Menlo Park City Council
February 28, 2023

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

SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Date: 2/28/2023
Time: 5:30 p.m.

Locations: Zoom.us/join – ID# 833 2365 1341 and
City Council Chambers
751 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025
NOVEL CORONAVIRUS, COVID-19, EMERGENCY ADVISORY NOTICE
Consistent with Cal. Gov. Code §54953(e), and in light of the declared state of emergency, and maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can listen to the meeting and participate using the following methods.

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

Zoom.us/join – Meeting ID 833 2365 1341
• Access the meeting real-time via telephone at:
(669) 900-6833
Meeting ID 833 2365 1341
Press *9 to raise hand to speak
• Watch meeting:
• Cable television subscriber in Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton, and Palo Alto:

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

Subject to Change: Given the current public health emergency and the rapidly evolving federal, state, county and local orders, the format of this meeting may be altered or the meeting may be canceled. You may check on the status of the meeting by visiting the city website menlopark.gov. The instructions for logging on to the webinar and/or the access code is subject to change. If you have difficulty accessing the webinar, please check the latest online edition of the posted agenda for updated information (menlopark.gov/agendas).

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

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council Special and Regular Meeting Agenda
February 28, 2023

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

E. Presentations and Proclamations
E1. Proclamation: Recognizing Fran Dehn
Not a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project.

F. Study Session
F1. Provide direction on the development of a “Streetaries” outdoor dining program including program elements, design standards, fee schedule and street closures (Staff Report #23-050- CC)
Not a CEQA project.

F2. Provide direction on whether to pursue fully grade separated alternatives for Caltrain grade separation project (Staff Report #23-048-CC) (Attachment) Not a CEQA project.

G. Consent Calendar
G1. Accept the City Council meeting minutes for January 31 and February 7, 2023 (Attachment) Not a CEQA project.

G2. Award a construction contract to Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. for the Chrysler Stormwater Pump Station Improvement project
(Staff Report #23-038-CC)
Determine this action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15302 (Replacement and Reconstruction Projects).

G3. Authorize the city manager to enter into a contract with Rincon Consultants Inc. to prepare the environmental analysis for the proposed Life Sciences development project at 980-1030 O’Brien Drive for the amount of $137,459 and future augments as may be necessary to complete the environmental review for the proposed project (Staff Report #23-039-CC) Not a CEQA project.

G4. Award a construction contract to Radius Earthwork Inc. for the Ravenswood Avenue Resurfacing project (Staff Report #23-040-CC)
Determine this action is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines §15301 and §15304 exemption for existing facilities.
(Attachment)
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council Special and Regular Meeting Agenda
February 28, 2023

G5. Adopt a resolution supporting the City’s shuttle program for application for the San Mateo County Shuttle Program fiscal year 2023-24 and 2024-25 and authorize the city manager to enter into funding agreements (Staff Report #23-041-CC)
Not a CEQA project.

G6. Adopt a resolution to accept and appropriate a San Mateo County 2023 Summer Enrichment Grant in the total amount of $13,000 to support and expand summer camp enrichment programs for children at the Belle Haven Youth Center (Staff Report #23-046-CC) Not a CEQA project.

H. Regular Business
H1. Identify a preferred aquatics operator and authorize the city manager to negotiate an agreement for an aquatics operator at Burgess Pool and the future Menlo Park Community Campus aquatics center; and form an ad hoc City Council subcommittee to advise the agreement negotiation process (Staff Report #23-047-CC) (Attachment)
Not a CEQA project.

H2. Appoint a City Council liaison to the Finance and Audit Committee (Staff Report #23-045-CC) Not a CEQA project.

I.

I1.

J.

J1.

J2.

J3.

J4.

City Council Initiated Items
Direction on City Council role in San Mateo County related animal control efforts (Staff Report #23-042-CC)
Not a CEQA project.

Informational Items
City Council agenda topics: March 14 – 28, 2023 (Staff Report #23-051-CC) Not a CEQA project.

Annual City Council priority setting workshop March 18, 2023 (Staff Report #23-043-CC) Not a CEQA project.

Proposed process and timeline to develop a focused addendum to the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan to include pickleball (Staff Report #23-044-CC) Not a CEQA project.

Expiration of local emergencies (Staff Report #23-049-CC) K. City Manager's Report
L. City Councilmember Reports
M. Closed Session
M1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9)
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council Special and Regular Meeting Agenda
February 28, 2023

Name of case: Tobias Kunze and Liliana Kunze Briseno v. City of Menlo Park (Case No. 3-CIV00590) Not a CEQA project.

N. Adjournment to Closed Session
At every regular meeting of the City Council, in addition to the public comment period where the public shall have the right to address the City Council on any matters of public interest not listed on the agenda, members of the public have the right to directly address the City Council on any item listed on the agenda at a time designated by the chair, either before or during the City Council’s consideration of the item.

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

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

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

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

Agendas are posted in accordance with Cal. Gov. Code §54954.2(a) or §54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website at menlopark.gov/agendas and can receive email notification of agenda postings by subscribing at menlopark.gov/subscribe. Agendas and staff reports may also be obtained by contacting City Clerk at 650-330-6620. (Posted: 2/24/2023) City Manager's Office
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 2/28/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-050-CC
Study Session: Provide direction on the development of a “Streetaries” outdoor dining program including
program elements, design standards, fee schedule
and street closures
Recommendation
Staff recommend that the City Council review the proposed “Streetaries” outdoor dining program including the following items:

1. Draft ordinance adding Chapter 13.30 Streetaries Outdoor Dining Areas to Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Utilities) and draft ordinance Amending Sections 13.18.10 and 13.18.20 of Chapter 13.18 (Use of Public Right of Way) (Attachment A)

2. Draft Streetaries Outdoor Dining Design Standards (Attachment B)

3. Draft Streetaries Outdoor Dining fee schedule (Attachment C) In addition, staff recommend that the City Council provide feedback on next steps for road closures enacted on portions of Santa Cruz Avenue and Ryans Lane during the pandemic that enabled outdoor dining in streets. See Attachment D for potential transitional road reopening options.

No action is required by the City Council for this study session. Feedback on the proposed Streetaries outdoor dining program is a preliminary step in introducing the ordinances, design standards, and other necessary program elements at a future City Council meeting.

Policy Issues
In June 2020, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance to establish a temporary outdoor use permit (TOUP) program as well as to close portions of Santa Cruz Avenue and Ryans Lane for pedestrian use.

This ordinance is set to expire with the end of the California COVID-19 State of Emergency Order. Governor Gavin Newsom announced in October 2022 that the COVID-19 State of Emergency Order will expire by the end of February 2023. The decision to establish the TOUP program was exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to the temporary emergency nature of the decision.

The proposed Streetary outdoor dining program establishes a long-term policy including design standards, and permitting, operational, and maintenance regulations for outdoor dining in the public right-of-way. The goal of the proposed Streetary outdoor dining program is to maintain the economic activity gained by businesses that implemented parklets while strengthening safety standards, creating a consistent design aesthetic, and ensuring fairness in the way the public right-of-way is used.

AGENDA ITEM F-1 Page F-1.1
Staff Report #: 23-050-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Background
The City Council’s actions to mitigate the economic impacts of COVID-19 on the local economy helped many businesses remain viable while operating in a safe manner. The City Council has considered the topic of outdoor dining, parklets and outdoor use permits multiple times and adopted a number of urgency ordinances since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as summarized below. • 2015 Santa Cruz Street Café Pilot Program: In 2015, the City Council approved the Santa Cruz Street Café pilot program to allow merchants to convert street parking to parklets for outdoor uses. The program included city approved designs by Ian Moore Designs and the City Council agreed to a costsharing structure that paid for part of the base design of the parklets and for installation of the improvements. Owners of the parklets signed license agreements that expired in 2021 and are now operating on a month-to-month basis through the TOUP program. • June 19, 2020 – Urgency Ordinance No. 1070: Allowed staff to implement the TOUP program and close portions of Santa Cruz Avenue for pedestrian use.
• July 16, 2020 – Urgency Ordinance No. 1071: Expanded the uses eligible for a TOUP. • September 8, 2020 – Urgency Ordinance No. 1072: Extended the TOUP and street closure through February 28, 2021.
• October 6, 2020 – Urgency Ordinance No. 1073: Expanded the TOUP program to include:
• Install “walk your bike” signs on closed portions of Santa Cruz Avenue • Allow use of travel lanes without limitations to time of day or day of week • Close a portion of Ryans Lane between Crane Street and Escondido Lane • February 23, 2021 – Ordinance No. 1085: Extended TOUP program and street closure through January 2022.
• January 25, 2022: Extended the TOUP program to allow parklets/street cafes in off-street parking spaces and to remain on a month-to-month basis; parklets/street cafes in off-street parking spaces set to expire once the COVID-19 State of Emergency Order is lifted.
• January 10, 2023: Staff presented draft outdoor dining design standards as an informational item to the City Council and public.

Analysis
Existing outdoor uses
There are 12 food service establishments with existing outdoor uses. In addition, there are five retail/personal service businesses with existing outdoor uses. Seven of the 17 existing parklets were built as part of the Santa Cruz Street Café Pilot Program (five of the pilot parklets expanded when the TOUP program was established) and the rest were added after the TOUP program was established.

Page F-1.2
Staff Report #: 23-050-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Table 1: Food service establishments
Food service establishment
name
Address Outdoor use description / status

1. Amici's 880 Santa Cruz Ave. Sidewalk café and seating in on-street parking

2. Bistro Vida 641 Santa Cruz Ave.

Santa Cruz Street café parklet plus covered structure and extended parklet beyond frontage, and seating in closed travel lane

3. Cafe Zoe 1929 Menalto Ave. Outdoor dining in public/private parking spaces

4. Camper 898 Santa Cruz Ave. Santa Cruz Street café parklet plus new parklet on University Drive with covered structure

5. Carpaccio 1122 Crane St Outdoor dining on closed section of Ryans Lane adjacent to restaurant

6. Coffeebar 1149 Chestnut St Outdoor dining on Chestnut Avenue on-street parking and in parking plaza #2 (5-spots)

7. Bon Marche Farmer's Market 643 Santa Cruz Ave. Weekly farmers market event on Wednesdays from 3 p.m. – 8 p.m.

8. Galata 827 Santa Cruz Ave. Santa Cruz Street café parklet plus covered structure and extended parklet, and sidewalk café

9. Left Bank 635 Santa Cruz Ave. Santa Cruz Street café parklet plus sidewalk café and seating and umbrellas in closed travel lane

10. Mademoiselle Colette 812-816 Santa Cruz
Ave. Santa Cruz Street café parklet

11. Roma 820 Santa Cruz Ave. Santa Cruz Street café parklet plus covered structure and extended parklet

12. Stacks 600 Santa Cruz Ave. Parklet in on-street parking Table 2: Retail businesses
Food service
establishment name Address Outdoor use description / status

1. Art Ventures Gallery 888 Santa Cruz Ave. Art sculptures in on-street parking

2. Charisma Salon 1143 Crane St Tents covering seating and tables on parking spots in public parking lot

3. Fleet Feet 859 Santa Cruz Ave.

Parklet platform with cement planter barriers,
sometimes used to place clothes and shoes,
otherwise used for events

4. Gitane 855 Santa Cruz Ave. Parklet platform with cement planter barriers and seating

5. Harvest 639 Santa Cruz Ave. Santa Cruz Street Café Parklet used to display furniture from store
There are other businesses in Menlo Park with outdoor seating in some capacity approved through other zoning processes to which the proposed Streetary program would not apply.

Business outreach
The City’s economic development consultant, HdL Companies (HdL), communicated with many of the owners or representatives for the businesses listed above. Outreach regarding the proposed outdoor dining program was initially conducted by email in December 2022 and followed up with in-person visits to businesses. At that time, HdL spoke with the owners/managers of Art Ventures, Carpaccio, Camper and Page F-1.3
Staff Report #: 23-050-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Café Zoe. Before the City Council meeting January 10, 2023, HdL sent a notice of the outdoor dining agenda item to TOUP owners. On Tuesday, January 17, 2023, Assistant City Manager Stephen Stolte and HdL Senior Advisor Kirstin Hinds conducted in-person visits to downtown TOUP owners and spoke with Camper, Carpaccio, Bistro Vida, Gitane and Fleet Feet. HdL also spoke with CoffeeBar and Left Bank over the phone in the following weeks.

The following bullet points summarize the feedback on the proposed outdoor dining program received from businesses with existing outdoor uses:
• They are in favor of establishing a longer-term outdoor dining program. • A few restaurants indicated they are not fully recovered from the pandemic financially, but outdoor dining helped them stay open while customers chose outdoor dining over indoor. • Businesses indicated their customers continue to choose outdoor seating over indoor, even in the cooler winter months.
• Several inquired about a cost sharing aspect, such as providing barriers or waiving permit fees. Two businesses also asked for assistance in identifying what they need to do to their existing parklets to comply with the proposed design criteria.
• Retail businesses with outdoor uses provided mixed feedback, though there was general agreement that outdoor dining should continue. One retailer indicated that they enjoy the outdoor use/parklet space in place of parking and would like to see retail included in a longer-term program, another enjoys using their parklet on a weekly or monthly basis for events but does not need to use it all of the time, and another said they have not used their outdoor space.
• Businesses on Santa Cruz Avenue expressed interest in keeping the street closed because it allows them to expand business operations, though they acknowledged that it would be okay if the City reopened the street. Outside of this business outreach, city staff have heard interest from various groups and individuals in street reopening.
• Carpaccio expressed interest in being able to continue operating an outdoor dining parklet in Ryans Lane. A few neighboring businesses have expressed interest in reopening Ryans Lane.

Streetary outdoor dining program
“Streetary” or “Streetaries” are defined in the proposed ordinance as an outdoor eating area that operates within and uses the public right-of-way directly adjacent to the food service establishment street frontage.

The Streetary outdoor dining program would establish guidelines, requirements, and operational regulations for outdoor dining in the public right-of-way, including on sidewalks and in public parking spaces on the side of the street or in public parking lots.

The proposed Streetary program intends to:

1. Activate the public realm in Downtown Menlo Park and other commercial areas.

2. Maintain physical and visual access to Menlo Park businesses.

3. Provide safe, attractive, and accessible spaces for outdoor use.

4. Provide accessible amenity areas for private businesses during operating hours.

5. Support the economic vitality and growth of businesses and the City.

The following are key features of the proposed Streetary outdoor dining program:
• Since the Streetary ordinance pertains to outdoor dining in the public right-of-way, the public works department is set as the program lead. Public works will manage permit intake, circulation of applications to other departments and agencies (planning and building divisions, Menlo Park Fire District), final sign off/approval, and program enforcement. The planning division will review applications for design Page F-1.4
Staff Report #: 23-050-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov compliance. When construction is involved, the building division will review Streetary permits and conduct inspections.
• Outdoor uses will be an extension of a food service establishment’s operation for private use only and limited to outdoor dining.
• To streamline the review process for new Streetary applications, the proposed guidelines include Streetary parklet site plan and design templates for use by applicants. Applicants can create their own Streetary designs as long as the proposed designs are within the design criteria outlined in the guidelines. Sidewalk cafes can be unique to the business but must be set up in accordance with the required setbacks and furnishing and fixture design criteria. • Application for Streetary permits will require both business and property owner consent. In situations where a shared Streetary is desired, all businesses and property owners fronting the Streetary must provide consent.
• Streetaries will be limited to the business’s storefront. Existing parklet owners who obtained approval from the City to expand beyond their store frontage will be permitted to remain through and exception in the Streetary ordinance.
• Fabric awnings, umbrellas, and other soft retractable material is encouraged to provide shade and limited weather protection while also allowing light in. Applications for overhead structures may be permitted but will require engineered drawings. These overhead structures go beyond the template parameters and require more staff time to review and process.
• Hours of operation for outdoor business activity must coincide with the business’s hours of operation, except outdoor business activity shall not take place beyond 11 p.m. on weeknights, midnight Saturday, and 10 p.m. Sunday.
• Streetary Permits are non-transferable, and any new business requesting to use a previous businesses’ Streetary must reapply for a permit.
• Maintenance of the Streetary area and utilities/drainage is clearly laid out and the permittee will be required to ensure their space is safe, free of debris, grime and graffiti, and landscaping or plants must be maintained and in good health.
• The initial permit term will be three years, followed by an annual renewal component. As a condition of the issuance of a Streetary encroachment permit, after the initial three-year term, the permittee will be required to renew their permit annually by submitting insurance and confirmation that the Streetary is in the same condition as when it was approved. Any Streetary may be subject to inspection by the City on an annual or as needed basis.
• Barriers will be standardized through safety standards set forth in the design standards, as well as the limitation of exterior materials (painted/finished wood or concrete planters, steel planters or perforated steel railings; colors and materials should be compatible with the façade of the adjacent building/restaurant.)
Fee structure
Below is a proposed fee structure for the Streetary outdoor dining program, which staff recommend be waived until January 1, 2025. Justification for the proposed fees is described below.

Page F-1.5
Staff Report #: 23-050-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Table 3: Proposed “Streetary” outdoor dining permit fees: parklet “Streetary” parklet First year Annual renewal Notes
Streetary permit -
parklets $1,725 $250
First year permit application same as administrative permit fee for outdoor dining on private properties. Applicants may be subject to a surcharge for a structural review. Renewal fee covers administration.

Use of space
(estimated at
$4.24/SF for 360
SF, total may vary)
$1,526.40 $1,500
Use of space recommended cost is $4.24/SF for an
estimated average of 360 SF per 2-stalls. Total use of
space may vary depending on total area occupied by the
business. Renewal fee covers use of space.

Recommended cost
for Streetary
parklets
$3,251.40 $1,750
Staff recommend fees are waived until January 1, 2025, if business complies by the end of the transitional period described below.

Table 3: Proposed “Streetary” outdoor dining permit fees: sidewalk café “Streetary” sidewalk café First
year
Annual
renewal Notes
Streetary permit - sidewalk cafes
(stand-alone) $810 $250
First year permit application same as a major
encroachment permit fee. Renewal fee covers
administration.

Use of space (estimated at
$4.24/SF for 150 SF, total may
vary)
$636 $600
Use of space recommended cost is $4.24/SF for an
estimated 150 SF per sidewalk café. Total use of
space may vary depending on total area occupied by
the business. Renewal paid annually for use of space
Recommended Cost for Streetary
sidewalk cafes
$1,44
6 $850
Staff recommend fees are waived until January 1,
2025, if business is in compliance by the end of the
transitional period described below.

Justification for fees
• First year permit fee: The first year fee covers permit review and design compliance review. The first year Streetary parklet permit fee is based on the cost of an administrative permit fee for outdoor dining on private property, due to similarities in considerations and review. The first year Streetary sidewalk café fee is based on the major encroachment permit fee.
• First year use of space: In determining a first year use of space fee, HdL researched retail rent per square foot in Menlo Park. Of the properties for lease, the average rent was $4.24 per square foot. The average size of a two-stall parklet (which is the maximum size of the parklet templates) is 360 squarefeet, bringing the estimated first year use of space fee for a parklet to $1,526.40. The average size of a sidewalk café is approximately 150 square feet, and using the same price per square foot, the estimated first year use of space fee for a sidewalk café comes to $636. Total use of space fees may vary depending on the total square footage of the proposed Streetary area per business. The use fee will help offset any additional administrative efforts to implement the program. • Annual renewals: The annual permit renewal fee of $250 includes annual submittal of insurance and confirmation that the Streetary complies by the Streetary owner. The annual use of space renewal fees for Streetaries are rounded down to $1,500 for parklets and $600 for sidewalk cafes but are still above $4 per square foot of space.
• Proposed fee waiver: Small businesses have still not recovered to pre-pandemic cash flow and revenue margins, particularly for restaurants that were operated at a small percentage of normal capacity for much of the last few years. To help Menlo Park businesses continue to recover from the pandemic and Page F-1.6
Staff Report #: 23-050-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov manage increased costs of doing business, staff recommend that fees be waived until January 1, 2025, for businesses who are in compliance with the Streetary program by the end of the transitional period as described below. On and after January 1, 2025, first year permit fees will apply to new Streetary applicants and the annual renewal fees will apply to existing Streetaries once their initial 3-year term is reached.

In considering a potential fee structure, staff reviewed the outdoor dining and parklet program fee structures established by several cities in the area, summarized in Attachment C. The Streetary program proposes fees that are lower than the average permit fees for the comparison cities. In comparable cities, the average amount for permit and first year use fees are $4,084.40, and the average amount for renewal and cleaning fees is $4,273.91. Several of the comparison cities waive permit or use fees for at least one year. Some cities set cleaning fees, however Menlo Park’s proposed Streetary program sets cleaning as a responsibility of permittee through the operational and maintenance standards.

Transitional period for businesses with existing outdoor dining A transitional period is proposed for the implementation of a new Streetary program that would apply to existing outdoor dining parklet and sidewalk café owners, starting from the adoption date of the Streetary program.
• One-month period for staff to create Streetary application and provide notice to existing permit holders:

Immediately following the adoption of the program, staff will build the Streetary permit application in Menlo Park’s online permitting system, Accela. HdL will also begin communication and outreach to existing parklet owners. Once the application is created and accessible on Accela, HdL will send notice to the existing parklet owners.
• Three-month open application period: Once the permit application available, existing outdoor dining parklet and sidewalk café owners will be allowed three months to apply for a Streetary Permit. During that time, HdL will provide application assistance.
• Six-month compliance period for Streetary permit applicants: For existing outdoor dining parklet and sidewalk café owners that apply for outdoor dining within the open application period, the proposed transition timeline includes a six-month period to allow for improvements or construction to meet the new guidelines. A waiver or release from businesses may be required during the transitional period between expiration of the existing TOUP permit and the effective date of the new Streetary permit. If the necessary improvements are not completed within the six-month compliance period, outdoor uses must be removed. First year permit fee waivers will apply to businesses in compliance by the end of this period.
• Seven-day compliance period for non-applicants: If an application is not submitted by the end of the three-month open application period, the parklets, sidewalk cafes, or other outdoor uses that are not allowed through other City programs must be removed within seven days of the end of the open application period. HdL will communicate this deadline to businesses, and the public works department will coordinate removal of any existing barriers.

Consideration of future grant funding for transitional period Staff are researching a possible grant funding opportunity to help businesses with existing parklets transition to meet the Streetary outdoor dining program design standards, similar to grants distributed through the TOUP program, for City Council consideration in the future.

Page F-1.7
Staff Report #: 23-050-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Transitional period for street reopening
The Menlo Park City Council relied on its emergency authorities to adopt the Downtown street closures with the understanding that closures were temporary and would need to be reassessed and adjusted periodically. The emergency authorities are tied to the COVID-19 State of Emergency Order, which is set to expire. The City Council continues to have the authority to maintain street closures beyond the emergency period for up to 18 months.

It is important to note that some businesses support street reopening and others that currently benefit from street closures would generally prefer continued street closure. Staff recommend that the City Council consider a transitional period for street reopening so that businesses can remove items from the streets, and the City can clean, remove barriers and assess safety. The Fire District also has barriers in the roadway that would need to be removed. Below are options for a transition to reopening for Santa Cruz Avenue and Ryans Lane. Additional options beyond the below proposals may need to be reviewed by the Complete Streets Commission.

Santa Cruz Avenue
There are three existing parklets on Santa Cruz Avenue at Left Bank, Harvest and Bistro Vida. Left Bank and Bistro Vida expanded their outdoor use into the travel lane. Reopening the street will require the travel lane to be free and clear of all items. Additionally, on a weekly basis the Bon Marche Farmer’s Market has occupied the 600-block Santa Cruz Avenue street closure in front of Walgreens and Starbucks. The City may not be able to accommodate a weekly closure for the Bon Marche Farmer’s Market due to limited staff capacity to remove and replace barriers on a weekly basis. Three proposed options for a transitional period to reopening the street include:

1. Reduce the size of the street closure for four months to allow for a bicycle travel lane during transition. A reduction in the size of the street closure would require tents, tables, and chairs to be removed from the street, and barriers to be relocated to allow for six feet of bicycle travel. This would allow Bon Marche Farmer’s Market to continue operations on a weekly basis, at a slightly smaller capacity, during the transitional period.

2. Maintain current street closures for four months and prepare for reopening at the end of the transitional period. This option would allow businesses to maintain operations for a period of time while staff determine capacity for cleanup, inspections and removal of barriers. This option would also allow Bon Marche Farmer’s Market to continue operations during the transitional period.

3. Reopen the street to vehicular traffic by a specific date. In this case, staff would need to prioritize the reopening of the streets by setting a deadline for businesses to clear out their items, and then plan for the cleaning, inspections for safety and removal of barriers. It is not likely that the Bon Marche Farmer’s Market would continue operations on a weekly basis following the reopening of Santa Cruz Avenue due to staff capacity to remove and replace barriers on a weekly basis.

Ryans Lane
The Ryans Lane closure has allowed Carpaccio to expand dining into the travel lane, as there is no parking in front of the business on Crane Street to accommodate an outdoor dining parklet. Carpaccio has expressed interest in continuing their outdoor dining in Ryans Lane. Staff have also received interest from two nearby businesses to reopen Ryans Lane. A new restaurant will be locating in the former Ann’s Coffee Shop space at 772 Santa Cruz Avenue, and may need access to Ryans Lane for construction purposes.

Additionally, Carpaccio would need the consent of the adjacent new businesses to continue outdoor dining operations in Ryans Lane. Since Ryans Lane would not be able to easily accommodate a bicycle lane, two proposed options for a transitional period to reopening the street include:

1. Maintain current street closures for four months and prepare for reopening at the end of the transitional period. This option would allow Carpaccio to maintain operations for a period of time while staff determine capacity for cleanup, inspections and removal of barriers.

Page F-1.8
Staff Report #: 23-050-CC

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

2. Reopen the street to vehicular traffic by a specific date. In this case, staff would need to prioritize the reopening of the streets by setting a deadline for businesses (Carpaccio in this instance) to clear out their items, and then plan for the cleaning, inspections for safety and removal of barriers.

Graphics of the potential transitional periods for street reopening are included in this packet as Attachment D.

Alignment with Specific Plan
In alignment with the El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan Section D – Public Space, the proposed outdoor dining activity guidelines are specific to outdoor dining and the standards identify the functional zones of the sidewalk and parking / travel lane to help establish locations for parklets and sidewalk cafes.

The El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan identifies a need to improve the pedestrian realm on Santa Cruz Avenue, which includes sitting and outdoor dining options in functional sidewalk zones. The plan establishes sidewalk functional zones, ensuring a pedestrian clear zone and more pleasant and functional sidewalks. It redistributes the right-of-way between traffic lanes, on-street parking, and sidewalks in order to focus on an enhanced pedestrian experience while still accommodating vehicular circulation and on-street parking. Per the Santa Cruz Avenue Sidewalks section (D10) of the Specific Plan, Activities outside the building, such as outdoor dining, can enliven adjacent sidewalks. These are desirable attributes in areas with high levels of activity such as the downtown and station area.

Impact on City Resources
Staff are proposing that the Streetary permit fees be waived until January 1, 2025, for the existing parklets that come into compliance by the end of the transitional period described above. Staff are also proposing an initial permit term of three years, followed by an annual renewal, which would require the first renewal payment in 2026 for existing parklets that apply for a Streetary permit in 2023. At most, staff anticipate 12 applicants, which would mean the City could subsidize around $40,000 in permit fees ($3,251.40 per applicant) for the first year and $21,000 in annual renewal fees for the next two years of the program during the transitional / fee waiver period.

The City of Menlo Park provides services and infrastructure that contribute to quality-of-life for all Menlo Park residents. Streetary permit fees would be subsidized at a mid-level of cost recovery in acknowledgement that the program benefits participating businesses, activates the public realm, and supports economic vitality of businesses and Menlo Park as a whole.

Environmental Review
This study session is not a project within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment. The ordinances and design standards necessary to the proposed Streetary program are separately evaluated by staff for CEQA.

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

Attachments
A. Draft ordinances adding Chapter 13.30 (“Streetaries” Outdoor Dining Areas) to Title 13 (Streets, Page F-1.9
Staff Report #: 23-050-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Sidewalks and Utilities) and amending Sections 13.18.10 and 13.18.20 of Chapter 13.18 (Use of Public Right of Way)
B. Draft “Streetaries” outdoor dining design standards
C. Draft Streetaries outdoor dining fee structure
D. Graphic of potential transitional period for street reopening Report prepared by:

Kirstin Hinds, Senior Advisor, HdL Companies
Stephen Stolte, Assistant City Manager
Page F-1.10
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX

E OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK ADDING CHAPTER

13.30 (“STREETARIES” OUTDOOR DINING AREAS) TO TITLE 13 (STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND UTILITIES) OF THE MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE; AMENDING SECTIONS 13.18.10 and 13.18.20 OF CHAPTER 13.18 (USE OF

PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY), OF THE MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE

RELATING TO OUTDOOR DINING AREAS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that outdoor eating areas within certain of the City’s rights-of-way provide economic vitality to the City and businesses, create community gathering spaces, contribute to the enjoyment of public spaces, and increase opportunities for more enjoyable pedestrian travel in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to permit outdoor eating areas within parking spaces and sidewalks of the public right-of-way – known as “Streetaries” – through Streetary Encroachment Permits; and
WHEREAS, in May 2016 the City Council approved outdoor dining in the public right-of-way as part of the Santa Cruz Street Café Pilot Program; and
WHEREAS, seven merchants currently operate outdoor dining facilities authorized by the Santa Cruz Street Café Pilot Program;
WHEREAS, between June 19, 2020 and February 23, 2021, in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the California COVID-19 State of Emergency Order, the City Council approved Urgency Ordinances No. 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, and 1085 establishing a Temporary Outdoor Use Permit Program and closing portions of Santa Cruz Avenue and Ryans Lane for pedestrian use; and
WHEREAS, twelve total merchants currently operate outdoor dining facilities authorized by the Santa Cruz Street Café Pilot Program or the Temporary Outdoor Use Permit Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to transition pre-existing outdoor dining established into longer term facilities once current permits expire; and WHEREAS, on __________2023, staff presented Draft Streetary Guidelines to the City Council setting forth staff’s recommendations for design and development standards, operational standards, fees, and other related requirements for new Streetary Encroachment Permits that would apply after current permits expire; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Public Works Director should be the City’s designated representative to issue Streetary Encroachment Permits because of their locations within sidewalks and right of way currently used for vehicular parking; and WHEREAS, the City Council aims to balance the desire for outdoor dining in the public right-ofway with adequate public parking and pedestrian and bicycle access; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Vehicle Code section 22507(a), cities may, by ordinance or resolution, restrict or otherwise remove parking from city streets during all or certain hours of the day; and ATTACHMENT A Page F-1.11
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance to add Chapter 13.30 (“Streetaries” Outdoor Dining Areas) to Title 13 and amend corresponding sections of Title 13 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code relating to outdoor dining in the public right-of-way through Streetary Encroachment Permits qualifies for the exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15304 and 15305 and statutory exemption 15183; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing, considered all public comments on the revisions and related CEQA exemptions, and determined that the amendments are consistent with the General Plan and that the revisions would be internally consistent with all other provisions of the Menlo Park Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Division 1. The above findings are adopted and incorporated herein.

Division 2. Addition of Chapter 13.30 to the Menlo Park Municipal Code.

Chapter 13.30 – “Streetaries” Outdoor Dining Areas is hereby adopted and made a part of Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Utilities) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Division 3. Amendments of Section 13.18.10 of Chapter 13.18 (USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTSOF-WAY) of the Menlo Park of Menlo Park Municipal Code.

Section 13.18.10 (DEFINITIONS) of Chapter 13.18 (USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY) of Title 13 (STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND UTILITIES) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to add subsection (10) to section 13.18.010 as set forth below. Deletions are in strikethrough, and additions are in underline.

13.18.010 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meaning given in this section.
. . .
(10) “Streetary” or “streetaries” shall mean an outdoor eating area that operates within and uses parking spaces and/or sidewalks within the public right-of-way directly adjacent to the food service establishment street frontage.

