA 94949
T: 415-485-9518
E: [email protected]
California State University, Maritime Academy
Campus Master Plan EIR (2016-2018)
Kelly Beggs, Consulting Planner
Good City Company/City of Brisbane
1351 Laurel Street
San Carlos, CA 94070
T: 628-222-5985
E: [email protected]
San Bruno Recreation and Aquatic Center
Focused EIR, City of San Bruno (2019–2020)
Sierra Point Towers EIR, City of Brisbane
(ongoing)
Leslie Mendez, Planning Manager
(former Senior Planner, City of Berkeley)
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
T: 415-485-3095
E: [email protected]
600 Addison Street IS/MND, for the City of
Berkeley (2020-2021)
Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project EIR, for
the City of San Rafael (ongoing)
Page G-8.384
52 | P a g e

7. Conflict of Interest and Disclosures
We undertake our research, analysis, writing, and presentations with the aim of providing technically competent and scientifically objective work products. Our contribution to promoting the project sponsor’s objectives is focused on preparing CEQA documents that are technically thorough and conducting a transparent and accessible public process. We believe that the best advocacy is a document that is impartial, above reproach, and legally/technically robust.

LSA strives to avoid any conflict of interest that would affect our existing contracts or interfere with the pursuit of a potential contract. LSA and our subconsultants do not have any current or past business relationships with SRI International or Lane Partners, LLC, and we shall refrain from entering into a business relationship with the project sponsor during the term of the EIR contract.

LSA does not have any pending disclosure of judgments or other findings against the firm or its personnel that may reflect negatively on the firm.

Page G-8.385
53 | P a g e

8. Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity
LSA’s team for this contract includes Baseline Environmental Consulting, a certified small business (SBE), and Environmental Vision, a certified Small Business (Micro). Our equitable hiring and inclusion efforts and policies are identified below.

LSA’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Policy and Committee LSA is committed to attracting and retaining a diverse staff that reflects the work we do and creating an environment where every employee feels comfortable and valued. LSA has a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Committee comprised of staff at all levels of the organization that works to promote greater diversity within LSA by recommending strategies to recruit, support, and retain staff from diverse backgrounds including ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, those that have nonbinary gender identity, and more. We believe in and support the following goals:

1. Diversity: Unlocking innovation, challenging bias, and removing barriers

2. Equity: Providing a culture where everyone is given the resources, access, and opportunities to reach their full potential

3. Inclusion: Welcoming authenticity and cultivating a sense of belonging In addition, LSA’s DEI Committee strives to facilitate a culture where diversity, equity, and inclusion are respected and intentionally valued by implementing thoughtful, practical, iterative, and innovative strategies. The following targeted changes and practices reflect the promotion of such culture:
▪ Internal review of our Company handbook and style guide for consistency with DEI goals. ▪ Continuing internal staff training on diversity, equity, and inclusion. To this end, all LSA staff recently completed a real-time virtual training program called Connecting with Respect. Additional trainings are planned in the near future.
▪ Continued internal education and use of digital stationery in recognition of Black History Month, Women’s History Month, and Pride Month.

Targeted changes and efforts that are in process include:
▪ Inclusion of pronouns in onboarding exercises
▪ Removal of names from resumes/applications during the hiring process ▪ Development of a DEI-oriented scholarship program
LSA’s Supplier Diversity Program
LSA has been providing clients with comprehensive professional services since the founding of the company. Our success is due in part to our relationships with suppliers that are as diverse as the communities in which we work. LSA has current successful partnerships with qualified disadvantaged, small, minority-owned, woman-owned, and disabled veteran-owned business enterprises (DBE/SBE/MBE/WBE/DVBEs) and whenever possible encourages their growth and expansion within each teaming opportunity. LSA’s program focuses on:

Page G-8.386
54 | P a g e
▪ Goal Measurements: Understanding and meeting its clients’ goals in a way that supports LSA’s overall diversity strategy.
▪ Tracking and Reporting: Monitoring and reporting its results in achieving its supplier diversity goals, with a strong emphasis on continuous improvement.
▪ Training and Education: Helping to ensure that employees in decision-making positions throughout the LSA organization understand its supplier diversity principles and commitment.

We continue to seek diverse suppliers through active involvement with small, women-owned, and minority-owned business development organizations and participation in various networking events.

Page G-8.387
Appendix A: Transportation Impact Analysis Scope of
Work
55 | P a g e
Page G-8.388
July 22, 2022
Ms. Theresa Wallace
LSA
157 Park Place
Point Richmond, CA 94801
Re: Proposal to Prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis for the Proposed Parkline Project in Menlo Park, CA.

Dear Ms. Wallace:

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the proposed Parkline project in Menlo Park, CA. The project site located at 333 Ravenswood Avenue is currently occupied by the existing SRI International campus. The project proposes to redevelop the approximately 63-acre site to include 400 new housing units (including affordable housing), 1.1 million s.f. of replacement office and R&D uses, and new community-oriented retail space. A variant project description increasing the residential component to include up to 600 units will also be evaluated.

Residential site access would be provided via driveways on Laurel Street and on Ravenswood Avenue. Access to the office and R&D land uses would be provided via driveways on Ravenswood Avenue and on Middlefield Road.

Scope of Services
The purpose of the transportation study is to satisfy the requirements of the City of Menlo Park, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City/County Associations of Governments (C/CAG) Congestion Management Program (CMP). The transportation study will include a VMT analysis and an operational analysis of weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions. The operational analysis will determine the potential traffic adverse effects caused by the proposed project on up to 25 key intersections, 2 freeway segments, and 4 freeway ramps in the vicinity of the site.

CEQA Analysis

1. VMT Analysis. The project is located mostly within ½ mile of the Menlo Park Caltrain station but is not located in a low VMT zone. Therefore, aside from the retail land use, which can be exempted for its local-oriented nature, the office and residential land uses will require a VMT analysis. Hexagon will coordinate with City staff on the most appropriate approach to evaluate the project’s VMT for its office and residential land uses.

2. VMT Mitigation. If the VMT analysis identifies a significant VMT impact, Hexagon will work with City staff to identify the most appropriate mitigation strategies. It is envisioned that the City may need to work with the applicant team to develop the appropriate mitigation measures. Hexagon will provide technical support in reviewing documents and conducting any necessary analysis. This task assumes up to 20 hours of staff time. Work requiring considerably more effort will require additional budget authorization.

Page G-8.389
Ms. Theresa Wallace
July 22, 2022

3. Provision of Data to Air Quality and Noise Consultants. It is anticipated that the Air Quality and Noise consultants will need traffic and VMT data for their analysis. This task includes Hexagon staff time to coordinate with the consultants on the data needs, formats, and providing the requested data.

Non-CEQA Operations Analysis

4. Selection of Study Intersections, Freeway Segments and Freeway Ramps. Hexagon will coordinate with the project team and City staff to determine the list of study intersections, freeway segments, and freeway ramps. Decisions such as whether traffic currently generated by existing uses on site, or traffic that can be generated by existing uses on site at full occupancy can be credited towards project trip generation could affect the study scope. This proposal assumes a budget for up to 25 key intersections, 2 freeway segments, and 4 freeway ramps. Additional budget and schedule would be needed if the scope needs to include additional locations.

5. Site Reconnaissance. The physical characteristics of the site and the surrounding roadway network will be reviewed to identify existing roadway cross-sections, intersection lane configurations, traffic control devices, and surrounding land uses.

6. Observation of Existing Traffic Conditions in the Study Area. Field observations of existing traffic conditions will be limited to field-verifying signal timing at signalized intersections during peak hours. Due to COVID conditions, field observations of intersection-level operational issues are not included in this proposal.

7. Data Collection. It is assumed that intersection counts at most study intersections will be provided by City staff. Counts at unsignalized intersections may not be available from the City. Intersection counts collected during COVID conditions will be compared against nearby locations with COVID and pre-COVID counts. This proposal includes collecting peak hour (7-9 AM, and 4-6 PM) turning movements counts at up to 10 locations.

Pedestrian and bicycle counts will be included.

8. Evaluation of Existing Conditions. Existing traffic conditions will be evaluated based on existing traffic volumes at the study intersections. The existing traffic conditions at the key study intersections will be evaluated using the software Vistro, which employs the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6
th Edition methodology for intersection analyses and is the designated level of service methodology for the City of Menlo Park.

9. Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment. Estimates of trips to be added to the surrounding roadway network by the proposed project will be based on the trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Potential trip reductions for the project location and mixed-use design will be estimated using the latest MXD model. Trips generated by existing uses on site will be credited based on City input (see Task 3).

Hexagon will run the citywide travel demand forecasting model to determine the trip distribution pattern for the project. Site-generated traffic will be assigned to the roadway network based on the trip generation and distribution pattern. The trip generation, Page G-8.390
Ms. Theresa Wallace
July 22, 2022

distribution, and assignment estimates will be reviewed and approved by City staff prior to initiation of the subsequent tasks.

10. Evaluation of Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes represent a nearterm horizon when the project is anticipated to be completed. Hexagon will work with the team and City staff to define the horizon year. A list of approved, and not-yet constructed or occupied projects will be obtained from City staff. Hexagon will use the travel demand forecasting model to forecast intersection-level traffic volumes and freeway volumes. The model’s land use for the project zone will be reviewed to determine whether additional modifications are needed to generate the background conditions traffic volumes.

Intersection LOS analysis will be completed using the Vistro software.

11. Evaluation of Background Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic will be added to the background condition traffic volumes. Intersection levels of service under project conditions will be evaluated using the Vistro software. Intersection level of service calculations will be conducted to estimate project traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours after the completion of the proposed project. Intersection adverse effects associated with the project will be evaluated relative to background conditions.

12. Evaluation of Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative traffic volumes represent a 2040 horizon assuming the buildout of the City’s General Plan, as well as any approved or pending General Plan Amendments. Hexagon assumes that either the cumulative + project model run completed for the Willow Village project, or the cumulative + project model run complete for the Housing Element Update project will be used to represent cumulative conditions. This task does not assume a new model run. The model’s land use for the project zone will be reviewed to determine whether additional modifications are needed to generate the cumulative conditions traffic volumes. Intersection LOS analysis will be completed using the Vistro software.

13. Evaluation of Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic will be added to the cumulative condition traffic volumes. Intersection levels of service under project conditions will be evaluated using the Vistro software. Intersection level of service calculations will be conducted to estimate project traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Intersection adverse effects associated with the project will be evaluated relative to cumulative conditions.

14. Freeway Segment and Ramp Analysis. The magnitude of project trips on freeway segments and ramps near the site will be determined based on the trip assignment task described above. The number of trips on nearby freeway segments and ramps will be compared to the CMP’s threshold. The results of this task will be documented in the traffic study.

15. Site Access, On-Site Circulation and Parking. A review of the project site plan will be performed to determine the overall adequacy of the site access and on-site circulation in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards and to identify any access or circulation issues that should be improved. Parking will be evaluated relative to the City’s parking code.

Page G-8.391
Ms. Theresa Wallace
July 22, 2022

16. Signal Warrant Analysis. This proposal assumes that the intersection analysis will include unsignalized intersections. The need for future signalization of these unsignalized study intersections will be evaluated on the basis of the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant 3 – Part B) in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The warrant will be evaluated using peak-hour volumes for all study scenarios.

17. Evaluation of Vehicle Queuing. For selected locations where the project would add a significant number of left-turning vehicles, the adequacy of existing/planned storage at turn pockets will be assessed by means of comparison with expected maximum vehicle queues. Vehicle queues will be estimated using a Poisson probability distribution.

18. Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities. A qualitative analysis of the project’s effect on transit service in the area and on bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the study area will be included in the traffic report. This includes sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and amenities to promote the safe use of alternate modes of transportation, and connections to the existing bicycle and pedestrian network.

19. Peer Review of TDM Plan. Hexagon will conduct a comprehensive peer review of the applicant-provided Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Hexagon will summarize our comments in a draft memorandum and will respond to one round of comments from City of Menlo Park and prepare a final memorandum. This task also includes a peer review of the Final TDM Plan.

20. Variant Analysis. For the project-proposed variant of including up to 600 housing units, Hexagon will qualitatively discuss the project’s VMT impacts, and conduct a quantitative evaluation of the non-CEQA operational issues (intersection LOS analysis, freeway and freeway ramp analysis, queuing analysis, and parking analysis). This proposal assumes that the variant analysis will not materially change the site plan, so a site plan review is not included as part of this task.

21. Description of Recommendations. Based on the results of the level of service calculations, operational issues of the site-generated traffic will be identified and described. Recommendations will be formulated that identify the locations and types of improvements or modifications necessary to alleviate the operational issues.

Improvements could include street widenings, lane additions, changes in lane usage, or modifications to existing traffic signals.

Reports and Meetings

22. Meetings. The fee estimate includes Hexagon staff attendance at the project kickoff meeting, three public hearings, and ten team meetings with the Consultant team/City staff.

Additional meetings will require additional budget authorization.

23. EIR Transportation Chapter. Hexagon will author the EIR Transportation Chapter and include all CEQA-related and any necessary non-CEQA contents. This task includes three rounds of report revisions.

Page G-8.392
Ms. Theresa Wallace
July 22, 2022

24. TIA Report. Hexagon will prepare a separate TIA report documenting our study methodology and findings for all tasks performed. This task includes three rounds of report revisions.

25. Response to Public Comments. Hexagon will prepare response to public comments as requested (i.e. NOP comments, draft EIR comments). This task assumes up to 40 hours of staff time in preparing responses to comments.

Time of Performance
Since the EIR Transportation Chapter may or may not include non-CEQA analysis, the schedule below assumes that the administrative draft of the EIR Transportation Chapter and the TIA report will be submitted together, at the conclusion of the initial analysis. Barring any unforeseen delays, the administrative drafts will be submitted approximately 12 weeks (major milestones are described below) after: (1) authorization to proceed, and (2) receipt of all required data (such as new count data, the City’s approved trips inventory, and project related information). Upon receiving the first and second rounds of review comments, Hexagon will revise the report within 2 weeks. Upon receiving the third round of review comments, assumed to be minor editorial comments, Hexagon will revise the report within 1 week.

Major Milestones
Week Milestone
Week 3 Provide draft trip generation, distribution and assignment for City review and approval (assume 2-week City review time)
Week 5 Provide preliminary VMT results for City review (assume 2-week City review time) Week 8 Provide preliminary results for non-CEQA analyses (assume 2-week City review time)
Week 12 Provide administrative draft EIR Transportation Chapter, TIA report, and data needs for AQ/Noise
Page G-8.393
Ms. Theresa Wallace
July 22, 2022

Cost of Services
The fee for the scope of services will be based on time and expenses up to a maximum budget of $125,000 (see Table 2 for budget breakdown). Also attached is Hexagon’s billing rate by position.

Work not specifically specified in this scope are considered out-of-scope (such as analyzing additional variants, alternatives, revised project description after project initiation), and will require additional budget authorization.

We appreciate your consideration of Hexagon Transportation Consultants for this assignment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.

Gary K. Black
President
Ollie Zhou, T.E.

Principal Associate
Page G-8.394
Ms. Theresa Wallace
July 22, 2022

Table 1
Budget by Task
Hexagon 2022 Billing Rates
Professional Classification Rate per Hour
President $300
Principal $260
Senior Associate II $240
Senior Associate I $220
Associate II $200
Associate I $175
Planner/Engineer II $155
Planner/Engineer I $130
Admin/Graphics $110
Senior CAD Tech $95
Technician $75
Direct expenses are billed at actual costs, with the exception of mileage, which is reimbursed at the current rate per mile set by the IRS.

Billing rates shown are effective January 1, 2022 and subject to change January 1, 2023. # Task President
Principal
Associate Associate Engineer
Admin/
Graphics
Direct
Expenses Budget
1 VMT Analysis 4 16 5,360$
2 VMT Mitigation 4 16 5,360$
3 Provision of Data to AQ/Noise 8 8 3,680$
4 Selection of Intersections, Freeway Segments, Ramps 4 2 1,260$ 5 Site Reconnaissance 4 $ 800
6 Traffic Condition Observations 8 $ 1,340$ 100
7 Data Collection 8 2,600$ 3,840$
8 Evaluation of Existing Conditions 4 16 4,240$
9 Trip Generation, Distribution, Assignment 2 4 8 8 2 4,700$ 10 Background Conditions 4 16 4,240$
11 Background + Project Conditions 4 $ 800
12 Cumulative Conditions 4 16 4,240$
13 Cumulative + Project Conditions 4 $ 800
14 Freeway Segment and Ramp Analysis 16 4,160$
15 Site Access, On-Site Circulation, Parking 4 8 2,640$ 16 Signal Warrant Analysis 4 $ 620
17 Vehicle Queuing 4 4 1,420$
18 Bike, Pedestrian and Transit Facilities 2 8 2,120$
19 Peer Review of TDM Plan 2 8 24 7,480$
20 Variant Analysis 8 20 6,080$
21 Description of Recommendations 4 8 8 4,880$
22 Meetings 10 24 9,240$
23 EIR Transportation Chapter 10 20 60 4 20,640$
24 TIA Report 4 20 50 14,150$
25 Response to Public Comments 10 30 10,800$
Total 50 200 208 82 8 2,700$ 125,000$
Page G-8.395
Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment Scope of Work
63 | P a g e
Page G-8.396
bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC New York City 2560 9th St., Suite 211 803 2nd St., Suite A 448 South Hill St., Suite 701 1140 3rd St. NE, 2nd Floor 234 5th Ave.

Berkeley, CA 94710 Davis, CA 95616 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Washington, DC 20002 New York, NY 10001 510.547.9380 530.750.2195 213.471.2666 202.588.8945 212.683.4486 www.bae1.com

SCOPE OF WORK
Housing Needs Assessment for Parkline
BAE Urban Economics, Inc. (BAE) will prepare a housing needs assessment for the proposed Parkline project at the SRI campus in Menlo Park.  Currently, the proposal for the approximately 63‐acre site includes:
 400 new housing units (apartment units and town homes), including a mix of affordable and market‐rate housing
 Over 25 acres of landscaped, publicly‐accessible open space  Replacement of nearly 1.1 million square feet of outdated research buildings with five sustainable office/R&D/life science buildings, and a new amenity building for workers  A network of new bike and pedestrian pathways that enhance accessibility and connectivity through Menlo Park
 Retaining three existing buildings for SRI's continued operation in Menlo Park  Providing new community‐oriented retail, such as a juice bar and bike repair station, in addition to new recreational opportunities
The applicant is also requesting evaluation of a project variant that would include up to 600 residential units, which would entail intensifying the residential component within the 10‐acre residential district by increasing building heights, as well as including additional residential units on a separate one‐acre portion of the Project Site in the vicinity of the proposed community athletic field.

