Agenda — Menlo Park City Council, March 14, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

Background
City Council January 24 reviewed proposed revisions to the Naming Policy and directed staff to prepare a City Council resolution to adopt the policy revisions as proposed (Attachment D.) Analysis
Revisions to the Naming Policy
The draft revised Naming Policy is included with this report as Attachment A Exhibit A (with additions in underline, deletions in strikethrough) and Attachment C (clean version with all revisions incorporated.) City Council January 24 directed revisions to City Council Procedure CC-86-0001 to:
• Align the policy with current City Council expectations and community interests regarding the naming and/or dedication of public facilities operated by the City • Establish criteria and procedures for the naming, renaming, and/or dedication of public facilities, including major programs that are housed together in multiservice facilities like the MPCC • Establish criteria for recognizing individuals and/or groups who donate toward the costs of new and/or renovated public facilities
• Refer the criteria and procedures for smaller-scale commemorative amenities in City parks, for example memorial plaques on park benches, to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) work plan with quarterly reporting to the City Council including any commemorative amenity requests reviewed by the PRC.

Menlo Park Community Campus (MPCC) facility naming process On January 24, City Council identified a process to identify:
• A name and/or dedication for the overall MPCC facility • Names and/or dedications for each of the five major programs (community center, public library, senior AGENDA ITEM G-8 Page G-8.1
Staff Report #: 23-065-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov center, youth center and aquatics center) housed in the MPCC facility • Recognitions for individuals and/or groups who donate toward the costs of the opening day furnishings, equipment, books, public art, and other amenities in the MPCC facility.

MPCC naming process timeline update
City Council January 24 identified a timeline for the MPCC facility naming process. Due to the impacts of the recent widespread power outages in Menlo Park, which may have prevented some community members from attending the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) study session February 22, staff recommends extending the overall timeline by approximately four additional weeks, as follows:
• March 14 – City Council reviews and adopts revisions to the existing City Council Procedure CC-86- 0001 (Naming Policy; 1986), or reaffirms the current Naming Policy if no revisions are desired. • March 22 – PRC and Library Commission (LC) jointly convene a public study session to consider additional input from the community, City Council direction and the Naming Policy. • April 26 – PRC and LC convene a public meeting to consider all community input received, City Council direction and the Naming Policy, then recommends to City Council up to 3 potential names and/or dedications for the overall facility, and up to 3 potential names and/or dedications for each of the five major programs that will be housed within the new facility. • May – City Council reviews the PRC’s and LC’s recommendations and hears additional public input, then selects a name and/or dedication for the overall facility, and selects names and/or dedications for each of the five major programs that will be housed therein.

Impact on City Resources
There are no substantive direct impacts to the City’s General Fund associated with the requested City Council action.

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

Public Notice
Public notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. In addition, the City sent electronic notices directly to project email and text update subscribers from the project page (Attachment E.) Attachments
A. Resolution
B. Draft revised City Council Procedure CC-86-0001, “Naming and/or changing the name of facilities” – clean version with all revisions incorporated
C. Hyperlink – January 24 City Council staff report: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendasand-minutes/city-council/2023-meetings/agendas/20230124-city-council-agenda-packet.pdf#page=95 D. Hyperlink – project page: menlopark.gov/communitycampus Page G-8.2
Staff Report #: 23-065-CC

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

Sean S. Reinhart, Library and Community Services Director Page G-8.3
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK REVISING CITY COUNCIL PROCEDURE CC-86-0001, “NAMING AND/OR CHANGING THE NAME OF FACILITIES”
WHEREAS, City Council Procedure #CC-86-0001, “Naming and/or changing the name of facilities” (Naming Policy) was adopted February 25, 1986, and provides guidance on the naming of City-owned facilities, and
WHEREAS, the Naming Policy has not been revised since its adoption in 1986, and WHEREAS, to align the policy with current City Council expectations and community interests regarding the naming and/or dedication of public facilities operated by the City, and WHEREAS, to establish criteria and procedures for the naming, renaming, and/or dedication of public facilities, including major programs that are housed together in multiservice facilities, and WHEREAS, to establish criteria for recognizing individuals and/or groups who donate toward the costs of new and/or renovated public facilities, and WHEREAS, to refer the criteria and procedures for smaller-scale commemorative amenities in City parks, for example memorial plaques on park benches, to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) work plan with quarterly reporting to the City Council including any commemorative amenity requests reviewed by the PRC,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Menlo Park City Council that City Council Procedure #CC-86-0001 Naming and/or changing the name of facilities (Naming Policy) is hereby revised as shown in Exhibit A (additions in underline, deletions in strikethrough).

I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the fourteenth day of March, 2023, by the following votes:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this March day of __, 2023.

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
ATTACHMENT A Page G-8.4
Exhibits:

A. Red line City Council Procedure #CC-86-0001, “Naming and/or changing the name of facilities”
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 2 of 4 ends

CC 19860225

NAMING AND/OR CHANGING THE NAME OF FACILITIES
City Council Procedure #CC-86-0001XXX
Adopted February 25, 1986
Resolution No. XXXX
Purpose and Sscope
From time to time the City has the opportunity to name and/or dedicate a new facility, or the individual programs or components within a new facility, or is requested to change the rename of and/or rededicate a previously designated park, playground, building or other unit under the City’s jurisdiction.

In order to formalize the City’s consideration of these opportunities and requests, and to provide better guidelines to the public, the City does herebyhas adopted the following policy guidelines procedure and criteria for the naming and/or dedication of facilities.

1. It shall be the policy of the City not to change the name of any existing recreation and park City facility, particularly one whose name has City, regional or national significance, unless there is are the most extraordinary circumstances of City, regional or National national interest and no other new facility can so be designated.

2. The existing place names within Menlo Park shall be deemed to have historic significance to the City. The City will modify existing place names only with the greatest reluctance and, when naming or dedicating facilities in honor of a person or persons, only to commemorate a person or persons who have made major, overriding contributions to the City and whose distinctions are as yet unrecognizedunder-recognized by the City.

3. At the direction of the City Council, Tthe Parks and Recreation Commission, after considering inputs from the community, will may recommend to the City Council names and/or dedications for new parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, park paths, tennis courts, flower bedspublic gardens, recreation buildings and miscellaneous related facilities. For all other City facilities, City Council will consider inputs from the community and identify names and/or dedications in a manner consistent with the purpose and intent of this procedure.

3.4.The naming, dedication, renaming and/or rededication of City facilities will recognize and take into consideration the following criteria:
• A clear and compelling connection to significant local places, communities, neighborhoods, history, geographical features, people, achievements, events, and/or other attributes of the City and community of Menlo Park • Inclusion, belonging, access, fairness, and justice for the entire Menlo Park community and all of the people who are part of it
• A deceased person (no sooner than five years after death) who made major, overriding contributions to the City and community of Menlo Park and whose distinctions are as yet under-recognized by the City • ethnic or other nNational, regional or community groups not yet honored in some fashion, who that have made significant contributions to the City and/or the Park and Recreation DepartmentMenlo Park community and have not been previously honored in a meaningful way by the City.

4. It shall be the policy of the City generally to encourage plaques commemorating donations including tree memorials, horticultural collections or plant materials.

5. Where appropriate to the facility, the City encourages the donation of memorial benches.

6.5.At those facilities having recreation buildings, tThe City Council from time to time may authorize a dedication, placing of a memorial plaque, or other recognition inside a building when thatin or on a facility that is closely identified with a person or group, or to recognize individuals and/or groups who have donated to the facility and/or individual programs or components within it, but the policy of the City is to retain the historic name of the facility.

7.6.For other than naming and/or dedicating a new facility and its individual programs or components, it is the policy of the City to take no action until at least six months from the receipt of a suggested name changerenaming or the adoption of these policiesrededication.

Procedure history
Action Date Notes
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 3 of 4 ends

EXHIBIT A
Page G-8.6

NAMING AND/OR CHANGING THE NAME OF FACILITIES
City Council Policy #CC-XX-XXX 2
Adopted
Resolution No. XXXX
Procedure adopted February 25, 1986 City Council adopted Procedure reviewed January 27, 1998 City Council reviewed and made no revisions Resolution No. XXXX

Page 4 of 4 ends

NAMING AND/OR CHANGING THE NAME OF FACILITIES
City Council Procedure #CC--XXX
Adopted Resolution No. XXXX
Purpose and scope
From time to time the City has the opportunity to name and/or dedicate a new facility, or the individual programs or components within a new facility, or is requested to rename and/or rededicate a previously designated park, playground, building or other unit under the City’s jurisdiction.

In order to formalize the City’s consideration of these opportunities and requests, and to provide guidelines to the public, the City has adopted the following procedure and criteria for the naming and/or dedication of facilities.

1. It shall be the policy of the City not to change the name of any existing City facility, particularly one whose name has City, regional or national significance, unless there are the most extraordinary circumstances of City, regional or national interest and no other new facility can so be designated.

3. At the direction of the City Council, the Parks and Recreation Commission, after considering inputs from the community, may recommend to the City Council names and/or dedications for parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, park paths, tennis courts, public gardens, recreation buildings and related facilities. For all other City facilities, City Council will consider inputs from the community and identify names and/or dedications in a manner consistent with the purpose and intent of this procedure.

4. The naming, dedication, renaming and/or rededication of City facilities will recognize and take into consideration the following criteria:
• A clear and compelling connection to significant local places, communities, neighborhoods, history, geographical features, people, achievements, events, and/or other attributes of the City and community of Menlo Park • Inclusion, belonging, access, fairness, and justice for the entire Menlo Park community and all of the people who are part of it
• A deceased person (no sooner than five years after death) who made major, overriding contributions to the City and community of Menlo Park and whose distinctions are as yet under-recognized by the City • National, regional or community groups that have made significant contributions to the Menlo Park community and have not been previously honored in a meaningful way by the City.

5. The City Council from time to time may authorize a dedication, memorial plaque, or other recognition in or on a facility that is closely identified with a person or group, or to recognize individuals and/or groups who have donated to the facility and/or individual programs or components within it, but the policy of the City is to retain the historic name of the facility.

6. For other than naming and/or dedicating a new facility and its individual programs or components, it is the policy of the City to take no action until at least six months from the receipt of a suggested renaming or rededication.

Procedure history
Action Date Notes
Procedure adopted February 25, 1986 City Council adopted Procedure reviewed January 27, 1998 City Council reviewed and made no revisions Page G-8.8

ATTACHMENT B
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: 3/14/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-054-CC
Public Hearing: Consider the Planning Commission’s
recommendation to approve the vesting tentative
map extension and adopt a resolution to approve
a two-year extension of a vesting tentative map to
merge the existing SP-ECR/D (El Camino
Real/Downtown Specific Plan) lots, abandon a
portion of Alto Lane, and create a two-lot
subdivision for condominium purposes, with 12
residential units, one restaurant space and up to
three retail spaces on one lot in the SP-ECR/D
zoning district, at 201 El Camino Real, and two
townhouses on the second lot in the R-3
(Apartment) zoning district, at 612 Cambridge
Avenue
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve a tentative map extension request and adopt a resolution to approve a two-year extension of a vesting tentative map associated with a major subdivision to merge the existing SP-ECR/D (El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan) lots, abandon a portion of Alto Lane, and create a two-lot subdivision for condominium purposes, with 12 residential units, one restaurant space and up to three retail spaces on one lot in the SP-ECR/D zoning district, and two townhouses on the second lot in the R-3 (Apartment) zoning district (Attachment A.)
Policy Issues
The proposed project requires the City Council to consider whether the previously approved vesting tentative map should be extended for two years.

Background
Site location
Using El Camino Real in an east to west orientation, the project site is located at the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue, and is bounded by Cambridge Avenue to the east and El Camino Real to the north. The project site consists of two legal parcels that are located within the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan area, zoned SP-ECR/D, a portion of Alto Lane to be abandoned between these two parcels, and a third legal parcel that is located outside the Specific Plan area and zoned R-3.

AGENDA ITEM H-1 Page H-1.1
Staff Report #: 23-054-CC

Page 2 ends

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov The project’s vesting tentative map and conditions of approval are provided as Exhibits A and B, respectively, within Attachment A. A location map is provided as Attachment B.

Uses to the south of the project site include mostly single- and multi-family residential developments.

Nearby uses along El Camino Real include restaurant, office, and service station uses along the southern side of the street, and the 500 El Camino Real mixed-use development on the northern side of the street, which is nearing completion of the construction phase and is approved for office, residential and retail/restaurant uses.

Proposed project
The previously approved project includes the demolition of the existing on-site commercial and multi-family residential buildings and construction of a new three-story, mixed-use building with below-grade parking and two detached two-story townhouses. The mixed-use building would consist of retail and restaurant uses on the first floor and 12 residential units on the second and third floors and be located on the parcel addressed 201-211 El Camino Real. Two detached townhouses would be located on the parcel adjacent to the mixed-use building, at 612 Cambridge Avenue.

The mixed-use building would have a J-shaped footprint with a landscaped courtyard along the rear of the mixed-use building, near the townhouses. The proposed site layout is designed with Cambridge Avenue as the primary access, with one driveway leading to the mixed-use building’s main entrance and to the underground parking levels. A public paseo would be located between the mixed-use building and the townhomes, providing public access through the project site in a similar capacity as the existing Alto Lane (to be abandoned through the vesting tentative map.) Select project plan sheets from the previous City Council approval are included in Attachment C.

Staff has been made aware of code enforcement issues at the project site related to trespassing/transient activity and refuse. Staff has discussed these issues with the project representative and been informed that they are in the process of remedying these issues. The requested tentative map extension should be reviewed independently of these code enforcement issues. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to remedy the current issues and secure the site until future redevelopment occurs.

Project history
On October 27, 2020, the City Council adopted the following four resolutions:
• A resolution adopting findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopting the initial study and mitigated negative declaration (MND), and the mitigation, monitoring and reporting program;
• A resolution approving findings and conditions for the architectural control, a use permit and a vesting tentative map;
• A resolution ordering the vacation and abandonment of Alto Lane, public right-of-way adjacent to the property at 201-211 El Camino Real and 239-251 El Camino Real; and • A resolution approving the below market rate (BMR) housing agreement between the City of Menlo Park and Hu-Hantwo, LLC for the proposed project.

On November 24, 2021, the community development director approved a one-year extension for the use Page H-1.2
Staff Report #: 23-054-CC

Page 3 ends

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov permit request based on conditions not of the applicant’s making, including economic constraints due to the pandemic. The applicant applied for building permits for the project before the October 27, 2022 use permit extension deadline, allowing the use permit to remain valid.

Following the October 2020 approval, the ownership changed from Hu-Hantwo, LLC to 201 El Camino Real LLC, but the same architecture firm is working on this project.

Planning Commission review and recommendation
At its meeting December 5, 2022, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a two-year extension of the vesting tentative map based on the following findings:

1. The proposed vesting tentative map extension does not modify any of the original vesting tentative map’s design, and therefore, all of the findings made on the original vesting tentative map (City Council Resolution No. 6595) are still valid and apply to this extension;

2. All conditions of approval in City Council Resolution No. 6595, not otherwise modified by this resolution, are still in effect;

3. The extension of vesting tentative map expiration by two years would allow the applicant to secure financing for the project and allow the approved project to be implemented; and

4. A MND was adopted for the project by City Council October 27, 2020. The extension of time for a tentative map does not involve any physical changes in the environment and hence does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review. No other special circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Analysis
On October 19, 2022, the applicant submitted an application requesting an extension of the vesting tentative map by two years. The City Council is the final decision making body on the vesting tentative map extension. On December 5, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution (Attachment D) recommending the City Council approve a two-year extension for the vesting tentative map. If the City Council approves the extension of the vesting tentative map, it would expire October 27, 2024.

Vesting tentative map extension
The City Council’s 2020 approval of the project included a vesting tentative map associated with a major subdivision, including parcel management (e.g., lot merger, lot line adjustments), and a right-of-way abandonment. The existing 201 El Camino Real parcel, a portion of Alto Lane, and the associated parking lot would be merged to enable the proposed development. The abandonment of Alto Lane would allow for the development of the mixed-use building, since Alto Lane would cut through the footprint of the proposed building. The abandonment also would allow for the two Specific Plan parcels to be merged to facilitate the proposed mixed-use building. The condominium subdivision would allow the individual residential units to be bought or sold independently. A lot line adjustment between the subject property and the adjacent property at 239-251 El Camino Real would also occur, but there would be no change in overall square footage of the respective parcels, when including the abandoned Alto Lane area.

The applicant is now requesting an extension of the vesting tentative map by two years, which the Page H-1.3
Staff Report #: 23-054-CC

Page 4 ends

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov applicant indicates is needed to secure additional permitting with other agencies, along with contract assignments necessary for the project. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the approved vesting tentative map. Staff believes that extending the expiration date would be reasonable, as this would be consistent with the City Council’s overall approval of the project and would allow continued implementation of the project. The map extension is necessary to allow for the parcel management items to abandon Alto Lane and merge the Specific Plan parcels to enable the construction of the proposed mixed-use building. The extension would be consistent with Policies H4.4 (Mixed-Use Housing), H4.7 (Infill Housing Adjacent to Downtown), and H7.1 (Housing Design) by enabling a mixed-use development and creating future home ownership opportunities in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan and adjacent areas. All conditions of approval from the October 27, 2020 approval would continue to apply, but the expiration date of the vesting tentative map would be extended to October 27, 2024. The conditions of approval from the October 27, 2020 City Council meeting are included as Attachment E for reference.

Conclusion
Staff believes the request to modify the expiration date of the vesting tentative map by two years is appropriate, as it would allow the applicant to secure additional permitting with other agencies, along with the necessary construction contracts for the project. The approval of the revision to the vesting tentative map would allow the approved project to be comprehensively implemented which includes 14 residential units, one restaurant unit, and up to three retail units, with rights reserved to convert all residential units from rental to for-sale. Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the extension of the vesting tentative map by two years.

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

Environmental Review
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent environmental impact reports and Negative Declarations) provides that when an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record that there are new significant environmental effects due to a change in the project or circumstances, or there is new information of substantial importance as identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3.) An initial study and MND, collectively referred to as the MND, was prepared for the project and adopted October 27, 2020 by the City Council. The extension of time for a tentative map does not involve any physical changes in the environment and hence does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review beyond the impacts and issues already disclosed and analyzed in the MND. No other special circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Page H-1.4
Staff Report #: 23-054-CC

Page 5 ends

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Public Notice
Public Notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Public notification also consisted of publishing a notice in the local newspaper and notification by mail of owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius of the subject property.

Attachments
A. Draft resolution to extend the expiration date of an approved vesting tentative map B. Location map
C. Select project plans
D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-38
E. City Council Resolution No. 6595
Attached are reduced versions of maps and diagrams submitted by the applicants. The accuracy of the information in these drawings is the responsibility of the applicants, and verification of the accuracy by City Staff is not always possible. The original full-scale maps, drawings, and exhibits are available for public viewing at the community development department.

Report prepared by:

Matt Pruter, Associate Planner
Report reviewed by:

Kyle Perata, Planning Manager
Deanna Chow, Assistant Community Development Director
Page H-1.5
1 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK TO

APPROVE A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP ASSOCIATED WITH A MAJOR SUBDIVISION TO MERGE THE EXISTING SPECR/D (EL CAMINO REAL/DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN) LOTS, ABANDON

A PORTION OF ALTO LANE, AND CREATE A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, WITH 12 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ONE

RESTAURANT SPACE AND UP TO THREE RETAIL SPACES ON ONE LOT IN

THE SP-ECR/D ZONING DISTRICT, AND TWO TOWNHOUSES ON THE SECOND LOT IN THE R-3 (APARTMENT) ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2020, the City approved a vesting tentative map associated with a major subdivision to merge the existing SP-ECR/D (El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan) lots, abandon a portion of Alto Lane, and create a two-lot subdivision for condominium purposes, with 12 residential units, one restaurant space and no more than three retail spaces on one lot in the SP-ECR/D zoning district, and two townhouses on the second lot in the R-3 (Apartment) zoning district (collectively, the “Project”) from Ray Parkinson (“Applicant”), on behalf of the property owner Hu-Hantwo, LLC (“Owner”), located at 201-211 El Camino Real (APN 071-431-200), the unaddressed property with an APN of 071-413-370, a portion of Alto Lane, and 612 Cambridge Avenue (APN 071-413-380) (“Property”). The vesting tentative map is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Property is located in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan (SP-ECR/D) zoning district and the El Camino Real South West (ECR SW) sub-district, which supports a variety of uses including restaurant, retail, and residential uses; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2022, the City received an application requesting a two-year extension of the above referenced vesting tentative map which is depicted in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the proposed vesting tentative map extension complies with all objective standards of the SP-ECR/D district and ECR SW sub-district and furthers the original purposes of the project approvals by allowing the applicant to secure agency permitting and project contracting for the project and allow the approved project to be implemented; and WHEREAS, the proposed vesting tentative map extension and the approved project are consistent with the current General Plan and the recently adopted Housing Element, specifically Policies H4.4 (Mixed-Use Housing), H4.7 (Infill Housing Adjacent to Downtown), and H7.1 (Housing Design), by enabling a mixed-use development and creating future home ownership opportunities in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan and adjacent areas; and WHEREAS, the findings and conditions for the vesting tentative map extension would ensure that all City requirements are applied consistently and correctly as part of the project’s implementation; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project was reviewed by the Engineering Division and found to be in compliance with City standards; and
WHEREAS, the approval of the vesting tentative map extension is consistent with the City Council’s approval of the project and allows the project to be implemented comprehensively; and ATTACHMENT A Page H-1.6
2 WHEREAS, the Project requires discretionary actions by the City as summarized above, and therefore the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” Public Resources Code Section §21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.) require analysis and a determination regarding the Project’s environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency, as defined by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore responsible for the preparation, consideration, certification, and approval of environmental documents for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City had previously prepared and adopted an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, collectively referred to as the MND, for the project; and WHEREAS, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent environmental impact reports and Negative Declarations) provides that when an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that there are new significant environmental effects due to a change in the project or circumstances, or there is new information of substantial importance as identified in State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3.); and
WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held according to law; and
WHEREAS, after public notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled and held before the Planning Commission of the City of Menlo Park on December 5, 2022, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission considered all pertinent information, documents, exhibits, and all other evidence in the public record on the request; and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-38 to recommend approval of extension of the vesting tentative map to the City Council; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled and held before the City Council of the City of Menlo Park on March 14, 2023 whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Menlo Park having fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter voted affirmatively to approve the findings and conditions for the extension of the vesting tentative map; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the extension of the vesting tentative map to be in compliance with the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, collectively referred to as the MND, that was prepared for the project and adopted on October 27, 2020 by the City Council. The extension of time for a tentative map does not involve any physical changes in the environment and hence does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review beyond the impacts and issues already disclosed and analyzed in the MND.

No other special circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Menlo Park, independently, after reviewing all of the evidence before it, holding a public hearing, and Resolution No. XXXX

Page 2 of 10 ends

3 considering the Planning Commission’s recommendation, hereby approves a two year extension of the vesting tentative map, which vesting tentative map is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and associated conditions, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the following findings.

1. The proposed vesting tentative map extension does not modify any of the original Vesting Tentative Map’s design, and therefore, all of the findings made on the original Vesting Tentative Map (City Council Resolution No. 6595) are still valid and apply to this extension; and

2. All conditions of approval in City Council Resolution No. 6595, not otherwise modified by this resolution, are still in effect.

3. The extension of vesting tentative map expiration by two years would allow the applicant to secure financing for the project and allow the approved project to be implemented, is appropriate.

4. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) provides that when an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that there are new significant environmental effects due to a change in the project or circumstances, or there is new information of substantial importance as identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). A MND was adopted for the project by City Council on October 27, 2020. The extension of time for a tentative map does not involve any physical changes in the environment and hence does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review. No other special circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this __ of March, 2023.

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 3 of 10 ends

4 Exhibits
A. Vesting tentative map
B. Conditions of approval
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 4 of 10 ends

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
P:\2017\17-214_201_Camino\04_Design\01_CAD\01_SD\C-800 CD.dwg,C8.0 CITY DETAILS,Ashruf Khan,7/21/2020 3:26:03 PM,ARCH expand D (36.00 x 24.00 Inches),1:1 EXHIBIT A Resolution No. XXXX

Page 5 of 10 ends

Page H-1.10
Resolution No. XXXX

Page 6 of 10 ends

Page H-1.11
P:\2017\17-214_201_Camino\04_Design\01_CAD\01_SD\C-010 PARC.dwg,C0.1 PARCEL PLAN,Tina Stimpson,3/25/2020 4:22:58 PM,ARCH expand D (36.00 x 24.00 Inches),1:1 0 5' 10' 20'

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Resolution No. XXXX Page 7 of 10
Page H-1.12
P:\2017\17-214_201_Camino\04_Design\01_CAD\01_SD\C-020 LOT LINE ADJUST.dwg,C0.2 LOT LINE ADJUST,Tina Stimpson,3/25/2020 4:23:06 PM,ARCH expand D (36.00 x 24.00 Inches),1:1 0 5' 10' 20'

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Resolution No. XXXX Page 8 of 10
Page H-1.13
P:\2017\17-214_201_Camino\04_Design\01_CAD\01_SD\JT1-JOINT TRENCH.dwg,JT1,Tina Stimpson,3/27/2020 11:37:53 AM,ARCH expand D (36.00 x 24.00 Inches),1:1

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Resolution No. XXXX Page 9 of 10
Page H-1.14
201 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue
PAGE: 1 of 1
LOCATION: 201 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
APPLICATION:

SUB2022-00008
APPLICANT: Ray
Parkinson
OWNER: HuHan Two,
LLC
PROJECT CONDITIONS – VESTING TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION:

1. The vesting tentative map extension shall be subject to all conditions that were included in the City’s Council’s October 27, 2020 approval of the vesting tentative map and associated entitlements, except that the expiration date of the vesting tentative map is extended to October 27, 2024.

Resolution No. XXXX

Page 10 of 10 ends

Page H-1.15
´ CITY OF MENLO PARK
/2&$7,210$3
(O&DPLQR5HDODQG&DPEULGJH$YHQXH
6FDOH

'UDZQ%\
0$3&KHFNHG%\
&'6'DWH

(/&$0,125($/
(/&$0,125($/
6RXUFHV
(VUL$LUEXV'686*61*$1$6$&*,$515RELQVRQ1&($61/62610$*HRGDWDVW\UHOVHQ5LMNVZDWHUVWDDW*6$*HRODQG)(0$,QWHUPDSDQGWKH *,6XVHUFRPPXQLW\6RXUFHV
(VUL+(5(*DUPLQ)$212$$86*62SHQ6WUHHW0DSFRQWULEXWRUVDQGWKH*,68VHU&RPPXQLW\

ATTACHMENT F
F1

ATTACHMENT B
1/24/2023
ATTACHMENT B Page H-1.16
Pure Floor Area by use:
1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor
Residential 393.1 Residential 8,646.6 sf Residential 7,179.0 sf Retail 5,875.6 sfRestaurant 1,200.0 sfTotal Pure Square Footage by use: Percentage of Pure Floor Area:

Pure Res SF 16,218.7 sf 69.63%
Pure Retail SF 5,875.6 sf 25.22%Pure Restaurant 1,200.0 sf 5.15%Total Pure SF 23,294.3 sf Shared Common Area, including Staircase 1, Elevator, Common Circulation and Common Lobby Shared Common 841.6 sf
Allocation of Shared Common Area as a Percentage of Pure Floor AreaResidential 586.0 sfRetail 212.3 sfRestaurant 43.4 sfTotal area for parking calculation, Pure floor area plus allocation of common area.

Use: Ratio: Required Parking:

Retail 6,087.9 sf 4/1000 24.35Restaurant 1,243.4 sf 6/1000 7.46

31.81 Rounded upͲ> 32.0
Residential 12 Units 1.85/Unit 22.20 Rounded upͲ> 23.0 612 Cambridge 2 Townhomes 2 per unit 4.00 Rounded upͲ> 4.0 Required Parking: 59.0
201 El Camino Real, Menlo Park, CAZoning AnalysisZoning: 201 El Camino Real ECR SW Proposed Use: Retail, Restaurant, Residential Site Area: 17,302 sf*

PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY PROPOSED INTENSITY
BASE ZONING PERMITTED WITH PUBLIC BENEFIT PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION:

Proposed Gross Floor Area: 25,282.5 s.f.

Max FAR for all Uses: 1.1 1.5 Proposed Total FAR: 1.46 <1.5 Permitted Floor Area: 19,032.2 s.f. 25,953.0 s.f. Proposed Res. Units: 12 Units Proposed Density: 30.00 Units/acreProposed Floor Areas:

Restaurant: 1,200.0 s.f.

Permitted Density: 25 Units/acre 40 Units/acre Retail: 5,875.6 s.f. # Res. Units: 9 Units 15 Units Common Circulation: 841.6 s.f.

Residential Floor Area: 17,365.3 s.f.

BMR Housing:

BMR requirement: 1 or inͲlieu fee 1.5 BMR Units Proposed: 2 Units* The lot area of the RͲ3 zoned 612 Cambridge parcel is not included in the lot area for these calculations. ** Residential Floor Area includes floor area on all three levels.

Setbacks: Front 7' Front 7'
Right Side 5' Right Side 5'
Left Side 7' Left Side 7'
Rear: 20' Rear: 20'
Height Limit: Building height 38' Building height: 38'
Parapet height 42' Parapet Height: 39'Ͳ5.25"
Elevator/ Stairs 52' Elevator/ Stairs 46'Ͳ2.5"
Open Space Minimum: 30% Private Open Space 1,457.6 s.f.

Common Open Space 6,599.9 s.f.

Minimum Required 5,190.6 s.f. Total Provided: 8,057.5 s.f.

Required Vehicle Parking: Proposed Vehicle Parking:

Refer to Parking Calculation table on this sheet for a detailed analysis of required parking for each use.

Level 1: 21 cars, standard stalls *Includes Common
Circulation areaallocated as apercentage by use
Level 2: 10 cars, standard stallsLevel 2: 28 cars, stacker units Total parking required: 59 Cars Total: 59ADA Parking Required: EV Charging Station Requirements:

Commercial: 2 Spaces Required Of Commercial Parking, 32 Space:1 Van Accessible EVSE Installed (10%) 4 Required1 Standard Accessible EV Spaces Ready (15%) 5 RequiredResidential: 1 Space Required:
1 Van Accessible Residential: 1 EV Space per unit. 14 Total Required Balance of EV Spaces Ready: 11 required
Of which 15% to be EVCS Installed: 3 Required
Required Bike Parking: Req.

Restaurant Long Term; 1 per 12,000 sf: (min. 2) 2 Total Required Total Proposed Short Term; 1 per 2,000 sf: (min. 2) 6 18 Long Term 18 Long Term Retail Long Term; 1 per 12,000 sf (min. 2) 2 10 Short Term 20 Short Term Short Term; 1 per 5,000 sf: (min. 2) 2
Residential, Multi Family: Long Term; 1 per unit: 14
Short Term; 1 per 10 units: 2
612 Cambridge Ave, Menlo Park, CAZoning AnalysisZoning: 612 Cambridge RͲ3Proposed Used: 2 Residential Townhomes Site Area: 7923 sf

PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY PROPOSED INTENSITY
Max Density: 2 units Proposed Density: 2 unitsMaximum FAR 0.45 Proposed FAR 0.450 Maximum Floor Area: 3,565 sf Proposed Floor Area: 3,564.0 44.98% Maximum Lot Coverage 2,377 sf Proposed Lot Coverage 2,211.8 27.92% Min. Required Open Space: 3,962 sf Open Space Provided: 5,711 72.08% Maximum Height: 35 ft Proposed Height: 25'Ͳ6"
Parking requirement: 2 Per Unit
Total Parking Required: 4 Parking provided: 4 ******Townhouse parking provided in garage at 201 El Camino Real ARCHITECT: EID Architects
Environmental Innovations in Design412 Olive AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94306-2225Phone: (650) 226-8770Mobile: (650) 793-2856Email: [email protected] OWNER:

HuHanTwo, LLC
86 Michaels WayAtherton, CA 94027Phone: Mobile: (202) 550-0045Email: [email protected] STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:GENERAL CONTRACTOR:

T.B.D.Phone: Mobile: Email:

HISTORICAL STUDY:

ARBORIST:

GEOTECHNICAL: SURVEYOR/ CIVIL ENG.:

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:

T.B.D
, CA 94 Phone: ( ) -Mobile: Email:

JOINT TRENCH:

Millennium Design & Consulting Inc.3200 Danville Blvd. #250Alamo, CA 94507Phone: (925) 820-8502Mobile: (925) 783-4300Email: [email protected] Advanced Tree CareP.O. Box 5326 Redwood City, CA 94063Phone: (650) 839-9539 Mobile: (650) 537-0175Email: [email protected] ZAC Landscape Architects145 Keller StreetPetaluma, CA 94952Phone: Mobile: (707) 696-2967Email: [email protected] Urban Programmers
10710 Ridgeview Ave.San Jose, CA 95127Phone: (408) 254-7171 Mobile: Email: [email protected] Earth Systems Pacific48511 Warm Springs Rd., Ste. 210Fremont, CA 94539Phone: (408) 934-9302 Mobile: (510) 353-3833Email: [email protected] Sherwood Design Civil Engineers
2548 Mission StreetSan Francisco, CA 94110Phone: (415) 677-7300Mobile: (415) 509-0707Email: [email protected] LANDUSE ATTORNEY:

Arent Fox LLP Attorneys at Law55 2nd Street, 21st FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105Phone: (415) 805-7969Mobile: Email: [email protected] CHS Consulting Traffic Eng
220 Montgomery St., Ste. 346San Francisco, CA 94104Phone: (415) 392-9688Mobile: Email: [email protected] TRAFFIC ENGINEER:

Parking Calculations:
201 El Camino Real
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
201 EL CAMINO REAL & 612 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE 201 EL CAMINO REAL & 612 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE

DRAWING INDEX

VICINITY MAP PROJECT TEAM
COPYRIGHT © 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 201 EL CAMINO REAL - 612 CAMBRIDGE AVE M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN
412 OLIVE AVE. PALO ALTO, CA 94306
PHONE: 650-226-8770 WWW.EIDARCHITECTS.COM

DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER
9/30/2020 12:53:03 PM
COVER SHEET A-0.0 09/11/2020
C7.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASING PLANC8.0 CITY DETAILSTENTATIVE MAP (UNDER SEPERATE COVER)EXH-1 VESTING TENATIVE MAPEXH-2 PARCEL PLANTM-1of2 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTJoint TrenchJT1 JOINT TRENCHLandscapeL1.0 LANDSCAPE PLANL1.1 LANDSCAPE IMAGESL2.0 PLANT LIST AND IMAGESL3.0 WATER USAGE CALCULATIONSTree ProtectionT-1 TREE DISPOSITION PLANT-2 ARBORIST REPORT & TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONST-3 TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONSTotal Sheets: 81 A-6.9 WINDOW & DOOR IMAGESA-7.1 TRASH-RECYCLING ENCLOSURE AND CAR STACKERSA-7.2 COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD - GREENSCREEN WALLLEED-1.0 LEED BUILDING INFORCP-1.1 LIGHTING PHOTOMETRICSRCP-1.2 LIGHTING PHOTOMETRICSRCP-1.3 LIGHTING PHOTOMETRICSBMP-1 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES - STORMWATERBMP-2 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES - EROSION CONTROLCivil-SurveyC0.1 TOPOGRAPHIC AND BOUNDARY SURVEYC1.0 PARCEL PLANC2.0 CIRCULATION PLANC2.1 GARAGE VEHICLE TURNINGC2.2 FIRE ACCESS PLANC3.0 SITE AND GRADING PLAN - PRIVATE AND ONSITEC3.1 SITE AND GRADING PLAN - PUBLIC AND OFFSITEC4.0 UTILITY AND RELOCATION PLAN - PRIVATE AND ONSITEC4.1 UTILITY AND RELOCATION PLAN - PUBLIC AND OFFSITEC5.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANC6.0 EROSION CONTROL A-3.6 TOWNHOUSE #1 FLOOR PLANSA-3.7 TOWNHOUSE #2 FLOOR PLANSA-3.8 ROOF PLANA-4.1 PROPOSED STREET SCAPE VIEWSA-4.2 ELEVATIONS - MIXED-USEA-4.3 ELEVATIONS - MIXED-USEA-4.4 ELEVATIONS - TOWNHOUSE 1A-4.5 ELEVATIONS - TOWNHOUSE 2A-5.1 BUILDING SECTIONSA-5.2 BUILDING SECTIONSA-5.3 BUILDING SECTIONSA-5.4 BUILDING SECTIONSA-5.5 BUILDING SECTIONSA-5.6 BUILDING PROFILEA-6.0 3D VIEWS 1A-6.1 3D VIEWS 2A-6.2 RENDERED STREET VIEW OF EL CAMINO REAL &

CAMBRIDGE FRONTAGES
A-6.3 RENDERED STREET VIEW OF PROPOSED CAMBRIDE AVE.

FRONTAGE
A-6.4 RENDERED STREET VIEW OF PROPOSED ENTRYA-6.5 COLORS AND MATERIALSA-6.6 MATERIALS AND DETAILSA-6.7 MATERIALS AND DETAILSA-6.7b DETAILSA-6.8 AC CONDENSER SPECS & SIGNAGE ArchitecturalA-0.0 COVER SHEETA-0.1a CONDITIONS OF APPROVALA-0.1b EXISTING STREET VIEWS OF NEIGHBORHOODA-0.2a EXISTING/ DEMO SITE PLANA-0.2b EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - 612 CAMBRIDGE AVE.A-1.0 VICINITY SITE PLANA-1.1 PROPOSED SITE PLANA-1.2 AREA PLAN - UNDERGROUNDA-1.3a AREA PLAN & COVERAGE - 1ST FLOORA-1.3b AREA POLYGON DIAGRAM - 1ST FLOORA-1.4a AREA PLAN - 2ND FLOORA-1.4b AREA POLYGON DIAGRAM - 2ND FLOORA-1.5a AREA PLAN - 3RD FLOORA-1.5b AREA POLYGON DIAGRAM - 3RD FLOORA-1.6a AREA PLAN TOWNHOUSEA-1.6b AREA POLYGON DIAGRAM & LOT COVERAGE -

TOWNHOUSE
A-1.7 BUILDING FACADE MODULATIONSA-1.7a STOREFRONT AREA CALCULATIONA-1.8 FIRE ANALYSIS - UNPROTECTED OPENINGSA-3.1 1ST FLOOR PLANA-3.2 2ND FLOOR PLANA-3.3 3RD FLOOR PLANA-3.4 GARAGE LEVEL 1A-3.5 GARAGE LEVEL 2 Planning Permit #: PLN2018-00061APN/Parcel ID: 071-413-200, 370, 380General Notes:The project is subject to the California Building Standards Code at the time of Building permit application.The project is subject to the California Green Building Standards Code (Cal Green) in effect at the time of Building permit submittal and any local amendments to the Code. Other forms of green building checklist will not be accepted in-lieu of the Cal Green requirements.All deferred submittals other than trusses are to be approved by the Building Official prior to Building Permit application. MEP Notes:All sanitary sewer lines shall have a slope of 2% unless otherwise approved by the Building Official. All sanitary sewer lines will gravity feed to the sewer mains in the public right of way unless otherwise approved by the Building Official. HVAC equipment Shall not exceed the threshold levels as established in Chapter 8.06 of the City of Menlo Park Municipal Code.Do not run condensate water run into the storm drain systems.

ATTACHMENT C
Page H-1.17

PROPERTY LINE
LOT 73 & 74
LOT 69

EXISTING ONE STORY

COMMERCIAL BUILDING
(TO BE REMOVED)

EXISTING ONE STORY

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
(TO BE REMOVED) EXISTING PARKING LOT

PROPERTY LINE

EL CAMINO REAL

CAMBRIDGE AVENUE
EXISTING ACCESSORY BLDG.
(TO BE REMOVED)

EXISTING ALTO LANE

TO BE VACATED
LOT 71 & 72
LOT 70

PROPOSEDPROJECTBOUNDARY
(TO BE REMOVED)

PROJECTBOUNDARY

PROJECT

BOUNDARY

PROJECTBOUNDARY
24" COASTAL REDWOOD

23.1" COASTAL REDWOOD

16.2" COASTAL REDWOOD

9.6" COASTAL REDWOOD

21.7" BLACK ACACIA

14.1" CHINESE ELM

9.7" BLACK WALNUT

19.2" VALLEY OAK

40.3" VALLEY OAK

27.2" COASTAL REDWOOD
04 01
16 12 11 10
13 15
06 07
08 05
02 03
14 09

12.3" HONEY

LOCUST TREE
(TO BE REMOVED)

29.6" COASTAL

REDWOOD
(TO BE REMOVED)

33.7" COASTAL REDWOOD
(TO BE REMOVED)
6" TREE

NOT NUMBERED
(TO BE REMOVED)
6" TREE

NOT NUMBERED
(TO BE REMOVED)

12.8 TREE

11.7" TREE

23.8" BLACK ACACIA

10.5" PLUM TREE

2.8" SYCAMO
(TO BE REMO
17 5.2" SYCAMORE
(TO BE REMOVED)
18 3.5" SYCAMORE
DRIP LINERE: ARBORIST REPORT, TYP.

TREE PROTECTION PERARBORIST REPORT
DRIP LINE R12'-0" DRIP LINE R8'-0"
DRIP LINE R8'-0"
DRIP LINE R6'-0"
DRIP LINE R15'-0"

DRIP LINE
R15'-0"
DRIP LINE R15'-0"
DRIP LINE R15'-0"
DRIP LINE R20'-0"
DRIP LINERE: ARBORIST REPORT
DRIP LINERE: ARBORIST REPORT
DRIP LINE R6'-0" DRIP LINE R9'-0"
DRIP LINE R6'-0"
19 20
COPYRIGHT © 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 201 EL CAMINO REAL - 612 CAMBRIDGE AVE M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN
412 OLIVE AVE. PALO ALTO, CA 94306
PHONE: 650-226-8770 WWW.EIDARCHITECTS.COM

DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER
PRINT DATE: 1/31/2019
08/10/2020

SUNRISE
29° South East 7:20 12/21
31° North East 4:49 6/21 EAST
SUNSET
29° South West
19:31 6/21 31° North West
16:52 12/21 WEST

29.5° 75.5°
Magnetic North
EXISTING/DEMO A-0.2a

SITE PLAN
Page H-1.18
T
39'-3"
59'-8"
38'-4"
20'-0"
64'-5"

PROPOSED MIXED-USE

PROPOSED

RESIDENCE

PROPOSED

RESIDENCE

EXISTING

RESIDENCE

EXISTING COMMERCIAL

EXISTINGRESIDENCE

EXISTING

ACCESSORY

BUILDINGS

EXISTING

RESIDENCE

EXISTING

RESIDENCE

EXISTING

RESIDENCE

CAMBRIDGE AVENUE

EL CAMINO REAL

EXISTING COMMERCIAL
145 El Camino Real

EXISTING

COMMERCIAL
627 CAMBRIDGE
AVE.