Division 4. Amendments of Section 13.18.20 of Chapter 13.18 (USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTSOF-WAY) of the Menlo Park of Menlo Park Municipal Code.

Section 13.18.20 (PERMIT REQUIRED) of Chapter 13.18 (USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY) of Title 13 (STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND UTILITIES) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to add subsection (d) to section 13.18.20 as set forth below. Deletions are in strikethrough, and additions are in underline.

13.18.020 Permit required.
. . .

Ordinance No. XXXX

(d) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), above, an encroachment permit shall not be required for streetaries that have obtained and maintain a streetary encroachment permit pursuant to section 13.30.020.

Division 5. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The City Council finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the CEQA pursuant to Sections 15304 (Class 4) and 15305 (Class 5).

Class 4 Categorical exemptions (Minor Alterations to Land) consist of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes, including “minor temporary uses of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment . . .” (CEQA Guideline § 15304(e).) This ordinance will involve the temporary, non-permanent use of land; all uses authorized pursuant to this ordinance would involve temporary, non-permanent improvements in the public right of way including temporary structures, tables and seating.

Class 5 categorical exemptions (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) covers projects that consist of minor alterations in land use limitation in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in any changes in land use or density including but not limited to issuance of minor encroachment permits. This ordinance will result in the issuance of licenses and/or permits for use and encroachment into the public right of way.

The proposed project is consistent with these exemptions, because the requested action will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable change in the environment and because there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment.

Division 6. Severability.

The City Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, cause, and phrase of this ordinance is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases.

Division 7. Publication; Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall be published once, in full or in summary form, after its final passage, in a newspaper of general circulation, published, and circulated in the City of Menlo Park, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. If published in summary form, the summary shall also be published within fifteen (15) days after the adoption, together with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against same, in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of Menlo Park, County of San Mateo, State of California.
//
//
//
Ordinance No. XXXX

INTRODUCED on the __ day of __, 2023.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as an ordinance of the City of Menlo Park at a regular meeting of said City Council on the __ day of __, 2023, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED:
________________________
Jen Wolosin, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Exhibits:

A. “Streetaries” Outdoor Dining Areas is hereby adopted and made a part of Title 13 (Streets, Sidewalks and Utilities)
Ordinance No. XXXX

Chapter 13.30 – “STREETARIES” OUTDOOR EATING AREAS

13.30.010 - Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth below. Unless in direct conflict with terms defined herein, other words and phrases shall be interpreted as defined in the Streets and Highways Code:

A. “Director” shall mean the Public Works Director or their designee.

B. “Food service establishment” shall mean businesses primarily engaged in serving prepared food and/or beverages for consumption on or off the premises.

C. “Parking spaces within the public right-of-way” shall mean the designated on-street or offstreet area where parking of vehicles does not violate any posted parking restriction and the use of the space does not interfere with the safety nor the passage of persons and vehicles.

D. “Permittee” shall mean the permit holder of a valid streetary encroachment permit issued by the city.

E. “Sidewalk” shall mean any public right-of-way designated for pedestrian access.

F. “Streetary” or “streetaries” shall mean an outdoor eating area that operates within and uses parking spaces and/or sidewalks within the public right-of-way directly adjacent to the food service establishment street frontage.

13.30.020 - Permit required.

Any person desiring to erect, construct, place or maintain an encroachment upon any City sidewalk and/or existing parking spaces within the public right-of-way for a streetary must first obtain an annual streetary encroachment permit pursuant to this chapter. Each applicant for an annual streetary encroachment permit shall comply with the requirements of this chapter, any other applicable laws, and any regulations and policies adopted pursuant to this chapter.

Permits shall only be issued to applicants with a valid business license issued by the city to operate a food service establishment directly adjacent to the parking spaces within the right-ofway for which a streetary encroachment permit is sought.

All persons operating and/or maintaining streetaries as of the effective date of this ordinance shall be required to obtain a streetary encroachment permit and pay applicable fees no later than December 1, 2023. Failure to obtain a streetary encroachment permit within this time period shall constitute a violation of this chapter and may subject the current streetary operator to closure and/or enforcement pursuant to this chapter.

13.30.030 - Permit application.

The director of public works (the “director”) shall establish an application form for an annual streetary encroachment permit, including any application materials deemed necessary to enable complete review of the application. The application shall be valid for an initial term of three years, and then accompanied by an annual fee, in an amount set forth by separate resolution of the City Council.

The director shall transmit a copy of each application and renewal application for a streetary encroachment permit to the director of community development (the "planning director"). The planning director shall review the application for compliance with all applicable design and development standards.

Ordinance No. XXXX

13.30.040 - Fees.

Each permit application shall be accompanied by a permit application fee. Prior to permit issuance, the permittee shall pay an annual encroachment lease fee and a one-time, refundable deposit. Fees shall be in amounts set forth by separate resolution of the City Council.

13.30.050 - Where permitted.

A. Streetaries are permitted in existing parking spaces within the right-of-way. The stopping, parking and/or standing of vehicles shall be prohibited in all locations and existing parking spaces within the City where a streetary encroachment permit has been issued.

B. Streetaries are permitted on sidewalks within the right-of-way.

13.30.060 - Location criteria.

A. Notwithstanding subsections A and B, above, streetaries shall not be permitted along streets with (1) peak hour parking restrictions or (2) speed limits greater than 25 miles per hour.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A, above, streetaries shall not be permitted in parking spaces that (1) are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) designated, (2) are designated for no parking (red curb), passenger loading zones (white curb), commercial loading zones (yellow curb), limited parking zones (green) and/or any other colored curb zones with restrictions on driveways, ADA ramps, or entrances to parking lots or city-owned parking facilities, (3) would block or obstruct any fire hydrant, fire sprinkler or standpipe hose, or other public safety infrastructure, (4) would obstruct utility access panels, manhole covers, storm drains, valves, or any other type of utility assets, or (5) would obstruct any bicycle facility, or (6) provide bicycle parking, unless the bicycle parking can be reasonably relocated within 300 feet.

C. Maximum parking stalls. A maximum of two parking spaces shall be used for each streetary.

D. Adjacency to storefront. Streetaries may only be permitted in parking spaces and on sidewalks within the right-of-way that are directly in front of the permittee’s food service establishment. If a food service establishment fronts more than one but less than two parking spaces and fronts more than fifty percent (50%) of the second parking space, the permittee is eligible to apply for two parking spaces for use as a streetary.

E. Notwithstanding subsection E, above, the Director at their sole discretion may consider an exception to the adjacency to storefront requirement if: (1) the proposed Streetary was in operation as an outdoor food service establishment for six months prior to the effective date of this ordinance, (2) the proposed Streetary had obtained and at all times maintained all required permits and licenses to operate as an outdoor food service establishment, and (3) the Director determines that the location of the proposed Streetary will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons or adjacent businesses as evidenced by the permittee obtaining written consent from the establishments fronting the proposed location and providing to the City.

F. Travel lane setback. Streetaries shall have an eighteen inch (18”) minimum setback from the travel lane measured from the parking striping adjacent to the travel lane. In cases where no striping exists, the maximum length of the streetary measured from the face of the curb shall be determined by the director or their designee.

G. Side setback. Streetaries shall have a two-foot minimum side setback to each wheel stop located at each end of the parking space.

H. Utilities. A minimum clearance of four feet (4’) from either side of utility access panels, manhole covers, storm drains, street valves, or any other type of utility assets will be required to allow for maintenance access. Streetaries proposed under overhead utility lines Ordinance No. XXXX

shall meet the minimum vertical distance requirements as established by the California Public Utility Commission. Streetaries that block the outlet of a sidewalk underdrain shall ensure the outlet is functional and flowing. Permittees shall take a thorough inventory of utility access covers in the proposed streetary area by checking under parked cars.

Permittees shall provide for access to any city or public utility company that may have underground conduits beneath the constructed streetary. Access to utilities may require that a permittee temporarily remove all or a portion of the constructed streetary. Permittees shall be responsible for the cost of removing, re-installing and restoring any damage to the streetary.

13.30.070 - Design and development standards.

The City Council shall, by separate resolution, adopt design and development standards regulating the form, design, safety, and maintenance of streetaries. The director may, from time to time, make minor modifications to the design and development standards.

13.30.080 - Criteria for issuance.

A. The director, in acting upon any application for a streetary encroachment permit, shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the issuance of a permit based on the following principles and standards:
a. That the proposed use of the parking spaces and/or sidewalks within the public rightof-way is in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter; b. That the proposed use of the parking spaces and/or sidewalks within the public right is so arranged as to ensure the protection of public health, safety and general welfare, and prevent interference with users of the sidewalks, streets and holders of other permits; and
c. That the proposed use will properly comply with the provisions and development standards prescribed in this chapter, or as prescribed by the director and/or planning director.

B. The streetary encroachment permit may be subject to additional conditions where the city has documented any violation of this chapter, other applicable laws and regulations, or the streetary is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or is detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood.

C. Deviations from Adopted Standards. Where the director determines that (1) a strict application of standards set forth in this ordinance cannot be met by a proposed streetary, and (2) the streetary, as proposed, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood, the director may grant exceptions or minor modifications to the standards set forth in this ordinance.

13.30.090 - Limited to food service establishments.

All permits issued pursuant to this chapter shall be limited to streetaries established in conjunction with and abutting food service establishments.

13.30.100- Operational standards.

Ordinance No. XXXX

A. No live entertainment or amplified music. No live entertainment or amplified music shall be permitted in streetaries established pursuant to this chapter without first obtaining all required permits including but not limited to those issued pursuant to Chapter 8.06 (Noise).

B. No outdoor food preparation, flames, heating. Outdoor food preparation, food heating mechanisms, cooking and open flames, hotpots, candles, open flames, and barbecues shall not be permitted in streetaries.

C. Alcohol service. Alcohol service shall be permitted subject to the acquisition of all required local and State permits and licenses.

D. Noise and disruptive behavior. Permittees shall be responsible for ensuring their patrons minimize noise and disruptive behavior while using their streetary space.

E. Site maintenance. Streetaries shall be maintained free of litter, refuse and debris. The area shall be scrubbed and mopped daily by the permittee to remove any food or drink stains.

Such cleaning shall be in accordance with the City’s Storm Water Management Program per Chapter 7.42 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code, which prohibits any discharge other than rainwater into the storm water drainage system.

F. Streetaries shall adhere the following site maintenance requirements:
a. The permittee is required to keep the streetary area safe, free of debris, grime, and graffiti, and to keep any plants in good health.
b. Outdoor seating shall be scrubbed and mopped to remove any food or drink stains on a daily basis and the sidewalk shall be power washed quarterly by the permittee. Such cleaning shall be in accordance with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Program, which prohibits any discharge other than storm water into the storm water drainage system.
c. Streetaries and enclosures shall be designed in a manner that does not negatively impact existing drainage patterns. Features shall be incorporated into the design that allows water to flow freely off the street surface and along any existing gutter. d. The permittee shall be required to clean tree grates, the gutter, and drainage inlets.

Business and/or property owners shall be required to remove any debris that accumulates against their streetary. The areas on, under, and around the streetary must be clear of leaves and debris, which may require the restaurant operator or property owner to blow underneath the streetary or enclosure. The permittee shall also provide cleanout access upon request.
e. The permittee is required to maintain the pedestrian access clearances in sidewalk café and curb extension area and keep these areas safe, clean, and free of debris. f. Streetaries shall not block access necessary to maintain the canopy of City maintained street trees.
g. Failure to maintain the cleanliness, safety, and accessibility of a streetary or café may subject the permittee to violations and fines. If maintenance issues are not resolved, a streetary permittee may be required by the City to remove the streetary at the permittee’s expense.

G. Sidewalk Cleaning. The permittee shall comply with all State and local regulations related to waste disposal including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA) as follows:
a. Pollution Prevention (visit www.cabmphandbooks.com for more information) i. Use dry cleaning methods whenever practical for surface cleaning activities. ii. Use the least toxic materials available (e.g. water-based paints, gels or sprays for graffiti removal).
b. Surface Cleaning
i. Regular broom (dry) sweep the streetary, sidewalk, plaza, and parking areas to minimize cleaning with water.

Ordinance No. XXXX

ii. Dry cleanup first (sweep, collect, and dispose of debris and trash) when cleaning sidewalks or plazas, then wash with or without soap.
iii. Block the storm drain or contain runoff when cleaning with product H. ADA compliance. Streetary seating areas must, at all times, comply with all requirements of the ADA and provide sufficient clearance and walkway space to allow safe access and egress. For multi-level streetaries, a minimum of one level of ADA access shall be required.

I. Hours of operation. The streetary shall adhere to the same approved hours of operation as the associated food service establishment business, with the following limitations:
a. For streetaries that are within 150-foot horizontal or vertical distance from residences:

Streetaries shall not commence operations prior to 7 a.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; Streetaries shall not commence operations prior to 6 a.m. Monday through Friday; Streetaries shall not operate after 10 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays; Streetaries shall not operate after 9 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and holidays. For purposes of this section, “holidays” shall have the same meaning as set forth in chapter 8.13 (Noise) of title 8.

J. Insufficient usage. Streetaries must demonstrate adequate usage in order to contribute to the economic vitality of the city. The city requires these streetaries to be set up and readily available for use during the operational hours of the food service establishment associated with the streetary, except in inclement weather and subject to the hours of operation limitations under subsection G. The city has the right to notify any streetary in writing of insufficient usage and invoke the enforcement procedures set forth in this chapter.

13.30.110 - Indemnification and insurance.

As a condition of the issuance of an annual streetary encroachment permit, the permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Menlo Park and shall present, along with each application or renewal application for an annual permit, evidence of liability insurance in a form acceptable to the director.

13.30.120 – Enforcement.

A. Any person who violates this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be subject to any and all enforcement proceedings or remedies, including the imposition of penalties as authorized by law. The provisions of this chapter are cumulative to any other remedies authorized by law. Any streetary may be subject to inspection by the city on an annual basis or as needed to ensure compliance with this chapter and permits issued pursuant to this chapter.

B. The city retains the right to revoke a streetary encroachment permit at any time where a violation of this chapter has occurred and/or revocation is necessary to protect the public interest, health, safety and/or welfare of the community. If the director believes that a permittee is in violation of this chapter, the director may issue a notice of violation to the permittee. The notice of violation shall be served on the permittee, either in person or by first class mail. The notice shall indicate that the permit is subject to termination unless, within 30 days of service of the notice of violation, the violation is corrected or a hearing pursuant to this chapter is requested in writing.

C. If the director or their designee determines that a permittee will not be able to continue to meet the requirements of this chapter because of a proposed public highway right-of-way improvement, the director or their designate shall notify the permittee, either in person or by first class mail, that the permit will be terminated within 30 days of service of the notice of termination.

Ordinance No. XXXX

13.30.130 – Appeals
Any person aggrieved by the director's action on a streetary encroachment permit application or revocation may appeal by submitting a written appeal to the city manager, along with any applicable appeal fee as provided in the city's master fee schedule, within fifteen (15) days of the date on which the permit was issued or on which the application was denied or on which the permit was revoked. The city manager, or their designee, shall hold a hearing on the appeal within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal, and shall give the applicant and the appellant at least ten (10) days' written notice of the time of the hearing. The decision by the city manager or their designee on the appeal shall be final.

Ordinance No. XXXX

City of Menlo Park
“Streetaries”
Outdoor Dining
Design Standards
ATTACHMENT B Page F-1.21
2 Contents
STREETARY PROGRAM OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 PARKLET STREETARY OVERVIEW.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 PARKLET STREETARY SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 SITE PLAN CHECKLIST ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 PARKLET STREETARY ELEVATION CHECKLIST........................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 OUTDOOR PARKLET STREETARY DESIGN STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 SELECT PARKLET DESIGN COMPONENTS ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 DETAILED DESIGN STANDARDS.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 A. LOCATION AND SETBACK CRITERIA .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 B. PARKLET PLATFORM DESIGN CRITERIA .................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 C. BARRIERS, RAILINGS, OR ENCLOSURES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 D. OVERHEAD STRUCTURES........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 SIDEWALK CAFÉ STREETARY OVERVIEW................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21 SIDEWALK CAFÉ ZONES...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 SIDEWALK CAFÉ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST..................................................................................................................................................................... 23 STREETARY FURNISHINGS & FIXTURE DESIGN STANDARDS .................................................................................................................................................................. 24 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR STREETARIES............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 Page F-1.22
3 STREETARY PROGRAM

STREETARY PROGRAM OVERVIEW
In 2015, the City of Menlo Park approved the Santa Cruz Street Café Program and assisted seven businesses in building semi-permanent parklets. The initial terms of the Santa Cruz Street Café program agreements expired in 2021 and the agreement holders were able to continue operating in the parklets on a month to month basis. The City’s Temporary Outdoor Use Permit (TOUP) program began in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic and California State of Emergency order. The TOUP Program was tied to duration of the COVID-19 California State of Emergency Order, which expired February 28, 2023.

To continue outdoor dining operations, the City of Menlo Park implemented the Streetary program for outdoor eating areas, which is an expansion of past outdoor use and parklet programs with improved design standards forthe operation of outdoor dining installations in the Downtown Business District and other commercial areas of the City in the form of parklets and sidewalk cafes. Allowing for Streetaries provides an opportunity for businesses to expand their operations outdoors onto public streets or private spaces.

A “Streetary” refers to an outdoor eating area that operates within and uses public parking spaces and/or sidewalks within the public right of way directly adjacent to a restaurant or café or other food service establishment’s street frontage. Streetaries are generally allowed within two areas of the right-of-way: (1) the sidewalk area between the curb and the building or parcel frontage and (2) parking areas, generally the parking spaces between the curb and travel lane, as well as parking stalls in public or private parking lots.

Streetaries are generally permitted in the El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan / Downtown Business District area and most other commercially zoned areas for restaurant and dining space uses where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour or less. However, Streetaries are not allowed where bike/pedestrian safety and vehicle travel would be impacted, as well as along El Camino Real because it is a State-controlled roadway and is not under the City’s jurisdiction.

STREETARY GOALS
The City of Menlo Park Streetary Program goals and intentions are as follows:

1. Activate the public realm in Downtown Menlo Park and other commercial areas; and

2. Maintain physical and visual access to Menlo Park businesses; and

3. Provide safe, attractive, and accessible spaces for outdoor use; and

4. Provide accessible amenity areas for private businesses during operating hours; and

5. Support the economic vitality and growth of businesses and the City.

Page F-1.23
4 SECTION 1. STREETARY PARKLETS

PARKLET STREETARY OVERVIEW

PURPOSE
The purpose of the Streetary parklet standards is to ease the approval process for parklets by establishing parklet template design solutions for an applicant to meet the design, locational, and permitting requirements of the City.

GUIDELINES
The Streetary parklet design standards provide design guidelines and requirements for Menlo Park businesses to use in the preparation of an application to construct a parklet on a public parking space under City control in any commercial district where outdoor uses are permitted. A parklet is a sidewalk extension, typically installed on public parking spaces, that provides more space and amenities for outdoor dining (such as seating or greenery area) operated and maintained by the business establishment operating the Streetary.

RELATION TO SIDEWALK CAFÉ STREETARIES
The Streetary Program includes parklets and sidewalk cafes to facilitate additional outdoor dining and social gathering spaces in the public realm.

Businesses that will only implement a sidewalk cafe should refer to the sidewalk café Streetary overview and may proceed to sidewalk café Streetary section of this document on page 21. Businesses that desire to implement a parklet should follow the parklet Streetary guidelines contained in this section. Where both a parklet and an adjoining sidewalk cafe are planned, both sections should be consulted.

PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
An Streetary encroachment permit is required for all parklet installations and sidewalk cafes, including those that were in place prior to the creation of these guidelines. Streetary Permit application packets, as described below, must be submitted prior to the construction of any new parklet or the modification of an existing parklet previously permitted under the Santa Cruz Street Café or Temporary Outdoor Use Permit pilot programs.

All permits will be reviewed by the Planning and Engineering Divisions and other relevant City departments, prior to approval. Permits for use of sidewalk and public parking plazas shall be revocable upon 72-hour notice if the City determines the sidewalk space or public parking plazas are needed for other non-emergency uses, such as expanded walking space on sidewalks for events or additional parking in public parking plazas.

Page F-1.24
5 PARKLET STREETARY SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
The following shall be submitted to the City of Menlo Park Public Works Department as part of the Streetary:
 Permit fee payment
 Site Plan (scaled - I.e., 1/8” = 1’10” | dimensioned - I.e., 5’0” clearance path) (refer to site plan checklist)  Elevation drawing (refer to elevation drawing checklist)  Identification of Parklet Design Components (refer to Design Components Checklist)  Photograph of proposed design components
 Photograph of proposed Streetary location (showing the front and side views along the business frontage)  Required insurance forms (see below)
 Traffic control plan (for installation/construction)

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
 Completed Hold Harmless Agreement (review requirements listed)  Insurance Endorsement Form
 Insurance Certificate (must name City as additional insured, see Hold Harmless Form) Insurance Category Minimum Limits
Worker’s compensation Statutory Minimum
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000.00 per accident for bodily injury or disease Commercial General
Liability
$1,000,000.00 ($2,000,000.00 for parklets) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage
Streetary permit(s) are revocable. Compliance with Streetaries (Chapter 13.30) and the design / program guidelines in this document is required.

Page F-1.25
6 SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
The Site Plan Checklist provides information required to be shown on the applicant’s submitted site plan. The Checklist includes information for the existing site conditions for the desired parking space and parklet location requirements to verify that the proposal is suitable along the business frontage. Example site plans that include the Checklist items are provided in the following section for each parklet template.

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PROPOSED PARKLET STREETARY INFORMATION Applicant building and adjacent businesses (with entry
doors shown) Proposed parklet footprint and dimensions
Existing sidewalk width(s) Egress plan and accessibility compliance Existing curb cuts and driveways Number of parking spaces that the parklet will occupy Adjacent bicycle lane or auto traffic lane Parklet setbacks:

Existing parking spaces, ADA spaces, accessible routes and loading zones with dimensions
- Minimum 3-feet from adjacent parking spaces
- Minimum 2-foot from adjacent bicycle lane or auto traffic lane Existing parking meters and meter numbers - Minimum 2-feet from fronting driveways (if applicable) Other existing sidewalk features (e.g., fire hydrants,
streetlights, planters, bike racks, bus shelters, outdoor dining, trees, signs, etc.)
Distance from the proposed parklet to the nearest crosswalk or intersection
Location, height, impact rating, and materials of barriers, railings, and/or enclosures
All color curb zones (red, yellow, green, white, blue) Location and spacing of parklet tables, chairs, umbrellas/fabric sails, and other furnishings
Scale Additional bike racks adjacent to the parklet (if applicable) North arrow Lighting (if applicable) no new foundations are allowed Name and location of adjoining streets or alleys Portable heaters and power source (if applicable) Adjacent existing parklets Café counter: a long flat-topped fixture for dining (if applicable) Height of building at proposed location and adjacent
buildings Benches (if applicable)
Page F-1.26
7 PARKLET STREETARY ELEVATION CHECKLIST
The Parklet Elevation Checklist provides information required to be shown on the Parklet Applicant’s submitted parklet elevation drawing.

PROPOSED PARKLET BARRIER AND STRUCTURE INFORMATION PROPOSED PARKLET PLATFORM AND OTHER INFORMATION Parklet width Platform Support
Barrier Height Platform Leveling (i.e., pedestal or other means) Barrier Materials (including planters, railings, and soft posts (if applicable)
Platform Anchorage
Drainage Clearance
Overhead Structure (if approved as a special allowance) Existing Asphalt and street crown Overhead Structure minimum 7-foot clearance Sidewalk Width Overhead Structure Height Storefront
Page F-1.27
8 OUTDOOR PARKLET STREETARY DESIGN STANDARDS

SELECT A PARKLET STREETARY TEMPLATES
Each template reflects conditions that generally exist for on-street parking spaces in commercial areas: parallel parking spaces, diagonal parking spaces, and special condition parklets. The applicant shall select a parklet template based on the existing conditions along the site frontage.

Special condition parklets allow for unique or site-specific conditions. Each special condition template has a unique icon that is used throughout these guidelines to indicate where a program requirement is specific to that special condition parklet.

Once the applicant has selected a parklet template, the applicant may then select an option for each of the design components listed on page 12. These include enclosure or platform materials, seating options, and other considerations. Parklets shall meet all additional design requirements starting on page 13. Please see the Appendix for additional parklet template renderings and site plans.

A-1 PARALLEL SPACE PARKLET (1 PARKING SPACE)
The Parallel Parklet template occupying one parking space is a compact parklet that provides an intimate outdoor dining setting.

This template limits the maximum parklet area to one parking space and can be utilized in areas where available on-street parking spaces are limited.

Parklets proposed for perpendicular parking spaces can use a modified version of this template.

Parklet Streetary Template Options
A. Parklet in parallel parking space(s):

1. A-1 One Space

2. A-2 Two Space
B. Parklet in a diagonal parking space
C. Special Condition Parklets:

1. C-1 Parklet/Sidewalk Café
Combination

2. C-2 Parklet/Sidewalk Café Curb
Extension

3. C-3 Parklet/Pedestrian Street
Combination
Page F-1.28
9 A-2 PARALLEL SPACE PARKLET (2 PARKING SITES)
The Parallel Parklet template occupying two parking
spaces provides a larger outdoor dining setting.

This template limits the maximum parklet area to two
parallel parking spaces.

Parklets proposed for perpendicular parking spaces can
also use a modified version of this template.

B-DIAGONAL SPACE PARKLET
The Diagonal Space Parklet template
provides a larger outdoor dining setting.

When including the necessary setbacks,
this template would need three spaces.

Page F-1.29
10 C-1 PARKLET/SIDEWALK CAFÉ COMBINATION
The Parklet/Sidewalk Cafe Combination template is for
conditions where an applicant has the opportunity to
incorporate both a sidewalk cafe and a parklet for a
combined space.

This Special Condition template can be used in either a parallel parking or diagonal parking site.

The combined space should be designed as a
comprehensively planned singular space.

C-2 PARKLET/SIDEWALK CAFÉ CURB EXTENSION

COMBINATION
The Parklet/Sidewalk Cafe Curb Extension Combination
template is provided for sites where a business would like to incorporate a sidewalk cafe on an adjacent curb
extension with a parklet.

This Special Condition template can be used in either a parallel or diagonal parking site adjacent to an intersection.

The combined space should be designed as a
comprehensively planned singular space.

Page F-1.30
11 C-3 PARKLET/PEDESTRIAN STREET COMBINATION
The Parklet/Pedestrian Street Combination template is
designed with flexibility for parklets that are proposed on streets the City has permanently closed to vehicular throughtraffic to enable pedestrian access and circulation.

This template shall not be used where streets are only
temporarily closed.

Expanded seating areas would not be allowed unless the
supplementary seating is specifically reflected in plans submitted and approved by the City.

Page F-1.31
12 SELECT PARKLET DESIGN COMPONENTS
Each of the Parklet templates can be constructed with a series of components of a variety of materials to ensure quality design and an enhancement of the public realm. The applicant shall select one or more of the appropriate features from the Required Design Components, below, and then select additional, Optional Design Components. The design should be compatible with the façade of the adjacent building/restaurant. The applicant may propose to use an alternative material that may be approved upon review by City staff.

REQUIRED DESIGN COMPONENTS OPTIONAL DESIGN COMPONENTS** Platform
Select one:

Shading
Select one:

Brick pavers ________ Concrete Pavers ________ Umbrella (Fire resistant) ___________
Fabric sail shade
(Fire resistant) __________ Wood boards ________ Other: __________________ Platform Support
Select one: Lighting
Wood platform support _____ Steel-frame
platform support _______ String Lights ___________ Light post __________ (No new foundations allowed)
Barriers
Select one:

Overhead Structures as a Special Condition
Select one of the following:

Wood planter* _________ Concrete Planter* _______ Pergola ___________ Solid Roof ___________ Steel planter _________ Perforated steel
Railing _______
Tent/Membrane
Structure ___________ Other: ___________________
Tables and Seating Other
Movable café tables
and chairs ________ Metal benches ________ Additional planters _________ Bike rack ___________ Wooden benches ________ Café counter ________ Portable heaters __________ Other: ___________________ *Wood and Concrete Planters must be painted or finished, and colors should be compatible with the façade of the adjacent building. **Fuel fired heating devices are prohibited inside of cloths, umbrellas, tents, canopies, and membrane structures (electric is okay). Heating devices must be CSFM rated.

Page F-1.32
13 DETAILED DESIGN STANDARDS
This section provides detailed requirements and standards that are applicable to all parklet templates. Parklet design elements and materials consist of the following elements, generally: (A) Location and Setback; (B) Platforms; (C) Railings or enclosures; and (D) Overhead Structures as a Special Allowance. Furnishing & Fixture Design Standards and General Operation & Maintenance Requirements for parklets and sidewalk cafes are at the end of the document.

These requirements are established to maintain safety, accessibility, and an enhanced design that connects the public realm. The applicant’s compliance with these requirements shall be shown on the applicant’s site plan, submitted as part of the parklet permit application.

A. LOCATION AND SETBACK CRITERIA
Streetaries are generally allowed in most commercial districts along the curbside on public streets where on-street parking spaces exist. However, parklets are not allowed along El Camino Real because it is a State-controlled roadway and is not under the City’s jurisdiction.

1. Permitted areas within City: Streetaries are intended for outdoor dining in the El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan /Downtown Business District, as well as other commercially zoned areas where outdoor uses are permitted. Streetaries are only permitted on roads with speed limits less than 25mph. Parklets are not allowed in ADA/handicap parking spaces or red curb zones.

2. Parklet Size
• A typical parklet occupies no more than 360 square feet (the space of 2 parallel parking spaces). Parklets that occupy more than 360 square feet may be approved at the City’s discretion.
• A parklet located in an angled space shall occupy a minimum of 3 diagonal spaces to allow for sufficient buffering to vehicles parking in adjacent parking spaces. This may be reduced to 2 diagonal parking spaces where a parklet is proposed in combination with a curb extension.

3. Parklet Setback Requirements
• 2.5-feet from driveway flare
• 2-feet from the travel lane (1-foot from the travel lane may be acceptable where the travel lane is 11 or 12-feet in width), measured from the parking striping adjacent to the travel lane. Where the parking striping does not exist, the applicant shall confirm with City staff the width of the travel lane measured from the street centerline and provided the setback from the identified travel lane edge.

The 2-foot setback must be kept clear at all times, unless occupied by reflective delineator posts or their equal • 2-feet from a bike lane
• 3-feet from the side to the adjacent parking space, parallel or diagonal. Where parking striping does not exist, the applicant shall confirm with City staff the width and location of each parking space and shall measure the setback from the identified parking space location.

Page F-1.33
14 4. Crosswalk & Bulb-out Setback: When located near an intersection, parklets must be located at least 20-feet from the nearest boundary (edge of the crosswalk that is closest to the parklet) of a crosswalk at the nearest intersection or street corner. A curb extension (commonly referred to as a “bulb-out”), some other physical barrier that would protect the parklet in a corner location, or other specific site condition may allow the City to consider variations from the 20-foot minimum requirement.

5. Other Location Criteria:
• Utilities: Parklets may not be constructed over or obstruct utility access panels, manhole covers, storm drains, survey monuments, or fire hydrants. Be sure to take a thorough inventory of utility access covers in your proposed parklet area by working with city staff to determine utility locations, surveying your proposed parklet area, and checking under parked cars.  A minimum clearance of 8-feet from storm drains and manhole covers will be required to allow for maintenance access.  Parklets proposed under overhead utility lines will be required to meet the minimum distance requirements as established by the CPUC.
 Parklets that block the outlet of a sidewalk underdrain will be required to ensure the outlet is functional and flowing.  Parklet sponsors must provide for access to any City or utility company that may have underground conduits beneath the constructed parklet at all times, or immediately following a request for access. No notice can be guaranteed for emergency access to underground utilities. For planned access, 72-hour notice will be issued to the parklet sponsor. Access to utilities may require that a parklet sponsor temporarily remove all or a portion of the constructed parklet at the parklet sponsor/owner’s expense.
• Fire Hydrants: Fire hydrants shall not be blocked and parklet owners must maintain a 3 foot radius clearance around physical hydrant and 15 feet access to hydrant (7 1/2 feet in each direction linear along street). • Fire District Connections (FDCs): to maintain access to FDCs, five-foot wide openings should be provided between every two adjacent parklets (and no more than 75-feet apart).