The analysis is scoped to satisfy the terms of the 2017 settlement agreement between the City of Menlo Park and the City of East Palo Alto, which states:
“The scope of the HNA will, to the extent possible, include an analysis of the multiplier effect for indirect and induced employment by that Development Project and its relationship to the regional housing market and displacement.” To accomplish this, the analysis will include background analysis of the local and regional housing market context, identification of the proposed project’s net impact on housing supply and demand across income levels, estimation of the impacts felt within Menlo Park, and an evaluation of the broader impacts on the balance of supply and demand within the regional housing market.  The latter will include a qualitative assessment of the potential for displacement of lower‐income residents within the local area.  Following is a detailed description of the tasks and methodology to complete the scope of work.

Task 1:  Project Start‐Up and Background Data Collection Page G-8.397
2 To set the stage for the impact analysis, BAE will collect and analyze background data on demographic and housing market characteristics in Menlo Park and the wider region.  Data collected will include information on household income levels, housing cost burden, overcrowding, renter and owner occupancy rates, residential rents and sale prices, typical residential turnover rates, recent residential construction activity, recent employment growth, projected household growth, and projected employment growth.  This analysis will provide data on Menlo Park and the San Mateo County/Santa Clara County region of the Bay Area.  If available from the City, BAE will also analyze data on the number and type of units in the residential development pipeline in Menlo Park.  This analysis will include a qualitative assessment of the extent to which the background data indicate displacement risk for existing residents in the local area (e.g., Menlo Park and East Palo Alto).

Deliverable:  Background Conditions chapter of Housing Needs Assessment Report Task 2:  Net Impact on Housing Supply and Demand by Income Level To serve as the basis for the impact assessment, BAE will estimate the net impacts of the proposed project and the project variant on housing supply and demand, by income level. a. Change in Housing Supply by Income Level
First, BAE will identify the increase in housing supply created by the proposed project in terms of new housing units by likely income level of the household occupants, based on the anticipated market pricing of the proposed housing, as well as consideration of any included below market rate (BMR) units as applicable.
b. Net Direct Change in Worker Housing Demand
Next, BAE will summarize the direct net impacts of the proposed project on jobs, including the reduction of jobs potential due to removal of existing buildings, and the new job potential associated with new buildings.  BAE will associate these job changes with the relevant industry sectors.
c. Indirect and Induced Job Impacts and Related Regional Worker Housing Demand Next, BAE will use the IMPLAN economic model to estimate the indirect and induced job impacts on housing demand associated with the changes in land use at the project site, based on the estimated changes in the number of jobs at the project (i.e., direct employment from sub‐task b.) by relevant industry sector as inputs for the IMPLAN model to estimate the indirect and induced jobs that the proposed project will support within the San Mateo/Santa Clara County region.

BAE will then estimate the direct, indirect, and induced housing unit need associated with the project’s total (direct, indirect, induced) net employment change by dividing the number of direct, indirect, and induced jobs by the average number of workers per worker household in the two‐county housing market.  BAE will then estimate the household income distribution for the new worker households generated by the direct, indirect, and induced employment from the Page G-8.398
3 proposed project based on the household income distribution among existing workers in each relevant industry sector using Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data.

BAE will also estimate the indirect and induced housing demand by income level generated by the household spending associated with the proposed project’s new housing component as inputs for the IMPLAN model.  The model will estimate the number of jobs that would be supported by the increased spending of new households associated with proposed housing units on goods and services within the two‐county area and BAE will again convert workers to households and use PUMS data to estimate the household income levels associated projected workers within the relevant industry sectors.
d. Net Housing Demand/Supply Effect
BAE will aggregate the direct, indirect, and induced impact calculations from the preceding sub‐ tasks to produce a summary table that identifies the total estimated change in housing demand (units) by income level associated with the proposed project.

Task 3. Menlo Park Share of Housing Impacts
BAE will then estimate the share of new direct, indirect, and induced housing demand that will be located in Menlo Park and East Palo Alto based primarily on existing commute patterns, though this task will also include a sensitivity analysis to estimate the housing demand in Menlo Park and East Palo Alto if housing demand among new workers differs somewhat from housing demand as indicated by existing commute patterns.

Deliverable:  Housing Demand Analysis chapter of Housing Needs Assessment Report combining analysis and findings from Tasks 2 and 3.

Task 4:  Analysis of Impacts on Local and Subregional Housing Market Based on the findings from Tasks 1 through 3, BAE will provide an assessment of the potential relationship between the proposed project, the regional housing market, jobs‐housing balance, and displacement.  This will include a qualitative analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project on residential rents and sale prices and the potential that the proposed project will lead to the displacement of existing local area residents.

Deliverable:  Project Impact chapter of Housing Needs Assessment Report Task 5: Draft and Final Reports
BAE will prepare a draft report that summarizes the approach to the Housing Needs Assessment and presents the research, analysis, and findings from the completed scope of work.  Following submittal of the draft report, BAE staff will be available to discuss the Draft Report with City staff by teleconference and answer any questions.  Upon receipt or a single, consolidated set of City staff comments on the Draft Report, BAE will revise the report as appropriate and prepare a Final Page G-8.399
4 Report for the City’s use.  BAE will submit all report drafts in electronic format (Microsoft Word and/or Adobe PDF).

Deliverable:  Draft and Final Housing Needs Assessment Report Task 6:  Responses to Public Comments
BAE anticipates assisting the City and the prime consultant in preparing responses to housing impact‐related comments received during the public review period for the project’s Draft EIR.

The budget for this task includes a time and materials budget for BAE to assist with preparation of responses to comments.

Deliverable:  Responses to housing impact‐related comments on DEIR.

Budget
BAE will complete the scope of services for a total fixed fee of $33,400.  A preliminary budget allocation is included below.  BAE reserves the right to re‐allocate the budget to best serve project needs; however, in no event shall the total cost exceed the fixed‐fee amount unless the City authorizes additional tasks beyond the agreed‐upon scope of work.

Task 1: Project Start‐Up and Data Collection $6,000
Task 2: Net Impact on Housing Supply and Demand by Income $14,600 Task 3: Menlo Park Share of Housing Impacts $1,600
Task 4: Analysis of Impacts on Local and Subregional Housing Market $3,300 Task 5: Draft and Final Reports $8,500
Task 6: Responses to Public Comments (T&M allowance) $2,000 Expenses (IMPLAN, Esri, CoStar, ListSource data) $1,500 Total $37,500
Page G-8.400
Appendix C: Resumes
68 | P a g e
Page G-8.401
69 | P a g e

THERESA WALLACE, AICP

PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE / PROJECT MANAGER

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Ms. Wallace has 19 years of experience in managing and preparing a variety of environmental documents including CEQA Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declarations and Environmental Impact Reports and NEPA technical studies, Environmental Assessments, and Environmental Impact Statements.

Ms. Wallace serves as both Principal in Charge and Project Manager for the environmental documentation of diverse public and private development and redevelopment projects on both urban infill and greenfield sites. Current and recent projects include a number of residential, commercial, office, research and development/life sciences, institutional, and mixed-use projects as well as public park master plans and facilities; roadway expansions and bridge construction; and bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails.

As Principal in Charge, Ms. Wallace oversees on-call environmental services contracts involving multiple assignments, as well as individual CEQA contracts. She establishes working relationships with local agency representatives; interfaces with clients and project teams; and makes presentations at community meetings and public hearings.

She is ultimately responsible for ensuring that LSA’s products are completed to the highest quality standard and meet the requirements of the client. Her direction to environmental team members aims to ensure an internally consistent, coherent document that fulfills all CEQA requirements.

As the Environmental Planning Discipline Lead at LSA, Ms. Wallace directs marketing efforts in the areas of environment and land use and supervises the environmental planning group on a companywide basis, including overseeing performance, workload distribution, and staffing.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Ms. Wallace is currently the Principal/Project Manager for the Sierra Point Towers Project EIR in the City of Brisbane, the 2 Davis Drive Office/R&D Project EIR for the City of Belmont, and the Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project EIR in the City of San Rafael. She also recently served as the Project Manager for the 388 Vintage Park Drive Project EIR for City of Foster City and the 1200 Van Ness Avenue Project IS/MND for the City and County of San Francisco. She managed or oversaw preparation of four recent Focused EIRs in the Bayfront Area of Menlo Park. All of these projects include the redevelopment of underutilized blocks of industrial and commercial sites with a mix of residential, office, research and development, and/or commercial uses.

At present, Ms. Wallace is also serving as Principal in Charge of on-call environmental services contracts for the cities of Redwood City, Concord, San Ramon, Dublin, Berkeley, Milpitas, El Cerrito, and Hayward, to name a few. The CEQA projects she is overseeing for these jurisdictions involve mixed-use, residential, office, and industrial uses.

Ms. Wallace has also managed or participated in the environmental review for public and private K–12 school projects, as well as those for colleges and campus master plans for institutional uses. Ms. Wallace was continually involved with the California

EXPERTISE
▪ CEQA/NEPA Project
Management
▪ Environmental Planning and
Impact Analysis
▪ Land Use Planning

EDUCATION
B.A., Environmental Studies,
University of California,
Santa Cruz, 2002

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Principal, LSA,
Point Richmond, California,
June 2005–Present

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
American Institute of
Certified Planners (AICP)
American Planning
Association (APA)
Association of
Environmental Professionals
(AEP)
San Francisco Planning and
Urban Research Association
(SPUR)
Page G-8.402
70 | P a g e
State University Maritime Academy from 2010 through 2018, processing CEQA projects under the 2002 Master Plan, and as the Project Manager for the 2016 Master Plan EIR.

The following is a selected list of recently completed urban infill projects:
• 111 Independence Drive Project EIR for the City of Menlo Park • Menlo Uptown Project EIR for the City of Menlo Park
• Menlo Portal Project EIR for the City of Menlo Park
• Menlo Flats Project EIR for the City of Menlo Park
• theLAB IS/MND for the City of Berkeley
• 600 Addison Street Project IS/MND for the City of Berkeley • 1900 Fourth Street Project EIR for the City of Berkeley • 388 Vintage Park Drive Project EIR for the City of Foster City • 1200 Van Ness Project IS/MND for Reuben, Junius, and Rose/City and County of San Francisco • 3000-3500 Marina Boulevard Life Sciences Project for the City of Brisbane • San Bruno Recreation and Aquatic Center Project EIR for Group 4 Architecture/City of San Bruno • Children’s Hospital and Research Center Oakland EIR for the City of Oakland • California Maritime Academy Master Plan EIR for the California State University • California Maritime Academy Police Building IS/MND for the California State University • California Maritime Academy Physical Education and Pool Facility IS/MND for the California State University • California Maritime Academy Master Plan EIR Addendum for the Dining Center Replacement Project for the California State University
• Deer Valley Estates Project Focused EIR for the City of Antioch • 1548 Maple Street Project EIR for the City of Redwood City • 1724 Sunnyhills Residential Project IS/MND for the City of Milpitas • Clayton Road Townhomes Project Environmental Documentation for the City of Concord • Pulte Homes Residential Project for the City of Union City • Rocketship Redwood City Charter School IS/MND for the City of Redwood City • 2201 Dwight Way Project EIR for the City of Berkeley
• 598 Brannan Street Initial Study and Focused EIR for Tishman Speyer/City and County of San Francisco • 500 Turk Focused EIR for the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation/City and County of San Francisco • 1601 Mariposa Street Mixed Use Project EIR for Related California/City and County of San Francisco • Fifth and Mission (5M) Project EIR for Forest City/City and County of San Francisco • Lakehouse Commons CEQA for UrbanCore-Integral LLC/City of Oakland • Downtown Family Development Project CEQA/NEPA Documentation for the City of Mountain View • Napa County Health and Human Services Agency Campus Focused EIR and Initial Study for the County of Napa Page G-8.403
71 | P a g e

MATTHEW WISWELL, AICP

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Wiswell is a CEQA specialist with more than 6 years of experience providing environmental planning and technical assistance for a variety of planning and environmental documents. Mr. Wiswell serves as an Environmental Planner and provides project management assistance for public and private development and redevelopment projects that include a wide array of residential, institutional, office, and industrial uses; school facility, parks, and trails improvements; and City-sponsored area plans and programs.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of Menlo Park, Focused EIRs for Residential Mixed-Use Projects, 111 Independence Drive, Menlo Uptown, Menlo Portal, Menlo Flats, Menlo Park LSA was contracted to prepare Focused EIRs for four residential and mixed-use projects within the Bayfront Area. For each project, the Focused EIRs have evaluated the topics of population and housing; transportation and circulation; air quality; greenhouse gas emissions; and noise. Mr. Wiswell served as the Assistant Project Manager; he prepared the non-technical analyses for the Initial Study and Focused EIRs. He prepared the alternatives chapters and conducted presentations and answered questions at public hearings.

City of Berkeley, 600 Addison Street Project IS/MND, Berkeley The 600 Addison Street Project involves redevelopment of an 8.4-acre site into a research and development (R&D) campus with two buildings totaling approximately 461,822 gross square feet and each with their own separate four-story parking garage.

The LSA team peer reviewed the project applicant’s Geotechnical Study, Oak Tree Removal and Relocation Plan, Arborist Report, and Transportation Impact Analysis, and prepared a Draft Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation for submittal to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. LSA also assisted the City with successful consultation with tribal representatives pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52. Mr. Wiswell served as the Assistant Project Manager and Environmental Planner for this project, assisting with the preparation of an Initial Study that analyzed potential impacts associated with the redevelopment of underutilized blocks of an industrial site with a mix of residential, office, and R&D and/or commercial uses.

City of Berkeley, TheLAB IS/MND, Berkeley
This project proposes to construct a life science campus including R&D buildings and an approximately 283,810-square-foot parking garage. LSA prepared an Initial Study and Historic Resource Evaluation, and on the basis of those analyses and in consultation with City staff, determined that the proposed project qualified for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Wiswell served as the Assistant Project Manager and was the primary author of the IS/MND.

City of Foster City, 388 Vintage Park Drive Life Sciences Project EIR, Foster City Mr. Wiswell is serving as the Assistant Project Manager for the preparation of an Initial Study and Focused EIR for the proposed 388 Vintage Park Drive Project. The project would consist of the redevelopment of the project site with an approximately 125,000- square-foot life sciences/R&D building. Mr. Wiswell prepared the non-technical sections of the Initial Study and the land use, aesthetics, public services, and utilities sections of the EIR.

EXPERTISE
▪ Environmental Planning
and Impact Analysis
▪ Land Use Planning and
Development

EDUCATION
B.S., City & Regional Planning,
Minor in Real Property
Development, California
Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo, 2016

PROFESSIONAL

EXPERIENCE
Environmental Planner, LSA,
Point Richmond, California,
2016–Present
Environmental Intern, County
of San Luis Obispo, Planning &
Building Department, San Luis
Obispo, California, December
2015–June 2016

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP)
American Planning
Association (APA)
American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP)
Page G-8.404
72 | P a g e
City of Belmont, 2 Davis Drive Office/R&D Project EIR, Belmont Mr. Wiswell is serving as the Assistant Project Manager for the 2 Davis Drive Office/R&D Project, which includes an Initial Study and Focused EIR. The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing warehouse building with an approximately 78,000-square-foot office/R&D building, as well as the dedication of land for a new fire station and new right-turn lane. Mr. Wiswell prepared the non-technical sections of the Initial Study and the land use and cultural resources sections of the EIR.

City of Brisbane, Sierra Point Towers Redevelopment Project EIR, Brisbane The proposed project adds new life science building space, consisting of offices, labs, and R&D spaces, within two new office towers at the project site. The project proposes to demolish the existing parking structure and construct new parking provided in a new 11-story parking garage. Redevelopment also includes a central open space and an event space. LSA is preparing a comprehensive EIR for the proposed improvements. In addition to environmental review, the proposed project would require a zoning amendment to modify the height limit in the Sierra Point Design Guidelines, a use permit modification of the parking regulations, tentative parcel map, design review permit, and planning commission review of a grading permit. Mr. Wiswell is serving as Assistant Project Manager.

City of Brisbane, 3000-3500 Marina Boulevard Project, Brisbane Mr. Wiswell served as the Project Manager for the 3000-3500 Marina Boulevard Project, which included changes to the previously approved Opus Office project. Mr. Wiswell managed the preparation of an Addendum, which incorporated updated analyses for biological resources and transportation, as well as an updated water supply assessment.

City of San Bruno Recreation Center Project EIR, San Bruno Mr. Wiswell served as Assistant Project Manager for this project that included the demolition of the Veterans Memorial Recreation Center and the San Bruno Swimming Pool and the rerouting of a creek to allow for the construction of the new San Bruno Recreation and Aquatics Center (SBRAC) in the same general area. The SBRAC would be approximately 60,000 square feet in size. LSA prepared a Historic Resource Evaluation that determined the Veterans Memorial Recreation Center was a historic resource under CEQA and prepared a Focused EIR that addressed the topics of biological and cultural resources, transportation, air quality, noise, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality.

City of Redwood City, 1548 Maple Street Project EIR, Redwood City Mr. Wiswell served as Environmental Planner and assisted with the preparation of the EIR that analyzed potential impacts associated with the redevelopment of an industrial site to include 131 three-story townhomes, open space, circulation and parking, infrastructure, soil remediation, and grading improvements. Project analysis also examined the possible impacts of related off-site improvements involving an extension of the San Francisco Bay Trail on approximately 8 acres along Redwood Creek. Specifically, Mr. Wiswell prepared the land use and planning, as well as the utilities and service systems, analysis for the CEQA documentation.

City of Antioch, Deer Valley Estates Project EIR, Antioch Mr. Wiswell served as the Project Manager and Environmental Planner for the proposed project that involves the construction of 121 new single‐family homes and associated improvements on a currently vacant site in the southern portion of the city. LSA identified the need for a Focused EIR, and Mr. Wiswell managed its preparation. The Focused EIR evaluated the potentially significant impacts of the project associated with transportation, specifically Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). All other environmental issue topics were addressed in the Initial Study prepared for a previous version of the project in 2007. The analysis for the current version of the project tiered off of the previous IS/MND, to the extent feasible.