EXISTING

ACCESSORY TO LANE

EXISTING

GAS STATION
18'-0"
20'-0"

EXISTING RESIDENCE

TO BE REMOVED

DRIVEWAY

RAMP DOWN

PARKING LOT

DRIVEWAY

EXISTING COMMERCIAL TOBE REMOVED

PROPERTY LINES

EXISTING

PARKING LOT
10'-0"
26'-0"
16'-10"
GARAGE
10'-2"
19'-2"

DRIVEWAY

EXISTING LIGHTED

BRICK COLUMNS

DRIVEWAY

PROPOSED RAISED
CROSS WALK 57'-5"
617
PARTRIDGE AVE.
615 PARTRIDGE
AVE.
635 PARTRIDGE
AVE.

DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY

EXISTING

ACCESSORY

BUILDINGS
24" COASTAL REDWOOD

23.1" COASTAL REDWOOD

16.2" COASTAL REDWOOD

9.6" COASTAL REDWOOD

21.7" BLACK ACACIA

14.1" CHINESE ELM

9.7" BLACK WALNUT

19.2" VALLEY OAK

40.3" VALLEY OAK

27.2" COASTAL REDWOOD
04 01
16 12 11 10
13 15
06 07
08 05
02 03
14 09

12.3" HONEY

LOCUST TREE
(TO BE REMOVED)

29.6" COASTAL

REDWOOD
(TO BE REMOVED)

33.7" COASTAL REDWOOD
(TO BE REMOVED)
6" TREENOT NUMBERED
(TO BE REMOVED)
6" TREENOT NUMBERED
(TO BE REMOVED)
6" TREENOT NUMBERED
(TO BE REMOVED)

12.8 TREE

11.7" TREE

23.8" BLACK ACACIA

10.5" PLUM TREE

2.8" SYCAMORE
(TO BE REMOVED)
17 5.2" SYCAMORE
(TO BE REMOVED)
18 3.5" SYCAMORE
DRIP LINERE: ARBORIST REPORT, TYP.

TREE PROTECTION PERARBORIST REPORT
DRIP LINE R12'-0" DRIP LINE R8'-0"
DRIP LINE R8'-0"
DRIP LINE R6'-0"
DRIP LINE R15'-0"

DRIP LINE
R15'-0"
DRIP LINE R15'-0"
DRIP LINE R15'-0"
DRIP LINE R20'-0"
DRIP LINERE: ARBORIST REPORT
DRIP LINERE: ARBORIST REPORT
DRIP LINE R6'-0" DRIP LINE R9'-0"
DRIP LINE R6'-0"
19 20
DRIVEWAY 241 E. EL CAMIINO REAL
649, 653, 655
PARTRIDGE AVE.
626
CAMBRIDGE AVE.
628
CAMBRIDGE AVE.

APPROVED

RESIDENCE NOT
YET

CONSTRUCTED

DRIVEWAY

APPROVED

RESIDENCE NOT
YET

CONSTRUCTED
275

EL CAMINO REAL
605
CAMBRIDGE AVE.

EXISTING

RESIDENCE
15'-0"
PUE
COPYRIGHT © 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 201 EL CAMINO REAL - 612 CAMBRIDGE AVE M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN
412 OLIVE AVE. PALO ALTO, CA 94306
PHONE: 650-226-8770 WWW.EIDARCHITECTS.COM

DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER
PRINT DATE: 1/31/2019
08/10/2020 VICINITY SITE PLAN A-1.0

SUNRISE
29° South East 7:20 12/21
31° North East 4:49 6/21 EAST
SUNSET
29° South West
19:31 6/21 31° North West
16:52 12/21 WEST

29.5° 75.5°
Magnetic North
Page H-1.19
UP
UP
4'-0"
6'-0"
4'-0"
6'-0"
4'-0"
6'-0"
6'-0"
4'-0"
6'-0"
4'-0"
6'-0"
4'-0"
6'-0"
4'-0"
6'-0"
4'-0"
8'-0"
6'-0" 6'-0"
4 -' 0"
4'-0"
12'-0"
11'-11"
A-4.2 2
A-4.2
A-4.2
A-4.3
1 3
1 0' 5' 10' 20' 40'
Graphic Scale: 1inch = 10 feet

EL CAMINO REAL

CAMBRIDGE AVENUE
4' - 0" 8' - 0"

SETBACK
18' - 0" 27' - 0" 2' - 0"
25'-6" M NI REQ.
26' - 0" 27' - 0" 2' - 0"

SETBACK
20' - 0"
1 A-4.4
A-4.4
A-4.4
A-4.4 4
2 3
11' - 0"
15' - 0"
33° 02' 32"

65.00'
N E
57° 08' 52"

16.12'
S E
33° 02' 32"

65.00'
N E
57° 08' 52"
121.78'
N W
57° 09' 05"

16.03'
S E
33° 02' 32"
107.88'
N E
50° 42' 39"

71.59'
S E
32° 51' 08"

99.85'
S W
32° 51' 08"

65.00'
S W
32° 51' 08"

65.00'
S W
57° 08' 52"
122.00'
N W
74° 42' 16"

26.86'
S W

CAR RAMP DOWN
(N) DRIVEWAY

TRASH/ RECYCLING ENCLOSURE

RES LOBBY
TOWNHOUSE 1
TOWNHOUSE 2
STAIR 2
STAIR 3
STAIR 1
6' HIGH WOOD FENCE,
RE: LANDSCAPE FOR MORE INFO
PUE
15' - 0"
10' - 0" 2' - 0" 36' - 0" 2' - 0"
RETAIL

RESTAURANT
(E) BUILDING TO BE REMOVED
PLANTER 15' - 2"
9' - 9 1/2"

GAS METERS
20' - 10" 6' - 6"
3' HIGH WOOD FENCE,RE: LANDSCAPE FOR MORE INFO
20' - 0"
PASSEO PEDESTRIAN PATH, RE: C1.1
SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN PATH, RE: C1.1
MIN. CLEAR

PATH OF
TRAVEL
4' - 0" 8' - 0"

SIDEWALK PEDESTRIAN PATH,
RE: C1.1

CLEAR PATH

OF TRAVEL
A-7.1
2 TRASH/RECYCLING BINS
20x2525x32 30x36

TRASH/RECYCLING BINS
20x25 25x32 30x36
CURB
2 A-4.5
A-4.5
3 A-4.5 1
A-4.5
4 SETBACK
36' - 0"
POTENTIAL FUTURERAISED CROSSWALK,RE: CIVIL DWG. C8.0.
(E) LIGHTEDBRICK COLUMN, TO REMAIN (E) AT&T UTILITYBOX, TO REMAIN (E) BOLLARD, TO REMAIN
(N) DG, RE: LANDSCAPE

20.23 4' - 6" (N) BENCH

20.2220.22

ALTO LANE

NEW TRUNCATED DOMES

NEW TRUNCATED DOMES
FENCE WITHIN THE 20' FRONT YARD SETBACK SHALL NOT EXCEED 4 FEET IN HEIGHT (E) LANDSCAPETO REMAIN
(E) HARDSCAPE TO REMAIN
(E) DRIVEWAY

SUNRISE
29° South East
7:20 12/21
31° North East
4:49 6/21
EAST
SUNSET
29° South West
19:31 6/21
31° North West
16:52 12/21
WEST

29.5°

75.5°
Magnetic Nor ht
12' - 2 1/4"
1 10' - 6" 24' - 6" 20' - 3 1/2" 50' - 0" 10' - 4 1/2" 38' - 1" 22' - 0"
#14 9.7" Black Walnut
#319.2" Valley Oak
#227.2 Costal Redwood
#816.2" Coastal Redwood
#79.6" Coastal Redwood
#623.1" Coastal Redwood
#1024" Coastal Redwood
#1121.7 Black Acacia
#1223.8 Black Acacia
#1314.1" Chinese Elm#1510.5" Plum
#412.3" Honey Locust TreeTo Be Removed
#129.6" Coastal RedwoodTo Be Removed
#533.7" Coastal RedwoodTo Be Removed
NEW CURB RAMP,RE: CIVIL DWG'S.
153' - 9"
#1912.8" Carob
#2011.7" Carob
#175.1" Sycamoreto be removed#183.5" Sycamore
#162.8" Sycamoreto be removed
#0940.3" Valley Oak
3' HIGH WOOD FENCE,RE: LANDSCAPE FOR MORE INFO
3' HIGH WOOD FENCE,RE: LANDSCAPE FOR MORE INFO
3' HIGH WOOD FENCE, RE: LANDSCAPE FOR MORE INFO
COPYRIGHT © 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 201 EL CAMINO REAL - 612 CAMBRIDGE AVE M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN
412 OLIVE AVE. PALO ALTO, CA 94306
PHONE: 650-226-8770 WWW.EIDARCHITECTS.COM

DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER
9/30/2020 11:53:13 AM

PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A-1.1 09/11/2020
1" = 10'-0" 1 SITE PLAN Keynote Legend
Key Value Keynote Text

20.22 (N) BICYCLE "ROLLING RACK" BY AMERIBIKE OR EQUAL, 5 BIKES PER RACK20.23 (N) BICYCLE "HOOP RACK" BY AMERIBIKE.COM, OR EQ. 2 BIKES PER RACK Page H-1.20
COPYRIGHT © 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 201 EL CAMINO REAL - 612 CAMBRIDGE AVE M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN
412 OLIVE AVE. PALO ALTO, CA 94306
PHONE: 650-226-8770 WWW.EIDARCHITECTS.COM

DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER
8/7/2020 03:53:41 PM
PROPOSED STREET SCAPE VIEWS A-4.1 08/10/2020
12" = 1'-0" 1 EL CAMINO STREETSCAPE12" = 1'-0" 2 CAMBRIDGE STREETSCAPE Page H-1.21
COPYRIGHT © 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 201 EL CAMINO REAL - 612 CAMBRIDGE AVE M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN
412 OLIVE AVE. PALO ALTO, CA 94306
PHONE: 650-226-8770 WWW.EIDARCHITECTS.COM

DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER
8/7/2020 04:05:19 PM
A-6.2 RENDERED STREET VIEW OF EL CAMINO REAL & CAMBRIDGE FRONTAGES 08/10/2020 Page H-1.22
COPYRIGHT © 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 201 EL CAMINO REAL - 612 CAMBRIDGE AVE M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5

ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN DESIGN
412 OLIVE AVE. PALO ALTO, CA 94306
PHONE: 650-226-8770 WWW.EIDARCHITECTS.COM

DATE SHEET TITLE SHEET NUMBER
8/7/2020 04:05:19 PM
A-6.3 RENDERED STREET VIEW OF PROPOSED CAMBRIDE AVE. FRONTAGE 08/10/2020 Page H-1.23
Page H-1.24
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2022-38

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MENLO PARK RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL

APPROVE A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF A VESTING TENTATIVE

MAP ASSOCIATED WITH A MAJOR SUBDIVISION TO MERGE THE

EXISTING SP-ECR/D (EL CAMINO REAL/DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC

PLAN) LOTS, ABANDON A PORTION OF ALTO LANE, AND CREATE
A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES, WITH 12

RESIDENTIAL UNITS, ONE RESTAURANT SPACE AND NO MORE

THAN THREE RETAIL SPACES ON ONE LOT IN THE SP-ECR/D

ZONING DISTRICT, AND TWO TOWNHOUSES ON THE SECOND LOT
IN THE R-3 (APARTMENT) ZONING DISTRICT.

WHEREAS, on October 27, 2020, the City approved a vesting tentative map associated with a major subdivision to merge the existing SP-ECR/D (El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan) lots, abandon a portion of Alto Lane, and create a two-lot subdivision for condominium purposes, with 12 residential units, one restaurant space and no more than three retail spaces on one lot in the SP-ECR/D zoning district, and two townhouses on the second lot in the R-3 (Apartment) zoning district (collectively, the “Project”) from Ray Parkinson (“Applicant”), on behalf of the property owner HuHan Two, LLC (“Owner”), located at 201-211 El Camino Real (APN 071-431-200), the unaddressed property with an APN of 071-413-370, a portion of Alto Lane, and 612 Cambridge Avenue (APN 071-413-380) (“Property”). The vesting tentative map is depicted in and subject to the development plans and documents which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the Property is located in the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan (SP-ECR/D) zoning district and the El Camino Real South West (ECR SW) sub-district, which supports a variety of uses including restaurant, retail, and residential uses; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2022, the City received an application requesting a twoyear extension of the above referenced vesting tentative map which is depicted in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the proposed vesting tentative map extension complies with all objective standards of the SP-ECR/D district and ECR SW sub-district and furthers the original purposes of the project approvals by allowing the applicant to secure agency permitting and project contracting for the project and allow the approved project to be implemented; and
WHEREAS, the findings and conditions for the vesting tentative map extension would ensure that all City requirements are applied consistently and correctly as part of the project’s implementation; and

ATTACHMENT D Page H-1.25
Resolution No. 2022-38
2 WHEREAS, the proposed Project was reviewed by the Engineering Division and found to be in compliance with City standards; and
WHEREAS, the approval of the vesting tentative map extension is consistent with the City Council’s approval of the project and allows the project to be implemented; and WHEREAS, the Project, requires discretionary actions by the City as summarized above, and therefore the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” Public Resources Code Section §21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et seq.) require analysis and a determination regarding the Project’s environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City is the lead agency, as defined by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and is therefore responsible for the preparation, consideration, certification, and approval of environmental documents for the Project; and WHEREAS, the City had previously prepared and adopted an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, collectively referred to as the MND, for the project; and WHEREAS, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent environmental impact reports and Negative Declarations) provides that when an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that there are new significant environmental effects due to a change in the project or circumstances, or there is new information of substantial importance as identified in State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3.); and WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held according to law; and
WHEREAS, at a duly and properly noticed public hearing held on December 5, 2022, the Planning Commission fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated the whole of the record including all public and written comments, pertinent information, documents and plans, prior to taking action regarding Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and they are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.

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

Page H-1.26
Resolution No. 2022-38
3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission makes the following findings and recommendations:

2. All conditions of approval in City Council Resolution No. 6595, not otherwise modified by this resolution, are still in effect.

3. The extension of vesting tentative map expiration by two years would allow the applicant to secure financing for the project and allow the approved project to be implemented, is appropriate.

4. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) provides that when an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, that there are new significant environmental effects due to a change in the project or circumstances, or there is new information of substantial importance as identified in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3). A MND was adopted for the project by City Council October 27, 2020. The extension of time for a tentative map does not involve any physical changes in the environment and hence does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. No potential new impacts related to the Project have been identified that would necessitate further environmental review. No other special circumstances exist that would create a reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

Severability.

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

I, Corinna Sandmeier, Acting Principal Planner and Planning Commission Liaison of the City of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Planning Commission Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said Planning Commission on December 5, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: DeCardy, Do, Riggs, Schindler, Tate
NOES: None
ABSENT: Barnes, Harris
ABSTAIN: None

Page H-1.27
Resolution No. 2022-38
4 IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this 5th day of December, 2022
______________________________
Corinna Sandmeier
Acting Principal Planner and Planning Commission Liaison City of Menlo Park
Exhibits
A. Project Plans
B. Project Description Letter
C. Conditions of Approval

Page H-1.28

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
(36.00 x 24.00 Inches),1:1 P:\2017\17-214_201_Camino\04_Design\01_CAD\01_SD\C-800 CD.dwg,C8.0 CITY DETAILS,Ashruf Khan,7/21/2020 3:26:03 PM,ARCH expand D (;+,%,7$

Page H-1.29

Page H-1.30
D (36.00 x 24.00 Inches),1:1 P:\2017\17-214_201_Camino\04_Design\01_CAD\01_SD\C-010 PARC.dwg,C0.1 PARCEL PLAN,Tina Stimpson,3/25/2020 4:22:58 PM,ARCH expand 0 5' 10' 20'

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

Page H-1.31
P:\2017\17-214_201_Camino\04_Design\01_CAD\01_SD\C-020 LOT LINE ADJUST.dwg,C0.2 LOT LINE ADJUST,Tina Stimpson,3/25/2020 4:23:06 PM,ARCH expand D (36.00 x 24.00 Inches),1:1 0 5' 10' 20'

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

Page H-1.32
.00 x 24.00 Inches),1:1 P:\2017\17-214_201_Camino\04_Design\01_CAD\01_SD\JT1-JOINT TRENCH.dwg,JT1,Tina Stimpson,3/27/2020 11:37:53 AM,ARCH expand D (36

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

Page H-1.33
)LOH1DPH
(O&DPLQR5HDO3URMHFW
'HVFULSWLRQOHWWHUVLJQHG R
F

3DJHRI
(O&DPLQR5HDO &DPEULGJH$YHQXH
0DMRU6XEGLYLVLRQ0DS5HYLVLRQV
5HTXHVWIRU([WHQVLRQ
:HDUHZULWLQJWRUHTXHVWDQH[WHQVLRQIRUWKH0DMRU6XEGLYLVLRQ0DS5HYLVLRQVIRUWKHSURMHFWDSSURYHGE\ &LW\&RXQFLORQ2FWREHU
3/1
DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIDPL[HGXVHSURMHFW DW(O&DPLQR5HDODQG7RZQKRPHVDW&DPEULGJH$YHQXH3HUWKH'HYHORSPHQW3HUPLW$SSOLFDWLRQ $JUHHPHQW7R3D\)HHVVXEPLWWHGRQZHDUHUHTXHVWLQJDWZHQW\IRXUPRQWKH[WHQVLRQ DIWHU

IRUWKH3ODQQLQJ$SSURYDODQG%XLOGLQJ3HUPLW6XEPLWWDO 3/1

:H DUH UHTXHVWLQJ WKLV H[WHQVLRQ WR DOORZ DGGLWLRQDO WLPH IRU WKH SODQ FKHFN UHYLHZ RI WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ GRFXPHQWVDQGSHUPLWLVVXDQFHWKDWLVQHFHVVDU\EHIRUHFRQVWUXFWLRQFDQFRPPHQFHRQWKHSURMHFW7KHSURMHFW WHDPLV GLOLJHQWO\ ZRUNLQJWR DGYDQFHWKH YDULRXV DVVRFLDWHG SHUPLW SURFHVVHV DQGLQWHUFRQQHFWHG FRQWUDFW DVVLJQPHQWVZLWK&LW\'HSDUWPHQWV3* (&DOWUDQV$7 7YDULRXVMRLQWWUHQFKGHPROLWLRQVXEFRQWUDFWRUV DQG JHQHUDO FRQWUDFWRUV HWF
DQG GXH WR GHOD\V UHODWHG WR &RYLG
DQG VXEVHTXHQW YDULDQWV ZKLFK FDXVHG
H[WHQXDWLQJFLUFXPVWDQFHVWKURXJKRXWWKHEXLOGLQJLQGXVWU\WKHSURMHFWZLOOQHHGDGGLWLRQDOWLPHUHTXHVWHGWR DVVLVWWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQSURFHVV
&RQVWUXFWLRQGRFXPHQWVKDYHEHHQFRPSOHWHGDQGKDYHEHHQVXEPLWWHGWRWKHFLW\IRUSODQFKHFNUHYLHZIRU WKHPL[HGXVHEXLOGLQJDW(O&DPLQR5HDO
%3$
DQGIRUWKHWZRGHWDFKHGVLQJOHIDPLO\
7RZQKRPHVDW&DPEULGJH$YHQXH
%/' %3$

7KHWZR+HULWDJHWUHHVWKDWZHUHDSSURYHGWREHUHPRYHGDVSDUWRIWKHDSSURYHGSURMHFWKDYHEHHQUHPRYHG XQGHUSHUPLW+75

1RIXUWKHUFRPPXQLW\RXWUHDFKKDVRFFXUUHGDIWHUWKH&LW\&RXQFLODSSURYDORQ 6LQFHUHO\
678$57:(/7($,$/(('DS,&&
(,' $5&+,7(&76 GLU

(;+,%,7%

Page H-1.34
201 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Attachment A: Exhibit C - Conditions PAGE: 1 of 1
LOCATION: 201 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
APPLICATION:

SUB2022-00008
APPLICANT: Ray
Parkinson
OWNER: HuHan Two,
LLC
PROJECT CONDITIONS – VESTING TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION:

Page H-1.35
RESOLUTION NO. 659

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK

APPROVING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL,

A USE PERMIT, AND A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 201-211 EL CAMINO REAL AND 612 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Menlo Park (“City”) has received an application from HuHan Two, LLC (“Applicant”), for architectural control, use permit and a vesting tentative map to merge existing SP-ECR/D lots, abandon a portion of Alto Lane, and create a two-lot subdivision for condominium purposes, with 12 residential units, one restaurant and no more than three retail spaces on one lot, and two townhouses on the second lot by constructing on the property located at 201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the findings and conditions for the Architectural Control, Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map would ensure that all City requirements are applied consistently and correctly as part of the project’s implementation; and
WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held according to law; and
WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled and held before the Planning Commission of the City of Menlo Park on October 5, 2020 whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Menlo Park having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter voted affirmatively to recommend to the City Council of the City of Menlo Park to approve the findings and conditions for Architectural Control, Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled and held before the City Council of the City of Menlo Park on October 27, 2020 whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the project on October 27, 2020, and found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which was circulated for public review between September 3, 2020 and October 2, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Menlo Park having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter voted affirmatively to approve the findings and conditions for Architectural Control, Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Menlo Park hereby approves the Architectural Control, Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Map for the Project and the findings and conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

I, Judi A. Herren, City Clerk of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing City Council Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said City Council on the twenty-seventh day of October, 2020, by the following votes:

ATTACHMENT E Page H-1.36
AYES: Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this twenty-seventh day of October, 2020.

Judi A. Herren, City Clerk
Resolution No. 6595

Page 2 of 13 ends

Page H-1.37
201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Recommended Actions PAGE: 1 of 11
LOCATION: 201-211 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER:

PLN2018-00061
APPLICANT: Steve
Atkinson
OWNER: HuHan Two,
LLC
PROPOSAL: Request for architectural control, a use permit, a vesting tentative map, a below market rate (BMR) housing agreement, and environmental review for demolition of an existing commercial building and a multifamily residential building and the construction of a new three-story, mixed-use building with a below-ground parking structure and two townhouses. The mixed-use building would consist of retail and restaurant uses on the first floor and 12 residential units on the second and third floors in the SP-ECR/D (El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan) zoning district, at 201-211 El Camino Real. The two townhouses would be constructed on a substandard lot with respect to lot width located in the R-3 (Apartment) zoning district, at 612 Cambridge Avenue. A vesting tentative map is requested to merge the existing SP-ECR/D lots, abandon a portion of Alto Lane, and create a two-lot subdivision for condominium purposes, with 12 residential units, one restaurant space and no more than three retail spaces on one lot, and two townhouses on the second lot. The proposal includes a request for a Public Benefit Bonus, with the benefit consisting of rounding up a fractional BMR unit requirement to a full BMR unit for a total of two on-site BMR units. The project also requires Planning Commission review for consistency with the General Plan related to the proposed vacation of Alto Lane, a public right-of-way adjacent to 201-211 El Camino Real and 239- 251 El Camino Real. A portion of the abandoned public right-of-way would go to the adjacent property owners at 201-211 El Camino Real and 239-251 El Camino Real. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

DECISION ENTITY: City Council DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION: TBD VOTE: TBD (Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor)
ACTION:

1. Make the following findings relative to the environmental review of the proposal and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration:
a. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for public review in accordance with current State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; b. The Planning Commission has considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposal and any comments received during the public review period; c. Based on the Initial Study prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and any comments received on the document, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment; and
d. Relevant mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is approved as part of this finding.

2. Adopt the following findings, as per Section 16.68.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to architectural control approval:
a. The general appearance of the structure is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

The proposed exterior materials and finishes would be high quality in nature and would reinforce the neighborhood compatibility. The scale variation enables a smooth and cohesive transition from the denser and taller mixed use building to the shorter townhouses and lower density neighborhood along Cambridge Avenue.
b. The development will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City. The construction and ongoing occupation of the site would proceed in accordance with all applicable City requirements and procedures, as verified in these conditions of approval. The EXHIBIT A Resolution No. 6595

Page 3 of 13 ends

Page H-1.38
201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Recommended Actions PAGE: 2 of 11
LOCATION: 201-211 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER:

DECISION ENTITY: City Council DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION: TBD VOTE: TBD (Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor)
ACTION:
sequencing of the public service easement at the start of the project would ensure that all development occurs with appropriate reference to the required utility relocations. c. The development will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood. The project shall provide retail and restaurant components to retain some of the existing commercial uses on site.
d. The development provides adequate parking as required in all applicable City Ordinances and has made adequate provisions for access to such parking. Parking agreements shall be arranged to ensure both properties are granted the required parking for each component of the project.
e. The development is consistent with the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan, as verified in detail in the Standards and Guidelines Compliance Worksheet.

3. Make findings, as per Section 16.82.030 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the granting of use permits, that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, and will not be detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.

4. Make findings that the proposed major subdivision is technically correct and in compliance with all applicable State regulations, City General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and the State Subdivision Map Act.

5. Approve the Below Market Rate Rental Housing Agreement.

6. Approve the architectural control, use permit, and vesting tentative map subject to the following standard conditions:

Resolution No. 6595

Page 4 of 13 ends

Page H-1.39
201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Recommended Actions PAGE: 3 of 11
LOCATION: 201-211 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER:

DECISION ENTITY: City Council DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION: TBD VOTE: TBD (Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor)
ACTION:
a. The applicant shall be required to apply for a building permit within one year from the date of approval (by October 27, 2021) for the use permit to remain in effect. b. Development of the project shall be substantially in conformance with the plans prepared by EID Architects, consisting of 81 plan sheets, dated received on September 30, 2020, and recommended for approval by the City Council on October 27, 2020, except as modified by the conditions contained herein, subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. c. Minor modifications to building exteriors and locations, fence styles and locations, signage, and significant landscape features may be approved by the Community Development Director or designee, based on the determination that the proposed modification is consistent with other building and design elements of the approved Architectural Control and will not have an adverse impact on the character and aesthetics of the site. The Director may refer any request for revisions to the plans to the Planning Commission for architectural control approval. A public meeting could be called regarding such changes if deemed necessary by the Planning Commission.
d. Minor modifications where the Community Development Director determines the modifications are more substantive than the changes outlined in 7c. may be approved by the Community Development Director, provided the modifications are determined to be consistent with the building and design elements of the approved project, subject to notification of the Planning Commission. A member of the Planning Commission may request to discuss these modifications on the next agenda.
e. Major modifications to the development plan which involve material changes, or expansion or intensification of development may be allowed subject to obtaining an architectural control permit from the Planning Commission.

Resolution No. 6595

Page 5 of 13 ends

Page H-1.40
201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Recommended Actions PAGE: 4 of 11
LOCATION: 201-211 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER:

DECISION ENTITY: City Council DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION: TBD VOTE: TBD (Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor)
ACTION:
f. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall comply with all Sanitary District, California Water Company, Menlo Park Fire Protection District, and utility companies' regulations that are directly applicable to the project.
g. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit plans for: 1) construction safety fences around the periphery of the construction area, 2) dust control, 3) air pollution control, 4) erosion and sedimentation control, 5) tree protection fencing, and 6) construction vehicle parking. The plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Building, Engineering, and Planning Divisions. The fences and erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be installed according to the approved plan prior to commencing construction. h. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit plans for construction related parking management, construction staging, material storage and Traffic Control Handling Plan (TCHP) to be reviewed and approved by the City. The applicant shall secure adequate parking for any and all construction trades, until the parking podium is available on the project site.

The plan shall include construction phasing and anticipated method of traffic handling for each phase.
i. Heritage trees in the vicinity of the construction project shall be protected pursuant to the Heritage Tree Ordinance and the arborist report prepared by Advanced Tree Care, dated received August 10, 2020.
j. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit an updated Storm Water Management plan with review of third party engineer’s certification. k. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction shall be implemented to protect water quality, in accordance with the approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans.

Resolution No. 6595

Page 6 of 13 ends

Page H-1.41
201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Recommended Actions PAGE: 5 of 11
LOCATION: 201-211 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER:

DECISION ENTITY: City Council DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION: TBD VOTE: TBD (Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor)
ACTION:
l. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the final, signed BMR agreement shall be recorded with the County of San Mateo and a conformed copy shall be submitted to the Planning Division.

7. Approve the architectural control, use permit and vesting tentative map subject to the following projectspecific conditions:
a. The applicant shall address all Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) requirements as specified in the MMRP. Failure to meet these requirements may result in delays to the building permit issuance, stop work orders during construction, and/or fines. b. Simultaneous with the submittal of a complete building permit application, the applicant shall submit an updated LEED Checklist, subject to review and approval of the Planning Division.

The Checklist shall be prepared by a LEED Accredited Professional (LEED AP). The LEED AP shall submit a cover letter stating their qualifications, and confirm that they have prepared the Checklist and that the information presented is accurate. Confirmation that the project conceptually achieves LEED Silver certification shall be required before issuance of the building permit. Prior to final inspection of the building permit or as early as the project can be certified by the United States Green Building Council, the project shall submit verification that the development has achieved final LEED Silver certification. c. Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) will be required for the development as a whole (two properties), addressing overlapping topics such as shared parking and access, stormwater treatment areas, and storm drains. CC&R’s need to be submitted, reviewed by Planning, Public Works, and the City Attorney prior to final map approval or building permit issuance. Easements, deed restrictions, or other alternate mechanisms may be used for these requirements, as specified by the City Attorney. The CC&R shall be recorded prior to final inspection.

Resolution No. 6595

Page 7 of 13 ends

Page H-1.42
201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Recommended Actions PAGE: 6 of 11
LOCATION: 201-211 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER:

DECISION ENTITY: City Council DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION: TBD VOTE: TBD (Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor)
ACTION:
d. The parking garage gates shall remain open while businesses are in operation hours, in order to limit the potential for vehicles blocking the sidewalk while waiting for the gate to open. The Transportation Manager may adjust these times if requested in the future, provided that the applicant demonstrates that pedestrian safety will not be compromised. e. Dedication of Public Service Easements will be required prior to final occupancy as part of the Final Map or separate instrument to accommodate a 12-foot wide sidewalk along the El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue frontages.
f. One parking stacker in the parking garage, comprising two parking spaces, shall be dedicated specifically for the use of an owner or employee of the respective commercial use. g. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan Preparation Fee, which is established at $1.13/square foot for all net new development. For the subject proposal, the fee is estimated at $1,215.88 ($1.13 x 1,076 net new square feet).
h. Engineering-specific Conditions, subject to review and approval of the Engineering Division except as otherwise noted:
i. Within two years from the date of approval of the vesting tentative map, the applicant shall submit a Final Map for City approval.
ii. The applicant shall adhere to the Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 15 of the City's Municipal Code.
iii. Prior to Final Map approval, the new public service easement (PSE) shall be dedicated and all utilities from Alto Lane shall be relocated to the new PSE to the satisfaction of City and utility companies.

Resolution No. 6595

Page 8 of 13 ends

Page H-1.43
201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Recommended Actions PAGE: 7 of 11
LOCATION: 201-211 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER:

DECISION ENTITY: City Council DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION: TBD VOTE: TBD (Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor)
ACTION:
iv. Prior to Final Map approval, the Alto Lane public right-of-way shall be vacated. v. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit engineered off-site Improvement Plans (including specifications & engineers cost estimates), for approval by the Engineering Division, showing the infrastructure necessary to serve the project. The Improvement Plans shall include, but are not limited to, all engineering calculations necessary to substantiate the design, proposed roadways, drainage improvements, utilities, traffic control devices, retaining walls, sanitary sewers, and storm drains, pump/lift stations, street lightings, common area landscaping and other project improvements. All public improvements shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division. During the design phase of the construction drawings, all potential utility conflicts shall be potholed with actual depths recorded on the improvement plans submitted for City review and approval. The Off-Site Improvement plans shall include removal and replacement of any damaged and significantly worn sections of frontage improvements. The sidewalk along the project frontages on El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue shall be City standard concrete sidewalk.
vi. A Caltrans encroachment permit for work along El Camino Real is required. This permit must be secured prior to City of Menlo Park issuance of encroachment permit for public improvements.
vii. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit a Grading and Drainage Plan for review and approval. Post-construction runoff into the storm drain shall not exceed preconstruction runoff levels. A Hydrology Report will be required to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division. Slopes for the first 10 feet perpendicular to the structure must be five percent minimum for pervious surfaces and two percent minimum for impervious surfaces, including roadways and parking areas, as required by CBC §1804.3.

Resolution No. 6595

Page 9 of 13 ends

Page H-1.44
201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Recommended Actions PAGE: 8 of 11
LOCATION: 201-211 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER:

DECISION ENTITY: City Council DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION: TBD VOTE: TBD (Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor)
ACTION:

Discharges from the garage ramp and underground parking areas are not allowed into the storm drain system. Discharge must be treated with an oil/water separator and must connect to the sanitary sewer system. This will require a permit from West Bay Sanitary District.
viii. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit a plan for any new utility installations or upgrades for review and approval of the Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions. All utility equipment that is installed outside of a building and that cannot be placed underground shall be properly screened by landscaping. The plan shall show exact locations of all meters, back flow prevention devices, transformers, junction boxes, relay boxes, and other equipment boxes. ix. If construction is not complete by the start of the wet season (October 1 through April 30), the applicant shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation.
x. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit a heritage street tree preservation plan, detailing the location of and methods for all tree protection measures.
xi. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall pay all applicable engineering fees, including Recreation-in-lieu fee of $940,800.00 ($78,400.00 per residential unit) in accordance with City requirements and the latest approved Master Fee Schedule. xii. Prior to issuance of each building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable Building Construction Street Impact Fee in effect at the time of payment to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. The current fee is calculated by multiplying the valuation of the construction by 0.0058.

Resolution No. 6595

Page 10 of 13 ends

Page H-1.45
201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Recommended Actions PAGE: 9 of 11
LOCATION: 201-211 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER:

DECISION ENTITY: City Council DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION: TBD VOTE: TBD (Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor)
ACTION:
xiii. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit plans for street light design per City standards, at locations approved by the City. All street lights along the project frontages shall be painted Mesa Brown and upgraded with LED fixtures compliant with PG&E standards.
xiv. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and provide a performance bond for the completion of the off-site improvements as shown on the approved project improvement plans. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit, from the appropriate reviewing jurisdiction, prior to commencing any work within the right-of-way (ROW) or public easements. xv. All agreements shall run with the land and shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office prior to building permit final inspection. xvi. Street trees shall be from the City-approved street tree species or to the satisfaction of City Arborist. Irrigation within public right of way shall comply with City Standard Details LS-1 through LS-19.
xvii. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall provide documentation indicating the amount of irrigated landscaping. If the project proposes more than 500 square feet of irrigated landscaping, it is subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.44).
xviii. All public right-of-way improvements, including frontage improvements and the dedication of easements and public right-of-way, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division prior to building permit final inspection. xix. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a landscape audit report.

Resolution No. 6595

Page 11 of 13 ends

Page H-1.46
201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Recommended Actions PAGE: 10 of 11
LOCATION: 201-211 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER:

DECISION ENTITY: City Council DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION: TBD VOTE: TBD (Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor)
ACTION:
xx. The Applicant shall retain a civil engineer to prepare "as-built" or "record" drawings of public improvements, and the drawings shall be submitted in AutoCAD and Adobe PDF formats to the Engineering Division prior to Final Occupancy. xxi. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall submit a draft “Stormwater Treatment Measures Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement” with the City subject to review and approval by the Engineering Division. The property owner will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment measures for the project.
xxii. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the owner/applicant shall submit design to demonstrate the proposed shoring tie-back/soil nails system does not adversely affect any existing or future utilities and/or any other City infrastructure, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division. I-beams and appurtenances associated with the shoring plan, other than tie-back cables/soil nails, cannot be placed in the ROW. xxiii. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the owner/applicant shall enter into a Tie-Back Agreement with the City and pay the associated fees for the tie-backs encroaching and remaining into the right of way associated with the project in a form approved by the City Attorney, which agreement shall be recorded and shall be binding on future owners of the property. Notarized agreements will be required between the project and the adjacent property owners if the project plans to tie-back encroaching into a private property.
xxiv. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall install reference elevation/benchmarks to monitor ground movement in the vicinity of the shoring system at the existing curbs of El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue before, during and after excavations. The benchmarks shall be surveyed by a licensed surveyor and tied to an existing city monument or benchmark. The benchmarks shall be monitored Resolution No. 6595

Page 12 of 13 ends

Page H-1.47
201-211 El Camino Real and 612 Cambridge Avenue – Recommended Actions PAGE: 11 of 11
LOCATION: 201-211 El
Camino Real and 612
Cambridge Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER:

DECISION ENTITY: City Council DATE: October 27, 2020 ACTION: TBD VOTE: TBD (Carlton, Combs, Mueller, Nash, Taylor)
ACTION:
for horizontal and vertical displacement of public improvements. Tie-back system shall comply with the City’s Tie-Back Guidelines.
xxv. The streets adjoining the project shall receive an asphalt concrete overlay at the completion of improvements as shown on the vesting tentative map. Existing striping, markings, and legends shall be replaced in kind, or as modified by the City Engineer. xxvi. Prior to final inspection, the applicant shall submit a maintenance agreement for nonstandard improvements within the public right-of-way. xxvii. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall pay all applicable City fees. Refer to City of Menlo Park Master Fee Schedule.
i. Transportation-specific Conditions, subject to review and approval of the Transportation Division except as otherwise noted:
i. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall submit all relevant transportation impact fees (TIF), subject to review and approval of the Transportation Division. The TIF is estimated to be $71,314.50. This is calculated by subtracting the existing TIF value of $101,728.34 from the proposed TIF value of $173,042.84. Please note this fee is updated annually on July 1st based on the Engineering News Record Bay Area Construction Cost Index. Fees are due before a building permit is issued.

Resolution No. 6595

Page 13 of 13 ends

Page H-1.48
201 EL CAMINO REAL AND 612

CAMBRIDGE AVENUE PROJECT
March 14, 2023 Staff Presentation
H1-PRESENTATION
2 PROPOSED PROJECT
 Original project approval on October 27, 2020
 Application to extend two-year vesting tentative map
deadline submitted prior to October 27, 2022 deadline
 Vesting tentative map request recommended for
approval by Planning Commission on December 5, 2022
 Vesting tentative map request to receive City Council action today, March 14, 2023– There are no map changes proposed to the map approved on 10/27/2020, but the drawings are available in the staff report.

PROJECT TIMELINE
3 THANK YOU
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: 3/14/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-055-CC
Public Hearing: Introduce and waive the reading of an ordinance to amend Title 15 and Title 16 of the Menlo Park
Municipal Code to comply with Senate Bill 9 for
urban lot splits and two-unit developments
Recommendation
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council introduce an ordinance amending Titles 15 and 16 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code to make City regulations consistent with applicable California law regarding urban lot splits and two-unit developments on single-family-zoned parcels. The proposed ordinance is included as Attachment A, and the Planning Commission resolution is included as Attachment B.

Policy Issues
The Zoning Ordinance (Title 16) and Subdivision Ordinance (Title 15) amendments make modifications to the Municipal Code in compliance with Senate Bill 9 (The California H.O.M.E Act.) The City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element January 31, 2023. The proposed ordinance is consistent with Policies H4.2 (Housing to Address Local Housing Needs) and H4.4 (Variety of Housing Choices), and fulfills program H7.B (Develop and Adopt Standards for SB 9 Projects.) If the City does not have an ordinance in place relating to urban lot splits and two-unit developments when an application is submitted to subdivide a singlefamily-zoned parcel or develop a two-unit project, the local agency must accept the application and approve or disapprove the application ministerially without discretionary review pursuant to Government Code §66411.7(a) and §65852.21(a), and would only be able to enforce standards included in the statute, which are relatively limited in scope. Adoption of an ordinance would allow the City to apply objective development standards that suit the City’s specific needs.

Background
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) became effective January 1, 2022. The law adds §65852.21, and §66411.7 to the Government Code to allow for housing developments containing no more than two residential units within a single-family residential zone and urban lot splits, with some exceptions. A link to the Statute language is included as Attachment C. In December 2021 the City Council voted affirmatively to adopt a resolution directing the City Manager and City Attorney to draft interim guidelines for the implementation of SB 9. In January 2022, staff published a set of guidelines (Attachment D) providing interim development standards while staff developed an SB 9 ordinance.

In general, SB 9 is intended to increase the housing stock in urbanized areas where single-family zoning districts may have otherwise precluded higher density developments. SB 9 provides another strategy to address the housing crisis. The urban lot split and two-unit development regulations would apply to all single-family zoning districts within the city, and would allow up to four primary dwelling units where one primary dwelling unit was previously allowed. This would be an allowed increase of one total dwelling unit AGENDA ITEM H-2 Page H-2.1
Staff Report #: 23-055-CC

Page 2 ends

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov over existing zoning regulations relating to accessory dwelling units (ADUs), where up to three dwelling units are allowed on a single-family-zoned property (one primary dwelling unit and up to two ADUs/JADUs.) The SB 9 regulations are intended to work in concert with existing ADU laws to allow flexibility in the size and type of housing units available in the city. However, per SB 9, the City may include a provision in the implementing ordinance that limits housing developments to four units on an existing single-family lot.

Finally, similar to the City’s regulations for ADUs, new units developed under the SB 9 regulations would not be permitted to be used as short-term rentals (e.g., Airbnb), and any rental of a unit developed under SB 9 would be for a term longer than 30 days. Table 1, below outlines the type and number of units that would be allowed under current single-family zoning with ADU laws and under SB 9.

Table 1: Number of units per single-family lot
Primary
residence
Second
primary
residence
ADUs
Maximum
number of
housing units
per existing
single-family
lot
Typical singlefamily lot Yes No Up to two (one attached and one detached) 3
SB 9 - no lot split Yes Yes
If primary units are attached (e.g.,
duplex), up to two detached ADUs. If
primary units are detached, one attached
or detached ADU
3-4
SB 9 – with lot
split Yes Yes
If two primary residences are built on a
new lot, no ADUs are allowed. If one
primary unit is constructed, one ADU
would be allowed
4 Senate Bill 9 minimum requirements
Urban lot splits.

State law imposes certain standards on the subdivision of a single-family-zoned property under SB 9.

Generally, urban lot splits are intended to create no more than two new single-family lots of approximately equal size. Therefore, lots subdivided under SB 9 must be a minimum of 40 percent of the original lot area and have a minimum lot size of 1,200 square feet unless the local jurisdiction adopts a smaller minimum lot size. Local jurisdictions may implement additional objective subdivision standards, provided that the regulations would not preclude the development of two dwelling units of at least 800 square feet in size.