Page F-1.34
15 B. PARKLET PLATFORM DESIGN CRITERIA

1. Materials: Platforms must be constructed with durable, fire resistant materials and be able to withstand the effects of the outdoor environment. Examples: naturally durable wood,
preservative-treated wood, or other engineered material suitable for exterior conditions.
• Concrete platforms are not permitted; however, you
may use concrete pavers on a platform structure.
• Surface materials must be textured or treated with a
non-skid coating to ensure a safe walking surface. Loose particles, such as sand and loose stone, are not
permitted.
• Applicants interested in utilizing fabric sails or other architectural features which may “catch” wind, must
provide proof of wind loads.

2. Maintain access to utilities: Parklets must be designed to provide access to site-specific utilities, such as storm sewer covers, utility cabinets, and underground vaults, by employing in their design and construction access panels or removable pavers.
• A minimum 15-foot clearance shall be maintained from a fire hydrant and all other fire appurtenances.

3. Platforms must be flush and even with the sidewalk and must not leave a gap greater than one-half (1/2) an inch, nor a vertical separation greater than one-quarter (1/4) inch.

4. A parklet platform or it’s enclosure shall not be mounted on wheels.

5. Drainage, Ventilation and Rodent Proofing: Platforms shall allow curbside draining flow with the following:
• A four-inch (4”) height by six-inch (6”) width minimum clear gutter space shall be provided along the entire length of the proposed platform.
• Openings under the platform shall be screened with corrosion-resistant material with a maximum one quarter inch mesh to prevent rodent access and debris buildup beneath the platform and in the gutter.

PEDESTAL SYSTEM LEVELING

CURBSIDE DRAINAGE
Page F-1.35
16 • The parklet permittee shall clean covers or screens to prevent any blockage of flow in the gutter. • All parklets shall provide access through the parklet platform or threshold to the gutter adjacent to the curb. Access may be provided through removable panels, pavers, or other means.

6. Bolting Not Allowed: At no time may structures be bolted or affixed in any way to the roadway or any structure (including but not limited to buildings, fire hydrants, street trees, streetlight, parking meters, or traffic poles, etc.). • An exception to this is that wheel stops for traffic protection must be bolted to the roadway as described in the Traffic Protection section of these Guidelines. However, in case of removal, the establishment shall be responsible for repairing the pavement holes at the permit holder’s expense.

7. Sub-structure: Designs for the sub-structure of a parklet vary and depend on the slope of the street and overall design for the structure. The sub-structure must accommodate the crown of the road and provide a level surface for the parklet. • “Bison pedestals” spaced under the surface and of different heights are a common application. Another method is to provide steel sub-structure and angled beams.

8. ADA Accessibility: All accessibility elements of the proposed platform shall be designed, constructed and/or conform to the applicable provisions, rules, regulations and guidelines of the California Building Code and Americans with Disabilities Act. • Accessible Platform Surface: The portion of the parklet platform connected by the accessible path of travel to the wheelchair turning space and wheelchair resting space must be level. The accessible platform surface maximum cross slope (perpendicular to the sidewalk or curb) and running slope (parallel to the curb) cannot exceed 2%. Platform surface shall be made of slip resistant material.

SUBSTRUCTURE OR PLATFORM LEVELING
Page F-1.36
17 • Accessible entry: Shall be a minimum of 48 inches wide. • Accessible path of travel: It must connect the sidewalk to the accessible entry, platform surface, wheelchair turning space and wheelchair resting space.
• Wheelchair turning space: Shall be 60 inches in diameter and located entirely within the platform; a 12-inch maximum overlap on the curb and sidewalk is acceptable.
• Wheelchair landing: A 30- by 48-inch clear floor area. It’s permitted to overlap with the Wheelchair Turning Space by 24-inches maximum in any orientation.

WHEELCHAIR ACCESS
Page F-1.37
18 C. BARRIERS, RAILINGS, OR ENCLOSURES
The parklet railing or enclosure marks the boundary between the parklet and the street or sidewalk. Traffic barriers are required to surround the parklet on three sides to protect from oncoming traffic and patrons inadvertently entering the vehicular way. It should serve as a safe edge while also being visually appealing, permeable, and inviting. The following standards and guidelines should inform your design:

1. Force / Impact Rating: Barriers, Railings or Enclosures must be stable and sturdy enough not to fall over or be pushed over (must withstand 250-lbs of force).

2. Edge Buffers: the parklet should have an edge as a buffer from the street. This can take the form of planters, railing, cabling, or some other appropriate enclosure.

3. Height: The height should not exceed 36-inches from the parklet platform floor to the top of the railing. • Wind barriers taller than 36-inches shall incorporate transparent materials like acrylic, plexus-glass, plastic films. Wind barriers shall be installed and engineered to withstand wind loads, in conformance with any necessary building permits. The height of the railing, including the transparent materials, should
not extend more than 6 feet from the floor
platform, unless it is designed within an
overhead structure per requirements for
overhead structures.
• Openings in rails must prevent passage of 4-
inch sphere.

4. Visibility: The enclosure should not block the view of conflicting movements of traffic, including
pedestrian traffic, nor block the view of traffic
control devices such as traffic signs, traffic signals, and other traffic warning devices.
• Property addresses need to remain visible. If
needed, post reflective visible addresses on
structures if blocking from street view on
building.

5. Reflectors: All railings/enclosures must have retroreflective reflectors or retro-reflective tape on the corners of the parklet facing the travel lane such that they are visible by vehicle traffic at night.

6. Posts or Bollards: Parklets shall have vertical elements that make them visible to traffic, such as flexible posts or bollards both with retroreflective tape. One possible measure are safe hits posts (as shown in the picture below). These vertical elements shall be placed 2 feet

PLATFORM BARRIER HEIGHT
Page F-1.38
19 from the edge of the parklet on both sides of the parklet not adjacent to the travel lane. Structural bollards may be required if deemed necessary by the city.

7. Design: Barriers may be made up of or encased by one of the following materials: (1) wood planters, (2) concrete planters, (3) steel planter, or (4) perforated steel railings. Wood and concrete planters must be finished or painted. The colors and materials should be compatible with the design, materials, and colors of the façade of the adjacent building/restaurant frontage.

8. To accommodate seasonal conditions, the applicant may propose alternative platform and wind barrier materials and designs for review and approval by City.

D. OVERHEAD STRUCTURES
Overhead structures may require a longer review and approval process subject to staff discretion. Typical parklets preferred by the city include the use of umbrellas, fabric awnings, or other retractable and soft material for shading that still allow light to the public realm in colors that are compatible with the façade of the adjacent building/restaurant.

1. Installation of any roof or overhead structure is subject to review by the city.

2. A site plan and elevation drawing of the parklet
shall be provided with a structural engineer or
architect’s stamp if the applicant proposes to
include an overhead structure, such as a pergola
or other affixed roof structure. Umbrellas or fabric
sail shades are not considered overhead
structures. However, umbrellas and fabric sail
shades must be identified in the site plan for the
city to review for compliance with standards such
as sight lines, height, wind/fire resistance, etc.

3. The City will review any proposed overhead
structures to ensure that sufficient visibility for
pedestrians, traffic, businesses, and other sitespecific conditions, are properly maintained. The city may require modifications or deny the proposed overhead structure.

4. The minimum vertical clearance for an overhead structure within the parklet footprint, a sidewalk cafe, or curb extension is 7 feet above the finished floor level.

OVERHEAD STRUCTURE

CLEARANCES
Page F-1.39
20 5. The maximum vertical height for an overhead structure within a parklet footprint shall not exceed 10-feet or the height of the first floor top of plate height of restaurant, whichever is shorter in height.

6. In order to ensure motorist sight lines at street intersections, overhead structures or other parklet feature higher than 36 inches are prohibited within a 30-foot vision triangle measured from the intersection of the curb or curb extension line.

7. Parklets with overhead structures may only be placed where a minimum 8-foot pedestrian clearance is provided along the pedestrian path.

No portion of the structure may encroach within this clearance.

8. Overhead structures shall maintain a visual connection to the street by designing the structure to provide some openness with transparent wind barriers required in C.4. on page 32 or with openings in the enclosure. Shading materials should be soft to reduce prominence and retractable so it can be pulled back when not in use or when more light is desired in the space.

9. Any fabric, membrane shade, or other weather protection, including umbrellas and tents of any size, must be CSFM listed and constructed of fire-resistant treated material as per the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Section 315(a). Heating devices within overhead structures shall meet requirements in the Furnishings and Fixtures section starting on page 24.

VISION TRIANGLE
Page F-1.40
21 SECTION 2. SIDEWALK CAFÉ STREETARY PROGRAM
SIDEWALK CAFÉ STREETARY OVERVIEW

PURPOSE
The purpose of these guidelines is to help clarify and provide standards for sidewalk cafes uses in order to enhance the quality and safety of the pedestrian experience and reinforce a sense of place and economic vitality. These guidelines and requirements are established to achieve the Streetary goals by maintaining safety, accessibility, and an enhanced design that connects the public realm. Compliance with all applicable sections of these guidelines is required at all times.

DEFINTION OF A SIDEWALK CAFÉ
An outdoor area located on the public right-of-way within the sidewalk area which is used to provide more space and amenities for outdoor dining operated and maintained by the business establishment conducting the outdoor dining.

SIDEWALK CAFÉ AREA
The sidewalk cafe area can be defined as one or a combination of:

1. The space delineated by the facade of the building to the adjacent street, perpendicular to the public right-of-way.

2. The recessed entries immediately adjacent to the outdoor sidewalk cafes.

3. Certain alleys determined by the city that are adjacent to the operating business.

SIDEWALK CAFÉ AREA CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS
The cafe operators are required to maintain all minimum distances and clearance requirements at all times: Minimum 5-foot pedestrian path clearance; min. 5-foot entrance clearance radius; and min. 5-foot pedestrian path at crosswalks from edge of curb at all times. City staff will perform compliance inspections. Application submittals are required to comply with all Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

MOVEABLE IMPROVEMENTS
The sidewalk cafe area contains various sidewalk patterns which affect the placement of improvements such as tables and chairs in the public right-of-way. The installation of these improvements is considered temporary in nature. The operator shall locate moveable flower boxes or planters adjacent to the street in such a way as to visually define and contain the sidewalk cafe area. The sidewalk cafe improvements shall be set up during the applicable hours of operation.

PERMANENT IMPROVEMENTS
Unless the applicant obtains a building permit, the operator shall not make any permanent changes, such as building structures or bolting tables to the ground. Permanent improvements within sidewalk areas must be in conformance with the applicable provisions and guidelines of the California Building Code and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements, and all other life, health, and safety requirements.

Page F-1.41
22 SIDEWALK CAFÉ ZONES
Any sidewalk cafe area may be viewed as containing
several functional zones which must be respected at all times. The El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan*
establishes sidewalk functional zones, ensuring a
pedestrian clear zone and more pleasant and functional
sidewalks. Understanding these zones will assist the
applicant in determining the best layout for their sidewalk cafe area. These zones include:
• Sidewalks: The area dedicated to pedestrian activity
made up of the building frontage, pedestrian thru, and
furnishing zones, and adjacent to the curb parking or
street traffic zone.
• Building Frontage Zone: The area of a public sidewalk located between the pedestrian thru zone and adjacent
building or property line, assuming the sidewalk
dimension allows for it. Depending on the location of
the building, a frontage zone may accommodate
outdoor seating and planting.
• Pedestrian Thru Zone: Allows for unimpeded
pedestrian circulation, free of all obstruction, including utility boxes and fences for outdoor dining.
• Furnishing Zone: The buffer between the pedestrian
thru zone and curb parking/street traffic. The furnishings zone accommodates public amenities such as street trees, streetlamps, benches, bike racks, kiosks, news racks, mailboxes, transit shelters, public art, plantings, utility poles and utility boxes. In some cases, the furnishings zone is also used for outdoor seating and dining by shops, cafes, and restaurants. • Curb Parking Zone: The interface between the roadway and sidewalk and accommodates vehicular parking, and in most cases parklets. *Please note that not all sidewalks within the Specific Plan are wide enough to incorporate each of the aforementioned zones. Sidewalk cafes should be planned according to the sidewalk zones and width in front of the building / restaurant.

Page F-1.42
23 SIDEWALK CAFÉ SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
The following shall be submitted to the City of Menlo Park Public Works Department as part of the Streetary Permit Application, submitted through Menlo Park’s online permitting platform, Accela:
 Permit fee payment
 Site Plan (scaled - I.e., 1/8” = 1’10” | dimensioned - I.e., 5’0” clearance path) (refer to site plan checklist)  Identification of Parklet Design Components (refer to Design Components Checklist)  Photograph of proposed design components
 Photograph of proposed Streetary location (showing the front and side views along the business frontage)  Required insurance forms (see below)
 Traffic control plan (for installation/construction)

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
 Completed Hold Harmless Agreement (review requirements listed)  Insurance Endorsement Form
 Insurance Certificate (must name City as additional insured, see Hold Harmless Form) Insurance Category Minimum Limits
Worker’s compensation Statutory Minimum
Employer’s Liability $1,000,000.00 per accident for bodily injury or disease Commercial General
Liability
$1,000,000.00 ($2,000,000.00 for parklets) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage
Streetary permit(s) are revocable. Compliance with Streetaries (Chapter 13.30) and the design / program guidelines in this document is required.

Page F-1.43
24 FURNISHINGS & FIXTURE DESIGN STANDARDS

STREETARY FURNISHINGS & FIXTURE DESIGN STANDARDS

FURNISHINGS AND FIXTURES DESIGN STANDARDS
All furnishings and fixtures in Streetaries shall comply with the California Building Code, California Fire Code, and the Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility requirements.

1. TABLES, CHAIRS, AND SEATING. Tables
and chairs shall match and be made of
safe, sturdy, and durable material, such as
wood, steel, plastic, and wrought iron. All
furniture shall be commercial grade and
manufactured for outdoor commercial
use. Vinyl tablecloths are not
recommended.
• As a general recommendation,
round tables should be no larger
than 2½ feet wide and square
tables should be no larger than 3
feet wide. Tables shall meet
clearance requirements for
parklets and sidewalk cafes.
• Accessible seating shall be
provided and comply with the
following California Building Code
Sections:
i. 11B-305 Clear floor space
of 30” by 48” at 5% of
seating
Page F-1.44
25 ii. 11B-306 Minimum knee and toe clearances
• Seating in Sidewalk Cafes: Small round or square tables shall seat no more than four people unless otherwise approved by the City, subject to compliance with any required pedestrian clearance. Use of larger tables may be granted by the City provided that all clearance requirements are met.

2. FURNISHINGS. Furnishings and fixtures must be designed to be weighted down (or fixed to parklet) for wind protection. Items may need to be stored inside the business during periods of high winds. Please ensure that the weights used do not create tripping hazards for pedestrians. No furniture or any parts of a parklet or sidewalk café shall be attached, chained, or in any manner affixed to any tree, post, signs, sidewalk, streetlight, fire hydrant, or other public fixture within or near the licensed area. Applicant must demonstrate that required egress/door swing, etc., from occupancies is protected for occupant load to public way.

3. FIRE RESISTANT MATERIALS. Any fabric, membrane shade, or other weather protection, including umbrellas and tents of any size, needs to be constructed of fire-resistant treated material as per the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Section 315(a). Fire-resistant materials must have documentation of a California State Marshal’s Seal on all panels, or meet NFPA 702 testing requirements by a NRTL, or meet CPAI 84 standards.

4. PORTABLE HEATERS & OTHER HEATING DEVICES. Heating devices may be electric, propane, or natural gas powered, and shall meet the following requirements:
• Heating devices are prohibited inside of tents, canopies, and membrane structures. • A minimum 5-foot clearance shall be provided
between a building and the heating device.
• A minimum 5-foot clearance shall be provided
between combustible materials and a heating device.
• A minimum 5-foot clearance shall be provided
between exits or exit discharges and a heating device.
• Propane or natural gas heating devices shall have a tip over switch that shuts off the flow of gas.
• Propane or natural gas heating devices shall have a
maximum of 20 pounds’ capacity gas container.
• Propane storage shall remain outside in approved
area; propane storage is not allowed inside.
• Gas heating appliances are NOT permitted on woodbased parklets, only electrical.

HEATING DEVICES
Page F-1.45
26 5. SHADING & UMBRELLAS.
• Individual canvas or other non-vinyl umbrellas of a compatible design may be permitted in the right-of-way and shall not extend over the Pedestrian Zone.
• Umbrellas shall be made for outdoor commercial use subject to City approval. Any fabric, membrane shade, or other weather protection, including umbrellas and tents of any size, needs to be constructed of fire-resistant treated material as per the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Section 315(a). Fire-resistant materials must have documentation of a California State Marshal’s Seal on all panels, or meet NFPA 702 testing requirements by a NRTL, or meet CPAI 84 standards. • Umbrellas must be at least 80-inches above the parklet platform or sidewalk. • Umbrellas and shading must not block sight lines for traffic or pedestrians in crosswalks.

6. ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS. Electrical service to any parklet requires a permit. All wiring and electrical cords must be exterior rated, GFCI protected, and UL listed. Electrical extension cords between buildings and a parklet are not allowed. • Cords within the parklet must not create tripping hazards on the sidewalk. • The use of adapters is prohibited.
• Businesses are not allowed to tap into existing City electrical connections such as twinkle light outlets or streetlight poles. • Generators are not allowed in association with parklets.

7. LIGHTING. Lighting is encouraged and may be provided through separately permitted electrical connections to the building. Solar powered (small scale) or battery powered lighting is encouraged. • Lighting shall not be directed towards the roadway to unintentionally cause glare for vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. • Light strings must be hung to allow for a minimum clearance of 10 feet above the sidewalk and the platform of the parklet. • Candles and open flames are prohibited within a parklet. • No new foundations are permitted for light poles.

8. SIGNAGE. All signage must comply with the City’s Sign Design Guidelines. Non-illuminated signs are allowed provided the sign area does not exceed 6 square feet (this is in addition to the sign ordinance maximum sign area limitations). For Streetaries/parklets on a corner, two signs not exceeding 9 total square feet may be permitted. Sign copy is limited to business identification, except that if the parklet is meant to serve the general public, signage should reflect such. If the parklet is meant to serve as restaurant seating, signage should correlate in design with the signage on the primary building. Menu boards, both portable and on walls, shall be subject to sign permit approval and shall comply with the Menlo Park Sign Ordinance.

9. LANDSCAPING AND PLANTERS. All planters and planting areas must contain seasonal blooming live plants year round. The sidewalk café and/or parklet owner shall be responsible for the prompt removal of all empty or poorly maintained planting areas. Landscaping and planters must be maintained, kept healthy and free of litter/debris at all times. • Neither the planter or plant material shall impede or hinder pedestrian and vehicular visibility.

Page F-1.46
27 • Landscaping or planter options include planter boxes within the setback area or serving as the parklet platform enclosure; hanging planters; or raised planter beds.
• Plants must be drought tolerant and/or native. Edible or fragrant plants are encouraged. Plants that have thorns, spikes, or sharp edges, or that are poisonous or invasive, are not permitted. • Parklet Landscaping & Planters Standards:
i. Planters are allowed within the parklet setback area. ii. The height shall be between 30 and 36-inches in height. iii. The height of plants within planters in parklet setback areas or planters serving as parklet platform enclosures shall not exceed 6-inches in height.
• Sidewalk Café Landscaping & Planters Standards:
i. The cafe owner may use flower boxes or planters to define the boundaries of the cafe seating area. ii. To avoid blocking the patron’s vision while seated, the combined height of the planters and live plants shall not exceed 4 feet from sidewalk grade.
iii. The boxes or planters in Sidewalk Cafes shall be no greater in height than 3-feet and no wider than 2 feet at the base. iv. Plant materials and containers shall remain at or below shoulder height of a seated person so as to not block visibility of the seating area.
v. The flower boxes, planters, and storage bins shall be portable and be made of safe, durable, and attractive material such as wood or steel.

10. BARRIERS/FENCES
• Parklet Barriers/Fences: Refer to Parklet Design Standard Section C. “Platform barriers, railings, or enclosures” • Sidewalk Café Barriers/Fences: Barriers should provide visual and physical connections with the surrounding public realm. Barriers should have a low height that allow views into and out of the space with at least one opening between barriers for an area of passage. The use of barriers should be limited and only occur where needed. All in-ground improvements require a building permit which are subject to approval by the Engineering Department. All barriers and fences shall be shown on the application site plan and are subject to approval by the City.

11. TRASH RECEPTACLES. The number, type, and location of trash receptacles shall be determined by the City and shall comply with the public right-of-way access code. Trash receptacles shall be made of durable material to match the existing facade and shall be commercial grade as determined by the City.

Page F-1.47
28 GENERAL OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FOR STREETARIES
A. LIVE ENTERTAINMENT. No live entertainment or amplified music is permitted in Streetaries without first obtaining a Special Events Permit.

B. NO OUTDOOR FOOD PREPARATION. Outdoor food preparation is not permitted. No heating, cooking or open flames are permitted in a parklet.

Hotpots, barbecues, or other heating of food in the public right of way is not allowed.

C. NO OPEN FLAMES. Candles and open flames are not allowed on the parklets.

D. ALCOHOL SERVICE. Restaurants and food establishments licensed by the State of California will be permitted to sell and allow on premise consumption of alcoholic beverages. Establishments that serve alcoholic beverages in the parklet area shall be required to meet all requirements of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and any other federal, state, or local laws and regulations governing the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages.

E. NOISE & DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR. Streetary owners are responsible for ensuring their patrons minimize noise and disruptive behavior while using their Streetary space.

F. SEMI-PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION.

1. Noise generated by construction activities is regulated in the City of Menlo Park. Semi-permanent construction activities in a parklet or sidewalk café must adhere to the city’s noise ordinance and allowable construction hours.

2. Traffic Control Plans are required for construction in the right-of-way. Traffic control plans must be completed in accordance with the latest edition of the “Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones” issued by the State of California, Department of Transportation and as required in the City of Menlo Park’s Guidelines for traffic control plans.

G. SITE MAINTENANCE. All Streetaries must be maintained at all times by the Streetary owner, including the space leading to and from the parklets and sidewalk cafes.

1. The permittee is required to keep the parklet or café area safe, free of debris, grime, and graffiti, and to keep any plants in good health.

2. Outdoor seating shall be scrubbed and mopped to remove any food or drink stains on a daily basis and the sidewalk shall be power washed quarterly by the permittee. Such cleaning shall be in accordance with the City’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Program, which prohibits any discharge other than storm water into the storm water drainage system.

3. Parklets and enclosures shall be designed in a manner that does not negatively impact existing drainage patterns. Features shall be incorporated into the design that allows water to flow freely off the street surface and along any existing gutter.

4. The permittee shall be required to clean tree grates, the gutter, and drainage inlets. Business and/or property owners shall be required to remove any debris that accumulates against their parklet. The areas on, under, and around the parklets must be clear of leaves and Page F-1.48
29 debris, which may require the restaurant operator or property owner to blow underneath the parklet or enclosure. The permittee shall also provide cleanout access upon request.

5. The permittee is required to maintain the pedestrian access clearances in sidewalk café and curb extension area and keep these areas safe, clean, and free of debris.

6. Parklets shall not block access necessary to maintain the canopy of City maintained street trees.

7. Failure to maintain the cleanliness, safety, and accessibility of a parklet or café may subject the permittee to violations and fines. If maintenance issues are not resolved, a parklet permittee may be required by the City to remove the parklet at the permittee’s expense.

H. SIDEWALK CLEANING
The permittee shall comply with all State and local regulations related to waste disposal including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA) as follows:

1. Pollution Prevention (visit www.cabmphandbooks.com for more information) • Use dry cleaning methods whenever practical for surface cleaning activities. • Use the least toxic materials available (e.g., water-based paints, gels or sprays for graffiti removal).

2. Surface Cleaning
• Regular broom (dry) sweep sidewalk, plaza, parklet, and parking areas to minimize cleaning with water. • Dry cleanup first (sweep, collect, and dispose of debris and trash) when cleaning sidewalks or plazas, then wash with or without soap.
• Block the storm drain or contain runoff when cleaning with product.

I. ADA COMPLIANCE. Streetary seating areas must, at all times, comply with all requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and provide sufficient clearance and walkway space to allow safe access and egress. For multi-level Streetaries, a minimum of one level of ADA access shall be required.

J. HOURS OF OPERATION. Streetaries shall adhere to the same approved hours of operation as the associated business, with the following limitations:

1. For Streetaries that are within 150-foot horizontal or vertical distance from residences: Streetaries shall not commence operations prior to 7 a.m. on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; Streetaries shall not commence operations prior to 6 a.m. Monday through Friday; Streetaries shall not operate after 10 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays; Streetaries shall not operate after 9 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and holidays (as defined in the Menlo Park Municipal Code chapter 8.13 “Noise” of title 8).

K. USAGE OF STREETARY SPACE. Streetaries must demonstrate adequate usage in order to contribute to the economic vitality of the city. The city requires these Streetaries to be set up and readily available for use during the operational hours of the food service establishment associated with the Streetary, except in inclement weather and subject to the hours of operation.

Page F-1.49
30 L. FURNITURE & STORAGE.

1. Applicants may store parklet or sidewalk café tables, chairs, portable heaters, umbrellas, and other furnishings within the business, parklet, or café area. No storage containers shall be allowed in the parklet or café area, except for propane storage with approval by city staff. Restaurants and cafes may use minimal storage space (i.e., waiter stations for storage of utensils, linens, and menus) during operating business hours to store.

2. Storage of furnishings shall not be allowed along the sidewalk or any required pedestrian clearances.

3. Furnishings shall not be secured to lampposts, streetlights, trees, or any other public street furniture/infrastructure.

4. All approved furnishings shall be properly maintained and cleaned regularly.

5. Propane storage shall remain outside in approved area; propane storage is not allowed inside.

M. LANDSCAPING.

The café operator shall maintain flower boxes and planting areas unless otherwise determined by the City. All boxes, planters and planting areas shall be planted with seasonal blooming or ornamental evergreen live plants year round.

N. PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCIES AND REMOVAL.

1. Because a parklet may be installed above underground utilities, there may be occasions in which a parklet may need to be removed with little or no notice. In the event of a utility failure, such as a gas leak or similar threat to public safety, the city or a utility provider may remove a parklet with little or no notice. Sidewalk cafes may also be removed with little or no notice where there is a threat to public safety. The parklet or sidewalk cafe permittee is responsible for the cost of re-installing and restoring any damage to the parklet or sidewalk cafe.

2. When the permittee removes their parklet or sidewalk cafe, the permittee shall be responsible for notifying the City and removing the parklet at the permittee’s expense.

3. If the business associated with a parklet or sidewalk café ceases operation, changes its business name or type of use permit, or decides to no longer maintain its parklet or sidewalk cafe for more than 30 days, the City may remove and dispose of the parklet or sidewalk cafe at the permittee’s expense.

4. The permittee shall be responsible for any surface restoration required after the parklet or sidewalk cafe removal. A separate Encroachment Permit shall be required for any restoration or other work performed in the public right-of-way. Restoration of the public right-of-way shall be done by a licensed contractor, to City of Menlo Park standards and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Page F-1.50

STREETARY SITE PLAN TEMPLATES

SELECT A STREETARY TEMPLATES
• Parklet in parallel parking space (s)
• A-1 One Space
• A-2 Two Space
• Parklet in a diagonal parking space
• Special Condition Parklet, which includes three alternative conditions
• C-1 Parklet/Sidewalk Café Combination
• C-2 Parklet/Sidewalk Café Curb Extension
• C-3 Parklet/Pedestrian Street Combination
Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 31 Page F-1.51
A-1 PARALLEL SPACE

PARKLET
1 PARKING SPACE
• The Parallel Parklet template
occupying one parking space is a
compact parklet that provides an
intimate outdoor dining setting.
• This template limits the maximum
parklet area to one parking space and
can be utilized in areas where available
on-street parking spaces are limited.
• Parklets proposed for perpendicular
parking spaces can use a modified
version of this template.

Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 32 Page F-1.52
Page ___
Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 33 Page F-1.53
A-2 PARALLEL SPACE

PARKLET
2 PARKING SPACES
• The Parallel Parklet template
occupying two parking spaces provides
a larger outdoor dining setting.
• This template limits the maximum
parklet area to two parallel parking
spaces.
• Parklets proposed for perpendicular
parking spaces can also use a modified
version of this template.

Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 34 Page F-1.54
Page ___
Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 35 Page F-1.55

B-DIAGONAL

SPACE PARKLET
The Diagonal Space Parklet template provides a
larger outdoor dining setting. When including the
necessary setbacks, this template would need three
spaces.

Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 36 Page F-1.56
Page ___
Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 37 Page F-1.57
C-1 PARKLET/SIDEWALK
CAFÉ COMBINATION
• The Parklet/Sidewalk Cafe
Combination template is for conditions
where an applicant can incorporate
both a sidewalk cafe and a parklet for a
combined space.
• This Special Condition template can be
used in either a parallel parking or
diagonal parking site.
• The combined space should be
designed as a comprehensively planned
singular space.

Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 38 Page F-1.58
Page ___
Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 39 Page F-1.59
C-2

PARKLET/SIDEWALK
CAFÉ CURB EXTENSION

COMBINATION
• The Parklet/Sidewalk Cafe Curb Extension Combination
template is provided for sites where a business would like to incorporate a sidewalk cafe on an adjacent curb extension with a parklet.
• This Special Condition template can be used in either a parallel or diagonal parking site adjacent to an intersection. • The combined space should be designed as a
comprehensively planned singular space.

Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 40 Page F-1.60
Page ___
Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 41 Page F-1.61
C-3

PARKLET/PEDESTRIAN

STREET COMBINATION
• The Parklet/Pedestrian Street
Combination template is designed with
flexibility for parklets that are proposed
on streets the City has permanently
closed to vehicular through-traffic to
enable pedestrian access and circulation.
• This template shall not be used where
streets are only temporarily closed.
• Expanded seating areas would not be
allowed unless the supplementary seating
is specifically reflected in plans submitted
and approved by the City.

Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 42 Page F-1.62
C-3 PARKLET/PEDESTRIAN STREET COMBINATION
Page ___
Streetary Program Site Plan Tempaltes 43 Page F-1.63
Proposed Streetary Fee Structure

PROPOSED FEES FOR CITY OF MENLO PARK STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT STREETARY PARKLET 1ST YEAR ANNUAL

RENEWAL
NOTES
Streetary permit -
parklets
$1,725 $250 First year permit application same as
administrative permit fee for outdoor dining on
private properties. Applicants may be subject to a
surcharge for a structural review. Renewal fee
covers administration.

Use of space
(estimated at $4.24/sf
for 360sf, total may
vary)
$1,526.40 $1,500 Use of space recommended cost is $4.24/SF for an estimated average of 360 SF per 2-stalls. Total
Use of space may vary depending on total area
occupied by the business. Renewal fee covers use
of space.

Recommended cost for
streetary parklets
$3,251.40 $1,750 Staff recommend fees are waived until January 1, 2025, if business complies by the end of the
transitional period described below.

STREETARY SIDEWALK
CAFÉ
1ST YEAR ANNUAL

RENEWAL NOTES
Streetary permit -
sidewalk cafes (standalone)
$810 $250 First year permit application same as a major encroachment permit fee. Renewal fee covers
administration.

Use of space
(estimated at $4.24/sf
for 150 sf, total may
vary)
$636 $600 Use of space recommended cost is $4.24/SF for an estimated 150 SF per sidewalk café. Total use
of space may vary depending on total area
occupied by the business. Renewal paid annually
for use of space
Recommended cost for
streetary sidewalk
cafes
$1,446 $850 Staff recommend fees are waived until January 1, 2025, if business is in compliance by the end of
the transitional period described below.