City of Pittsburg, Pittsburg Making Waves Academy Charter School Project Initial Study and EIR, Pittsburg Mr. Wiswell served as Assistant Project Manager and Environmental Planner for this project. The proposed project is to be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 includes the construction of an elementary school, a middle school, and a high school. Phase 2 includes the construction of sports facilities, including a soccer, track, baseball, and softball fields, basketball courts, and an aquatics center. LSA prepared the Initial Study and EIR which analyzed potential impacts associated with the development of a school campus and sports complex.

Page G-8.405
73 | P a g e

ASHLEY MANHEIM

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Ms. Manheim is an Environmental Planner with 3 years of experience in the preparation of a variety of documents and maps required for environmental permitting. She has prepared these documents for various public agencies, including many counties throughout northern California, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California State Water Resources Control Board, the Division of Water Rights, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Her experience includes preparation of 1600 permits, 401 Water Quality Certification Applications, a variety of water rights, Site Management Plans, and CEQA Environmental Impact Reports, Initial Studies, Mitigated Negative Declarations, and Notices of Exemption. Her primary responsibilities at LSA include preparation of a variety of reports and documents required for environmental permitting and CEQA compliance.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of Millbrae, 210 Adrian Road Project, Millbrae. Ms. Manheim served as Environmental Planner for the preparation of a memorandum and checklist pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) for the proposed project that includes demolition of the existing self-storage building and the development of a life sciences building that would contain laboratory, office, and amenities space, as well as associated open space, circulation and parking, and infrastructure improvements.

City of San Rafael, Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project, San Rafael. Ms. Manheim is currently assisting with the preparation of an EIR for this project, which involves the redevelopment of an existing mall with a mix of commercial and residential land uses. Ms.

Manheim has been responsible for assisting in the development of the Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, and Utilities and Service Systems sections of the EIR.

City of Foster City, 388 Vintage Park Drive Life Sciences Project EIR, Foster City. Ms. Manheim is currently assisting with the preparation of the EIR for the proposed project that includes demolition of the existing restaurant building and construction of a four-story office building including a ground-level parking podium and surface parking totaling 210 vehicle spaces, as well as associated open space, circulation and loading, and infrastructure improvements.

City of Milpitas, 1752–1810 Houret Court Project CE, Milpitas. Ms. Manheim served as Environmental Planner and prepared a Categorical Exemption for the proposed infill project that would demolish the existing buildings and construct eight four-story buildings of 56 townhome-style condominiums and 24 accessible dwelling units (ADUs), for a total of 80 residential units on the project site.

City of Novato, Novato Boulevard Improvement Project EIR, Novato. This project proposes to construct improvements to Novato Boulevard between Grant Avenue and Diablo Avenue to provide two through-travel lanes. Additional improvements include reconstructed sidewalks, new bike lanes, reconstructed driveways, landscaping and water quality enhancement areas, curb and gutter improvements, and on-street parking. The project also includes upgrades to existing City utilities such as storm drainage, signals and lighting, sanitary sewer pipes, and water lines. Ms. Manheim is assisting with the preparation of the EIR to evaluate potential impacts associated with the proposed roadway improvements, focusing on the environmental topics of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, land use, noise, population and housing, transportation, and tribal cultural resources.

EXPERTISE
▪ Environmental
Planning and Impact
Analysis
▪ Environmental
Compliance Permit
and Document
Preparation
▪ Watershed
Management and
Restoration
▪ ArcGIS Desktop,
ArcGIS Pro

EDUCATION
B.S., Environmental
Management and
Protection, California
Polytechnic State
University, San Luis
Obispo, 2015

PROFESSIONAL

EXPERIENCE
Environmental Planner,
LSA, Point Richmond,
California, January
2022–Present
Environmental Analyst,
Jacobszoon and
Associates, Inc., Ukiah,
California, October
2018–December 2021
Environmental Health
Specialist, County of
Lake, Lakeport,
California, December
2017–October 2018

SPECIALIZED TRAINING
CPR and First Aid
Certified
Page G-8.406
74 | P a g e

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
With 20 years of experience in environmental studies, Ms. Fischer has performed principal-level review or conducted over more than 200 CEQA/NEPA-related and/or stand-alone air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impact studies for community plans, development projects, and infrastructure improvements. She is experienced with the models and methods used to assess both air quality and GHG impacts. As the Director of LSA’s Air Quality Services, she monitors State and federal standards, case law, and scientific research to make sure that LSA’s analyses reflect the rapid changes in this evolving field. In keeping with LSA’s commitment to senior-level management, as the Principal in Charge, Ms. Fischer maintains substantive involvement with projects as a means of ensuring high-quality products and balanced professional consultation. She works closely with Project Managers and clients, and provides input on and monitors the scope, budget, and scheduling of specific projects. Ms. Fischer is ultimately responsible for the quality of all project work, and reviews all in-house prepared text, tables, and graphics before these materials are presented to the client.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE

CEQA/NEPA
Ms. Fischer serves as principal air quality, climate change, and noise analyst for CEQA/NEPA and planning documents. She has a comprehensive knowledge of the CEQA requirements for air quality districts throughout California. Her experience includes assessing both plan- and project-level air quality impacts ranging from criteria pollutant analysis to dispersion modeling and health risk assessments using the latest air quality modeling tools. She is skilled in air quality assessment models including the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Emission Factor models (EMFAC/OFFROAD), the Road Construction Estimator Model (RoadMod), and Line Dispersion Models (CALINE).

She designs emission reduction strategies to reduce project-specific air quality impacts.

Ms. Fischer has conducted the air quality, noise, and greenhouse gas analysis for research and development facility, senior care home, hospital, assisted living, residential, hotel, park, mixed-use, school, and college campus projects, some of which are listed below. • EIRs for Mixed-Use Projects: 111 Independence Drive, Menlo Uptown, Menlo Portal, Menlo Flats, City of Menlo Park
• Sierra Point Towers Redevelopment Project EIR, City of Brisbane • theLAB IS/MND, City of Berkeley
• 600 Addison Street Project IS/MND, City of Berkeley
• 388 Vintage Park Drive Project EIR, City of Foster City • 3000-3500 Marina Boulevard Life Sciences Project, City of Brisbane • San Bruno Recreation and Aquatic Center Project EIR, City of San Bruno • California Maritime Academy Master Plan EIR, California State University • 1548 Maple Street Townhome Community Project EIR, City of Redwood City • Deer Valley Estates Project EIR, City of Antioch
• Pulte Homes Project IS/MND, City of Union City
• Concord Townhomes Environmental Checklist, City of Concord • 1724 Sunnyhills Court Project IS/MND, City of Milpitas • Walters Jr. High School Improvements Project EIR, Fremont Unified School District • College Park High School Athletic Field Noise Monitoring Assessment, Mt. Diablo Unified School District
AMY E. FISCHER

AIR QUALITY, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

EXPERTISE
▪ CEQA/NEPA
▪ Air Quality Analysis
▪ GHG Emissions Analysis
▪ Climate Change Analysis
▪ Noise Analysis
▪ Transportation Planning
▪ Health Risk Assessment

EDUCATION
B.S., Environmental Policy
Analysis, Minor in
Geography, University of
Nevada, Reno, 1998

PROFESSIONAL

EXPERIENCE
Principal, LSA,
Fresno, California,
July 2005–Present

PROFESSIONAL

CERTIFICATIONS
San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District
Regulation VIII – Certified
Dust Control Plan Preparer,
May 19, 2015

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Association of
Environmental
Professionals (AEP) –
Director, Central Valley
Chapter, 2016– Present
AEP – VP of Programs,
Central Valley Chapter,
2011–2015
American Planning
Association (APA)
Page G-8.407
75 | P a g e
• Clover School Modernization Project Categorical Exemption, Tracy Unified School District • Dorris Eaton School Health Risk Assessment, Dorris Eaton School in San Ramon • Jensen Lane Elementary School Project EIR, Windsor Unified School District • Rocketship Charter School IS/MND, City of Redwood City Ms. Fischer recently provided principal-level review for the air quality analyses for the following projects:
• Air Quality Impact Analysis Land Use and Urban Design Elements, City of Long Beach • Kaiser Permanente Baldwin Park Medical Center Parking Structure Expansion and Medical Office Building MND, Kaiser Permanente
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Operations Center and Site Consolidation Project, Moulton Niguel Water District
• West Alton Parcel Development DEIR Air Quality and GHG Emissions Technical Appendices Peer Review Ms. Fischer also contributed to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy for the City of Hope Campus Plan. In addition, she served as the primary author of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise sections of the San Francisco General Hospital Rebuild Project EIR, as well as the Children’s Hospital and Research Center Oakland Campus Master Plan EIR.

GREENHOUSE GAS
Ms. Fischer prepares quantitative GHG analyses that evaluate the impacts of project-related GHG emissions and project impacts related to global climate change. The reports describe the existing setting and regulatory context, quantify impacts, and recommend mitigation measures, as appropriate.

Using CalEEMod (or other local model), Ms. Fischer performs a quantitative assessment of GHG emissions associated with all relevant sources related to the project, including construction activities, new vehicle trips, electricity consumption, water usage, and solid waste generation and disposal. Ms. Fischer recently conducted the GHG analysis for the 4660 Sierra College Boulevard Commercial Project, Rocklin; the Thompson and Dakota Residential Project, Clovis; and the Balfour Road Shoulder Widening Project, Contra Costa County. Most recently, she provided the air quality and GHG analysis for a General Plan Amendment, including rezoning and annexation, for the City of Fresno.

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 seeks to provide information to State and local agencies and to the general public on the extent of airborne emissions from stationary sources and the potential public health impacts of those emissions. Ms. Fischer prepares Health Risk Assessments (HRA) using the Guidance Manual (February 2015) developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). She is trained in the use of the Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) model, developed by CARB, as a tool to implement the risk assessments as outlined in the Guidance Manual. Ms. Fischer has prepared HRAs for the following projects:
• Riviera Avenue Residential Project Health Risk Assessment, Walnut Creek, Resources for Community Development • 211 Airport Boulevard/Pinefino Apartments Project Health Risk Assessment, South San Francisco, Concord Design Group
• Miramonte Sanitation Transfer Station Project Health Risk Assessment, Reedley, Miramonte Sanitation • Redwood Hills Residential Project Health Risk Analysis, Oakland, Affordable Housing Associates • 1601 Mariposa Mixed-Use Project Air Quality Criteria Pollutant Analysis, San Francisco, Related California • Fremont Gateways Health Risk Assessment, Fremont, Tim Lewis Communities Page G-8.408
76 | P a g e

CARA CARLUCCI

SENIOR PLANNER / AIR QUALITY, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ENERGY

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Ms. Carlucci is a Senior Environmental Planner with more than 8 years of experience in air quality analysis and greenhouse gas emissions analysis for CEQA documentation. At LSA, she provides project management and technical assistance on a variety of planning and environmental documents including Environmental Assessments, Initial Studies, and Environmental Impact Reports. Ms. Carlucci has been involved in residential and commercial development projects, road improvement projects, and program-level plans.

She has a strong foundation in land use planning and is well versed in addressing impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise.

Ms. Carlucci is proficient with the use of the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108) and is proficient in air quality models, including the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and the Roadway Emissions Estimator Model (RoadMod). Ms. Carlucci is also responsible for conducting field noise measurements with the Larson Davis SoundTrack LxT sound level meter in compliance with applicable standards.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of Menlo Park, Focused EIRs for Residential Mixed-Use Projects, 111 Independence Drive, Menlo Uptown, Menlo Portal, Menlo Flats, Menlo Park Ms. Carlucci prepared the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise sections of the Focused EIRs for four residential and mixed-use projects within the Bayfront Area. In addition, Ms.

Carlucci assisted with the development of project-specific thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions.

City of Berkeley, TheLAB IS/MND, Berkeley
Ms. Carlucci prepared the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas sections of the IS/MND. This project proposes to construct a life sciences campus including research and development (R&D) buildings and an approximately 283,810-square-foot parking garage.

LSA prepared an Initial Study and Historic Resource Evaluation, and on the basis of those analyses and in consultation with City staff, determined that the proposed project could qualify for an MND.

City of Foster City, 388 Vintage Park Drive Life Sciences Project EIR, Foster City Ms. Carlucci prepared the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas sections for the Focused EIR of the proposed 388 Vintage Park Drive Project. The project would consist of the redevelopment of the project site with an approximately 125,000-square-foot life sciences/R&D building.

City of Belmont, 2 Davis Drive Office/R&D Project EIR, Belmont Ms. Carlucci prepared the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas sections for the 2 Davis Drive Office/R&D Project Focused EIR. The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing warehouse building with an approximately 78,000-squarefoot office/R&D building, as well as the dedication of land for a new fire station and new right-turn lane.

City of Brisbane, 3000-3500 Marina Boulevard Project, Brisbane Ms. Carlucci prepared the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas sections for the 3000- 3500 Marina Boulevard Project, which included changes to the previously approved Opus Office project. LSA prepared the second Addendum to the 2008 Opus Office Center Initial

EXPERTISE
▪ CEQA Document
Preparation
Environmental Analysis
▪ Air Quality Analysis
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emission
Analysis
▪ Noise Analysis
▪ Land Use Planning

EDUCATION
B.S., City & Regional
Planning, Minor in Real
Property Development,
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo,
June 2015

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Senior Environmental
Planner, LSA, Fresno,
California,
June 2014–Present

SPECIALIZED TRAINING
CEQA Case Law Update,
2016
Advanced CEQA Workshop,
2016
CEQA Essentials Workshop,
2015

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Association of
Environmental Professionals
(AEP) – Secretary, Central
Valley Chapter, 2016–
Present
American Planning
Association (APA)
Page G-8.409
77 | P a g e
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2008 IS/MND), which was prepared by LSA and adopted by the City in May 2009.

The first Addendum was prepared in December 2016 (2016 Addendum) and was filed by the City in March 2017.

City of Brisbane, Sierra Point Towers Redevelopment Project EIR, Brisbane Ms. Carlucci prepared the Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas sections of the EIR. The proposed project adds new life sciences building space, consisting of offices, labs, and R&D spaces, within two new office towers at the project site.

The project proposes to demolish the existing parking structure and construct new parking provided in a new 11-story parking garage. Redevelopment also includes a central open space and an event space. LSA is preparing a comprehensive EIR for the proposed improvements. In addition to environmental review, the proposed project would require a zoning amendment to modify the height limit in the Sierra Point Design Guidelines, a use permit modification of the parking regulations, tentative parcel map, design review permit, and planning commission review of a grading permit.

City of Berkeley, 600 Addison IS/MND, Berkeley
Ms. Carlucci prepared the Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise sections of the IS/MND for the proposed project. The proposed project would develop an R&D and Office Campus that would accommodate research, innovation, lab, and/or office uses.

California Maritime Academy, California Maritime Academy Master Plan EIR for California State University, Vallejo The Master Plan will cover all aspects of campus development over the next 15 years, including student enrollment growth, overall campus land use and design, building capacity and placement, circulation and infrastructure, and sustainability. Ms. Carlucci assisted with the preparation of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise sections of the EIR.

City of San Bruno Recreation and Aquatic Center Project EIR, San Bruno On the basis of a preliminary Initial Study prepared by LSA, it was determined that a Focused EIR would be required to further evaluate the potentially significant impacts of the project. Ms. Carlucci assisted with the preparation of the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise sections of the EIR.

City of Redwood City, 1548 Maple Street Project, Redwood City Ms. Carlucci prepared the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas sections of the EIR for the redevelopment of an industrial site to include 131 three-story townhomes, open space, circulation and parking, infrastructure, soil remediation, and grading improvements. She also analyzed the possible impacts of related off-site improvements involving an extension of the San Francisco Bay Trail on approximately 8 acres along Redwood Creek.

City of Milpitas, 1724 Sunnyhills Court Project IS/MND, Milpitas Ms. Carlucci prepared the Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise sections of the IS/MND for the proposed project, which includes the demolition of an existing leasing/community building and the construction of 44 two- to three-story multifamily residential units, a new leasing building, and site improvements.

City of Antioch, Deer Valley Estates Project IS/MND, Antioch Ms. Carlucci prepared the Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas sections of the IS/MND for the proposed project.

The proposed project would result in the construction of 121 new single‐family homes and associated open space, roadway, and utility improvements.

City of Hanford, Hanford Place Project IS/MND, Hanford
Ms. Carlucci, serving as the Project Manager, prepared both technical and non-technical sections of the IS/MND for the proposed project, which would develop a medical and mixed-use development and would construct 15 buildings consisting of medical outpatient clinic services, hotel and conference center, specialized education, retail, medical office, skilled nursing and assisted living, and multifamily residential uses, as well as a bio infiltration basin, associated open space, circulation and parking, and infrastructure improvements.

Page G-8.410
78 | P a g e

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Stephens is a Senior Acoustical Specialist and part of LSA’s environmental technical staff. He is primarily responsible for the preparation of noise studies for a variety of projects. Mr. Stephens is proficient in the use of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108), the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 2.5, the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), the Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT), SoundPLAN Noise Prediction Software, and INSUL, a noise prediction software for building façades and partitions. Mr. Stephens is also responsible for performing noise monitoring surveys using a variety of Larson-Davis sound level meters.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of Menlo Park, 3723 Haven Avenue/Hotel Moxy Project, Menlo Park Mr. Stephens is preparing the Noise Analysis Memorandum for the proposed 3723 Haven Avenue Project pursuant to CEQA. The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing office building and the construction of a new 163-room hotel, with 126 parking spaces in the first three floors as podium parking.

City of Berkeley, TheLAB IS/MND, Berkeley
Mr. Stephens served as Noise Resources Specialist. This project proposes to construct a life sciences campus including research and development (R&D) buildings and an approximately 283,810-square-foot parking garage. LSA prepared an Initial Study and Historic Resource Evaluation, and on the basis of those analyses and in consultation with City staff, determined that the proposed project could qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

City of Foster City, 388 Vintage Park Drive Life Sciences Project EIR, Foster City Mr. Stephens served as Noise Resources Specialist for the Focused EIR of the proposed 388 Vintage Park Drive Project. The project would consist of the redevelopment of the project site with an approximately 125,000-square-foot life sciences/R&D building.