SB 9 exempts some properties from the urban lot split provisions. Properties subject to certain types of hazards (e.g., fire or flooding) are prohibited from being subdivided, unless the local jurisdiction has adopted standards, such as compliance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards for developments in the flood zone that would reduce the risk of these hazards. Additionally, lots that are subject to local rent control measures or Below Market Rate (BMR) housing deed restrictions are prohibited from being subdivided under SB 9. SB 9 is intended to protect renter-occupied housing, and therefore, lots with dwelling units that have been renter-occupied within the last three years may not be subdivided.

Finally, urban lot splits are intended to be initiated by individual property owners, not real estate developers, so SB 9 includes a requirement for the applicant to sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the units as their primary residence for a minimum of three years.

Page H-2.2
Staff Report #: 23-055-CC

Page 3 ends

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Two-unit developments (also known as “urban duplexes.”) SB 9 also establishes the following minimum development standards for two-unit developments:

1. Floor area limit (FAL) of at least 1,600 square feet (two 800-square-foot units);

2. Four-foot side and rear setbacks; and

3. No more than one required parking space per unit unless the parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of §21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in §21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, or there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel.

The City may not impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to two units or that would physically preclude either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.

Planning Commission review
On July 25, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a study session to review preliminary design and development standards to include in an SB 9 implementing ordinance. Staff sought feedback from the Commission on standards including floor area and building coverage limits, setbacks and stepbacks, as well as other design and materials elements. For a detailed discussion on the changes incorporated into the draft ordinance, please see the staff report for the January 9 Planning Commission meeting (Attachment E.)

On January 9, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft SB 9 ordinance, which included several changes to the proposed regulations based on feedback from the July 2022 study session. The Planning Commission recommended (4-2, with one vacancy) that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Title 15 and Title 16 with the following amendments:
• Include a provision in the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 15) to allow for administrative approval of condominium subdivision maps for two-unit projects.

Planning Commission discussion on design standards
During the discussion on the proposed zoning standards, the Planning Commission contemplated more rigorous design standards than those recommended by staff. The Commission did not reach consensus on whether additional design standards should be included in the ordinance. Some commissioners argued that additional design standards that are not already in the Zoning Ordinance would be unfair and cumbersome for those seeking to develop under the SB 9 standards, which could disincentivize creation of new units.

Other commissioners argued that design standards would be a benefit, stating that it would help applicants design residences that more appropriately fit single-family neighborhoods given the potential for increased density in zoning districts where lower densities have historically been assumed, and could be used for all single-family projects throughout the City given the current absence of any design standards in single-family zoning districts.

Although additional amendments to the ordinance regarding design standards were not included as part of the recommendation to City Council, the adopted Planning Commission resolution includes recitals recommending the City Council consider the applicability of design standards specifically for SB 9 projects, then, more broadly, design guidelines for all single-family projects. Design guidelines may be more subjective in nature than objective design standards, and would not be enforceable in SB 9 projects, but could provide similar guidance for designing non-SB 9 single-family projects. Some commissioners were concerned about creating additional design standards, resulting in two votes against the language in the resolution.

Page H-2.3
Staff Report #: 23-055-CC

Page 4 ends

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Analysis
The proposed ordinance would amend Title 15 to implement SB 9 urban lot split requirements, allowing the subdivision of one single-family zoned lot into two single-family zoned lots when specific criteria have been met. Chapter 15.31 would detail the process by which an applicant can apply for an urban lot split, and the process the City would take to review, approve and record the lot split. The urban lot split chapter would include the same standards, such as minimum lot size and dimensions, as the Zoning Ordinance standards.

Consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance have been updated to include a provision allowing administrative approval of condominium subdivisions for SB 9 projects. Allowing condominium subdivisions would permit primary residences created under SB 9 to be sold separately, providing more ownership opportunities for moderately-sized units. The proposed ordinance has been updated to include a new section in Chapter 15.34 (Condominiums) which reads as follows:

Section 15.34.035:
(a.) Two-Unit Housing Developments approved under Chapter 16.77 may be subdivided into condominium units provided that there may not be more than two condominium units per parcel. The condominium subdivision may be approved administratively by the Director of Public Works or their designee without the approval of the City Council or Planning Commission.
(b.) A proposed condominium may be approved, disapproved, or conditionally approved by the Director of Public Works or their designee. If the Director of Public Works or their designee determines that the parcel map meets all existing building codes and zoning ordinances, complies with the city’s General Plan, and the housing element thereof, and this chapter, and complies with the Subdivision Map Act, then approval shall be granted.

Proposed Menlo Park standards for two-unit developments Government Code § 65852.21 allows local jurisdictions to establish objective design standards provided that in no case shall the standards physically preclude an applicant from constructing two dwelling units of at least 800 square feet, or in the case of an urban lot split, two 800-square-foot units on each of the two new lots. Staff has developed objective standards to comply with the provisions of Government Code §65852.21, which would be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance (Title 16) as a new chapter (Chapter

16.77.) A hyperlink to the staff report from the January 9, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, which includes a detailed summary and analysis of the proposed zoning standards and example diagrams illustrating potential developments is included as Attachment E. Table 2 below summarizes the topics discussed in the Planning Commission staff report.

Page H-2.4
Staff Report #: 23-055-CC

Page 5 ends

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Table 2: Summary of standards discussed in Planning Commission staff report Topic Key standards
Lot dimensions Minimum 1,200 square foot lot area. Side by side lot splits must be 50-50 for lots less than 65 feet in width and may be split 60-40 if wider than 65 feet.

Setbacks and stepbacks Four-foot side and rear setbacks on first floor. Second floor must be stepped back to side setback of underlying zoning district.

FAL and maximum building
coverage
Maximum FAL of 56 percent of lot area for lots less than 5,000 sf in area.

Building coverage depend on one- or two-story development.

Unit size
Maximum unit size of 60 percent of maximum floor area limiFLAt on lots where FAL is greater than 2,000 square feet. Maximum unit size of FAL minus 800 square feet for lots where FAL is less than 2,000 square feet.

Parking
One uncovered space per unit unless exempt under state law. One parking space may be located in front setback and may be in tandem with other required spaces.

Building massing Rear daylight plane established. Establishes daylight plane at 14 feet for both one- and two-story development.

Privacy and architectural design Mandates minimum sill heights of three feet for second-story and stairwell windows.

Comparison to accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
State mandated regulations for SB 9 units are similar to recent updates to ADU laws which allow ADUs to be 800 square feet in size, 16 feet tall, with a four-foot rear and side setback. However, there are differences between the proposed ordinance implementing SB 9 standards and the standards in Chapter

16.79 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of the Zoning Ordinance, which regulates ADUs. Dependent on an applicant’s goals for their property, application of ADU standards or SB 9 may be more appropriate. Table 3 below highlights key differences between ADU regulations and proposed regulations in the proposed ordinance.

Table 3: ADU and SB 9 regulation comparison
ADU SB 9
Maximum height 16 feet* 28 feet (in most cases)
Daylight plane None 14 feet, in at 45-degree angle
Side and rear setback
(ground floor) 4 feet (state mandated) 4 feet (state mandated) Side and rear stepback
(second floor)
None, however a second floor is generally
infeasible given height limit
Setback of underlying zoning district
(varies)
Able to be sold
separately No (state mandated) Yes (proposed)
Maximum unit size 800 or 1,000 square feet 60% of maximum FAL (may be larger than 1,000 square feet)
This is the existing standard in the Menlo Park Municipal Code. New State laws, effective January 2023, may require additional amendments to Chapter 16.77 to increase the maximum height limit to 18 feet.

Page H-2.5
Staff Report #: 23-055-CC

Page 6 ends

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Design standards
Creation of design guidelines for single-family residences and/or modification to the requirement for a use permit to build a new residence on a substandard lot has been a topic of interest and intermittently included in the City Council work plan since the early 2000s. In the context of SB 9, any design standards would need to be objective in nature in order to be enforceable. The Planning Commission’s resolution extends beyond the scope of SB 9, with the intent being to develop design standards/guidelines that would be applied to all single-family developments, not just SB 9 projects. The Municipal Code could be amended in the future to add additional design standards, however, this would be a separate action and the City Council would need to provide staff formal direction and resources to initiate the development of design standards/guidelines that suit the community. The City Council may wish to consider the item through its upcoming priority setting March 18.

Conclusion
The recommended standards would bring local regulations into consistency with the State law, develop local regulations to implement SB 9, and support the City’s existing policies to continue to provide a mix of housing types to address local housing needs. The proposed development standards have been updated to reflect feedback provided by the Planning Commission and the community at the July 25, 2022, study session and January 9 public hearing. The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council approve an ordinance amending Titles 15 and 16 of the Menlo Park Municipal Code (Attachment A) to bring the City into compliance with Senate Bill 9. If the City Council introduces the ordinance March 14, staff would prepare the ordinance for adoption at the next regular meeting, which is currently scheduled for March 28.

Impact on City Resources
This consistency update is being accommodated within the existing budgets of the Planning Division, Engineering Division and City Attorney, and is not expected to otherwise affect City resources.

Environmental Review
The proposed ordinance amendment is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to Government Code §65852.21(j) and §66411.7(n), as this action is to adopt an ordinance to implement the requirements of §65852.21 and §66411.7 of the Government Code.

Public Notice
Public Notification was achieved by posting the agenda, with the agenda items being listed, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Public notification also consisted of publishing a notice in the local newspaper.

Attachments
A. Draft ordinance of the City Council of the City of Menlo Park Adding Chapter 15.31 [Urban Lot Splits] to Title 15 [Subdivisions] and Chapter 16.77 [Two-Unit Developments] to Title 16 [Zoning] of the Menlo Park Municipal Code to Conform to Changes in State Law
B. Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of the draft SB 9 ordinance C. Hyperlink – SB 9: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB 9 D. Hyperlink – SB 9 Interim Guidance: menlopark.gov/Government/Departments/CommunityPage H-2.6 Staff Report #: 23-055-CC

Page 7 ends

City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Development/Planning-Division/SB-9-interim-guidance
E. Hyperlink – January, 9, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-and-minutes/planning-commission/2023- meetings/agendas/20230109-planning-commission-agenda-packet.pdf

Report prepared by:

Chris Turner, Associate Planner
Report reviewed by:

Kyle Perata, Planning Manager
Mary Wagner, Assistant City Attorney
Page H-2.7
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MENLO PARK ADDING CHAPTER 16.77 (TWO-UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS) TO TITLE 16 (ZONING) AND CHAPTER 15.31 (URBAN LOT SPLITS) TO TITLE 15 (SUBDIVISIONS) OF

THE MENLO PARK MUNICIPAL CODE, TO IMPLEMENT GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTIONS 66411.7 AND 65852.21 (SENATE BILL 9) RELATED TO

TWO-UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND URBAN LOT SPLITS
WHEREAS, SB-9 (Chapter 162, Statutes of 2021) enacted sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 to the Government Code, effective January 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, these provisions require the City to provide ministerial approval of urban lot splits, (“Urban Lot Splits”) and the construction of up to two residential dwelling units (“Two-Unit Developments”) on each single-family residential zoned lot within the City, subject to certain limitations; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 66411.7(a) limits eligibility of Urban Lot Splits by size and proportionality; and
WHEREAS, Government Code sections 66411.7(a)(3)(C) and 65852.21(a)(2) limit Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Developments, respectively, to sites that are not located on or within certain farmland, wetlands, very high fire hazard severity zones, hazardous waste sites, earthquake fault zones, special flood hazard areas, regulatory floodways, lands identified for conservation, habitats for protected species, and historic properties, unless projects on such sites meet specified conditions; and
WHEREAS, Government Code sections 66411.7(a)(3)(D) and 65852.21(a)(3) through (a)(5) limit eligibility of an Urban Lot Split and a Two-Unit Development, respectfully, that proposes to demolish or alter housing subject to affordability restrictions, housing subject to rent or price controls, housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years, housing that has been withdrawn from rent or lease within the past 15 years, and housing that requires demolition of existing structural walls unless authorized by local ordinance or has not been tenant-occupied within the past 3 years; and
WHEREAS, Government Code sections 65852.21(a)(6) and 66411.7(a)(3)(E) allow a city to deny an Urban Lot Split for properties within a historic district or listed on the State’s Historic Resource Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance; and WHEREAS, Government Code sections 66411.7(c) and 65852.21(b) allow a city to establish objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards for Urban Lot Splits and Two-Unit Developments, respectively, subject to limits within state law; and
WHEREAS, such objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards may not have the effect of “precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels from an Urban Lot Split or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet” for a Two-Unit Development; and
Page H-2.8 ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 2 of 13 ends

WHEREAS, Government Code sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 allow a city to deny a proposed Two-Unit Development or Urban Lot Split, respectively, if the project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), the City may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of Government Code sections 65852.21 and 66411.7, and such an ordinance shall not be considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, at a duly and properly noticed public hearing held on January 9, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments to add Municipal Code Chapter 15.31 (Urban Lot Splits), add Chapter 16.77 (Two-Unit Housing Developments), add Section

16.79.140 (Accessory Dwelling Units), and add Section 15.34.035 (Administrative action for urban lot split projects) as more fully described herein and below, and in making its recommendations to the City Council, recommended the City Council find the proposed amendments are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Menlo Park having fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter voted affirmatively to recommend that the City Council of the City of Menlo Park make findings that the proposed ordinance to add Municipal Code Chapter 15.31 (Urban Lot Splits), add Chapter

16.77 (Two-Unit Housing Developments), add Section 16.79.140 (Accessory Dwelling Units), and add Section 15.34.035 (Administrative action for urban lot split projects) is in compliance with all applicable State regulations and the City General Plan, and adopt an ordinance approving the amendments to modify the Municipal Code Chapter; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to implement objective standards and an application process for projects undertaken pursuant to Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 by the adoption of such an ordinance;
BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Menlo Park as follows:

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

Section 2. Chapter 16.77 (Two-Unit Housing Developments) is added to Title 16 (Zoning) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code as set forth below.

CHAPTER 16.77

TWO-UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS

16.77.010 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this chapter is to provide procedures and development standards for the establishment of Two-Unit Housing Developments pursuant to Government Code section 65852.21. To accomplish this purpose, the regulations outlined herein are determined to be necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare, and for the promotion of orderly growth and development.

Page H-2.9
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 3 of 13 ends

16.77.020 Definitions
A. Two-unit housing development. A Two-Unit Housing Development is a development containing no more than two primary dwelling units and which development either (1) proposes two new units, or (2) proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit.

B. Zero lot line development. A zero lot line development is development with two separate structures on adjacent lots that are constructed with no required yard. Structures in a zero lot line development are not structurally attached and are required to meet applicable fire rating requirements.

16.77.030 Filing, Processing, and Action
A. Ministerial review. A Two-Unit Housing Development shall be ministerially approved, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all provisions of this chapter.

B. The City shall act on a building permit application for a Two-Unit Housing Development within 60 days of receipt of a complete application. If the applicant requests a delay in writing, the sixty-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. The City has acted on the application if it:

1. Approves or denies the building permit for the Two-Unit Development; or

2. Informs the applicant in writing that changes to the proposed project are necessary to comply with this chapter or other applicable laws and regulations.

C. Two-unit housing developments that do not meet the standards set forth in this chapter, may be approved subject to granting of a use permit per Chapter 16.82. A use permit may not be granted to exceed the maximum unit size.

D. Adverse impact upon health and safety. A proposed Two-Unit Housing Development shall be denied if the Building Official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed Two-Unit Housing Development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

E. Limitations on approval. A proposed Two-Unit Housing Development shall not be eligible for approval pursuant to this Chapter if any of the following circumstances apply:

1. The Two-Unit Housing Development would require demolition or alteration of “protected housing.” Protected housing includes:
i. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. ii. Housing that is subject to rent control through valid local rent control provisions. iii. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last 3 years

2. The Two-Unit Housing Development would be located on a parcel on which the owner has withdrawn it from renting or leasing under Section 7060 of the Government Code within 15 years preceding the development application (i.e. an exit of the rental housing business pursuant to the Ellis Act).

3. The Two-Unit Housing Development would be located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district.

4. The Two-Unit Housing Development would be located in any of the specified designated areas set forth in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the California Government Code.

Page H-2.10
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 4 of 13 ends

16.77.040 Development Standards
The following objective development standards shall apply to Two-Unit Housing Developments.

In addition to these standards, all provisions of the California Building Standards Code, applicable provisions of the Menlo Park Municipal Code shall apply to Two-Unit Housing Developments.

A. General Standards

1. Two-Unit Housing Developments may either be detached or attached, as long as attached structures meet building code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance.

2. Two-Unit Housing Developments shall be permitted in all single family residential zones including the following single-family districts and any future single-family zoning districts that may be created:

R-1-U Single Family Urban Residential
R-1-U (LM) Single Family Urban Residential
(Lorelei Manor)
R-1-S Single Family Suburban Residential
R-1-S (FG) Single Family Suburban Residential
(Felton Gables)
R-E Residential Estate
R-E-S Residential Estate Suburban
The provisions of this Chapter shall be applicable to properties with the (X) designation within these zoning districts.

3. Short term rentals prohibited. The rental of any Two-Unit Housing Development shall be for a term of longer than thirty (30) days.

4. Utility connections. Each unit in a Two-Unit Housing Development shall be served by separate water, sewer and electrical utility connections which connect each unit directly to the utility.

5. Accessory dwelling units.
i. As more fully set forth in section 16.79.140, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted on parcels that utilize the authority of this Chapter and Chapter 15.31 (Urban Lot Splits).

B. Objective development standards.

Lot area
Subject to urban lot split subdivision standards, the minimum lot size shall be no less than 40 percent of the initial lot size and at least 1,200 square feet.

In the event of a panhandle subdivision, the panhandle shall count towards the overall lot area.

Lot dimensions
For side-by-side urban lot splits, the minimum lot width shall be as follows:

For properties with an existing width of less than sixty-five feet (65’), the subdivided lot width shall be 50 percent of the original lot width.

Page H-2.11
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 5 of 13 ends

For properties with a lot width of sixty-five feet (65’) or greater, the subdivided lot width shall be at least 40 percent of the initial lot width.

Subject to urban lot split subdivision standards, the panhandle width shall be a minimum of 20 feet for panhandle lots.

Minimum yards
Ground floor yards:

Front: The required front yard per the underlying zoning district shall apply, unless the front property line is located at a newly-created lot line on a panhandle lot, where the minimum required front yard shall be four feet (4’).

Side: Four feet (4’), unless the side property line abuts a newly-created panhandle, in which case there is no required side yard.

Rear: Four feet (4’)
No yards shall be required for an existing structure, or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

No yards shall be required for zero-lot line developments at newly-created interior lot lines.

Second floor yards (step back):

All second floor yards shall be equal to the applicable yards of the underlying zoning district, with the exception of required yards for new interior lot lines where the second floor yard shall be a minimum of four feet (4’). No second floor yard shall be required for connected structures at newly-created interior lot lines.

Corner lots:

In the event that a corner lot is subdivided along the street-side property line as defined by Section 16.04.400, creating a new front property line along an existing street side property line, the following setback standards shall apply:

Ground floor yards:

Front: Twelve feet (12’)
Rear: Four feet (4’)
Side: Four feet (4’)
Second floor yards:

Front: Twelve feet (12’)
Rear: Ten feet (10’)
Side: side setback applicable to the underlying zoning district No yards shall be required for zero-lot line developments at newly-created interior lot lines.

Floor area limit (FAL)
Lots less than five thousand (5,000) square feet with an existing residence:

FAL shall be the square footage of the existing residence plus eight hundred (800) square feet.

Page H-2.12
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 6 of 13 ends

Lots Less than five thousand (5,000) square feet with two new residences:

FAL shall be one thousand, six hundred (1,600) square feet or fifty-six percent (56%) of the lot area, whichever is greater.

Lots of five thousand (5,000) square feet or greater:

FAL shall be equal to the floor area limit of the underlying zoning district.

For purposes of calculating the floor area limit, the area of a panhandle or access easement shall not be included in the lot size.

The maximum second floor FAL shall be fifty percent (50%) of the maximum FAL allowed on the property.

Minimum and maximum primary dwelling unit floor area
The minimum size of a primary dwelling unit created pursuant to this Chapter shall be eight hundred (800) square feet.

Lots with a FAL of less than two thousand square feet:

The maximum square footage of a primary dwelling unit shall not exceed the maximum FAL minus eight hundred (800) square feet.

Lots with a FAL of two thousand square feet or greater:

The maximum square footage of a primary dwelling unit shall not exceed sixty percent (60%) of the maximum allowable FAL.

Maximum building coverage
One-story development:

Building coverage shall be the maximum building coverage calculated for the underlying zoning district or Floor Area Limit (FAL) plus two hundred (200) square feet, whichever is greater.

Two-story development:

Building Coverage shall be one thousand (1,000) square feet or thirty percent (30%) of the lot area, whichever is greater.

Maximum height of structures
The maximum height of residential structures shall be twenty-eight feet (28’).

Daylight plane
A daylight plane shall begin at a horizontal line fourteen feet (14’) directly above the grade of each side and rear setback line of each lot and shall slope inwards at a forty-five (45) degree angle, except that no daylight plane shall be required for connected structures at newly-created interior lot lines and at a newly-created rear property lines.

As used in this section, "grade of the side setback line" means the average grade of the highest and lowest points of the natural grade of the portion of the lot directly below the side setback line.

Gable and Dormer Intrusions. Gables and dormers may intrude into the daylight plane of a lot that is ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less. The permitted intrusion for a four-foot required setback shall be ten feet (10’). Gables and dormers may intrude into the daylight Page H-2.13
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 7 of 13 ends

plane on one (1) side of a lot only. The gable or dormer must not extend beyond a triangle described as follows:
(A) The base of the triangle is the line formed by the intersection of the building wall with the daylight plane;
(B) The aggregate length of the bases of all triangles intruding into a daylight plane shall not exceed thirty feet (30'); and
(C) The triangle must be entirely within the maximum building height.

Off-street parking
One uncovered parking space shall be required for each unit, except where parking is exempt under the following conditions:

1. The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.

2. There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel.

Required parking spaces may be located in the required yards, with a maximum of one parking space located within the required front yard. Required parking spaces may be located in tandem with other required parking spaces. If the required parking space is located in a garage or carport, the area of the covered parking shall count towards the maximum permitted floor area limit, maximum unit size, and maximum building coverage.

The minimum width of a driveway serving up to two units shall be ten feet (10’). A driveway serving three or more units shall have a minimum width of sixteen feet (16’).

Front yard paving and landscaping
Paved area for driveway and uncovered parking shall not to exceed 40 percent of front yard setback area. The maximum paved width for driveway and uncovered parking in front yard setback shall not exceed 20 feet regardless of lot frontage width.

A minimum of fifty percent (50%) of front yard setback area shall be landscaped.

Landscaping may include paved walkways provided that a vegetated strip of not less than one foot is provided between a driveway and paved walkway. Paved walkways shall be constructed of decorative pavers or other material different than the driveway material.

Design and materials
If stucco is proposed it shall be steel trowel smooth stucco texture or steel trowel smooth Santa Barbara texture (i.e., sand, dash and similar textures would not meet this standard).

Stucco may be painted or use integral color.

Windows with divisions (i.e., grids) shall be simulated true divided lite or true divided lite with interior and exterior muntins and spacer bars between panes.

Second floor window sills facing interior side or rear property lines shall be a minimum of three feet (3’) from the interior floor line.

Page H-2.14
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 8 of 13 ends

Windows at stair landings along interior lot lines shall have obscure glazing below five feet or sills at 5 feet or greater above the landing. Permanent architectural screens may substitute for obscure glazing.

Balconies shall comply with the balcony setbacks outlined in Chapter 16.60.

C. Exceptions to development standards. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, all development standards shall be subject to the following exceptions:

1. Where each of the units of a Two-Unit Housing Development is no greater than eight hundred (800) square feet in size with side and rear setbacks of at least four (4) feet, the Two-Unit Housing Development shall be permitted regardless of any development standard that would prevent construction of the units.

2. No setback shall be imposed for a Two-Unit Housing Development constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

Section 3. Chapter 15.31 (Urban Lot Splits) is added to Title 15 (Subdivisions) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code to read as follows:

CHAPTER 15.31

URBAN LOT SPLITS

15.31.010 Purpose and Intent
It is the purpose of this Chapter to provide procedures necessary for the implementation of section 66411.7 of the Government Code pertaining to Urban Lot Splits. To accomplish this purpose, the regulations outlined herein are determined to be necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety and general welfare, and for the promotion of orderly growth and development.

15.31.020 Definitions
A. Urban lot split. The subdivision of a parcel within a residential single-family zone into no more than two parcels pursuant to the authority set forth in section 66411.7 of the Government Code

15.31.030 Filing, Processing, and Action
A. Ministerial review. An Urban Lot Split shall be ministerially approved, without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all provisions of this chapter and conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2) commencing with section 66410 of the Government Code.

B. The city engineer may require additional information, as may be required to determine eligibility as an Urban Lot Split, per SB 9.

C. Applicants for urban lot splits shall submit a parcel map application.

1. Applications shall include, at a minimum, all of the following items as one complete package prior to City Engineer accepting the Parcel map for review:

Page H-2.15
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 9 of 13 ends

i. An affidavit from the applicant stating the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units created through an Urban Lot Split as the applicant’s principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split. An affidavit shall not be required if the applicant is a community land trust or qualified nonprofit corporation under Sections 214.15 or 402.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
ii. A parcel map fee in the amount set forth in the City of Menlo Park Master Fee Schedule
iii. All documents used to complete the map, including:

1. Current title report dated within two months of the initial submittal date

2. Easement deed

3. Grant deed

4. Filed Maps

5. Soils report

6. Guarantee of title

7. Improvement plans

8. Survey traverse calculations
iv. Identification of electronic computer closures for all circuits shown on map.

2. Parcel maps for Urban Lot Splits shall not be conditioned on dedication of right of way or construction of offsite improvements.

D. The City shall act on a parcel map application for an Urban Lot Split within 50 days of receipt of a complete application. If the applicant requests a delay in writing, the 50-day time period shall be tolled for the period of the delay. The City has acted on the application if it:

1. Approves or denies a Parcel Map application for an Urban Lot Split; or

2. Informs the applicant in writing that changes to the proposed project are necessary to comply with this Chapter or other applicable laws and regulations.

E. Adverse impact upon health and safety. A proposed Urban Lot Split shall be denied if the Building Official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed Two-Unit Housing Development would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.

F. Limitations on approval. A proposed Urban Lot Split shall not be eligible for approval pursuant to this Chapter if any of the following circumstances apply:

1. The proposed Urban Lot Split would require demolition or alteration of “protected housing.” Protected housing includes:
i. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. ii. Housing that is subject to rent control through valid local rent control provisions. iii. A parcel on which the owner of residential real property has withdrawn accommodations from rent or lease pursuant to Section 7060 of the Government Code within 15 years preceding the development application (i.e. an exit of the rental housing business pursuant to the Ellis Act).
iv. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last 3 years.

2. The parcel to be subdivided is located within a historic district, is included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district.

3. The parcel to be subdivided satisfies the requirements of subsections (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the California Government Code.

Page H-2.16
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 10 of 13 ends

4. The parcel to be subdivided has been established through prior exercise of an Urban Lot Split pursuant to this Chapter.

5. Neither the owner of the parcel to be subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an Urban Lot Split pursuant to this Chapter. “Acting in concert” means the owner, or a person acting as an agent or representative of the owner, knowingly participated with another person in joint activity or parallel action toward a common goal of subdividing the adjacent parcel.

G. Density bonus projects

1. Notwithstanding the authority set forth in Government Code section 65915 et seq., the City shall not permit more than two units on a parcel created through an Urban Lot Split.

H. Certification and recordation:

1. The applicant shall submit the original mylars of the parcel map and pay all applicable City fees and any recording fee (as required by the county recorder) to the city engineer for certification. If the parcel map is in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act (Cal.

Gov. Code section 66410 et seq.) and all applicable laws and regulations, the city engineer will certify the parcel map and transmit the same to the city clerk for submittal to the officer of the Recorder Clerk of San Mateo County.

15.31.040 Development Standards
A. General standards

1. Urban lot splits shall be permitted in all single family residential zones including:

2. Uses created through an urban lot split shall be limited to residential uses.

3. Short term rentals prohibited. The rental of any unit created through an Urban Lot Split shall be for a term of longer than thirty (30) days.

4. Accessory dwelling units.
i. As more fully set forth in section 16.79.140, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted on parcels created through an Urban Lot Split pursuant to this Chapter.

B. Objective development standards.

Lot area
Subject to urban lot split subdivision standards, the minimum lot size shall be no less than 40 percent of the initial lot size and at least 1,200 square feet.

In the event of a panhandle subdivision, the panhandle shall count towards the overall lot area.

Page H-2.17
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 11 of 13 ends

Lot dimensions
For side-by-side urban lot splits, the minimum lot width shall be as follows:

For properties with an existing width of less than sixty-five feet (65’), the subdivided lot width shall be 50 percent of the original lot width.

For properties with a lot width of sixty-five feet (65’) or greater, the subdivided lot width shall be at least 40 percent of the initial lot width.

Subject to urban lot split subdivision standards, the panhandle width shall be a minimum of 20 feet for panhandle lots to allow development on the parcel to comply with all applicable property access requirements under the California Fire Code section 503 (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) and California Code Regulations Title 14, section 1273.00 et seq.

Minimum yards
Ground floor yards:

Side: Four feet (4’), unless the side property line abuts a newly-created panhandle, in which case there is no required side yard.

Rear: Four feet (4’)
No yards shall be required for an existing structure, or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

No yards shall be required for zero-lot line developments at newly-created interior lot lines.

Lots created through the authority of this chapter shall have access to or adjoin the public right-of-way, sufficient to allow development on the parcel to comply with all applicable property access requirements under the California Fire Code section 503 (Fire Apparatus Access Roads) and California Code Regulations Title 14, section 1273.00 et seq.

C. Exceptions to development standards. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, all development standards shall be subject to the following:

1. Any standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet, shall not be imposed.

2. No setback shall be imposed for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.

3. Correction of any legal nonconforming zoning condition shall not be required as a condition of approval of an Urban Lot Split.

Section 4. Section 16.79.140 is added to Chapter 16.79 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 16 (Zoning) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code to read as follows:

16.79.140 Two-Unit Housing Developments and Urban Lot Splits (SB 9). (a). Pursuant to the authority provided by section 65852.21(f) of the Government Code, no accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted on any lot in a single-family zoning district if: 1) an Urban Lot Split has been approved Page H-2.18
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 12 of 13 ends

pursuant to Chapter 15.31; and 2) a Two-Unit Housing Development has been approved for construction pursuant to Chapter 16.77 herein. (b). Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units shall be permitted on lots with Two-Unit Housing Developments, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, and where the lot has not been created through an Urban Lot Split pursuant to Chapter 15.31.

Section 5: Section 15.34.035 (Administrative action for urban lot split projects) is added to Chapter 15.34 (Condominiums) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code to read as follows:
(a). Two-Unit Housing Developments approved under Chapter 16.77 may be subdivided into condominium units provided that there may not be more than two condominium units per parcel. The condominium subdivision may be approved administratively by the Director of Public Works or their designee without the approval of the City Council or Planning Commission.
(b). A proposed condominium may be approved, disapproved, or conditionally approved by the Director of Public Works or their designee. If the Director of Public Works or their designee determines that the parcel map meets all existing building codes and zoning ordinances, complies with the city’s General Plan, and the housing element thereof, and this chapter, and complies with the Subdivision Map Act, then approval shall be granted.

Section 6: Environmental Review.

The City Council finds and determines that enactment of this Ordinance is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), as this action is to adopt an ordinance to implement the requirements of sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 of the Government Code.

Section 7: Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days from its passage and adoption.

Section 8: 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.

Section 9: Certification.

The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be posted and/or published in the manner required by law.
//
//
//
//
//
Page H-2.19
Ordinance No. XXXX

Page 13 of 13 ends

INTRODUCED on the fourteenth day of March, 202.

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
Page H-2.20
Resolution No. 2023-XX
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MENLO PARK RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 16.77 (TWO-UNIT HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS) TO TITLE 16 (ZONING) AND CHAPTER 15.31
(URBAN LOT SPLITS) TO TITLE 15 (SUBDIVISIONS) OF THE MENLO

PARK MUNICIPAL CODE, TO IMPLEMENT GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTIONS 66411.7 AND 65852.21 (SENATE BILL 9) RELATED TO

TWO-UNIT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND URBAN LOT SPLITS
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 9 (SB9) was signed by the Governor in 2021 and became effective on January 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, SB 9 adds sections § 65852.21, and § 66411.7 to the Government Code to allow for housing developments containing no more than two residential units within a single-family residential zone and urban lot splits; and WHEREAS, In December 2021 the City Council voted affirmatively to adopt a resolution directing the City Manager and City Attorney to draft interim guidelines for the implementation of SB 9; and
WHEREAS, In January 2022, staff published a set of guidelines providing interim development standards while staff developed an SB 9 ordinance; and WHEREAS, On July 25, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a study session to review preliminary design standards for two-unit developments and urban lot splits; and WHEREAS, City staff incorporated comments received at the July 25, 2022 study session into a draft ordinance, incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, The proposed ordinance amendment is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), as this action is to adopt an ordinance to implement the requirements of sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, all required public notices and public hearings were duly given and held according to law; and
WHEREAS, at a duly and properly noticed public hearing held on January 9, 2023, the Planning Commission fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated the whole of the record including all public and written comments, pertinent information, documents and the ordinance, prior to recommending action regarding the proposed ordinance; and Page H-2.21 ATTACHMENT B
Resolution No. 2023-XX
2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council incorporate into the SB9 ordinance an allowance for administrative approval of condominium maps for two-unit developments in single-family zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council consider directing staff to further develop objective design standards applicable to SB9 projects that could be adopted as design guidelines for all single-family projects, including single-family projects not subject to SB9.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE MENLO PARK PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Recitals. The Planning Commission has considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report, public testimony, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided, and the Planning Commission finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and they are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.

Section 2. Findings and Recommendation. The Planning Commission of the City of Menlo Park does hereby make the following findings and recommendation:

1. That the proposed ordinance amendment is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to Government Code sections 65852.21(j) and 66411.7(n), as this action is to adopt an ordinance to implement the requirements of sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 of the Government Code.

2. That the proposed ordinance is in compliance with State law regarding two-unit development and urban lot splits in single-family zoning districts.

3. That the proposed ordinance includes objective design standards intended to maintain community character of single-family neighborhoods while streamlining review and approval of two-unit developments and urban lot splits.

Having fully reviewed, considered, and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council vote to adopt an ordinance adding Chapter 16.77 (Two-Unit Housing Developments) to Title 16 (Zoning) and Chapter 15.31 (Urban Lot Splits) to Title 15 (Subdivisions) of the Menlo Park Municipal Code to implement Government Code Sections 66411.7 and 65852.21 (Senate Bill 9) related to twounit housing development and urban lot splits.

Section 3. SEVERABILITY
If any term, provision, or portion of these findings or the application of these findings to a particular situation is held by a court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining Page H-2.22
Resolution No. 2023-XX
3 provisions of these findings, or their application to other actions related to the Project, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the City.

I, Corinna Sandmeier, Principal Planner and Planning Commission Liaison of the City of Menlo Park, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Planning Commission Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a meeting by said Planning Commission on January 9, 2023, by the following votes:

AYES: Barnes, Do, Riggs, Schindler
NOES: Harris, Tate
ABSENT: DeCardy
ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of said City on this 9th day of January, 2023
______________________________
Corinna Sandmeier
Principal Planner and Planning Commission Liaison
City of Menlo Park
Exhibits
A. Draft Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Menlo Park Adding Chapter 15.31 [Urban Lot Splits] to Title 15 [Subdivisions] and Chapter 16.77 [Two-Unit Developments] to Title 16 [Zoning] of the Menlo Park Municipal Code to Conform to Changes in State Law (Staff Report Attachment A)

Page H-2.23
SB 9 ORDINANCE
Planning Division
H2-PRESENTATION
AGENDA
 General Information and State-Mandated
Standards
 Recommended SB9 Ordinance Example Developments
GENERAL SB 9

INFORMATION
 Help alleviate the statewide housing crisis.
 Provide another strategy for producing housing units. Provide additional ownership opportunities in singlefamily neighborhoods.INTENT OF SB 9 4  Went into effect on January 1, 2022
 Applicable to all single-family-zoned properties, with limited exceptions. Exceptions include:– Coastal zone– Prime farmland– Wetlands– Very high fire severity zones– Hazardous waste sites– Delineated earthquake fault zone– Special flood zones, unless local development standards meet FEMA regulations for flood plain management
– Regulatory floodways– Lands identified for conservation under local conservation plan– Habitat for protected species– Lands under conservation easement– Historic properties– Properties deed restricted to below market rate SB 9 APPLICABILITY
5  Ministerial approval of subdivision of single-family lots (Urban Lot Split).
 Ministerial approval of up to two units per single-family lot. Establishes minimum lot size of 1,200 square feet. – Maximum 60/40 distribution of lot area
 Limits required parking to up to one space per unit, with certain exemptions from parking requirements– Within half-mile of high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop– There is a car share vehicle within one block  Owner must live in one of the units as their primary dwelling for minimum of three years if subdividing property.

SB 9 BASIC REQUIREMENTS
6 RECOMMENDED

ORDINANCE STANDARDS
 FAL would be minimum of 1,600 square feet
 Establish .56 FAR on lots less than 5,000 square feet (minimum 1,600 sf FAL)– Historically recommend to Planning Commission as maximum FAL on lots less than 5,000 sf
 One-story Building Coverage = FAL + 200 square feet Two-story Building Coverage = 1,000 sf or 30%, whichever is greater

FLOOR AREA LIMIT AND BUILDING COVERAGE
8  Recommended to promote smaller, presumably more
affordable units
 Lots with FAL less than 2,000 sf
– Max FAL – 800 sf
 Lots with FAL 2,000 sf or greater
– 60% of maximum FAL

MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE
9  Four-foot side and rear setback (required by state law)  Front per underlying zoning
– 20 feet in most cases– Front of a new panhandle lot subject to a four-foot setback  Structures may have a zero lot line along new property lines. Second stories required to step back to minimum side and rear setbacks of the underlying zoning district.– Added to maintain familiar level of privacy in single-family districts  Corner lots split along the street side:
– 12-foot front setback– 4 foot side and rear setbacks on first floor– 10-foot rear second-story stepback

SETBACKS AND STEPBACKS
10  One uncovered space per unit
 Parking may be in the front and side setbacks:
– Maximum one required space allowed within front setback  May be in tandem with other required parking Maximum 40% of front yard area allowed to be paved for parking and driveways
– Maximum linear width of 20 feet of paving regardless of lot width– Minimum 50% front yard landscaping with allowance for paved walkways

PARKING AND FRONTAGE
11 12
 Maximum 28 feet height
– Consistent with existing height limit (in most cases)  Daylight plane – up 14 feet, in at a 45 degree angle
– Would provide adequate light to neighboring properties  May have the effect of shifting second floors towards the center of the lot

BUILDING MASSING
13  True or simulated true divided light grids (if grids proposed)
 Smooth stucco Minimum second-story sill height – 3 feet Obscure glass or 5-foot sill heights at stair landingsPRIVACY AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN 14  Response to Planning Commission recommendation
 Subdivision ordinance would allow administrative (staff level) review of condominium maps– Units would be able to be sold separately– Typically needs to be reviewed by planning commission as a minor subdivision
– Examples – R-2 and R-3 developments along Partridge Ave. or Cambridge Ave.
– Further streamlining of ownership opportunities

CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION
15 EXAMPLE

DEVELOPMENTS
17 18
19 20
21 22
 Section 16.77.030 E.3
– The Two-Unit Housing Development would be located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed asa city or county landmark or historic property or district.  Section 16.77.040 B
– Second floor yards (step back):

All second floor yards shall be equal to the applicable yards of theunderlying zoning district, with the exception of required yards fornew interior lot lines where the second floor yard shall be a minimumof four feet (4’). No second floor yard shall be required for connected structures zero lot line developments at newly-created interior lotlines.

TEXT EDITS
23 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: 3/14/2023
Staff Report Number: 23-057-CC
Regular Business: Receive an overview of comments on the notice of preparation and confirm the scope and content of
the environmental impact report to be prepared for
the proposed Parkline master plan development,
and authorize the city manager to enter into an
environmental leadership act processing agreement
(SB 7) with Lane Partners, LLC
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council review the following:

1. Comment letters received by the City during the notice of preparation (NOP) comment period, and through the continued Planning Commission study session (February 6), on the scope and content of the environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed Parkline master plan development (Attachments B and C);

2. Transcript from the Planning Commission scoping hearing (Attachment D); and

3. The matrix summarizing the comment letters and transcript and providing a brief responsive discussion (Attachment E.)
Staff recommends that the City Council provide any additional input on the scope and content of the EIR, and accept the proposed scope and content of the EIR to allow the City to move forward with the preparation of the EIR for the Parkline master plan development (proposed project.) The development of the draft EIR is the next step in the review process and will be prepared concurrently with staff’s review of the requested land use entitlements.

The applicant intends to submit an application to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for certification of the project as an environmental leadership development project (ELDP) eligible for streamlining under the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2021, commonly referred to as SB 7. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the city manager to enter into an environmental leadership act processing agreement with Lane Partners, LLC. This agreement would not limit the City Council’s future discretion on the requested project entitlements or the determination on whether to certify the EIR.

Policy Issues
Lane Partners (the applicant) has submitted an application for the proposed project as described below.

The Planning Commission and the City Council will be required to consider the merits of the proposed project. The proposed project requires an EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA.) The City Council will be the final decision-making body on the certification of the EIR and on the land use entitlements required for the proposed project. The proposed project is anticipated to require general plan and zoning ordinance amendments, rezoning, a conditional development permit (CDP), architectural control, a vesting tentative map, heritage tree removal permits, a below market rate housing agreement, AGENDA ITEM I-1 Page I-1.1
Staff Report #: 23-057-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov and a request by the applicant for approval of a development agreement. The Planning Commission would be the acting body for any future architectural control permits for the proposed new buildings and the recommending body on all other entitlements, and the City Arborist would issue the Heritage Tree Removal Permits.

On October 18, 2022, the City Council authorized an amended contract with ICF International, Inc. (ICF) and its subconsultants to prepare an EIR for the proposed project and to conduct a Housing Needs Assessment (HNA.) Authorization of the contract did not imply an endorsement of the proposed project by the City Council, rather it allowed the city to move forward with the legally required processing of the application, which includes conducting the environmental review required by CEQA.