ATTACHMENT C Page F-1.64
Outdoor Dining Fee Structures in Comparable / Nearby Cities

CITY PERMIT FEE &
PARKLET 1ST YEAR
(2 STALLS/360 SF)

ANNUAL USE &

CLEANING FEES
NOTES
BURLINGAME $431 permit fee + $1/
every SF over 200-sf over
max
$5,100 for 1st year use of
space
= $5,531.00
$1,500 use fee
$3,000 cleaning fee
= $4,500.00
LOS ALTOS $500 permit fee $100 use fee
MORGAN
HILL
$716.10 permit fee
$1,000 security deposit
= $1,716.10
$1,000 use fee Fees waived until January 1, 2023.

Permit fee is paid every 7-years.

Annual use fee is only charged for
parklets in the public right-of-way

MOUNTAIN
VIEW
(DOWNTOWN

CASTRO ST)
$769 permit fee
$2,400 for 1st year use of
space
= $3,169
$205 use fee
$180 cleaning fee
= $385

REDWOOD
CITY
$2,226 permit fee
$5,883.60 for 1st year use
fee
= $8,109.60
$4,823.60 use fee
(Annual use of space
fee = $10.16/SF)
Annual use fee waived until 2024
SAN CARLOS $539 permit fee
$1,289 for 1st year
= $1,828
$289 use fee
$705 cleaning fee
= $994
SAN MATEO $500 permit fee
$1,000 for 1st year use
fee
= $1,500
$500 use fee $500 encroachment permit
application + 250/stall first year
Annual renewal of $250/stall
SAN RAFAEL $2,000 permit fee
$2,000 one-time deposit
= $4,000 (half
refundable)
$3,600 use fee

Permit fee waived through 2023.

Annual Use Fee waived until June
1, 2023. 50% fee discount applies
between June 1, 2023 and May 30,
2024. 25% fee discount applies
between June 1, 2024 and May 30,
2025. No discounts or waivers
beginning June 1, 2025.

Page F-1.65
Chase
Susie Cakes
La Migliore Salon
Breeeze-way
Cheeky Monkey
Bow Wow Meow
Dolma Carpets
Dolma Handicraft
Menlo Cafe
Union Bank
Abby Carpet
Harvest
Left Bank
Starbucks
Bistro Vida
Walgreens
Bank of America
Tilak Indian Cuisine

MALONEY

DOYLE ST
North
PLATE 1South
Match Lin
Santa Cruz Ave Reopening Option 1.

Reduce the size of the street closure for 4 months to allow for bicycle travel lane during transition.

Color Key
Roadblocks
Street Closures
Restaurants
Santa Cruz Street Cafe Dining
Santa Cruz Expansion / Other Outdoor Dining
Bicycle Parking Zone
Bicycle Lane
Directional Traffic Pattern
Bike lane would require 6-
feet in width
Bon Marche
ATTACHMENT D Page F-1.66
Chase
Susie Cakes
La Migliore Salon
Breeeze-way
Cheeky Monkey
Bow Wow Meow
Dolma Carpets
Dolma Handicraft
Menlo Cafe
Union Bank
Abby Carpet
Harvest
Left Bank
Starbucks
Bistro Vida
Walgreens
Bank of America
Tilak Indian Cuisine

MALONEY

DOYLE ST
North
PLATE 1South
Match Lin
Santa Cruz Ave Reopening Option 2.

Maintain street closures as is for 4 months and prepare for re-opening at the end of the transitional period.

Color Key
Roadblocks
Street Closures
Restaurants
Santa Cruz Street Cafe Dining
Santa Cruz Expansion / Other Outdoor Dining
Bicycle Parking Zone
Bicycle Lane
Directional Traffic Pattern
Bon Marche
Page F-1.67
Chase
Susie Cakes
La Migliore Salon
Breeeze-way
Cheeky Monkey
Bow Wow Meow
Dolma Carpets
Dolma Handicraft
Menlo Cafe
Union Bank
Abby Carpet
Harvest
Left Bank
Starbucks
Bistro Vida
Walgreens
Bank of America
Tilak Indian Cuisine

MALONEY

DOYLE ST
North
PLATE 1South
Match Lin
Santa Cruz Ave Reopening Option 3.

Reopen the street to vehicular traffic by a specific date.

Color Key
Roadblocks
Street Closures
Restaurants
Santa Cruz Street Cafe Dining
Santa Cruz Expansion / Other Outdoor Dining
Bicycle Parking Zone
Bicycle Lane
Directional Traffic Pattern
Parking in front of Starbucks
and Tilak would re-open
Page F-1.68
Color Key
Roadblocks
Street Closures
Restaurants
Santa Cruz Street Cafe Dining
Santa Cruz Expansion / Other Outdoor Dining
Bicycle Parking Zone
Bicycle Lane
Directional Traffic Pattern
Ryans Lane Reopening Option 1.

Maintain street closures as is for 4 months and prepare for re-opening at the end of the transitional period. RYANS LANE Page F-1.69
Color Key
Roadblocks
Street Closures
Restaurants
Santa Cruz Street Cafe Dining
Santa Cruz Expansion / Other Outdoor Dining
Bicycle Parking Zone
Bicycle Lane
Directional Traffic Pattern
Ryans Lane Reopening Option 2.

Reopen the street to vehicular traffic by a specific date. RYAN'S LANE Page F-1.70
“STREETARIES” OUTDOOR DINING
PROGRAM February 28, 2023 Study Session
F1-PRESENTATION
AGENDA
 Study Session Purpose Background Existing Outdoor Uses Summary of Business Feedback Proposed Streetary Program Discussion of Santa Cruz Ave and Ryans Lane  Study Session to provide feedback on:
(1) Proposed Streetaries outdoor dining program(2) Options for Santa Cruz Avenue and Ryans Lane  No City Council action is required for this item; staff request feedback and direction

MEETING PURPOSE
3  Temporary Outdoor Use Permit (TOUP) Program will expire when the COVID-19 State of Emergency Order ends on February28, 2023– January 2022: Council asked staff to research a longer-term outdoor dining program
– January 10, 2023: Staff presented a draft outdoor dining design standard packet as an informational item
– February 28, 2023: Study session includes the Streetary Outdoor Dining program, which establishes a long-term policyfor outdoor dining in the public right-of-way

BACKGROUND
4  12 food service establishments with existing outdoor uses
 5 retail/personal service businesses with existing
outdoor uses
 Note: 7 of the 17 parklets were built as part of the
Santa Cruz Street Café Pilot Program, some of whichexpanded under TOUP

EXISTING OUTDOOR USES
5 SUMMARY OF BUSINESS FEEDBACK ON A

LONGER-TERM PROGRAM
6 Restaurants are not fully recovered from the pandemic and outdoor dining has helped them stay open Existing parklet owners are interested in a cost sharing aspect as part of a longer term program Retail businesses with outdoor uses generally agree that outdoor dining should continue Some businesses would like to maintain the street closure but are okay with reopening Other groups have indicated interest in opening the closed streets Customers continue to choose outdoor dining

PROPOSED

STREETARY PROGRAM
 “Streetary” or “Streetaries” are an outdoor eating area that operates within and uses the public right-of-way directlyadjacent to the food service establishment street frontage.  The program is intended to:

1. Activate the public realm in Downtown Menlo Park and other commercial areas2. Maintain physical and visual access to Menlo Park businesses3. Provide safe, attractive, and accessible spaces for outdoor use4. Provide accessible amenity areas for private businesses during operating hours5. Support the economic vitality and growth of businesses and the City

STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING PROGRAM
8  Limited to outdoor dining in parking spaces and on
sidewalks in the public right-of-way directly adjacent to building frontages of food service establishments.  Additional criteria:
– Streets that have speed limits less than 25 mph– Not allowed in parking spaces with peak hour parking restrictions, ADA designated spots, no parking color zones, cannot block public safety infrastructure, utility asset access, or bicycle facilities – Cannot be located in parking spots that provide bicycle parking unless the bicycle parking can be relocated within 300-feet – Must meet required travel lane and other setback requirements– Must provide clearance from utility access

STREETARY LOCATION CRITERIA
9  Limited to the storefronts of food service establishments  Hours of operation must coincide with the business’s hours of operation, except beyond 11 p.m. on weeknights, 12 a.m. onSaturday, and 10 p.m. on Sunday  Maintenance of the streetary area, utilities, and drainage is clearly laid out
 The permittee will be required to ensure their space is safe, free of debris, grime, and graffiti
 Landscaping or plants must be maintained and in good health Permits are non-transferableOTHER KEY FEATURES OF THE STREETARY OUTDOOR DINING PROGRAM 10  Safety standards
– Force impact rating of 250-lbs– Maintenance of visibility of pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle traffic, as well as traffic signs, signals and other traffic warning devices – Reflectors required on corners facing the travel lane  Aesthetic standards
– Materials may include wood, concrete, or steel planters, and perforated steel railings
– Wood and concrete planters must be finished or painted– Colors and materials should be compatible with the façade of the adjacent building/restaurant

BARRIER STANDARDIZATION
11  To streamline the review process for new Streetary applications, the proposed guidelines include parklet site plan and design templates that applicants can choose from.
12 STREETARY DESIGN TEMPLATES
Parallel Parklet (1‐space) Parallel Parklet (2‐space) Diagonal Parklet 13 STREETARY DESIGN TEMPLATES CONTINUED
Parklet
/ Sidewalk Café Streetary
Parklet/Sidewalk Café CurbExtension
Parklet/Pedestrian Street
Streetary*
*Parklet/Pedestrian Street Streetary only applicable for street closures  Starting from the adoption date of the Streetary
program, staff propose the following transitional period:– One-month period to create Streetary application and notify existing permit holders
– Three-month open application period
Seven-day compliance (removal) period for non-applicants – Six-month compliance period for Streetary permit
applicants
 Total transitional period = approx. 10 months

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD FOR EXISTING OUTDOOR DINING FACILITIES 14 Mar-AprApr-JulJul-Dec
Through spring:Through end of school year:Through end of 2023:
 The initial permit term will be three years followed by an annual renewal.

STREETARY PERMIT TERM & FEES
15 Streetary Parklet 1st year Annual Renewal (after 3-year term) Parklet Permit $1,725 $250Use of Space $1,526.40 $1,500.00Recommended Cost $3,251.40 $1,750.00Streetary Sidewalk Café 1st year Annual Renewal (after 3-year term) Sidewalk Café Permit $810 $250Use of Space $636 $600Recommended Cost $1,446 $850  Waive Streetary permit fees until January 1, 2025 for businesses who meet the transitional period deadline– Estimating up to 12 initial applications from existing businesses
– City would be subsidizing an estimated amount of $82,000, or about $6,800 per applicant (first year: $40,000 total, or $3,251.40 per applicant; second and third years: $21,000 inrenewal fees per year)  Staff are researching a potential grant program to help existing parklets comply with Streetary designstandards

FEE WAIVER & POTENTIAL GRANT PROGRAM
16 USE OF SANTA CRUZ AVE &

RYANS LANE
17  Santa Cruz Ave and
Ryans Lane closures areset to expire with the endof the COVID-19 State ofEmergency Order  Travel lanes would need
to be cleaned andinspected before potentialreopening

CURRENT STREET CLOSURES
18 RYANS LANE

SANTA CRUZ AVE
 3 existing parklets plus Bon Marche Farmer’s Market expanded into the travel lane

CURRENT SANTA CRUZ AVE STREET CLOSURE
19 Bistro Vida – 641 Santa Cruz Ave Street closure at 693 Santa Cruz Ave Street closure at 635 Santa Cruz Ave Left Bank – 635 Santa Cruz Ave Harvest – 639 Santa Cruz Ave Option 1: Allow only bicycle use
during 4-month period
20 SANTA CRUZ AVENUE
During 4-month transitional period:
– City would study amendment to
General Plan Circulation Element
– City would study environmental
impacts of street closure (CEQA)
Option 1: Allow only bicycle use
during 4-month period
21 SANTA CRUZ AVENUE OPTIONS
Option 2: Maintain closure
for 4-months
Option 3: Reopen
street
 Carpaccio operates a parklet in the
travel lane and they have expressedinterest in maintaining their outdoordining  Nearby businesses indicated interest
in reopening Ryans Lane
 A new restaurant will be locating at
772 Santa Cruz Avenue and theymay also need access to RyansLane for construction  City would need to determine no
risks for construction at adjacentbusinesses

CURRENT RYANS LANE STREET CLOSURE
22 Carpaccio on Ryans Lane
23 RYANS LANE
Option 1: Maintain closure for 4-month period
During 4-month transitional period:
– City would study amendment to
General Plan Circulation Element
– City would conduct study on
environmental impacts of street closure (CEQA)
24 RYANS LANE
Option 1: Maintain closure for 4-month
period Option 2. Reopen street
 Staff requests the City Council provide:
(1) Feedback on the proposed Streetaries outdoor
dining program
(2) Direction on next steps for street closures on Santa Cruz Avenue and Ryans Lane

CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK
25 THANK YOU
Public Works
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 2/28/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-048-CC
Study Session: Provide direction on whether to pursue fully grade separated alternatives for Caltrain grade separation
project
Recommendation
Staff requests direction from the City Council on whether to pursue fully grade separated alternatives for the Caltrain grade separation project or proceed with the previously approved hybrid alternative of partially raising the railroad tracks and partially lowering the cross streets. If City Council directs staff to continue evaluating fully elevated alternatives, staff also seeks direction on which fully elevated alternatives to pursue.

Policy Issues
The project is a City Council priority and is consistent with the City Council rail policy and with the general plan circulation element goals to increase mobility options to reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions; increase safety; improve Menlo Park’s overall health, wellness, and quality of life through transportation enhancements; support local and regional transit that is efficient, frequent, convenient and safe; provide a range of transportation choices for the Menlo Park community; and to promote the safe use of bicycles as a commute alternative and for recreation.

Background
Since 2016, the City has been developing a project study report (PSR) for grade separation with support from AECOM. The project was funded by a grant from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA.) Over 50 meetings were held for the project and feedback received was incorporated into the project analysis.

In 2019, the City adopted a preferred alternative of a hybrid alternative (Alternative C), which would partially raise the rail and partially lower the streets at Ravenswood Avenue, Oak Grove Avenue and Glenwood Avenue. In making this decision, the City Council also directed staff to evaluate fully elevated alternatives due to potentially reduced cost and construction impacts.

Shortly after this, the City put the project on hold due to staffing reductions that resulted from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite being on hold, staff submitted an updated application to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Section 190 program in late 2021, which provides funding for grade separation. While the total amount of funding provided by this program is limited (up to $15 million), it does help the City potentially leverage funding from other State and Federal sources. The City’s most recent application to the CPUC was ranked fourth in the State among submitted applications. Only Burlingame has submitted an application along the Caltrain corridor that was ranked higher (first.) On October 18, 2022, the City Council authorized an amendment to the City’s agreement with AECOM to AGENDA ITEM F-2 Page F-2.1
Staff Report #: 23-048-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov evaluate fully elevated alternatives. The scope of work for the amendment includes:
• Identification of potential fully elevated grade profiles (i.e., the height of the rail as it travels through the City.) This includes review of these profiles and selection of up to two for more detailed study. • Feasibility assessment of fully elevated options. This includes preliminary engineering work and development of renderings of the selected fully elevated options. This step will include public meetings to review the fully elevated alternatives, including the cost, construction impacts and renderings. • City Council review of preferred alternative. After completion of the feasibility study, City Council could reaffirm the preferred alternative for grade separation, select a new alternative, or request further study.

If the City Council chose to reaffirm the current alternative, no further work on the current scope of work would be completed.
• Additional studies. The current scope of work includes more detailed noise/vibration, real estate analysis, and optional architectural evaluation tasks that can be conducted if the City Council would like to further evaluate a fully elevated option.

At the October 18, 2022 meeting, members of the public expressed concerns about a fully elevated option adjacent to residential neighborhoods and requested additions to the AECOM scope of work. Some of the scope of work requests have been incorporated into the work conducted to date and others may require further direction to modify the scope of work if the City Council directs staff to continue evaluating a fully elevated alternative.

Analysis
Staff have been working with AECOM to identify several potential rail profiles for a fully elevated alternative (Attachment A.) These alternatives span the full range of possibilities, including full elevation across all four existing crossings, as well as options that only elevate the rail over select crossings. Five basic profile options have been identified. The currently preferred hybrid alternative (Alternative C) is also illustrated in Attachment A) for comparison.

Table 1 identifies these fully elevated alternatives, along with the status of each road crossing:
• Fully elevated – no change in current grade of road, rail elevated over the road • Hybrid – partially raised rail and partially lowered road • Ped/bike only – road remains at current grade with sufficient clearance (at least 10 feet) for people walking and bicycling, but road would be closed to vehicles • Closed – grade level would not allow the crossing to remain open Unless noted, these options follow Caltrain design standards, specifically the use of a maximum 1 percent change in grade.

Page F-2.2
Staff Report #: 23-048-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Table 1 – Fully elevated grade separation options
Option Ravenswood Oak Grove Glenwood Encinal Notes
1 – Yellow
dashed Fully elevated Fully elevated
Fully
elevated Fully elevated • Conforms well outside City limits in Atherton 2 – Red
dashed Fully elevated Fully elevated
Fully
elevated
Closed or ped/bike
only (lower 9 feet)
• Conforms outside City limits
in Atherton
3 – Red Fully elevated Fully
elevated
Fully
elevated
Closed or ped/bike
only (lower 11 feet)
• Exceeds Caltrain maximum
grade requirements (1.2%)
4 – Black Fully elevated Fully
elevated
Hybrid (lower
4 feet) or
ped/bike only
Closed or ped/bike
only (lower 12 feet)
• Meets Caltrain grade
requirements
• Entirely within City limits
5 – Green Fully elevated Fully
elevated
Hybrid (lower
5 feet) or
ped/bike only
(lower 1 foot)
Closed or ped/bike
only (lower 17 feet)
• Exceeds Caltrain maximum
grade requirements (1.4%)
• Less visual impacts north of
Glenwood
During the October 2022 meeting, the City Council received feedback from residents about the proposed scope of work. Staff have met with residents in December 2022 to understand their requests and has worked with AECOM to incorporate feedback into the current item. Specifically, residents asked that staff provide a comparison between the profile of current structures on the east side of the railroad tracks (assuming the tracks travel generally north-south on the Peninsula), compared to profile of the rail. In addition to the summary of the rail profiles, Attachment B includes a zoomed-in look at the rail profiles between Oak Grove Avenue and the City limit with the heights of existing structures shown. The figure also shows, using a white outline, where the structures are located in the plan view.

AECOM has also identified some examples of elevated railroad structures that have been constructed in recent years (Attachment C.) Within the Bay Area and nearby, there were no examples of fully elevated railroad structures adjacent to residential areas. Pictures were taken at locations between intersections to provide a viewpoint of how a fully elevated structure might appear from the properties immediately adjacent to the tracks. Future work under the current scope of work includes renderings or photo simulations that may better communicate the potential visual impact of fully elevated alternatives.

Comparison of fully elevated and hybrid options
Residents have expressed concerns about the visual impact of a fully elevated rail alternative in close proximity to residents, especially north of Oak Grove Avenue. Generally, there are one and two story multifamily buildings between Oak Grove Avenue and Glenwood Avenue immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks with access from Mills Street. North of Glenwood Avenue, there are generally single family homes to the City limits immediately adjacent to the east side of the tracks. On the west side of the railroad tracks, there are few residences immediately adjacent to the tracks – generally a street (Garwood Way, Merrill Street Stone Pine Lane) or an easement for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission pipeline separate the tracks from residences and other buildings.

While proximity to homes is an understandable concern, a fully elevated grade separation option could have potential advantages for the City, including:
• Reduced construction impact. A fully elevated grade separation can be constructed without closing the road under the structure. This significantly reduces construction time and disruption. This is especially significant for a crossing like Ravenswood Avenue, which is one of the highest traffic streets in the City that is not a Caltrans facility. While some of the options retain hybrid crossings at Glenwood or Encinal Avenue, these options would have substantially less impact because of the significantly reduced use of Page F-2.3
Staff Report #: 23-048-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov these crossings.
• Reduce utility impacts. A fully elevated grade crossing could avoid substantial utility impacts. Potential utility relocations for a hybrid option could include the San Francisco Public Utility Commission’s Hetch Hetchy water line, sanitary sewers, storm drains and others. The current Alternative C (Hybrid) estimated utility relocation at approximately $20 million in 2018. • Reduced flooding risk. Climate change is leading to more extreme weather, including more frequent occurrences of storms that we experienced in January 2023. Undercrossings require use of pumps to ensure that the crossing remains clear of water. Sustained use, such as was experienced this year, puts the pumps at high risk of failure. In addition, the water must be pumped to a location for discharge or for temporary holding before discharge.
• Property impacts. A fully elevated railroad would require fewer property impacts such as easements for construction or acquisition. Because of the grade change of the roadways, properties near the railroad may have their access restricted or changed, potentially requiring acquisition.

In addition to greater visual impact, a fully elevated alternative would also have an impact on the in-progress Middle Avenue pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing. The Middle undercrossing has independent utility and is anticipated to be completed well in advance of grade separation. It also provides a way to mitigate the impacts of grade separation for people walking and bicycling. During construction of grade separation, the challenges crossing the railroad tracks will increase and the Middle undercrossing will provide an alternative. If a fully elevated alternative is pursued, the City may eventually consider replacing the Middle undercrossing with an at grade bicycle/pedestrian crossing once the grade separation project is completed.

Options
Staff is seeking direction on whether to continue evaluating fully elevated alternatives or continue to pursue the adopted hybrid grade separation alternative (Alternative C.) If the City Council directs staff to further evaluate fully elevated options for grade separation, staff recommends advancing two specific profiles:

1. Option 4 (black line) – fully elevated over Ravenswood Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue, with Glenwood Avenue implemented as a hybrid or converted to bike/pedestrian only and Encinal Avenue closed

2. Option 2 or 3 (red lines) – fully elevated over Ravenswood Avenue, Oak Grove Avenue, and Glenwood Avenue that either conforms just outside the City limits (in Atherton) or exceeds the maximum Caltrain grade to conform within the City limits.

The other options represent concepts that provide fewer benefits than the two recommended options and/or are more challenging to implement due the need to receive an exception to Caltrain’s design standards, which cannot be guaranteed. Option 1 (yellow line) would have significant impacts to the northern part of the City and in Atherton. Option 5 (green line) exceeds the current Caltrain grade but provides modest differences in elevation for individuals living adjacent to the tracks (2-4 feet.) Impact on City Resources
There is no impact on City resources.

Environmental Review
This action is not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §§ 15378 and 15061(b)(3) as it will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the Page F-2.4
Staff Report #: 23-048-CC

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

The results of the current scope of work will identify required environmental reviews and studies required to advance the project. Environmental reviews and studies will be completed as part of the next phase of work.

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. Fully elevated railroad profile options
B. Fully elevated railroad profile options with height of current structures shown C. Examples of fully elevated railroad structures
Report prepared by:

Hugh Louch, Assistant Public Works Director – Transportation Page F-2.5

ALTERNATIVE C

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL
= AT-GRADE CROSSINGS
Menlo Park Grade Separation Project Attachment A-1

ATTACHMENT A
Page F-2.6
Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
= AT-GRADE CROSSINGS

ALTERNATIVE C

EXISTING TOP OF RAIL
Attachment A-2

ATTACHMENT B
Page F-2.7
Menlo Park
Grade Separation ProjectExamples of Elevated Rail on Retaining WallFebruary 28, 2023

ATTACHMENT C
Page F-2.8
Elevated Rail Toronto, Canada
2 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Terre Armee Internationale
Page F-2.9
Light Rail Charlotte, NC
3 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Terre Armee Internationale
Page F-2.10
Elevated Rail Japan
4 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Terre Armee Internationale
Page F-2.11
Elevated High-Speed Train South Korea
5 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Terre Armee Internationale
Page F-2.12
Elevated Rail Australia
6 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Google
Page F-2.13
Elevated Rail Staten Island, NY
7 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Google
Page F-2.14
Elevated Rail City of Industry City, CA
8 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Google
Page F-2.15
Elevated Rail City of Industry City, CA
9 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Google
Page F-2.16
Elevated Rail Westbury, NY
10 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Google
Page F-2.17
Elevated Rail Westbury, NY
11 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Google
Page F-2.18
Hillsdale Station San Mateo, CA
12 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Google
Page F-2.19
Approach to San Bruno Station San Bruno, CA
13 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Google
Page F-2.20
Approach to San Carlos Station San Carlos, CA
14 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Google
Page F-2.21
“Green Wall” Unknown Location (Not elevated rail, but potential green treatment on wall façade) 15 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Image Courtesy of Terre Armee Internationale
Page F-2.22
Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Fully Elevated Grade Separation Options
February 28, 2023
F2-PRESENTATION
Fully Elevated Grade Separation Options
2 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Fully Elevated Grade Separation Options
3 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Summary of Fully Elevated Options
4 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Topic 1 2 3 4 5
Number of fully elevated grade separations
(Improved Connectivity) 4 3 3 2 2
Design variance from Caltrain   X  X
Trackwork in Atherton X X   
Encinal open to motor vehicles
(See Note 1)  X X X X
Extent of visual impacts XXX XX XX XX X
Glenwood road lowering required? None None None 4 feet 5 feet Utility relocations, driveway & property
impacts at Glenwood    X X
Notes:

1. All options that close Encinal to motor vehicles can be kept open for peds/bikes via an undercrossing/tunnel structure.

2. Costs to be determined (TBD).

Fully Elevated vs. Hybrid Option (Alternative C)
5 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
 Reduced construction impacts
 Less utility relocation required
 Reduced flooding risk
 Property impacts
 Greater visual impact
 Impact to future Middle Ave ped/bike undercrossing
 Construction costs
Requested Direction from City Council
6 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Option 1  Impact to Atherton + Greatest Visual/Noise Impact  Not recommended
Option 5  Difficult to obtain Caltrain Approval of a 1.4% Grade Option 2  Feasible, but trackwork extends into Atherton (or)
Option 3  Requires Caltrain approval of a 1.2% grade
? Consider Option 2 or 3
(Or Option 3 if it is not feasible to
extend trackwork into Atherton)
Option 4  Feasible, but requires lowering of Glenwood  Recommended Question 1 – Should staff continue evaluating fully elevated grade separation? Question 2 – If staff continue evaluating fully elevated grade separations, which profile(s) should be evaluated?
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
Next Steps and Schedule
7 Menlo Park Grade Separation Project
Fully elevated –
Phase I
Feasibility analysis, renderings
Public meeting(s)
City Council
Fully elevated – Phase 2 scope
PE/ENV
City Council (today)
Initiate engineering & environmental (PE/ENV)
City Council
PE/ENV
Questions?
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES – DRAFT
Date: 1/31/2023
Time: 6:00 p.m.

Locations: Teleconference and
City Council Chambers
751 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025
Special Session
A. Call To Order
Mayor Wolosin called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

B. Roll Call

Present: Combs, Doerr, Nash, Taylor, Wolosin

Absent: None
Staff: City Manager Justin I. C. Murphy, City Attorney Nira F. Doherty, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk Judi A. Herren, Deputy City Clerk Sarah Sandoval C. Public Hearing
C1. Consider 1) the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt a resolution to certify the subsequent environmental impact report, adopt California Environmental Quality Act findings, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts for the Housing Element Update project, and approve a mitigation and monitoring program; and 2) the Planning Commission and Housing Commission’s recommendations to adopt a resolution to amend the General Plan to update the Housing Element for the 2023 to 2031 planning period (Staff Report 23-024-CC)
Principal Planner Tom Smith made the presentation (Attachment).

Mayor Wolosin opened the public hearing.
• Nestor Flores spoke in support of locally hired union labor in Menlo Park. • Isabel Pardo spoke in support of locally hired union labor in Menlo Park. • Bryan Shields spoke in support of encouragement language for locally hired union labor in the Housing Element.
• Lynne Bramlett spoke in support of reevaluating the City’s planning process and reexamining the noise, open space, conservation, safety, and environmental justice elements of the Housing Element.
• Jenny Michel in support of affordable housing, tenant protections, and the use of City owned parking lots for additional housing.
• Kathleen Daly spoke in support of affordable housing. • Pam Jones spoke in support of interpretation services at public meetings and the inclusion of Climate Resilient Communities recommendations in the Housing Element. • Brittani Baxter spoke in support of affordable housing and walkable amenities in Menlo Park.

AGENDA ITEM G-1 Page G-1.1
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council Special Meeting Minutes – DRAFT
January 31, 2023

Mayor Wolosin closed the public hearing.

The City Council received clarification on the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements for the Housing Element, air quality mitigation measures in the environmental impact report (EIR), historic buildings, and multimodal transportation improvements.

The City Council discussed the anti-displacement strategy, encouragement language for union labor, water efficiency, preservation of green spaces and parks, removal of certain Office-zoned sites located near Marsh Road from the list of proposed sites, Planning and Housing Commissions’ recommendations, and affordable housing on City-owned parking lots as potential modifications to the Housing Element.

The City Council directed adding language related to encouraging use of union labor, retaining proposed anti-displacement language, retaining the proposed site inventory list, adding an explanation as to why the civic center and parks were not selected as housing sites, use of Planning and Housing Commissions’ recommendations with the exception of modified timelines related to development of affordable housing on City-owned parking lots downtown, and transit incentives.

ACTION: Motion and second (Doerr/ Nash), to adopt a resolution to certify the subsequent EIR that analyzes potential environmental impacts of the proposed Housing Element Update project and makes California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings to address impacts, including a statement of overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable environmental effects that would result from the proposed project, and to approve a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the proposed project to mitigate impacts to less than significant with mitigation or reduce significant impacts, adopting environmental findings pursuant to the CEQA, adopting a statement of overriding considerations, and adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, passed 4-1 (Combs dissenting).

ACTION: Motion and second (Nash/ Wolosin), to adopt a resolution to repeal in its entirety the 2015 to 2023 Housing Element of the General Plan and adopt in full the new text comprising the 2023 to 2031 Housing Element of the General Plan including modifications to the goals, policies, and programs language as discussed by the Council, passed 4-1 (Combs dissenting).

D. Adjournment
Mayor Wolosin adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m.

Sarah Sandoval, Deputy City Clerk
Page G-1.2
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov City Council
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES – DRAFT
Date: 2/7/2023
Time: 6:00 p.m.

Locations: Teleconference
Special Session
A. Call To Order
Mayor Wolosin called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

B. Roll Call

Present: Doerr, Nash, Taylor, Wolosin

Absent: Combs
Staff: City Manager Justin I. C. Murphy, City Attorney Nira F. Doherty, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk Judi A. Herren
C. Closed Session
C1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of §54956.9)
Name of case: David Fogel et al. v. City of Menlo Park, Case No. 21-CIV-06674 Not a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project.

No reportable actions.

C2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of §54956.9: (one case) (Communications shall be available for public inspection pursuant to Government Code §54957.5.) Not a CEQA project.

No reportable actions.

D. Adjournment
Mayor Wolosin adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m.

Judi A. Herren, Assistant to the City Manager/City Clerk Page G-1.3
Public Works
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 2/28/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-038-CC
Consent Calendar: Award a construction contract to Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. for the Chrysler
Stormwater Pump Station Improvement project;
determine this action is exempt from California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15302 (Replacement and
Reconstruction Projects)
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council award a $10,870,000 contract to Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. (Attachment A) for the Chrysler Stormwater Pump Station Improvement project, approve contingency in the amount of $1,631,000 (held by the City), approve construction administration fees in the amount of $260,000, and determine this action is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15302.