City of Brisbane, Sierra Point Towers Redevelopment Project EIR, Brisbane Mr. Stephens served as Noise Resources Specialist for the project EIR. The proposed project adds new life sciences building space, consisting of offices, labs, and R&D spaces, within two new office towers at the project site. The project proposes to demolish the existing parking structure and construct new parking provided in a new 11-story parking garage. Redevelopment also includes a central open space and an event space. LSA is preparing a comprehensive EIR for the proposed improvements. In addition to environmental review, the proposed project would require a zoning amendment to modify the height limit in the Sierra Point Design Guidelines, a use permit modification of the parking regulations, tentative parcel map, design review permit, and planning commission review of a grading permit.

Diablo Motocross Ranch Facility Noise Assistance, Contra Costa County As part of the On-Call Environmental Services Contract with Contra Costa County, Mr.

Stephens assisted County staff in reviewing previous analyses completed for the Diablo Motocross Ranch Facility as well as participating in conference calls and meetings to determine the next steps to address current noise impact issues to surrounding residences.

JOHN T. STEPHENS

PRINCIPAL / NOISE RESOURCES

EXPERTISE
▪ Noise and Vibration

EDUCATION
B.S., Acoustical Engineering,
with Minor in
Communications, Purdue
University, West Lafayette,
Indiana, 2004

SPECIALIZED TRAINING
SoundPLAN
FHWA TNM 2.5

FHWA RCNM
Insul
AEDT
Microsoft Office

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Member, Institute of Noise
Control Engineering (INCE)
E.I.T. License No.

ET30504764 (2005)

AWARDS/HONORS
Outstanding Senior of the
Year Award,
Interdisciplinary
Engineering, 2004
Page G-8.411
79 | P a g e
City of Hayward, 29212 Mission Boulevard Infill Residential Development Project LSA prepared the Categorical Exemption and Infill Environmental Checklist (CE/IEC) for the 29212 Mission Boulevard Project in Hayward, California. In support of the CE/IEC, LSA noise staff prepared a technical noise and vibration analysis for the proposed project and identified potential impacts as compared to the previously completed City of Hayward General Plan EIR and the South Hayward BART/Mission Blvd Form-Based Code Draft Supplemental Program EIRs which are documents providing programmatic policies and standards. Specific tasks completed include: gathering ambient noise measurements in the project vicinity, as assessment of both temporary and permanent noise and vibration impacts and identified appropriate standard conditions of approval. 200 Airport Boulevard Project Environmental Consistency Analysis, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Mr. Stephens assisted with the preparation of the Noise and Vibration Study for the proposed project. The proposed project involved the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a seven‐story mixed‐use building with ground floor commercial in South San Francisco. The project site is designated as Downtown Transit Core (DTC) in the South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP). LSA prepared a memorandum and checklist for the proposed project that relied on the DSASP EIR, which provided a program‐level analysis of development within the area encompassing the project site.

City of Berkeley, 1900 Fourth Street Project EIR, Berkeley Mr. Stephens served as Noise Resources Specialist. The project proposed the demolition of an existing structure and redevelopment of the site with 135 residential units and 33,080 square feet of retail and restaurant space, as well as parking and open space. The site is located entirely within the boundary of the West Berkeley Shellmound, a historical resource under CEQA and a local City Landmark.

BART Hayward Maintenance Complex Phase 2 and Northern Mainline Connector Project, Hayward, California Mr. Stephens is preparing the Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment for the proposed BART Hayward Maintenance Complex (HMC) Phase 2 – Northern Mainline Connector Project. The Phase 2 project site consists of approximately 16 acres of undeveloped land in the northeast quadrant of the HMC property, on the east side of the mainline BART tracks north of the existing maintenance and engineering facility and rail storage yard. The northernmost 6 acres of the Phase 2 area would be developed as the site of the Northern Mainline Connector. The project includes the installation of traction power, train control, and communications systems, gap breaker stations, train control houses, train wash, cleaning platform, and various track work modifications. The Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment is being prepared to evaluate the existing noise conditions at sensitive receptors, the proposed construction and operations related noise and vibration impacts, and potential mitigation measures necessary for compliance with the Federal Transit Administration Manual. Additionally, LSA staff continues to meet with BART staff and the project team throughout the process to efficiently achieve desired outcomes.

Richmond Wholesale Meat Operations Noise Analysis, Richmond Mr. Stephens prepared the Noise Impact Analysis for the Richmond Wholesale Meat Distribution Center located in Richmond. The technical noise analysis analyzed operational noise impacts to the nearby noise sensitive uses and provided mitigation measurements to reduce any significant noise impacts to comply with City noise standards.

City of Concord, Clayton Road Townhomes Environmental Checklist, Concord Mr. Stephens prepared the technical noise and vibration analysis for the Clayton Road Townhomes Project in Concord.

The proposed project consists of 70 residential townhouse units on 3.86 acres, located at 3512 Clayton Road between Roslyn Drive and Barbis Way.

City of Richmond, 205 Cutting Boulevard Project, Richmond Mr. Stephens served as Noise Resources Specialist. As part of LSA’s on-call contract with the City, LSA prepared supporting technical documents and a Categorical Exemption under Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines for the proposed Barnof Holdings Self-Storage Facility. LSA prepared analyses related to biological and cultural resources, traffic, air quality, and noise to support the findings that implementation of the proposed project would result in no potentially significant impacts. LSA also prepared a memorandum to support the Categorical Exemption, documenting how the proposed project met the conditions identified in Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Page G-8.412
80 | P a g e

MOHAMMAD ABUSHANAB

MECHANICAL NOISE ENGINEER

EXPERTISE
▪ Noise Modeling
▪ 2D/3D Drafting
▪ QGIS and Google Earth Pro

EDUCATION
M. Engineering, Mechanical
Engineering, University of
Ottawa, Canada, 2018
B.A.Sc., Mechanical
Engineering, with Engineering
Management and
Entrepreneurship Minor,
University of Ottawa, Canada,
2016

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Mechanical Noise Engineer,
LSA, Point Richmond,
California, April 2022–Present
Acoustics and Vibration
Specialist, Wood Environment
& Infrastructure Solutions,
Oakville, Canada, May 2021–
April 2022
Acoustics, Noise and Vibration
EIT, Golder Associates Ltd.,
Mississauga, Canada, August
2019–May 2021
Instructor, Canadore College,
Mississauga, Canada, October
2018–May 2019
CAD Technician, BluMetric
Environmental Inc., Ottawa,
Canada, May 2017–December
2017

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Abushanab is an acoustics and vibration specialist with 2 years of experience in the fields of acoustics, noise, and vibration. He has experience in noise modeling and assembling data for analysis and presentation in reports. He develops solutions related to acoustics, noise, and vibration issues, and his expertise spans the areas of construction, industrial, transportation, infrastructure, and residential buildings. He is experienced in noise modeling using CadnaA and in 2D/3D drafting using SolidWorks and AutoCAD, and he is familiar with jurisdictional regulations and guidance with respect to noise and acoustics.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
PMB LLC, Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis for the Rehabilitation Center Project at 17931 Von Karman, Irvine
Mr. Abushanab prepared a noise and vibration impact memorandum for the proposed project, which included analysis of construction noise and vibration impacts, project noise impacts, project design features, and land use compatibility.

Triad Homes Associates, Woodmen Street Bus Turnaround, Mammoth Lakes Mr. Abushanab conducted the noise analysis for the proposed bus turnaround at the intersection of Woodmen Street/Old Mammoth Road on Mammoth Community Water District (MCWD) property.

EPD Solutions, Inc., Santa Ana and Live Oak Fontana Warehouse Project, Fontana The project proposes the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a high-cube warehouse inclusive of two offices. The proposed project has the potential to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Mr. Abushanab is conducting the noise and vibration analysis for the proposed project’s construction and operation. The noise analysis report will identify any potential project-level or cumulative-level noise impacts and the measures necessary to reduce the project’s short-term construction and/or long-term impacts to acceptable noise levels.

Technical Support for Acoustics, Port of Long Beach Architectural Design – Interactive Education Center, Acoustic Recommendations, Long Beach
For a previous employer, Mr. Abushanab provided technical support for the design considerations of the Education Center to optimize the acoustical quality of the space to be conducive to different activities while minimizing the potential for a noisy environment. This included preparation of an Acoustical Recommendations Report that identified expected noise levels in the facility and provided recommendations for acoustical elements to mitigate potential impacts expected as part of the project.

Technical Support for Noise and Vibration, Brightline, Orlando International Airport to Tampa, Florida
For a previous employer, Mr. Abushanab provided technical support for the preparation of a detailed analysis in accordance with the Federal Rail Administration and Federal Transit Administration manual in a post-Record of Decision scenario. He evaluated rail corridor methodology and reviewed noise and vibration baseline data.

Page G-8.413
81 | P a g e

KERRIE COLLISON, RPA

ASSOCIATE / SENIOR ARCHAEOLOGIST

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Ms. Collison’s primary duties include preparing cultural resources reports for CEQAand NEPA-level projects, conducting Native American outreach, assisting Lead Agencies with formal Native American consultation, and directing and participating in archaeological surveys and subsurface studies. She is skilled in lithic analysis and excels at identifying the various stages of production of stone tools. Her field experience includes work in the California Central Coast, Solano County, Monterey County, San Luis Obispo County, Orange County, Los Angeles County, Riverside County, Ventura County, Mono County, Inyo County, the Tahoe region of the Sierra Nevada, and the Great Basin. Ms. Collison also has experience collaborating on eligibility reports for the National Register of Historic Places and contributing to Section 404 permit applications. In addition, Ms. Collison has performed archaeological reconnaissance surveys for environmental recovery projects following California wildfire events.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of Foster City, 388 Vintage Park Drive Life Sciences Project EIR, Foster City Ms. Collison conducted the cultural resources study. She requested a 0.25-mile radius records search from the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University. State and local cultural resource inventories were reviewed to determine if they list any cultural resources within or adjacent to the project site. Ms. Collison also reviewed additional literature and maps for the project site and prepared the Cultural Resources section of the Initial Study.

City of Belmont, 2 Davis Drive Office/R&D Project EIR, Belmont The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing warehouse building with an approximately 78,000-square-foot office/research and development (R&D) building, as well as the dedication of land for a new fire station and new rightturn lane. Ms. Collison conducted peer review of the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the site and prepared a brief memorandum.

City of Milpitas, 1300 South Main Street Project Tribal Outreach and Consultation Services
Ms. Collison served as Project Manager and assisted the City with tribal consultation and outreach efforts pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 168. She also requested a rush-response record search for the proposed project site and a 1-mile radius of the project site from the NWIC of the California Historical Resources Information System. The results from the NWIC were summarized in a memorandum for the City to review and forward to the consulting Native American tribes.

Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, Foothill Trail Master Plan, Hayward Ms. Collison served as Project Archaeologist and conducted the cultural resources study. She requested a records search for the full length of the 8-mile trail and a search radius, wrote the summary of the records search results, and prepared recommendations to be applied to future individual trail segment developments. This project consisted of the preparation of a long-term planning document to guide future development of the trail.

EXPERTISE
▪ Cultural Resources
Management
▪ Native American Consultation
▪ California Prehistory
▪ Lithic Analysis

EDUCATION
M.A., Anthropology, California
State University, Northridge,
2013
B.S., Social Sciences, California
Polytechnic State University, San
Luis Obispo, 2008

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATIONS
Register of Professional
Archaeologists #28731436

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Associate/Senior Archaeologist,
LSA, San Luis Obispo, California,
November 2013–Present
Other Organizations, 2007–2013

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Society for California
Archaeology
Association of Environmental
Professionals
Page G-8.414
82 | P a g e
City of San Rafael, Northgate Mall Redevelopment Project EIR, San Rafael Ms. Collison completed the peer review of the Archaeological Resources Inventory report to complement the EIR being prepared for the project to satisfy CEQA requirements. The archaeological resources inventory consisted of a records search at the NWIC, a Sacred Lands File search, and a pedestrian field survey. The Northgate Redevelopment Project would result in the redevelopment of the existing mall with a mix of uses through the demolition of most of the mall structures and ultimately two of the anchor buildings. The project consists of redevelopment of commercial spaces, the construction of new commercial pads, new structured and surface level parking facilities, development of approximately 800 multi-family dwelling units, and community open space amenities. Review of the geomorphology of the project site indicated the potential for buried archaeological deposits. The Sacred Lands File search results were positive for potential Native American resources within the project site.

City of Fremont, Saint James Apostle Catholic Church New Worship Center Project Cultural Resources Study Ms. Collison served as Project Manager and assisted the City of Fremont with the background research, a pedestrian field survey of the project property, and preparation of a letter report documenting the findings. Ms. Collison also provided assistance with Native American consultation per AB 52.

City of San Bruno Recreation and Aquatic Center Project, San Bruno Ms. Collison is serving as Senior Archaeologist on this development project. The City is demolishing the Veterans Memorial Recreation Center and the San Bruno Swimming Pool in order to construct the new San Bruno Recreation and Aquatic Center (SBRAC) in the same general area. The new SBRAC will be approximately 60,000 square feet in size.

Ground-disturbing construction work has commenced, and Ms. Collison is providing oversight for archaeological monitoring in culturally sensitive areas of the project site.

City of Antioch, Antioch Natural Supplements, Antioch
Ms. Collison served as Project Archaeologist for a cultural resources study for CEQA documentation prepared for a proposed commercial cannabis business development project. The study consisted of background research (including a records search, a Sacred Lands File review, historic aerial photographs and maps review, and geologic map review) and a field survey. Ms. Collison prepared a memorandum summarizing the study methods, results, and recommendations.

Orbach Huff Suarez & Henderson LLP, Falls Elementary School Campus, Fairfield Ms. Collison conducted controlled archaeological excavation for an investigation of a precontact archaeological site in Solano County. LSA prepared a constraints analysis for the Fairfield-Suisun School District and provided recommendations for future treatment of the archaeological site.

City of San Luis Obispo, On-Call Environmental Services Ms. Collison serves as Lead Archaeologist for multiple projects under LSA’s on-call agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo. She has conducted archaeological monitoring during underground utility construction activities and prepared monitoring results reports. Ms. Collison has also prepared archaeological monitoring plans for upcoming underground utility construction projects.

County of Monterey, San Lorenzo Park Project, Monterey County As Project Archaeologist for this proposed park improvement project, Ms. Collison conducted a cultural resources study in support of a Categorical Exemption under CEQA. Ms. Collison requested a records search from the NWIC, conducted additional background research, conducted a pedestrian field survey, and prepared a technical memorandum summarizing the study findings.

Page G-8.415
83 | P a g e

MICHAEL HIBMA, AICP

ASSOCIATE / ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN / HISTORIAN

CERTIFIED PLANNER

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Hibma has over 15 years of experience in cultural resources management, including archival and historical research, architectural field surveys, architectural inventories, analysis, and reporting. Mr. Hibma conducts historical research and field studies; he authors cultural resource reports as well as Initial Studies and EIR sections.

He documents and evaluates historical built environmental cultural resources in accordance with the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register).

Mr. Hibma also conducts studies to address Section 106 of the National Preservation Act, as well as compliance with State and local regulations.

Mr. Hibma holds an M.A. in History from California State University, Sacramento; meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards as an architectural historian and historian (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 61); and is certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP #32009). He has documented and evaluated hundreds of residential and commercial buildings, structures, and objects and has worked on cultural resource studies in the San Francisco Bay Area, Central Valley, Sierra Nevada, North and Central Coasts, and southern California.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of Berkeley, TheLAB Project, Berkeley
Mr. Hibma prepared this Historical Resources Evaluation (HRE) to identify built environment cultural resources that may meet the criteria under Section 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code and the City of Berkeley’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (LPO). Research was conducted to assess the buildings’ designs, construction histories, ownership, and notable alterations. A pedestrian field review documented their conditions. The HRE identified and evaluated seven built environment cultural resources within the project site. The Charles Spear House at 2212 Fifth Street, previously evaluated in 1979, was found individually eligible for the National Register of of Historic Places (National Register).

City of Menlo Park, 389 El Camino Real Project, Menlo Park, San Mateo County Mr. Hibma served as Architectural Historian for this project and prepared an Architectural Eligibility Evaluation. Mr. Hibma prepared a preliminary analysis for phase one of a two-phase environmental review process to identify the next step in determining whether to prepare an IS/MND or a Focused EIR pursuant to CEQA. The architectural study consisted of a literature review, a records search, archival research, review of County Assessor/Recorder records, consultation with potentially interested parties, and a field survey. The background research and field survey resulted in the identification of two cultural resources: a single-family home built c. 1910–1925 located at 612 Partridge Avenue and a multi-family residential triplex built in 1948 at 603-607 College Avenue. The resources were evaluated and recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. The study determined that despite the relatively high level of architectural integrity, the two resources were not eligible for listing in the California Register because of their lack of historical significance and association.

EXPERTISE
▪ Architectural History
▪ History
▪ California History

EDUCATION
Certificate in Land Use and
Environmental Planning,
University of California, Davis
Extension, 2012
M.A., History, California State
University, Sacramento, 2007
B.A., History, Humboldt State
University, Arcata, California,
2003
36 CFR 61 Qualified Historian and
Qualified Architectural Historian;
Oral Historian; Regional Historian;
Historic Preservation;
Preservation Planning

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATIONS
Listed in the Directory of
Professionals in Public History,
California Council for the
Promotion of History
American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP #32009)

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Associate/Architectural
Historian/Historian, LSA, Point
Richmond, California, May 2007–
Present

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
California Council for the
Promotion of History; California
Preservation Foundation
Page G-8.416
84 | P a g e
City of Millbrae, Alexandria Center for Life Science Project, Millbrae Mr. Hibma prepared the HRE for the Rollins Road District (District), a concentration of seven buildings on seven assessor’s parcels on approximately 6 acres in Millbrae. The District consists of the following properties over 50 years of age in what is historically known as the “Millsdale Industrial Park”, a 500+ acre mid-20th century commercial and industrial tract connecting Millbrae and neighboring Burlingame between the former Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) tracks and the Bayshore Highway. The HRE was prepared in support of the City’s CEQA review of potential impacts related to the proposed project. The project site totals approximately 4.7 acres and consists of six of the seven buildings evaluated in the HRE, which documented background archival and online research, as well as a field review by Mr. Hibma documenting existing conditions. The resources were evaluated and recorded on DPR 523 forms. Based on the HRE results, the District is associated with the growth of Millbrae in the mid-20th century, a pattern of events significant in Millbrae’s history. However, the HRE concluded that the District, including the project site, does not appear eligible for inclusion in the California Register due to a lack of significance and is not a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

San Bruno Recreation Center Project, San Bruno, San Mateo County Mr. Hibma prepared the HRE of two built environment properties, the War Memorial Community Center building (Community Center) and the San Bruno Park Pool Facility (Pool Facility) to determine if they qualify as historical resources under California Public Resources Code (PRC). The HRE documented background archival and online research, as well as a field review by Mr. Hibma that documented existing conditions. The resources were evaluated and recorded on DPR 523 forms. Based on the results of the HRE, the Community Center building appeared eligible for inclusion in the National and California Registers at the local level of significance under Criteria 1 (events) and 3 (architecture). The Community Pool was found not eligible for the National or California Registers due to a lack of associative significance.