When the City Council authorized the contract, it requested that staff bring a summary of the comments received on the scope and content of the EIR to the City Council for review and input following the close of the NOP comment period. This item satisfies that request and provides the City Council the opportunity to provide additional feedback and confirm the scope and content of the EIR, and to consider policy issues that may be addressed through the EIR, the HNA, a fiscal impact analysis (FIA) or other analysis conducted concurrently with the entitlement process.

Background
Site location
For purposes of this staff report, Ravenswood Avenue is used in an east to west geographic orientation.

The project site is located at 333 Ravenswood Avenue and generally bound by Laurel Street to the west, Ravenswood Avenue to the north, Middlefield Road to the east and the Burgess Drive ROW to the south.

The site contains 38 existing buildings, totaling approximately 1.38 million gross square feet, which include a mix of office, R&D, and support uses. The surrounding zoning and land uses are provided in Table 1 and a location map is included as Attachment A.

Table 1:Surrounding land uses and zoning
Direction Existing land uses Zoning
North Single-family & multi-family residential/church R-1-S/R-2/R-3/Town of Atherton South City corporpration yard/USGS/multi-family
residential PF/R-3(A)
East Menlo Atherton high school/office (McCandless
office complex) City of Atherton/C-1-X
West Civic center/Burgess park/single-family
residential (Classic Communities) PF/R-3(X)
Most nearby buildings are one to three stories in height. Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road are major city through streets (classified as “Avenues – Mixed Use” in the City’s Circulation Element.) The Menlo Park train station (Caltrain) and the downtown and El Camino Real commercial/mixed use corridors, developed with several mixed-use projects, are nearby.

Proposed project
The applicant is proposing to comprehensively redevelop the SRI campus with a residential, office, R&D, and retail mixed-use project. The proposed project would be divided into an approximately 53-acre Page I-1.2
Staff Report #: 23-057-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov office/R&D campus covering most of the existing project site and a 10-acre residential area along the Laurel Street edge of the project site extending slightly east along Ravenswood Avenue. Site circulation, open space and landscaping (other than retained trees) would be redesigned and rebuilt per a new comprehensive campus plan, including new bicycle and pedestrian connections. There would be no net increase of non-residential square footage. Primary development program elements include:
• Approximately 287,000 square feet of existing office/R&D (retained in Buildings P, S and T); • Demolition of 35 structures comprising approximately 1.1 million square feet, to be replaced with new office/R&D space in five main structures, three to five stories in height, along with a smaller amenity building;
• Three new parking structures for the non-residential uses; • Approximately 450 multifamily residential dwelling units (19 townhomes at two stories) and (431 apartments at three to six stories);
• An approximately one-acre portion of land, proposed to be dedicated to an affordable housing developer for the future construction of a 100 percent affordable housing and/or special needs project of up to 100 dwelling units;
• Approximately 25 acres of landscaped, publicly-accessible open space, including a large central open space between the office/R&D buildings; and
• A sports field and one-story community building near the Ravenswood Avenue/Middlefield Road intersection.

As part of the proposed project, the existing 6-megawatt natural gas power plant that generates power and steam energy for the existing SRI International campus would be demolished and the entire project site would be converted to all-electric energy usage, with the exception of two of the existing buildings that would remain (Buildings P and T) and potential backup diesel generators, in compliance with the city Reach Code. (It is possible that limited exceptions may be requested to accommodate additional life science uses.) The EIR will analyze the proposed project along with the following variants:
• Emergency Reservoir Variant: This variant would be similar to the proposed project except it would also include an approximately 2 million gallon below grade concrete water reservoir and associated facilities (including a pump station building, surge tank and well head) that would be aboveground and surrounded by a fence or screen. The area for the emergency reservoir and associated facilities would be leased by the City. The specific location of the emergency water reservoir and associated facilities within the project site has not yet been determined, but would likely be located on the northeastern portion of the project site.
• Increased Residential Variant: This variant would be similar to the proposed project except it would include up to 800 multi-family residential units, inclusive of the 100 percent affordable housing and/or special needs project, 250 more dwelling units than under the proposed project. The additional residential dwelling units would be located along Laurel Street within the residential district. As a result, the proposed building height along Laurel Street would increase and additional subterranean parking may be required.

For a more detailed analysis of the proposed project, including an overview of the project history and analysis of the site plan and site circulation, please see the December 12, 2022 Planning Commission staff report in the link in Attachment F. Links to the most recent project plans and project description letter are included in Attachments G (master project plan), H (non-residential project plans), I (residential project plans), and J (project description letter.)
Page I-1.3
Staff Report #: 23-057-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Environmental review process
One of the basic purposes of CEQA is to inform decision makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a proposed project. For purposes of CEQA, the environment is the physical conditions within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, plants and animals, noise and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An EIR must be prepared whenever it is established that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment.

An EIR is an informational document that the City must certify and consider before it takes action on discretionary permits required for the proposed project. The purpose of an EIR is to provide decision makers and the public with detailed information about the effect that the proposed project is likely to have on the environment, list ways in which the significant effects of the proposed project might be minimized and identify alternatives to the proposed project. The main substantive components of an EIR are as follows:
• The project description, which discloses the activity that is proposed; • Discussion and analysis of significant environmental effects of the proposed project, including cumulative impacts and growth-inducing impacts;
• Discussion of ways to mitigate or avoid the proposed project’s significant environmental impacts; and • Discussion of alternatives to the project as proposed.

The EIR process begins with the city’s decision to prepare an EIR. The city determined that an EIR was required for the proposed project and issued a NOP December 2, 2022. A link to the NOP is included in Attachment K for reference. A NOP signifies the city plans to prepare an EIR for the proposed project.

As part of the city’s outreach for the proposed project, the city sent a mailed notice of the release of the NOP and the Planning Commission scoping public hearing and study session to all addresses within a quarter mile radius of the project site. A public notice was also published in the Examiner before the release of the NOP identifying the date of the release of the NOP and the start of the NOP comment period along with the date and time of the Planning Commission scoping session public hearing and study session for the proposed project. In addition, the city mailed copies of the NOP to a comprehensive list of local agencies (including adjacent cities, special districts and school districts), state agencies and federal agencies, Planning Commissioners, and members of the public who requested CEQA notices. A City Council digest item publicizing the release of the NOP and the start of the scoping comment period was also published. The NOP was available for review at the City’s website as well as the Main Library and Belle Haven Branch Library. The notice is designed to seek guidance from all of these entities/parties on the scope and content of the EIR.

The release of the NOP began the process for agency and early public consultation, which is referred to as the “scoping” process. The scoping process is designed to enable the city to determine the scope and contents of the EIR at an early stage, including identifying possible issues to be studied, topic areas that do not warrant additional study based on specifics of the proposed project (e.g., mineral resources), and possible alternatives and mitigation measures to be analyzed and considered in the EIR. As part of the scoping process, the Planning Commission held a scoping session for the EIR for the proposed project December 12, 2022. The scoping period ended January 9. (For total of 38 days, which is beyond the minimum 30 days to ensure the public had time to review and provide comments on the NOP notwithstanding the scheduled City-office closure from Dec. 26, 2022, through Monday, January 2.) For a more detailed discussion of the proposed project, the CEQA analysis, the CEQA topics included and those excluded from the EIR, the project variants, and the framework for the alternative analysis, please review the December 12, 2022 Planning Commission staff report available through the link in Attachment F.

Page I-1.4
Staff Report #: 23-057-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov The scoping session was an opportunity for the Planning Commission and public to provide comments on the scope and content in the EIR. Verbal comments received during the scoping session and written comments received during the NOP comment period on the scope and content of the environmental review will be considered while preparing the draft EIR. NOP comments will not be responded to individually in the draft EIR; however, all written comments on the NOP will be included in an appendix of the draft EIR, and a summary of all comments received (both written and orally at the Planning Commission scoping session) on the NOP will be included in the body of the draft EIR, which is expected to be released in the fall of 2023.

Further, while not required by CEQA, the City prepared a matrix summarizing all of the comments received and providing a brief discussion regarding each comment. This matrix provides more detailed responses than the summary of comments that will be included in the draft EIR. It has been prepared to help identify and explain those areas which will be considered in the EIR pursuant to CEQA and to identify and explain those areas that are outside the scope of CEQA review (understanding that CEQA is focused on changes to the physical environment and therefore does not cover all issues about which a community member may be concerned) but that may be addressed through other mechanisms. The matrix is included in Attachment E and discussed in more detailed in the Analysis section of this report. The comment letters and transcript of the EIR scoping session are included in the links in Attachment B (comment letters received between December 2, 2022 and January 9), Attachment C (comment letters received between January 10 and February 6), and Attachment D (transcript of the EIR scoping session.) At the March 14 meeting, the City Council will have an opportunity to review the scoping comments and provide any additional comments on the scope and content of the EIR for the proposed project. Following the meeting, staff will direct the City’s environmental consultants to begin the work needed to prepare the draft EIR based on the EIR scope in Attachment L. The draft EIR will be prepared and processed in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines in effect at the time of the release of the NOP.

Upon release of the draft EIR there will be another opportunity for the community to comment on the analysis before the final EIR is prepared. The final EIR includes responses to the comments provided during the EIR comment review period. The final EIR will also be reviewed by the City Council, which is the final decision-making body regarding the certification of the EIR. In addition to the EIR process, concurrently, the city’s consultants will be working to prepare an HNA and a FIA which will be reviewed by the City Council before final action on the proposed project. (A consultant for the FIA has not yet been selected.) SB 7
The applicant intends to seek certification of the proposed project under SB 7, the Jobs and Economic Improvement Through Environmental Leadership Act of 2021, as an ELDP. SB 7 authorizes the Governor, until January 1, 2024, to certify projects that meet specified requirements as an ELDP, which then provides the project streamlining benefits related to any subsequent CEQA litigation. To be eligible to qualify as an ELDP, in this instance the applicant will need to show the following:
• The project will result in a minimum investment of $100 million; • The project will achieve "net zero" greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions; • The applicant certifies that provisions related to payment of prevailing wages and a skilled workforce will be complied with in connection with the construction of the project; • The applicant has entered into a binding agreement with the lead agency (i.e., City) that all mitigation measures will be enforceable conditions of approval of the project, and in the case of “environmental” mitigation measures, the applicant agrees that they will be monitored and enforced by the City for the life of the obligation;
• The applicant agrees to pay the costs of the trial court and court of appeal in any case challenging the City’s action on an ELDP project;
Page I-1.5
Staff Report #: 23-057-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov • The applicant agrees to pay the costs of the City to prepare the record of proceedings for the project concurrent with the review and consideration of the project, in a form and manner specified by the City; and
• The applicant demonstrates that the record of proceedings is being prepared as required.

The attached Environmental Leadership Act Processing Agreement is intended to address all the requirements required by SB 7.

Litigation benefits of ELDP designation
More elaborate and costly application, review and litigation procedures apply to ELDP projects. The administrative record must be maintained concurrently with the preparation of the EIR, and posted for immediate public review on a website commencing with the date of the release of the draft EIR, at all times during the application, EIR, and public and agency hearing process. The applicant must agree to pay for trial and appeal court costs, as well as the costs of preparation of the administrative record.

The ELDP CEQA litigation streamlining benefits include:
• Completion of the trial and appeal court proceedings within 270 days, "to the extent feasible," based on California of Court Rules of Court, Title 3, Division 22, Chapter 2, as adopted by the Judicial Council.

This 270-day process is not a mandatory maximum, and the few ELDP projects challenged in lawsuits before the expiration of the first ELDP program were in court for about a year rather than 270 days.

However, this accelerated litigation process is substantially less than the three to four years often required to complete the normal CEQA superior and appellate court process. • Key to this expedited litigation process is the concurrent preparation of the record of proceedings with the administrative process, and the option for the lead agency to elect to prepare the record rather than give CEQA petitioners the right to elect to do so.

In order to receive the streamlining benefits of SB 7, the governor must certify an ELDP project before January 1, 2024, and the lead agency must approve the project before January 1, 2025.

Analysis
During the EIR scoping period, the City received 20 total comment letters, 15 from community members, two from a Planning Commissioner, three from public agencies (California Department of Transportation, Native American Heritage Commission, and Sequoia Union High School District.) In addition to the comment letters, six members of the public spoke at the EIR scoping session, some of whom also provided written comment letters. Individual Planning Commissioners also provided comments and input on the scope and content of the EIR for consideration in the preparation of the draft EIR.

City staff has evaluated the written comments received and verbal comments made by community members, public agencies, and the Planning Commission at the EIR scoping session. A comment matrix is included in Attachment E summarizing the comments and providing a brief informational discussion regarding each comment. The comment matrix is set up to provide the following information:
• Identify the commenter and summarize individual comments from each individual, organization or agency;
• Identify the general topic area;
• Identify the context through which the comment would be considered, e.g., the EIR, the HNA, the FIA or outside of these documents, either in or concurrently with the entitlement process; and • Provide a discussion related to the comment and how the comment, if applicable, fits within the EIR, Page I-1.6
Staff Report #: 23-057-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov HNA, FIA or other part of the entitlement process. These discussions are intended to be informational to help aid the City Council and the community in understanding why the comments would or would not be considered in the CEQA process and what other opportunities the City may have to consider these comments during the entitlement process.

A study session with the Planning Commission was scheduled for December 12, right after the public hearing was closed on the EIR scoping session. However, the study session component was continued to January 23 due to meeting time constraints. The study session was started January 23 and then again continued to February 6 due to meeting time constraints. As a result, staff included the additional 45 written comments, comprised of 42 comments from the general public, one from a Planning Commissioner, and two from a nonprofit organization (Menlo Together), received through February 6 in the comment matrix.

The majority of the comments provided relate to topics within the EIR and the project itself. Comments generally focused on transportation impacts (e.g., traffic congestion and safety), population and housing (e.g., jobs/housing imbalance), air quality, public services, project design components (e.g., number of below market rate units, reduced office square footage, number of total housing units, on-site and off-site circulation, parking, building heights/locations), and potential project alternatives.

Transportation comments
With respect to transportation, comments were received mainly regarding traffic congestion and safety. The applicant is proposing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce the trips generated by the project by a specific percentage, which the City will factor into the transportation impact analysis. Traffic is not a physical environmental issue subject to analysis in the EIR. In accordance with state law, level of service (LOS), which corresponded to traffic congestion, is no longer a CEQA metric. LOS was replaced by vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the CEQA metric for measuring transportation impacts in July 2020. In compliance with the City’s adopted Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines, a non-CEQA LOS congestion analysis will be conducted for the proposed project. The TIA would identify potential deficiencies to LOS created by the proposed project at study intersections and potential improvement measures to bring the study intersections back to pre-project conditions. The City Council will be presented with feasible improvement measures for consideration as project conditions through the project entitlement review.

Some comments recommended that the EIR study the realignment of Ravenswood Avenue to connect directly to Ringwood Avenue. Although this is not part of the applicant’s proposal, Fehr and Peers, the applicant’s transportation consultant, studied the possibility in 2022 and determined that while the realignment may result in a modest reduction in intersection average vehicle delay, it could also negatively impact the safe travel of pedestrians and bicyclists through the realigned intersection. Additionally, the realignment would also likely require a double left turn lane northbound on Middlefield at Ringwood and a wider right-of-way between Middlefield and Parkline’s entrance. The potential realignment is not included in any City plans. Additionally, the proposed project would allow pedestrians and bicyclists to connect from Ravenswood to Ringwood through the project site and the realignment could potentially affect this improved bike/ped access to Ringwood Avenue and ultimately to Belle Haven and the broader Bayfront Area and Bay Trail through the Ringwood US 101 overcrossing.

Air quality comments
With regard to air quality, comments were received regarding impacts from the proposed project, including potential impacts to sensitive receptors. The potential project-level and cumulative air quality impacts of the proposed project will be evaluated in the air quality section of the draft EIR; nearby sensitive receptors will be considered.

Page I-1.7
Staff Report #: 23-057-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Public services
With regard to public services, comments were received regarding capacity concerns for public service providers, as well as Burgess Park, including the pool and the main library. Concerns were also received about potential impact to schools from the additional students that would be added to the districts. The potential impacts of the proposed project to public service providers, including Menlo Park Police Department and Menlo Park Fire Protection District, as well as recreational facilities, will be considered in the public services and recreation sections of the draft EIR. The EIR will consider the school districts’, including MPCSD and SUHSD, past/current enrollment trends, existing school facilities and student/teacher staffing ratios. As part of the EIR process, the City will coordinate with the school districts to gather this type of information to support the analysis in the draft EIR. The potential increase in students generated by the project and the ability for schools to accommodate the potential increase in students will be evaluated in the public services section of the draft EIR. The FIA will also evaluate the impact on the revenues and expenditures to the school districts that serve the proposed project, including MPCSD and SUHSD.

Project alternatives comments
With regard to project alternatives, City staff will consider the suggested alternatives in the comments when developing the EIR for the proposed project, but cannot identify the specific alternatives at this time. Some suggested alternatives received during the scoping period were an increase in housing units and/or reduction in office square footage, increasing the housing to match the housing density of the Willow Village project, reducing the proposed number of housing units, and various changes to the proposed project circulation including limiting or eliminating vehicular access from Laurel Street. The CEQA Guidelines require the evaluation of a no project alternative plus a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the proposed project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the proposed project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. To develop project alternatives, potential impacts must first be identified through the initial analysis within the draft EIR. Once potential impacts are identified through the environmental analysis, City staff will work with ICF to develop alternatives compliant with the requirements of CEQA and will take into consideration alternatives identified through the scoping process. Alternatives will be included in the draft EIR.

Please note that project alternatives are different from project variants. Project alternatives are a required component of an EIR and are analyzed qualitatively, while a project variant is proposed by the applicant and will be analyzed quantitatively at a level of detail commensurate with the base project. As stated previously, the project variants that would be studied in the EIR include an emergency reservoir and an increased housing variant. Given the level of detail that the project variants will be analyzed in the EIR, the project entitlements could potentially include the variants.

Policy level and non-CEQA comments
Some comments identify broader policy issues that are outside the purview of the entitlement review and environmental analysis for the proposed project, such as the jobs/housing balance within Menlo Park. The jobs/housing balance is an economic and social issue, not a physical environmental issue subject to analysis in the EIR. The jobs/housing balance may impact commute times and distance, the effects of which would be considered in the transportation, air quality and GHG sections of the draft EIR. The HNA will not specifically consider the jobs/housing balance, but will consider the housing need generated by the proposed project and compare that to the available supply of housing.

Other comments that are not directly related to the CEQA analysis include comments on the project description or design of the proposed project. For instance, a number of comments suggested modifying the site plan to limit or eliminate vehicular access from Laurel Street, reducing or increasing parking, placing all parking underground, reducing the height of buildings, especially near Laurel Street, and other comments Page I-1.8
Staff Report #: 23-057-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov related to circulation and site layout. Those comments if incorporated into the proposed project at any time during the entitlement review process, would be considered in the EIR. Staff would ensure that the environmental review, if necessary, is updated accordingly to reflect the project components, possibly by utilizing a variant for an alternate phasing plan. In addition, there were a number of comments on the percentage of BMR units provided. The number of BMR units would not affect the environmental analysis in the draft EIR, which is concerned mainly with the number and size of units, but consideration of the number of affordable units would be incorporated into the analysis in the HNA, including additional units beyond the City’s BMR requirements, if incorporated into the proposed project by the applicant. These comments and other comments either in support or opposition to the proposed project would be considered as part of the overall entitlement review by the Planning Commission and any other responsible city commissions, and the City Council.

SB 7
Certification of the proposed project as an ELDP would not limit the Planning Commission or City Council’s discretion on the requested project entitlements or change the timeline for the review of the entitlements.

Additionally, all costs for City staff and consultant’s time would be covered by the applicant, including any additional costs associated with certification under SB 7, such as preparation of the administrative record, posting of the record in a public place, evaluating the ELDP documents and confirming requirements are met during and after review of the entitlements. Staff believes there are several advantages to certification, including the commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions, and is supportive of the applicant’s application to the Governor's OPR for certification of the project as an ELDP, with the understanding that the City will incur no cost, expense or liability in connection with such application, as set forth in the attached draft agreement (Attachment M) between the applicant and the City. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the city manager to enter into the environmental leadership act processing agreement.

Next steps
Following the City Council’s review and confirmation of the scope of the draft EIR, the consultant team will begin conducting the environmental analysis for the proposed project. As stated previously, the draft EIR is anticipated to be released in the fall of 2023.

Conclusion
The NOP scoping period closed January 9, although staff is considering written comments submitted through February 6 as scoping comments, and the majority of the comments will be evaluated in the EIR or the project entitlement review. Staff recommends that the City Council provide any additional comments and accept the comments and the proposed scope and content of the EIR to allow for preparation of the draft EIR. Staff also recommends that the City Council authorize the city manager to enter into an environmental leadership act processing agreement with Lane Partners, LLC. This agreement would not limit the City Council’s future discretion on the requested project entitlements or the determination on whether to certify the EIR.

Page I-1.9
Staff Report #: 23-057-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov Impact on City Resources
The applicant is required to pay all Planning, Building, Public Works and City Attorney fees, based on the city’s master fee schedule, to fully cover the cost of staff time spent on the review of the proposed project.

The applicant is also required to bear the cost of the environmental review and any associated analysis. For the environmental review and fiscal analysis, the applicant deposits money with the city and the city pays the consultants. Additionally, the environmental leadership act processing agreement with the applicant would require the applicant to cover all costs, including staff’s and the City Attorney’s time, associated with SB 7 certification of the project.

Environmental Review
The consideration and approval of the Environmental Leadership Act Processing Agreement (Agreement) is not a “Project” subject to the requirements of the CEQA. As noted in CEQA Guidelines §15378 (b)(5), a “Project” does not include “organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.” The Agreement merely provides for the processing of the EIR for the proposed Parkline Master Plan in accordance with the provisions of SB 7 and does not authorize any activity that would result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Further, even if the consideration and approval of the Agreement was deemed to be a “Project” subject to the requirements of CEQA, the action would be exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to the “common sense” exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) which provides that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and where, as is the case in connection with the consideration and approval of the Agreement, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity in question is not subject to CEQA.

A full EIR will be prepared for the proposed project.

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. Location map
B. Hyperlink – NOP comment letters on the EIR received by January 9 deadline:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/community-development/documents/projects/underreview/parkline/parkline-environmental-impact-report-scoping-comments.pdf C. Hyperlink – NOP Comment letters on the EIR received after January 9 deadline:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/community-development/documents/projects/underreview/parkline/environmental-impact-report-scoping-comments-received-after-january-9-2023.pdf D. Hyperlink – December 12, 2022 Planning Commission EIR scoping transcript:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/community-development/documents/projects/underreview/parkline/december-12-2022-planning-commission-eir-scoping-transcript.pdf E. Parkline Master Plan EIR comment matrix
F. Hyperlink –December 12, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report:
menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/agendas-and-minutes/planning-commission/2022- meetings/agendas/20221212-planning-commission-agenda-packet.pdf Page I-1.10
Staff Report #: 23-057-CC
City of Menlo Park 701 Laurel St., Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel 650-330-6600 menlopark.gov G. Hyperlink – Masterplan project plan: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/communitydevelopment/documents/projects/under-review/parkline/20221031-parkline-masterplan-plan-set.pdf H. Hyperlink – Non-residential project plans: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/communitydevelopment/documents/projects/under-review/parkline/20221031-non-residential-architecturalplans.pdf I. Hyperlink – Residential project plans: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/communitydevelopment/documents/projects/under-review/parkline/20221031-residential-architectural-controlplans.pdf J. Hyperlink – Project description letter: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/services/communitydevelopment/documents/projects/under-review/parkline/20221205-parkline-project-description.pdf K. Hyperlink – NOP: menlopark.gov/files/sharedassets/public/communitydevelopment/documents/projects/under-review/parkline/parkline-notice-of-preparation.pdf L. Approved scope and budget for EIR and HNA for the Parkline master plan project, dated revised July 13, 2022
M. Draft environmental leadership act processing agreement Report prepared by:

Corinna Sandmeier, Principal Planner
Report reviewed by:

Kyle Perata, Planning Manager
Page I-1.11

CITY OF MENLO PARK

LOCATION MAP
333 RAVENSWOOD AVENUE - PARKLINE
Scale: 1:9,000 Drawn By: CDS Checked By: JICM Date: 5/10/2022

ATTACHMENT A
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 1 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment Discussion
Project Description Do not include more than 400 housing units. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units (Increased Residential Variant). Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA.The Project Sponsor will propose a TDM program to reduce the number of vehicle trips. The trip reductions resulting from the TDM program will be factored into the transportation analysis to determine the scope of impacts on the environment. Final decisions regarding the details of TDM requirements, and whether to require higher performance standards, would be decided by the City through the entitlement process. Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary.

Encourages more housing to meet the City’s RHNA obligation and affirmatively further fair housing.

The comment refers to the City’s RHNA obligation and obligations under the Housing Element Law, which are noted. These comments do not relate to a physical environmental impact subject to analysis in the EIR. However, a housing needs assessment is being prepared for the Proposed Project and will be included in the EIR; the housing needs assessment will consider direct and indirect housing market effects, as well as evaluate the Proposed Project against the City's regional housing needs allocation.

Conduct robust public outreach. Public outreach efforts will be conducted in accordance with CEQA requirements. Additional outreach efforts will be subject to the discretion of the Project Sponsor and the City.

Transportation Encourage slow streets.

Address safety concerns associated with high traffic and single-use vehicles.

The transportation section of the EIR will consider potential Project-related impacts on vehicular, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety.The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Concerns about increasing the amount of housing at the Project site.

Utilities Concerns about water supply and increased demand.

Impacts on infrastructure.

A water supply assessment will be prepared for the Proposed Project to evaluate existing and future water supplies as a result of Project-generated demand. The utilities and services section of the EIR will incorporate the results of the water supply assessment, as well as an analysis of Project-related impacts to utilities infrastructure.

P_1 12/12/2022
Member of the Public at the Public Hearing
P_3 12/12/2022 Sue ConnellyP_2 12/12/2022 Jenny Michelle Member of the Public at the Public HearingMember of the Public at the Public Hearing Peter Chow
Site Planning/Non CEQAProject Description Provide more housing.

Reduce minimum parking requirements to loading and ADA parking only.

Transportation Transportation Demand Management.

Ravenswood and Middlefield is a high impact traffic zone area.

ATTACHMENT E
Page I-1.13
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 2 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment Discussion
Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary. The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR. The transportation section of the EIR will consider potential Project-related impacts on vehicular, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety.

Variants Support for Emergency Reservoir Variant. This comment expresses support for the Emergency Reservoir Variant. No action needed for the draft EIR.Transportation Study walkability to existing amenities in the neighborhood and downtown.Support for proposed bicycle and pedestrian routes through Project site.Map circulation plan associated with people coming to work in the City and driving to area with fewer public transit options.

The transportation section of the EIR will include a qualitative discussion of the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities surrounding the Project site. Circulation and connectivity will also be evaluated as part of the separately required transportation impact assessment and review by the Community Development Department and Public Works.

Variants Support for Increased Residential Variant. This comment expresses support for the Increased Residential Variant. No action needed for draft EIR.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Reduce minimum parking requirements. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA.This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program, social and economic impacts, etc.) as opposed to significant environmental issues or the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis as required by CEQA.

Project Description Reconsider the number of units.

Clarify the plans for the 100% affordable units.Parking spaces for rental units.

The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed. Impacts from construction and operation of the proposed housing at the Project site will be considered throughout the draft EIR. Mitigation measures will be identified as appropriate. The EIR will describe and consider the potential environmental effects of the proposed future construction of up to 100 residential units that will be a 100% affordable housing or special needs project. One purpose of the NOP is to identify potential alternatives to the Proposed Project. Alternatives that would reduce significant impacts of the Proposed Project are identified during the CEQA process prior to the release of the draft EIR.

Transportation Egress of cars from housing units onto Laurel instead of Ravenswood.Bicycle path connectivity behind Burgess Classics communities.Impacts of potentially a thousand more cars in the neighborhood.Clarify where traffic is going to go on Ravenswood and Laurel and surrounding neighborhoods.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Potential gathering of un-homed people. The comment does not relate to the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project, and no further response is required.

P_5 12/12/2022 Steve Pang Member of the
Public at the Public Hearing
Transportation Impacts on traffic.

Traffic safety because Laurel Street is a primary artery.Concerns about driveways on Laurel Street, which is already congested and gridlocked.Impacts on Ravenswood and Laurel corridor.

P_4 12/12/2022 Brittani Baxter Member of the
Public at the Public Hearing
Page I-1.14
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 3 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionTransportation Congestion will be generated by proposed employees, not just residents.Traffic light changes at Laurel and Ravenswood have not helped.Impacts related to track changes at Alma and Ravenswood.

Alternatives Consider an alternative with no vehicular access to Laurel Street.

The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR.

Project Description Supports 400 units, not 450. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Support for underground parking for all apartment parking.Three- to five-story apartment complex is not consistent with the surrounding one- to two-story residences.

This comment expresses support for proposed underground parking for the residential units. No further action needed for the EIR. The land use section and other sections, as applicable, of the draft EIR will discuss the Proposed Project's consistency with General Plan policies that relate to neighborhood compatibility.

Recreation Impacts on public services and recreational facilities (e.g., Burgess Park is already packed and cannot accommodate new neighbors.) Include usable outdoor space as part of the Project.

Impacts to surrounding recreational resources to the Project site, including Burgess Park, will be evaluated in the recreation section of the EIR. The Proposed Project would also include approximately 25 acres of open space areas and supporting amenities, including a network of publicly accessible pedestrian and bicycle trails, open spaces and active/passive recreational areas available to the public.

Project Description Clarify number of proposed units. The Proposed Project would include 450 rental residential units. In addition, the EIR will describe and consider the potential environmental effects of the proposed future construction of up to 100 residential units that will be a 100% affordable housing or special needs project (in addition to the 450 rental residential units proposed as part of the Project). The EIR will also evaluate an Increased Residential Variant involving up to 800 units.

Transportation Impacts of traffic on Laurel and Pine.

Remove proposed entry across from Pine.

Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary. The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR. This comment expresses support for the proposed building site design. No further action needed for the EIR.The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. The land use section and other sections, as applicable, of the draft EIR will discuss the Proposed Project's consistency with General Plan policies that relate to neighborhood compatibility.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Support for buildings not being so close to the road. Height of the buildings along Ravenswood and Laurel should be one to two stories and set back.Include as much housing as possible without impacting the neighborhood.Include an iconic building.

P_6 12/12/2022P_5 12/12/2022 Member of the
Public at the Public Hearing
Gail Gorton
Member of the Public at the Public Hearing
Phillip Bahr
Page I-1.15
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 4 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment Discussion
The area of the Proposed Project is within ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area, and therefore any aesthetic impacts (and transportation) of the Proposed Project are not considered significant impacts on the environment; however, for informational purposes, the Project's visual and design potential impacts will be evaluated in the aesthetics section of the draft EIR. The land use section and other sections, as applicable, of the draft EIR will discuss the Proposed Project's consistency with General Plan policies that relate to neighborhood compatibility.

Baseline Asks about the baseline and whether the EIR will compare the theoretical occupancy or actual occupancy over the last three or four years? The draft EIR will generally evaluate existing (or baseline) conditions at the Project site at the time the NOP was released and will assume SRI’s current occupancy, unless a specific impact category would benefit from using a modified baseline (e.g., in the case of water demand, an average of water demand over a several year period) as permitted by CEQA and provided that the determination to use a modified baseline is supported by substantial evidence.There are currently approximately 1,100 existing employees on the Project site. The anticipated occupancy of the Project site upon full buildout, including new residents and employees (under both office and R&D occupancy scenarios), will be evaluated as part of the EIR process. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

Transportation Study whether having more housing at the Project site will benefit transportation.

The transportation analysis in the EIR will evaluate VMT and other transportation-related topics, but generally will be focused on the potential physical impacts of the Proposed Project on the environment rather than its environmental benefits (which is a function of how the CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines are currently structured). Whether additional density is environmentally beneficial is more of a policy item that could be addressed by the City, rather than a topic that would be addressed in the EIR based on CEQA’s requirements.

Variants Include 150 to 250 more units in the Increased Residential Variant compared to the Project.

Variants Include 150 additional units in the Increased Residential Variant compared to the Project.Supports variant with more residential units and less office compared to the Project.

Project Description Reduce parking.

Consider more housing at the site of existing Building F.

The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

P_9 12/12/2022 Commissioner Do Planning
Commissioner at the Public Hearing
Project Description Reduce parking. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

Planning Commissioner at
the Public Hearing
12/12/2022 Comissioner Riggs
Planning Commissioner at the Public Hearing
Vice Chair Harris
P_7P_8 12/12/2022
Project Description Clarify occupancy for the proposed office space.

Reduce parking.

Page I-1.16
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 5 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionSite Planning/Non CEQA Clarify what happens (i.e., impacts) when parking is reduced. What has happened in other jurisdictions and are the assumptions associated with this issue accurate? Clarify role of the EIR in this this discussion.

Alternatives What alternatives will be analyzed in the EIR? Alternatives that would reduce significant impacts of the Proposed Project are identified during the CEQA process prior to the release of the draft EIR. At a minimum, a no project alternative, historic preservation alternative, and a reduced densityalternative would be evaluated.The current Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA.The existing church at the corner of Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Drive is not part of the Project site and would remain in place. The associated parking stalls are located on the Project site and are part of the Proposed Project. If that changes, the draft EIR would analyze the impact of that change. Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary.The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

Transportation Consider a massively-increased TDM plan (i.e., one that reduces trips by 40 to 60 percent) over parking reductions.

Alternatives Develop useful range of alternatives. The draft EIR will evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Project (and variants) that would feasibly lessen or avoid the severity of any significant impacts identified during environmental review, and those alternatives will therefore be identified as part of the draft EIR preparation process. The City will consult with California Native American tribal organizations prior to the release of the draft EIR. A form describing the Proposed Project will be sent to the NAHC requesting a list of eligible tribes. The City will send a letter to eligible tribes providing an opportunity for consultation.The City will follow the requirements of AB 52 relative to notification and consultation with tribal organizations during the CEQA process.

Assumptions associated with parking reductions are not accurate.When preparing the EIR, be careful when explaining why parking reductions would not reduce trips, GHG, AQ emissions, or noise. Consider potential beneficial impacts.Parking minimums places parameters on what can be analyzed in an EIR. 12/5/2022 Cody Campagne Native American
Heritage Commission
Cultural Resources/Tribal Resources
Summary of AB 52, SB 18, tribal consultation, and cultural resources assessments. 1P_11 12/12/2022 Chair Decardy Planning
Commissioner at the Public Hearing
Site Planning/Non CEQA
Planning Commissioner at the Public Hearing
P_10 12/12/2022 Commissioner Barnes
Project Description Will the EIR be based on the proposed densities and intensity in the Project Description?The proposed office and commercial pieces of the Project are appropriate.From a master plan perspective, the Project is appropriate for the area.Does not support reduction in office and commercial portions of the Project.Is the existing church and associated parking (125 parking stalls) part of the Project? Page I-1.17
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 6 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment Discussion
In accordance with SB 18, the City will establish meaningful consultation with California Native American tribal governments at the earliest possible point in the EIR process so that any potential places of archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial importance can be identified and considered.The City will have its environmental consultant (ICF) contact and request a search of NAHC sacred lands files. In addition, ICFwill also conduct a pedestrian surface survey to identify archaeological conditions and document current site conditions. ICF will also conduct a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University. All of this information will be considered and analyzed in the tribal/cultural resources section of the draft EIR and mitigation measures will be recommended if necessary. 2 1/9/2023 Mark Leong California
Department of Transportation
Transportation Prepare VMT analysis pursuant to City guidelines.

Include schematic illustration of walking/biking/auto conditions at project site and area roadways.Analyze project's primary and secondary impacts on bicycles, pedestrians, travelers with disabilities, and transit.

The Project's VMT analysis will be prepared in accordance with City guidelines. Pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicle circulation will be described and evaluated in the TIA and in the transportation section of the draft EIR.

General Analyze all impacts to the SUHSD (especially MenloAtherton High School) for all applicable topics due to the close proximity. SUHSD will participate in meetings and study sessions to discuss impacts. But also include TIDE Academy and Sequoia when needed.

The potential environmental impacts of the Project to schools will be evaluated in the public services section of the draft EIR. Section 65996 of the State Government Code states that the payment of school impact fees as established by Senate Bill 50 is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation for school impacts from development.

Transportation Traffic impacts on school bike/ped safety.

Traffic impacts on movement patterns and bus routes from all SUHSD schools.Travel demand, trip gen, distribution, trip assignment and impacts to schools.Cumulative traffic impacts to schools as a result of this project, plus all other cumulative projects in Menlo Park.Cumulative impact due to changed traffic patterns.Safety impacts to students traveling by vehicle, bus, walking, biking.

Air Quality Direct and indirect air quality impacts of the Project on sensitive receptors, such as Menlo-Atherton High School.Cumulative air quality impacts on schools and the community in general due to increased vehicular movement and volumes of all cumulative projects.

The potential Project-level and cumulative air quality impacts of the Project will be evaluated in the air quality section of the draft EIR; nearby sensitive receptors will be considered.

Noise Identify project-induced noise sources and volumes that may affect school facilities, including classrooms and outdoor school areas.

Noise-generating components of the Proposed Project and potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors will be evaluated in the noise section of the draft EIR. 3 1/9/2023 Harold M. Freiman,
Attorney at Law
Lozano Smith, on behalf of Sequoia Union High School District Page I-1.18
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 7 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionPublic Services Describe historical, current, and future population projections for the District.Assess the impacts of population growth within the District on the District's ability to provide its educational program.Describe existing and future conditions within the District on a school-by-school basis, including size, location, and capacity of facilities.Describe the adequacy of both existing infrastructure serving schools and the anticipated infrastructure needed to serve future schools.Describe the District's past and present enrollment trends.Describe the District's current use of its facilities.Describe projected teacher/staffing requirements based on anticipated population growth and existing policies.Describe any impacts on curriculum as a result of anticipated population growth.Assess cumulative impacts on schools.Identify how the District will accommodate students from the Project who are not accommodated at current District schools.

The EIR will consider the District's past/current enrollment trends, existing school facilities, and student/teacher staffing ratios. As part of the EIR process, the City will coordinate with the District to gather this type of information to support the analysis in the draft EIR. The potential increase in students generated by the Proposed Project and the ability for schools to accommodate the potential increase in students will be evaluated in the public services section of the draft EIR to the extent those changes would result in physical changes in the environment, consistent with CEQA’s requirements.

Population and Housing
Describe the type and number of anticipated dwelling units indirectly resulting from the Project.Describe the average square footage for anticipated dwelling units, broken down by type of unit, indirectly resulting from the Project.

The potential for the Proposed Project to induce substantial population growth directly or indirectly and the potential for adverse impacts on the physical environment will be evaluated in the EIR to the extent required by CEQA.

Fiscal Impact Analysis
Estimate the amount of development fees to be generated by development.Identify the expected shortfall or excess between development fees to be generated by the Project and the cost for provision of capital facilities.Assess the District's present and projected capital facility, operations, maintenance, and personnel costs.Assess financing and funding sources available to the District, including Section 65996 of the Government Code.Identify any fiscal impacts on the District.Identify the cost of providing capital facilities to properly accommodate students.

This information is outside the scope of the EIR which is focused on the potential physical environmental effects of the Proposed Project. 4 12/10/2022 Henry Riggs Planning
Commission
Site Planning/Non CEQA
Ravenswood realignment (concept sketch) This comment relates to Commissioner Riggs’ request that the Project evaluate realigning Ravenswood Avenue through the Project site. The proposed Project does not include realigning Ravenswood through the Project site, and the proposal to realign Ravenswood is not contemplated in the General Plan’s Circulation Element or Transportation Master Plan. In response to inquiries about the potential to realign Ravenswood through the Project site from Commissioner Riggs in 2022, the applicant prepared an analysis of the pros/cons associated with the potential realignment of Ravenswood which were shared with City staff. That analysis showed that while a realignment would result in a modest reduction in intersection level of service and left-turn conflicts, it would also conflict with proposed access and circulation improvements, attract more trips to Ringwood, add through traffic to the Menlo-Atherton school loading zones on Ringwood (and thereby create the potential for safety and queuing concerns), require wider right-of-way, and more generally conflict with safe routes to school bike improvements and the overall focus of the proposed Project on pedestrian and bicycle mobility as opposed to cars. For those reasons, and due to the significant impacts on the site plan and the potential for other impacts on local streets, the Project Sponsor does not support evaluating a realignment scenario in the draft EIR and is not proposing a realignment as part of the Project. As a consequence, the draft EIR will analyze the Project as proposed.

Page I-1.19
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 8 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment Discussion
5 12/10/2022 Henry Riggs Planning
Commission
Site Planning/Non CEQA
Ravenswood realignment (alternative geometry sketch). See above response.

Transportation Traffic impacts in the entire Linfield Oaks neighborhood.

Traffic/congestion impacts on Willow, Alma, Waverley, Linfield, Sherwood, and Ravenswood. Base traffic analysis on number of housing units and sf of commercial space. Vehicular access/entry points/emergency access on Laurel Street, Ravenswood, and Middlefield.

Cumulative Increase in number of trains with electrification and increased gate down time at Ravenswood/Glenwood.

The draft EIR will include a discussion of potential cumulative impacts resulting from other development projects.

Cumulative projects evaluated in the draft EIR will include projects that were approved or pending as of January 2023, including any applicable transportation projects. Projects that were not approved or pending as of January 2023 will not be evaluated as part of the project's cumulative analysis.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Alternative vehicle entry points. Realigning Ravenswood/Ringwood to eliminate the traffic signal.

Reduce office to comply with current C1 zoning.Keep housing at 400 units, but include 25% BMR.Remove driveway onto Laurel for bike/ped safety.Redirect traffic flow to/from the Project Site.Increase parking for renters and employees.Provide underground parking to reduce the overall height of the Project.Include the emergency water storage tank as part of the Proposed Project.

The EIR will analyze the Project, including the proposed office uses and residential units, as proposed. Should Project refinements be made as part of the entitlement process, the draft EIR will analyze the change accordingly. In addition, the traffic modeling will be evaluated to see if it is feasible to eliminate the driveway on Laurel Street. Should it be determined that it is feasible, other improvements to Laurel Street, in addition to the Class IV bike path, will be considered. One purpose of the NOP is to identify potential alternatives to the Proposed Project. Alternatives that would reduce significant impacts of the Proposed Project are identified during the CEQA process prior to the release of the draft EIR. This comment expresses support for the Emergency Reservoir Variant.

Previous Projects Comments on the 2000 SRI task force and 2000 Land Use and Circulation Study.

The comments relate to a study undertaken by a taskforce in 2000 and various policy considerations and are noted.

Alternatives that would reduce significant impacts of the Proposed Project will be identified during the CEQA process prior to the release of the draft EIR.

Project Description Eliminating the existing CDP employment caps would increase the project's net housing deficit.