Policy Issues
This project is consistent with the City’s goal of maintaining and enhancing its municipal infrastructure. The project is included in the fiscal year 2022-23 capital improvement program (CIP) and is also identified as a recommended hazard mitigation action item for Menlo Park in the adopted multijurisdictional San Mateo County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Background
The Chrysler Stormwater Pump Station is located at 1395 Chrysler Drive in Menlo Park, California (at the corner of Chrysler Drive and Bayfront Expressway.) The pump station is also adjacent to lands owned by Bohannon Development Group (Bohannon.) The pump station drains approximately 297 surface acres in an area roughly bounded by Marsh Road, Bayfront Expressway, Chilco Street, and the Dumbarton railroad tracks (Attachment B.) The existing facility is designed to discharge a 10-year rain event and consists of two pumps, a below-ground wet well, and a building that houses the pumps and electrical room. Stormwater is pumped to a Caltrans-owned ditch on the opposite side of Bayfront Expressway and empties into Flood Slough near the Bedwell Bayfront Park entrance.

The pump station was built in 1958 and has reached the end of its useful life. In 2015, the City contracted with Schaaf & Wheeler to provide construction bid documents for a replacement pump station that could discharge a 100-year rain event. The new pump station is elevated two feet above the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100-year base flood elevation and includes three new, larger pumps designed to discharge flows associated with sea level rise in San Francisco Bay. This project is included in the City’s CIP with partial funding from a $5 million federal FEMA grant (awarded to the City April 24, 2020.) The grant requires the project to be substantially complete by April 2025 and, to date, $134,270 has been utilized for the project’s design phase. The remaining $4,865,730 in grant monies are AGENDA ITEM G-2 Page G-2.1
Staff Report #: 23-038-CC

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

The new pump station requires a larger building footprint that entails a mutual exchange of property, the provision of easements, and construction of exterior cladding and landscaping with Bohannon. On December 8, 2020, the City Council authorized the city manager to negotiate and execute a funding agreement with Bohannon that addressed the aforementioned project needs. General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments were subsequently approved for this action November 16, 2021 and December 7, 2021, respectively.

On August 5, 2022, staff advertised the project and received six bids on September 27, 2022. All six bids were found to be non-responsive pursuant to the Public Contracting Code and were rejected by the City Council on November 1, 2022. The project was re-advertised for construction bids on November 8, 2022; three bids were received as further described in the Analysis section.

On December 7, 2022 the City executed a professional services agreement, with 4Leaf Inc. (a consultant on the City’s master agreement list.) The agreement included services for construction management, inspections, and FEMA grant administration in anticipation of construction.

On February 14, 2023, the City Council authorized the city manager to execute the first amendment to the funding agreement and all deeds and easements with Bohannon, thus effectuating the property swap and exchange of easements required for the project. To date, staff is finalizing the real estate transaction with Bohannon and actively monitoring its progress to ensure its completion prior to the project’s award of contract. In the event that the close of escrow for this transaction is not completed by February 28, 2023, staff will continue the award of construction contract to the next City Council meeting on March 14, 2023.

Analysis
On November 8, 2022, staff advertised the project for construction bidding with an engineer’s estimate of $10,000,000. The project was advertised on the City website and posted twice in a local newspaper. The project specifications stipulated that the contract award would be based on the base bid total and the bidders’ responsiveness to the project documents. On December 13, 2022, the City received three bids for the project as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Bid results
(Engineer’s estimate $10,000,000)
Contractor Base bid
total
Mitchell Engineering $10,585,355
Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. $10,870,000 Anvil Builders $11,280,000
Although Mitchell Engineering had the apparent lowest base bid, staff discovered omissions in their proposal violating the Public Contracting Code. The omissions constituted grounds for finding their bid nonresponsive and staff distributed a bid rejection notice to Mitchell Engineering. On December 20, 2022, a response to the notice of bid rejection was received from Mitchell Engineering and their protest was considered to be without merit upon review by the city attorney. Consequently, Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction was determined to be the lowest bidder. Staff found Anderson Pacific to be experienced with projects involving a similar scope of work and determined the contractor to be responsive Page G-2.2
Staff Report #: 23-038-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov and responsible per the Public Contracting Code. Anderson Pacific’s bid is 9 percent higher than the engineer’s estimate. Staff attributes this to inflationary cost increase. Subject to the City Council’s award of contract, the project is tentatively scheduled for construction from April 2023 to April 2025.

Impact on City Resources
The project is included in the fiscal year 2022-23 CIP with $11,850,000 in available funding from the general capital and highway user’s (gas) tax funds. Construction costs, including contingencies and administration fees, total $12,761,000 per Table 2 and the project has sufficient funding this fiscal year. Staff will seek a future appropriation of $911,000, as part of the fiscal year 2023-24 CIP adoption, to meet the project’s construction funding gap. Sufficient funding is available in the fiscal year 2022-23 CIP to award the base construction contract. The project is eligible for up to $4,865,730 in FEMA grant funding. Staff will apply for the reimbursement of qualifying grant monies on a quarterly basis which will be returned to the general capital fund.

Table 2: Construction budget
Item Value
Construction subtotal $10,870,000
Contingency (15%) $1,631,000
Construction administration $260,000
Construction total $12,761,000
Available funding $11,850,000
Future appropriation request in FY 2023-24 CIP $911,000 Estimated FEMA grant reimbursement ($4,865,730)
Construction net total $7,895,270
Staff recommends that the City Council award a $10,870,000 construction contract to Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc., approve construction contingency (held by the City) in the amount of $1,631,000, and approve construction administration fees in the amount of $260,000 for the project.

Environmental Review
On May 2, 2017, the City Council determined that project is categorically exempt under Class 2 (Section 15302, “Replacement or Reconstruction”) of the current CEQA Guidelines. Additionally, FEMA performed a National Environmental Policy Act review of the project and determined it was Categorically Excluded under Department of Homeland Security Categorical Exclusion N7 (Federal Assistance for Structure and Facility Upgrades.)
Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Page G-2.3
Staff Report #: 23-038-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Attachments
A. Construction contract
B. Drainage area
Report prepared by:

Michael Fu, Senior Civil Engineer
Report reviewed by:

Tanisha Werner, Assistant Public Works Director - Engineering Page G-2.4

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

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN

THE CITY OF MENLO PARK AND FIRST PARTY
THIS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (“Contract”) is made and entered into this ____ day of __________, ______ (“Execution Date”) by and between the CITY OF MENLO PARK, a California municipal corporation, (“City”) and Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. (“Contractor”).

RECITALS
A. Contractor is a California Corporation duly organized and in good standing in the State of California, License Number 245215. Contractor represents and warrants that it has the background and experience set forth in the Contractor’s responses to the notice inviting bids.

B. Contractor represents that it is duly licensed by the State of California and has the background, knowledge, experience and expertise to perform the obligations set forth in this Contract.

C. On November 8, 2022, the City issued a Notice to Contractors inviting bids for the Project. A copy of the Contractor’s Bid proposal and List of Subcontractors is attached herein and incorporated by this reference.

D. The City desires to retain Contractor as an independent contractor to provide the construction and other services identified in this Contract for the Project upon the terms and conditions contained herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the promises, covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS. Capitalized terms used throughout the Contract Documents shall have the meanings set forth in this Contract and/or the Special Provisions. If there is a conflict between the definitions in this Contract and the Special Provisions, the definitions in this Contract shall prevail.

2. PROJECT. The project is the construction of Chrysler Stormwater Pump Station Improvements Project, CPR002 (“Project”). The work includes all labor, materials, equipment, services, permits, licenses and taxes, and all other things necessary for Contractor to perform its obligations and complete the Project, including, without limitation, any Change Orders executed by City and Contractor in
ATTACHMENT A Page G-2.5
accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents (“Work”).

3. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.

3.1 List of Documents. The Contract Documents (sometimes collectively referred to as “Agreement” or “Bid Documents”) consist of the following documents which are on file with the Public Works Department and are hereby incorporated by reference. 1) Change Orders
2) Field Orders
3) Contract
4) Bidding Addenda
5) Special Provisions
6) Project Plans and Drawings
7) Technical Specifications
8) City Standard Details
9) State of California Department of Transportation Specifications, 2006 Edition (Cal Trans specifications)
10) Notice to Contractors
11) Contractor's Bid
12 Bidder Certifications, Questionnaire and Statements
13) Reports listed in the Contract Documents
14) City of Menlo Park Waste Management Form, Waste Management Daily Transport Report 15) City of Menlo Park Truck Route Map and Regulations
16) Performance, Payment and Maintenance Bonds

3.2 Order of Precedence. For the purposes of construing, interpreting and resolving inconsistencies between and among the provisions of this Contract, the Contract Documents shall have the order of precedence as set forth in the preceding section. If a claimed inconsistency cannot be resolved through the order of precedence, the City shall have the sole power to decide which document or provision shall govern as may be in the best interests of the City.

4. PERMITS. Contractor, at its sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Contract, all appropriate permits, licenses and certificates that may be required in connection with the performance of the Work, including, but not limited to, a City business license.

5. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS. Contractor and any subcontractor performing Work on this Project shall be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5. No contractor or subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for a public works project unless registered with the DIR pursuant to Labor Code Section 1725.5, with limited exceptions from this requirement for bid purposes only under Labor Code Section 1771.1(a). This Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure all DIR requirements and regulations are met and stay current. For more information, see http://dir.ca.gov/Public-Works/SB854.html.

6. TERM. This Contract is effective on the Execution Date set forth in the initial paragraph of this Contract and shall remain in effect until the Project has been satisfactorily completed by Page G-2.6
Contractor, unless earlier terminated pursuant to the terms of this Contract.

7. TIME OF COMPLETION. Time is of the essence with respect to all time limits set forth in the Contract Documents. Contractor shall commence the Work on the date specified in the City’s Notice to Proceed. Contractor shall diligently prosecute the Work to Substantial Completion within the working days specified per the contract documents and the City’s Notice to Proceed (“Contract Time”). The Contract Time may only be adjusted for extensions of time approved by the City and agreed to by Change Order executed by City and Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.

8. COMPENSATION. The City agrees to compensate Contractor for its satisfactory completion of the Work in compliance with the Contract Documents for the not to exceed amount of Ten million and eight hundred seventy thousand ($10,870,000) (“Contract Sum”). Payment shall be as set forth in the Plans, Special Provisions and/or Technical Specifications. The Contract Sum may only be adjusted by Change Orders issued, executed and satisfactorily performed by Contractor in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents. The Contract Sum shall be adjusted (upward or downward) only to account for Change Orders. The Contract Sum is and shall be full compensation for all Work performed by Contractor. The Contract Sum shall cover all losses arising out of the nature of the Work or from the elements or any unforeseen difficulties or obstructions which may arise or be encountered in performance of the Work until its Acceptance by the City, all risks connected with the Work and any and all expenses incurred due to the suspension or discontinuance of the Work.

9. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. As a material inducement to the City to enter into this Contract, Contractor hereby represents and warrants that it has the qualifications and experience necessary to undertake the Work to be provided and the Project to be completed pursuant to this Contract. Contractor agrees that the Work shall be performed by qualified, experienced and well-supervised personnel. The Work performed pursuant to this Contract shall be performed in a manner consistent with the standard of care under California law applicable to those who specialize in providing such services for projects of the type, scope and complexity of the Project.

10. COMPLAINCE WITH LAW. This Project constitutes a public work within the meaning of California Labor Code Section 1720 et. seq. and is subject to prevailing wage laws. The Work performed by Contractor pursuant to this Contract shall be provided in accordance with all ordinances, resolutions, statutes, rules and regulations of the City, and any federal, state or local governmental agency having jurisdiction in effect at the time the work is rendered.

11. REPRESENTATIVE. Scott Schumacher is hereby designated as the project manager/superintendent/foreman of Contractor authorized to act on its behalf with respect to the Work specified in this Contract. It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc. were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Contract. Therefore, Scott Schumacher shall be responsible during the term of this Contract for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. The representative may not be changed by Contractor without the express written approval of the City.

Page G-2.7

12.LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.

12.1 Entitlement. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that if Contractor fails to fully and satisfactorily complete the Work within the Contract Time, the City will suffer, as a result of Contractor’s failure, substantial damages which are both extremely difficult and impracticable to ascertain. Such damages may include, but are not limited to: (a) loss of public confidence in the City and its contractors; (b) loss of public use of public facilities; and (c) extended disruption to public.

12.2 Daily Amount. City and Contractor have reasonably endeavored, but failed, to ascertain the actual damage that the City will incur if the Contractor fails to achieve Substantial Completion of the Work within the Contract Time. Therefore, the parties agree that in addition to all other damages to which the City may be entitled other than delay damages, in the event the Contractor shall fail to achieve Substantial Completion of the Work within the Contract Time, Contractor shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of Five Hundred Dollars ($500) per day for each calendar day after the expiration of the Contract Time until Contractor achieves Substantial Completion of the Work. The liquidated damages amount is not a penalty, but a reasonable estimate of the amount of damages the City will suffer.

12.3 Apportionment. Such liquidated damages shall be subject to reduction for delays for which Contractor is entitled to receive an extension of time under the Contract Documents (“Apportionment”). Such Apportionment shall not be affected by the fact that liquidated damages may not be applied for periods of time during which delays have occurred that are caused by both City and Contractor. It is agreed that the liquidated damages shall not be applied for portions of the Work completed prior to the expiration of the Contract Time.

12.4 Exclusive Remedy. City and Contractor acknowledge and agree that this Section 11, Liquidated Damages, shall be the City’s only remedy for delay damages caused by the Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the Work within the Contract Time.

12.5 Damages upon Abandonment. In the event that the Contractor either abandons the Work or is terminated for default in accordance with the provisions of this Contract, City shall have the right, in its sole discretion exercised by written notice issued either before or after Substantial Completion, to elect to either assert or waive its right to liquidated damages. If City elects to assert its right to liquidated damages, then the liquidated damages shall be calculated from expiration of the Contract Time to the date that Substantial Completion of the Work is achieved by the City or its replacement contractor employed to complete Contractor’s performance. If City elects to waive its right to liquidated damages, then Contractor shall be liable to the City, in lieu of the liquidated damages, for all actual Losses (as defined in the General Conditions) proximately resulting from Contractor’s failure to complete the Work within the Contract Time.

12.6 Other Remedies. The parties further acknowledge and agree that the City is entitled to any and all available legal and equitable remedies City may have where City’s Losses are caused by any reason other than Contractor’s failure to achieve Substantial Completion of the Work within the Contract Time.

Page G-2.8

13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. Contractor is, and shall at all times remain as to the City, a wholly independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. Contractor shall receive no premium or enhanced pay for work normally understood as overtime, nor shall Contractor receive holiday pay, sick leave, administrative leave, or pay for any other time not actually worked. The intention of the parties is that Contractor shall not be eligible for benefits and shall receive no compensation from the City except as expressly set forth in this Contract.

Contractor shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of the City or otherwise act on behalf of the City as an agent. Neither the City, nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Contractor, any of Contractor’s employees, or any subcontractors, except as set forth in this Contract. Contractor shall at no time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees or subcontractors are in any manner employees of the City. Contractor agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Contractor under this Contract, and to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against the City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Contract. Contractor shall fully comply with the worker’s compensation law regarding Contractor, Contractor’s employees and subconsultants. Contractor further agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any failure of Contractor and any subconsultants to comply with applicable worker’s compensation laws.

14. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the work to be performed by Consultant under this Contract, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services hereunder. Contractor further covenants that, in performance of this Contract, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Contractor shall avoid the appearance of having any interest which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the work pursuant to this Contract. Contractor agrees not to accept any employment during the term of this Contract which is or may make Contractor financially interested, as provided in California Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100, in any decision made by the City on any matter in connection with which Contractor has been retained pursuant to this Contract.

However, nothing herein shall preclude Contractor from accepting other engagements with the City.

15. INDEMNIFICATION.

15.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall indemnify, defend, with independent counsel approved by the City, and hold harmless the City, and its elective or appointive boards, officers, employees agents and volunteers (“Indemnitee”) from and against any and all claims, losses, or liability that may arise out of or result from damages to property or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of work performed under this Contract due to the acts or omissions of Contractor or Contractor’s officers, employees, agents or subcontractors. The indemnification provisions survive completion of the Work or the termination of this Contract.

The acceptance of such services shall not operate as a waiver of such right of indemnification.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained herein shall be construed as obligating Contractor to indemnify any Indemnitee for any claims, losses or liability resulting from the sole Page G-2.9
or active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee. Contractor shall pay City for any costs incurred in enforcing this provision.

15.2 The City does not and shall not waive any rights that they may possess against Contractor because of the acceptance by the City or the deposit with the City of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Contract. This hold harmless and indemnification provision shall apply regardless of whether or not any insurance policies are determined to be applicable to the claim, demand, damage, liability, loss, cost or expense.

15.3 Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 9201, the City shall timely notify Contractor upon receipt of any third-party claim relating to the Contract.

16.ASSIGNABILITY. The parties agree that the experience and qualifications of Contractor as set forth in the Contractor’s Bid are material considerations for the City entering into this Contract. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Contract, without the prior written consent of the City, and any attempt by Contractor to do so shall be void and of no effect and a breach of this Contract. For purposes of this section, the sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor or of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member of Contractor, if a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or co-tenancy exists, which shall result in changing the control of Contractor, shall be construed as an assignment of this Construction Contract. Control means more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting power of the corporation or other entity.

17. INSURANCE AND BOND REQUIREMENTS.

17.1 Prior to the commencement of any Work, the Contractor shall provide the City with evidence that it has obtained the insurance required by this Section and all bonds, including, but not limited to, payment and performance bonds, required in the Special Provisions. Failure to obtain and maintain the required insurance and bonds to so shall be deemed a material breach of this Contract.

17.2 Insurance Requirements. Contractor shall obtain the following insurance.

A. Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance: The CONTRACTOR shall have in effect during the entire life of this Contract workers' compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance providing full statutory coverage. In signing this Contract, the CONTRACTOR makes the following certification, required by Section 18161 of the California Labor Code: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract." B. Commercial General Liability Insurance: The CONTRACTOR shall take out and maintain during the life of this Contract such Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability Insurance (Commercial General Liability Insurance) on an occurrence basis as shall protect it while performing work covered by this Contract from any and all claims for damages for bodily Page G-2.10
injury, including accidental death, as well as claims for property damage which may arise from the CONTRACTOR's operations under this Contract, whether such operations be by CONTRACTOR or by any sub-consultant or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. The amounts of such insurance shall be not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence and four million dollars ($4,000,000) in aggregate, or four million dollars ($4,000,000) combined single limit bodily injury and property damage for each occurrence.

CONTRACTOR shall provide the City with acceptable evidence of coverage, including a copy of all declarations of coverage exclusions.

C. Automobile Liability Insurance: CONTRACTOR shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance pursuant to this Contract in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each accident combined single limit or not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for any one (1) person, and one million dollars ($1,000,000) for any one (1) accident, and Three Hundred Thousand Dollars, ($300,000) property damage.

17.3 CITY and its subsidiary agencies, and their officers, agents, employees and servants shall be named as additional insured on any such policies of Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability Insurance, (but not for the workers' compensation), which shall also contain a provision that the insurance afforded thereby to the CITY, its subsidiary agencies, and their officers, agents, employees, and servants shall be primary insurance to the full limits of liability of the policy, and that if the CITY, its subsidiary agencies and their officers and employees have other insurance against a loss covered by a policy, such other insurance shall be excess insurance only.

17.4 In the event of the breach of any provision of this Section, or in the event any notice is received which indicates any required insurance coverage will be diminished or canceled, CITY, at its option, may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract to the contrary, immediately declare a material breach of this Contract and suspend all further work pursuant to this Contract.

17.5. Before the execution of this Contract, any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by CITY.

18.SUSPENSION. The City may, at any time and from time to time, without cause, order Contractor, in writing (“Suspension Order”), to suspend, delay, or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time, up to an aggregate of fifty percent (50%) of the Contract Time, as City may determine, with such period of suspension to be computed from the date of the Suspension Order. Upon receipt of a Suspension Order, Contractor shall, at City’s expense, comply with its terms and take all reasonable steps to minimize costs allocable to the Work covered by the Suspension Order during the period of work stoppage. Within the period of the above noted aggregate time, or such extension to that period as is agreed upon by Contractor and City, City shall either cancel the Suspension Order or delete the work covered by the Suspension Order by issuing a Change Order. If a Suspension Order is canceled or expires, Contractor shall resume and continue with the Work. A Change Order will be issued to cover any adjustments of the Contract Sum or the Contract Time necessarily caused by such suspension.

Page G-2.11

19.BOOKS AND RECORDS. Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Contract in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices consistently applied.

City and City's accountants shall be afforded access at all times during normal business hours, to inspect, audit and copy Contractor's records, books, estimates, take-offs, cost reports, ledgers, schedules, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Project, and Contractor shall preserve these for a period of three years after the later of (i) final payment or (ii) final resolution of all Contract Disputes and other disputes or for such longer period as may be required by law.

Contractor’s compliance with any request by City pursuant to this Section18 shall be a condition precedent to filing or maintenance of any legal action or proceeding by Contractor against City and to Contractor's right to receive further payments under the Contract Documents. Any failure by Contractor to provide access to its business records for inspection or copying by City shall be specifically enforceable by issuance of a writ or a provisional or permanent mandatory injunction by a court of competent jurisdiction based on affidavits submitted to such court, without the necessity of oral testimony.

20.WAIVER. Waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any one or more terms or conditions of this Contract shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term or condition contained herein or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or any other term or condition. Acceptance by the City of the performance of any work by the Contractor shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any term or condition of this Contract. In no event shall the City’s making of any payment to Contractor constitute or be construed as a waiver by the City of any breach of this Contract, or any default which may then exist on the part of Contractor, and the making of any such payment by the City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to the City with regard to such breach or default.

21.DEFAULT. In the event the City determines, in its sole discretion, that Contractor has failed or refused to perform any of the obligations set forth in the Contract Documents, or is in breach of any provision of the Contract Documents, the City may give written notice of default to Contractor in the manner specified for this giving of notices in this Contract. Except for emergencies, Contractor shall cure any default in performance of its obligations under the Contract Documents within two (2) business days after receipt of written notice. However, if the breach cannot be reasonably cured within such time, Contractor will commence to cure the breach within two (2) days and will diligently and continuously prosecute such cure to completion within a reasonable time, which shall in no event be later than ten (10) days after receipt of such written notice.

22.CITY RIGHTS AND REMEDIES.

22.1 Remedies Upon Default. In the event that Contractor fails to cure any default of this Contract within the time period set forth in Section 20, then City may pursue any remedies available under law or equity, including, without limitation, the following: (1) the City may, without terminating the Contract, delete certain portions of the Work, reserving to itself all rights to losses related thereto; (2) the City may, without terminating the Contract, engage others to Page G-2.12
perform the Work or portion of the Work that has not been performed by the Contractor and withhold the cost thereof to City from future payments to the Contractor, reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto; or (3) the City may, without terminating the Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, suspend all or any portion of this Construction Contract for as long a period of time as City determines, in its sole discretion, appropriate, in which event City shall have no obligation to adjust the Contract Sum or Contract Time, and shall have no liability to Contractor for damages if City directs Contractor to resume Work; (4) the City may terminate all or any part of this Contract for default, reserving to itself all rights of Losses related thereto; or (5) the City may, without terminating the Contract and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, exercise its rights under the Performance Bond.

22.2 Additional Provisions. All of City’s rights and remedies under this Contract are cumulative, and shall be in addition to those rights and remedies available in law or in equity. Designation in the Contract Documents of certain breaches as material shall not be construed as implying that other breaches not so designated are not material nor shall such designations be construed as limiting City’s right to terminate the Contract, or the exercise of its other rights or remedies for default, to only material breaches. City’s determination of whether there has been noncompliance with the Contract so as to warrant exercise by City of its rights and remedies for default under the Contract, shall be binding on all parties. No termination or action taken by City after such termination shall prejudice any other rights or remedies of City provided by law or equity or by the Contract Documents upon such termination; and City may proceed against Contractor to recover all liquidated damages and Losses suffered by City.

22.3 Delays by Sureties. Without limitation to any of City’s other rights or remedies under the law, City has the right to suspend the performance by Contractor’s sureties in the event of any of the following: (1) failure of the sureties to begin Work within a reasonable time in such manner as to insure full compliance with the Contract within the Contract Time; (2) abandonment of the Work; (3) if at any time City is of the opinion the Work is unnecessarily or unreasonably delayed; (4) willful violation of any terms of the Contract; (5) failure to perform according to the Contract Documents; or (6) failure to follow instructions of City for its completion within the Contract Time. City will serve notice of such failure upon the sureties and in the event the sureties neglect or refuse to cure the breach within the time specified in such notice, City shall have the power to suspend the performance or any part thereof of the sureties.

22.4 Damages to the City. The City will be entitled to recovery of all Losses under law or equity in the event of Contract’s default under the Contract Documents. In the event that City's Losses arise from Contractor’s default under the Contract Documents, City shall be entitled to withhold monies otherwise payable to Contractor until Final Completion, as defined in the General Conditions, of the Project. If City incurs Losses due to Contractor’s default, then the amount of Losses shall be deducted from the amounts withheld. Should the amount withheld exceed the amount deducted, the balance will be paid to Contractor or its designee upon Final Completion of the Project. If the Losses incurred by City exceed the amount withheld, Contractor shall be liable to City for the difference and shall promptly remit same to City.

22.5 Termination of the Contract for Default. Without limitation to any of City’s other rights or Page G-2.13
remedies at law or in equity, and reserving to itself all rights to Losses related thereto, City shall have the right to terminate this Contract, in whole or in part, upon the failure of Contractor to promptly cure any default. City’s election to terminate the Contract for default shall be communicated by giving Contractor a written notice of termination in the manner specified for the giving of notices in the Contract. Any notice of termination given to Contractor by City shall be effective immediately, unless otherwise provided therein.

22.6 Termination Without Cause. City shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this Contract in part or in whole by giving thirty (30) days written notice to Contractor. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as allowed under this Section as its sole and exclusive compensation and waives any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect or incidental damages of any kind.

22.7 Compensation. Following termination without cause and within forty-five (45) days after receipt of a billing from Contractor seeking payment of sums authorized by this Section, City shall pay to Contractor as its sole compensation for performance of the Work the following: (1) the amount of the Contract Sum allocable to the portion of the Work properly performed by Contractor as of the date of termination, less sums previously paid to Contractor; (2) reasonable costs of Contractor and its Subcontractors and Sub-subcontractors for demobilizing and administering the close-out of its participation in the Project (including, without limitation, all billing and accounting functions, not including attorney or expert fees) for a period of no longer than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice of termination in an amount not to exceed the daily sum payable to Contractor for Compensable Delays; (3) previously unpaid cost of any items delivered to the Project Site which were fabricated for subsequent incorporation in the Work.

22.8 Subcontractors. Contractor shall include provisions in all of its subcontracts, purchase orders and other contracts permitting termination for convenience by Contractor on terms that are consistent with this Contract and that afford no greater rights of recovery against Contractor than are afforded to Contractor under this Section.

22.9 Contractor’s Duties Upon Termination. Upon receipt of a notice of termination for default or for convenience, Contractor shall, unless the notice directs otherwise, do the following: (1) immediately discontinue the Work to the extent specified in the notice; (2) place no further orders or subcontracts for materials, equipment, services or facilities, except as may be necessary for completion of such portion of the Work as is not discontinued; (3) provide to City a description, in writing no later than fifteen (15) days after receipt of the notice of termination, of all subcontracts, purchase orders and contracts that are outstanding, including, without limitation, the terms of the original price, any changes, payments, balance owing, the status of the portion of the Work covered and a copy of the subcontract, purchase order or contract and any written changes, amendments or modifications thereto, together with such other information as City may determine necessary in order to decide whether to accept assignment of or request Contractor to terminate the subcontract, purchase order or contract; (4) promptly assign to City those subcontracts, purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City elects to accept by assignment and cancel, on the most favorable terms reasonably possible, all subcontracts, Page G-2.14
purchase orders or contracts, or portions thereof, that City does not elect to accept by assignment; and (5) hereafter do only such Work as may be necessary to preserve and protect Work already in progress and to protect materials, plants, and equipment on the Project Site or in transit thereto.

23. CONTRACTOR’S RIGHTS AND REMEDIES. Contractor may terminate this Construction Contract for cause only upon the occurrence of one of the following: (1) the Work is stopped for sixty (60) consecutive days, through no act or fault of Contractor, any subcontractor or any employee or agent of Contractor or any subcontractor, due to issuance of an order of a court or other public authority other than City having jurisdiction or due to an act of government, such as a declaration of a national emergency making material unavailable; or (2) if the City does not make payment of sums that are not in good faith disputed by the City and does not cure such default within ninety (90) days after receipt of notice from Contractor, then upon an additional thirty (30) days’ notice to City, Contractor may terminate the Contract.

23.1 Damages to Contractor. In the event of termination for cause by Contractor, City shall pay Contractor the sums provided for in Section 21 above. Contractor agrees to accept such sums as its sole and exclusive compensation and agrees to waive any claim for other compensation or Losses, including, but not limited to, loss of anticipated profits, loss of revenue, lost opportunity, or other consequential, direct, indirect and incidental damages, of any kind.

24. NOTICES. Any notices or other communications required or permitted to be given under this Contract shall be given in writing by personal delivery, by a recognized courier service, or by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, and return receipt requested, addressed to the respective parties as follows:

To City:

Assistant Public Works Director - Engineering
City of Menlo Park
City Hall, 701 Laurel St.

Menlo Park, CA 94025

To Contractor:

Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction, Inc.
1370 Norman Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95054

25. Notice shall be deemed communicated on the earlier of actual receipt or 48 hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, or the date of delivery shown on deliverer’s receipt. In the event of any change of address, the moving party is obligated to notify the other party of the change of address in writing within a reasonable period of time.

In addition, copies of all Claims by Contractor under this contract shall be provided to the City Attorney as follows:

Page G-2.15
To City Attorney:

City Attorney
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
181 Third Street, Suite 200
San Rafael, CA 94901
All claims shall be delivered personally or sent by certified mail.

26.NON-DISCRIMINATION AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY. In the performance of this Contract, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, or medical condition.

Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that employees are treated without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, or medical condition.

27.CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND PRECEDENCE. The Contract Documents shall consist of the following documents. In case of inconsistencies between Contract Documents, the documents are listed in order of precedence.

28.PUBLIC WORKS CLAIMS. This Contract is subject to Public Contracts Code Section 9204 governing contractor claims.

29. ATTORNEYS’ FEES; VENUE. In the event that any party to this Contract commences any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Contract, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in that action or proceeding, in addition to any other relief to which the successful party may be entitled. The venue for any litigation shall be San Mateo County.

30. COOPERATION. In the event any claim or action is brought against the City relating to Contractor’s performance or services under this Agreement, Contractor shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation which City might require.

31. NUISANCE. Contractor shall not maintain, commit, nor permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection with the performance of services under this Contract.

32. GOVERNING LAW. This Contract shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California.

33. COMPLETE AGREEMENT; SEVERABILITY. This Contract, and any other documents incorporated herein by reference, represent the entire and integrated agreement between the City and Contractor. This Contract supersedes all prior oral and written negotiations, representations or agreements. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or Page G-2.16
effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Contract may only be modified by a written amendment duly executed by the parties to this Contract. In case a provision of this Contract is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.

34. COUNTERPARTS. This Contract may be signed in multiple counterparts, which shall, when executed by all the parties constitute a single binding contract.

Signatures on next page.

Page G-2.17
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year first above written.

FOR FIRST PARTY:

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

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

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

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk Date
Page G-2.18
Chrysler Stormwater Pump Station - Drainage Area
This map is for reference purposes only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. The City of Menlo Park and its staff shall not be held responsible for errors or omissions. Please contact City staff for the most current information.
6,406
City of Menlo Park GIS1,067.6
Legend
1:

NAD_1983_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet
0 533.82 1,067.6 Feet Notes
Chrysler Drive Bayfront Expressway Constitution Drive Chilco Street Bay Road
Marsh Road
Ivy Drive
Highway 101
Chrysler StormwaterPump Station

ATTACHMENT B
Page G-2.19
Community Development
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

STAFF REPORT
City Council
Meeting Date: 2/28/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-039-CC
Consent Calendar: Authorize the city manager to enter into a contract with Rincon Consultants Inc. to prepare the
environmental analysis for the proposed Life
Sciences development project at 980-1030 O’Brien
Drive for the amount of $137,459 and future
augments as may be necessary to complete the
environmental review for the proposed project
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the city manager to execute the contract for environmental review services for the proposed project at 980-1030 O'Brien Drive, attached hereto as Attachment A, with Rincon Consultants Inc. (Rincon) for the amount of $137,459 and future augments as may be necessary to complete the environmental review for the proposed project based on the proposed scope and budget (Attachment B.)
Policy Issues
City Council Resolution No. 6479 authorizes the city manager to execute agreements necessary to conduct City business up to a stated award authority level which adjusts annually based on changes in the construction cost index. The current award authority is $86,000. While the project applicant is responsible for the full cost of preparing the required environmental analysis for a project, and no taxpayer funds are being used for said purpose, the City Council retains discretion for all agreements exceeding the award authority delegated to the city manager.