City of Milpitas, 1724 Sunnyhills Court Project IS/MND, Milpitas Mr. Hibma served as Architectural Historian and prepared the HRE required by CEQA. The HRE determined that the entire apartment complex appeared to be eligible for listing on the California Register. To determine whether the demolition of the existing leasing/community building, and construction of the new buildings would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the potential resource, he also prepared a Historical Resources Impact Assessment (HRIA). The HRIA determined that the project as proposed would be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and that demolition and construction would not result in a significant impact.

East Bay Regional Park District, Carquinez Scenic Drive – Martinez Intermodal to Crockett Project, Contra Costa County
Mr. Hibma prepared the HRE that evaluated a two-lane roadway between Martinez and Crockett. Originally built in 1888, Carquinez Scenic Drive was designated Legislative Route No. 14 in 1909 and designated as part of U.S. 40 through the 1950s when it was relinquished to the County. Mr. Hibma conducted background research and a field survey, and due to a lack of significance and loss of integrity, the project area did not appear eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Heritage Point Project, North Richmond, Contra Costa County
Mr. Hibma prepared a cultural resources study that evaluated existing structures on the site of a proposed mixed-use development. Mr. Hibma analyzed existing development on the site, including a single-story former commercial building built in 1959 and a single-story residential building constructed in 1940. After conducting background research and a field review, Mr. Hibma determined that the existing structures did not qualify as historical resources under CEQA, nor did they appear eligible for listing in the California Register.

Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, 500 Turk Street Affordable Housing Project IS and Focused EIR, San Francisco
Mr. Hibma served as Architectural Historian and prepared the HRE in support of the Initial Study and the Focused EIR.

An affordable housing project in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco, this project proposes to construct an eight-story, approximately 106,000-square-foot building with 108 units of housing, of which 107 would be affordable.

LSA prepared the CEQA documentation for the proposed project. Mr. Hibma evaluated the potential impacts associated with the demolition of an existing tire and automotive building, considered a historical resource.

Page G-8.417
85 | P a g e
SARAH RIEBOLDT, PH.D.

ASSOCIATE / PRINCIPAL PALEONTOLOGIST

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Dr. Rieboldt is an Associate and Principal Paleontologist at LSA with 21 years of experience in the paleontology and geology fields. She has conducted paleontological and geological fieldwork in California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Texas, and Alabama, and she has 8 years of experience working with natural history collections in several museums (the Field Museum of Natural History, the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History). She has worked as a geologist and paleontological consultant on many different projects, including carbon sequestration and astrobiology research programs funded by the United States Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, respectively, as well as on projects for the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Caltrans, and various private developers in California, Nevada, and Utah. Dr. Rieboldt oversees the paleontological resources program at LSA and prepares and reviews paleontological assessment reports, mitigation plans, and monitoring reports. She provides guidance on the various federal, State, and local regulations and guidelines regarding paleontological resources as they apply to projects throughout the State. She also is responsible for scheduling paleontological monitors on both large- and small-scale projects.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of Hercules, Hill Town Residential Development Project, Hercules, Contra Costa County
The Hill Town Residential Project proposed to construct approximately 600 units, of which 198 are condominiums or apartments, and the rest a combination of townhomes and motor court units on approximately 44.2 acres at the intersection of John Muir Parkway and San Pablo Avenue in Hercules. The project also included approximately 4,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial/retail space, common open space, site access, parking areas, bioretention basins, public right-of-way improvements, utility improvements, and landscaping. Dr. Rieboldt conducted the paleontological analysis for this project.

Town of Moraga, Canyon Road Bridge Replacement Project, Moraga, Contra Costa County
For this project, Dr. Rieboldt conducted a fossil locality search through the online collections database at the University of California Museum of Paleontology at the University of California, Berkeley, and reviewed relevant geological and paleontological literature as well as project plans and excavation depths to determine the potential for the project to impact any paleontological resources that may be present within the project area. She documented the results of this research and made recommendations regarding mitigation requirements in a paleontological resources technical memorandum. The Town of Moraga, in cooperation with Caltrans, proposed this project to replace the existing multiple-span bridge across West Branch San Leandro Creek with a single-span bridge.

East Bay Regional Park District, San Francisco Bay Trail: Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park Project, Pinole, Contra Costa County
The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), in cooperation with Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration, proposed modifications, construction, and improvements to the San Francisco Bay Trail, one segment of which was the Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park Project. In accordance with the mitigation requirements for development of this project, Dr. Rieboldt oversaw the paleontological resources program and scheduled monitoring as necessary and appropriate over the course of 5 months of construction. She also oversaw

EXPERTISE
▪ Paleontological
Mitigation Reports
▪ Paleontological Resource
Monitoring
▪ Fossil Collection, Salvage,
Identification, and
Curation
▪ Federal, State, and Local
Laws, Ordinances,
Regulations, and
Standards (LORS)
Regarding
Paleontological
Resources

EDUCATION
Ph.D., Paleontology,
University of California,
Berkeley, 2005
B.A., Biology, Minor in
Geology, magna cum laude,
University of Colorado,
Boulder, 1999

PROFESSIONAL

EXPERIENCE
Senior Paleontologist, LSA,
Irvine, California, April
2013–Present
Other Organizations,
September 1997–April 2013
Page G-8.418
86 | P a g e
the collection and description of vertebrate fossils from the Orinda Formation and prepared the Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Report.

Santa Clara Unified School District, Agnews East School Site Project, San Jose, Santa Clara County The Agnews East School Site Project involved ground disturbance that would extend deep enough to impact paleontologically sensitive sediments, and therefore, in accordance with the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project, required paleontological worker awareness training and on-call paleontological monitoring. For this project, Dr. Rieboldt developed hand-outs and a script describing the applicable regulations and requirements regarding resources, the sediments in the project area, the types of paleontological resources that may be encountered, and the procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. She provided all of this information in both English and Spanish. Dr. Rieboldt also assisted with identifying and addressing a discovery made on the project site during project-related ground disturbance.

Lennar Corporation, Innovation Village Project, Fremont, Alameda County The Innovation Village Project involved the development of 2,214 new housing units, a new elementary school, and 1.4 million square feet of office space in Fremont, Alameda County. In accordance with the MMRP for this project, Dr.

Rieboldt prepared the Paleontological Mitigation Monitoring Program (PMMP) to guide the locations and level of paleontological monitoring during development. She also oversaw the paleontological monitoring program during project-related ground-disturbing activities and prepared the final monitoring report at the conclusion of those activities to demonstrate project compliance.

Toll Brothers, Warm Springs TOD Village Project, Fremont, Alameda County The Warm Springs TOD Village Project involved the development of 1,001 new residential units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space in Fremont, Alameda County. In accordance with the MMRP for this project, Dr. Rieboldt prepared the PMMP to guide the locations and levels of paleontological monitoring during development. She also oversaw the paleontological monitoring program during project-related ground-disturbing activities and prepared the final monitoring report at the conclusion of those activities to demonstrate project compliance.

East Bay Regional Park District, Bay Area Ridge Trail - Fremont to Garin, Alameda County The EBRPD proposed to open approximately 5 miles of the Bay Area Ridge Trail to the public between Garin Regional Park and Vallejo Mill Historic Park at the mouth of Niles Canyon in Fremont, Alameda County. In order to determine the potential for the project to impact paleontological resources, Dr. Rieboldt conducted a fossil locality search through the online collections database at the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) at the University of California, Berkeley, reviewed relevant geological and paleontological literature, as well as project plans and excavation depths to determine the potential for the project, and directed a field survey of the project area. She documented the results of this research and made recommendations regarding mitigation requirements in response to the CEQA checklist question in the IS/MND prepared for the project.

City of Chula Vista, On-Call Paleontological Resources Peer Review Contract, Chula Vista, San Diego County Dr. Rieboldt conducts the peer review of all paleontological documents under this contract. LSA provides peer review of paleontological resources documents prepared for project compliance with applicable federal, State, city, and project-specific requirements and guidelines for cultural and paleontological resources. These documents may include assessments, mitigation monitoring programs, and final mitigation reports.

San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments/Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority, Multiple Grade Separation Projects, Los Angeles County
Dr. Rieboldt is serving as Principal Paleontologist and is providing paleontological mitigation management services for the various grade separation projects proposed by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Alameda CorridorEast Construction Authority (ACE) in Los Angeles County. Dr. Rieboldt has prepared and continues to prepare the appropriate paleontological documents (e.g., Paleontological Identification Report, Paleontological Evaluation Report, Paleontological Mitigation Plan, Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program, and/or paleontological technical letter reports and memoranda) as needed depending on the project development phase. She also oversees any paleontological monitoring, fossil recovery, and reporting as required.

Page G-8.419
87 | P a g e

LLOYD SAMPLE

PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE / ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Sample serves as LSA’s Principal in Charge of the LSA Paleontological, Archaeological, and History/Historic Preservation Group. He is the paleontological and archaeological monitoring coordinator, Chief Safety Officer, and liaison with developers/construction management. He directs paleontological and archaeological staff on multiple concurrent projects. Mr. Sample is also responsible for coordinating tasks including monitoring and directing fossil salvage operations before and during earth-disturbing activities. He directs the preparation and curation of paleontological resources as well. Mr. Sample is adept at designing and setting up interpretive displays for clients.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Mateo Street Park Project IS/MND, Hayward Area Recreation and Parks District, Alameda County
Mr. Sample served as the Principal in Charge for the cultural resources section of the IS/MND for the development of the neighborhood community park. The cultural resources study was conducted to identify the archaeological cultural resources in and adjacent to the project site. The three residences at the site were evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register).

For inclusion of tribal cultural resources into the CEQA Environmental Checklist a draft notification letter about the project, including a project description and maps of the project site, was distributed to Native American tribal groups pursuant to Assembly Bill

52. City of San Bruno Recreation and Aquatic Center Project Mr. Sample is serving as the Principal in Charge for cultural and archaeological services for the project that includes the preparation of a Historic Resources Evaluation. Tasks include records searches at the Northwest Information Center and local historical archives. The Veterans Memorial building and San Bruno Park Pool were evaluated to determine their eligibility for listing in the California Register. The existing Veterans Memorial building qualified as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

San Francisco Bay Trail: Lone Tree Point, Rodeo, Contra Costa County Mr. Sample is the Principal in Charge for archaeological and paleontological monitoring services for the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program of the Lone Tree Point project. Earlier in 2018, LSA prepared the IS/MND for this project and identified mitigation measures. The East Bay Regional Park District proposes to open approximately 2,750 feet (0.5 mile) of the San Francisco Bay Trail along the San Pablo Bay shoreline, north of the Lone Tree Point parking lot in the community of Rodeo in Contra Costa County. Project ground‐disturbing activities within the vicinity of the precontact site P‐07‐000138/CA‐CCO‐258 and historic-period site LSA‐BKF1702‐01 were monitored. Site excavation requiring archaeological monitoring was conducted and reported to confirm project compliance with CULT-1a. Project ground‐disturbing activities within the paleontologically sensitive geologic units Pinole Tuff and Neroly Formation that occur within the project site were also monitored, and a subsequent report for CULT-2 compliance confirmation was developed.

EXPERTISE
▪ Paleontological and
Archaeological Monitoring
Coordinator
▪ Chief Safety Officer
▪ Developer/Construction
Management Liaison

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Principal, Safety Officer
and Monitoring
Coordinator for
Archaeology and
Paleontology, LSA, Irvine,
California, February 1995–
Present

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology
Page G-8.420
88 | P a g e
Santa Clara Unified School District, Agnews East School Site Project Mr. Sample was the Principal in Charge. The Agnews campus was located at 3534, 3556, and 3588 Zanker Road in San Jose. Prior to and during construction, as needed, LSA provided paleontological resource awareness trainings for construction project personnel to discuss the regulations regarding paleontological resources, the types of paleontological resources that may be encountered during project development, and the procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. The training sessions were provided in English and Spanish, and LSA prepared pamphlets summarizing this information in English and Spanish for distribution to project personnel. In addition, LSA was available on an on-call basis in the event of any fossil discoveries.

County of Orange Public Works, La Pata Avenue Gap Closure Project During grading activities for the La Pata Avenue Gap Closure Project, Mr. Sample served as Monitoring Coordinator for Hill International, directing monitors’ duties when ground-disturbing activities occurred in sensitive sediments. This OC Public Works project took La Pata Avenue from Ortega Highway through to San Clemente. The most notable fossils recovered during the project are a Miocene walrus from the Capistrano Formation and the lower jaw of an extinct member of the baleen whale family from the 10-million-year-old Puente Formation. The recovery of fossil specimens was completed without delaying the project schedule. The paleontological discoveries were highlighted in the Orange County Register article “Digging for New Road Uncovers History: Fossils, Trash, and Pepsi Cans.” Paleontological Monitoring for the Bakersfield City School District Projects, Kern County Mr. Sample was Principal in Charge of the coordination of paleontological monitoring during development of a proposed new elementary and intermediate school located within the Bakersfield City School District in Bakersfield.

Paleontological monitoring was required during ground-disturbing construction activities. The project involved development of an elementary and intermediate school. The project area was in sensitive paleontological sediments that could contain significant, non-renewable fossil resources. Monitoring was required when construction activities were in previously undisturbed sediments. LSA prepared a report discussing how monitoring was conducted and the results of the monitoring efforts.

Sage Hill School, City of Newport Beach
During grading activities for the Sage Hill School, Mr. Sample served as Monitoring Coordinator for the Sage Hill School Foundation, directing monitors’ duties when ground-disturbing activities occurred in sensitive sediments. Sage Hill School is an independent high school in Newport Beach. Monitoring and acceptance of the final report was promptly completed.

Long Beach City College, City of Long Beach
Mr. Sample is the Project Manager coordinating all tasks including monitoring on an on-call basis for construction projects on the Long Beach City College campus. A selection of projects monitored include the GG Building, the Front Quad, Building V, the Storm Water Storage System, and the Storm Water Runoff Compliance Project.

Fossils in Your Backyard, various Orange County School Districts Mr. Sample provided paleontological/geological curriculum support and classroom visits for the “Fossils in Your Backyard” program. Transportation Corridor Agencies funded the program for 15 years that was observed by over 50,000 students in 4 years.

Irvine Company, Planning Areas 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, 18, 27, 39, 40, and 50, Future School Sites, Orange County As Project Manager and Monitoring Coordinator for archaeology and paleontology, Mr. Sample directs the monitors on a full-time basis when ground-disturbing activities occur in sensitive sediments for Irvine Company properties. Sensitive bedrock consisting of the Puente, Capistrano, Monterey, and Vaqueros Formations has been encountered during development of future school sites for the Irvine Unified School District and Crean Lutheran High School as well as home sites, and parks and fire stations. Various marine and terrestrial plant and animal remains, such as cetacean skulls (Odontoceti and Mysticeti) and associated postcranial material, have been recovered, identified in the field, and salvaged for future preparation and analysis. Invertebrates that were also collected included bivalves, gastropods, and sand dollars. Mr. Sample directs all involvement for cultural and paleontological resources for the Irvine Company and its subsidiaries as their sole source consultant.

Page G-8.421
89 | P a g e
JOHN L. KUNNA

SENIOR BIOLOGIST

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Kunna is a Senior Biologist with over 20 years of wildlife biology experience. He writes CEQA documents and prepares technical documents and permit applications for submittal to regulatory agencies, including the USACE, CDFW, RWQCB, and USFWS.

Responsibilities also include management and preparation of biological resource studies, evaluation of and compliance with regulatory policies, and permit processing associated with California and federal wetland and endangered species regulations. He also conducts construction site monitoring and surveys for special-status species, including California tiger salamander, foothill yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, Alameda striped racer, San Francisco garter snake, giant garter snake, western pond turtle, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Lange’s metalmark butterfly, Callippe silverspot butterfly, salt marsh harvest mouse, San Joaquin kit fox, American badger, burrowing owl, Ridgway’s rail, and nesting migratory birds.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of Redwood City, 1548 Maple Street Project, Redwood City Mr. Kunna conducted a site assessment and prepared the Biological Resources section for an EIR for a proposed residential development located adjacent to Redwood Creek and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission jurisdictional areas; he integrated the findings from a tree inventory and wetland delineation and drafted mitigation measures.

Cemex Clayton Quarry, Contra Costa County
Mr. Kunna prepared a Biological Assessment for a quarry reclamation plan and analyzed impacts to Alameda striped racer, California red-legged frog, and steelhead; and prepared an analysis of impacts to biological resources comparing original and amended mining reclamation plans. He managed updating a Biological Resources Assessment and Long-Term Revegetation Monitoring Plan in response to a planned expansion of a slide repair work area. He provided expertise on California red-legged frog for the CEQA lead agency for the EIR.

City of Berkeley, 600 Addison Street Project, Berkeley
Mr. Kunna served as Lead Biologist for this project, assisting with the preparation of an Initial Study for the redevelopment of underutilized blocks of an industrial site with a mix of residential, office, and research and development and/or commercial uses.

Alhambra Highlands Residential Development, Martinez, Contra Costa County Mr. Kunna prepared a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Alameda whipsnake. He assisted in the preparation of the Incidental Take Permit application.

City of Belmont: 2 Davis Drive Office/R&D Project EIR, San Mateo County Mr. Kunna conducted site visits as part of a technical peer review of an existing biological technical report. He then wrote the biological resources section of the EIR and responded to comments.