The EIR will evaluate the potential for increased employment on the site. This comment does not, however, relate to the a physical environmental impact subject to analysis in the EIR. However, a housing needs assessment is being prepared for the Proposed Project and will be included in the EIR; the housing needs assessment will consider direct and indirect housing market effects, as well as evaluate the Proposed Project against the City's regional housing needs allocation.

Alternatives C-1 FAR Office Alternative: Consistent with restrictions placed on the site by the existing CDP.Proposed 2004 Master Plan Development Alternative.Reduced Development Alternative: 30% FAR for zoningdistrict/no housing.No Project Alternative: Maintain existing (2004) development.Reduced Development Housing Alternative: Reduce development to 25-30% FAR, but allow residential development at higher FAR.All Residential Alternative: Rezone to all residential.

The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. The commenter is expressing a preference for policy alternatives to be evaluated as part of the draft EIR. The draft EIR will evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Project (and variants) that would feasibly lessen or avoid the severity of any significant impacts identified during environmental review, and those alternatives will therefore be identified as part of the draft EIR preparation process.
6 1/9/2023
Public
Verle Aebi
8 1/7/2023 Paul Collacchi
Public
Page I-1.20
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 9 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionProject Description & Population and Housing Employment: Employment density, historic employment, future employee counts over the lifetime of the Project, consider remote employment.Growth inducing impacts.

The EIR will describe the anticipated number of Project employees, including the number of net-new employees generated as a result of the Project. The potential growth-inducing impacts as a result of Project-generated employees will be evaluated in the population and housing section and the Other CEQA Considerations chapter of the draft EIR.

Aesthetics Visual impacts of rooftop equipment, building heights, shadow analysis.

The area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area; therefore, under SB 743, aesthetic impacts (and transportation) of the Proposed Project are not considered significant impacts on the environment; however, for informational purposes, the Project's visual and design potential impacts will be evaluated in the aesthetics section of the draft EIR. In addition, the Proposed Project's compatibility with the existing surrounding commercial and residential land uses will be evaluated in the land use section of the draft EIR.

Transportation Cumulative impacts.

Primary and secondary diversion impacts.Dynamic versus static modeling.Segment counts and LOS changes.Traffic map locating Traffic egress and ingress assumptions.Baseline counts and cumulative scenarios.

Project Description Describe proposed open space.

Project objectives/goals.Location of the affordable housing site.

The Proposed Project would also include approximately 25 acres of open space areas and supporting amenities, including a network of publicly accessible pedestrian and bicycle trails, open spaces and active/passive recreational areas available to the public. The EIR will detail the Project objectives and the proposed open space. The EIR will describe and consider the potential environmental effects of the proposed future construction of up to 100 residential units that will be a 100% affordable housing or special needs project, which will be located within the proposed Residential District on the Project site.

Land Use Land use compatibility.

C1 commercial zoning.Removal of CDP as growth inducing.

The land use section and other sections, as applicable, of the draft EIR will discuss the Proposed Project's consistency with General Plan policies that relate to neighborhood compatibility.

Housing Needs Assessment
HNA (similar to Willow Village) should be included for this project.Include market analysis to reflect downtown Menlo Park apartments and office rents.Compute RHNA housing cycle of the Proposed Project.Include housing availability and displacement.

The comment refers to the City’s RHNA obligation and obligations under the Housing Element Law, which are noted. These comments do not, however, relate to a physical environmental impact subject to analysis in the EIR. However, a housing needs assessment is being prepared for the Proposed Project and will be included in the EIR; the housing needs assessment will consider direct and indirect housing market effects, as well as evaluate the Proposed Project against the City's regional housing needs allocation.

Fiscal Impact Analysis
Compare SRI land sale and rent revenues under the Project and alternativesDescribe the anticipated revenue and profitability of the Project
This information is outside the scope of the EIR which is focused on the potential physical environmental effects of the Proposed Project.

Page I-1.21
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 10 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment Discussion
9 1/10/2023 Sue Connelly Public Alternatives Analyze a smaller-scope project:

Transportation Study traffic/congestion at all intersections within 1 mile radius.Study a scenario with no vehicular entrance on Laurel Street.Study pedestrian safe crossing on Laurel.

Variants Study different unit counts: 400, 600, 200 units (including traffic impact and impact on public services of different amount of units).No vehicular entrance of Laurel Street.Underground parking instead of above-ground parking.

Public Services Impacts on fields, gymnasium, pool, library. The potential impacts of the Project to public services, including recreational facilities and libraries, will be evaluated in the public services and recreation section of the draft EIR. 11 12/6/2022 David Fencl Public Public Services Increase in calls for police services due to the proposed park across the street from Menlo Atherton High School.

The potential impacts of the Project to police services, including an increase in calls for service, will be evaluated in the public services section of the draft EIR. 12 12/28/2022 Pam Fernandes Public Site Planning/Non
CEQA
Concerned about driveway from housing units on Laurel and pedestrian safety.

The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinity of the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR.

Alternatives Jobs/Housing Balanced Alternative: maximum amount of workers can be no greater than twice the number of housing units.

This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. In general, jobs/housing balance is a socioeconomic issue that relates to regional planning, rather than an issue that relates to physical impacts on the environment. To the extent there are land use plans and policies that relate to jobs/housing balance and tie to physical impacts, those impacts will be evaluated in the draft EIR.

Project Description Consider the employee/sf ratio and assume a greater amount of employees for a conservative analysis (don't undercount or underestimate).

Baseline Use current baseline; not the 1975 cap. The draft EIR will generally evaluate existing (or baseline) conditions at the Project site at the time the NOP was released and will assume SRI’s current occupancy, unless a specific impact category would benefit from using a modified baseline (e.g., in the case of water demand, an average of water demand over a several year period) as permitted by CEQA and provided that the determination to use a modified baseline is supported by substantial evidence.

Brooke Cotter Public
Public
10 1/8/202313 12/10/2022 Patti Fry
Page I-1.22
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 11 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionAesthetics Consider transitions of lower façade heights, building heights, setbacks, and lines of sight.

Alternatives Include 400 housing units with 20% BMR.
.

Transportation Study traffic flow/congestion within one-mile radius of the Project site.

Cumulative Study impact of Caltrain raising train tracks at Alma/Ravenswood.

The draft EIR will include a discussion of potential cumulative impacts resulting from other development projects. Cumulative projects evaluated in the draft EIR will include projects that were approved or pending as of January 2023, including any applicable transportation projects. Projects that were not approved or pending as of January 2023 will not be evaluated as part of the project's cumulative analysis.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Increase onsite parking.No driveway access onto Laurel Street.Add access driveway on Middlefield near Ringwood.Reduce the amount of office spaces to comply with existing zoning.Include underground parking.

Public Services Include impact on Burgess Park. The potential impacts of the Project to Burgess Park will be evaluated in the public services and recreation section of the draft EIR.
1514 1/9/2023 Gail Gorton
1/8/2023 Michael Hart Variants Two variants proposed will not provide enough information.Study a variant that has different entrances and exits for vehicle traffic to the office and apartment areas.

Public
The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA.

Public
Page I-1.23
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 12 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionTransportation Study Project site driveways egress and ingress with respect to congestion.

Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary. The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR. The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. The Proposed Project would also include approximately 25 acres of open space areas and supporting amenities, including a network of publicly accessible pedestrian and bicycle trails, open spaces and active/passive recreational areas available to the public.

Alternatives Study a reduced scope (lower residential and office) to reduce impacts to traffic, schools, parks.Study a housing only alternative.

This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. The draft EIR will evaluate alternatives to the Proposed Project (and variants) that would feasibly lessen or avoid the severity of any significant impacts identified during environmental review, and those alternatives will therefore be identified as part of the draft EIR preparation process.

Population and Housing
Study the full housing impact and jobs/housing ratio. In general, jobs/housing balance is a socioeconomic issue that relates to regional planning, rather than an issue that relates to physical impacts on the environment. To the extent there are land use plans and policies that relate to jobs/housing balance and tie to physical impacts, those impacts will be evaluated in the draft EIR. In addition, a housing needs assessment is being prepared for the Proposed Project and will be included in the EIR; the housing needs assessment will consider direct and indirect housing market effects, as well as evaluate the Proposed Project against the City's regional housing needs allocation.

Transportation Traffic impacts on Laurel Street.

Safety of biking/walking on Laurel Street. Analyze impact of proposed driveways on Laurel Street.Consideration that Laurel Street is considered a designated safe route to school.

Public Services Impacts on Burgess Park amenities, including pool, tennis courts, playground, library, gym, and classes.

The potential impacts of the Project to surrounding recreational resources, including Burgess Park, will be evaluated in the public services and recreation section of the draft EIR. 16 1/8/2023 Michael M Kim Public Site Planning/Non
CEQA
No site access on Laurel Street for safety.Provide benefits to the community in the immediate area (playground, fields, courts, parks, etc.)Decrease the amount of proposed housing units.Increase the percentage of BMR units. 17 1/9/2023 Denis Kourakin18 Kenneth Everett Mah Public Public
1/8/2023
Page I-1.24
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 13 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment Discussion
The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR. This information regarding parking permits is outside the scope of the draft EIR, which is focused on the potential physical environmental effects of the Proposed Project.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Do not increase housing from 400 units previously proposed to 650 units, as currently proposed. Negative impact to the community, including traffic.With proposed office, the new housing would not resolve housing issues.

Land Use Higher density housing, as proposed, does not conform to surrounding uses.

The land use section and other sections, as applicable, of the draft EIR will discuss the Proposed Project's consistency with General Plan policies that relate to neighborhood compatibility.

Alternatives Study reduced office and fewer housing units. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase, and five commercial buildings and an amenity building with no net increase in commercial square footage. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA.This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA.

Alternatives Alternative: original proposal (400 units, 15% BMR) as submitted to the City in October 2021.Alternative: lower-impact option that reduces housing, reduces office, eliminates driveway onto Laurel, increase parking, adds underground parking, includes the proposed emergency water storage tank.

Fiscal Impact Analysis
Prepare a comprehensive FIA. A fiscal impact analysis will be prepared for the Proposed Project. 21 1/23/2023 Brittani Baxter Public Transportation Traffic impacts from commuters.

Support for walkability of Project site.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Increasing the number of housing units from 400 to 600 will place burden on neighborhood and community.

Parking at the Menlo Park Corporation Yard Parking Lot: Burgess Classics residents use this; will the Proposed Project residents use it too? Burgess Classics residents should get priority.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
22 Nicola Diolaiti Public
20 1/9/2023 Jeff Staudinger Public
1/23/2023
The comments below were submitted after the public comment period ended on January 9, 2023.

Page I-1.25
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 14 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionPublic Services Impacts on school facilities and accessibility (including Encinal and Hill View)
Impacts to schools will be evaluated in the public services section of the draft EIR. Access to the Project site and circulation impacts to the surrounding area, including nearby schools, will be evaluated in the transportation section of the draft EIR.

Transportation Traffic impacts on Laurel Street, Ravenswood Avenue, and Willow Road.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Reduce proposed office development in the city. The reduction of proposed office development in the City is not Project-specific and not a CEQA topic subject to analysis in the EIR for the Proposed Project.

Transportation Analyze impact of proposed driveways on Laurel Street.

Analyze cut-through traffic impacts (including safety impacts) through Linfield Oaks neighborhood.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Decrease the size of the Project.Increase percentage of BMR units from 10% to 25% and keep the same number of total units (400).Provide more detailed plans for the proposed dedication of land for the proposed affordable housing or special needs project.

Transportation Retain driveways on Middlefield Road.

Analyze impact of proposed traffic on Laurel Street, including safety impacts at Laurel Street and Ravenswood Avenue.Analyze cut-through traffic impacts through Linfield Oaks neighborhood.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Consider housing in Menlo Park neighborhoods other than Belle Haven and Linfield Oaks.

The consideration of housing in neighborhoods other than Belle Haven and Linfield Oaks is not Project-specific and not a CEQA topic subject to analysis in the EIR for the Proposed Project.

Public
1/23/2023
24 1/23/2023 Stephen Pang
Marlene Santoyo (on Publicbehalf of Menlo Together)
25 1/23/202323 Jonathan Hahn Public
Page I-1.26
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 15 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionProject Description Support for proposed number of residential units under the Project (550) and the Increased Residential Variant (600).Consider increasing the number of proposed residential units.Consider less parking, less office space, more housing at all income levels, and public accessibility to the proposed amenities and open space.Support for the proposed dedication of land for the proposed affordable housing or special needs project.

The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

Project Description Consider a lower-impact, smaller development option that includes a reduced amount of office to comply with C1 zoning, includes 400 units (including 25% BMR), removes driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street, retains the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road, increases the number of parking spaces, provides underground parking rather than aboveground parking, and includes emergency water storage tank.

Transportation Remove driveway to apartment complex and townhomes from residential streets.Use the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road to avoid cut-through traffic in nearby neighborhoods.

The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR.

Variants Support for the Emergency Reservoir Variant. This comment expresses support for the Emergency Reservoir Variant. No action needed for draft EIR. 27 1/23/2023 Larry Anderson Public Project Description Decrease the number of proposed housing units.

Impacts on parking, schools, infrastructure, and traffic.

The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary.

Project Description Consider the need for the proposed office space. This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. 26 1/23/2023 Omar and Mary Adham Public28 1/23/2023 Anna Hall Public Page I-1.27
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 16 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionTransportation Analyze impact of Project on traffic and parking. Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

Utilities Analyze impact of Project on infrastructure. The utilities and services section of the draft EIR will incorporate an analysis of Project-related impacts to utility infrastructure.

Public Services Analyze impact on Menlo-Atherton teachers, staff, and students.

The potential increase in students generated by the Proposed Project and the ability for schools to accommodate the potential increase in students will be evaluated in the public services section of the draft EIR.

Transportation Remove driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street.Retain the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road.

The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR.

Variants Support for the Emergency Reservoir Variant. This comment expresses support for the Emergency Reservoir Variant. No action needed for draft EIR.Project Description Provide only the amount of state-mandated housing.

Reduce the amount of proposed office space to comply with the C1 zoning.Consider more parking spaces.Provide underground parking spaces rather than aboveground parking garages.

This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinity of the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR.

Transportation Remove driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street.Retain the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road.

The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR. 29 1/23/202330 Public 1/23/2023 Christopher Baldwin
Judith Asher Public
Page I-1.28
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 17 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionVariants Support for the Emergency Reservoir Variant. This comment expresses support for the Emergency Reservoir Variant. No action needed for draft EIR. 31 1/23/2023 Susan Bryan (on behalf
of Trinity Church)
Public Project Description Support for the maximum amount of affordable housing. This comment is noted, and does not relate to the potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. 32 1/23/2023 Daryl Camarillo &
Yolanda Font
Public Project Description Consider a lower-impact, smaller development option that includes a reduced amount of office to comply with C1 zoning, includes 400 units (including 25% BMR), removes driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street, retains the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road, increases the number of parking spaces, provides underground parking rather than aboveground parking, and includes emergency water storage tank.

The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinity of the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR. .
33 1/23/2023 Angel Chen Public Project Description Consider a lower-impact, smaller development option that includes a reduced amount of office to comply with C1 zoning, includes 400 units (including 25% BMR), removes driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street, retains the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road, increases the number of parking spaces, provides underground parking rather than aboveground parking, and includes emergency water storage tank.

The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinity of the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR.
34 1/23/2023 Sue Connelly Public Project Description Consider a lower-impact, smaller development option that includes a reduced amount of office to comply with C1 zoning, includes 400 units (including 25% BMR), removes driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street, retains the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road, increases the number of parking spaces, provides underground parking rather than aboveground parking, and includes emergency water storage tank.

Page I-1.29
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 18 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment Discussion
35 1/23/2023 Harvey Fishman Public Project Description Consider a lower-impact, smaller development option that includes a reduced amount of office to comply with C1 zoning, includes 400 units (including 25% BMR), removes driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street, retains the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road, increases the number of parking spaces, provides underground parking rather than aboveground parking, and includes emergency water storage tank.

The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR. 36 1/23/2023 Patti Fry Public Population and
Housing
Use an employee density rate that will measure realistic impacts.Project should improve rather than worsen jobs/housing balance.

The EIR and the housing needs assessment will be based on a reasonably conservative estimate for the employee per square foot generation rate to evaluate Project impacts (for both office and R&D scenarios). The generation rates will be based on previous generation rates used for similar projects, and reviewed and approved by the City. In general, jobs/housing balance is a socioeconomic issue that relates to regional planning, rather than an issue that relates to physical impacts on the environment. To the extent there are land use plans and policies that relate to jobs/housing balance and tie to physical impacts, those impacts will be evaluated in the draft EIR.

Population and Housing
Consider long-term impact on housing requirements and obligations.

The long-term impact on housing obligations is not Project-specific and not a CEQA topic subject to analysis in the EIR for the Proposed Project. However, a housing needs assessment is being prepared for the Proposed Project and will be included in the EIR; the housing needs assessment will consider direct and indirect housing market effects, as well as evaluate the Proposed Project against the City's regional housing needs allocation.

Public Services Burgess Park is already overutilized and Project will exacerbate that situation.

The potential impacts of the Project to surrounding recreational resources, including Burgess Park, will be evaluated in the recreation section of the draft EIR.

Transportation Consider impacts on east-west connectivity in the City.

Safety impacts for bicyclists on Ravenswood Avenue and Laurel Street. Do not reduce parking.

Project Description Do not provide more than 400 units.

Reduce the amount of proposed office space to comply with the C1 zoning.Consider more parking spaces.Provide underground parking spaces rather than aboveground parking garages.

The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions or increases in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed. 38 1/23/2023 Kathy Goodell Public37 1/23/2023 Joanne Goldberg Public Page I-1.30
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 19 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionTransportation Remove driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street.Utilize the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road.Impacts on traffic at the Laurel Street/Ravenswood Avenue intersection.

The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA.Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary.The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinity of the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR.

Public Services Impacts on schools. The potential increase in students generated by the Proposed Project and the ability for schools to accommodate the potential increase in students will be evaluated in the public services section of the draft EIR. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA.Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary.The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinity of the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR.
40 1/23/2023 Betsy Henze Public39 1/23/2023 Tom Hall Public Project Description Consider a lower-impact, smaller development option that includes a reduced amount of office to comply with C1 zoning, includes 400 units (including 25% BMR), removes driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street, retains the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road, increases the number of parking spaces, provides underground parking rather than aboveground parking, and includes emergency water storage tank.

Project Description
Consider a lower-impact, smaller development option that includes a reduced amount of office to comply with C1 zoning, includes 400 units (including 25% BMR), removes driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street, retains the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road, increases the number of parking spaces, provides underground parking rather than aboveground parking, and includes emergency water storage tank.Impacts on parking.Impacts on traffic.Size of the Project compared to adjoining neighborhoods.

Page I-1.31
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 20 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment Discussion
The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA.Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary.The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR.The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA.Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary.The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR. 42 1/23/2023 John Henze Public41 Project Description 1/22/2023 Consider a lower-impact, smaller development option Nancy Hosay Public that includes a reduced amount of office to comply with C1 zoning, includes 400 units (including 25% BMR), removes driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street, retains the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road, increases the number of parking spaces, provides underground parking rather than aboveground parking, and includes emergency water storage tank.Consider a lower-impact, smaller development option that includes a reduced amount of office to comply with C1 zoning, includes 400 units (including 25% BMR), removes driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street, retains the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road, increases the number of parking spaces, provides underground parking rather than aboveground parking, and includes emergency water storage tank.

Project Description
Page I-1.32
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 21 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment Discussion
The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA.Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary.The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR.

Project Description Parking garages are out of scale for a transit-oriented project.Proposed office space is out of scale for recent transitoriented projects.Support for more housing and less commercial space.Support for less parking.Improve site plan to improve layout of public open space, encourage interaction with the community, and the proposed residential units.Support for different balance of residential/commercial uses.Reduce multi-story parking.Consider taller buildings in the center of the Project site.Consolidate proposed open space into a larger space.

This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA.The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

Approach Instead of assuming existing commercial entitlements based on square footage, historical low intensity uses should be assumed as a point of comparison.

The draft EIR will generally evaluate existing (or baseline) conditions at the Project site at the time the NOP was released and will assume SRI’s current occupancy, unless a specific impact category would benefit from using a modified baseline (e.g., in the case of water demand, an average of water demand over a several year period) as permitted by CEQA and provided that the determination to use a modified baseline is supported by substantial evidence. 44 Required Approvals
43 1/23/2023 Lauren John Public
1/23/2023 John Kadvany Public
Consider a lower-impact, smaller development option that includes a reduced amount of office to comply with C1 zoning, includes 400 units (including 25% BMR), removes driveway to apartment complex on Laurel Street, retains the existing gated driveway onto Middlefield Road, increases the number of parking spaces, provides underground parking rather than aboveground parking, and includes emergency water storage tank.

Project Description
Rezoning and General Plan amendments are openended.Not supportive of amendments or zoning allowing new or existing buildings to be sold to others.Clarify plans for existing buildings and options for affordable housing plan area.

The proposed general plan amendment and zoning ordinance amendment will be described in the EIR. In addition, the land use section of the draft EIR will evaluate in detail the proposed amendments consistency with the existing general plan and zoning designations. The Proposed Project would demolish all existing buildings, excluding Buildings P, S, and T, which would remain on-site and operational by SRI and its tenants. The EIR will describe and consider the potential environmental effects of the proposed future construction of up to 100 residential units that will be a 100% affordable housing or special needs project.

Page I-1.33
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 22 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionPublic Services Impact on local safety and resources, including amenities at Burgess Park.Study impacts on amenities at Burgess Park by amenity and demonstrate that there will be no difference compared to existing conditions.Provide Burgess Classics residents with priority and discounted/free access to Burgess Park amenities if the Project would impact access to the Park.

The potential impacts of the Project to public service providers, including Menlo Park police and fire departments, as well as recreational facilities, will be considered in the public services and recreation sections of the draft EIR. The provision of priority or discounted access to Burgess Park amenities to existing residents in the Project area is outside the scope of the draft EIR, which is focused on the potential physical environmental effects of the Proposed Project.

Transportation Bicycle and walking safety issues on Laurel Street.

Remove entrances and exits on Laurel Street or study the impact on traffic on Laurel Street to demonstrate there will be no difference from existing conditions.Study impact of traffic on Laurel Street based on different levels of housing density.Install protected bicycle lanes in both directions on Laurel Street from Ravenswood Avenue to Burgess Drive.Study the impact on accidents on Laurel Street to demonstrate there will be no difference in traffic accidents from existing conditions.Install protected bicycle lanes in both directions on Burgess Drive from Laurel Street to the SRI/Menlo Park Corporation Yard.Install protected bicycle lanes the full length of Burgess Avenue between Alma and SR Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary. The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinityof the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR. Pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicle circulation will be described and evaluated in the TIA and in the transportation section of the draft EIR.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Study impact of the Project on the use of the Menlo Park Corporation Yard and demonstrate there will be no difference from existing conditions. If there is an impact, do not allow Parkline residents or employees or the general public access to the yard and provide Burgess Classics residents to free overnight annual parking permits.

Proposed Project impacts on existing surrounding uses, including the nearby Menlo Park Corporation Yard, will be addressed and evaluated, as appropriate, throughout the draft EIR. The proposed parking will be evaluated as proposed. The provision of parking permits to existing residents in the Project area is outside the scope of the draft EIR, which is focused on the potential physical environmental effects of the Proposed Project.

Population and Housing
Reduce housing to office space imbalance by increasing housing.

This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. In general, jobs/housing balance is a socioeconomic issue that relates to regional planning, rather than an issue that relates to physical impacts on the environment. To the extent there are land use plans and policies that relate to jobs/housing balance and tie to physical impacts, those impacts will be evaluated in the draft EIR. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions or increase in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

Transportation The proposed Project includes access to the Project site via Laurel and potential impacts on circulation on and in the vicinity of the Project site will be evaluated in the EIR.

Public Services Study impact on police response times along Laurel Street.

The potential impact of the Project on police response times will be considered in the public services section of the draft EIR. 45 1/23/2023 Kenneth Everett Mah Public
46 1/23/2023 Rob McCool Public
Do not reduce parking to reduce traffic as existing infrastructure does not support low levels of parking.Do not include a driveway on Laurel Street.

Page I-1.34
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 23 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionTransportation Traffic impacts along Laurel Street, Ravenswood Avenue, and Middlefield Road.Ensure the trip cap is low to manage the project.

Population and Housing
Project will create an imbalance of jobs to housing units, further exacerbating the region's housing crisis.

Public Services Impacts to schools. The public services section of the draft EIR will evaluate Project-related impacts to surrounding Menlo Park schools. The public services section will evaluate schools' existing capacity, as well as capacity to accommodate Project-generated students.

Utilities Impacts to infrastructure. The utilities and services section of the draft EIR will incorporate an analysis of Project-related impacts to utility infrastructure.

Project Description 600 units would not conform to the area's existing uses.

Support for 400 units.

The land use section and other sections, as applicable, of the draft EIR will discuss the Proposed Project's consistency with General Plan policies that relate to neighborhood compatibility.

Public Services Reduce size of the Project to protect safety and accessibility.

Transportation Hazards at Ravenswood Avenue railroad crossing.

Deterioration of accessibility to and from Highway 101 via Willow Road, as two lane road is insufficient for future growth.Assess traffic and safety subsequent to occupancy of developments on El Camino.Survey residents in new developments to see how they are commuting and whether they're using public transit.Above/below grade railroad crossings.Additional routes to access Highways 101 and 280.Consider other recently completed developments when studying impacts on traffic and safety.

Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary.The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.This comment expresses support for increased affordable housing units. No action needed for the draft EIR. 1/22/2023 Peter C Public
4847
1/23/2023 Susan Stimson Public
Project Description Provide adequate parking.

Support for a higher percentage of affordable housing.

Page I-1.35
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 24 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionProject Description Density is incompatible with adjoining neighborhoods.

Impacts on parking.Reduce size of the Project to address jobs-housing imbalance The land use section and other sections, as applicable, of the draft EIR will discuss the Proposed Project's consistency with General Plan policies that relate to neighborhood compatibility. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. In general, jobs/housing balance is a socioeconomic issue that relates to regional planning, rather than an issue that relates to physical impacts on the environment. To the extent there are land use plans and policies that relate to jobs/housing balance and tie to physical impacts, those impacts will be evaluated in the draft EIR.

Public Services Impacts on schools. The public services section of the draft EIR will evaluate Project-related impacts to surrounding Menlo Park schools. The public services section of the draft EIR will evaluate schools' existing capacity, as well as capacity to accommodate Projectgenerated students.

Utilities Impacts on infrastructure. The utilities and services section of the draft EIR will incorporate an analysis of Project-related impacts to utility infrastructure.

Transportation Impacts on traffic in the area. Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary.Housing priority for middle class residents is outside the scope of the draft EIR, which is focused on the potential physical environmental effects of the Proposed Project. The area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area; therefore, under SB 743, aesthetic impacts (and transportation) of the Proposed Project are not considered significant impacts on the environment; however, for informational purposes, the Project's visual and design potential impacts will be evaluated in the aesthetics section of the draft EIR. In addition, the Proposed Project's compatibility with the existing surrounding commercial and residential land uses will be discussed and analyzed in detail in the land use section of the draft EIR. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. Should the number of housing units be reduced as part of the entitlement process, the EIR will analyze the change accordingly to the extent required by CEQA. 49 1/23/202350 2/6/2023 Phillip Bahr Public
Karen Wang Public
Project does not meet the needs of middle-income residents; asks how to ensure that middle class residents will have housing priority.Proposed setback for the residential uses is too close to Ravenswood Avenue and Laurel Street. Housing should be set back at least the same distance as the existing SRI building on Ravenswood Avenue.Proposed building heights are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, particularly at the corner of Ravenswood Avenue and Laurel Street. Proposed mission style is not reflective of good design. Study a site plan that has access from Middlefield Road or close to Menlo Atherton High School.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Page I-1.36
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 25 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionTransportation Remove proposed intersection at Ravenswood Avenue and Pine Street due to existing traffic and safety hazards.Existing access issues for police and fire truck access on Pine Street due to street width and cut-through traffic.Traffic barriers on Ravenswood Avenue will not prevent existing from the Project site.Additional office/commercial space will add to existing traffic and parking impacts.Traffic baseline is based on 2021 data, but traffic continues to be lower than under previous years and some approved and constructed projects are not yet fully occupied.Incorrect to assume that the project’s proximity to mass transit will reduce traffic, at least until the system is improved to better entice people to ride the bus or train.

Population and Housing
Project will make housing deficit worse. This comment does not relate to a physical environmental impact subject to analysis in the EIR. However, a housing needs assessment is being prepared for the Proposed Project and will be included in the EIR; the housing needs assessment will consider direct and indirect housing market effects, as well as evaluate the Proposed Project against the City's regional housing needs allocation.

Project Description Provide sufficient parking to meet the demand for the residential component. Adjacent residential streets do not have the capacity to accommodate the project’s parking.

Project Description Support for more housing and affordable housing. This comment expresses support for increased housing, including more affordable housing. No action needed for draft EIR.Greenhouse Gas Emissions Project will help Menlo Park achieve goal of reducing greenhouse gases.

The Proposed Project will incorporate a range of sustainability features and measures to encourage alternative modes of transportation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As part of the Proposed Project, the existing 6-megawatt natural gas power plant that generates power and steam energy for the existing SRI International campus would be demolished and the entire Project site would be converted to all-electric energy usage, with the exception of two of the existing buildings that would remain (Buildings P and T) and potential backup diesel generators, in compliance with the City’s Reach Code. The draft EIR will evaluate Project-related greenhouse gas impacts, including consistency with city GHG-reduction goals, in the greenhouse gas emissions section.

Transportation Reduce minimum parking requirements.

Include measures to minimize car trips and manage traffic congestion.Prioritize creation of safe routes to school and work for pedestrians and bicyclists around the Project site, including Ravenswood, Willow, Alma, Burgess, and Middlefield.

The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed. The Project Sponsor will propose a TDM program to reduce the number of vehicle trips. The trip reductions resulting from the TDM program will be factored into the transportation analysis to determine the scope of impacts on the environment. Final decisions regarding the details of TDM requirements, and whether to require higher performance standards, would be decided by the City through the entitlement process. 52 2/5/2023 Katherine Dumont Public
Page I-1.37
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 26 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment Discussion
53 1/27/2023 Cliff Fitzgerald Public Transportation Marcussen Drive currently experiences cut-through traffic by drivers avoiding traffic signals on Middlefield Road.Expressed concerns about speeding on Marcussen.Asks whether there will be mitigation for traffic impacts regarding surrounding traffic zones.Asks what traffic baselines will be used for the analysis.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Support for more housing for people with unmet housing needs.Include maximum amount of housing and affordable housing possible.

Transportation Include a robust Transportation Demand Management program to reduce local traffic.

The Project Sponsor will propose a TDM program to reduce the number of vehicle trips. The trip reductions resulting from the TDM program will be factored into the transportation analysis to determine the scope of impacts on the environment. Final decisions regarding the details of TDM requirements, and whether to require higher performance standards, would be decided by the City through the entitlement process.
55 2/15/2023 Lorri Holzberg Public Project Description Support for more housing and affordable housing. Comment expressing support for increased housing, including more affordable housing. No action needed for draft EIR.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Asks how existing residents will benefit from more office.

This a question that is outside the scope of environmental review. 57 2/5/2023 Dennis Irwin Public Project Description Support for including as many affordable housing units as possible.

Site Planning/Non CEQA
Questions the project’s benefits and who is responsible for paying for new infrastructure and public services.Consider where to add more housing and suggests where infrastructure can support it, similar to Palo Alto’s approach.

The EIR focuses on the potential environmental impact of the Proposed Project. These questions are policy concerns that are outside the scope of environmental review.

Transportation Traffic impacts on nearby neighborhood as well as to/from freeway and downtown.

Based on changes in state law as of 2013 (SB 743), traffic congestion is no longer considered an environmental impact under CEQA; instead, CEQA requires the evaluation of a project’s vehicle miles traveled which will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the area of the Proposed Project is within a ½ mile of a major transit stop (i.e. Caltrain) and thus is within a Transit Priority Area and therefore is generally presumed to have a less than significant impact related to transportation (and aesthetics). However, the City will be preparing a transportation impact analysis separate from CEQA, and the transportation section of the EIR will (for informational purposes only) quantitatively analyze the Proposed Project's effect on intersection operations, including Ravenswood Avenue and Middlefield Road, and identification of feasible measures to address needed infrastructure improvements, as necessary. 5456 1/26/2023 Brad Hoo Public
2/5/2023 Karen Grove Public
59 1/25/2023 Geeta Karmarker Public
Page I-1.38
Notice of Preparation Comment Letters Summary
Parkline Project EIR
February 2023 Page 27 of 28
# Date Commentor Name Commenting
i
Topics Summary of NOP Comment DiscussionPopulation and Housing Office space will make the housing deficit worse. This comment does not relate to a physical environmental impact subject to analysis in the EIR. However, a housing needs assessment is being prepared for the Proposed Project and will be included in the EIR; the housing needs assessment will consider direct and indirect housing market effects, as well as evaluate the Proposed Project against the City's regional housing needs allocation.

Project Description Against increasing the proposed number of units from 400 to 600 due to traffic concerns.

Project Description Supportive of housing at Project site.

Reduce parking to the minimum that’s viable.

This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

Transportation Include bicycle lanes through the Project site. The Proposed Project would include a network of publicly accessible pedestrian and bicycle trails throughout the Project site.

Project Description Support for the proposed number of residential units under the Project (550).Consider increasing the number of proposed residential units.Locate the donated land for 100% affordable housing in same portion of Project site as other residential uses.Support for the proposed dedication of land for the proposed affordable housing or special needs project. Reduce parking to the minimum that’s viable.Include low to moderate income housing units at below market values without involving a nonprofit to handle that portion of the Project site.Asks why the number of housing units is less than what is proposed by Meta.

This comment relates to the merits of the Proposed Project (e.g., design and program) as opposed to significant environmental issues or issues about the appropriate scope of the environmental analysis required by CEQA. The Proposed Project includes 450 market rate and inclusionary housing units, in addition to up to 100 100% affordable units that would be developed in a future phase. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, in addition to a higher density residential variant with up to 800 units. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

Transportation Increase in investment in alternatives to driving via Transportation Demand Management.

The Project Sponsor will propose a TDM program to reduce the number of vehicle trips. The trip reductions resulting from the TDM program will be factored into the transportation analysis to determine the scope of impacts on the environment. Final decisions regarding the details of TDM requirements, and whether to require higher performance standards, would be decided by the City through the entitlement process. 63 2/6/2023 Jennifer Michel Public Project Description Include comparable housing density to Willow Village (1,730 units).

Alternatives Include an alternative with comparable housing density to Willow Village.

The project’s entitlements include requests for General Plan and Zoning Amendments to accommodate the project’s size and scale. The existing use permit will be superseded. If the Project proposes a trip cap, or if a trip cap is required as a result of the environmental analysis, it will be addressed in the EIR.

Project Description Support for maximizing the proposed affordable housing units.Reduce parking to minimum that’s viable.

The request to maximimize the proposed affordable housing units is noted. Affordability is not a topic that is subject to analysis in the EIR, although affordability will be addressed in the HNA. The EIR will analyze the Project as proposed, including the amount of parking proposed by the Project Sponsor. In general, parking impacts are not considered physical impacts on the environment under state law and case law, and do not need to be evaluated in the EIR. Any reductions in parking would be addressed as a policy question for the City and not in the EIR, which is instead concerned with the physical impacts of the Project as proposed.

Transportation Invest in driving alternatives. This comment does not relate to a physical environmental impact subject to analysis in the EIR. 65 2/5/2023 Sarah Zollweg Public
Page I-1.40
Parkline Project
Response to RFP
Environmental Impact Report Preparation and
Environmental Consultant Services
Submitted to:

City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Submitted by:

ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc.
201 Mission Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94105
Corinna D. Sandmeier
Acting Principal Planner
[email protected]
Heidi Mekkelson
Principal
415.677.7116
[email protected]
July 29, 2022
(Rev. September 13, 2022)
This proposal contains ICF’s confidential information and shall not be disclosed to any third party or used for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal.

ATTACHMENT L Page I-1.41
Page I-1.42
City of Menlo Park
Parkline Project
Response to RFP
Environmental Impact Report Preparation and
Environmental Consultant Services
Submitted by:

ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc.
201 Mission Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94105
Heidi Mekkelson
Principal
415.677.7116
[email protected]
Submitted to:

City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Corinna D. Sandmeier Acting
Principal Planner
[email protected]
July 29, 2022
(Rev. September 13, 2022)
This proposal contains ICF’s confidential information and shall not be disclosed to any third party or used for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. Copyright © 2022 ICF Resources, LLC. All rights reserved.

Page I-1.43
Page I-1.44
201 Mission Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105 icf.com Corinna D. Sandmeier, Acting Principal Planner
City of Menlo Park
701 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Subject: RESPONSE to RFP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT SERVICES – PARKLINE PROJECT
Dear Ms. Sandmeier:

ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (“ICF”), is pleased to present this scope and budget regarding preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the Parkline Project (hereafter referred to as the Project).

ICF has formed a team of expert managers, proficient technical personnel, and long-term partner subconsultants to support the City of Menlo Park (City) in successfully completing environmental review of the proposed mixed-use development on the SRI International site. The Project site is at the center of the Menlo Park community, surrounded by Menlo Park’s civic hub to the north, MenloAtherton High School to the south, and residential neighborhoods on all sides. It is also within walking distance of regional public transportation and downtown Menlo Park. ICF recognizes the importance of this location as well as the importance of the Project overall.

ICF has a history of delivering large, complex, place-making projects throughout the Bay Area and beyond. We will work with Project stakeholders, including City planners, the development team (indirectly through the City), City Commissioners/City Council, and the public, to ensure that the EIR not only presents a technically accurate, complete, and legally defensible analysis of the environmental effects of the Project but also an analysis that is expressly responsive to City and community concerns and constraints. To accomplish this, we offer a team of highly skilled environmental professionals who will produce comprehensive California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation, allowing the Project to be developed as expeditiously as possible. Our considerable experience in Menlo Park—including lead environmental consultant on the previously proposed SRI International project in 2013–2015—will enable our staff to respond quickly and efficiently to your needs.

This submittal includes our overall approach and scope of work as well as our relevant experience and proposed staffing. Our proposed Project management staff consists of a team that is familiar with the intricacies of development in Menlo Park and backed by ICF’s depth and breadth of technical expertise across the subject areas to be addressed under CEQA. Our team also includes two subconsultants—Hexagon and Keyser Marston Associates—that will contribute their expertise to transportation and housing needs consulting services, respectively. Our team members have worked together extensively on prominent CEQA projects throughout the Bay Area, including, most recently, the Willow Village Master Plan Project. We know how to deliver environmental documents and manage environmental processes for innovative and complex projects.

Our team is excited about the opportunity to provide CEQA services for this important project. We are eager to discuss our approach with you and hope you will decide that our team is qualified to meet your needs. If selected as the successful bidder, ICF looks forward to negotiating mutually acceptable contract terms and conditions. Please feel free to contact Heidi Mekkelson at 415.677.7116 or [email protected] should you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Hawani Tessema
Senior Manager, Contracts
Page I-1.45
Page I-1.46
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. i Table of Contents
Firm and Project Team Qualifications ..........................................................................................................1 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................................10 Schedule.....................................................................................................................................................28 Cost Estimate .............................................................................................................................................28 Relevant Project Experience and References............................................................................................30 Other Relevant Information and Disclosures..............................................................................................34 Appendices
Appendix A Resumes
Appendix B Keyser Marston Associates – Housing Needs Assessment Scope Appendix C Hexagon – Transportation Scope
Appendix D West Yost – Optional Water Supply Assessment Scope Appendix E Proposed Schedule
Appendix F Cost Estimate
Page I-1.47
Page I-1.48
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 1 Firm and Project Team Qualifications
ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (an ICF company, hereafter referred to as ICF), a global consulting and technology services provider focused on making big things possible for our clients, is the bidding entity for this proposal and a subsidiary of parent company ICF International, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICFI).

ICF is a recognized leader in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, having prepared thousands of environmental impact studies and related documents since 1970. ICF is proposing a team of dedicated professionals who are familiar with Menlo Park, who are knowledgeable about local issues, and who have the capacity to provide timely and exceptional environmental services for the Parkline Project (Project). In addition, we are deliberately putting forth a similar team that has ushered several recent City of Menlo Park (City) development projects through the CEQA clearance process, including subconsultants Hexagon (transportation) and Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) (housing needs assessment [HNA]). Each proposed specialist on the team has a key area of expertise to contribute and will work closely with other specialists on all aspects of the Project to keep the process cohesive.

ICF
Since 1969, ICF has been serving government at all levels as well as major corporations and multilateral institutions on infrastructure improvement projects, restoration and planning projects, and compliance with mandated government programs. More than 8,000 employees (inclusive of corporate affiliates) in 70 offices serve these clients worldwide. More information is available at www.icf.com.

ICF provides consulting and implementation services to
address today’s most complex management, technology,
and policy challenges. Our work is focused primarily in four key markets: environment and infrastructure, energy and climate change, health and social programs, and
homeland security. The firm provides end-to-end solutions to support clients through the entire program life cycle, from analysis and design through implementation and evaluation. The ICF team brings the following resources to deliver the full scope of services that may be required to meet the City’s needs on the Project:
§ A professional staff with full-time and on-call environmental analysts, hazardous materials experts, land use and natural resource planners, wildlife and fisheries biologists, plant and wetland biologists, arborists, watershed planners, restoration and mitigation experts, hydrology and water quality specialists, noise and vibration specialists, environmental permitting and conservation planning experts, archaeologists, and architectural historians. § A wide network of environmental regulatory expertise. ICF is a recognized leader in CEQA compliance. ICF professionals have authored guidelines and taught University of California Extension courses on complying with environmental law and regulations. Many of our specialists are also authors who have collaborated on definitive CEQA publications that have become industry standards for assisting planning professionals with compliance documentation. Our own environmental regulatory staff includes former agency regulators.

We stay up to date on the latest policy developments at the federal, state, and local levels.

ICF has direct and ongoing experience throughout the
Bay Area. With more than 250 technical staff members in Northern California, ICF is one of the largest CEQA
consulting firms in the region. Our deep bench ensures
our ability to meet client needs quickly and effectively. ICF has staff members operating out of multiple offices on the West Coast, and we have the capacity to provide the City ICF Profile Snapshot
Founded in: 1969
ICF Employees: 8,000+
Northern California Office Locations:

San Francisco and Sacramento
Office Where Work Will Be Managed
ICF’s San Francisco Office
201 Mission Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94105
Page I-1.49
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 2 with timely and high-quality services. Our staff is experienced in balancing an existing backlog of projects and has the capacity to initiate new projects weekly. If selected, although we are able to draw expertise from all West Coast offices, we will service the Project primarily from our San Francisco office.