The Planning Commission will be the acting body for the project entitlements (e.g., architectural control, use permit) and environmental review for the proposed project. The proposed project also includes a lot merger that would be reviewed by the engineering division.

Authorizing the city manager to enter into a contract with Rincon would allow the City to conduct the environmental review for the project proposal. Approval of the environmental review contract does not imply an endorsement of a project, but rather initiates the process to identify potential environmental impacts of the project for consideration during entitlement review. Policy implications of development projects are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Background
The applicant proposes to construct a new three-story life sciences/research and development (R&D) building with a ground floor commercial space. The building would be approximately 67,688 square feet in size, inclusive of an approximately 5,800 square foot commercial space on the ground floor, in the life science (L-S) zoning district located at 980-1030 O’Brien Drive.

Page G-3.1 AGENDA ITEM G-3
Staff Report #: 23-039-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov As part of the project, two of the existing buildings, located at 1020 and 1030 O’Brien Drive, would be demolished, and the buildings and uses at 980-990 and 1010 O’Brien Drive, including the community hub sponsored by Meta, would be retained. The applicant proposes to construct the proposed building utilizing the development potential from all four parcels (e.g., gross floor area.) All development regulations would be comprehensively evaluated across the entire project site rather than on a parcel-by-parcel basis and two out of the four parcels would be merged to facilitate the development of the proposed building. The proposed building would utilize development potential transferred from the 980-990 and 1010 O’Brien Drive parcels to the merged parcel. This is a non-bonus level development project. Select plan sheets from the project plans are included in Attachment C. A location map identifying the project site is included in Attachment D.

Additional information on the proposed project is available on the city-maintained project page (Attachment D.)
Environmental review process overview
Every discretionary action requires environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.) One of the purposes of CEQA is to inform decision-makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project. The first step in the environmental review process is for the City to determine if the proposed project would have a possible significant environmental effect or if the proposed project would qualify for a statutory or categorical exemption. Statutory exemptions are projects specifically excluded from CEQA consideration as defined by the State Categorical exemptions are made up of classes of projects that generally are considered not to have potential impacts on the environment. If a project falls within one of these classes, and no exceptions apply, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA and no further environmental review is required. If the City determines that a potential significant impact could occur, then an exemption would not be applicable and additional environmental review would be required.

Based on preliminary review of the proposed project, the proposed project may qualify for the Class 32 infill categorical exemption (CEQA Guideline Section 15332.) The Class 32 infill categorical exemption exempts infill development within urbanized areas if it meets certain criteria. For a proposed project to qualify under class 32 exemption, it must meet the following criteria:
• The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. • The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
• The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. • Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality.
• The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, for the proposed project technical studies are necessary to substantiate these criteria, including but not limited to transportation, air quality, noise and historical resources. The transportation analysis would be prepared in compliance with the City’s TIA Guidelines, which include a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) threshold for compliance with CEQA and a non-CEQA level of service (or congestion) analysis for compliance with the City’s general plan.

Following City Council authorization of the environmental consultant contract, the consultant will analyze the project to determine if the project meets the criteria for the Class 32 categorical exemption and prepare a categorical exemption report.

Page G-3.2
Staff Report #: 23-039-CC

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov CEQA also mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are projectspecific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. If a Class 32 exemption is determined to not be appropriate, then additional analysis may be needed to determine whether a §15183 exemption would apply.

If through the project analysis the consultant and staff determine that there is a reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect, then per §15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City would further evaluate the possible environmental effects of the project through the appropriate level of environmental review (e.g., negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or an EIR.) Analysis
As part of the environmental review consultant selection process, staff typically requests proposals from multiple environmental consulting firms. For the proposed project, staff released a request for proposals (RFP) to 33 firms and received proposals from four firms: Dudek, Rincon, SWCA and ICF Jones and Stokes Inc. Three of the four firms selected subconsultants to prepare the transportation impact analysis. A brief comparison of the scopes is provided in Table 1 below. Three of the four scopes include optional tasks that have been incorporated into the total budget identified in Table 1. Through the environmental analysis, the City will determine if those specific tasks are necessary for the analysis of the project. The four scopes are included in this staff report as Attachments B, F, G and H.

Table 1: Comparison of environmental review scopes and budgets Firm Subconsultants Experience/other key factors Project total cost Dudek In-house
Projects referenced in scope are of EIR projects in and around the Bay Area, and one notice of exemption
(NOE) of similar level or scale.
$164,329
Rincon Hexagon Proposed project manager has experience with class 32 exemption preparation for four projects. $137,459
SWCA Kittleson Projects referenced in scope are of EIR projects in California. $161,319
ICF Hexagon
Projects referenced in scope are of projects in and
around the Bay Area, with four NOE of similar level or
scale.
$218,899
City staff evaluated the four scopes and reviewed them with the applicant team, who is responsible for the full cost of the preparation of the required environmental analyses. Staff and the applicant team believe that each consultant has the necessary experience. However, staff recommends that the City Council select Rincon for the environmental review contract for the following reasons:

1. Rincon has extensive environmental review experience, including the preparation of categorical exemption documents for cities throughout the Bay Area;

2. Rincon’s proposal assumes a quicker project timeline. However, the scope and depth of the analysis remains appropriate for the proposed project; and
Page G-3.3
Staff Report #: 23-039-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov

3. Selecting Rincon would allow for a continued diversification of environmental reviews and would further develop the City’s working relationship with the firm.

Staff has shared its recommendation of Rincon with the applicant, who agrees with the recommendation. As stated previously, it may be determined that additional technical analyses are required or that the project would not qualify for a categorical exemption. Staff recommends that the City Council provide the city manager the authority to approve future contract augmentations, if needed. The draft contract indicating Rincon as the primary consultant and the proposed budget are included as Attachments A and B respectively.

Next steps
A study session for the proposed project is scheduled for the March 13 Planning Commission meeting.

Following authorization of the contract for the environmental analysis, the City’s consultant would begin the environmental analysis to confirm if the project qualifies for a categorical exemption.

Impact on City Resources
The applicant is required to pay all planning, building and public works permit fees, based on the City’s master fee schedule, to fully cover the cost of staff time spent on the review of the project. The applicant is also required to bear the cost of the environmental review. For the environmental review and other supporting studies required by the City, the applicant deposits money with the City and the City pays the consultants. Notwithstanding, the scope and content of the environmental review is determined by the City in its sole discretion and the City is the final decision maker on the adequacy of the document.

Environmental Review
An environmental analysis, currently scoped as a categorical exemption, will be prepared for the proposed project in compliance with CEQA.

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Upon receipt of the application submittal, the City sent an application submittal notice and mailed notices of the March 13 study session were sent to a quarter mile radius February 24.

Additionally, a public meeting notice will be published in the Examiner March 3, identifying that the Planning Commission will hold a study session on the item at its meeting March 13.

Attachments
A. Consultant services agreement with Rincon
B. Environmental review scope and budget proposal from Rincon C. Project plans (select sheets)
D. Hyperlink –Project page: menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Projects/Under-review/1030-OBrien-Drive E. Location map
F. Environmental review scope and budget proposal from Dudek G. Environmental review scope and budget proposal from SWCA Environmental Consultants H. Environmental review scope and budget proposal from ICF Jones and Stokes Inc.

Page G-3.4
Staff Report #: 23-039-CC

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

Fahteen Khan, Associate Planner
Report reviewed by:

Kyle Perata, Planning Manager
Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director
Page G-3.5
1 CC Rev 20210301

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

AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MENLO PARK AND RINCON CONSULTANTS INC.

THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into at Menlo Park, California, this _____________________, by and between the CITY OF MENLO PARK, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," and RINCON CONSULTANTS INC., hereinafter referred to as “FIRST PARTY.” WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, R&M Properties, proposes to demolish two of the four existing, one-story commercial buildings on four contiguous parcels located at 980-990, 1010, 1020 and 1030 O’Brien Drive (Assessor’s Parcel numbers 055-422-090, 055-422-100, 055-422-060, and 025-434-010 respectively ), Menlo Park, and to construct one new three-story R&D building totaling approximately 67,688 square feet, with 23,643 square feet of covered parking in the Life Science, (LS) zoning district, hereafter referred to as the “Project”, and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that under the California Environmental Quality Act and its applicable guidelines the Project may fall under Class 32 Infill Categorical Exemption; and WHEREAS, FIRST PARTY is licensed to perform said services and desires to and does hereby undertake to perform said services.

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS, PROMISES AND CONDITIONS of each of the parties hereto, it is hereby agreed as follows:

1. SCOPE OF WORK
In consideration of the payment by CITY to FIRST PARTY, as hereinafter provided, FIRST PARTY agrees to perform all the services as set forth in Exhibit "A," Scope of Services.

2. SCHEDULE FOR WORK
FIRST PARTY's proposed schedule for the various services required pursuant to this agreement will be as set forth in Exhibit "A," Scope of Services. CITY will be kept informed as to the progress of work by written reports, to be submitted monthly or as otherwise required in Exhibit "A.” Neither party shall hold the other responsible for damages or delay in performance caused by acts of God, strikes, lockouts, accidents or other events beyond the control of the other, or the other's employees and agents.

FIRST PARTY shall commence work immediately upon receipt of a "Notice to Proceed" from CITY.

The "Notice to Proceed" date shall be considered the "effective date" of the agreement, as used herein, except as otherwise specifically defined. FIRST PARTY shall complete all the work and deliver to CITY all project related files, records, and materials within one month after completion of all of FIRST PARTY's activities required under this agreement.

Page G-3.6 ATTACHMENT A
2 CC Rev 20210301

3. PROSECUTION OF WORK
FIRST PARTY will employ a sufficient staff to prosecute the work diligently and continuously and will complete the work in accordance with the schedule of work approved by the CITY. (See Exhibit "A," Scope of Services).

4. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT
A. CITY shall pay FIRST PARTY an all-inclusive fee that shall not exceed $137,459 as described in Exhibit "A," Scope of Services. All payments shall be inclusive of all indirect and direct charges to the Project incurred by FIRST PARTY. The CITY reserves the right to withhold payment if the City determines that the quantity or quality of the work performed is unacceptable.

B. FIRST PARTY's fee for the services as set forth herein shall be considered as full compensation for all indirect and direct personnel, materials, supplies and equipment, and services incurred by FIRST PARTY and used in carrying out or completing the work.

C. Payments shall be monthly for the invoice amount or such other amount as approved by CITY. As each payment is due, the FIRST PARTY shall submit a statement describing the services performed to CITY.

This statement shall include, at a minimum, the project title, agreement number, the title(s) of personnel performing work, hours spent, payment rate, and a listing of all reimbursable costs. CITY shall have the discretion to approve the invoice and the work completed statement. Payment shall be for the invoice amount or such other amount as approved by CITY.

D. Payments are due upon receipt of written invoices. CITY shall have the right to receive, upon request, documentation substantiating charges billed to CITY. CITY shall have the right to perform an audit of the FIRST PARTY's relevant records pertaining to the charges.

5. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
A. FIRST PARTY, with regard to the work performed by it under this agreement shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, handicap, marital status or age in the retention of sub-consultants, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment.

B. FIRST PARTY shall take affirmative action to insure that employees and applicants for employment are treated without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status or handicap.

Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training including apprenticeship.

C. FIRST PARTY shall post in prominent places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.

D. FIRST PARTY shall state that all qualified applications will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status or handicap.

E. FIRST PARTY shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and shall provide such reports as may be required to carry out the intent of this section.

F. FIRST PARTY shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this section in FIRST PARTY’s agreement with all sub-consultants.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Page G-3.7
3 CC Rev 20210301

6. ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT AND TRANSFER OF INTEREST
A. FIRST PARTY shall not assign this agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of the CITY thereto, provided, however, that claims for money due or to become due to the FIRST PARTY from the CITY under this agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company, or other financial institution without such approval. Notice of an intended assignment or transfer shall be furnished promptly to the CITY.

B. In the event there is a change of more than 30 percent of the stock ownership or ownership in FIRST PARTY from the date of this agreement is executed, then CITY shall be notified before the date of said change of stock ownership or interest and CITY shall have the right, in event of such change in stock ownership or interest, to terminate this agreement upon notice to FIRST PARTY. In the event CITY is not notified of any such change in stock ownership or interest, then upon knowledge of same, it shall be deemed that CITY has terminated this agreement.

7. INDEPENDENT WORK CONTROL
It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the service necessary for compliance with this agreement, FIRST PARTY shall be and is an independent contractor and is not an agent or employee of CITY. FIRST PARTY has and shall retain the right to exercise full control and supervision of the services and full control over the employment, direction, compensation and discharge of all persons assisting FIRST PARTY in the performance of FIRST PARTY's services hereunder. FIRST PARTY shall be solely responsible for its own acts and those of its subordinates and employees.

8. CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS
It is expressly understood that FIRST PARTY is licensed and skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the work agreed to be done by it under this agreement and CITY relies upon the skill of FIRST PARTY to do and perform said work in a skillful manner usual to the profession. The acceptance of FIRST PARTY's work by CITY does not operate as a release of FIRST PARTY from said understanding.

9. NOTICES
All notices hereby required under this agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person or sent by certified mail, postage prepaid or by overnight courier service. Notices required to be given to CITY shall be addressed as follows:

Deanna Chow
Community Development
City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel St.

Menlo Park, CA 94025
650-330-6733
[email protected]
Notices required to be given to FIRST PARTY shall be addressed as follows:

Abe Leider, Principal
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, CA 94612
510-834-4455
[email protected]
Provided that any party may change such address by notice, in writing, to the other party and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address.

Page G-3.8
4 CC Rev 20210301

10. HOLD HARMLESS
The FIRST PARTY shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the CITY, its subsidiary agencies, their officers, agents, employees and servants from all claims, suits or actions that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the FIRST PARTY brought for, or on account of, injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the performance of any work required by this agreement by FIRST PARTY, its officers, agents, employees and servants.

Nothing herein shall be construed to require the FIRST PARTY to defend, indemnify or hold harmless the CITY, its subsidiary agencies, their officers, agents, employees and servants against any responsibility to liability in contravention of Section 2782.8 of the California Civil Code.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Page G-3.9
5 CC Rev 20210301

11. INSURANCE
A. FIRST PARTY shall not commence work under this agreement until all insurance required under this Section has been obtained and such insurance has been approved by the City, with certificates of insurance evidencing the required coverage.

B. There shall be a contractual liability endorsement extending the FIRST PARTY's coverage to include the contractual liability assumed by the FIRST PARTY pursuant to this agreement. These certificates shall specify or be endorsed to provide that thirty (30) days' notice must be given, in writing, to the CITY, at the address shown in Section 9, of any pending cancellation of the policy. FIRST PARTY shall notify CITY of any pending change to the policy. All certificates shall be filed with the City.

1. Workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance:

The FIRST PARTY shall have in effect during the entire life of this agreement workers' compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance providing full statutory coverage. In signing this agreement, the FIRST PARTY makes the following certification, required by Section 18161 of the California Labor Code: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of the Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement" (not required if the FIRST PARTY is a Sole Proprietor).

2. Liability insurance:

The FIRST PARTY shall take out and maintain during the life of this agreement such Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage Liability Insurance (Commercial General Liability Insurance) on an occurrence basis as shall protect it while performing work covered by this agreement from any and all claims for damages for bodily injury, including accidental death, as well as claims for property damage which may arise from the FIRST PARTY's operations under this agreement, whether such operations be by FIRST PARTY or by any sub-consultant or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. The amounts of such insurance shall be not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and one million dollars ($1,000,000) in aggregate, or one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit bodily injury and property damage for each occurrence. FIRST PARTY shall provide the CITY with acceptable evidence of coverage, including a copy of all declarations of coverage exclusions. FIRST PARTY shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance pursuant to this agreement in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for each accident combined single limit or not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for any one (1) person, and one million dollars ($1,000,000) for any one (1) accident, and Three Hundred Thousand Dollars, ($300,000) property damage.

3. Professional liability insurance:

FIRST PARTY shall maintain a policy of professional liability insurance, protecting it against claims arising out of the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of FIRST PARTY pursuant to this agreement, in the amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in the aggregate. Said professional liability insurance is to be kept in force for not less than one (1) year after completion of services described herein.

C. CITY and its subsidiary agencies, and their officers, agents, employees and servants shall be named as additional insured on any such policies of Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability Insurance, (but not for the Professional Liability and workers' compensation), which shall also contain a provision that the insurance afforded thereby to the CITY, its subsidiary agencies, and their officers, agents, employees, and servants shall be primary insurance to the full limits of liability of the policy, and that if the CITY, its subsidiary agencies and their officers and employees have other insurance against a loss covered by a policy, such other insurance shall be excess insurance only.

D. In the event of the breach of any provision of this Section, or in the event any notice is received which indicates any required insurance coverage will be diminished or canceled, CITY, at its option, may, notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement to the contrary, immediately declare a material breach of this agreement and suspend all further work pursuant to this agreement.

E. Before the execution of this agreement, any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by CITY.

Page G-3.10
6 CC Rev 20210301

12. PAYMENT OF PERMITS/LICENSES
Contractor shall obtain any license, permit, or approval if necessary from any agency whatsoever for the work/services to be performed, at his/her own expense, before commencement of said work/services or forfeit any right to compensation under this agreement.

13. RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY FOR SUB-CONSULTANTS AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS Approval of or by CITY shall not constitute nor be deemed a release of responsibility and liability of FIRST PARTY or its sub-consultants and/or subcontractors for the accuracy and competency of the designs, working drawings, specifications or other documents and work, nor shall its approval be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility by CITY for any defect in the designs, working drawings, specifications or other documents prepared by FIRST PARTY or its sub-consultants and/or subcontractors.

14. OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT
Work products of FIRST PARTY for this project, which are delivered under this agreement or which are developed, produced and paid for under this agreement, shall become the property of CITY. The reuse of FIRST PARTY’s work products by City for purposes other than intended by this agreement shall be at no risk to FIRST PARTY.

15. REPRESENTATION OF WORK
Any and all representations of FIRST PARTY, in connection with the work performed or the information supplied, shall not apply to any other project or site, except the project described in Exhibit "A" or as otherwise specified in Exhibit "A."

16. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. CITY may give thirty (30) days written notice to FIRST PARTY, terminating this agreement in whole or in part at any time, either for CITY's convenience or because of the failure of FIRST PARTY to fulfill its contractual obligations or because of FIRST PARTY's change of its assigned personnel on the project without prior CITY approval. Upon receipt of such notice, FIRST PARTY shall:

1. Immediately discontinue all services affected (unless the notice directs otherwise); and

2. Deliver to the CITY all data, drawings, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries, and such other information and materials as may have been accumulated or produced by FIRST PARTY in performing work under this agreement, whether completed or in process.

B. If termination is for the convenience of CITY, an equitable adjustment in the contract price shall be made, but no amount shall be allowed for anticipated profit on unperformed services.

C. If the termination is due to the failure of FIRST PARTY to fulfill its agreement, CITY may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by agreement or otherwise. In such case, FIRST PARTY shall be liable to CITY for any reasonable additional cost occasioned to the CITY thereby.

D. If, after notice of termination for failure to fulfill agreement obligations, it is determined that FIRST PARTY had not so failed, the termination shall be deemed to have been effected for the convenience of the CITY. In such event, adjustment in the contract price shall be made as provided in Paragraph B of this Section.

E. The rights and remedies of the CITY provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this agreement.

F. Subject to the foregoing provisions, the CITY shall pay FIRST PARTY for services performed and expenses incurred through the termination date.

Page G-3.11
7 CC Rev 20210301

17. INSPECTION OF WORK
It is FIRST PARTY's obligation to make the work product available for CITY's inspections and periodic reviews upon request by CITY.

18. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
It shall be the responsibility of FIRST PARTY to comply with all State and Federal Laws applicable to the work and services provided pursuant to this agreement, including but not limited to compliance with prevailing wage laws, if applicable.

19. BREACH OF AGREEMENT
A. This agreement is governed by applicable federal and state statutes and regulations. Any material deviation by FIRST PARTY for any reason from the requirements thereof, or from any other provision of this agreement, shall constitute a breach of this agreement and may be cause for termination at the election of the CITY.

B. The CITY reserves the right to waive any and all breaches of this agreement, and any such waiver shall not be deemed a waiver of any previous or subsequent breaches. In the event the CITY chooses to waive a particular breach of this agreement, it may condition same on payment by FIRST PARTY of actual damages occasioned by such breach of agreement.

20. SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this agreement are severable. If any portion of this agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the mutual consent of the parties.

21. CAPTIONS
The captions of this agreement are for convenience and reference only and shall not define, explain, modify, limit, exemplify, or aid in the interpretation, construction, or meaning of any provisions of this agreement.

22. LITIGATION OR ARBITRATION
In the event that suit or arbitration is brought to enforce the terms of this agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The Dispute Resolution provisions are set forth on Exhibit "B," ‘Dispute Resolution’ attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

23. RETENTION OF RECORDS
Contractor shall maintain all required records for three years after the City makes final payment and all other pending matters are closed, and shall be subject to the examination and /or audit of the City, a federal agency, and the state of California.

24. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This agreement shall remain in effect for the period of March 1, 2023 through August 31, 2023 unless extended, amended, or terminated in writing by CITY.

Page G-3.12
8 CC Rev 20210301

25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This document constitutes the sole agreement of the parties hereto relating to said project and states the rights, duties, and obligations of each party as of the document's date. Any prior agreement, promises, negotiations, or representations between parties not expressly stated in this document are not binding.

All modifications, amendments, or waivers of the terms of this agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate representatives of the parties to this agreement.

26. STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTEREST
Consultants, as defined by Section 18701 of the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, are required to file a Statement of Economic Interests with 30 days of approval of a contract services agreement with the City of its subdivisions, on an annual basis thereafter during the term of the contract, and within 30 days of completion of the contract.

Based upon review of the Consultant’s Scope of Work and determination by the City Manager, it is determined that Consultant IS NOT required to file a Statement of Economic Interest. A statement of Economic Interest shall be filed with the City Clerk’s office no later than 30 days after the execution of the agreement.

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

FOR FIRST PARTY:

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

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

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

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk Date
Page G-3.13
9 CC Rev 20210301
EXHIBIT “A” – SCOPE OF SERVICES
A1.SCOPE OF WORK
FIRST PARTY agrees to provide consultant services for CITY’s Community Development Department. In the event of any discrepancy between any of the terms of the FIRST PARTY’s proposal and those of this agreement, the version most favorable to the CITY shall prevail. FIRST PARTY shall provide the following services:

Provide general consultant services for projects as determined by the CITY. The detailed scope of work for each task the CITY assigns the consultant shall be referred to as Exhibit A -1, which will become part of this agreement. A notice to proceed will be issued separately for each separate scope of work agreed to between the CITY and FIRST PARTY.

FIRST PARTY agrees to perform these services as directed by the CITY in accordance with the standards of its profession and CITY’s satisfaction.

A2.COMPENSATION
CITY hereby agrees to pay FIRST PARTY at the rates to be negotiated between FIRST PARTY and CITY as detailed in Exhibit A-1. The actual charges shall be based upon (a) FIRST PARTY’s standard hourly rate for various classifications of personnel; (b) all fees, salaries and expenses to be paid to engineers, consultants, independent contractors, or agents employed by FIRST PARTY; and shall (c) include reimbursement for mileage, courier and plan reproduction. The total fee for each separate Scope of Work agreed to between the CITY and FIRST PARTY shall not exceed the amount shown in Exhibit A-1.

FIRST PARTY shall be paid within thirty (30) days after approval of billing for work completed and approved by the CITY. Invoices shall be submitted containing all information contained in Section A5 below. In no event shall FIRST PARTY be entitled to compensation for extra work unless an approved change order, or other written authorization describing the extra work and payment terms, has been executed by CITY before the commencement of the work.

A3.SCHEDULE OF WORK
FIRST PARTY’S proposed schedule for the various services required will be set forth in Exhibit A-1.

A4.CHANGES IN WORK -- EXTRA WORK
In addition to services described in Section A1, the parties may from time to time agree in writing that FIRST PARTY, for additional compensation, shall perform additional services including but not limited to:
• Change in the services because of changes in scope of the work. • Additional tasks not specified herein as required by the CITY.

The CITY and FIRST PARTY shall agree in writing to any changes in compensation and/or changes in FIRST PARTY’s services before the commencement of any work. If FIRST PARTY deems work he/she has been directed to perform is beyond the scope of this agreement and constitutes extra work, FIRST PARTY shall immediately inform the CITY in writing of the fact. The CITY shall make a determination as to whether such work is in fact beyond the scope of this agreement and constitutes extra work. In the event that the CITY determines that such work does constitute extra work, it shall provide compensation to the FIRST PARTY in accordance with an agreed cost that is fair and equitable. This cost will be mutually agreed upon by the CITY and FIRST PARTY. A supplemental agreement providing for such compensation for extra work shall be negotiated between the CITY and the FIRST PARTY. Such supplemental agreement shall be executed by the FIRST PARTY and may be approved by the City Manager upon recommendation of the Assistant Community Development Director.

Page G-3.14
10 CC Rev 20210301
A5.BILLINGS
FIRST PARTY’s bills shall include the following information: A brief description of services performed, project title and the agreement number; the date the services were performed; the number of hours spent and by whom; the current contract amount; the current invoice amount; Except as specifically authorized by CITY, FIRST PARTY shall not bill CITY for duplicate services performed by more than one person. In no event shall FIRST PARTY submit any billing for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided in Section A2.

The expenses of any office, including furniture and equipment rental, supplies, salaries of employees, telephone calls, postage, advertising, and all other expenses incurred by FIRST PARTY in the performances of this agreement shall be incurred at the FIRST PARTY’s discretion. Such expenses shall be FIRST PARTY’s sole financial responsibility.

Page G-3.15
11 CC Rev 20210301
EXHIBIT “B” - DISPUTE RESOLUTION
B1.0 All claims, disputes and other matters in question between the FIRST PARTY and CITY arising out of, or relating to, the contract documents or the breach thereof, shall be resolved as follows:

B2.0 Mediation
B2.1 The parties shall attempt in good faith first to mediate such dispute and use their best efforts to reach agreement on the matters in dispute. After a written demand for non-binding mediation, which shall specify in detail the facts of the dispute, and within ten (10) days from the date of delivery of the demand, the matter shall be submitted to a mutually agreeable mediator. The Mediator shall hear the matter and provide an informal opinion and advice, none of which shall be binding upon the parties, but is expected by the parties to help resolve the dispute. Said informal opinion and advice shall be submitted to the parties within twenty (20) days following written demand for mediation. The Mediator’s fee shall be shared equally by the parties. If the dispute has not been resolved, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with Paragraph B3.1.

B3.0 Arbitration
B3.1 Any dispute between the parties that is to be resolved by arbitration as provided in Paragraph B2.1 shall be settled and decided by arbitration conducted by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, as then in effect, except as provided below. Any such arbitration shall be held before three arbitrators who shall be selected by mutual agreement of the parties; if agreement is not reached on the selection of the arbitrators within fifteen (15) days, then such arbitrator(s) shall be appointed by the presiding Judge of the court of jurisdiction of the agreement.

B3.2 The provisions of the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association shall apply and govern such arbitration, subject, however to the following:

B3.3 Any demand for arbitration shall be writing and must be made within a reasonable time after the claim, dispute or other matter in question as arisen. In no event shall the demand for arbitration be made after the date that institution of legal or equitable proceedings based on such claim, dispute or other matter would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

B3.4 The arbitrator or arbitrators appointed must be former or retired judges, or attorneys at law with last ten (10) years’ experience in construction litigation.

B3.5 All proceedings involving the parties shall be reported by a certified shorthand court reporter, and written transcripts of the proceedings shall be prepared and made available to the parties.

B3.6 The arbitrator or arbitrators must be made within and provide to the parties factual findings and the reasons on which the decisions of the arbitrator or arbitrators is based.

B3.7 Final decision by the arbitrator or arbitrators must be made within ninety (90) days from the date of the arbitration proceedings are initiated.

B3.8 The prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert and non-expert witness costs and expenses, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the arbitration, unless the arbitrator or arbitrators for good cause determine otherwise.

B3.9 Costs and fees of the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be borne by the non-prevailing party, unless the arbitrator or arbitrators for good cause determine otherwise.

B3.10 The award or decision of the arbitrator or arbitrators, which may include equitable relief, shall be final, and judgment may be entered on it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction over the matter.

Page G-3.16
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
510-834-4455
www.rinconconsultants.com
November 28, 2022
Fahteen Khan, Associate Planner
Corinna D. Sandmeier, Acting Principal Planner
City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, California 94025
Subject: Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project
Dear Ms. Khan and Ms. Sandmeier:

Rincon Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CE) Report pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332 for the proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project (project). Our team has a proven track record of successfully completing CEQA exemption reports, including Class 32 CE eligibility documentation, as well as more comprehensive CEQA documentation, for many similar projects throughout the greater Bay Area and the state. We pride ourselves on our ability to prepare clear and thorough environmental documents and to develop and implement innovative approaches and solutions to planning and environmental issues. In fact, as we detail in the General Approach Section in our proposal, we believe that we are offering the City a streamlined, efficient, and legally defensible option for CEQA compliance.

At Rincon, we are proud of our team’s ability to work effectively with City staff, decision-makers, and community groups to help ensure positive outcomes for the public agencies we support. We believe that our experience with CEQA statewide and our experience working on projects in Menlo Park and throughout San Mateo County are critical and give us a unique understanding of and sensitivity to the broad range of issues that will be important for the success of this project.

Leading the team as Principal-in-Charge will be Abe Leider, AICP CEP. He has 22 years of experience directing urban planning projects, including planning and policy document preparation and CEQA analyses.

Leo Mena will serve as project manager in charge of day-to-day oversight and will serve as the City’s primary contact. He has eight years of experience in CEQA analysis and project management, including on several projects in the City of Menlo Park, including the 1075 O’Brien and 1125 O’Brien EIR projects, and is valued by his clients as a clear communicator that collaborates closely with his team to resolve problems as they arise.

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Hexagon) under the leadership of Gary Black will be a part of Rincon’s team and will prepare the transportation impact analysis. Hexagon has worked on several projects with the City and are familiar with Menlo Park processes.

Thank you for considering Rincon Consultants for this assignment. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions about this proposal or need additional information on our qualifications or proposed approach to the work program.

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Leo Mena | Project Manager
[email protected]
Abe Leider, AICP CEP | Principal
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT B Page G-3.17
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project Rincon Consultants, Inc. Page 2
Richard Daulton | Principal/Vice President
Email: [email protected]
Authorized to contractually obligate and negotiate
on behalf of Rincon Consultants, Inc.

This proposal is valid for 90 days.