Alameda County Water District, Solar Implementation Project Mr. Kunna surveyed seven facilities where the Alameda County Water District plans to install rooftop and/or carport solar panels, and he prepared a memorandum to document that some of the sites are statutorily exempt from CEQA. He analyzed

EXPERTISE
▪ Preparation of Biological
Resources Section of CEQA
Documents
▪ Special-Status Species
Surveys and Monitoring
▪ Preparation of Permit
Applications

EDUCATION
B.A., Biology, Rutgers
University, New Brunswick,
New Jersey, 1998

PERMITS AND

AUTHORIZATIONS
Independent holder of Section
10(a)(1)(A) recovery permit TE
40218B-0 for Alameda
whipsnake, California redlegged frog, and California
tiger salamander
Approved biologist under the
ECCHCP

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Senior Biologist, LSA, Point
Richmond, California, June
2015–Present
Lead Biologist, Insignia
Environmental, Palo Alto,
California, August 2009–May
2014
Project Manager/Wildlife
Biologist, Swaim Biological,
Inc., Livermore, California,
April 2005–August 2009
Page G-8.422
90 | P a g e
compliance with local tree ordinances. He prepared the Biological Resources section of the IS/MND for two sites that were not exempt.

Bay Area Ridge Trail - Fremont to Garin Regional Park, Alameda County Mr. Kunna conducted special-status species literature and field research and served as lead author of the Biological Resources section of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. He prepared a Biological Resources Assessment that discussed potential impacts to resources and identified mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less-than-significant levels. He prepared the Pre-Construction Notification for the USACE Nationwide Permit, Water Quality Certification application for the RWQCB, and Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement for the CDFW. He documented western burrowing owl on the site and reported the findings to the California Natural Diversity Database.

Alvarado Niles Pipeline, Cities of Union City and Fremont Mr. Kunna conducted a biological resources survey and prepared the Biological Resources section of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Hanna Ranch, City of Novato
Mr. Kunna prepared a biological resources memorandum identifying new impacts, potential mitigation measures, and new wildlife study requirements, in preparation of an Addendum to an existing EIR.

Gschwend Property, San Jose, Santa Clara County
Mr. Kunna prepared the application for the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat Plan and stream setback exception request. He also prepared the response to public comments on the Biological Resources section of the IS/MND.

Villas of Irvington, Fremont, Alameda County
Mr. Kunna assessed the potential of a property to support special-status species; he prepared a memorandum documenting that the site conditions warranted preparation of a Categorical Exemption as the CEQA document for the proposed development.

Meadowood Estates, Hillsborough, San Mateo County
Mr. Kunna prepared habitat assessments for California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and San Francisco garter snake for a proposed residential development.

Watson Ranch, City of American Canyon
Mr. Kunna assessed the suitability of ranch property as mitigation for impacts to California red-legged frog; and he prepared a Biological Assessment for a 309-acre commercial and residential development.

Meadowood Estates, Hillsborough, San Mateo County
Mr. Kunna prepared habitat assessments for California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and San Francisco garter snake for a proposed residential development.

Page G-8.423
91 | P a g e
Bruce Abelli-Amen, PG, CHg
Principal
Certified Hydrogeologist
M.S., Environmental Systems,
Applied Geology, Humboldt
State University, 1988
B.A., Geological Sciences,
University of California, Santa
Barbara
40-hour OSHA training, 1985
Certified Hydrogeologist No.
96, 1995
Professional Geologist No.
5593, 1993
31 years of experience
Bruce Abelli-Amen, owner and Principal of Baseline, is a Certified Hydrogeologist, Professional Geologist, and a CEQA project manager.

He also manages hazardous materials investigations. He has experience in all phases of CEQA and NEPA projects, including managing large multi-disciplinary teams of specialists in the preparation of Expanded Initial Studies, Mitigated Negative Declarations, and Environmental Impact Reports and Statements. He has managed CEQA projects for landfill decommissioning, new wastewater treatment plants, mining projects, mixed-use developments, and major water and sewer conveyance infrastructure projects.

Bruce has managed numerous on-call environmental services contracts for municipal agencies, including SF Public Works, SF Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), Port of Oakland, Port of SF, Yolo County, City of Milpitas, Town of Windsor, and others.

He also has experience with construction management and permitting, which provides useful insights into the development of feasible and practical bid specifications and mitigation measures for identified significant CEQA impacts. He is currently the project manager for preparation of the EIR for the SFPUC’s Channel Tunnel project (a nearly $1 billion sewer conveyance capital project).

He has extensive experience managing hazardous materials investigations and has designed and implemented groundwater aquifer tests and remediation systems for the cleanup of contaminated shallow groundwater aquifers. He has managed numerous UST investigations and is familiar with local, state, and federal regulatory requirements for such investigations. Bruce managed the removal of over one dozen USTs from San Francisco fire stations under a SF Public Works on-call contract. He has supervised soil excavation, bioremediation, and backfill operations.

What Our Clients Say:

Bruce Abelli-Amen’s performance for the Port of San Francisco is excellent. Bruce is client-focused, anticipates my project needs, and offers creative solutions if problems arise. The BASELINE team has consistently provided great service and most importantly, there are no surprises! I know that I will get a topnotch product. – Shannon Alford, Port of San Francisco
Page G-8.424
92 | P a g e
Bruce Abelli-Amen, PG, CHg
Principal
Certified Hydrogeologist
Recent Projects
• San Rafael High School, Master Facilities Long-Range
Program EIR, Technical Project Manager
• St. Mary’s College, Master Plan EIR, Technical Reviewer for air quality, noise, hydrology, and hazardous materials
• SFPUC Channel Tunnel EIR, Project Manager
• Foster City Levee Improvement Project EIR, Technical Project Manager
• New Irvington Tunnel EIR, Hetch Hetchy Water Conveyance System, SFPUC, EIR and Groundwater Project Manager
• ACEforward-Stockton to San Jose Phased Improvement Plan EIR, Principal-in-Charge and hydrology and hazardous
materials technical reviewer
• City Place EIR, Santa Clara, Project Manager for geology, groundwater hydrology and water quality, and hazardous
materials sections
• Apple Campus EIR, Cupertino, Project Manager for geology, hazards, and hydrology EIR sections
Page G-8.425
93 | P a g e
Cem Atabek
Environmental Engineer III
B.S., Environmental
Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, 2006
40-hour OSHA training
14 years of experience
Cem Atabek is an Environmental Engineer with 14 years of environmental consulting experience. He has managed and worked on projects related to hazardous materials management, site characterization, development and implementation of remedial actions, and soil gas mitigation for city, county, port, commercial/industrial, and school district clients. He also has extensive experience in preparation of technical content for CEQA documents including Initial Studies/Mitigated Negative Declarations (IS/MNDs), and Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). He has worked on CEQA documents for school districts, utility districts, remediation projects, transportation/rail projects, dredging projects, levee projects, landfills, biomedical facilities/campuses, and residential and mixed-use developments. His CEQA work has been heavily focused on the topics of hazards and hazardous materials, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality.

He has conducted investigations and remediation activities on local brownfields and leaking underground storage tank sites in California, including media contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, metals, and manufactured gas plant wastes.

His work has included: performing Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) in accordance with the ASTM guidelines; development and implementation of work plansfor site investigations; development and implementation of work plans for remediation activities; coordinating and performing public notification and participation activities during the site investigation and remediation process; and preparation of completion reports to document the implementation of remedial actions.

He has designed and provided oversight for the installation of remedial surface caps to prevent exposure to impacted soils, and soil gas mitigation systems to prevent migration of soil gas to indoor air, including development and implementation of Operation & Maintenance Plans.

His work has also included soil and sediment characterization in support of wetlands restoration and dredging projects, development and implementation of quality assurance/quality control and data validation procedures for environmental sampling efforts and performing human health risk assessments in accordance with Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) guidelines.

Through his work, he has developed a thorough understanding of regulatory requirements and established working relationships with regulatory agency staff on the state and local levels. His technical background and experience provide useful insights into the development of feasible and practical mitigation measures for identified significant CEQA impacts.

Page G-8.426
94 | P a g e
Cem Atabek
Environmental Engineer III
Recent Projects
• Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Phase I and II ESAs, 2101 Loveridge Road, Pittsburg, 2020
• Former General Electric Oakland Facility Redevelopment, EIR, 2019-2020
• Biomarin and Whistlestop/Eden Housing Project, EIR, San Rafael, 2019
• Former Potrero Power Plant, Offshore Sediment Remediation Project, IS/MND, 2016-2017
• Making Waves Academy, Charter School Campus, IS and EIR, Pittsburg, 2018
• Cal State Maritime Academy, Master Plan EIR, 2017
• 1548 Maple Street, Shorefront Development, EIR, Redwood City, 2017-2018
• Sherwin-Williams Site, Emeryville, Proposed Mixed-Use Development, EIR, 2015-2016
• Foster City Levee Improvements, EIR, 2016
• Emeryville Center of Community Life, Soil Gas Mitigation System Design and Removal Action Workplan, 2014
• Oakland Unified School District, La Escuelita Education Center, Phase I ESA, Investigation and Remediation, Project Manager, 2008-2014
• Altamont Corridor Express (ACEforward and ACEextension) Railroad Improvements and Expansion, EIRs, 2015-2018
Page G-8.427
95 | P a g e
Gary K. Black, AICP, President
Education
Master of City Planning in Urban Transportation, University of California at Berkeley
Bachelor of Arts in Geography, University of California at Los Angeles
Professional Associations
American Institute of Certified Planners
Institute of Transportation Engineers
Experience
Since 1982, Mr. Black has directed a number of transportation planning, traffic engineering, parking, and transit studies. He has prepared transportation plans for the Cities of San Jose, Palo Alto, San Mateo, and San Carlos, and areawide plans for reuse of the Bay Meadows racetrack site in San Mateo, the Cargill salt ponds site in Redwood City, and many parts of San Jose (North San Jose, Downtown, Edenvale, and Evergreen). He has prepared traffic studies for new development in most cities within the Bay Area. He also has prepared numerous parking studies, including downtown parking studies for San Carlos, San Mateo, Gilroy, and San Jose.

Representative Projects
• Areawide Transportation Plans:

Circulation Elements for General Plans in San Mateo, Sunnyvale, San Carlos, and Palo Alto.

Bay Meadows – Hexagon prepared the transportation plan for redevelopment of the Bay Meadows Race Track in San Mateo into a mixed-use, transit oriented development.

San Carlos - Citywide study involved estimating and analyzing the traffic conditions that would occur from buildout of known development sites within the city. Intersection levels of service were calculated and recommendations were made for possible transportation network improvements.

North San Jose – Hexagon developed a revised development policy for North San Jose that included a longrange forecast of traffic conditions and development of a long list of necessary transportation improvements – both roads and transit. The policy resulted in the adoption of an impact fee to fund transportation improvements.

Redwood City – Hexagon has done the transportation planning for the proposed reuse of the Cargill salt ponds in Redwood City. The potential reuse includes essentially the development of a new town with 12,000 homes, office buildings, a shopping center, and schools. • Campus Studies:

Foothill College –The campus is served by one ring road that is accessed through a single intersection.

Hexagon staff recommended that the ring road be made one-way. Other recommendations were also made for better signage and lighting around the ring road.

City College – Hexagon staff was hired to measure parking demand and to determine the amount of new parking needed. Hexagon staff conducted parking occupancy surveys. Student parking in neighborhoods was estimated by comparing overnight occupancy to occupancy at typical student peak times.

IBM Campus - Hexagon staff was hired to address various problems occurring on the internal roads. Many recommendations came out of the study, including modifying speed limits, narrowing streets, channelizing pedestrian crossings, adding signals, and modifying intersection geometries to improve sight distance.

Page G-8.428
96 | P a g e
• Site Traffic Analyses:

For offices, hotels, restaurants, residential subdivisions, apartments, schools, warehouses, industrial complexes, and mixed-use developments in San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Fremont, Monterey, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, Los Altos, Santa Rosa, Napa, Hayward, Bakersfield, Richmond, Concord, and Cupertino, California. These included estimation of future trip generation, impacts on adjacent intersections, and site-specific pedestrian and auto circulation issues such as driveway and crosswalk locations.
• Corridor Studies:

Route 238 Bypass – Mr. Black evaluated several transportation alternatives to the proposed Rte. 238 Bypass in Hayward. The Planning Area 2 Travel Forecasting model was used to project future traffic in the Central County area. The basis of the evaluation was to analyze the effects of each scenario in terms of (a) changes in traffic volumes on major roads and freeway segments, (b) congested versus uncongested vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and (c) the impacts on major street intersection operations. • Parking Studies:

San Carlos – Staff believed that the available parking spaces were utilized to such an extent that any future development could not be accommodated. It was determined that future development could be accommodated only by planning a parking structure. A suitable site was identified, and a three-level parking structure was designed (one level underground and two levels above). To help the financial feasibility of the parking structure, it was designed to have two levels of housing above.

San Mateo – Due to recent and projected growth, many downtown merchants believed that more parking facilities were needed. Surveys revealed that the existing parking situation was adequate, although during peak times customers sometimes had to settle for less desirable spaces because the prime spaces were taken by employees. The study was able to show that a relatively modest increase in downtown parking meter rates combined with a small property assessment could finance an additional parking structure. • Major Developments:

Valley Fair – Valley Fair is a 1.2 million square foot regional mall that was proposed for enlargement by approximately 300,000 square feet.

Santana Row – This project transformed a 1960’s era shopping center into a mixed-use “Main Street” style shopping, entertainment and residential center.

Oakridge Mall – The proposed expansion consisted of the addition of 85,000 square feet of movie theater space plus additional retail and restaurant space.

Evergreen Specific Plan - The plan called for the construction of over 4,000 dwelling units on about 600 acres. Hexagon staff analyzed both on-site and off-site traffic impacts of the plan and developed the circulation element of the EIR.

Page G-8.429
97 | P a g e
bae urban economics
Stephanie Hagar
Associate Principal
Education
Master of City Planning,
UC Berkeley
Bachelor of Art,
Psychology, UC San
Diego
Professional Experience
Stephanie provides strong leadership and
project management to BAE engagements
throughout the western US. She has extensive
experience with workforce and affordable
housing studies, along with deep expertise in
financial feasibility, fiscal impact, economic
impact, and market studies.

Stephanie has completed numerous workforce
and affordable housing strategies, needs
assessments, and policy studies. She recently
completed housing needs assessments to
evaluate the impacts of two proposed office
developments and a proposed private
elementary school in East Palo Alto and an
assessment of housing needs related to hotel
construction in Napa. Stephanie also served
a key role in BAE’s Los Angeles Affordable
Housing Linkage Fee Nexus study and
Ventura Affordable Housing Fee Study,
leading the portion of each study describing
the affordable housing need generated by new
commercial and market-rate residential
projects. Her other affordable housing policy
work has included Housing Element Updates
for the cities of Milpitas and Concord, CA,
analyzing housing needs and potential
housing development sites. Stephanie is
currently serving as the project manager for
Housing Element Updates for the Cities of
Davis and Mountain View.

Stephanie’s other housing policy work has
included affordable housing and antidisplacement strategies for TOD plans in Walnut Creek, Rohnert Park, Fairfield, and
South San Francisco. Stephanie has also
completed Analyses of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice for the cities of Napa and
Berkeley, and a Consolidated Plan for the City
of Napa.

Housing Needs
Assessments and Fiscal
Impact Analyses (multiple
projects)
City of East Palo Alto
Housing Needs Assessment;
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Hotel Impact Analysis
City of Napa
Fiscal Impact Analysis;
Worker Housing Needs
Assessment; Economic
Impact Analysis
Affordable Housing
Strategy
City of Sunnyvale
Workforce and Affordable
Housing Needs Assessment,
Analysis of Special Housing
Topics, Policy Analysis
Residential and Commercial
Linkage Fee Nexus Study
City of Los Angeles
Affordable Housing Need
Analysis; Affordable Housing
Policy Advisory
Affordable Housing Fee
Study
City of Ventura
Affordable Housing Need
Analysis; Inclusionary and
Fee Financial Feasibility
Analysis; Affordable Housing
Policy Advisory
Page G-8.430
98 | P a g e
Charles Cornwall
Principal
Expertise
Charles Cornwall has more than 30 years of professional experience in the fields of environmental and landscape planning.

He provides advanced computer simulation and modeling expertise and is also an accomplished visual analyst and environmental planner experienced with impact assessment and aesthetic mitigation design. Employing a variety of software and hardware platforms, Mr. Cornwall has developed innovative computer techniques for high-resolution visual simulation, shadows and visual analysis, and digital photo-documentation techniques. His experience includes a wide variety of urban development and infrastructure improvement projects located throughout northern California.

A member of the American Planning Association and Association of Environmental Professionals, Mr. Cornwall has presented to the American Society of Landscape Architects, U.S. Forest Service, and university classes on the subject of computer simulation and visual assessment techniques. He has also provided professional computer training to landscape architects at the California Department of Transportation and the U.S. Forest Service.

Representative Project Experience
▪ 460 24th Street Development – Oakland, California
▪ Brooklyn Basin Project SEIR – Oakland, California
▪ Downtown Cinema Mixed Use Development EIR – Redwood City, California ▪ Ricky’s Hyatt Hotel Development – Palo Alto, California ▪ Marina Shores Mixed Use Development – Redwood City, California ▪ 1601 Mariposa Street Development – San Francisco, California ▪ 901 16th Street Development – San Francisco, California ▪ Mission Theater Historic Mixed Use Development – San Francisco, California ▪ Sausalito Ferry Terminal Project – Sausalito, California ▪ Corte Madera Inn Expansion EIR – Corte Madera, California ▪ Tiburon Peninsula Club – Tiburon, California
▪ River House Hotel Development EIR – Napa, California
▪ 2111 Harold Way Mixed Use Development EIR– Berkeley, California ▪ South Bayfront Mixed Use Development – Emeryville, California Education
Masters in Environmental Planning/Landscape Architecture, University of California at Berkeley Bachelors in Conservation of Natural Resources, University of California at Berkeley Page G-8.431
www.lsa.net
Photo References:
h�ps://beta.menlopark.org/Government/Departments/Community-Development/Projects/Under-review/Parkline h�ps://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2021/11/19/sri-submits-proposal-to-revamp-menlo-park-campus.html h�ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRI_Interna�onal
h�ps://www.glassdoor.com/Photos/SRI-Interna�onal-Office-Photos-IMG32917.htm h�ps://padailypost.com/2021/06/03/sri-wants-to-redevelop-campus-add-400-homes/ Page G-8.432
Library and Community Services

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

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 9/20/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-184-CC
Consent Calendar: Approve the Parks and Recreation Commission’s 2022-23 work plan
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Parks and Recreation Commission’s annual work plan (Attachment A.)
Policy Issues
The City Council policy related to the establishment of procedures, roles and responsibilities of advisory bodies was adopted in 1975 and has been amended to the current policy #CC-22-004 (Attachment B.) The policy requires that each Commission submit an annual work plan to the City Council for approval, and that the work plan be recommended by a majority of the advisory body’s members.