Subconsultants
Included on the CEQA team with ICF are Hexagon for the transportation analysis and KMA for the HNA.

Hexagon
Hexagon has a long history of working on projects within Menlo Park as well as the entire Bay Area.

ICF and Hexagon have collaborated extensively and will work together to provide a transportation study that will satisfy the requirements of the City, CEQA, and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Congestion Management Program (CMP). Hexagon has prepared transportation studies and CEQA-specific traffic analyses throughout the Bay Area. These include analyses of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), operational peak-hour traffic, freeway segments and ramps, queuing, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit facilities, and site access and circulation.

Hexagon also provides thorough peer reviews of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans for its clients. Hexagon has provided services for projects in Menlo Park that included the 1350 Adams Court Project, 3723 Haven Avenue Hotel, Menlo Park Housing Element Update, Willow Village Master Plan, and the Menlo Park Citywide Model.

Keyser Marston Associates
KMA is included on the ICF team to provide an HNA. KMA is exceptionally well qualified and able to prepare the HNA for the Project because of its broad expertise from conducting housing impact studies and project-specific housing needs analyses. Throughout the Bay Area, KMA has prepared HNAs that have analyzed a project’s net impact on housing supply and need, the geographic distribution of housing needs by jurisdiction, and a project’s potential influence on the regional housing market. KMA has prepared HNAs in Menlo Park that have encompassed a wide range of projects, including mixed-use, residential, and office development projects (e.g., Menlo Gateway, Facebook Campus, Facebook Campus Expansion Project, Menlo Flats, Menlo Portal, Menlo Uptown, 1350 Adams Court, Commonwealth Building 3, 111 Independence Drive, Willow Village Master Plan).

Project Team Approach and Qualifications
ICF is aware of the importance of the Parkline Project in the context of the region’s need to provide high-density, mixed-use projects near transit. Understanding that the expediency of the environmental clearance process is essential to moving a project forward, we have developed an approach that allows us to ensure the production of high-quality and legally sound products in a timely fashion. Our success with meeting aggressive schedules while adeptly handling complex environmental issues on similar projects in Menlo Park, including the Willow Village Master Plan Project, is a testament to our ability to usher the Project efficiently through the CEQA process. Aside from our commitment to a careful and efficient execution of the detailed scope of work (SOW), we bring the key characteristics described below to support implementation of this prominent project.

Seasoned Team with Relevant Experience, Commitment, and Availability The ICF team’s expertise from working on environmental impact reports (EIRs) on the San Francisco Peninsula as well as in the Silicon Valley/South Bay, including our recent experience in Menlo Park, means we understand the planning context of the area, including constituents in a variety of jurisdictions, environmentally challenging topics, and interrelationships among cities in the area. In addition to this wide-ranging knowledge, we have built productive and respectful relationships with Menlo Park staff members. We strive to perform to the satisfaction of the City. Our goal is to devote the same level of commitment and dedication to the Parkline Project that we devoted to our past successful CEQA compliance efforts in Menlo Park.

Page I-1.50
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 3 Our team has been assembled with regard to our previous work in the city. Heidi Mekkelson, our project director, and Kirsten Chapman, our senior advisor, will contribute valuable local knowledge and strategic thinking to move the Project through the CEQA process. Jessica Viramontes, our project manager, and Devan Atteberry, our deputy project manager, also have extensive experience from successfully coordinating and writing complex CEQA compliance documents for projects in Menlo Park and throughout the Bay Area. Heidi, Kirsten, Jessica, and Devan are known to the City for their excellence in environmental compliance work, the lead agency process experience, and management, all of which are necessary attributes for successfully achieving CEQA clearance for high-profile priority development projects. This management team has also worked directly with Hexagon and KMA for years and assembled quality documents. Our diverse team, including the talented and experienced technical specialists included in the organization chart below, are available and excited to get to work on the Project.

As previously mentioned, ICF has almost a decade of experience working from on CEQA documents in Menlo Park. Although ICF is currently working on EIRs in Menlo Park, many of these projects are nearing completion, freeing up team members who are familiar with the city to work on new projects.

In addition to our ongoing projects in Menlo Park, as well as several completed projects, ICF previously worked on the SRI International Campus Modernization Project EIR from 2013 to 2015.

This project, which was on the site of the current Parkline Project, planned to modernize the SRI campus without increasing gross floor area. Specifically, it intended to retain five buildings, with approximately 62,000 square feet; demolish approximately 1.21 million square feet of building space; and construct 13 new buildings within the same area, resulting in no net increase in square footage. ICF completed several sections of the administrative draft EIR for the proposed project, but the development application was put on hold and the contract eventually expired. Several members of our proposed team for the Parkline Project visited the site in 2014 and prepared sections. They are excited about the prospect of working on a new project at the same site.

Strong Team Management
As a multidisciplinary environmental consulting firm, ICF provides a full range of in-house services related to environmental planning. Using our own staff expertise, in combination with the skills and services provided by our subconsultants, we have the capability to complete every element of our proposed SOW successfully. The key to successful teaming is a clearly defined SOW with wellestablished roles for each consultant on a project. In approaching the tasks included in our scope of services, our management team works with all team members to develop and outline their roles, thereby ensuring a quality project.

With collaboration being a vital focus of our team, ICF’s role will be to ensure that the team understands Project goals, objectives, and individual responsibilities. We will bring together all perspectives provided by the team throughout all phases of the Project and set incremental delivery schedules to meet Project milestones. As a prime consultant, ICF will be responsible for reviewing subconsultant work products (e.g., technical studies) to ensure that they meet applicable CEQA requirements, are clearly written, and provide the necessary level of technical analysis to support the CEQA document.

Proposed Project Team
ICF is proposing a team of dedicated professionals who are familiar with the City and the department’s expectations, who are knowledgeable about local issues, and who have the capacity to provide the City with timely and exceptional environmental services. The organizational chart below, the table that follows, and the resumes in Appendix A highlight the experience and qualifications of the relevant ICF team members, demonstrating their ability to meet the minimum qualifications outlined in the request for proposal (RFP). The resumes provided in Appendix A include the various team leads at ICF, Hexagon, and KMA. Resumes for additional staff members (including for the Optional Tasks) can be provided upon request.

Page I-1.51
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 4 City of Menlo Park
Land Use
Kirsten Chapman
Zachary Cornejo
Transportation
Hexagon (sub)
Air Quality / Greenhouse Gas
Laura Yoon
Jacqueline Mansoor
Darrin Trageser
Biological Resources
Lisa Webber
Energy
Devan Atteberry
Cultural (Archaeology)
Lora Holland
Jennifer Wildt
Cultural (Historic)
Jon Rusch
Nicole Felicetti
Geology and Soils
Diana Roberts
Noise
Cory Matsui
Noah Schumaker
Hydrology and Water Quality
Katrina Sukola
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Diana Roberts
Mario Barrera
Population and Housing
Kirsten Chapman
Keyser Marston Associates (sub)
Public Services/Utilities/Recreation
Devan Atteberry
Zachary Cornejo
Aesthetics
Kirsten Chapman
Document Production
John Mathias
John Conley
Heidi Mekkelson, Project Director
Jessica Viramontes, Project Manager
Devan Atteberry, Deputy Project Manager
Kirsten Chapman, Senior Advisor
Page I-1.52
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 5 Staff/
Billing Classification
*Tasks are described for
each role. Roles are shown
in the organizational chart.

Education/Registrations/
Certifications
*Highest level of education included in this
table. See resumes in Appendix A for complete
education description.

Recent Experience
Years of Relevant
Experience
Availability (%)*
PROJECT DIRECTOR and SENIOR ADVISOR Tasks: Senior oversight of team, ensuring technical adequacy, QA/QC, adherence to scope and scheduleHeidi Mekkelson, Project Director BS, Environmental Studies/Biology, University of Southern California, 2003 Willow Village Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report—City of Menlo Park, CA City of San Bruno Environmental Impact Report for the Bayhill Specific Plan—City of San Bruno, CA Station East Residential/Mixed Use Project EIR—City of Union City, CA 18 60
Kirsten Chapman, Senior Advisor
BA, Environmental Studies/Economics, University of California, Santa Cruz, 2007 Willow Village Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report—City of Menlo Park, CA Various office development initial studies and EIRs in the General Plan and M2 Area Zoning Update (ConnectMenlo) area—City of Menlo Park, CA SRI International Campus Modernization Project EIR—City of Menlo Park, CA 14 60
PROJECT MANAGER Tasks: Manages internal staff and subconsultants. Provides day-to-day oversight. Ensures adherence to scope, schedule, budget, and QA/QCJessica Viramontes, Senior Environmental Planner MS, Environmental Management, University of San Francisco, 2011 BS, Environmental Management and Protections, California Polytechnic University San Luis Obispo, 2006 Middle Plaza at 500 El Camino Real Infill EIR—City of Menlo Park, CA Facebook Menlo Park Campus Expansion EIR and EIR Addendum—City of Menlo Park, CA 16 75
DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER Tasks: Manages internal team, provides support to senior management teamDevan Atteberry, Senior Environmental Planner BS, Environmental Management and Protection, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, 2018 Lot 3 North: 1350 Adams Court Project IS/MND and EIR—City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park, CA, Station East Residential/Mixed-Use Project EIR—City of Union City, Union City, CA 3 45
Page I-1.53
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 6 Staff/
Billing Classification
*Tasks are described for
each role. Roles are shown
in the organizational chart.

Education/Registrations/
Certifications
*Highest level of education included in this
table. See resumes in Appendix A for complete
education description.

Recent Experience
Years of Relevant ExperienceAvailability (%)*

SUPPORT STAFF
Diana Roberts,
Senior Consultant I
MA, Linguistics, Cornell University, 1991
BS, Applied Psychology, Georgia Institute of
Technology, 1982
1075 O’Brien Drive IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration—City of Menlo Park San Bruno Bayhill Specific Plan EIR—City of San Bruno, CA SRI International Campus Modernization Project EIR—City of Menlo Park, CA 24 40
Mario Barrera,
Senior Consultant II
BS, Engineering Technology, Environmental
Technology; California State University, Long
Beach, 2003
San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Update Environmental Impact Report— San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA
The Hub Plan 30 Van Ness Avenue Project, 98 Franklin Street Project, and Hub Housing Sustainability District EIR—County of San Francisco, CA 20 20
Zachary Cornejo,
Associate Consultant I MS, Natural Resource Stewardship, Colorado State University, 2019
San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR)—San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA Mission Bay School Project—San Francisco Unified School District, San Francisco, CA
4 50
Lora Holland, MA, RPA,
Senior Consultant II
MA, Anthropology, University of West
Florida, 2006
Iron Horse Trail Bollinger Canyon Overcrossing Project—City of San Ramon Public Works Department, San Ramon, CA
Alpine Road Trail Improvements Project—Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, San Mateo County, CA
19 25
Page I-1.54
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 7 Staff/
Billing Classification
*Tasks are described for
each role. Roles are shown
in the organizational chart.

Education/Registrations/
Certifications
*Highest level of education included in this
table. See resumes in Appendix A for complete
education description.

Recent Experience
Years of Relevant ExperienceAvailability (%)*
Jennifer Wildt,
Senior Consultant II
Ph.D., M.A. Archaeology, Boston University,
2015
B.A., Archaeology, University of Virginia,
2001
Commonwealth Building 3 Environmental Impact Report – City of Menlo Park, CA
San Francisco Housing Element, Archaeological Sensitivity Analysis – City of San Francisco, CA
21 20
Cory Matsui,
Senior Consultant I
BA, Atmospheric Science, University of
California Berkeley, 2009
AA, Physics, Cabrillo College, 2007
San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Update Environmental Impact Report— San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA
One Vassar Project Community Plan Exemption, San Francisco, CA 11 20
Jon Rusch,
Senior Consultant I
MA, Historic Preservation Planning, Cornell
University, 2013
BA, Geography, University of Minnesota,
2006
Willow Village Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report—City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park, CA
San Francisco Housing Element Update Historic Context Statements and Environmental Impact Report—City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA
10 30
Nicole Felicetti,
Assistant Consultant
MS, Historic Preservation, University of
Pennsylvania, 2021
BA, Architecture, University of Kentucky,
2018
Better Market Street—City of San Francisco Department of Public Works, San Francisco, CA
Bay Area Regional Transit Systemwide Evaluation—San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), San Francisco, CA
3 30
Noah Schumaker,
Associate Consultant I
MS, Mechanical Engineering, Michigan
Technological University, 2021
Willow Village Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report—City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park, CA
San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Update Environmental Impact Report— San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA
1 40
Darrin Trageser,
Associate Consultant I
MS, Atmospheric Sciences, University of
California, Davis, 2014
Willow Village Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report—City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park, CA
555 West Middlefield EIR—City of Mountain View, CA
7 20
Page I-1.55
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 8 Staff/
Billing Classification
*Tasks are described for
each role. Roles are shown
in the organizational chart.

Education/Registrations/
Certifications
*Highest level of education included in this
table. See resumes in Appendix A for complete
education description.

Recent Experience
Years of Relevant ExperienceAvailability (%)*
Laura Yoon,
Technical Director
MS, Environmental Management, University
of San Francisco, 2013
City of San Bruno Environmental Impact Report for the Bayhill Specific Plan— City of San Bruno, CA
Belmont General Plan and Specific Plan EIR—City of Belmont, CA 12 20
Jacqueline Mansoor,
Associate Consultant I
MCRP, City and Regional Planning,
California Polytechnic University San Luis
Obispo, 2018
1125 O’Brien Drive EIR—City of Menlo Park, CA
1075 O’Brien Drive EIR—City of Menlo Park, CA
5 40
Lisa Webber,
Technical Director
MS, Botany, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, 1987
BA, Biology, University of California, Santa
Cruz, 1980
San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Update EIR—San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA
San Rafael Transit Center Replacement Project—Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, San Rafael, CA
32 20
Katrina Sukola,
Senior Consultant I
MS Chemistry, University of Manitoba,
2003
BS Environmental Chemistry, University
of Waterloo, 2001
Willow Village Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report—City of Menlo Park, CA
City of San Bruno Environmental Impact Report for the Bayhill Specific Plan— City of San Bruno, CA
18 20
* The availability column represents a staff member’s average availability for a project, given adequate notice. The percentage is subject to change, depending on other project commitments, but represents our best estimate for any given project.

Page I-1.56
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 9 Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity at ICF
ICF was founded more than 50 years ago by former Tuskegee Airman C.D. Lester. We were then called the Inner City Fund, with a mission to finance minority-owned businesses in Washington, DC.

Since then, ICF has evolved to grow our consulting business, partnering with clients on complex energy, environment, health, and socioeconomic development issues. Our purpose as a company is to build a more prosperous and resilient world for all, including for each of our employees. Currently, ICF is a global company with offices in more than 60 countries. As a reflection of its commitment to diversity and inclusion, 53 percent of its leaders across the company are female and 39 percent of its executives are women or minorities. ICF constantly seeks inclusive opportunities to collaborate with experts, suppliers, contractors, and technology partners with diverse perspectives who are just as driven as we are to make a difference.

ICF’s company values are driven equally by company leaders and by local teams of colleagues, who are committed to using our professional positions to ensure our respective fields have intentional, positive impacts on our communities. In 2020, ICF prioritized making diversity, equity, and inclusion foundational company values. The company began to match employees’ personal donations at 100 percent to organizations supporting racial and social injustices, with no limits. ICF engaged in company-wide town halls, listening tours, and employee surveys. Informed by employee feedback, ICF developed a clear diversity and inclusion roadmap that we are committed to continually measuring and monitoring.

Key initiatives that grew from these efforts included the hiring of our vice president of diversity and inclusion, who leads companywide efforts to advance equity, starting with recruiting and hiring but extending to the current staff through required diversity and inclusion training (e.g., increasing awareness of microaggressions and unconscious bias) and employee community networks. These voluntary, employee-led networks are centered around Asian, Black, First Nations/Indigenous Peoples, Diverse Abilities, Hispanic/Latinx, LGBTQIA+, and Women’s community issues; they reflect ICF’s mission and values by supporting a diverse, inclusive workplace through mentoring, professional development, and community outreach opportunities for all employees. ICF also implemented a corporate training course to promote an inclusive workplace and supported that training with a peer-to-peer Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Champion program. The D&I Champions participate in peer coaching and team meetings, bringing course content to life in ongoing discussions to further explore our inclusive culture framework: objectivity, belonging, voice, and growth.

Within the Environment and Planning Division, ICF conducts focused diversity, equity, and inclusion learning courses, group discussions, and workshops. Our cultural resources group recently conducted a focus group on “Cultural Resource Management in the Time of Black Lives Matter.” Through the use of a mural board, the group identified vision statements and action items identifying how clients and projects can benefit from a proactive, innovative, and intentional approach to bringing new voices and under-represented groups to the table during the identification of cultural resources and assessment of impacts.

We are committed to improving our hiring practices to encourage minority and under-represented groups to pursue a consulting career at ICF. We conduct focused recruiting at the University of Hawaii, where 80 percent of the student population identifies as black, indigenous, and people of color, and San José State University, an Asian American and Native American Pacific IslanderServing Institution grantee. We recently launched a guest speaker pilot program at community colleges and high schools with prominent minority populations. We regularly post jobs to LinkedIn groups targeting women, such as Women in Transportation, and distribute them through targeted professional organizations such as Latinos in Heritage Conservation.

For more information about ICF’s diversity, equity, and inclusion values and initiatives, see https://www.icf.com/company/about/diversity-inclusion.

Page I-1.57
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 10 Scope of Work
Project Understanding
The City of Menlo Park is planning redevelopment of SRI International’s approximately 64-acre research campus adjacent to the city’s downtown area. The Project site currently contains approximately 1.38 million gross square feet (gsf) of office, research-and-development (R&D), amenity, and support uses across 38 buildings; 1,500 people are employed at the site. The Project would demolish all but three buildings, as well as landscaping and surface parking, and construct a transit-oriented, mixed-use campus with a new Residential Zoning District and Commercial Zoning District. The 10-acre Residential Zoning District would be in the western portion of the Project site and include 400 rental units. The 53-acre Commercial Zoning District would include five new office/R&D buildings (totaling 1.05 million gsf), the three buildings to be retained (totaling 284,000 gsf), an approximately 44,000 gsf office amenity building, an approximately 2,000 gsf community amenity building, three above-grade parking structures that would provide approximately 2,030 parking spaces, and more than 25 acres of publicly accessible open space spread throughout the entire Project site. The Project would also include evaluation of a Project variant that would include up to 600 residential units, which would intensify the residential uses within the proposed Residential Zoning District. The proposed variant would increase residential building heights within the district and add additional residential units on a separate 1-acre portion of the Project site.

The Project site is on Ravenswood Avenue between El Camino Real and Middlefield Road, near the Menlo Park Caltrain station. The proximity to local and regional transit services would allow future employees and residents of the Project to take advantage of sustainable transportation options. The proposed onsite mix of complementary land uses would also provide opportunities to reduce VMT, traffic impacts, and the energy demand typically associated with new high-density development.

Scope of Work
Based on our review of Project materials, we believe that an EIR would be the appropriate CEQA document for the Project. This SOW assumes that an EIR will prepared for the Project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, with certain topics, including, but not necessarily limited to, agricultural/ forestry resources, mineral resources, and wildfire, scoped out from detailed review in the EIR.

Task 1: Kick-Off Meeting/Data Collection
This task includes initiation of the CEQA process for an EIR. Initiation will include a CEQA process/kickoff meeting with the applicant and the City. ICF staff members will identify key Project issues and conduct an extensive review of relevant environmental, background, and regulatory documents as well as the Project entitlement plans. This task will also include a site reconnaissance visit, data collection, identification of data needs, preparation of a detailed data needs list, and any potential refinements to the scope and schedule. Our revised SOW will reflect these discussions as needed.

Deliverables: One draft and one final SOW, refined schedule, kick-off meeting agenda, data needs request, EIR outline, and summary of kick-off meeting.

Task 2. Project Description
ICF will prepare the Project description in accordance with City of Menlo Park Planning Division requirements. The Project description will be based on input provided by the Project applicant, including Project plans/entitlements and background studies. A complete and stable Project description will form the basis for the environmental review. The Project description will include, at a minimum, the following general topics:
§ Project Overview and Background
§ Project Site Location
§ Project Objectives
Page I-1.58
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 11 § Project Characteristics, including:
• Site plan
• Residential population and employment levels
• Site access, circulation, and parking
• TDM program
• Project design, architectural themes, massing, building design, potential sustainable design features, and materials
• Amenities such as landscaping, lighting, signage, courtyards, and gathering spaces • Utilities
• Recycling and waste
§ Phasing and Construction Scenario
§ Project Approvals and Entitlements
§ Figures
Deliverables: One electronic copy of each draft and final version of the Project description (in MS Word and PDF formats)
Task 3. Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping
ICF will prepare a Notice of Preparation (NOP) consistent with City guidelines, then file the NOP with the County Clerk and State Clearinghouse (a Notice of Completion [NOC] will also be submitted to the State Clearinghouse). This SOW and budget assumes that the City will send the required documents to the State Clearinghouse and distribute the NOP to all other recipients. ICF staff members will attend the public scoping meeting. This scope does not include preparation of a staff report. After the meeting, ICF will prepare a brief summary of the written and verbal comments, sorted by topic, and refine the EIR SOW based on discussions with the staff (as required), input obtained from scoping sessions, and comments submitted on the NOP.

Deliverables: Electronic copies of the draft and revised NOP in MS Word and Adobe PDF format.

Ten hard copies and electronic copies of the final NOP in MS Word and Adobe PDF format for City use. Electronic copy of the NOC in Adobe PDF format. Distribution of NOP as noted above.

Summary of written and verbal comments. Revised SOW (as required).

Task 4. Administrative Draft EIR
The purpose of this task is to prepare the administrative draft EIR. This task will synthesize background information for use in the existing setting, evaluate changes to baseline conditions resulting from implementation of the Project, compare impacts to the significance criteria to identify significant impacts, and identify mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.

For this task, there will be three principal activities:
§ Determine, by individual resource topic, the significance criteria to be used in the analysis; § Perform the analysis and make determinations of impact significance; and § Recommend feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts, if needed.

The ICF team will collect the information necessary to define baseline conditions in the Project area.

It is anticipated that CEQA baseline conditions will be existing conditions at the time of the NOP.

Page I-1.59
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 12 For each environmental topic, significance thresholds or criteria will be defined in consultation with the City so that it will be clear how the EIR classifies an impact. The criteria will be based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, general plan standards used by the City, and our experience in developing performance standards and planning guidelines to minimize impacts.

The analysis will be based on standard methodologies and techniques, focusing on the net changes anticipated at the Project site. The text will clearly link measures to impacts and indicate their effectiveness (i.e., ability to reduce an impact to a less-than-significant level), identify the responsible agency or party, and distinguish whether measures are proposed as part of the Project, are already being implemented (such as existing regulations), or are to be considered.

Our analysis will also assess whether proposed mitigation measures themselves would result in any environmental impacts. This approach facilitates preparation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that follows certification of an EIR.

The administrative draft EIR will incorporate baseline conditions data as well as impact analysis and mitigation measures, along with the alternatives and other CEQA considerations described in Task 6 (below). It is envisioned that the City’s initial review of the document will consider content, accuracy, the validity of assumptions, classification of impacts, feasibility of mitigation measures, and alternatives analyses.

For purposes of providing a cost estimate, we assume that a full EIR will be prepared that will evaluate the following topics in detail: aesthetics, air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources/tribal cultural resources, energy, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities/service systems. If this list changes during the scoping process, ICF will provide an update to the scope and cost. As needed, ICF will prepare technical memorandums and/or provide a peer review of reports prepared by other consultants, as outlined in the scope below. The budget and scope for these memorandums and peer reviews are included in Task 4, Administrative Draft EIR, since they will be incorporated directly into the Administrative Draft EIR upon completion.

ICF anticipates that all other topics will be “scoped out” from further analysis in the EIR.

Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines states that “An EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” Accordingly, the EIR will include a section for impacts found to be less than significant. This section will discuss topics that, based on preliminary desktop analysis of the Project, ICF believes will not result in significant environmental impacts. These topics are agriculture and forestry resources, mineral resources, and wildfire.

For the cumulative impact analysis, ICF will create a map of cumulative projects within the vicinity of the Project site, based on a City-provided cumulative project list. The list will be found in the Setting section of Chapter 3, Introduction to Environmental Analysis, for localized cumulative analyses (e.g., construction analyses). For other analyses (e.g., regional air quality), the cumulative context will be defined as broader geographic areas, according to the resource.

The following task descriptions summarize the data to be collected, impact assessment methodologies to be used, and types of mitigation measures to be considered, by environmental issue. Optional Tasks are described at the end of this scope. Since they require further consideration and discussion, the scope and budget are provided separately to readily distinguish between the proposed and optional tasks.

Aesthetics
The aesthetics analysis will consider site-specific Project impacts as well as impacts viewed from surrounding areas. The Project site is relatively flat and currently occupied by buildings of varying heights; the majority are less than three stories high. Therefore, the existing buildings are not Page I-1.60
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 13 dominant features in the area. However, the Project would introduce new buildings that would be larger with respect to scale, height, and massing. ICF will prepare the Aesthetics section of the EIR, based on information provided, and conduct the following tasks:
§ Visit the Project site and surroundings to identify and photo-document existing visual character and quality, views to and from the Project site, and other urban design features. § Review the massing studies/visual simulations, landscape plans, lighting plans, and shadow diagrams (if applicable) provided by the Project Sponsor. § Review existing and proposed general plan goals, policies, and programs related to visual quality to determine conflicts with any relevant plans and policies. The surrounding public sensitive-viewer locations that could be affected by the proposed development include Burgess Park and the Civic Center complex.
§ Using visual simulations and field observations, analyze whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality due to grading, height, bulk, massing, architectural style, building materials, or other site alterations. § Analyze lighting and glare impacts created by the proposed buildings, focusing on motorists on the surrounding streets, residents in the Linfield Oaks neighborhood, city hall, adjacent churches, Menlo-Atherton High School, and other sensitive-viewer locations.

Shadows would increase compared with existing conditions because of the increase in building heights. However, based on the direction of the sun, the public uses at Burgess Park would not be affected by the increased shadows. If shadow diagrams are provided by the Project Sponsor, ICF will incorporate them into the overall aesthetics analysis. However, if the applicant does not submit shadow diagrams to ICF and it is determined that shadows should be evaluated in the EIR, then the scope and budget could be amended to prepare shadow diagrams using a shadow subconsultant.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ICF will prepare the air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) chapters of the EIR. The Project site is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) as well as the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The analysis will focus on the criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and GHGs of greatest concern in the SFBAAB and local plan area. ICF will summarize meteorological and climatological data for the plan area as well as ambient pollutant concentrations in the vicinity of the plan area. ICF will describe the general locations of existing and proposed sensitive receptors as well as ambient sources of TACs near the plan area. Existing state and federal ambient air quality standards, the region’s attainment status with regard to the standards, and a discussion of applicable air quality and climate change goals, policies, and plans, including the region’s most recent air quality plans and the City’s 2030 Climate Action Plan (2030 CAP), will be provided.

The impact analysis for the proposed Project will assess the items listed below. The analyses will be detailed and presented in a technical memorandum, which will be used to inform the EIR impact conclusions. The technical memorandum will be appended to the EIR. This SOW assumes preparation of a draft and final technical memorandum. ICF further assumes that comments received on the draft memorandum will not require modeling revisions.

Construction. ICF will work with the Project Sponsor to develop an inventory of typical construction equipment and a list of activities for the expected buildout phases of the Project. We will quantify criteria pollutant and GHG emissions to the extent feasible, based on available Project-specific information. Where adequate information is not available, model defaults from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) will be used to characterize construction activity. The analysis of construction impacts will consider the construction-related control strategies recommended by BAAQMD, including adherence to BAAQMD rules and regulations. Estimated criteria pollutant emissions will be compared to BAAQMD’s construction thresholds, as defined in the Page I-1.61
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 14 agency’s most recently adopted CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. If emissions are found to be significant, mitigation measures will be developed and quantified to the extent feasible to address identified impacts. This SOW assumes construction emissions will be quantified for the proposed Project and one variant.

Operations: ICF will quantify criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from motor vehicles using VMT data from the traffic consultant as well as the Emission Factor (EMFAC) model. Operational emissions associated with building area sources, energy and water consumption, waste generation, stationary sources (if any), and land use changes will be estimated using CalEEMod and land use data from the Project Sponsor. ICF understands that the Project would replace or consolidate SRI International’s existing facilities, with no net increase in nonresidential square footage. Given the age of the existing facilities and the proposed sustainability features for the new buildings, it is likely that operational emissions from nonresidential sources will decline relative to existing conditions. The proposed new residential buildings will likewise incorporate sustainability features that will reduce the intensity of operational emissions.

Emissions will be quantified under existing conditions as well as future buildout conditions with and without the proposed Project (and up to one variant). ICF will work with the Project Sponsor to quantify and incorporate, to the extent feasible, the reductions achieved through the robust sustainability program, including, but not limited to, the all-electric building design, onsite renewable energy generation, low-flow water fixtures, transit proximity, and TDM program. Many of the proposed sustainability features are similar to strategies included in the 2021 Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers (Handbook). As the principal author of the Handbook, ICF has a fundamental understanding of all Handbook measures and the associated quantification methods.

The net change in criteria pollutant emissions between existing and future conditions will be compared to BAAQMD’s operational thresholds. If emissions are found to be significant, mitigation measures will be developed and quantified to the extent feasible to address identified impacts.

Although the City recently (2021) adopted the 2030 CAP, it is not a qualified CAP for CEQA tiering.

BAAQMD has adopted updated GHG thresholds for projects and plans as well as revisions to its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. ICF understands that the Project Sponsor may request a review of the Project under the provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 7, in which case the Project would be designed to achieve net-zero GHG emissions (refer to Optional Task, below. The ultimate GHG threshold(s) will therefore be selected in close coordination with the Project Sponsor and the City and will consider all applicable case law as well as air district and expert agency guidance.

Health Effects from Criteria Pollutant Emissions. In response to the Supreme Court decision in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno, ICF will discuss potential regional and localized health effects from increased criteria pollutant emissions. This SOW assumes the analysis will both qualitatively and generally describe the health risks associated with exposure to the types of criteria pollutant emissions expected under the Project. ICF will review attainment plans for San Mateo County and community health data published by the California Department of Public Health to support the analysis. No Project-specific modeling will be performed. Should the City prefer a quantitative analysis of potential changes in regional health risks with buildout of the proposed Project, ICF can develop a scope for conducting photochemical modeling.

Localized Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots. ICF will review the expected impact on regional VMT and traffic circulation from buildout of the Project. The analysis will consider Project design features that may reduce VMT and/or congestion, including bicycle lanes, pedestrian facilities, and a TDM program. Trends in ambient carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations will also be assessed to confirm that buildout of the Project would not result in the formation of CO hot spots. If a hot-spot analysis is determined to be necessary, ICF will use peak-hour traffic volumes from the traffic consultant, the California Line Source Dispersion Model (CALINE4), and the latest version of EMFAC to estimate CO concentrations at the worst-performing intersection identified by the traffic study (i.e., the Page I-1.62
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 15 intersection with the highest peak-hour volumes and vehicle delay). Modeled CO concentrations will be compared to the federal and state ambient air quality standards to show that buildout of the Project would not result in a violation.

Project-Level TACs. The primary TACs of concern are diesel particulate matter (DPM) and asbestos. The potential for asbestos exposure from the demolition of facilities will be qualitatively assessed, based on compliance with BAAQMD’s asbestos rules.

Residential and educational receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the Project area. Buildout of the Project would cite new residential receptors on the Project site. Existing offsite receptors may be exposed to DPM generated during construction of the Project as well as operational sources of DPM, such as emergency generators (if any) and loading docks. Future new receptors may likewise be exposed to such sources as well existing ambient risks (e.g., surrounding roadways, stationary sources).

Given the proximity of surrounding receptors and the expected duration and intensity of construction, ICF proposes to quantitatively evaluate potential health risks from construction. ICF will prepare a construction health risk assessment (HRA) using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) AERMOD dispersion model. The HRA will be consistent with methodologies and procedures recommended by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and BAAQMD. The HRA will evaluate potential cancer and non-cancer health hazards for offsite receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary related to exposures to construction-generated DPM and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5).

Modeled health risks at receptor locations will be compared to thresholds recommended by BAAQMD. If needed, ICF will identify measures to reduce the level of health risk exposure at affected receptor locations.

This SOW assumes that construction of the Project will occur in a single phase, with nonresidential and residential vertical improvements happening over 30 to 36 months. Because all buildings would be constructed concurrently, new onsite residential receptors would not be exposed to construction emissions. Should the approach change and residential uses would be constructed and occupied before the completion of construction, ICF can revise the scope to reflect the additional level of effort needed to analyze construction-related health risks for onsite receptors.

With regard to long-term operations, ICF assumes that Project-related sources of TACs would be limited to off-street loading activities and the use of emergency generators. Accordingly, operational health risks would be evaluated qualitatively because the extent of loading activities at R&D facilities is expected to be limited and onsite emergency generators would be required to comply with the BAAQMD permitting process. ICF has included an optional task that would involve conducting an operational HRA, should the Project Sponsor or City prefer a quantitative assessment of potential operational health risks from receptor exposure to Project-generated DPM.

Cumulative TACs. ICF will use BAAQMD’s Permitted Sources Risk and Hazards Map to identify stationary sources and associated health risks within 1,000 feet of new residential areas. Health risks will be adjusted, based on distance to the Project site, using BAAQMD’s distance multiplier tools. BAAQMD will confirm the identified stationary sources through a Stationary Source Data Request. ICF will use BAAQMD’s geographic information system (GIS) files to identify health risks at the Project site from exposure to emissions generated by nearby railways and roadways. Total stationary, railway, and roadway risks will be added and compared to BAAQMD’s cumulative thresholds. If risks exceed thresholds, ICF will identify control measures to reduce the impact.

Odors. New land uses developed under the Project are not expected to result in substantial odor emissions. Likewise, any odors generated during construction (e.g., from diesel fuel combustion) are expected to minor. ICF will therefore qualitatively assess odor emissions, based on guidance from BAAQMD, including compliance with applicable rules and regulations.

Page I-1.63
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 16 Plan Consistency. ICF will qualitatively evaluate the plan’s consistency with state and local air quality and climate change plans and regulations, including the 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate, Plan Bay Area 2050, the City’s 2030 CAP, SB 32, Executive Order B-55-18, and the 2017/2022 Scoping Plan.

Biological Resources
The existing site is developed with buildings and surface parking lots. As such, natural biological resources are likely to be minimal. Nonetheless, the Project site is does contain 1,375 trees and landscaping, which could be protected and/or provide habitat for nesting birds. ICF will perform the following tasks:
§ Conduct background research to determine the biological resources that could be affected by the Project such as special-status species or protected trees. This research will include review of the City’s protected tree ordinance, the use of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Special-Status Species Online Database, and the California Native Plant Society’s online inventory. An aerial photograph of the Project site will be reviewed to identify areas of habitat types that can later be confirmed through field verification. § Conduct a site visit to characterize potential special-status plant and wildlife habitat that may be present. A list of plant and wildlife species observed during the survey will be collected and presented in the analyses. Given the developed nature of the Project site, it is not expected that special-status species will be present; however, a site visit will be required to make this determination.
§ Evaluate the Project’s effects on the identified biological resources, and recommend mitigation as warranted. Based on prior experience in the region, and the urban nature of the site, ICF anticipates that the prominent issues for the Project would be limited to nesting migratory birds, roosting bats, and protected trees.
§ Integrate the results of an arborist report prepared by the Project Sponsor team, if available. § Evaluate the Project’s effects on the identified biological resources, and recommend mitigation, as warranted.

Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
ICF cultural resources personnel will conduct a cultural resources study, as described below, to identify cultural resources that could meet the CEQA definition of a historical resource (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084) or unique archaeological resource (PRC Section 21083.2) and could be affected by the Project.

Built-Environment Cultural Resources Analysis. ICF will peer review the Historic Resource Evaluation Report prepared by Page & Turnbull that documents the site’s history and evaluates the historic significance of the campus and its 38 buildings. In addition, ICF will document the findings of the peer review of the Historic Resource Evaluation Report prepared by Page & Turnbull in a technical memorandum. For the purposes of estimating the level of effort required to analyze the Project’s impact on built-environment historical resources, ICF assumes that, based on the significance and history of the property, the Project’s Historic Resource Evaluation Report will identify up to five built-environment historical resources, inclusive of one historic district, within the study area.

Based on the Project and the existing urban context of the campus, ICF assumes that the CEQA study area for cultural resources will be limited to the Project footprint but will confirm this assumption with a site visit. Within an area of urban development, for a project that is consistent with adjacent density, there is little potential for visual, auditory, or indirect impacts on adjacent historical resources. Furthermore, with evaluation of the whole campus, it is anticipated that the CEQA study area for cultural resources will be limited to the Project footprint. ICF assumes that no additional Page I-1.64
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 17 resources within the study area will require evaluation with respect to listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). No evaluations of CRHR eligibility are included in this SOW.

Archaeological Cultural Resources Analysis. ICF will conduct a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University, the official state repository for cultural resource reports and records for San Mateo County, to identify previously recorded cultural resources and studies within and adjacent to the Project site. The records search will include a 0.25- mile radius. As part of the records search, ICF will contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to request a review of the Sacred Lands File.

As part of the records search, ICF will also review published archaeological, geological, and soil data to characterize the potential for buried surfaces (paleosols) within the Project site because some paleosols have the potential to be associated with archaeological deposits and human remains.

In addition to the records review, a qualified archaeologist will conduct a pedestrian surface survey of the Project site to identify archaeological resources and document current site conditions. If archaeological deposits are identified, they will be documented on a Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 form but not formally evaluated for significance under the CRHR. Formal evaluation, delineation, and/or mitigation would need to be implemented under an amendment to this SOW. The information obtained from the above will be summarized in a brief archaeological cultural resources technical report of findings. The technical report will be submitted to the NWIC in fulfillment of a requirement to access their archives.

Tribal Cultural Resources and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, Assistance. Prior to release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or EIR for a project, a lead agency must provide an opportunity for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area in which the project is located. Such consultation must be conducted if requested by the tribes in writing within 30 days of notification of the proposed project. ICF will conduct the following tasks:
§ Provide a draft and final notification letter to tribal contacts on official City letterhead. § Incorporate the results of the tribal consultation and any agreed-upon mitigation measures into a Tribal Cultural Resources EIR section, which will be separate from the Cultural Resources section.

Assumptions
§ ICF does not anticipate encountering archaeological resources. If archaeological resources are encountered, they will be documented on a DPR 523 form. Formal archaeological resource delineation and evaluation are not included in this scope and cost and would need to be performed under an amendment to this contract.
§ ICF assumes that the Historic Resource Evaluation Report will meet industry standards and that the peer review will suggest only minor revisions. § ICF assumes, based on the significance and history of the property, the Historic Resource Evaluation Report will identify up to five built-environment historical resources, inclusive of one historic district, within the study area.
§ ICF assumes that no additional built-environment resources will be located within the study area that will require evaluation for listing in the CRHR. If additional built-environment resources are identified, ICF will prepare an additional scope and cost. § The City will provide ICF with written documentation regarding consultation and the results for incorporation into the Tribal Cultural Resources section. § The City will be responsible for mailing the tribal notification letters and conducting any follow-up correspondence.

Page I-1.65
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 18 § This scope assumes no meeting attendance by ICF cultural personnel in support of PRC Section 21080.3.1, Consultation. If requested, ICF can attend meetings, but a revision to this SOW and cost estimate will be necessary.
§ ICF assumes that no more than one round of review will be required by the City prior to finalization of the cultural resources and tribal cultural resources deliverables.

Energy
ICF will examine how the Project will affect energy resources, energy generation, and energy transmission and evaluate any potential impacts associated with the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during Project construction or operation. The analysis will be based on energy use outputs from the CalEEMod emissions model. In addition, ICF will evaluate the Project’s consistency with state and local energy efficiency goals. The analysis will consider potential differences in long-term operational uses (i.e., differences between existing and proposed land uses) as well as the building design and energy efficiency features shown in the plans.

Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
ICF will prepare the Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources section of the EIR, using the geotechnical report prepared for the Project. This SOW assumes that a geotechnical report that characterizes geological, seismic, and soil hazards at the Project site will be prepared. ICF will rely on the information included in the geotechnical report to characterize the existing setting for geology, soils, and seismicity. In addition, ICF will use existing mapping to identify the geologic units that underlie the Project site and conduct a database search at the University of California Museum of Paleontology, including a review of scientific literature, to assess the paleontological potential of the geologic units and characterize the setting for paleontological resources.

ICF will conduct the following tasks:
§ Describe existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to geology, soils, and seismicity as well as paleontological resources.
§ Describe the Project grading, excavation, and foundation systems designed to support the proposed structures.
§ Describe the proposed maximum depth of excavation.
§ Describe the recommendations made in the geotechnical report, which would be implemented to reduce any impacts.
§ Develop, as needed, mitigation measures to reduce any significant impacts to a less-thansignificant level or eliminate, if feasible. Typical mitigation measures for paleontological resources include an assessment by a qualified paleontological professional regarding the need for the paleontological monitoring and, if recommended, worker awareness training.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
ICF will prepare the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR to assess impacts associated with the Project. The affected environment and regulatory setting pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials in the study area, including past activities on the Project site, and the potential for human and environmental exposure to hazardous materials will also be assessed. ICF will use a previously prepared Phase I environmental site assessment and site assessment report (both technical documents to be provided by the City prior to initiating the analysis) in support of the hazards and hazardous materials findings and impact determinations. If deemed necessary, ICF will conduct a supplemental public agency database review through the State Water Resources Control Board’s GeoTracker and the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor online databases. The objective of the environmental database searches is to identify and evaluate potential environmental issues associated with past and/or present operations at the Project site. This data would then be used in support of the CEQA document. An assessment of the significance of impacts associated with Page I-1.66
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 19 hazards and hazardous materials will be based on the relevant regulatory framework. If significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures to reduce them to a less-than-significant level (where feasible) will be recommended. The analysis and findings will be presented in the EIR.

Technical Document Peer Review. ICF will conduct a peer review of both technical documents mentioned above (Phase I environmental site assessment and site assessment report). Our technical expert will conduct a review to determine the adequacy of the analysis with respect to compliance with latest industry practices and methodologies. The review will be limited to ensuring that the text in the reports adequately presents the findings and that the conclusions are sound and substantiated. It should be noted that this will not include a review of any appendices attached to either report (appendices will be used only as a reference). Comments will be made directly in the report’s electronic files.