Page G-3.18
Table of Contents
Rincon Consultants, Inc. i
Table of Contents
A. Project Team........................................................................................................................................... 1 A.1 About Rincon.............................................................................................................................. 1 A.2 Team Organization ..................................................................................................................... 2 A.3 Resumes for Key Personnel........................................................................................................ 2 B. Project Understanding and Approach ...................................................................................................... 6 B.1 Project Understanding ............................................................................................................... 6 B.2 General Approach....................................................................................................................... 6 C. Proposed Work Plan ................................................................................................................................ 8 C.1 Task 1: Identify CEQA Document................................................................................................. 8 C.2 Task 2: Prepare a Class 32 Infill Exemption Document.............................................................. 12 C.3 Task 3: Project Management .................................................................................................... 14 D. Project Cost and Schedule......................................................................................................................15 E. Rate Schedule ........................................................................................................................................16 F. Proposed Program Components............................................................................................................ 18 G. Other Pertinent Information .................................................................................................................. 18 G.1 Approach to Quality Control...................................................................................................... 18 G.2 Innovative Consulting ............................................................................................................... 19 G.3 Digital Accessibility (Optional Task) .......................................................................................... 19 H. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion .............................................................................................................. 19 H.1 Diversity within Rincon ............................................................................................................. 19 H.2 How the Projects We Work on Make a Difference......................................................................20 Appendices
Attachment A Key Personnel Resumes
Attachment B Project Cost Estimate
Attachment C Preliminary Project Schedule
Attachment D Hexagon Scope of Work
Page G-3.19
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project ii
This page intentionally left blank.

Page G-3.20
Project Team
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 1
A. Project Team
A.1 About Rincon
Rincon Consultants, Inc. is a multi-disciplinary environmental science, planning, and engineering consulting firm that provides quality professional services to government and industry. Our principal service is to provide environmental support and scientific research to create and sustain innovative solutions to natural resources, sustainability, and environmental impacts. Rincon prides itself on the considerable depth of its staff, which includes certified urban and environmental planners, environmental scientists and engineers, climate planning and sustainability experts, accredited LEED professionals, noise and air quality experts, geologists, biologists, and cultural and historical resource specialists. Our approach to every project is centered upon the design and development of innovative solutions that respond to our clients’ specific needs in a cost-effective manner.

Rincon’s corporate culture focuses on providing environmental consulting services in a manner that is beneficial to both the environment and our client’s needs. When hired, we perceive ourselves as an extension of our client’s team and function with the best interests of the client in mind. By managing each project with a focus on three primary objectives – economic efficiency, technical excellence, and sustainable approach – we can provide superior service that efficiently and effectively meets the needs of our clients.

Services
We have categorized our environmental consulting
services into six core areas:
• Environmental Sciences and Land Use Planning
• Biological Resources
• Water Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Site Assessment and Remediation
• Sustainability Services
We also maintain a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Graphics Communications group to enhance our
documents and support our data analyses for projects addressing issues in these service areas.

Subconsultant Team
Hexagon Transportation Inc. (Hexagon) was founded in 1998 in San Jose, California with the goal of providing top-quality, 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.

Legal Name:

Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Legal Form:

California “S” Corporation
Founded: 1994
Professional Staff: 400+
California Offices: 12
Core Values: Trusted, Fair,
Transparent, Accountable,
Disciplined, Entrepreneurial
Page G-3.21
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project 2 A.2 Team Organization
Illustrated below is the composition of our team.

A.3 Resumes for Key Personnel
Rincon has assembled a team of highly skilled environmental science and planning professionals who combine extensive technical qualifications and knowledge of CEQA with many years of experience working in the region. Brief bios for key team members are included on the following pages, and full resumes for each team member can be found in Attachment A.

Page G-3.22
Project Team
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 3
Rincon Team
Abe Leider, AICP CEP | Principal-in-Charge
Abe Leider has over 22 years of experience in long-range planning, development review, and performing environmental impact analyses for public and private infrastructure and development projects under CEQA. As manager of Rincon’s Oakland office, he has overseen the preparation of Class 32 CEs, MNDs, and EIRs for institutional, residential, commercial, and industrial projects throughout California, with a focus on San Francisco Bay Area projects. Mr. Leider is experienced at providing professional planning support in all facets of the project review and permitting process to small, mid-sized, and large jurisdictions throughout California. His recent experience includes managing Rincon’s on-call planning and CEQA work for numerous cities on the Peninsula and throughout the greater Bay Area, including the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Redwood City, San Jose, Millbrae, San Leandro, Hayward, and Berkeley, among others. Select experience is listed below. • Principal-in-Charge, San Mateo County Parks - Flood County Park Landscape Plan EIR • Principal-in-Charge, City of Palo Alto – On-Call Planning and CEQA Services – Multiple Projects • Principal-in-Charge, City of South San Francisco – On-Call Planning and CEQA Services – Multiple Projects
• Principal-in-Charge, City of Redwood City – Mixed-Use: Live/Work and Emergency Shelter Zoning Amendment Project EIR Addendum
• Principal-in-Charge, City of Mountain View – On-Call Environmental Services – Multiple Projects Leo Mena | Project Manager
Leo Mena is a Senior Environmental Planner and Project Manager with eight years of experience conducting CEQA and NEPA environmental evaluations. Leo is an adept analyst and writer that has prepared many Class 32 CEs, MNDs, and EIRs.

Leo works on environmental documents for a diverse range of projects including, commuter rail; bike trails; roadway repairs; residential, commercial, and mixeduse development; specific plans; and energy projects. He has experience working with California state agencies and local agencies, including the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, California High Speed Rail Authority, the City of Menlo Park, the City of Burlingame, the City of Santa Cruz, City of Milpitas, and others.

As a Project Manager, Leo uses his skills of clear communication, organization, and attention to detail to keep projects moving forward and to identify and resolve potential issues before they become a problem on schedule or budget.
• Project Manager, City of Menlo Park –1125 O’Brien Drive EIR • Project Manager, City of Menlo Park – 1075 O’Brien/CSBio EIR • Project Manager, City of Menlo Park – Commonwealth EIR • Project Manager, City of Burlingame – 1868 Ogden Drive Project EIR • Project Manager, City of Burlingame – Class 32 CEs for Adrian Court Mixed-Use Project, 128 Lorton Avenue Project, 601 California Drive Project, 30 Ingold Road Project, and 1766 El Camino Real Page G-3.23
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project 4 Josh Carman, INCE-USA | Noise/Air Quality
Josh Carman has over 20 years of experience in the field of acoustics and air quality and has participated in the environmental review and monitoring process for a wide variety of projects in California, Washington, Nevada, and New York.

Josh prepares noise, air quality, greenhouse gas, and community health risk assessments for environmental impact studies (CEQA/NEPA) and technical studies using federal, state, and local guidelines and methodology. His experience includes complex project- and program-level analyses of general plan updates; specific plans; mixed-use development; traffic, transit and rail; vibrationsensitive; industrial; infrastructure, utilities, and telecommunications; long-term and remote construction noise and vibration monitoring; and underwater construction (e.g., pile driving) projects. He is certified in the use of the FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM), SoundPLAN, and the US EPA AERMOD air dispersion model. Select experience is listed below. • Senior Air Quality Specialist, City of Cupertino – Vallco Special Area Specific Plan EIR • Noise Specialist, Sonoma County – Forestville Downtown Park Environmental Noise Assessment • Senior Noise Specialist, City of Redwood City – Broadway Plaza EIR • Senior Noise Specialist, University of California – UC Berkeley 2021 Long Range Development Plan EIR • Senior Noise Specialist, City of Hayward – Hayward Downtown Specific Plan EIR JulieAnn Murphy | Historic Preservation
Ms. Murphy is an Architectural Historian with over 10 years of experience. Her work includes archival research, historic resource evaluations, and review of projects for the conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Her professional experience includes the preparation of nominations for the National Register of Historic Places. Ms.

Murphy has extensive experience preparing applications for the Federal Historic Tax Credit program as well as several state preservation incentive programs, including the Mills Act. Ms. Murphy has experience preparing documentation in support of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, NEPA, CEQA, and local ordinances. She meets requirements in the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History and History. Select experience is listed below. • Architectural Historian, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation – 2550 Irving Street Environmental Assessment
• Architectural Historian, California Housing Finance Agency – Shiloh Terrace Apartments Project • Architectural Historian, Town of Windsor – Estates at Ross Ranch Project • Architectural Historian, City of Berkeley – Ashby and North BART Stations Historic Resource Evaluations • Architectural Historian, City of Palo Alto – Private Residence Page G-3.24
Project Team
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 5
Subconsultant Team
Gary Black, AICP | Traffic/Transportation Studies | Hexagon Transportation Consultants 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 Menlo Park, 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. Select experience is listed below. • Transportation Lead, City of Menlo Park – Willow Village EIR • Transportation Lead, Foothill College – Campus Traffic Studies • Transportation Lead, For offices, hotels, restaurants, residential subdivisions, apartments, schools, warehouses, industrial complexes, and mixed-use developments in Menlo Park, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Milpitas, Los Gatos, Fremont, Monterey, Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, Los Altos, Santa Rosa, Napa, Hayward, Bakersfield, Richmond, Concord, and Cupertino – Site Traffic Analyses
Ollie Zhou, TE | Traffic/Transportation Studies | Hexagon Transportation Consultants Since January 2014, Mr. Zhou has managed a large variety of traffic engineering and transportation planning projects for both the public and private sectors throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area. These projects mainly include travel demand model validation and application, VMT analysis, general plan updates and area plans, and traffic impact studies. Mr. Zhou is experienced in managing large-scale projects and areawide plans with prolonged schedules and complicated work scopes. Mr. Zhou mainly utilizes the CUBE software package for travel demand model applications, and manage a variety of projects conducted with Synchro, SimTraffic, Vistro, TRAFFIX software. Select experience is listed below.
• Traffic Engineer, City of Menlo Park – Willow Village EIR • Traffic Engineer, Menlo Park Citywide Model – Travel Demand Forecasting Model Development and Application
• Traffic Engineer, City of Menlo Park – Housing Element Update Vehicle-Miles Traveled Analysis Page G-3.25
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project 6 B. Project Understanding and Approach
B.1 Project Understanding
The 1030 O’Brien Project (project) site currently
includes four parcels (980 O’Brien, 1010 O’Brien,
1020 O’Brien, and 1030 O’Brien) and the project
site has a total area of 3.58 acres. As part of the
project, the two buildings at 1020 O’Brien, and
1030 O’Brien would be demolished while the two
buildings at 980 O’Brien and 1010 O’Brien would
remain. It should be noted that all project
requirements, including density, parking, and
outdoor space, are calculated across the entire
project site, which includes the four parcels.

The development proposal for the project
contemplates a new three-story structure for
research and development (R&D) uses, as
permitted in the LS zoning district. The ground
floor would include covered outdoor parking, including surface parking; building service and loading spaces; the main entry lobby; commercial space with public-facing uses such as food service or fitness; and landscaped outdoor space. Levels 2 and 3 would include tenant space dedicated to life science and related uses. Outdoor space in the form of elevated terraces would be located at Level 3. The roof would host mechanical equipment, screened from view, and would be unoccupied. The project would also include improving site areas around 980 O’Brien and 1010 O’Brien. In addition, the project would include streetscape improvements in front of all lots.

B.2 General Approach
Rincon’s approach will be to identify the type of CEQA document that should be prepared early in the process by reviewing the proposed project in light of the CEQA Guidelines, successful City processes on prior projects, the requirements in the 2017 City of East Palo Alto v. City of Menlo Park settlement agreement, and the potential impacts of the project.

The settlement agreement identifies that Menlo Park will prepare an EIR for any project located in the Office (O), Life Science (LS) or Residential Mixed Use (R-MU) district that exceeds 250,000 net new square feet and would require a use permit, that proposes bonus level development, that proposes a master plan project, or that may have a significant environmental impact. The project is zoned as LS; however, the project would not exceed 250,000 square feet. Neither the RFP nor the project website identify that the project is proposing bonus level development and the project would not be a master plan project. As such, an EIR is not required pursuant to the settlement agreement and would only be required if the project were to result in a significant unavoidable impact.

There are multiple CEQA options available for the project, including the following:
• Class 32 Infill Exemption (CE)
• CEQA Document using CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning
• Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Environmental Impact Report
Page G-3.26
Project Understanding and Approach
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 7
Of these four options, it is Rincon’s opinion that the Class 32 CE has the most advantages. This is a deviation from what was identified in the RFP; however, Rincon believes that this is the best option for both the Project Sponsor and the City. Class 32 CE documents are more efficient for eligible projects because there are less requirements. For example, public review is not necessary for Class 32 CEs, and neither is outreach through AB 52. Furthermore, Class 32 CEs provide greater legal defensibility than an IS-MND (i.e., Class 32 Infill Exemptions are not subject to the “fair argument” standard, like IS-MNDs).

Because the Class 32 CE appears to be the best CEQA option, Rincon’s approach will be to first conduct studies to determine if the project qualifies for a Class 32 CE. The studies that will be conducted to determine whether a Class 32 CE are summarized under Task 1 of our Proposed Work Plan (see below). The advantage of this approach is that if it is determined that the project may not qualify for a Class 32 CE, then those same studies could still be used for a more involved CEQA document.

If it is determined that a Class 32 Infill Exemption cannot be used, this would be because the analysis indicates that there is a significant and unavoidable impact or a significant impact for which mitigation is needed for one of the topics requiring evaluation under Class 32. In addition, based on Rincon’s Project Manager’s experience working on nearby projects (1075 O’Brien and 1125 O’Brien) with the City, Rincon expects that an Initial Study would find that a Focused EIR or IS-MND would need to be prepared (due to new mitigation being needed that was not included in the ConnectMenlo EIR). Rincon expects that a Focused EIR or IS-MND would be needed if it is determined that a Class 32 Infill Exemption cannot be used. If this scenario happens, then Rincon can incorporate the work done in Task 1 to prepare the Focused EIR or an IS-MND.

Page G-3.27
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project 8 C. Proposed Work Plan
The following proposed work plan provides a step-by-step breakdown of the tasks to be carried out.

Estimates for personnel time allotted for each task are included in Attachment B.

C.1 Task 1: Identify CEQA Document
Task 1.1 Project Kick-Off Meeting and Site Visit
The project kickoff meeting will convene City staff, staff from the Project Sponsor if appropriate, and the Rincon team to introduce the project, clarify the scope of work and process, establish methods of communication, review preliminary data needs, and refine the project schedule. During the kickoff meeting, details of project schedule and deliverables will be determined. The project kickoff meeting will occur inperson or virtually, at the discretion of the City. If the project kickoff is held in-person, the kickoff meeting will be followed by a site visit. If the kickoff meeting is held virtually, Rincon will visit the site separately to observe and photo-document existing conditions and context.

Deliverables
• Kickoff Meeting Agenda, Updated Schedule, and Meeting Minutes. Please note that a preliminary schedule is shown in Attachment C of this proposal.

Assumptions
• Kickoff Meeting will be held in person, followed by a site visit. Depending on the situation related to Covid-19, the kickoff meeting can transition into a virtual meeting.

Task 1.2 Project Description and Data Needs
Rincon will prepare a Draft Project Description based on the latest Plans and documentation provided by the Project Sponsor and City and will provide an electronic copy (Microsoft Word) for review by staff prior to commencing analysis. As a basis for the environmental analysis to follow, a clear and thorough description of the project is a critical first step in the CEQA process. Textual, tabular, and graphic presentation (with city and/or planning team-prepared maps, plans, renderings, or diagrams) will be included as necessary to facilitate a thorough understanding of the proposed plan and its potential implementation. In addition, Rincon will review the existing information provided by the Project Sponsor, as well as the City Ordinances, General Plan, Zoning Code, and other CEQA documents prepared by the City. After review of those documents, Rincon will assemble a comprehensive list of data needs for the City to provide, in coordination with the Project Sponsor.

Deliverables
• Project Description (Microsoft Word)
• Data Needs (electronic format)
Assumptions
• The project schedule is based on the timely receipt of data required for the environmental analysis.

Page G-3.28
Proposed Work Plan
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 9
Task 1.3 Transportation Impact Analysis
Hexagon Transportation Consultants will prepare the TIA. The scope of work for the preparation of the TIA is included in Attachment D.

Deliverables
• Draft and Final TIA in electronic format.

Assumptions
• All deliverables will be provided and received electronically, no printed copies.

Task 1.4 Historical Resources Analysis
A Class 32 CE may not be used if the project would result in a substantial adverse change of a historical resource, which includes qualifying built environment and archaeological resources. Rincon therefore proposes to prepare a streamlined cultural resources study to confirm if the project would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Rincon will conduct a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) search of the project site and a 0.5-mile radius surrounding it to identify previously recorded cultural resources and cultural resource studies that have previously conducted in the vicinity of the project site. Along with archival and background research, the CHRIS search will provide the basis for the cultural resources sensitivity analysis that will be presented in the study.

Upon completion of the CHRIS records search, a Rincon cultural resources specialist will survey the project site to determine if it contains qualifying historical resources. We understand the project site contains four buildings which were constructed prior to 1977 and which have not been previously evaluated for historical resources eligibility. Pursuant to guidance from the California Office of Historic Preservation, properties over 45 years may be considered for historical resources eligibility. Rincon understands however that there are no project actions proposed for the two buildings at 980 and 1010 O’Brien Drive; accordingly, historical resources evaluations will be limited to the two buildings proposed to be demolished at 1020 and 1030 O’Brien Drive. Rincon will record and evaluate both properties on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series forms. The evaluation will provide an architectural description of each property and present an assessment for national, state, and local historic significance. Rincon will provide preliminary findings to the City prior to finalizing the technical memorandum, which will present methods and findings and will include the DPR 523 series forms as an attachment.

Deliverables
• Draft and Final Historical Resources Technical Memorandum (electronic format).

Assumptions
• The CHRIS search will not exceed a direct expense of $750. • Record search requests are typically fulfilled within four weeks. If the results of the record search will have schedule or budget ramifications, it will be communicated to City staff in a timely manner to effectively maintain the project schedule and allow the City to manage project risk effectively. • This scope does not include a Sacred Lands File Search, outreach to Native American tribal contacts or assistance with Assembly Bill 52 consultation.
• All deliverables will be provided and received electronically, no printed copies.

Page G-3.29
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project 10 Task 1.5 Air Quality Report
Air Quality
The Air Quality analysis will consider both temporary construction and long-term operational emissions. The analysis will include the following tasks:
• Summarize the existing air quality conditions in the air basin using data for nearby air monitoring stations available from the California Air Resources Board and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
• Calculate construction and operation emissions of criteria pollutants using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and evaluate the significance of any air quality impacts. • Evaluate the potential for the project to cause odor impacts to off-site uses. • Evaluate localized air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (see the Health Risk Assessment section below).
• Evaluate the project’s compliance with applicable air quality plans.

The Air Quality Report will contain the following information: (1) an explanation of study methodology; (2) a discussion of the existing air quality conditions and regulatory framework; and (3) and a summary of impacts.

Optional Task: Health Risk Assessment
According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, construction of individual projects lasting longer than two months or placed within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors could potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and therefore could result in potentially significant risk impacts. These future projects could exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of an increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million and an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 Hazard Index (Chronic or Acute). Rincon will work with the City to determine if a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is needed, based on the project/construction information provided by the Project Sponsor. As an optional task, Rincon can prepare an HRA, if it is determined that one is needed.

If this optional task is authorized, the construction HRA will rely upon the CalEEMod run, as well as sitespecific dispersion modeling, which will be prepared in compliance with the BAAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol (2020) and other applicable guidance, as appropriate. The construction HRA will consider emission of diesel particulate matter and fugitive particulate matter (PM2.5) associated with both on-site emissions from construction equipment and off-site hauling emissions, as appropriate. Rincon will determine average annual concentrations during the construction period at the nearest sensitive receptors.

Chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations will be based on standardized equations from the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Guidance (OEHHA) (2015). Rincon will use either in-house spreadsheets or the revised Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP 2) available from California Air Resources Board. If health risks are found to exceed BAAQMD significance criteria, Rincon will recommend project design features (such as Tier 4 construction equipment) to reduce the severity of health risk impacts to off-site receptors. Additionally, Rincon will use BAAQMD screening tools to evaluate cumulative health risk at the maximally exposed individual receptor, in accordance with BAAQMD health risk guidelines. The methodology and results of the construction HRA would be included in the Air Quality Report.

In addition, operation of the project could generate toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions that could result in health impacts for local sensitive receptors. If needed, Rincon will conduct a screening level health risk assessment that will identify the individual screening risk associated with operation of the project facilities.

The HRA will focus on chronic, carcinogenic, and non-carcinogenic risks in accordance with guidelines developed by the OEHHA and the BAAQMD. The provided site plan will be used to determine the location of stationary sources such as backup emergency generators and boilers. It is assumed that the project would Page G-3.30
Proposed Work Plan
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 11
generate fewer than 100 diesel truck trips per day and fewer than 40 trucks with diesel transport refrigeration units (TRUs). No dispersion modeling is proposed to assess operational health risk impacts.

Deliverables
• Draft and Air Quality Report (electronic format).

Assumptions
• The City and/or Project Sponsor will provide site and grading plans. • The City and/or Project Sponsor will provide construction equipment, phasing, and hauling volumes. A data request will be sent to the project applicant. Unknown inputs can be supplemented with CalEEMod defaults for a project of this type and size.
• All deliverables will be provided and received electronically, no printed copies.

Task 1.6 Noise and Vibration Analysis
The Noise and Vibration analysis will be conducted in accordance with City of Menlo Park guidelines, standards, and ordinances. The analysis will consider both temporary construction and long-term operational noise from the project. The noise and vibration analysis will include the following tasks:
• Rincon will conduct up to two short-term (15 minute) noise measurements and one long-term (24-hour+) noise measurements in the project area to characterize the existing ambient noise environment. It should be noted that the primary noise source in the project area is vehicular traffic on Willow Road. • Rincon will quantify and address construction noise and vibration from implementation of the project, based on construction information (proposed equipment types and duration) to be provided by the Project Sponsor. If specific construction information is not available, assumptions can be developed by Rincon for a project of this type and size using the air quality model defaults. • Rincon will address traffic noise impacts qualitatively based on the less than significant impact finding in the ConnectMenlo EIR.
• Rincon will prepare an analysis of the potential for on-site noise generators (e.g., mechanical equipment, truck loading) to exceed City standards at nearby sensitive receivers. Source noise levels for identified equipment will be obtained from equipment specification sheets provided by the Project Sponsor. If specific equipment has not been selected, Rincon can assist in the development of a list of typical equipment anticipated to be included in the project based on previous experience. • Rincon will prepare the Noise and Vibration memorandum, which will contain the following information:
(1) an explanation of study methodology; (2) a discussion of the existing noise levels and local noise criteria; and (3) a summary of noise impacts.

Deliverables
• Draft and Final Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum (electronic format).

Assumptions
• The City and/or Project Sponsor will provide site will provide equipment specifications for proposed equipment and will assist in obtaining noise level data from manufacturers. • The City and/or Project Sponsor will provide site access for noise monitoring. • All deliverables will be provided and received electronically, no printed copies.

Page G-3.31
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project 12 Task 1.7 CEQA Document Recommmendation
When Tasks 1.1 through 1.6 are completed, Rincon’s Project Manager will review the results of the analyses and provide the City with a recommendation of the type of CEQA document that should be prepared in the form of a brief memorandum. The memorandum will include a recommendation, as well as rationale for that recommendation. This task also includes time for one call with the City to discuss the recommendation being made.

Deliverables
• CEQA document recommendation (electronic)
Assumptions
• One phone call to discuss CEQA Document recommendation.

C.2 Task 2: Prepare a Class 32 Infill Exemption Document Task 2.1 Project Description
Rincon will update the Project Description prepared under Task 1.2 if the applicant has modified the project in the interim, for example, based on information arising from the analysis in Tasks 1.3 through 1.6. Rincon will provide an electronic copy (Microsoft Word) for review by staff prior to beginning to write the documentation for the Class 32 Infill Exemption.

Deliverables
• Project Description (Microsoft Word)
Task 2.2 Draft Class 32 CE Report
Rincon will prepare the Draft Class 32 Infill Exemption Report (CE Report), which will begin with a discussion of how the project qualifies for a Class 32 Infill Exemption under CEQA and go on to address the criteria and environmental issue areas described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. The following information will be provided in the CE Report.
• Value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. To address criteria ‘c’ for the use of a categorical exemption, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, the analysis of biological resources will focus on the project site’s potential to include habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

Because of the urban context of the site and its surroundings and the limited amount of vegetation onsite, it is expected that the discussion will focus on impacts related to on-site and adjacent mature trees and their potential habitat value for sensitive birds or bat species. • Traffic, Noise, and Air Quality. To address criteria ‘d’ for the use of a categorical exemption, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, Rincon will summarize the analysis conducted under Tasks 1.3, 1.5, and

1.6. • Water Quality. To address criteria ‘d’ for the use of a categorical exemption, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, the water quality analysis will consider both temporary hydrological changes during construction and long-term changes in hydrology due to project operation. Operational changes are expected to be minimal. The water quality analysis will focus on existing requirements that would apply to the project and would be expected to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. A quantitative drainage or water quality study is not included in this scope of work. • Utilities and Public Services. To address criterion ‘e’ for the use of a categorical exemption, this analysis will confirm that the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Based on Page G-3.32
Proposed Work Plan
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 13
the nature of the site in an urban developed area, it is assumed that the site can be adequately served.

This analysis will be based on readily available information about public services and utilities from the City of Menlo Park and other service providers.

The report will also analyze whether the exceptions to categorical exemptions would apply (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2). The technical analysis will include the following:
• Cumulative impacts. A CE is inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant. Rincon will identify nearby projects, as well as the conclusions in the ConnectMenlo EIR and summarize their findings in the CE Report. • Significant effects due to unusual circumstances. A CE may not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Rincon will consider whether there are any unusual circumstances for the project and summarize their conclusions.
• Scenic highways. A CE may not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located near a scenic highway (the nearest designated scenic highway is Interstate-280) and no impact is expected. This information will be summarized in the CE Report.
• Hazardous Materials Sites (i.e., Cortese List). A CE may not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Rincon will review online databases (i.e., GeoTracker, EnviroStor) to confirm that the project is not on a Cortese List site. • Historical resources. A CE may not be used if the project would result in a substantial adverse change of a historical resource, which includes qualifying built environment and archaeological resources. To address this, Rincon will summarize the analysis conducted under Task 1.4.

Deliverables
• CE Report (MS Word Document)
Assumptions
• No significant impacts are identified throughout the analysis.

Task 2.3 Final Class 32 CE Report
Rincon will respond to one round of City comments on the Draft CE Report and prepare the Final CE Report.

Rincon assumes two rounds of revisions to the report based on a consolidated set of comments from the City. This task includes completion of the State Office of Planning and Research’s Notice of Exemption (NOE) form. We assume the Project Sponsor or City will be responsible for filing the Notice with the County Clerk, although Rincon can assist with this task if needed. The study will be transmitted digitally via e-mail. Rincon will provide up to 20 printed copies of the Final CE Report (with Appendices on a CD) to the City and will coordinate with the City to determine how many printed copies are needed. Additional rounds of review or printed copies may require additional budget.

Deliverables
• CE Report (MS Word Document and PDF)
• A maximum of 20 hard copies of the Final CE Report.

Assumptions
• One round of revisions.
• One consolidated set of comments from the City in MS Word, in track-changes.

Page G-3.33
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project 14 Task 2.4 Public Hearing
Rincon Consultants will attend one public hearing to present the findings of the report and/or respond to questions on the environmental analysis or CEQA process.

C.3 Task 3: Project Management
Throughout the CEQA process, Rincon will proactively identify issues, immediately bring any such issues to the attention of City staff, identify potential solutions, and coordinate with City staff as to the best course of action. Rincon will use email communications and have telephone conversations with City staff, as needed, during the course of the project to ensure clear communication. Rincon will prepare monthly invoices with status reports documenting the progress made each month on completing the project, and review and update the schedule when necessary.

Page G-3.34
Project Cost and Schedule
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 15
D. Project Cost and Schedule
Rincon Consultants will prepare the Class 32 CE Report in accordance with the above scope of work for a cost not to exceed $128,651. The cost for the optional Health Risk Assessment task would be an additional $8,808. A detailed cost estimate is provided in Attachment B. Additional work not included within our proposed work program will be completed only upon written City authorization consistent with our standard fee schedule. The project will be billed on a time and materials basis.

The Rincon team is prepared to begin the work described in this proposal immediately upon authorization to proceed. Rincon understands the importance of the project schedule for both the City, as well as the Project Sponsor. We understand that the project schedule is a tool for the whole project team to use to track project progress and identify any schedule bottlenecks. As such, Rincon has developed a project schedule using Microsoft Teams that can be automatically updated, depending on any changes that happen as the project moves forwards (i.e., delays on receiving data needs or additional review time needed). Rincon has provided estimates for the duration of certain tasks based on prior experience, but these are just estimates and will need to be updated based on the City’s needs. For example, Rincon can update the review times for the City, depending on the City’s needs. The schedule is preliminary, is subject to change, and should not be treated as final. Throughout the life of the project, our Project Manager will update the schedule to reflect any delays. Some of the main drivers of the schedule are as follows:
• Receipt of Data Needs from the City or Project Sponsor • Timely receipt of a stable Project Description
As depicted in the schedule shown in Attachment C, assuming all data needs are provided in a timely manner; assuming a stable Project Description; and assuming timely review of documents prepared by Rincon staff, Rincon proposes to adhere to a schedule that allows the CEQA process for a Class 32 Infill Exemption Document to be completed between 5 and 6 months from the kickoff meeting. This schedule only applies for a Class 32 Infill Exemption. If it is determined that an EIR is needed, Rincon can prepare an updated schedule. If an EIR is needed, the work conducted under Task 1 of the Work Program can be used for the EIR. Nonetheless, EIR’s typically have a timeline of 8-12 months; however, this can vary depending on multiple factors.

Page G-3.35
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project 16 E. Rate Schedule
Standard Fee Schedule for Environmental Sciences and Planning Services Professional, Technical and Support Personnel* Hourly Rate Principal II $295
DirectorII $295
Principal I $285
DirectorI $285
Senior SupervisorII $258
SupervisorI $240
Senior Professional II $224
Senior Professional I $208
Professional IV $184
Professional III $170
Professional II $153
Professional I $136
Associate III $117
Associate II $102
Associate I $95
Field Technician $82
Data Solutions Architect $175
Senior GIS Specialist $164
GIS/CADD SpecialistII $146
GIS/CADD SpecialistI $131
Technical Editor $130
Project Accountant $110
Billing Specialist $95
Publishing Specialist $105
Clerical $95
* Professional classifications include environmental scientists, urban planners, biologists, geologists, marine scientists, GHG verifiers, sustainability experts, cultural resources experts, and other professionals. Expert witness services consisting of depositions or in-court testimony are charged at the hourly rate of $375.

Reimbursable Expenses
Direct Cost Rates
Photocopies – Black and White $0.20 (single-sided), $0.40 (double-sided) Photocopies – Color $1.50 (single-sided), $3.00 (double-sided) Photocopies – 11 x 17 $0.50 (B&W), $3.30 (color)
Oversized Maps $8.00/square foot
Digital Production $15/CD, $20/flash drive
Light-Duty and Passenger Vehicles* $88/day
4WD and Off-road Vehicles* $140/day
* $0.65/mile for mileage over 50 and for all miles incurred in employee-owned vehicles.

Other direct costs associated with the execution of a project,that are not included in the hourly rates above, are billed at cost plus 15%. These may include, but are not limited to, laboratory and drilling services, subcontractor services, authorized travel expenses, permit charges and filing fees, mailings and postage, performance bonds, sample handling and shipment, rental equipment, and vehicles other than covered by the above charges.

Annual Escalation. Standard rates subject to 3.5% annual escalation.

Payment Terms. All fees will be billed to Client monthly and shall be due and payable upon receipt or as indicated in the contract provisions for the assignment. Invoices are delinquent if not paid within ten (10) days from receipt or per the contractually required payment terms.