Background
Per City Council Policy CC-22-004, work plans are to be developed and finalized by each advisory body, and presented to the City Council for direction and approval by September 30 of each. In 2021-22, the Parks and Recreation Commission experienced unanticipated changes in the chair and vice-chair roles, which delayed the completion of the Commission’s work plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously finalized its work plan at their July 27, 2022, meeting.

Analysis
The Parks and Recreation Commission’s work plan is intended to guide the advisory bodies work for the coming year. The work plan is aligned with City Council goals and direction, City Council approved initiatives and plans such as the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan, and the needs of the Menlo Park community (Attachment A.)
Impact on City Resources
There is no new impact to City resources associated with this update.

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.

AGENDA ITEM G-9 Page G-9.1
Staff Report #: 22-184-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org 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. Parks and Recreation Commission work plan 2022-23
B. City Council Policy CC-22-004
Report prepared by:

Nick Szegda, Assistant Library Services Director
Report reviewed by:

Sean Reinhart, Library and Community Services Director
Page G-9.2

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

MEMORANDUM
Date: 9/20/2022
To: City Council
From: Parks and Recreation Commission
Re: Commission Work Plan for 2022-2023
Parks and Recreation Commission Goals
• Facilitate the goals laid out in the 2019 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. • Provide high quality programs and services for all Menlo Park residents. • Maintain, upgrade, and modify existing programs and facilities to meet developing community needs.
• Focus on resident input and grow relationships with residents throughout the City of Menlo park • Prioritize accessibility, safety, and sustainability.

Specific Examples
• Gather and incorporate resident input on:
o Willow Oaks park improvements
o Athletic fields use policy
o Pool operations
o Pros and cons of contracting out City services
• Review the pickle ball court additions.
• Invite members of the public on commission park tours. • Ensure that the programs and services offered at the MPCC will contribute to satisfying the needs of the neighborhood it serves, and be integrated into a system that is accessible to residents of all ages and abilities throughout the City.
• Develop strategies to mitigate the risks of off-leash dogs harming children.

Work Plan unanimously recommended for approval by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their July 27, 2022 meeting
Page G-9.3 ATTACHMENT A

COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND

PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
City Council Policy #CC-22-004
Adopted May 24, 2022
Resolution No. 6732
Purpose
To define policies and procedures and roles and responsibilities for Menlo Park appointed commissions and committees.

Authority
Upon its original adoption, this policy replaced the document known as “Organization of Advisory Commissions of the City of Menlo Park.”
Background
The City of Menlo Park currently has seven active Commissions and Committees. The active advisory bodies are:

Complete Streets Commission, Environmental Quality Commission, Finance and Audit Committee, Housing Commission, Library Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Planning Commission. Those not specified in the City Code are established by City Council ordinance or resolution. Most of these advisory bodies are established in accordance with Resolution 2801 and its amendments. Within specific areas of responsibility, each advisory body has a primary role of advising the City Council on policy matters or reviewing specific issues and carrying out assignments as directed by the City Council or prescribed by law.

Six of the seven commissions and committees listed above are advisory in nature. The Planning Commission is both advisory and regulatory and organized according to the City Code (Ch. 2.12) and State statute (Government Code 65100 et seq., 65300-65401).

The City has an adopted Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy (CC-95-001), and a Travel and Expense Policy (CC-91-002), which are also applicable to all advisory bodies.

Policies and Procedures
Relationship to City Council, staff and media
 Upon referral by the City Council, the commission/committee shall study referred matters and return their recommendations and advise to the City Council. With each such referral, the City Council may authorize the City staff to provide certain designated services to aid in the study.  Upon its own initiative, the commission/committee shall identify and raise issues to the City Council’s attention and from time to time explore pertinent matters and make recommendations to the City Council.  At a request of a member of the public, the commission/committee may consider appeals from City actions or inactions in pertinent areas and, if deemed appropriate, report and make recommendations to the City Council.  Each commission/committee is required to develop an annual work plan which will be the foundation for the work performed by the advisory body in support of City Council annual work plan. The plan, once finalized by a majority of the commission/committee, will be formally presented to the City Council for direction and approval no later than September 30 of each year and then reported out on by a representative of the advisory body at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting at least annually, but recommended twice a year. The proposed work plan must align with the City Council’s adopted work plan. When modified, the work plan must be taken to the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission is exempt from this requirement as its functions are governed by the Menlo Park municipal code (Chapter 2.12) and State law (Government Code 65100 et seq, 65300-65401).  Commissions and committees shall not become involved in the administrative or operational matters of City departments. Members may not direct staff to initiate major programs, conduct large studies or establish department policy. City staff assigned to furnish staff services shall be available to provide general staff assistance, such as preparation of agenda/notice materials and minutes, general review of department programs and activities, and to perform limited studies, program reviews, and other services of a general staff nature.

Commissions/Committees may not establish department work programs or determine department program priorities. The responsibility for setting policy and allocating scarce City resources rests with the City’s duly elected representatives, the City Council.
 Additional or other staff support may be provided upon a formal request to the City Council.  The staff liaison shall act as the commission/committee’s lead representative to the media concerning matters before the commission/committee. Commission/Committee members should refer all media inquiries to their respective liaisons for response. Personal opinions and comments may be expressed so long as the commission/committee member clarifies that his or her statements do not represent the position of the City Council.  Commission/Committee members will have mandatory training every two years regarding the Brown Act and Page G-9.4 ATTACHMENT B

COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-22-004 2
Adopted May 24, 2022
Resolution No. 6732

parliamentary procedures, anti-harassment training, ethics training, and other training required by the City Council or State Law. The commission/committee members may have the opportunity for additional training, such as training for chair and vice chair. Failure to comply with the mandatory training will be reported to the City Council and may result in replacement of the member by the City Council.  Requests from commission/committee member(s) determined by the staff liaison to take one hour or more of staff time to complete, must be directed by the City Council.

Role of City Council commission/committee liaison
City Councilmembers are assigned to serve in a liaison capacity with one or more city commission/committee. The purpose of the liaison assignment is to facilitate communication between the City Council and the advisory body.

The liaison also helps to increase the City Council's familiarity with the membership, programs and issues of the advisory body. In fulfilling their liaison assignment, City Councilmembers may elect to attend commission/committee meetings periodically to observe the activities of the advisory body or simply maintain communication with the commission/committee chair on a regular basis.

City Councilmembers should be sensitive to the fact that they are not participating members of the commission/committee, but are there rather to create a linkage between the City Council and commission/committee. In interacting with commissions/committee, City Councilmembers are to reflect the views of the City Council as a body. Being a commission/committee liaison bestows no special right with respect to commission/committee business.

Typically, assignments to commission/committee liaison positons are made at the beginning of a City Council term in December. The Mayor will ask City Councilmembers which liaison assignments they desire and will submit recommendations to the full City Council regarding the various committees, boards, and commissions which City Councilmembers will represent as a liaison. In the rare instance where more than one City Councilmember wishes to be the appointed liaison to a particular commission, a vote of the City Council will be taken to confirm appointments.

City Staff Liaison
The City has designated staff to act as a liaison between the commission/committee and the City Council. The City shall provide staff services to the commission/committee which will include:
 Developing a rapport with the Chair and commission/committee members  Providing a schedule of meetings to the city clerk’s office and commission/committee members, arranging meeting locations, maintaining the minutes and other public records of the meeting, and preparing and distributing appropriate information related to the meeting agenda.  Advising the commission/committee on directions and priorities of the City Council.  Informing the commission/committee of events, activities, policies, programs, etc. occurring within the scope of the commission/committee’s function.
 Ensuring the city clerk is informed of all vacancies, expired terms, changes in offices, or any other changes to the commission/committee.
 Providing information to the appropriate appointed official including reports, actions, and recommendations of the committee/commission and notifying them of noncompliance by the commission/committee or chair with City policies.
 Ensuring that agenda items approved by the commission/committee are brought forth in a timely manner taking into consideration staff capacity, City Council priorities, the commission/committee work plan, and other practical matters such as the expense to conduct research or prepare studies, provided appropriate public notification, and otherwise properly prepare the item for commission/committee consideration.  Take action minutes; upon agreement of the commission, this task may be performed by one of the members (staff is still responsible for the accuracy and formatting of the minutes)  Maintain a minute book with signed minutes
Recommendations, requests and reports
As needed, near the beginning of City Council meetings, there will be an item called “Commission/Committee Reports.” At this time, commissions/committees may present recommendations or status reports and may request direction and support from the City Council. Such requests shall be communicated to the staff liaison in advance, including any written materials, so that they may be listed on the agenda and distributed with the agenda packet. The materials being Page G-9.5

COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-22-004 3
Adopted May 24, 2022
Resolution No. 6732

provided to the City Council must be approved by a majority of the commission/committee at a commission/committee meeting before submittal to the City Council. The City Council will receive such reports and recommendations and, after suitable study and discussion, respond or give direction.

City Council referrals
The city clerk shall transmit to the designated staff liaison all referrals and requests from the City Council for advice and recommendations. The commissions/committees shall expeditiously consider and act on all referrals and requests made by the City Council and shall submit reports and recommendations to the City Council on these assignments.

Public appearance of commission/committee members
When a commission/committee member appears in a non-official, non-representative capacity before the public, for example, at a City Council meeting, the member shall indicate that he or she is speaking only as an individual. This also applies when interacting with the media and on social media. If the commission/committee member appears as the representative of an applicant or a member of the public, the Political Reform Act may govern this appearance. In addition, in certain circumstances, due process considerations might apply to make a commission/committee member’s appearance inappropriate. Conversely, when a member who is present at a City Council meeting is asked to address the City Council on a matter, the member should represent the viewpoint of the particular commission/committee as a whole (not a personal opinion).

Disbanding of advisory body
Upon recommendation by the Chair or appropriate staff, any standing or special advisory body, established by the City Council and whose members were appointed by the City Council, may be declared disbanded due to lack of business, by majority vote of the City Council.

Meetings and officers

1. Agendas/notices/minutes
 All meetings shall be open and public and shall conduct business through published agendas, public notices and minutes and follow all of the Brown Act provisions governing public meetings. Special, canceled and adjourned meetings may be called when needed, subject to the Brown Act provisions.  Support staff for each commission/committee shall be responsible for properly noticing and posting all regular, special, canceled and adjourned meetings. Copies of all meeting agendas, notices and minutes shall be provided to the City Council, city manager, city attorney, city clerk and other appropriate staff, as requested.  Original agendas and minutes shall be filed and maintained by support staff in accordance with the City’s adopted records retention schedule.
 The official record of the commissions/committees will be preserved by preparation of action minutes.

2. Conduct and parliamentary procedures
 Unless otherwise specified by State law or City regulations, conduct of all meetings shall generally follow Robert’s Rules of Order.
 A majority of commission/committee members shall constitute a quorum and a quorum must be seated before official action is taken.
 The chair of each commission/committee shall preside at all meetings and the vice chair shall assume the duties of the chair when the chair is absent.
 The role of the commission/committee chair (according to Roberts Rules of Order): To open the session at the time at which the assembly is to meet, by taking the chair and calling the members to order; to announce the business before the assembly in the order in which it is to be acted upon; to recognize members entitled to the floor; to state and put to vote all questions which are regularly moved, or necessarily arise in the course of the proceedings, and to announce the result of the vote; to protect the assembly from annoyance from evidently frivolous or dilatory motions by refusing to recognize them; to assist in the expediting of business in every compatible with the rights of the members, as by allowing brief remarks when undebatable motions are pending, if s/he thinks it advisable; to restrain the members when engaged in debate, within the rules of order, to enforce on all occasions the observance of order and decorum among the members, deciding all questions of order (subject to an appeal to the assembly by any two members) unless when in doubt he prefers to submit the question for the decision of the assembly; to inform the assembly when necessary, or when referred to for the purpose, on a point of order to practice pertinent to pending business; to authenticate by his/her signature, when necessary, all the acts, orders, and proceedings of the assembly declaring it will and in all things obeying its commands.

Page G-9.6

COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-22-004 4
Adopted May 24, 2022
Resolution No. 6732

3. Lack of a quorum
 When a lack of a quorum exists at the start time of a meeting, those present will wait 15 minutes for additional members to arrive. If after 15 minutes a quorum is still not present, the meeting will be adjourned by the staff liaison due to lack of a quorum. Once the meeting is adjourned it cannot be reconvened.  The public is not allowed to address those commissioners present during the 15 minutes the commission/committee is waiting for additional members to arrive.  Staff can make announcements to the members during this time but must follow up with an email to all members of the body conveying the same information.
 All other items shall not be discussed with the members present as it is best to make the report when there is a quorum present.

4. Meeting locations and dates
 Meetings shall be held in designated City facilities, as noticed.  All commissions/committees with the exception of the Planning Commission, and Finance and Audit Committee shall conduct regular meetings once a month. Special meetings may also be scheduled as required by the commission/committee. The Planning Commission shall hold regular meetings twice a month and the Finance and Audit Committee shall hold quarterly meetings.  Monthly regular meetings shall have a fixed date and time established by the commission/committee. Changes to the established regular dates and times are subject to the approval of the City Council. An exception to this rule would include any changes necessitated to fill a temporary need in order for the commission/committee to conduct its meeting in a most efficient and effective way as long as proper and adequate notification is provided to the City Council and made available to the public.

The schedule of Commission/Committee meetings is as follows:
 Complete Streets Commission – Every second Wednesday at 7 p.m.  Environmental Quality Commission – Every third Wednesday at 6:00 p.m.  Finance and Audit Committee – Third Wednesday of every quarter at 5:30 p.m.,  Housing Commission – Every first Wednesday at 6:30 p.m.  Library Commission – Every third Monday at 6:30 p.m.
 Parks and Recreation Commission – Every fourth Wednesday at 6:30 p.m.  Planning Commission – Twice a month at 7 p.m.

Each commission/committee may establish other operational policies subject to the approval of the City Council.

Any changes to the established policies and procedures shall be subject to the approval of the City Council.

5. Off-premises meeting participation
While technology allows commission/committee members to participate in meetings from a location other than the meeting location (referred to as “off-premises”), off-premises participation is discouraged given the logistics required to ensure compliance with the Brown Act and experience with technological failures disrupting the meeting. In the event that a commission/committee member believes that his or her participation is essential to a meeting, the following shall apply:
 Any commission/committee member intending to participate from an off-premise location shall inform the staff liaison at least two weeks in advance of the meeting.
 The off-premise location must be identified in the notice and agenda of the meeting.  Agendas must be posted at the off-premise location.
 The off-premise location must be accessible to the public and be ADA compliant.  The commission/committee member participating at a duly noticed off-premises location does not count toward the quorum necessary to convene a meeting of the commission/committee.  For any one meeting, no more than one commission/committee member may participate from an off-premise location.
 All votes must be by roll call.

6. Selection of chair and vice chair
 The chair and vice chair shall be selected in May of each year by a majority of the members and shall serve for one year or until their successors are selected.
 Each commission/committee shall annually rotate its chair and vice chair.

Page G-9.7

COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-22-004 5
Adopted May 24, 2022
Resolution No. 6732

G. Memberships
Appointments/Oaths
 The City Council is the appointing body for all commissions/committees. All members serve at the pleasure of the City Council for designated terms.
 All appointments and reappointments shall be made at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting, and require an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the City Council present.  Before taking office, all members must complete an Oath of Allegiance required by Article XX, §3, of the Constitution of the State of California. All oaths are administered by the city clerk or his/her designee.  Appointments made during the middle of the term are for the unexpired portion of that term.

Application and selection process
 The application process begins when a vacancy occurs due to term expiration, resignation, removal or death of a member.
 The application period will normally run for a period of four weeks from the date the vacancy occurs. If there is more than one concurrent vacancy in a Commission, the application period may be extended. Applications are available from the city clerk’s office and on the City’s website.  The city clerk shall notify members whose terms are about to expire whether or not they would be eligible for reappointment. If reappointment is sought, an updated application will be required.  Applicants are required to complete and return the application form for each commission/committee they desire to serve on, along with any additional information they would like to transmit, by the established deadline.

Applications sent by email are accepted; however, the form submitted must be signed.  After the deadline of receipt of applications, the city clerk shall schedule the matter at the next available regular City Council meeting. All applications received will be submitted and made a part of the City Council agenda packet for their review and consideration. If there are no applications received by the deadline, the city clerk will extend the application period for an indefinite period of time until sufficient applications are received.  Upon review of the applications received, the City Council reserves the right to schedule or waive interviews, or to extend the application process in the event insufficient applications are received. In either case, the city clerk will provide notification to the applicants of the decision of the City Council.  If an interview is requested, the date and time will be designated by the City Council. Interviews are open to the public.
 The selection/appointment process by the City Council shall be conducted at a City Council meeting. The city clerk will ask each City Councilmember for their nominations; the number of nominations is limited to the number of vacancies. The candidate that receives a majority of nominations will be appointed. If there is a tie, multiple rounds of voting will occur.
 Following a City Council appointment, the city clerk shall notify successful and unsuccessful applicants accordingly, in writing. Appointees will receive copies of the City’s Non-Discrimination and Sexual Harassment policies, and disclosure statements for those members who are required to file under State law as designated in the City’s Conflict of Interest Code. Copies of the notification will also be distributed to support staff and the commission/committee chair.
 An orientation will be scheduled by the city clerk following an appointment (but before taking office) and a copy of this policy document will be provided at that time.

Attendance
 An Attendance Policy (CC-91-001), shall apply to all advisory bodies. Provisions of this policy are listed below.  A compilation of attendance will be submitted to the City Council at least annually listing absences for all commissions/committee members.
 Absences, which result in attendance at less than two-thirds of their meetings during the calendar year, will be reported to the City Council and may result in replacement of the member by the City Council.  Any member who feels that unique circumstances have led to numerous absences can appeal directly to the City Council for a waiver of this policy or to obtain a leave of absence.  While it is expected that members be present at all meetings, the chair and staff liaison should be notified if a member knows in advance that he/she will be absent.
 When reviewing commissioners for reappointment, overall attendance at full commission meetings will be given significant consideration.