Hydrology and Water Quality
ICF will provide a detailed summary of existing conditions, identify potential impacts, and, if necessary, develop mitigation measures for the Project related to hydrology and water quality. Project activities that have the potential to result in hydrology and water quality impacts include the alteration of drainage patterns and runoff, ground disturbance during construction, and changes in groundwater infiltration and recharge.

ICF will review existing information and resources related to hydrology and water quality to conduct the analyses. This will include researching the hydrologic characteristics of the area; searching online resources, including federal, state, and local regulatory agency databases, such as the State Water Resources Control Board’s Integrated Water Quality Report/Clean Water Act data and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s national flood hazard data; and reviewing relevant groundwater and water quality studies, Regional Water Quality Control Board reports, and California Department of Water Resources documents pertaining to the Project area. The Hydrology and Water Quality section of the EIR will provide a detailed discussion of existing conditions as well as hydrology and water resource impacts associated with the Project. The impact analysis will focus on the impact of construction on water resources as well as impacts from surface water runoff and other operational issues. The section will address the potential for increased runoff as a result of the Project and any related impacts on drainage systems in the city or downstream of the Project site. Existing infrastructure and the identified floodplains will also be considered. A qualitative water quality analysis will be included that will consider the sources and types of pollutants, based on the previous and proposed land uses. Water quality impairments that may result from Project inundation within the identified floodplains will also be addressed. Impacts both within the Project area and the region downstream will be addressed. Any reasonable mitigation measures needed to address significant adverse hydrology and water quality impacts will be listed. Cumulative impacts resulting from the cumulative effect of development within the surrounding area will also be evaluated.

The Hydrology and Water Quality section will include a regulatory setting; a discussion of existing surface hydrology, groundwater, surface water and groundwater quality, and flooding in the area; the potential impacts of the Project on hydrology and water quality; and mitigation measures to reduce the impacts. Figures will also be prepared, if necessary, to show existing conditions with respect to hydrology.

Land Use and Planning
Land use and planning generally considers the compatibility of a proposed project with neighboring uses, changes to or displacement of existing uses, compliance with zoning regulations, and the consistency of a proposed project with the relevant local land use policies that have been adopted to mitigate or avoid an environmental effect. With respect to land use conflicts or compatibility issues, the magnitude of the impacts depends on how a proposed project would affect the existing development pattern, development intensity, traffic circulation, noise, and the visual setting in the surrounding area. These are generally discussed in the respective sections. Therefore, for the land use and planning analysis, ICF will conduct the following tasks:

Page I-1.67
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 20 § Describe the existing land uses, intensities, and land use patterns in the vicinity of the Project site as well as the compatibility of the proposed uses and zoning with current onsite and offsite development.
§ Describe the Project’s consistency with housing element goals geared toward strengthening the jobs/housing ratio in the city.
§ Describe the Project’s potential to divide an established community. § Evaluate any potential conflicts between the proposed and current land uses that would result in environmental impacts. These conflicts could include a use that would create a nuisance for adjacent properties or result in incompatibility with surrounding land uses, such as differences in the physical scale of development, noise levels, traffic levels, or hours of operation.
§ Evaluate the extent to which adopted City development standards or proposed design standards, as outlined in the Project application and other planning documents, would eliminate or minimize potential conflicts within the Project site. The general plan and zoning ordinance, among other applicable plans, will be examined, and the Project’s consistency with the applicable portions of the plans will be described.

Noise
ICF noise and vibration specialists will prepare a technical memorandum to evaluate potential Project-related impacts. The technical memorandum will inform the Noise and Vibration section of the EIR. The analysis will address:
§ Exposure of existing noise-sensitive land uses to noise and vibration associated with construction activity at the Project site.
§ Exposure of existing noise-sensitive land uses to Project-related changes in traffic noise. § Exposure of existing noise-sensitive land uses to operational noise from the Project site. It is anticipated that this will include an analysis of noise from emergency generators; noise from heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment; and noise from operations at Project loading docks.
§ Exposure of proposed noise-sensitive uses on the Project site to Project-related noise sources, as appropriate per relevant CEQA case law.

In the regulatory setting, the discussion will focus on local noise standards and guidance. Other applicable noise and/or vibration standards, if applicable, will also be summarized in the document.

In the environmental setting section, existing sources of noise in the Project area will be identified, along with existing noise-sensitive land uses in the area. Based on a desktop review of the Project area, noise-sensitive land uses include single- and multi-family residences, preschools, a high school, children’s centers, recreational facilities, and commercial and light-industrial uses. Other sources of noise may include aircraft noise, noise from landscaping equipment on surrounding parcels, and other typical residential neighborhood noise sources.

To determine the baseline noise levels, ICF will conduct noise monitoring at selected locations, as follows:
§ Short-term noise monitoring (15 minutes or less) will be conducted at up to five locations in the Project area.
§ Continuous long-term monitoring (24 hours or more) will be conducted at up to five locations in the Project area.

Page I-1.68
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 21 Construction noise and vibration will be evaluated using the modeling methods recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the construction equipment data to be provided by the Project Sponsor.

Operational traffic noise will be evaluated at a maximum of 20 roadway segments under the following conditions, using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model and average annual daily traffic data to be provided by the traffic consultant:
§ Existing
§ Existing plus Project
§ Future
§ Future plus Project
Traffic noise will be evaluated in terms of how Project-related traffic noise increases may affect existing noise-sensitive land uses. It is assumed that traffic data provided by the traffic consultant will include average annual daily traffic volumes, posted speeds, and heavy-truck percentages for each roadway segment analyzed. Non-traffic noise generated by facility operations (such as HVAC equipment, emergency generators, parking lots, and/or operational loading docks) will be evaluated using standard acoustical modeling methods and operational data provided by the Project Sponsor.

The analysis of vibration will be consistent with the requirements of the City, including ConnectMenlo, the municipal code, and/or other applicable noise and/or vibration standards, such as California Department of Transportation guidance.

The development of thresholds by which to assess potential noise and vibration impacts will be based on CEQA Appendix G and relevant local, state, and federal noise and vibration regulations.

An assessment of the significance of noise impacts will be based on predicted noise exposures and the defined CEQA significance thresholds. Where significant noise impacts are identified, mitigation to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level (where feasible) will be identified. Noise mitigation will be described at a level of detail appropriate for environmental review and not at a design level of detail.

In the event that another firm prepares a technical noise analysis that evaluates the noise impacts of the Project, as described above, ICF will review the technical report to assess its completeness, accuracy, and defensibility. This SOW assumes that a technical report prepared by another firm will include an appropriate level of substantiation for ICF to review, including the results of traffic noise modeling, construction noise modeling, construction vibration modeling, and operational noisesource (e.g., HVAC systems, emergency generators, etc.) modeling. Under a peer-review approach, this SOW assumes that ICF will not conduct a detailed quality assessment of the modeling results and will not conduct any original modeling or “retrace” any steps taken by the other firm. ICF’s noise team will participate in up to two conference calls to discuss the technical report. The conference calls will be held to discuss the team’s comments on the technical report and for the other firm to provide clarification, if needed.

Assumptions:
§ Required construction and operational data and/or input assumptions will be provided by the Project Sponsor.
§ Traffic data (including average annual daily traffic volumes, posted speeds, and heavy-truck percentages for each roadway segment) will be provided by the traffic consultant. § Non-traffic operational noise sources would be limited to HVAC equipment, emergency generators, and operational loading docks (e.g., no event noise or other mechanical equipment noise would need to be assessed).

Page I-1.69
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 22 Population and Housing
Due to the settlement agreement with East Palo Alto, the increase in the number of employees and residents at the Project site, and the public interest in this topic, ICF proposes to do a full analysis of potential impacts related to population and housing. The Project would include office, R&D, and amenity uses, which would generate new employees at the Project site. In addition, the Project would include approximately 400 rental housing units, directly increasing the population in the city.

ICF will analyze the impact of the increase in employees and residents. The Population and Housing section of the EIR will examine the Project’s effects on population and housing in the city and, to a lesser extent, the region. This analysis will focus on the increase in population and the secondary effects associated with the housing needed to accommodate the increased employment that would result from the Project. ICF, with assistance from KMA, will undertake the following tasks:
§ ICF will obtain additional information from the Project Sponsor, including the number of existing employees at the Project site and information regarding how many employees could also live at the proposed housing, if available.
§ An HNA will be prepared by KMA (Appendix B). ICF will work closely with KMA throughout the process and peer review the HNA before incorporating the findings into the analysis. § The housing effect resulting from the Project will be discussed in the context of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) regional household forecasts and fair-share housing allocations.
§ ICF will evaluate the direct population impacts from the proposed housing at the Project site. § Similar to other job-intensive projects, the EIR will examine secondary housing demands, based on future residential patterns for Project employees. § One of the key terms of the settlement agreement between the City of Menlo Park and the City of East Palo Alto is that an HNA will be prepared when the preparation of an EIR is required. As required by the settlement agreement, the HNA prepared for the Project will include an analysis of the multiplier effect with respect to indirect and induced employment to the extent possible.

Public Services and Recreation
Using information received from various service providers, ICF will prepare the Public Services and Recreation section of the EIR. ICF will conduct the following tasks:
§ As necessary, conduct interviews with or provide questionnaires to the City’s police department, fire department, park and recreation department, school district, and library to determine current service levels and the capacity to serve increased demand. § Estimate Project-generated demand for public services, based on existing operational standards obtained from the service providers. Other measures of demand will also be considered, such as the projected increase in the calls for service and the projected demand of recreational facilities and library services.
§ In accordance with CEQA, evaluate the extent to which Project demands would trigger the need for new public facilities, the construction of which might result in physical environmental effects.
§ Considering the proposed onsite open space, analyze the change in access to existing recreation facilities and any associated deterioration of these facilities.

Transportation
The SOW for the transportation analysis is included in Appendix C (Hexagon). ICF will help oversee preparation of the transportation analysis. All results will be incorporated into the EIR.

Page I-1.70
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 23 Utilities/Service Systems
The Utilities/Services Systems section of the EIR will examine the Project’s effect on water supply, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, and energy generation and transmission. ICF will describe existing conditions (i.e., capacity and current consumption levels), identify Project impacts (i.e., the effects of demand weighed against infrastructure capacity), and work with the City and the utility providers to identify reasonable mitigation measures.

This SOW assumes that the Project Sponsor will provide adequate information on infrastructure planning for the Project, including an assessment of existing and future utilities in the Project area/vicinity. Any technical analysis of the sizing, location, or design for new infrastructure is not included in this scope and is assumed to be provided by the Project Sponsor or other parties. This includes the location of potential water, sewer, natural gas, or electricity transmission lines for an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of new utilities. ICF can estimate solid waste generation, based on readily available generation rates. The energy demand will be quantified using the CalEEMod model. A water supply assessment (WSA) would be prepared by either a subconsultant contracted directly with the City, or West Yost contracted under ICF (see Optional Tasks, below). ICF will review the WSA, provide comments (if necessary), and incorporate the WSA into the administrative draft EIR.

Based on technical information for the Project site, as well as information received from the utility providers, ICF will prepare the Utilities/Service Systems section of the EIR and conduct the following tasks:
• Discuss applicable regulations at the local, state, and federal level, where applicable. • Describe existing utility providers, system capacity, and improvement plans. • Evaluate the net change in the demand for water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy relative to existing and planned capacity for the utilities. • Discuss whether Project impacts would require the expansion of existing facilities or construction of new infrastructure or facilities.

Deliverables: One electronic copy of administrative draft EIR in MS Word and Adobe PDF format.

Task 5. Project Alternatives, Other CEQA Considerations, and Project Variant
The purpose of this task is to complete drafts of the remaining sections (Alternatives, Other CEQA Considerations, and the Project Variant) of the EIR for the City’s staff to review. This task involves preparation of other required sections, examining particular aspects of the Project’s effects and the identification and comparison of Project alternatives.

Other CEQA Considerations
This task involves documenting unavoidable adverse impacts, growth-inducing effects, and cumulative effects of the Project:
§ Unavoidable effects will be summarized from the analyses performed in Task 5. § Assessment of growth-inducing effects will be based on the economic multipliers for the proposed uses (these multipliers provide information on direct and induced growth and were developed by ABAG for the regional input-output model) as well as comparisons with ABAG projections for the city. Growth inducement will be discussed in the context of population increases, utility and public services demands, infrastructure, and land use.

Page I-1.71
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 24 § The energy use of the Project will be analyzed consistent with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. Although Appendix F is highly vague with respect to providing useable significance criteria, ICF will provide an energy analysis. It is probable that this analysis will conclude that the energy impacts would be less than significant because it is probable that the Project’s energy use will not be “wasteful,” “inefficient,” or “unnecessary.” Alternatives
The alternatives to the Project must serve to substantially avoid or reduce at least one, if not more, of the significant impacts identified for the Project while feasibly attaining most of the Project objectives. ICF assumes that at least three Project alternatives will be analyzed, both at a qualitative level and quantitative level, based on a sensitivity analysis to reduce identified impacts. The NoProject Alternative would be qualitatively analyzed. This could include a scenario in which existing entitlements are developed. This scope assumes that offsite alternatives will be dismissed because a large, suitable site is not available in the vicinity that would meet the Project Sponsor’s objectives.

The Project team will provide supporting evidence for that conclusion.

Project Variant
The Project would also include evaluation of a Project variant that would include up to 600 residential units. This would intensify residential uses within the proposed Residential Zoning District. The proposed variant would increase residential building heights within the district and add additional residential units on a separate 1-acre portion of the Project site.

The variant to the Project will be analyzed as a separate chapter in the EIR. As needed, the analysis will be quantitative; however, this scope and budget assume that the variant will not be analyzed at the same level of detail as the Project.

Deliverables: Other CEQA Considerations chapter to be submitted with administrative draft EIR in electronic MS Word and Adobe PDF format. Alternatives chapter and Project Variant chapter to be submitted with screencheck draft EIR in electronic MS Word and Adobe PDF format.

Task 6. Screencheck Draft EIR
The purpose of this task is to prepare the screencheck draft EIR for the City’s staff to review. ICF will prepare a screencheck draft EIR to respond to the City’s comments on the administrative draft EIR.

This scope assumes that comments from multiple reviewers will be consolidated, conflicting comments will be resolved, and that the comments will not result in substantial revisions or additional analyses.

Deliverables: One electronic copy of the screencheck draft EIR in MS Word and Adobe PDF format.

Task 7. Public Draft EIR
The purpose of this task is to prepare and submit the draft EIR to the City for distribution to the public. ICF will revise the screencheck draft EIR to incorporate modifications identified by the City.

The revised document will be circulated among the public agencies and the general public as well as specific individuals, organizations, and agencies that expressed an interest in receiving the document. During this task, ICF will also compile the appendices, which will be distributed with the draft EIR, and produce a version of the full document that can be uploaded onto the City’s website.

ICF will also prepare an NOC and a Notice of Availability (NOA) to accompany the copies that must be sent to the State Clearinghouse. This SOW and budget assume that the City will send the required documents to the State Clearinghouse and distribute the draft EIR to all other recipients.

This SOW includes printing the draft EIR. If requested by the City, ICF can revise the scope and budget to include distribution of the draft EIR.

Deliverables: Fifteen hard copies of the draft EIR, with flash-drive appendices. Print-ready and webready electronic copies of the draft EIR in MS Word and Adobe PDF format. Electronic copies of the NOC and NOA in MS Word and Adobe PDF format.

Page I-1.72
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 25 Task 8. Public Review and Hearings
The City will provide a 45-day review period, during which public agencies and the public will have an opportunity to review and comment on the draft EIR. ICF will be available to attend at least three public hearings during the public review period. ICF will prepare the PowerPoint presentation, present findings, and answer specific questions (the extent to which will be discussed with the City and Project Sponsor beforehand) at any or all of the public hearings. Similar to the NOP comments, ICF will prepare a summary of all public comments received during the public review period and identify any comments on topics not already in the initial study or draft EIR.

Deliverables: PowerPoint presentation, comment summary matrix, and corresponding memo.

Task 9. Draft Responses to Comments
The purpose of this task is to prepare responses to the comments received on the draft EIR and incorporate these responses into a responses-to-comments document for City and Project Sponsor review. The administrative final EIR will include:
§ Comments received on the draft EIR, including a list of all commenters, the full comment letters, and public meeting transcripts, with individual comments marked and numbered; and § Responses to all comments.

All substantive comments for each written and oral comment will be reviewed, bracketed, and coded for a response. Prior to preparing responses, ICF will meet with staff members to review the comments and suggest strategies for preparing responses. This step is desirable to ensure that all substantive comments will be addressed and that the appropriate level of response will be prepared.

This SOW and budget assume that ICF will prepare responses for up to 200 substantive, discrete non-repeating individual comments and coordinate integrating the responses prepared by other consultants. However, the number of public comments, as well as the content, is unknown at this time. Therefore, following the close of the draft EIR public review period and receipt of all public comments, if the comments exceed the scope of the assumptions above, including City-required responses, ICF will provide a revised budget for the Project Sponsor to cover this effort.

Frequently raised comments of a substantive nature may be responded to in a master response, which allows for a comprehensive response to be presented upfront for all interested commenters.

ICF will identify and recommend possible master responses for City consideration during the initial meeting to discuss strategies for preparing responses.

Following the strategy session, ICF will prepare master responses (as appropriate) and individual responses to the bracketed and coded comments. Individual responses to each comment letter will be placed immediately after the comment letter. As necessary, responses may indicate text revisions, in addition to clarifications and explanations. All text changes stemming from the responses to the comments, as well as those suggested by City staff members, will be compiled into an errata to be included as part of the final EIR. Our budget presumes that revisions to the draft EIR will be explanatory and clarifying in nature and will not require new technical or quantitative analysis.

Deliverables: One hard copy of the administrative draft responses-to-comments document.

Electronic copies of the administrative draft responses-to-comments document in MS Word and Adobe PDF format.

Task 10. Final EIR and Certification Hearings
Following City review of the administrative draft responses-to-comments document, ICF will address all comments received and prepare an administrative draft final EIR for City and Project Sponsor review. This document will contain the revised responses to comments and a full revised draft EIR.

The revised draft EIR will show all changes made in responses to comments in underline and strikethrough. Following City and Project Sponsor review of the administrative draft final EIR, ICF will Page I-1.73
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 26 prepare the final EIR, which will be sent to decision-makers. The final EIR will consist of the draft EIR (incorporating all revisions), the responses-to-comments document, the findings (part of Task 12), and the MMRP (part of Task 12). ICF will also prepare an NOC to accompany the copies that must be sent to the State Clearinghouse. This SOW and budget assume that the City will send the required documents to the State Clearinghouse and distribute the final EIR to all other recipients.

In addition, team members will attend and participate in up to three meetings to certify the EIR. If requested by City staff members, ICF will present the conclusions of the EIR and a summary of the comments and responses.

Upon certification and approval of the final EIR, ICF will prepare the Notice of Determination (NOD) to be filed with the State Clearinghouse. This SOW assumes that the City will file the NOD with the State Clearinghouse.

Deliverables: Fifteen hard copies of the final EIR, with flash-drive appendices. Print-ready and webready electronic copies of the final EIR in MS Word and Adobe PDF format. Electronic copies of the NOC and NOD in MS Word and Adobe PDF format.

Task 11. MMRP, Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Administrative Record
As part of this task, ICF will also prepare a draft and final MMRP for the Project, as required by Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. The MMRP will be in a tabular format and include:
§ The mitigation measures to be implemented
§ The entity responsible for implementing a particular measure § The entity responsible for verifying that a particular measure has been completed § A monitoring milestone or action to mark implementation/completion of the mitigation measure
In conjunction with the City, ICF will prepare the Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, and technological benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations includes specific reasons in support of an action, based on the final EIR and other information in the record. ICF will also prepare CEQA Findings, describing each significant impact, including mitigation measures and alternatives.

ICF will also submit a full administrative record, documenting and providing backup for all information cited in the EIR. This will be submitted on a flash drive, with an accompanying matrix indexing each entry.

Deliverables: Electronic copies of the draft and final MMRP in MS Word and Adobe PDF format (if necessary). Fifteen hard copies of the final MMRP. Two electronic copies (on flash drive) of the administrative record (submitted at the draft EIR phase and the final EIR phase). Electronic copies of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings in MS Word and Adobe PDF format.

Task 12. Project Management and Meetings
The purpose of this task is to effectively manage the above tasks and maintain communication with City staff members. ICF project management will be responsible for coordination activities, will maintain quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements for document preparation, and will monitor the schedule and performance for all EIR work tasks. Project management subtasks also include maintaining internal communications among ICF staff members and subconsultants as well as City staff members and other team members through emails and frequent phone contact, along with preparation of all correspondence. The project manager will coordinate the internal staff, Project guidance, and analysis criteria.

Page I-1.74
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 27 This task also includes attending meetings to accomplish the above tasks. Team members will attend and participate in meetings on an as-needed basis. For purposes of the cost estimates, ICF has assumed 20 City staff member and/or Project Sponsor phone conference calls (excluding public hearings), in addition to a standing weekly call. These meetings are in addition to what is already assumed in the preceding tasks. Additional meetings may be appropriate during the course of this effort and will be invoiced on a time-and-materials basis.

In terms of progress reporting, ICF will prepare a brief progress report every month, documenting the key accomplishments regarding the CEQA process, schedule progress, and identification of any key issues that have arisen that may affect the EIR, budget, or schedule. ICF will also report key deliverable (e.g., administrative draft EIR) progress, both in terms of percent complete as well as costs incurred, to examine task burn rates and determine if cost progress is matching deliverable progress, as necessary.

Optional Tasks
Operational HRA
ICF will prepare a quantitative operational HRA using EPA’s AERMOD dispersion model. The HRA will be consistent with the methodologies and procedures recommended by OEHHA, CARB, and BAAQMD. The HRA will evaluate potential cancer and non-cancer health hazards for offsite receptors (i.e., within 1,000 feet) as well as onsite receptors from exposure to operational DPM and PM2.5. This SOW assumes that operational sources of DPM and PM2.5 would be limited to emergency generators and loading docks. Modeled health risks at receptor locations would be compared to thresholds recommended by BAAQMD. If needed, ICF will identify measures to reduce the level of health risk exposure at affected receptor locations.

Cost: $9,800
Water Supply Assessment
To fully analyze water supply and demand impacts under CEQA, ICF will need a WSA. Menlo Park Municipal Water provides service to the Project site. The WSA, if required, will be prepared by a consultant. Based on recent experience in Menlo Park, the City has contracted directly with a WSA consultant; the document from the consultant has been provided to ICF for incorporation into the utility sections of EIRs. However, should the City decide that the WSA consultant should be a subconsultant to ICF, ICF would team with West Yost. West Yost would evaluate water demands for buildout of the Project and prepare the WSA in accordance with the requirements of SB 610 (as adopted in the California Water Code as Sections 10910–10915). The full scope and budget for West Yost is included in Appendix D of this proposal.

Cost: $35,700
Senate Bill 7
As stated in the RFP, the applicant may decide to request a review of the Project under the provisions of SB 7 (Jobs and Economic Improvement through Environmental Leadership Act of 2021). SB 7 extends the expiration date of the previous Assembly Bill 900, the Environmental Leadership Development Project certification program.

ICF could assist with preparation of the appropriate record and analysis for the potential SB 7 environmental leadership project. Specifically, ICF could assist with the application process by preparing the GHG emissions methodology and documentation in accordance with CARB requirements. A comprehensive analysis of the Project’s GHG emissions could be performed to demonstrate the Project’s ability to meet the requirements of SB 7, which calls for no net additional emissions of GHGs, including GHG emissions from employee transportation. ICF could work with the client throughout the application process, including consultation meetings with CARB, to ensure that emissions quantification methodologies and potential mitigation measures are adequate and able to meet CARB’s requirements for review.

Page I-1.75
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 28 Prior to moving forward with this optional task, the applicant would need to demonstrate that the Project would meet a number of stringent labor and environmental requirements. If these requirements are met, the City and ICF would then need to discuss how to proceed and the level of involvement required by ICF. If the Project were to apply for SB 7, this would change the proposed scope for the GHG analysis. Because projects that qualify for streamlining under SB 7 are required to demonstrate that they would not result in any net additional emissions of GHGs, no potential significant impacts associated with GHG emissions would be anticipated from implementation of the Project. If this were to occur, the cost associated with the standard GHG CEQA analysis provided in this proposal would very likely be similar to the cost to prepare the SB 7 GHG analysis. However, this would need to be revisited once this decision is made. In addition, ICF could assist with posting all relevant Project records and information online within 3 to 5 days of receiving the material. If requested by the City, ICF could help with development and maintenance of this online record database. ICF would set up and develop a Drupal 9 database site. Site mockups, graphics, logos, and a style guide would be provided by our creative team. Content would be provided by ICF’s marketing team using GatherContent. Mapping of the PDF links to the respective files would be provided by ICF’s program team. The website content would be organized and prepared by this team at the start of the Project. Following that, ICF team members and City personnel would be required to upload Project emails, memorandums, reports, documents, and other ongoing correspondence to the site on a weekly basis. The cost for creation and maintenance of the online record would vary, based on the level of involvement the City would request of ICF. Should the applicant chose to pursue SB 7, ICF and the City would discuss the scope and budget at that time.

The below cost is provided for informational purposes as a rough estimate for this level of effort.

Cost: $15,000–$45,000
Schedule
Our preliminary Project schedule is included as Appendix E.

Cost Estimate
The cost estimate for the services described above is included as Appendix F to this proposal. The fee schedule included below provides hourly rates and classifications for all ICF personnel proposed for use on projects to be awarded under an as-needed contract for environmental (CEQA) services.

As outlined in Task 12 of our SOW, ICF will submit monthly invoices for the cost for services performed prior to the invoice date. Included will be a summary of each task, the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, and a brief description of the work.

Page I-1.76
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 29 Effective January 1, 2022
Labor Classification Per Hour
Senior Project Director $300
Project Director $270
Technical Director $235
Senior Technical Analyst $230
Managing Consultant $215
Senior Consultant III $190
Senior Consultant II $175
Senior Consultant I $160
Associate Consultant III $145
Associate Consultant II $135
Associate Consultant I $125
Assistant Consultant $115
Administrative Technician $80
Technician $75
Intern $65
Other Direct Expenses
Copy Center Services:
- Color printing (8.5 by 11 inches—11 by 17 inches)
- Black-and-white printing (8.5 by 11 inches—11 by 17 inches) $0.16 to $0.32/page
$0.08 to $0.16/page
Automobile mileage at current IRS rate $0.625/mile
Electronic field equipment $10.00/day
A general and administrative charge of 10% will be applied to all other direct costs, inclusive of subcontractor charges.

Per diem is charged at $175.00/day. A lodging surcharge will apply in high-rate areas.

Billing rates are subject to a 3% increase, effective January 1 of each year. *ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc.

Page I-1.77
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 30 Relevant Project Experience and References
Relevant Project Experience
ICF has almost a decade of experience from working on CEQA documents in Menlo Park.

Previously completed and ongoing projects in the city include the following:
§ Willow Village Project EIR
§ 1350 Adams Court Initial Study and EIR
§ Commonwealth Corporate Center Building 3 Initial Study and EIR § 1125 O’Brien Drive Initial Study and EIR
§ CSBio/1075 O’Brien Drive Initial Study and EIR
§ Facebook Campus Expansion Project EIR and EIR Addendums 1 & 2 § Commonwealth Corporate Center EIR
§ Middle Plaza Project at 500 El Camino Real
§ 1300 El Camino Real Project
§ Menlo Park Facebook Campus Project EIR Addendum
In addition to the projects listed above, ICF has extensive experience from preparing CEQA documents for similar jurisdictions throughout the San Francisco Peninsula and in the Bay Area.

Three recently completed EIRs, similar to the mixed-use development proposed under the Project, are the 751 Gateway Boulevard Project and Southline Specific Plan EIR (City of South San Francisco), Milpitas Metro Specific Plan EIR (City of Milpitas), and the Bayhill Specific Plan EIR (City of San Bruno). Descriptions and links to these EIRs are provided below. However, this is not an exhaustive list of projects completed by ICF on the Peninsula and in the Bay Area; additional project information is available upon request.

Southline Specific Plan EIR
ICF prepared the EIR for a new specific plan for a 26.5- acre industrial site within the City of South San
Francisco’s Lindenville Planning Sub-area, adjacent to
Tanforan Mall and the San Bruno BART station. The
proposed project, sponsored by Lane Partners, would
demolish all onsite uses within the specific plan area
and construct a transit-oriented R&D/office campus
with a maximum anticipated building area of
approximately 2.8 million square feet, including 3,064
underground parking spaces at various locations
throughout the specific plan area, a nine-story parking structure with approximately 2,705 spaces, a new east–west connection road (Southline Avenue, provisionally named for the purpose of the specific plan and CEQA review), supportive utilities and related infrastructure, and up to 341,800 square feet (approximately 7.8 acres) of open space.

Development would include commercial office/R&D buildings, envisioned to accommodate office and R&D tenants as well as supporting amenity uses, ranging in height from four to seven stories, subject to maximum building height limits in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan requirements for San Francisco International Airport.

The proposed project would also construct offsite transportation, circulation, and infrastructure improvements at several locations outside the specific plan area, some of which are within the city of San Bruno (offsite improvement areas), totaling approximately 6.4 acres. As a responsible agency under CEQA, San Bruno was consulted during the EIR process to ensure that improvements within San Bruno’s jurisdiction were consistent with applicable local requirements.

Page I-1.78
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 31 Much like the Bayhill Specific Plan EIR, the Southline Specific Plan EIR included a programmatic analysis of the specific plan and a project-level analysis of the first phase of development under the specific plan. The City of South San Francisco intends to use the EIR as a streamlining document for future development applications under the plan. The final EIR was released in May 2022. The project was unanimously recommended for approval by the South San Francisco Planning Commission on June 2, 2022, and is pending consideration by the City Council.

The Draft and Final EIR for the Southline Specific Plan can be accessed here:
https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=51192&row=1&dbid=0.

Milpitas Metro Specific Plan EIR
The Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (Metro Plan) planning
area covers a significant portion of the southern area
of Milpitas. The Metro Plan provides policies to guide
development in this district in terms of land use,
circulation, community design, and utilities and
services. Policy 7.5 of the original Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) requires the creation of a coordinated
development plan for the parcels at and around the
Milpitas Transit Center; the Metro Plan will continue to fulfill that requirement. The Metro Plan expands the
original 437-acre TASP area by approximately 60
acres, annexing an industrial area on the east side near Interstate 680 and approximately 13 acres on the west side along a portion of South Main Street, resulting in a Metro Plan area of 510 acres.

Buildout associated with the Metro Plan (compared to the original TASP) would result in approximately 7,000 additional dwelling units, 3,000,000 additional square feet of office space (including industrial), 300,000 additional square feet of retail space, and 700 additional hotel rooms.

The vision of the Metro Plan is to transform the area into a transit-oriented neighborhood and complete the emerging neighborhood by expanding access to neighborhood services and retail, creating new opportunities for jobs near transit, providing additional affordable and market-rate housing, enhancing multimodal connections and non-vehicle mobility throughout the area, providing a greater variety of shared public spaces, and strengthening the identity sense of place within the Metro Plan area.

ICF prepared the draft subsequent EIR for the Metro Plan, which was released in April 2022. The document was prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA to evaluate the proposed changes to the Milpitas TASP final EIR, certified in 2008. The subsequent EIR analyzed the Metro Plan, an update to the original TASP. ICF is in the process of preparing the final subsequent EIR.

The draft subsequent EIR for the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan can be accessed here:
https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Metro-Plan-Draft-SEIR_2022-April-withAppendix-A-F.pdf.

Page I-1.79
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 32 Bayhill Specific Plan EIR
ICF prepared the EIR for a new specific plan
for the 73-acre Bayhill Office Park, which is
San Bruno’s largest employment cluster,
employing about one-third of the 15,000
employees in the city, including YouTube,
Walmart.com, Kaiser Permanente, Oracle,
and others. The office park currently contains
about 1.5 million square feet of office space.

The project site, which abuts San Bruno’s
adopted Transit Corridors Specific Plan area,
also includes the adjacent 10-acre Bayhill Shopping Center. The specific plan would allow for the development of up to 2.46 million net new square feet of office uses on the project site. The specific plan would also establish housing and mixed-use overlay zones on a total of 20.5 acres in the southern portion of the project site that would allow for the development of up to 573 multi-family residential units. The project would accommodate the anticipated expansion of YouTube by adding additional office square footage while also creating a pedestrian-friendly and cohesive mixed-use community that enhances the area’s identity and image and provides greater linkages to nearby public transportation opportunities. The project was approved and the EIR was certified by unanimous vote by the San Bruno City Council in October 2021.

The Bayhill Specific Plan EIR included a programmatic analysis of specific plan buildout and a project-level analysis of the first phase of YouTube’s planned expansion (Phase I), which includes two new office buildings totaling 440,000 square feet. The specific plan allows mostly new office development but also establishes a residential overlay zone on the site. To allow for flexibility and account for variations in the mix of land uses that could ultimately be developed under the specific plan, the program analysis in the EIR evaluates “worst-case” buildout scenarios. The Phase I development is evaluated at a project level, relying on the plan analysis where possible and augmenting that analysis with site-specific and quantitative analysis where required. ICF worked closely with San Bruno’s planning consultant, along with technical consultants, including Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), Bottomley Design & Planning, West Yost, and Woodard & Curran, among others, to develop the specific plan along with the EIR, ensuring both documents are integrated and consistent. Through this effort, ICF consulted on policy issues associated with the specific plan and developed a robust template and approach for the EIR’s program/project analysis.

The draft and final EIR for the Bayhill Specific Plan can be accessed here:
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/618/Bayhill-Specific-Plan.

Page I-1.80
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 33 References
Provided below are references regarding four recent projects of a similar size from public agencies for which ICF has provided environmental consulting services.

Reference #1
Project Southline Specific Plan EIR and 751 Gateway Boulevard Project EIR Client City of South San Francisco
Client Unit Economic and Community Development Department Client Contact Name and Title Adena Friedman, Senior Planner Client Contact Phone (650) 877-8535
Client Contact Email [email protected]
Client Address 315 Maple Street, South San Francisco, CA 94080 Reference #2
Project Milpitas Metro Specific Plan EIR
Client City of Milpitas
Client Unit Planning
Client Contact Name and Title Ned Thomas, AICP, Planning Director Client Contact Phone (408) 586-3273
Client Contact Email [email protected]
Client Address 455 East Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas CA 95035 Reference #3
Project Bayhill Specific Plan EIR
Client City of San Bruno
Client Unit Community and Economic Development Department, Planning Division Client Contact Name and Title Matt Neuebaumer, Associate Planner Client Contact Phone (650) 616-7042
Client Contact Email [email protected]
Client Address 567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, CA 94066
Reference #4
Projects 220 Park Road IS/MND, 1766 El Camino Real IS/MND and Categorical Exemption, 1814–1820 Ogden Drive Initial Study
Client City of Burlingame
Client Unit Community Development Department – Planning Division Client Contact Name and Title Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner Client Contact Phone 650-558-7252
Client Contact Email [email protected]
Client Address 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
Page I-1.81
Parkline Project Environmental Consultant Services July 29, 2022 Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this proposal. 34 Other Relevant Information/Disclosures
To the best of our knowledge and understanding, ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc., is not aware of findings against the firm and does not have judgments against it.

ICF maintains a robust insurance program, providing appropriate coverage limits for the professional services we provide and a company of our size. Some of the main coverages are outlined below:
(i) Commercial general liability and property (CHUBB), covering bodily injury and property damage, with minimum limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate, including premises liability, products/completed operations, and contractual liability coverage; (ii) Business automobile liability (CHUBB), covering owned, hired, and non-owned vehicles, with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single-limit (bodily injury and property damage);
(iii) Workers compensation (CHUBB), as required by all applicable statutory laws and employer’s liability coverage, with a limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000); (iv) Umbrella liability (CHUBB) coverage, with minimum limits of five million dollars ($5,000,000) each occurrence/aggregate, sitting excess of the general liability, business auto liability, and employer’s liability programs;
(v) Professional liability/cyber (CNA) coverage, with minimum limits of five million dollars ($5,000,000) per claim with respect to negligent acts, errors, or omissions in connection with services to be provided;
(vi) Cyber liability coverage with minimum limits of five million dollars ($5,000,000) per claim and sufficiently broad to respond to claims, including, but not limited to, infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, alteration of electronic information, extortion, and network security; (vii) Crime coverage (ZURICH), with limits not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000) per claim; and
(viii) Contractors pollution liability (IRONSHORE), with limits not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence.

Page I-1.82
Appendices
Page I-1.83
Page I-1.84
Appendix A
Resumes
Page I-1.85
Page I-1.86
Heidi Mekkelson
Managing Director/Principal
Ms. Mekkelson is a managing director/principal with ICF’s Environment and Planning Division. She has over 18 years of experience in the preparation and management of environmental analysis documentation pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Ms. Mekkelson has worked on documents for large residential projects; mixed-use, urban infill developments; commercial/retail projects; major league sports/entertainment venues; adaptive reuse projects; transportation projects; and affordable housing. She has also prepared numerous programmatic analyses for general plans, specific plans, and habitat conservation plans. She is skilled at preparing CEQA streamlining documents and has conducted numerous trainings on the topic. Ms. Mekkelson focuses her work on the Bay Area and Southern California, and she has extensive experience managing private development projects in the cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Project Experience
Southline Specific Plan EIR—City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department, South San Francisco, California, 03/2020 – present
Project Manager. Ms. Mekkelson is serving as project manager to prepare an EIR for a new Specific Plan that would redevelop a 26.5- acre industrial site in the City of South San Francisco adjacent to the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station with a transitoriented office/research and development (R&D) campus with a maximum anticipated building area of 2.8 million square feet. New development would include commercial buildings, a four-story supportive amenities building, approximately 3,000 underground parking spaces at various locations throughout the project site, a nine-story parking structure, a new east-west connection road (Southline Avenue), supportive utilities and related infrastructure, and approximately 300,000 square feet of open space. The City intends to use the EIR as a streamlining document for development applications under the Specific Plan.

Milpitas Metro Specific Plan—City of Milpitas, Milpitas, California
Project Director. Ms. Mekkelson is serving as the project director for the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan, and is currently working on the subsequent EIR, which updates the Specific Plan to allow for the development of additional growth around the recently completed Milpitas BART Station. Ms. Mekkelson has been working 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.
1766 El Camino Real Project Class 32 Infill Exemption—City of Burlingame Planning Division, Burlingame, California, 01/2022 – 06/2022
Project Director. Ms. Mekkelson served as project director for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption document for a project that would Years of Experience
Professional start date: 06/2003
ICF start date: 02/2016
Education
BS, Environmental Studies/
Biology, University of Southern
California, 2003
MSL, Water and Environmental
Law, University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law,
expected completion 2024
Professional Affiliations
Association of Environmental
Professionals
San Francisco Planning and
Urban Research Association
Page I-1.87
demolish an existing two-story mixed-use building that is currently vacant, and construct a new eightstory, multiunit residential building with 311 residential units, 319 vehicle spaces, 172 bicycle parking spaces, and 14,132 sf of leasing and amenity space, as well as 25,892 sf of open space. ICF previously prepared an IS/MND for a different project at the same location, and to the extent possible, the analysis for this project relied on and/or updated the previous analysis that was included as part of the IS/MND where relevant to the currently proposed project.
751 Gateway Boulevard EIR—City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department, South San Francisco, California, 11/2019 – 02/2021 Project Director. Ms. Mekkelson served as project director to prepare an EIR for the 751 Gateway Boulevard project in the City of South San Francisco. The project would involve the redevelopment of an approximately 7.4-acre, irregularly shaped site within the city’s Gateway Specific Plan planning area with a research and development (R&D) facility and office building. The project site is currently occupied by an existing 6-story, approximately 176,235-square foot (sf) office building at 701 Gateway Boulevard and a surface parking lot containing approximately 558 parking spaces. The proposed project would require entitlements to enable development of the project site, including, but not limited to, design review, precise plan approval, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan approval, and a Conditional Use Permit required for a parking reduction.

Bayhill Specific Plan EIR and Streamlined CEQA Documents—City of San Bruno Planning Department, San Bruno, California, 07/2017 – present
Project Manager. Ms. Mekkelson served as project manager to prepare an EIR for a new Specific Plan for the 73-acre Bayhill Office Park, which is San Bruno’s largest employment cluster, employing about one-third of the 15,000 employees in the City, including You-Tube, Walmart.com, Kaiser Permanente, Oracle, and others. The office park currently contains about 1.5 million square feet of office space. The project site, which abuts the City’s adopted Transit Corridors Specific Plan area, also includes the adjacent 10-acre Bayhill Shopping Center. The Specific Plan would allow for the development of up to

2.46 million net new square feet of office uses on the Project Site. The Specific Plan would also establish housing and mixed-use overlay zones on a total of 20.5 acres in the southern portion of the Project Site that would allow for the development of up to 573 multi-family residential units. The project would accommodate the anticipated expansion of YouTube by adding additional office square footage while also creating a pedestrian-friendly and cohesive mixed-use community that enhances the area’s identity and image and provides greater linkages to nearby public transportation opportunities. The project was approved and the EIR was certified by unanimous vote by the San Bruno City Council in October 2021.

The EIR now serves as a streamlining document for development applications under the Specific Plan.

With the EIR complete, ICF provides assistance to the City in reviewing development applications for consistency with the Specific Plan, identifying the appropriate level of CEQA review, and preparing streamlined analyses.

Skyline College Residential Project Addendum— City of San Bruno Planning Department, San Bruno, California, 06/2017 – 03/2018
Project Manager. Ms. Mekkelson served as project manager for the preparation of an EIR Addendum for a 71-unit residential project on an 8-acre site adjacent to the San Mateo County Community College District’s (SMCCD) Skyline College Campus. The project was a component of the campus master plan for Skyline College and was analyzed in a 2016 Program EIR (also prepared by ICF) for SMCCD’s updated campus master plan for its three community college campuses. The Addendum examined the revised residential project in the context of the 2016 Program EIR focusing on changes to environmental impacts would result from the revisions to the project. ICF worked closely with SMCCD (the lead agency for the campus master plan) and the City of San Bruno (the lead agency for the residential project) to prepare the Addendum. The project was approved by the San Bruno City Council in 2018.

Page I-1.88
Jessica Viramontes
Senior Environmental Planner
Ms. Viramontes is a project manager with ICF’s environment and planning division. She has 16 years of experience in environmental planning and project management. She is skilled in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process and has worked with both municipal and private sector clients throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, including the San Francisco Planning Department, Oakland Planning and Building Department, and Contra Costa County Public Works Department. She has managed infill development projects and transportation projects of varying sizes. As a project manager, she serves as the day-to-day point of contact and ensures deliverables are on time, within budget, and meet or exceed scope requirements.