Page G-3.36
Rate Schedule
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 17
Equipment Day Rate
Environmental SiteAssessment
Soil Vapor Extraction Monitoring Equipment $155
Four Gas Monitor $133
Flame Ionization Detector $107
Photo Ionization Detector $80
Hand Auger Sampler $60
Water Level Indicator, DC Purge Pump $45
Natural Resources Field Equipment
UAS Drone $268
Spotting or Fiberoptic Scope $165
Pettersson Bat Ultrasound Detector/Recording Equipment $165 Sound Level Metering Field Package (Anemometer, Tripod and Digital Camera) $110 GPS (Sub‐meter Accuracy) $65
Infrared Sensor Digital Camera or Computer Field Equipment $55 Scent Station $22
Laser Rangefinder/Altitude $11
Pit‐fall Traps, Spotlights, Anemometer, GPS Units, Sterilized Sample Jar $9 Mammal Trap, Large/Small $1.50/$0.50
Water and Marine Resources Equipment
Boat(26 ft. Radon or Similar) $600
Boat(20 ft. Boston Whaler or Similar) $335
Multi Parameter Sonde (Temp, Cond, Turbidity, DO, pH) with GPS $165 Water Quality Equipment(DO, pH, Turbidity, Refractometer, Temperature) $60 Refractometer(Salinity) or Turbidity Meter $37
Large Block Nets $110
Minnow Trap $95
Net, Hand/Large Seine $55
Field Equipment Packages
Standard Field Package (Digital Camera, GPS, Thermometer, Binoculars, Tablet, Safety Equipment, and Botanic Collecting Equipment)
$110
Remote Field Package (Digital Camera, GPS, Thermometer, Binoculars, Tablet and Mifi, Delorme Satellite Beacon, 24‐Hour Safety Phone)
$140
Amphibian/Vernal Pool Field Package (Digital Camera, GPS, Thermometer, Decon Chlorine, Waders, Float Tube, Hand Net, Field Microscope) $165
Fisheries Equipment Package (Waders, Wetsuits, Dip Nets, Seine Nets, Bubblers, Buckets)
$55
Underwater and Marine Sampling Gear(U/W Photo/Video Camera, Scuba Equipment (Tanks, BCD, Regulators, Wetsuits, etc.)
$55/diver
Marine Field Package (PFDs – Personal Flotation Devices, 100-foot Reel Tapes with Stainless Carabiners, Pelican Floats, Underwater Slates, Thermometer, Refractometer, Anemometer, Various Field Guides)
$55
Insurance, Hazard and Fees
Historic Research Fees $50
L&H Dive Insurance $55/diver
Level C Health and Safety $65/person
Page G-3.37
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project 18 F. Proposed Program Components
Rincon has a thorough understanding of the RFP and the full scope of this project and did not identify any critical components that were not included or stated in the RFP.

G. Other Pertinent Information
G.1 Approach to Quality Control
Since its founding in 1994, Rincon has developed a reputation for providing high-quality services and deliverables for our clients. Our quality control procedures ensure high-quality project execution, client communication, and production of deliverables within budget. The following section outlines our commitment to send all work products and deliverables to the City of Menlo Park after adhering to these procedures.

For every project Rincon undertakes we endeavor to provide our client with a high-quality product that meets or exceeds expectations, and for which all applicable professional standards and regulatory requirements are met. To meet this quality standard, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures will be managed by Abe Leider.

We employ our published QA/QC guidelines and standard project management and quality control methods that include written project assignments, biweekly project progress meetings, project control using Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Project software, peer review of all technical sections, and principal review of all final products. The project manager and the team staff initiate the project by holding a briefing meeting whereby the work scope, expectations, costs, and timing (schedule) are determined. While each team member is responsible for the overall quality of their work effort and maintaining the deadline for their assignments, project managers are responsible for maintaining communication that the work is proceeding as envisioned on a regular basis depending on the needs of the project. Frequently this is done daily, but on no less than a weekly basis. Once the work product has been completed by the team members, it undergoes peer review by the project manager. After revisions as needed, a principal of the firm reviews the final product for quality control before it is provided to our administrative staff for production. Technical studies (e.g., biological, cultural, air quality, GHG, noise) also go through a separate technical review process before project manager and principal reviews. As part of the review, the document is checked against the prior established expectations and requirements of the work scope. Long, complex documents go through a rigorous technical edit to ensure correct grammar, style guide compliance, clear language, and consistent voice throughout. Finally, the document production team performs a comprehensive formatting check before delivery to ensure that the final product meets client expectations.

Our technical editors have extensive experience with a range of technical documents, including CEQA reports, permits, manuals, and whitepapers. With backgrounds as journalists, academics, and trainers, they also have skills in graphic design, web design, and visual arts. The Rincon graphics, technical editing, and production teams are skilled in the Microsoft Office suite of productivity software, Adobe Creative Suite, and web design software to produce visually attractive products. Additionally, in-house, high-speed copiers, printers, scanners, and binding machines allow us to produce high-quality reports and other presentationready products.

When a subcontractor provides information, it is initially checked by the staff person responsible for that task, and then checked by the supervisor/project manager for consistency with other aspects of the work and for compliance with the scope of work agreed to by the subcontractor. If the work is not acceptable, it is returned to the subcontractor, who is not paid for those services, until a work product that meets the scope of work is delivered. Our standard subcontracts contain language that provides us the necessary authority to reject unsuitable products.

Page G-3.38
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 19
G.2 Innovative Consulting
For each of our projects, we strive to achieve and maintain an outstanding and enduring consultant/client relationship. This starts with our goal of becoming the best consultant that each client has worked with. One of the keys to our high level of success in this area has been our development of client-specific management programs that outline the focused needs of the client and our tailored approach to meeting those needs.

These programs include but are not limited to defining reporting structure and protocols, quality control procedures, systems development (billing, progress reporting, etc.) and other technical and operational elements that will be followed throughout the duration of the program.

We are also adept at developing internal databases for tracking contract status, project specifics, natural resources, geographic information system data and general performance and will apply that experience towards the implementation of tasks under this contract. As part of our internal project accounting, we were able to provide a large utility with a better accounting of their mitigation requirements and identify the need for additional endangered species coverage. Our field staff utilizes state-of-the-art PC tablets and applications for field data collection, mapping, and reporting. These tools streamline data collection and have significantly reduced cost and reliability for recording our field data. Additionally, we understand the importance of safety and accessibility. To ensure that staff and clients have access to principal-level support, we have established an after-hours call system that provides one number for important calls. The phone system relays calls to five Principals. The delivery ensures that the phone is answered or that a message is delivered to all five phones. The first principal to receive the call or message is equipped to respond or relay the needs to the appropriate personnel.

G.3 Digital Accessibility (Optional Task)
Digital accessibility requirements for public documents, including CEQA documents, apply to all California public entities pursuant to ADA Title II and California Government Code Section 7405. Rincon offers a variety of approaches and services to assist with compliance with these regulations. While our scope of work and fee estimate does not currently include digital accessibility services, we would be happy to discuss options and costs for converting our digital reports to comply with digital accessibility guidelines on request.

H. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Rincon’s commitment to diversity is an integral component of our culture. Our diversity efforts consist of formal and informal grassroots type programs and focuses on three areas: staff, vendors, and philanthropic efforts.
• Education: Increase the long-term diversity of our team by connecting with K-12 schools and higher education institutions that offer environmental/STEM programs within underrepresented communities. • Subconsultants: Bring companywide awareness to increase participation in, and set targets for teaming with DBEs, including women-, minority-, disabled veteran-, and LGBT-owned business enterprises. • Hiring: Connect with and create strong relationships with colleges and universities that foster increased equity and inclusion to recruit diverse, high-quality talent and continue to fortify Rincon as an industry leader.

H.1 Diversity within Rincon
Staff
• 60% of our team are women
• 67% of our team are under the age of 40
Page G-3.39
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project 20 • 25% of our team are deemed “Generation Z”
• Our leadership team and ownership nearly match our gender profile • We placed 1st in AEC Advisors (industry benchmarking firm) 2021 Gender Diversity Index for firms in the U.S. between $25-$100M
• We spend ~$20 million annually supporting other businesses and their people (vendors/subs) Workplace Perspectives
Rincon Consultants, Inc. believes that fostering a workplace where diversity of perspectives and opinions are encouraged and will lead to a more informed, creatively aligned, and socially aware team. It has been proven that a more diverse work environment enhances innovation, productivity, and success.

With the social and economic issues that arose in 2020, Rincon, as a firm, took action to hear from our employees on what they were feeling and what changes they wanted to see. This led to companywide discussions that allowed employees to share their ideas and take part in very real and transparent conversations. From these conversations, we developed goals and planned a path forward for each, which include the following:
• Environmental Education
• Improved Recruiting Processes
• Training and Development
Through these goals, Rincon acknowledges and commits to the fact that this is not something we are going to be able to check off our list after achieving a few milestones. This is something that is intertwined and is going to take time and diligent effort to achieve real, long-term change. To drive our internal initiatives forward, we formed staff-driven working groups to devise a path to implement the proposed actions.

As we grow as individuals and as a firm, Rincon sees diversity, equity, and inclusion as one of the strongest levers to create long-lasting and meaningful opportunities for change. We aim to continuously push one another’s thinking and challenge problematic long-held beliefs and assumptions. We believe that our team will be the strongest and best positioned to realize our vision as we facilitate the following:
• Representation – with differences in race, religion, ethnicity, sexual identity, culture, age, gender expression, ability, economic status, education, credentials, and experience; • A Voice – where all people are welcomed, heard, respected, understood, valued, connected, and able to do their best work; and
• Fairness – where people from all backgrounds are treated equitably and view our firm as a level playing field and platform from which to maximize their strengths and abilities.

As we seek to recruit and retain those who will learn with us, challenge us, and create with us, we realize this journey has a non-linear path that requires dedication, commitment, and perseverance. Holding each other accountable throughout our daily interactions to ensure alignment with our values and ideals will help us realize the full potential each person brings to our team and continue moving this important work forward.

H.2 How the Projects We Work on Make a Difference
The push for sustainable communities and cities is not simply a call for a greener world, but for a more equitable one that mitigates and hopefully reverses environmental injustices that have disproportionately affected people of color. As a group of engineers, scientists, and planners, we commemorate the history of June 19th and the movements that followed through our efforts for a more sustainable and equitable future.

In addition to the extraordinary impact the history of slavery has had on African Americans, the United States’ more recent history of discriminatory practices also places the African American community at a significant disadvantage. Discrimination has also led to injustices for other communities of color and Page G-3.40
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 21
indigenous communities. Rincon approaches our work with an acute awareness of these challenges and historic injustices, which is why we are involved in many projects which showcase our growing ability and understanding of how best to serve disadvantaged communities, elevate their voices during the project process, and adjust project outcomes to avoid disproportionate impacts to Black, Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) communities.

Page G-3.41
City of Menlo Park
Proposal to Prepare a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report for the Proposed 1030 O’Brien Drive Project 22 This page intentionally left blank.

Page G-3.42
Attachment A
Key Personnel Resumes
Page G-3.43
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

EDUCATION
BA, English and Environmental
Studies, University of California
at Santa Barbara

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATIONS
Professional Certificate in Land
Use and Environmental
Planning, UCSB Extension
American Institute of Certified
Planners, Certified
Environmental Planner
AWARDS
Planning Excellence for Best
Practice – Ashland Cherryland
Specific Plan, County of
Alameda, American Planning
Association (APA) Nor Cal
Chapter (shared), The Next
Downtown, City of Los Angeles,
APA, Los Angeles Chapter
(shared)
Abe Leider, AICP CEP
Principle-In-Charge
Abe Leider has over 22 years of experience in long-range planning, development review, and performing environmental impact analyses for public and private infrastructure and development projects under CEQA. He has managed the preparation of MNDs and EIRs for institutional, residential, commercial, and industrial projects throughout California. Mr. Leider is experienced at providing professional contract planning support in all facets of the project review and permitting process to small, mid-sized, and large jurisdictions throughout California. His recent experience includes managing Rincon’s on-call planning and CEQA work for numerous cities on the Peninsula and throughout the greater Bay Area, including the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Redwood City, San Jose, Millbrae, San Leandro, Hayward and Berkeley, among others.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Contract Planning
 Principal-In-Charge, City of Palo Alto – Multiple Projects  Principal-In-Charge, City of Berkeley – Multiple Projects  Principal-In-Charge, City of Los Angeles – Multiple Projects  Principal-In-Charge, Major Projects, Cities of Ojai and Port Hueneme On-Call Contract Management
 City of Millbrae – Environmental Services
 City of South San Francisco – On-Call Planning and CEQA Services  City of Palo Alto – Environmental and Planning Services  City of Mountain View – Environmental Services
 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District - Environmental Services  City of Berkeley –Environmental and Planning Services  City of Oakland DOT – On-Call Environmental Consulting Services  City of San Leandro – Environmental and Planning Services  City of Hayward – Environmental Services
 City of Concord – Environmental and Planning Services  Napa Valley Transportation Authority – Environmental Services CEQA and NEPA Compliance
 Mixed-Use: Live/Work and Emergency Shelter Zoning Amendment Project EIR Addendum, City of Redwood City
 Housing Element Update EIR, City of Belmont
 CEQA Templates and CEQA Procedures Manual, City of Palo Alto  1700 Embarcadero Auto Dealership IS-MND, City of Palo Alto  2747 and 3045 Park Boulevard Office Project IS-MND, City of Palo Alto  3225 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project IS-MND, City of Palo Alto  BayFair BART TOD Specific Plan EIR, City of San Leandro Page G-3.44
Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Page 2
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers
 Ashland-Cherryland Business District Specific Plan EIR, County of Alameda  Adeline Corridor Specific Plan EIR, City of Berkeley
 2211 Harold Way Mixed Use Project EIR, City of Berkeley  2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed Use Project EIR, City of Berkeley  Cal Berkeley Aquatics Center SEIR, University of California, Berkeley  Upper Hearst Development SEIR, University of California, Berkeley  Fairview Area Specific Plan MND, County of Alameda
 Housing Incentive Program Expansion and 788-796 San Antonio Road Mixed Use Project EIR, City of Palo Alto Land Development
 Four Affordable Housing Project EA-FONSIs, City of San Francisco MOH  7701 Redwood Boulevard Hotel IS-MND, City of Novato
 375 West El Pintado Road Residential Development EIR, Town of Danville  Alvarado Commerce Center IS-MND, City of San Leandro
 ACI MRF and Transfer Facility Expansion Project IS-MND, City of San Leandro Page G-3.45
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

EDUCATION
BA, Ecology and Evolutionary
Biology, Princeton University
Leo Mena
Senior Planner
Leo Mena is an Environmental Planner and Project Manager with eight years of experience conducting environmental evaluations consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Leo is an adept analyst and writer that has prepared environmental impact reports (EIRs), initial studies (IS), Class 32 Infill Exemption Documents, and permits for the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Leo works on environmental documents for a diverse range of projects including, commuter rail; bike trails; roadway repairs; residential, commercial, and mixed-use development; specific plans; and energy projects. He has experience working with California state agencies and local agencies, including the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, California High Speed Rail Authority, the City of Burlingame, the City of Santa Cruz, City of Milpitas, and others.

Leo is also well versed in the latest streamlining CEQA options available for residential, commercial, and mixed-use development projects. He works closely with his clients to ensure that all available streamlining options have been considered prior to any work beginning. Leo helped develop eCEQA, which is an online, userfriendly tool that developers and agencies can use to figure out which streamlining options may be available for their projects.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Project Manager, Commonwealth Building 3 EIR—City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park Leo Mena served as the Project Manager for the Commonwealth Building 3 Project, which proposes to construct a new office building in Menlo Park. Leo worked closely with technical authors and the City to prepare the Screen Check Draft EIR and the Public Draft EIR. Leo helped the City address several updates in CEQA, including updated thresholds from BAAQMD and new case law for construction noise impacts.

Through Leo’s leadership the City released the Draft EIR in July 2022.

Project Manager, 1075’O Brien Drive EIR and 1125 O’Brien Drive EIR—City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park
Leo Mena served as the Project Manager for two projects in the City of Menlo Park (1075’O Brien Drive and 1125 O’Brien Drive), both of which proposed to install new R&D uses. Leo worked closely with the City of Menlo Park to prepare the Administrative Draft EIR. In addition, Leo coordinated with City staff to develop approaches for the analysis of Greenhous Gas Emissions and Noise, as a result of updated guidelines and case law.

Project Manager, City of Burlingame – 1868 Ogden Drive Project EIR, Burlingame Leo served as the project manager for this residential project and successfully managed a team of technical specialists to complete a Draft EIR and Final EIR for this Project. As the Project Manager, Leo was able to successfully pivot from the preparation of an Infill Exemption to an EIR, when it was discovered that the building to be demolished was historic in nature. With Leo’s leadership the CEQA process was successfully completed for this Project.

Page G-3.46
Leo Mena, Page 2
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers
Project Manager, City of Milpitas – Milpitas Metro Specific Plan SEIR, Milpitas Leo served as the Project Manager for the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan. Leo managed a team of technical experts and prepared the Draft Subsequent EIR for this Project, which entails an update to the Specific Plan to allow for the development of additional growth around the recently completed Milpitas BART Station. Leo worked closely with the City and the authors of the Specific Plan to identify policies and mitigation measures to streamline future projects that will be developed in this area. Leo was instrumental in getting the Draft EIR released to the public in April 2022.

Project Manager, City of Burlingame – Adrian Court Mixed-Use Project Infill Exemption, Burlingame Leo served as the project manager for this mixed-use development project and successfully managed a team of technical specialists to complete a Class 32 Infill Exemption document. With Leo’s management, this Project was approved by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission within four months of the kickoff.

Project Manager, City of Burlingame – 128 Lorton Avenue Project, 601 California Drive Project, 30 Ingold Road Project Infill Exemptions, 1766 El Camino Real, Burlingame Leo served as the Project Manager for the 128 Lorton Avenue Project, 601 California Drive Project, 30 Ingold Road Project, and 1766 El Camino Real Project. Leo worked closely with the City to prepare Class 32 Infill Exemption documents for these four projects. Leo managed a team of technical experts and provided senior review for the documentation of the technical analysis. Through Leo’s leadership, each of the four projects was approved by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission within a year of the kickoff meeting.

Deputy Project Manager, City of Burlingame – 1499 Bayshore Project IS/MND, Burlingame Leo Mena served as the Deputy Project Manager for the Project, which proposed the construction of a 13-story hotel, restaurant, and parking garage in the City of Burlingame. Leo worked closely with the City to prepare an IS/MND for the Project. Leo prepared several sections for the IS/MND, including the Biological Resources, Hydrology and Water Quality, Population and Housing, Public Services and Recreation, Utilities and Service Systems Sections. Leo was instrumental in getting this Project through the CEQA process. This Project was approved by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission in September 2019.

Project Manager, ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced EIR – San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, Lathrop to Ceres/Merced
Leo was instrumental in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR for the ACE Extension Lathrop to Ceres/Merced Project, which proposes to expand commuter train service to Ceres and Merced. Leo worked on both phases of the Project. Phase I included extension of service from Lathrop to Ceres and Phase II included extension of service from Ceres to Merced. Phase II included a station in Merced that would connect to the California High Speed Rail System.

Leo oversaw the preparation of the EIR, including coordination with technical specialists and the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission and was instrumental in the completion of the CEQA process for Phase I and II of this Project. Phase I of the Project was approved by the Board of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission in August 2018 and Phase II was approved in December 2021.

Project Manager, Valley Link EIR – Tri-Valley San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority, Dublin/Pleasanton to Lathrop
Leo served as the Project Manager for the Valley Link Project, which proposes to add passenger train service between Dublin/Pleasanton and Lathrop and would connect the existing BART system at Dublin/Pleasanton with the existing ACE service in Lathrop. As the Project Manager, Leo managed a group of technical specialists and authors to prepare the EIR. Leo worked closely with the engineering firm (AECOM) and the Tri-Valley San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority to identify the best solutions for problems that arose and kept the Project moving forward day-to-day.

Through Leo’s leadership, the EIR for Valley Link was certified in May 2021.

Environmental Planner, Gateway Park EIR – Bay Area Toll Agency, Oakland The project involves the development of up to 45-acres of parkland along the waterfront near the eastern end of the east span of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge (Bay Bridge) in Oakland, California. Leo coordinated the preparation of the Draft EIR and reviewed, edited, and revised the EIR.

Page G-3.47
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

EDUCATION
BA, Environmental Studies,
University of California,
Santa Cruz

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATIONS
SoundPLAN (2018), Navcon
Engineering, Fullerton,
California
US EPA AERMOD (2015), Lakes
Environmental, Las Vegas,
Nevada
FHWA – Traffic Noise Model

2.5 (2011), Bowlby &
Associates, Inc., Brentwood,
Tennessee
Noise Control for Buildings,
Manufacturing Plants,
Equipment and Products
(2008), Hoover & Keith,
Houston, Texas
Josh Carman, INCE-USA
Director – Noise, Air Quality & GHG
Josh Carman has over 20 years of experience in the field of acoustics and air quality and has participated in the environmental review and monitoring process for a wide variety of projects in California, Washington, Nevada, and New York. Josh prepares noise, air quality, greenhouse gas, and community health risk assessments for environmental impact studies (CEQA/NEPA) and technical studies using federal, state, and local guidelines and methodology. His experience includes complex project- and program-level analyses of general plan updates; specific plans; mixed-use development; traffic, transit and rail; vibration-sensitive; industrial; infrastructure, utilities, and telecommunications; long-term and remote construction noise and vibration monitoring; and underwater construction (e.g., pile driving) projects. He is certified in the use of the FHWA’s Traffic Noise Model (TNM), SoundPLAN, and the US EPA AERMOD air dispersion model.

Josh’s project experience includes conducting the noise modeling, analysis and preparation of the noise assessment for the Prologis warehouse project in Los Angeles, the noise study report for the Mid-County Parkway EIR/EIS, a 16-mile transportation corridor in Riverside County; the air quality and GHG study for the Vallco Specific Plan in Cupertino; noise and vibration measurements for the VTA Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Extension; long-term construction noise and vibration monitoring for the EBMUD Summit Reservoir Replacement Project; and the Title 24 acoustical study for the Lincoln at Euclid residential development in Anaheim. Josh has provided third-party review on a variety of different projects over the years.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Senior Air Quality Specialist, City of Cupertino – Vallco Special Area Specific Plan EIR, Cupertino
While at Illingworth & Rodkin, Josh prepared the Air Quality and GHG technical report for the proposed specific plan. The Vallco Special Area Specific Plan comprises approximately 70 acres, approximately 58 acres of which is currently available for development. The developable area consists of multiple parcels and is located on both sides of North Wolfe Road – between Vallco Parkway and Interstate 280 (I-280) on the east side of North Wolfe Road and between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vallco Parkway on the west side of North Wolfe Road. The Specific Plan would facilitate development of a minimum of 600,000 square feet of commercial uses, up to 2.0 million square feet of office uses, up to 339 hotel rooms, and up to 800 residential dwelling units on-site. In addition, up to 65,000 square feet of civic spaces in the form of governmental office space, meeting rooms and community rooms and a Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) lab was proposed, as well as a 30-acre green roof.

Senior Noise Specialist, University of California – UC Berkeley 2021 Long Range Development Plan EIR, Berkeley
Josh conducted the noise and vibration assessment for the campus long range development plan (LRDP) while at PlaceWorks. The purpose of an LRDP is to provide adequate planning capacity for potential population growth and physical infrastructure that may be needed to support future population levels on each UC campus. In addition to the programmatic assessment, the EIR included the evaluation Page G-3.48
Josh Carman, INCE-USA, Page 2
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers
of two project-level housing sites. Both programmatic and project-level mitigation measures were developed, including a screening procedure to evaluate construction vibration significance on future projects under the LRDP.

Senior Noise Specialist, City of Redwood City – Broadway Plaza EIR, Redwood City The project consists of redeveloping the Redwood Plaza Shopping Center into a new mixed-use development that would include residential, commercial, and retail uses. The project site consists of 2 sites, which together comprise

15.3 acres. While at PlaceWorks, Josh conducted the noise and vibration assessment and recommended mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts.

Senior Noise Specialist, County of Los Angeles – Tapia Ranch/Project No. R2012-02667/Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 072126, Los Angeles County
Josh conducted the environmental noise assessment while at PlaceWorks in support of an EIR for the development of 405-unit single-family residential lots with one public park (4.7 net acres), eight open space lots, one water pump lot, 63 HOA/Basin lots, one park trails lot, nine flood control district lots, 21 private and future street lots, and one private street lot in the Castaic area. Cumulative impacts considered the planned and approved Tesoro Del Valle residential development to the southeast.

Senior Noise Specialist, City of Santa Ana – Santa Ana General Plan Update PEIR, Santa Ana Josh conducted the environmental noise assessment while at PlaceWorks in support of a PEIR for the City’s General Plan Update. As part of this work, Josh worked with GIS staff to generate existing and future transportation noise contours, which included traffic and railroad noise in the City.

Senior Noise Specialist, City of Davis – Downtown Davis Specific Plan EIR, Davis Josh conducted the environmental noise assessment while at PlaceWorks in support of an EIR for the City’s Downtown Specific Plan where railroad noise was a community concern. As part of this work, Josh conducted short- and longterm noise measurements of freight train, commuter train, and switcher car pass-by events to document existing conditions. New specific plan policies were recommended to reduce community noise exposure to railroad noise.

Senior Air Quality Specialist, City of Modesto – Modesto General Plan Update EIR, Modesto While at Illingworth & Rodkin, Josh prepared the Air Quality and GHG technical report for the City of Modesto General Plan Update. The report calculated air quality and GHG emissions in the Plan Area and region and analyzed potential air quality and GHG impacts associated with implementation of the Plan. In addition, a consistency analysis of Air District goals and policies was completed. Community health risk was evaluated including a detailed analysis of railroad emissions. Mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant air quality, community risk, and odor impacts were recommended.

Senior Noise Specialist, City of Hayward – Hayward Downtown Specific Plan EIR, Hayward While at PlaceWorks, Josh prepared the noise and vibration assessment for the Hayward Downtown Specific Plan EIR.

The proposed project would update the land use designations and zoning for the parcels in the 320-acre Specific Plan Area also referred to as the project site. Work included ambient noise measurements including BART rapid transit pass-bys, as well as evaluating program-level construction and operational noise and vibration impacts. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potentially significant noise impacts.

Noise Analyst, California High-Speed Rail Authority – California High-Speed Rail Program EIR, Various Counties/Cities California
In August 2005, the California High Speed Rail Authority certified its Program FEIR/FEIS, which evaluated environmental impacts along a proposed 700 miles of rail corridor from Sacramento and San Francisco to San Diego.

While at Wilson Ihrig, Josh assisted with a screening analysis to quantify the number of people potentially affected by wayside noise and vibration in the adjacent communities along the LOSSAN Corridor from Los Angeles to San Diego.

Page G-3.49
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers

EDUCATION
MS, Historic Preservation,
concentration in Preservation
Planning, University of
Pennsylvania
BA, History and Sociology,
University of California,
Riverside

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATIONS
Meets and exceeds Secretary
of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards in
Architectural History and
History
JulieAnn Murphy
Architectural Historian Project Manager
JulieAnn Murphy is an Architectural Historian with over 10 years of experience. Her work includes archival research, historic resource evaluations, and review of projects for the conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Her professional experience includes the preparation of nominations for the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Murphy has extensive experience preparing applications for the Federal Historic Tax Credit program as well as several state preservation incentive programs, including the Mills Act. Ms. Murphy has experience preparing documentation in support of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, NEPA, CEQA, and local ordinances. She meets requirements in the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Architectural History and History.

SELECT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Architectural Historian, Town of Windsor – Estates at Ross Ranch Project, Windsor As the Senior Architectural Historian, Ms. Murphy prepared an updated historical resource evaluation in support of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. The proposed project, the subdivision of a vacant parcel for development of single-family houses, was previously evaluated for historical resources. Following a peer review of the previous evaluation, Ms. Murphy reviewed the record search results from the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), provided oversight for the site visit and field documentation of the built resources, performed supplemental archival and historical research, and evaluated the property for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The assessment affirmed the findings of the previously performed evaluation that the property was not eligible for, listing in the NRHP or CRHR and was not a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

Architectural Historian, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation – 2550 Irving Street Environmental Assessment, San Francisco
Ms. Murphy served as the Senior Architectural Historian for the 2550 Irving Street Environmental Assessment and evaluated 16 historic-era commercial and residential structures for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act compliance. The evaluations were completed in support of the preparation of the Environmental Assessment in accordance with NEPA and HUD requirements for the construction of a multi-family affordable housing development.

Architectural Historian, City of San Leandro – 2824 Halcyon Drive, San Leandro As the Senior Architectural Historian, Ms. Murphy prepared a historic resource evaluation (HRE) of the proposed project property to identify potential historical resources in support of an Infill Checklist in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project included the demolition of four existing residential and accessory dwellings for the construction of 18 new single-family residences. The HRE included a site visit of the property to document its condition and any character-defining features, archival research, and evaluation of the property for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Page G-3.50
JulieAnn Murphy, Page 2
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Environmental Scientists · Planners · Engineers
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and a City of San Leandro Landmark or Merit Resource. The property, found ineligible for listing, was also recorded on California DPR 523 Series forms.

Architectural Historian, RRM Design Group – Coast Rail Trail Segments 8 and 9, Santa Cruz Rincon is currently supporting the preparation of environmental compliance documentation for the implementation of the Coastal Rail Trail Segments 8 and 9. Located along the Santa Cruz Branch Line Railroad, the former rail line is proposed to be rehabilitated for a recreation trail. Rincon is preparing Caltrans-format resource documentation in accordance with NEPA and Section 106. Ms. Murphy, as Senior Architectural Historian, is leading the preparation of the Historical Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) to determine if historic properties exist in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). As part of the effort, Ms. Murphy conducted a survey of the proposed project APE to identify and document potential historic properties impacted by the proposed project. Following the field survey, Ms. Murphy performed archival research to ascertain the age, alterations, and significance of each architectural resource. Potential historical significance was considered in accordance with the Caltrans Programmatic Agreement, which provides guidance on evaluating cultural resources. Properties were formally recorded on individual California DPR series 523 forms, and were evaluated for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and for local listing. Results are being complied into a shortformat Caltrans Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR).

Architectural Historian, City of Berkeley – Ashby and North BART Stations Historic Resource Evaluations, Berkeley Ms. Murphy served as the Project Manager and managed the day-to-day preparation of the Historical Resources Evaluations for the Ashby BART Station and the North Berkeley BART Station. The evaluations were completed in support of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance for the Ashby and North Berkeley Bart Stations Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Zoning Project. The evaluations addressed the impacts to potential historical resources under CEQA. She performed field work, archival research, and outreach to gather important background information to inform the evaluations. She also researched trends and emerging best practices in the recordation and evaluation of cultural resources in the field to ensure that the provided analysis was as thorough as possible.

Additionally, she provided oversight to the junior staff, including tracking the project budget and schedule to ensure that the final product was completed and delivered to the client on time and within budget.

Architectural Historian, City of Albany – 540 San Pablo Avenue, Albany Ms. Murphy, as the Senior Architectural Historian, prepared a Cultural Resources Analysis technical report in support of a categorical exemption (CE) for the proposed project. The proposed project, located in Albany, included the demolition of several buildings for the construction of a five-story mixed use building with 207 residential units and four commercial spaces. Ms. Murphy performed a California Historical Resources Information Systems (CHRIS) search, conducted archival and background research, and provided oversight for a pedestrian survey to document the site. All of the site’s age-eligible resources were evaluated for potential listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Ms. Murphy also coordinated with the Senior Archaeologist to assess the project effects on a potentially sensitive archaeological resource on an adjacent property and developed a proposed monitoring program to implement during project construction.

Architectural Historian, City of Vallejo – Historic Preservation White Paper, Vallejo Ms. Murphy prepared a Historic Preservation White Paper to provide recommendations to the City of Vallejo’s Planning and Development Services Department. Funded by a grant from the California State Office of Historic Preservation, the Historic Preservation White Paper included an audit of the City of Vallejo’s existing preservation policies, programs, and resources. The final paper included an evaluation the City’s current policies and programs, an overview of the best historic preservation policies and practices, and provided a suite of options for the City’s future preservation efforts.

Page G-3.51
Attachment B
Project Cost Estimate
Page G-3.52
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
22-13814 Menlo Park - 1030 O'Brien Drive
Cost Estimate