Page G-9.8

COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-22-004 6
Adopted May 24, 2022
Resolution No. 6732

Compensation
 Members shall serve without compensation (unless specifically provided) for their services, provided, however, members shall receive reimbursement for necessary travel expenses and other expenses incurred on official duty when such expenditures have been authorized by the City Council (See Policy CC-91-002).

Conflict of interest and disclosure requirements
 A Conflict of Interest Code has been updated and adopted by the City Council and the Community Development Agency pursuant to Government Code §87300 et seq. Copies of this Code are filed with the city clerk. Pursuant to the adopted Conflict of Interest Code, members serving on the Planning Commission are required to file a Statement of Economic Interest with the city clerk to disclose personal interest in investments, real property and income. This is done within 30 days of appointment and annually thereafter. A statement is also required within 30 days after leaving office.
 If a public official has a conflict of interest, the Political Reform Act may require the official to disqualify himself or herself from making or participating in a governmental decision, or using his or her official position to influence a governmental decision. Questions in this regard may be directed to the city attorney.  In accordance with Resolution No. 6622, current and future members of the Complete Streets Commission and Housing Commission, are required to report any and all real property in Menlo Park for impacting land use, real property, and the housing element.

Qualifications, compositions, number
 In most cases, members shall be residents of the City of Menlo Park and at least 18 years of age.  Current members of any other City commission/committee are disqualified for membership, unless the regulations for that advisory body permit concurrent membership. Commission/Committee members are strongly advised to serve out the entirety of the term of their current appointment before seeking appointment on another commission/committee.
 Commission/Committee members shall be permitted to retain membership while seeking any elective office.

However, members shall not use the meetings, functions or activities of such bodies for purposes of campaigning for elective office.
 There shall be seven (7) members on each commission/committee.

Reappointments, resignations, removals
 Incumbents seeking a reappointment are required to complete and file an application with the city clerk by the application deadline. No person shall be reappointed to a commission/committee who has served on that same body for two consecutive terms; unless a period of one year has lapsed since the returning member last served on that commission/committee (the one-year period is flexible subject to City Council’s discretion).  Resignations must be submitted in writing to the city clerk, who will distribute copies to City Council and appropriate staff.
 The City Council may remove a member by a majority vote of the City Council without cause, notice or hearing.

Term of office
 Unless specified otherwise, the term of office for all commission/committee shall be four (4) years unless a resignation or a removal has taken place. The Finance and Audit Committee term of office shall be two (2) years.
 If a person is appointed to fill an unexpired term and serves less than two years, that time will not be considered a full term. However, if a person is appointed to fill an unexpired term and serves two years or more, that time will be considered a full term.
 Terms are staggered to be overlapping four-year terms, so that all terms do not expire in any one year.  If a member resigns before the end of his/her term, a replacement serves out the remainder of that term.

Vacancies
 Vacancies are created due to term expirations, resignations, removals or death.  Vacancies are listed on the City Council agenda and posted by the city clerk in the City Council Chambers bulletin board and on the city website.
 Whenever an unscheduled vacancy occurs in any commission/committee, a special vacancy notice shall be posted within 20 days after the vacancy occurs. Appointment shall not be made for at least 10 working days after posting of the notice (Government Code 54974).

Page G-9.9

COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-22-004 7
Adopted May 24, 2022
Resolution No. 6732

 On or before December 31 of each year, an appointment list of all regular advisory commissions/committees of the City Council shall be prepared by the city clerk and posted in the City Council Chambers bulletin board and on the City’s website. This list is also available to the public. (Government Code 54972, Maddy Act).

Roles and Responsibilities
Complete Streets Commission
The Complete Streets Commission is charged primarily with advising the City Council on multi-modal transportation issues according to the goals and policies of the City’s general plan. This includes strategies to encourage safe travel, improve accessibility, and maintaining a functional and efficient transportation network for all modes and persons traveling within and around the City. The Complete Streets Commission's responsibilities would include:
 Coordination of multi-modal (motor vehicle, bicycle, transit and pedestrian) transportation facilities  Advising City Council on ways to encourage vehicle, multi-modal, pedestrian and bicycle safety and accessibility for the City supporting the goals of the General Plan  Coordination on providing a citywide safe routes to school plan  Coordination with regional transportation systems
 Establishing parking restrictions and requirements according to Municipal Code sections 11.24.026 through

11.24.028
Environmental Quality Commission
The Environmental Quality Commission is charged primarily with advising the City Council on matters involving environmental protection, improvement and sustainability. Specific focus areas include:
 Preserving heritage trees
 Using best practices to maintain city trees
 Preserving and expanding the urban canopy
 Making determinations on appeals of heritage tree removal permits  Administering annual Environmental Quality Awards program  Organizing annual Arbor Day Event; typically, a tree planting event  Advising on programs and policies related to protection of natural areas, recycling and waste reduction, environmentally sustainable practices, air and water pollution prevention, climate protection, and water and energy conservation.

Finance and Audit Committee
The Finance and Audit Committee is charged primarily to support delivery of timely, clear and comprehensive reporting of the City’s fiscal status to the community at large. Specific focus areas include:
 Review the process for periodic financial reporting to the City Council and the public, as needed  Review financial audit and annual financial report with the City’s external auditors  Review of the resolution of prior year audit findings  Review of the auditor selection process and scope, as needed Housing Commission
The Housing Commission is charged primarily with advising the City Council on housing matters including housing supply and housing related problems. Specific focus areas include:
 Community attitudes about housing (range, distribution, racial, social-economic problems)  Programs for evaluating, maintaining, and upgrading the distribution and quality of housing stock in the City  Planning, implementing and evaluating City programs under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
 Members serve with staff on a loan review committee for housing rehabilitation programs and a first time homebuyer loan program
 Review and recommend to the City Council regarding the Below Market Rate (BMR) program  Initiate, review and recommend on housing policies and programs for the City  Review and recommend on housing related impacts for environmental impact reports  Review and recommend on State and regional housing issues  Review and recommend on the Housing Element of the General Plan Page G-9.10

COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-22-004 8
Adopted May 24, 2022
Resolution No. 6732

 The five most senior members of the Housing Commission also serve as the members of the Relocation Appeals Board (City Resolution 4290, adopted June 25, 1991).

Library Commission
The Library Commission is charged primarily with advising the City Council on matters related to the maintenance and operation of the City’s libraries and library systems. Specific focus areas include:
 The scope and degree of library activities
 Maintenance and protection of City libraries
 Evaluation and improvement of library service
 Acquisition of library materials
 Coordination with other library systems and long range planning  Literacy and ESL programs
Parks and Recreation Commission
The Parks and Recreation Commission is charged primarily with advising the City Council on matters related to City programs and facilities dedicated to recreation. Specific focus areas include:
 Those programs and facilities established primarily for the participation of and/or use by residents of the City, including adequacy and maintenance of such facilities as parks and playgrounds, recreation buildings, facilities and equipment
 Adequacy, operation and staffing of recreation programs  Modification of existing programs and facilities to meet developing community needs  Long range planning and regional coordination concerning park and recreational facilities Planning Commission
The Planning Commission is organized according to State Statute.  The Planning Commission reviews development proposals on public and private lands for compliance with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
 The Commission reviews all development proposals requiring a use permit, architectural control, variance, minor subdivision and environmental review associated with these projects. The Commission is the final decision-making body for these applications, unless appealed to the City Council.  The Commission serves as a recommending body to the City Council for major subdivisions, rezoning’s, conditional development permits, Zoning Ordinance amendments, General Plan amendments and the environmental reviews and Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreements associated with those projects.  The Commission works on special projects as assigned by the City Council.

Special Advisory Bodies
The City Council has the authority to create standing committees, task forces or subcommittees for the City, and from time to time, the City Council may appoint members to these groups. The number of persons and the individual appointee serving on each group may be changed at any time by the City Council. There are no designated terms for members of these groups; members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the City Council.

Any requests of city commissions or committees to create such ad hoc advisory bodies shall be submitted in writing to the city clerk for City Council consideration and approval.

Procedure history
Action Date Notes
Procedure adoption 1991 Resolution No. 3261
Procedure adoption 2001
Procedure adoption 2011
Procedure adoption 2013 Resolution No. 6169
Procedure adoption 2017 Resolution No. 6377
Page G-9.11

COMMISSIONS/COMMITTEES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City Council Policy #CC-22-004 9
Adopted May 24, 2022
Resolution No. 6732

Procedure adoption 6/8/2021 Resolution No. 6631
Procedure adoption 3/1/2022 Resolution No. 6706
Procedure adoption 3/8/2022 Resolution No. 6718
Procedure adoption 5/24/2022 Resolution No. 6732
Page G-9.12
Public Works

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

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 9/20/2022
Staff Report Number: 22-185-CC
Regular Business: Adopt resolutions authorizing staff to submit applications to the San Mateo County
Transportation Authority for Measure A & W
Pedestrian and Bicycle Program
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt resolutions authorizing staff to submit applications to the San Mateo County Transportation Authority for Measure A & W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program to support the Ringwood crossing connections project (Attachment A) and the Middle Avenue complete streets project (Attachment B.)
Policy Issues
The two projects are consistent with the 2016 General Plan goal and policies. These policies seek to maintain a safe, efficient, attractive, user-friendly circulation system that promotes a healthy, safe and active community and quality of life throughout Menlo Park. The two projects are both included in the City’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP) and the Middle Avenue Complete Streets project is included in the City’s capital improvement plan (CIP.)
Background
The San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) released their sixth call for projects for fiscal year 2023-24 and fiscal year 2024-25 for the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program August 4, 2022. This grant program includes nearly $18 million to fund transportation projects that improve bicycling and walking accessibility and safety in San Mateo County, helping to encourage more residents to participate in active transportation.

Eligible pedestrian and bicycle projects include small (under $1 million) and larger (over $1 million) capital projects, plans and promotion activities, and safe routes to school projects. Most of the funding (95 percent) is for capital projects. Applicants can submit up to three applications to this program and may receive a maximum of $5 million in total funding from the program this cycle.

Construction projects have to be implemented within three years of completing a funding agreement with the TA. The TA also requires a City Council resolution of support and commitment of matching funds to receive grant funding from this program.

The TA requires a 10 percent match from local or private funds for these grants, though a 5 percent match is possible for projects that benefit areas defined as equity priority communities. The TA permits the use of several equity definitions established by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (the regional metropolitan planning organization for the Bay Area) or the City/County Association of Governments (CCAG) for San Mateo County.

AGENDA ITEM H-1 Page H-1.1
Staff Report #: 22-185-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Analysis
Staff identified the two proposed projects based on several factors, including:
• Compatibility with grant criteria
• Consistency with the City’s TMP
• Consistency with other related transportation planning and design efforts in the City and in San Mateo County
• Improvement to safe routes to school routes
• Prior direction and project priorities from City Council The grant applications are due to SMCTA September 26, 2022. Notification of awards are anticipated in November or December 2022.

Ringwood crossing connections project
In November 2021, the City submitted a grant to the C/CAG Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 grant program for improvements, including a new raised crossing at Van Buren Road and the Ringwood Avenue pedestrian and bicycle crossing. This grant application was not successful.

The proposed grant application expands the scope from the prior application to better align with application criteria and the focus of the grant program on larger, corridor projects. In addition to the improvements at Van Buren Road and the pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing, the following elements from two TMP projects and other complementary improvements are included in the grant application (Attachment C):
• Pierce Road bikeway – the TMP includes adding a separated bikeway along Pierce Road and converting the street to one-way operation and the Transportation Impact Fee nexus study includes a bicycle boulevard on Pierce Road. This proposed project will conduct community outreach to select the desired improvements and implement an improvement on this road. • Ringwood Avenue/Sonoma Avenue – the TMP includes a project to convert these two streets to a oneway couplet between Bay Road and Oakwood Place • Ringwood Avenue between Oakwood Place and Van Buren Road – adding potential bicycle boulevard or traffic calming features on this street are proposed to create a continuous network on both sides of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge, providing a connection to the portion of Ringwood Avenue under study by San Mateo County and the City as part of the Coleman-Ringwood Avenues study • Van Buren Road between the pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing and Haven House at 260 Van Buren Road – there is an approximately 300-foot sidewalk gap in this area and a potential for bike boulevard treatments to better connect people walking and bicycling between the pedestrian and bicycle bridge and both Haven House and the pedestrian entrance to Flood Park at Iris Lane The grant would request funding to refine existing improvement plans, conduct outreach, develop final design, and implement the plans, subject to approval from City Council.

Staff estimates that the cost for this project is $1,000,000 and is proposing to request $900,000 from this grant source. Because this project is only partially within an equity priority area, staff is proposing to provide a 10 percent match to increase the competiveness of the application.

Page H-1.2
Staff Report #: 22-185-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org Middle Avenue complete streets project
The Middle Avenue complete streets project was identified as a City Council priority in 2021 to create a safer route to school and to connect to the Middle Avenue pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing project that is under development. The objectives of the project include reducing speeds on Middle Avenue, enhancing the safety of pedestrians using Middle Avenue, and creating designated space for bicyclists along the street.

On September 13, 2022, the City Council directed staff to pursue an initial pilot of a buffered bikeway on both sides of the street that includes removal of parking on both sides of the street, traffic calming throughout the corridor, a stop sign at San Mateo Avenue Drive, a pilot closure of Blake Street at Middle Avenue, and potential pursuit of a mini-roundabout at University Drive (Attachment D.) The applicable implementing resolution and details of the evaluation criteria for the pilots will return to the City Council at an upcoming meeting. A portion of that work is the responsibility of Stanford University to implement as part of the conditions of approval for the Middle Plaza development. The remainder of the work remains the City responsibility, including traffic calming treatments on the entire street from El Camino Real to Olive Street, the Blake Street closure, the mini-roundabout, and implementing a preferred bicycle lane treatment between University Drive and Olive Street.

This grant application would primarily fund the installation of the proposed traffic calming elements on Middle Avenue, which constitute the largest portion of project cost. The grant would not commit the City to a specific bikeway design alternative, but could be used to support any of the alternatives previously shared with City Council, as well as the a pilot requested by City Council at the September 13, 2022 meeting. . Staff estimates the total cost for the project at 1,400,000. The City Council has previously allocated $200,000 in the 5-year CIP for this project, and staff proposes to request $1,200,000 in grant funds.

This project requires a 10 percent match because it is not located in an equity priority area. The City’s existing contribution would provide a 14 percent match for the project, exceeding the minimum requirement and increasing the competiveness of the proposal.

Impact on City Resources
The estimated total cost of the two projects and expected local match is shown in Table 1. Staff has estimated match percentages for each project based on available resources (for Middle Avenue complete streets) and a strategy to exceed the minimum match, especially for projects that are not fully within equity priority areas.

Table 1: Cost estimate and city local match for Pedestrian and Bicycle Program grants Project Total cost Local match % Match Existing CIP funding Ringwood crossing connections $1,000,000 $100,000 10% $0 Middle Avenue complete streets $1,400,000 $200,000 14% $200,000 Total $2,400,000 $300,000 $200,000
The City’s match for these projects is expected to be funded from different sources including existing capital improvement program (for Middle Avenue), Transportation Impact Fees, and the Transportation Project (Minor) funds. If the City is successful in securing grants for one or both of these projects, staff would return to the City Council to program funds as part of next fiscal year’s budget. Projects funded by these grants are required to commence within one year of receiving funding.

If the City is not successful with this grant, staff would propose to program the Ringwood crossing Page H-1.3
Staff Report #: 22-185-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 www.menlopark.org connections project into a future year of the 5-year CIP and continue to seek local or grant funds.

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.

The proposed projects will undergo required environmental clearance when they are approved for implementation.

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

Attachments
A. Resolution of support for Ringwood crossing connections project B. Resolution of support for Middle Avenue complete streets project C. Ringwood crossing connections project extents
D. Middle Avenue complete streets project extents
Report prepared by:

Hugh Louch, Assistant Public Works Director - Transportation Report reviewed by:

Nicole Nagaya, Public Works Director
Page H-1.4
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK

SUPPORTING THE RINGWOOD CROSSING CONNECTIONS PROJECT AND

SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR CYCLE 6 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

PROGRAM FUNDING
WHEREAS, a significant number of children use the Ringwood Avenue pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing and the surrounding streets to reach schools such as Belle Haven Elementary School, Menlo-Atherton High School, TIDE Academy, and others on daily basis and many others use the overcrossing for commuting and other purposes; and WHEREAS, there have been a significant number of traffic collisions between vehicles and bicyclists in the vicinity of the Ringwood Avenue pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing; and WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park’s Transportation Master Plan identifies a number of improvements for people walking and bicycling on Ringwood Avenue, Van Buren Road, and Piece Road; and
WHEREAS, the City has combined proposed improvements at these locations as the Ringwood crossing connections project (Project) to help develop a complete pedestrian and bicycle network in this area; and
WHEREAS, the Project would provide important walking and bicycling connections to pedestrian and bicycle improvements being implemented as part of the Belle Haven Traffic Calming Plan, to potential future improvements that the County of San Mateo is currently studying for Ringwood Avenue between Bay Road and Middlefield Road, and to Haven House and Flood Park; and
WHEREAS, based on the work conducted on the City’s Transportation Master Plan and the Belle Haven Traffic Calming Plan, it will cost $1,000,000 to implement the Project scope; and WHEREAS, the Sponsor seeks $900,000 for the Project; and WHEREAS, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) issued a Call for Projects for the Cycle 6 Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on August 4, 2022; and WHEREAS, the TA requires a resolution from the City Council:

1. Supporting the Project and application for $900,000 in SMCTA Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for Project, and

2. Committing the City of Menlo Park to the completion of the Project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $100,000 needed for implementation, and

3. Certifying that any funds awarded by the TA will be used to supplement existing funds for program activities, and will not replace existing funds or resources; and

4. If funds are awarded, authorizing the Sponsor's City Manager, or designee, to sign a funding agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the TA for TA Measures A and W Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding for the Project and to take any other actions necessary to give effect to this resolution.

Page H-1.5 ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. XXXX