Project Experience
Middle Plaza at 500 El Camino Real Infill EIR—City of Menlo Park, California, 06/2016 – 12/2017
Project Manager for CEQA Review. Ms. Viramontes oversaw the preparation of the Infill Checklist and EIR as well as coordinating with the team and the City. Stanford University is proposing to redevelop six parcels of land along the east side of El Camino Real into a mixed-use development. The six new buildings at the project site would include approximately 305,000 square feet of residential space (215 housing units); 144,000 square feet of non-medical office space; and 10,000 square feet of ground floor retail/restaurant space. Major environmental issues include transportation, noise, and air quality.

Facebook Menlo Park Campus Expansion EIR and EIR
Addendum—City of Menlo Park, California, 05/2015 – 10/2017 Deputy Project Manager for the EIR and Project Manager for the EIR Addendum. Ms. Viramontes was on the management team for both the EIR and the EIR Addendum for the Facebook Campus Expansion Project, which includes the demolition of the existing buildings at the site and the construction of two new office buildings (Buildings 21 and 22), encompassing approximately 985,720 sf (a net increase of approximately 149,880 sf at the Project site). The project would be organized around a 5-acre publicly accessible green space and a bicycle/pedestrian corridor that would run through the middle of the site. The project would also include construction of a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Bayfront Expressway to allow for access to the Bay Trail and Bedwell Bayfront Park from the project site and the Belle Haven neighborhood. Major environmental issues include transportation and greenhouse gas emissions.
555 W. Middlefield Road & 777 W. Middlefield Road EIRs—City of Mountain View, California, 06/2017 – 05/2022
Project Manager. Ms. Viramontes served as the day-to-day contact for the City, overseeing the internal section authors, and coordinating with the subconsultants. The 555 W. Middlefield Project would retain the existing, 402 market rate apartment units and construct 341 new apartment units in site locations currently in use as landscape open area and surface parking lots for the existing complex. The project would be phased to maintain onsite parking as development occurs. The 777 W. Middlefield Project would demolish the entire, existing 208 market-rate apartment units and construct 711 new apartment units (including 144 affordable units). The environmental review for the 555 W. Middlefield Project was completed in 2022 and the environmental review for the 777 W. Middlefield Project was completed in 2019. Major environmental issues include transportation, noise, and air quality.

Years of Experience
Professional start date: 12/2006
ICF start date: 10/2014
Education
MS, Environmental Management,
University of San Francisco, 2011
BS, Environmental Management and
Protection, California Polytechnic
University San Luis Obispo, 2006
BA, English Literature, California
Polytechnic University San Luis
Obispo, 2006
Professional Memberships
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP)
Page I-1.89
The Village at San Antonio – Phase II Project, Addendum to the San Antonio Precise Plan EIR for Precise Plan Amendments—City of Mountain View, California, 12/2020 – Present Project Manager. Ms. Viramontes served as the day-to-day contact for the City, overseeing the internal section authors, and coordinating with the subconsultants. The Village at San Antonio – Phase II Project proposes the demolition of two single-story commercial buildings and associated surface parking, and the construction of a commercial building with public open spaces and below-grade parking garage. The project would construct a seven-story building with ground-floor retail and six levels of office uses above, along with three levels of subterranean parking that would connect to the adjacent underground parking.

Major environmental issues include transportation, noise, and air quality.

San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR)—San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA, 07/2020 – Present Project Manager. Ms. Viramontes currently serves as project manager for the San Francisco Housing Element Update 2022 EIR. The EIR will provide a programmatic analysis of the indirect impacts that could result from adoption and implementation of the San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Update, which revises the adopted 2014 Housing Element of the General Plan. The proposed action is evaluating the objective of producing an average of approximately 5,000 housing units per year between 2020 and 2050. Major environmental issues include transportation, cultural resources, air quality, noise, aesthetics, and population and housing.

Station East Mixed Use Project EIR – Integral, Union City, California, 06/2019 – 01/2022 Project Manager for CEQA Review. Ms. Viramontes served as the day-to-day contact for the City and oversaw the preparation of the EIR. The project proposes the demolition of the buildings and surface parking lots and development of up to approximately 1.8 million sf, including up to 974 new residential units (apartments, condominiums, and townhome-style condominiums, referred to in this report as townhomes) and approximately 30,800 sf of commercial space. Three community parks, one tot lot, and one outdoor amphitheater would be located throughout the project site. The project site is part of the Decoto Industrial Park Study Area (DIPSA) Specific Plan area. Major environmental issues include transportation and hazardous materials.

Mission Bay School EIR—San Francisco Unified School District, 03/2020-06/2022 Project Manager. Ms. Viramontes served as project manager to prepare a focused EIR and initial study for the construction of a multi-story, up to 105,700-square-foot school, which would include a preschool, transitional kindergarten, kindergarten-through-fifth grade elementary school, linked learning hub, professional learning space, outdoor learning area, outdoor play area, and paved surface parking lot. Ms.

Viramontes was responsible for QA/QC and coordination with ICF’s internal technical specialist team. 751 Gateway EIR—City of South San Francisco, California, 11/2019 – 01/2021 Project Manager. Ms. Viramontes served as the day-to-day contact for the City, overseeing the internal section authors, and coordinating with the subconsultants. The proposed building would be constructed on the site of an existing surface parking lot. The proposed project involves the construction of a 148-foottall, seven-story building with approximately 208,800 sf of usable space (60 percent R&D uses, and 40 percent office uses). The existing building at 701 Gateway Boulevard would remain. Major environmental issues include transportation (vehicle miles traveled) and air quality. 3700 California Street Project EIR—TMG Partners, San Francisco, CA, 03/2018 – 04/2020 Deputy Project Manager. Ms. Viramontes was part of the project management team and was responsible for QA/QC and coordination with ICF’s internal technical specialist team for an EIR related to a redevelopment project on the current site of the California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC). The project proposes the demolition of five existing hospital buildings on the project site, the renovation and adaptive reuse of two existing buildings, and the construction of 31 new residential buildings (273 dwelling units) and accessory amenity spaces. The proposed project would be constructed on three blocks, with residential buildings ranging from three to seven stories and situated above below-grade parking podiums on each block.

Page I-1.90
Kirsten Chapman, BA
Ms. Chapman has over 15 years of experience in project
management/coordination and environmental planning. She is skilled in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and has worked with municipal and federal clients, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. Ms. Chapman has focused on large, mixed-use infill development projects, tech campuses, office developments, and housing projects. She is responsible for writing sections for CEQA documents such as initial studies (ISs), mitigated negative declarations (MNDs), draft environmental impact reports (EIRs), final EIRs, and statements of overriding considerations. Ms. Chapman leads multidisciplinary teams through project management and conducts environmental analysis, prepares technical reports, performs quality control (QC)/quality assurance (QA), and edits documents for production. Project management responsibilities include client and internal team coordination, development of the scope of work and budget, project initiation tasks, subconsultant communication, preparation of progress reports, and
contracting/billing. She has helped manage key projects such as the Willow Village Master Plan EIR, the Facebook Campus Expansion EIR, the City Place Santa Clara EIR, the Seawall Lot 337/Pier 48 (Mission Rock) Mixed-Use EIR, and the Burlingame Point EIR.

Project Experience
Willow Village Master Plan EIR—City of Menlo Park, CA, 01/2018 – Present
Senior Advisor/Former Project Manager. Ms. Chapman conducts project management tasks such as coordinating with the client and subconsultants, tracking billing and invoices, overseeing staff, reviewing and producing documents, and leading meetings and conference calls. The project sponsor, on behalf of Meta/Facebook, Inc., is proposing to redevelop an existing, approximately 59-acre industrial site as a multiphase, mixed-use development. The Willow Village Master Plan project would demolish existing onsite buildings and construct new buildings within a residential/shopping district, town square district, and campus district. The project would increase the area for nonresidential uses (i.e., office space and nonoffice commercial/retail) by approximately 1 million square feet (sq. ft.), for a total of approximately 2 million sq. ft. of nonresidential uses. The proposed project would also include multifamily housing units, a hotel, indoor space dedicated for community facilities/uses, park buildings/improvements, open space, and a bicycle/pedestrian tunnel.
1350 Adams Court-Lot 3 Project EIR—City of Menlo Park
Senior Advisor/Former Project Manager. Overseeing the
preparation of the Initial Study and EIR, which tiers off of the Menlo Park General Plan EIR (ConnectMenlo). Writing section, conducting senior review, and coordinating subconsultants. The Project Sponsor is proposing to construct an approximately 260,400 gross-squarefoot (gsf) building for life science (research and development) uses.

Parking for the new building would be provided in both podium-level and above-grade garages that would be integrated into the building.

Years of Experience
Professional start date: 02/2007
ICF start date: 01/2013
Education
BA, Environmental
Studies/Economics, University
of California, Santa Cruz, 2007
BA, Politics, with honors,
University of California, Santa
Cruz, 2007
Page I-1.91
The Initial Study and EIR discloses relevant impacts and mitigation measures covered in the ConnectMenlo EIR and discusses whether the Project is within the parameters of the ConnectMenlo EIR.

Commonwealth Building 3 Project EIR—City of Menlo Park
Senior Advisor/Former Project Manager. Overseeing the preparation of the Initial Study and EIR, which tiers off of the Menlo Park General Plan EIR (ConnectMenlo). Writing section, conducting senior review, and coordinating subconsultants. The Sobrato Organization (Project Sponsor) is proposing to construct an approximately 249,500-gross-square-foot (gsf) office building and an approximately 349,100 gsf parking structure as part of the Commonwealth: Building 3 Project (Project). The Project site is the existing Commonwealth Corporate Center property, which includes the Commonwealth Site at 162 and 164 Jefferson Drive and the Jefferson Site (also at 164 Jefferson Drive). Two buildings (Buildings 1 and 2), currently occupied by Facebook, were constructed at the Project site as part of the Commonwealth Corporate Center Project. The Project would add a four-story office building (Building 3) and a five-story parking structure with 1,061 parking spaces to the Project site.

Facebook Campus Expansion Project EIR—City of Menlo Park Served as Project Manager. Conducted project management tasks such as coordination with the client and subconsultants, tracked billing and invoices, oversaw staff, reviewed and produced the documents, and lead meetings and conference calls. The proposed Facebook Campus Expansion Project included the demolition of the existing buildings at the site and the construction of two new office buildings (Buildings 21 and 22), encompassing approximately 985,720 sf (a net increase of approximately 149,880 sf at the Project site). The Project would be organized around a 5-acre publicly accessible green space and a bicycle/pedestrian corridor that would run through the middle of the site. The Project would also include construction of a new bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Bayfront Expressway to allow for access to the Bay Trail and Bedwell Bayfront Park from the Project site and the Belle Haven neighborhood. 1300 El Camino Real Project Infill Checklist and Infill EIR—City of Menlo Park Served as Deputy Project Manager. The Project’s development parameters are consistent with the development anticipated by the El Camino Real/Downtown Specific Plan. Therefore, CEQA analysis for this Project demonstrates consistency with SB 226, CEQA Streamlining for Infill Projects. Kirsten led the ICF team in preparing an Infill Environmental Checklist, followed by a focused Infill EIR. The Project would demolish the existing structures and construct approximately 420,000 sf of mixed uses. In total, the Project would include three mixed-use buildings up to four stories in height, a surface parking lot, an underground parking garage, onsite linkages, landscaping, and a privately-owned, publicly accessible park. The uses at the Project site would include a range of approximately: 200,000 sf of non-medical office space in two buildings; 200,000 sf of residential space (up to 202 housing units) in one building; and 30,000 sf of community-serving space.

SRI International Campus Modernization Project EIR—City of Menlo Park Served as Deputy Project Manager. Conducted project management tasks such as progress reports, scope/budget development, contract preparation and tracking, client and internal coordination, and working with subconsultants. SRI International is proposing to modernize its Campus with phased development over the next 25 years, amend the existing employee cap, and modify other land use regulations governing the site.

Commonwealth Corporate Center Project EIR—City of Menlo Park Served as Deputy Project Manager. Conducted project management tasks such as progress reports, scope/budget development, contract preparation and tracking, client and internal coordination, and working with subconsultants. The project, which requires an EIR, involves two four-story office buildings totaling 237,000 sf of office, biotech, and R&D uses.

Page I-1.92
Devan Atteberry, BS
Senior Environmental Planner
Devan Atteberry is an environmental planner and graduate from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo with a B.S. in Environmental Management and Protection, and a minor in Biology. She has four years of experience and knowledge conducting environmental analyses in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). She has also worked on sections for various forms of environmental documentation, including environmental impact reports (EIRs), environmental impact statements (EISs), initial studies and mitigated negative declarations (IS/MNDs), categorical exemptions (CEs), as well as addendums and community plan exemptions (CPEs). Devan has worked on a wide range of projects, including development, transportation, and habitat conservation plans. She focuses her work on the Bay Area and has extensive experience working on projects within the City of Menlo Park, and surrounding municipalities.

Project Experience
Lot 3 North: 1350 Adams Court Project IS/MND and EIR—City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park, CA, 08/2018-Ongoing
Project Manager and Section Author. Serving as project manager, as of 01/2022, and section author for a project that would redevelop a portion of the existing Menlo Park Labs Campus. The project site currently consists of both an undeveloped vacant area on the northern portion at 1350 Adams Court (referred to as Lot 3 North) and an existing building on the southern portion at 1305 O’Brien Drive. The project would construct an approximately 255,000 gsf, five-story life sciences building on Lot 3 North with parking. The existing building at 1305 O’Brien Drive, and the campus property outside of the project site would remain in its existing condition. ICF prepared an Initial Study and a focused draft EIR. Devan drafted the energy, waterline analysis, other CEQA, and alternatives sections of the draft EIR, and is currently working on the final EIR.

Commonwealth: Building 3 Project IS/MND—City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park, California, 10/2018- Ongoing
Deputy Project Manager and Section Author. The project
proposes to construct an approximately 249,500-gross-square-foot (gsf) office building and an approximately 404,000 gsf parking structure. The project would add a four-story office building, and a five-story parking structure with 1,340 parking spaces. Devan authored several sections of the initial study, as well as the Draft EIR, including the executive summary, project description, and other CEQA sections.

Southline Specific Plan EIR—City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco, California, 03/2020- ongoing
Deputy Project Manager and Section Author. Serving as deputy project manager and section author to prepare an EIR for a new Specific Plan for the 26-acre Southline Specific Plan Area. The proposed project would demolish all existing industrial uses on-site and construct seven office buildings, an amenities building, Years of Experience
Professional start date: 08/2018
ICF start date: 08/2018
Education
BS, Environmental Management
and Protection, California
Polytechnic State University, San
Luis Obispo, 2018
Professional Affiliations
Association of Environmental
Professionals (AEP), Member,
2018-Present
Page I-1.93
underground parking throughout the site, a parking structure, a new road connection, and approximately 369,000-square feet of open space. Development of the proposed project would be phased, including a Phase I. In total, the project is anticipated to have a maximum building area of 2.8 million-square feet.

Devan drafted the energy, wildfire, public services, and alternatives sections, and is currently working on the final EIR.

City of San Bruno Environmental Impact Report for the Bayhill Specific Plan—City of San Bruno, CA, 2017 – 2021
Deputy Project Manager/Section Author. Served as Deputy Project Manager for the environmental assessment of the Bayhill Specific Plan for the City of San Bruno. The Project included the Bayhill Specific Plan, a regulatory document for the 92.2-acre Project Site, and the construction of 440,000 square feet of new office space for YouTube's corporate office (Phase I Development). The Specific Plan will facilitate integrated development within the Project Site, including the Phase I Development, and allow for commercial/retail, office, residential, hotel, civic, and open space uses. The Specific Plan also established a housing and mixed-use overlay zones on a total of 20.5 acres in the southern portion of the Project Site that would allow for the development of up to 573 multi-family residential units. Devan drafted the energy section of the EIR, as well as edited and revised other sections of the EIR.

Station East Residential/Mixed Use Project EIR—City of Union City, Union City, CA, 01/2019- 04/2021
Project Coordinator and Section Author. Served as project coordinator and section author for the EIR for the Station East Residential/Mixed Use Project in the City of Union City. The project is an infill project involving the redevelopment of approximately 24-acres of existing industrial and agricultural uses. The project proposes to demolish the existing buildings and develop approximately 45,000 – square feet of commercial space, up to 1,150 new residential apartments, parking structures, and two linear parks.

Devan drafted the project description, population and housing, public services, and recreation sections.

San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Update EIR—City of San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA, 02/2021- Present
Section Author. The proposed project would update the 2014 housing element of the San Francisco General Plan, and establish goals, policies, and actions to address the existing and projected housing needs of the city of San Francisco. The overarching goal of the housing element update is to add 150,000 housing units between 2020 and 2050, or approximately 5,000 new housing units per year, with at least one-third of the housing units being permanently allocated for low- and moderate-income families. Devan drafted the land use, energy, and shadow sections of the Draft EIR. 1489 West Sunset Boulevard Project—City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, 09/2020- Ongoing
Project Manager and Section Author. Serving as project manager and section author for the preparation of a CE for the demolition of a parking lot and two commercial buildings, retaining two buildings, and constructing a residential and commercial mixed-use building with two subterranean parking levels, and five above-ground residential levels. The project would include a mixed-use building with 136 residential units, 8,000 square feet of restaurant space, 985 square feet of outdoor eating areas, a 930 square foot lobby and mailroom, and 2,050 square feet of residential amenity space. Devan is managing the scope, schedule, and budget, and has drafted the project description and multiple sections within the CE document.
555 West Middlefield EIR—City of Mountain View, Mountain View, CA, 10/2018- 10/2021 Deputy Project Manager and Section Author. Served as deputy project manager and section author for the 555 West Middlefield Project in the City of Mountain View. The proposed project is an infill project involving the demolition of most of the existing surface parking areas and redevelopment of approximately

14.5-acres. The project is proposing a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to allow the retention of 402 existing residential units, and the development of up to 334 new multi-family residential units in two buildings, as well as three subterranean garages. Devan drafted the energy, land use, and population and housing sections, along with the response to comments on the Final EIR.

Page I-1.94
Laura Yoon, MS
Managing Director
Ms. Yoon is an air quality and climate change managing director with experience in preparing criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories for both public and private sector projects. She focuses on technical modeling and report preparation in support of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and recent GHG legislation. Laura’s expertise includes air quality impact studies; conformity analyses; dispersion modeling and health risk assessments; GHG inventories; and climate action plan (CAP) development. She has served as the technical lead and project manager for numerous air quality and climate change analyses throughout California. Prior project work provides a solid background for understanding and evaluating air quality, climate change, and energy impacts from projects.

Project Experience
Bayhill Specific Plan EIR—City of San Bruno, San Bruno, CA, 05/2018 – 12/2021
Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist. Laura oversaw the air quality and climate change chapters for the EIR. The Bayhill Specific Plan will outline a cohesive, long-term, community driven vision for this key district, that is home to the largest cluster of offices in San Bruno, including headquarters of YouTube, as well as several other uses. Construction and operational emissions were quantified using CalEEMod, EMFAC, the EPA’s AP 4.2, and other accepted tools. A detailed health risk assessment was also prepared to analyze potential receptor exposure to diesel emissions generated during construction of the new YouTube headquarters.

Belmont General Plan and Specific Plan EIR—City of Belmont, CA, 01/2017 – 04/2019
Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist. Laura prepared the air quality and climate change changes for the City of Belmont’s 2035 General Plan Update and Belmont Village Specific Plan.

Construction emissions from buildout of both the General Plan and Specific Plan were estimated using CalEEMod. Air quality and GHG impacts from motor vehicles operating within the General Plan and Specific Plan areas were evaluated using the CT-EMFAC2014 model whereas area and energy emissions were estimated using
CalEEMod. Carbon monoxide hot-spots from increased traffic were modeled using the CALINE4 dispersion model. The analysis also evaluated health risks from receptor exposure to asbestos containing material and particulate matter. GHG emissions from buildout of the General Plan were evaluated by examining consistency of the plan, which includes the CAP, with the recommendations of the California Air Resources Board for municipalities to support Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 32, and Executive Order S-3-05 reduction targets.

City Place Santa Clara EIR—RELATESC, Santa Clara, CA,
03/2013 – 04/2017
Air quality and climate change specialist. The project is a 240 acre multiphased, mixed-use City neighborhood including up to 9.16 million gross square feet of office buildings, retail and entertainment Years of Experience
Professional start date: 06/2009
ICF start date: 06/2009
Education
MS, Environmental Management,
University of San Francisco, 2013
BA (summa cum laude),
Environmental Studies (minor in
Resource Management),
University of Washington, 2009
Certifications/Registrations
None.

Professional Affiliations
Association of Environmental
Professionals (2010 – Present)
Association of Women in Water,
Energy, and Environment (2020 –
2021)
Page I-1.95
facilities, residential units, and hotel rooms, and would also include surface and structured parking facilities. Laura helped prepare the health risk assessment for the project and conducted emissions modeling. She evaluated air quality impacts using CalEEMod, EMFAC, marine emission factors from the California Air Resources Board, the EPA’s AP 4.2, and other resources. She prepared a detailed health risk assessment using AERMOD and HARP.

San Francisco Giants Mission Rock Seawall Lot 337 Pier 48 EIR—Seawall Lot 37 Associates LLC, San Francisco, CA, 6/2013 – 2/2016
Air quality and climate change specialist. Laura served as technical analyst for CEQA review, conducting the air quality analysis, HRA, and climate change analysis. Seawall Lot 337, LLC proposes a mixed-use, multiphase waterfront development of Seawall Lot 337, rehabilitation/reuse of Pier 48, and construction of associated open spaces, public access areas, assembly areas, and an internal grid of new streets and utilities. In total, the project would include approximately 3.6 million gross square feet of flexible development including residential, commercial, and retail uses. ICF led a multidisciplinary team to evaluate the changes to the project site. Air quality impacts were evaluated using CalEEMod, EMFAC, marine emission factors from the California Air Resources Board, the EPA’s AP 4.2, and other resources.

A detailed health risk assessment was prepared using AERMOD and HARP.

Folsom Center for Health Master Plan—UC Davis Health, Sacramento, California, 5/2021 – ongoing
Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist. Through the Master Services Agreement with UC Davis Health, Laura is leading the air quality and GHG analyst for this program and project-level EIR. The project includes include a 110,000-sf medical office building, a 114,000-sf ambulatory surgery center, an 80,000-sf hotel, an 86,000-sf micro-hospital, a Central Utility Plant (CUP), and approximately 1,357 parking stalls. Laura is quantifying construction and operational emissions using CalEEMod and other accepted models. Heath risks to existing and planned future development are being analyzed using AERMOD. The EIR will evaluate project consistency with the City of Folsom’s CAP, UC Davis’ Sustainability Policy and Carbon Neutrality Initiative, and State climate change goals.

Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures and California Emissions Estimator Model—Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, California, 2020 – 2022 Project manager. Laura lead a team of ICF subject matter experts and three subconsultants to incorporate climate adaptation and environmental justice into the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures handbook and to expand the GHG reduction measures to reflect the latest methodologies and best practices. Concurrently, ICF transformed CalEEMod into a web-based platform that integrated the updated Handbook to help mainstream climate adaptation and public health planning into project-level analysis.

Awards for Managed Projects
Climate Change Business Journal Achievement Award (2021). Advancing Best Practices Award for Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers (“Handbook”). Laura severed as the project manager and lead analyst for the project.

American Planning Association, Sacramento Valley Section (2022). Award of Merit – Best Practices for the “Handbook”.

American Planning Association (2015). Award of Merit – Comprehensive Plan, Large Jurisdiction, for the Los Angeles County General Plan Update. Laura severed as the project manager and lead analyst for the Climate Action Plan, which was part of the General Plan Update.

Page I-1.96
Cory Matsui, BA
Manager—Air Quality and Climate Change
Mr. Matsui is a manager and senior air quality, climate change, and noise specialist, with experience in environmental impact analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. In his 11 years of experience in the field of environmental science, Mr. Matsui has analyzed a diverse suite of projects, including rail and roadway projects, mixed-use development projects, and infrastructure projects. He is a talented writer and excels at drafting compelling narratives. His skill set also includes emissions modeling, quantitative Excel-based assessments, report preparation, and noise monitoring surveys. Mr. Matsui’s expertise includes point-, area-, and mobile-source air quality impact studies; greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory and reduction plan development; air quality conformity analyses; and air quality dispersion modeling. He has experience with standard air quality modeling software including EMFAC, AERMOD, CALRoads, and CALEEMOD, and with the
Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model and Traffic Noise Model, and standard noise protocols.

Project Experience
City of San Francisco Housing Element Update—San Francisco, CA, 03/2020 – Present
Lead Analyst. Mr. Matsui serves as lead analyst for the analysis of environmental impacts in the air quality and GHG resource areas resulting from the update of the city’s Housing Element. He has used complex air quality modeling results and distilled them into a streamlined narrative, presenting the impacts of the Housing Element update in a reader-friendly and conclusive manner.

Updates to the Quantifying GHG Mitigation Measures—
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Sacramento, CA, 08/2020 – Present
Emissions Reduction Analyst. Mr. Matsui serves as lead analyst in the effort to update the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA’s) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures handbook and expand the GHG reduction measures to reflect latest methodologies and best practices. He leads and guides other analysts to perform a technically sound update of one of the most respected GHG reduction measure guidance documents.

Facebook Constitution Campus Expansion EIR and Addendum, Menlo Park, California
Mr. Matsui served as a technical expert for the air quality and noise analyses for the Facebook Constitution Campus Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report and EIR addendum. He conducted long-term and short-term noise measurements at the existing campus facility to evaluate the ambient noise levels, and quantified construction- and operational-related criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions and evaluated the project’s impact with respect to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s guidelines.

Years of Experience
Professional start date: 01/2011
ICF start date: 01/2011
Education
BA, Atmospheric Science,
University of California Berkeley,
2009
Page I-1.97
One Vassar Project Community Plan Exemption, San Francisco, CA, 02/2019 – 02/2020 Lead Analyst and Senior Reviewer. Mr. Matsui served as lead analyst and author of the noise technical report and as senior reviewer of the air quality technical report for a mixed-used office building. He led a noise monitoring survey and conducted a comprehensive noise analysis of the project. He also performed quality assurance (QA) and thoroughly reviewed the air quality technical report. Because of Mr. Matsui’s contributions, the project was able to successfully document consistency with the Central SoMa Plan. 3700 California Street—TMG Partners, San Francisco, CA, 07/2018 – 02/2020 Lead Analyst. Mr. Matsui served as lead author and technical specialist of the noise analysis for an environmental impact report (EIR) for a large, multiblock housing development project in San Francisco.

He conducted noise measurements at the project site to determine existing noise levels and assessed construction and operational noise and vibration impacts of the project in accordance with the City of San Francisco’s noise guidelines.

Santa Clara Building V5 Data Center Project & Santa Clara Building V6 Data Center Project – Santa Clara, California
Conducted air quality and greenhouse gas analyses for two data center projects in the City of Santa Clara. Evaluated the impacts of construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions, including the impacts from a large number of back-up diesel generators at each project site. Additionally, Cory successfully assessed the significance of the projects’ impacts on greenhouse gases, taking into consideration the substantial energy consumption typically associated with data centers.

Sonoma County Climate Action 2020—Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Agency, County of Sonoma, CA, 04/2013 – 07/2016
Lead Technical Analyst. Mr. Matsui served as lead analyst in the development of a GHG emissions inventory—backcast and forecast—prepared for the Sonoma County Regional Climate Protection Agency, for nine jurisdictions in the county. He was one of the primary analysts to quantify GHG emissions for all standard sectors (i.e., building energy, water, waste, etc.) in accordance with the Local Governments for Sustainability’s (ICLEI’s) Community Greenhouse Gas guidelines. Mr. Matsui developed and quantified GHG reduction measures for GHG reduction potential to help the county achieve its GHG reduction goal. He constructed a GHG reduction planning tool for municipal jurisdictions to assess GHG reductions associated with each reduction measure, based on user-inputted commitment levels. Results of the GHG inventory and reduction analyses were incorporated into a comprehensive climate action plan document, for which Mr. Matsui served as a primary author.

Station East Residential/Mixed-Use Project – City of Union City, CA Mr. Matsui was the senior air quality and greenhouse gas reviewer and lead noise analyst for a large mixed-used development project in Union City. Cory provided expert air quality oversight on the air quality analysis and comprehensively addressed comments from the public. He also led a noise monitoring survey and thoroughly evaluated noise impacts from project construction and operations. The project is a residential and commercial development in Union City, in close proximity to the BART station, and would provide much-needed housing units in a transit rich area. 220 Park Road Development Initial Study – City of Burlingame, California Cory was the lead air quality analyst for an office and retail development in the former post-office building in downtown Burlingame. Cory efficiently modelled the project’s construction and operational emissions in accordance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District guidelines, and quantified the health risks for people living near the project site.

Page I-1.98
Lisa Webber, MS
Botanist/Wetland Ecologist
Lisa Webber specializes in coordinating and conducting botanical field surveys and wetland delineations of study areas in vegetation communities throughout northern California. She prepares California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, including environmental impacts reports (EIRs), wetland delineations, and various forms of environmental documentation for a wide variety of projects, including specific plans and master plans for development and redevelopment.

Lisa also prepares application packages and coordinates with agency staff for Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permits, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) streambed alteration agreements, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10a requirements.

Project Experience
San Francisco Housing Element 2022 Update EIR—San
Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA, 01/2022 – Present
Biologist. Lisa assisted with preparation of the biological resources section of the administrative draft EIR for the proposed update of the adopted 2014 housing element of the San Francisco General Plan.

She provided peer review and guidance for the special-status plants and aquatic resources impact analyses.

San Rafael Transit Center Replacement Project—Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District, San Rafael, CA, 07/2020 – Present
Biologist. Lisa performed field studies, including botanical surveys, evaluation of vegetation communities, and an assessment of aquatic resources in an urban area (downtown San Rafael) proposed for relocation of a transit center. She prepared the botanical and aquatic resources sections of the project EIR.

Geary Road Bridge Replacement Project IS/MND—San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), Alameda
County, CA, 01/2010 – 07/2012
Biologist. Lisa conducted botanical surveys and the delineation of waters of the US. She prepared the botanical survey technical report, wetland delineation report, and IS/MND for a proposed bridge replacement over Alameda Creek in the Sunol Regional Wilderness Park.

Housing-Related Code Amendments DEIR—County of Placer,
California, 04/2020 – 10/2020
Biologist. Lisa prepared the vegetation and aquatic resource sections of the draft EIR for proposed amendments to the Placer County General Plan, Placer County Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Combining Districts, and Community Design Manual for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Development, which would provide a framework for Years of Experience
Professional start date: 10/1990
ICF start date: 05/1998
Education
MS, Botany, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, 1987
BA, Biology, University of
California, Santa Cruz, 1980
Professional Affiliations
California Native Plant Society
Page I-1.99
future housing development in the parts of Placer County that are under County jurisdiction.

Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan EIR—El Dorado County, CA, 2012 – Present Biologist. Prepared the vegetation and wetland EIR sections for a 340-acre regional community plan in the El Dorado Hills Community Region. Background technical reports including vegetation mapping, special-status plant surveys, and a delineation of waters of the U.S. were incorporated into the biological resources chapter of the EIR. A reconnaissance survey of the site was conducted to review and verify the data provided. Sensitive resource issues included oak woodlands, riparian habitat, and waters of the U.S.

Village of Marble Valley Specific Plan EIR—El Dorado County, CA, 2012 – Present Biologist. Lisa prepared the vegetation and wetland sections for the draft EIR for a proposed regional community plan located on 1,875 acres south of SR 50 in El Dorado Hills. Background technical reports, including vegetation mapping, special-status plant surveys, and a delineation of waters of the U.S. were provided and incorporated into the biological resources chapter of the EIR. A reconnaissance survey of the site was conducted to review and verify the data provided. Sensitive resource issues included oak woodlands, riparian habitat, waters of the U.S., and a special-status plant species.

Lime Rock Valley Specific Plan EIR—El Dorado County, California, 2012 – Present Biologist. Lisa prepared the vegetation and wetland sections for the draft EIR for a proposed regional community plan located on 740 acres south of SR 50 in El Dorado Hills. Background technical reports, including vegetation mapping, special-status plant surveys, and a delineation of waters of the U.S. were provided and incorporated into the biological resources chapter of the EIR. A reconnaissance survey of the site was conducted to review and verify the data provided. Sensitive resource issues included oak woodlands, riparian habitat, waters of the U.S., and two special-status plant species.

U.C. Davis Sacramento Campus Long-Range Development Plan, Hospital Tower, and Aggie Square Projects EIRs—City of Sacramento, California, 02/2020 – 04/2022 Biologist. Lisa conducted botanical surveys and an assessment for aquatic resources in the UCD Health LRDP area, which included two specific project areas. She prepared the botanical and wetland sections of the programmatic EIR for the plan and the project-level EIRs for the Hospital Tower and Aggie Square projects.

West Sacramento General Plan Update EIR and Liberty Island Specific Plan EIR—City of West Sacramento, CA, 8/2015 – 9/2106
Biologist. Lisa reviewed information from the General Plan Public Review Draft Background Report, Liberty Island Specific Plan, the CNDDB, CNPS Inventory, and USFWS species lists. She conducted program-level and project-level analyses and prepared the vegetation and wetland portions of the General Plan Update EIR and Specific Plan EIR.

University District Specific Plan EIR—City of Rohnert Park, CA, 01/2004 – 11/2005 Biologist. Lisa prepared the botanical and wetland portions of an EIR for a commercial center, affordable housing at a variety of densities, including for-sale affordable housing, parks, open space preserves, trails, school, and a variety of housing types. The EIR will serve as a program-level EIR for the entire specific plan area and as a project-level EIR for a portion of the specific plan area. Major issues included wetlands and endangered species. The EIR was certified in May 2006.

River Park Project EIR—City of West Sacramento, California, 01/2005 – 2006 Biologist. Lisa prepared the botanical and wetland portions of a draft EIR. This project will include approximately 2,788 residential units (including rural residential and low-, medium-, and high-density offerings), a 44-acre regional park, community open space areas, a school, new roads, and a marina. Key biological resource issues include loss of habitat and realignment of an existing agricultural irrigation ditch at the site, which would be expanded and redesigned as an open water/emergent marsh habitat amenity along the Sacramento River.

Page I-1.100
Lora Holland, MA, RPA
Senior Archaeologist
Lora is a Registered Professional Archaeologist RPA#989173 and is a qualified professional archaeologist (36 CFR 61) with over 19 years of archaeological field and management experience on various project sites, both terrestrial and maritime. Lora has 12 years of cultural resources management experience on projects throughout California and served as a principal investigator, project manager, authored and overseen the drafting of cultural resources studies for local, state, and federal agencies in compliance with CEQA and Section 106. Lora’s experience and expertise include survey testing and data recovery; monitoring; contractor training; archival research; artifact analysis and conservation; field staff supervision; cultural resources identification and eligibility evaluations, impact assessments, and mitigations; assisting agencies with Native American outreach and consultation; Section 106 studies for Caltrans, California High Speed Rail Authority, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Federal Aviation
Administration.

Project Experience
Bay Area Ridge Trail: Fremont to Garin Project- East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) Fremont and Union City, Alameda County, California, 2017 – 2018
Principal Investigator/Cultural Resources Task Lead (work conducted prior to employment with ICF).

Lora conducted the cultural resources study and authored the report in support of proposed construction of approximately 2.2 miles of new nonmotorized multiuse recreational trail. The study consisted of background research, including a records search and a literature review of the proposed Area of Potential Effects (APE); a pedestrian field survey; and a Sacred Lands File search request with the Native American Heritage Commission. These tasks identified CA-ALA548H/P-01-000227, an archaeological site with precontact and historic-period components, including the exposed foundations of an 1856 mill. Human remains were also identified during the survey.

Lora worked with the EBRPD and the Native American Most Likely Descendant to design the trail access to avoid impacts to this resource. The project required an Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 404 Nationwide Permit; due to this, the study complied with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and supported the project’s obligations under CEQA.

California High-Speed Rail Project, Bakersfield to Palmdale Project Section- California High Speed Rail Authority, Kern and Los Angeles, Counties, 2015 – 2020
Co-Principal Investigator (work conducted prior to employment with ICF). Lora conducted the archaeological background studies, supervised the field survey and site recordation, prepared sections of the Archaeological Survey Reports (ASR) Finding of Effect Report (FOE), APE mapping, and Treatment Plan.

Years of Experience
Professional start date: 12/2002
ICF start date: 11/2021
Education
MA, Anthropology, University of West
Florida, Pensacola, FL, 2006
BA History, Salem College, WinstonSalem, NC, 2000
Page I-1.101
Iron Horse Trail Bollinger Canyon Overcrossing Project-City of San Ramon Public Works Department, San Ramon, Contra Costa County, California, 2019 – 2020 Principal Investigator/Cultural Resources Task Lead (work conducted prior to employment with ICF). Lora managed and conducted the cultural resources study incompliance with Caltrans’ regulatory responsibilities under Section 106. The study consisted of background research, including a records search and a literature review of the proposed APE; a pedestrian field survey; a Sacred Lands File search request with the Native American Heritage Commission; and preparation of and Archaeological Survey Report, and Historic Property Survey Report. The City of San Ramon Public Works Department obtained NEPA clearance for the proposed Bollinger Canyon Overcrossing Project in April 2020.

South County Recycled Water Pipeline Phase 1B/2A Project -Santa Clara Valley Water District, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara County, California, 2017 – 2018 Project Manager/Cultural Resources Task Lead (work conducted prior to employment with ICF).

Lora conducted the cultural resources study in support of the proposed installation of 12,200 linear feet of recycled water transmission and distribution pipeline. Because the project was funded by the Bureau of Reclamation, this study was conducted to address requirements of Section 106. The study consisted of background research, including a records search and a literature review of the proposed APE; a pedestrian field survey; and a Sacred Lands File search request with the Native American Heritage Commission. The report was prepared in accordance with BOR Mid-Pacific Region General Scope of Work for Cultural Resources Investigations in California.

Carmel Riverbank Stabilization Project-Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, Carmel, Monterey County, California, 2017 – 2018.

Project Manager/Cultural Resources Task Lead (work conducted prior to employment with ICF).

Lora conducted the cultural resources study proposed Carmel Riverbank stabilization at San Carlos Road Project in Carmel, Monterey County, California. The project required a Corps Section 404 Nationwide Permit; due to this, the study also complied with Section 106. The study consisted of background research, including a records search and a literature review of the proposed APE; a pedestrian field survey; a Sacred Lands File search request with the Native American Heritage Commission; consultation with local Native American tribes and interested parties; eligibility evaluation, and FOE. The study identified the Rancho San Carlos Road Sedge Bed (sedge bed) within the APE. This sedge bed represents a Native American plant gathering area on the bank of Carmel River that is an important source of Santa Barbara sedge (Carex barbarae) for the Rumsen Ohlone.

Alpine Road Trail Improvements Project- Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, San Mateo County, California San Mateo County, California, 2019 – 2020 Project Archaeologist (work conducted prior to employment with ICF). The proposed project consisted of the repairs and rehabilitation of the failed sections of the Alpine Road Trail at Coal Creek Open Space Preserve. Due to lack of maintenance and recent storms, this former vehicle road has been damaged by landslides and other slope failures, including the failure of a 220-foot-long, 48- inch-wide culvert. Ms. Holland conducted the cultural resources survey and assisted in the preparation of the environmental documentation in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 106.

San Francisco International Airport Runway Safety Project -City and County of San Francisco, San Mateo County, California, 2012 – 2015
Cultural Resources Task Lead (work conducted prior to employment with ICF). The City and County of San Francisco, as owner and operator of San Francisco International Airport (SFO), constructed various improvements to the Runway Safety Areas of runways to enhance safety at SFO. In accordance with the mitigation requirements for development of this project, Lora and monitoring staff conducted archaeological monitoring of excavation activities as required by the Section 106 consultation process between the Federal Aviation Administration and the State Historic Preservation Office. Ms. Holland served as the cultural resources lead for the multi-year project, coordinated the cultural resources monitoring, oversaw monitoring staff, and prepared the Archaeological Monitoring Reports.

Page I-1.102
Jennifer Wildt, PhD, RPA
Cultural Resources Specialist
Dr. Jennifer Wildt has over 15 years of archaeological experience, working for Cultural Resource Management firms, the National Park Service, in museums, and at universities. She has a wide range of experience throughout the United States and Guatemala. Dr. Wildt is a member of the Register of Professional archaeologists and earned her Ph.D. in Archaeology from Boston University. She meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology.

Dr. Wildt has extensive experience in historical and prehistoric archaeology. As a project manager, her duties include project oversight, proposal writing, budgeting, QA/QC, meeting with clients and regulatory agencies, employee mentoring, directing fieldwork, research, technical writing, and editing. She is well-versed in CEQA, NEPA, Section 106 and Section 110, has worked on phase 1, 2, and 3 projects, and has managed projects of all sizes with budgets from a few thousand dollars to over a million dollars.

Project Experience
San Francisco Housing Element, Archaeological Sensitivity Analysis – City of San Francisco, CA, 2020-2021.

Primary Author. Developed, directed, and co-wrote Archaeological Sensitivity Analysis for the City of San Francisco. This document will drive archaeological research associated with construction projects in the City and is based on the housing development plans for the next 30 years.

San Rafael Transit Center Environmental Impact Report – City of San Rafael, CA, 2020-2021.

Cultural chapters author. Wrote chapters on potential
environmental impacts to Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources. Researched archaeological and historical past of San Rafael and the development of the city. Based on the past and environmental conditions, analyzed potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources.

Commonwealth Building 3 Environmental Impact Report – City of Menlo Park, CA, 2021.

Alemany Boulevard Pavement Renovation and Sewer
Replacement Project – San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission, San Francisco, CA, 2021.

Years of Experience
Professional start date: 2001
ICF start date: 10/2020
Education
Ph.D., M.A. Archaeology, Boston
University, 2015
B.A., Archaeology, University of
Virginia, 2001
Page I-1.103
Lead author. Analyzed and summarized archaeological monitoring logs to write report for monitoring project replacing water infrastructure.
88 Broadway/735 Davis St. Housing Project—Bridge Housing, San Francisco, CA, 2017-2020.

Project Director. While at PaleoWest, Dr. Wildt directed an archaeological compliance project for an affordable housing project being built by Bridge Housing, as required by the City and County of San Francisco. The project was in an archaeologically sensitive area of San Francisco and required extensive testing. Dr. Wildt authored an archaeological research design and treatment plan addendum/update for testing and monitoring that identified prehistoric and historical archaeologically sensitive areas, developed a testing plan, and outlined procedures to follow during archaeological testing and monitoring. Dr. Wildt coordinated with the client and San Francisco Planning cultural resources staff and worked to develop a public archaeology display for the lobbies of the two buildings.

Transbay Block 9 Archaeological Monitoring—Essex Homes, San Francisco, CA, 2016-2019.

Project Director. While at PaleoWest, in accordance with the project’s construction permit, Dr. Wildt was responsible for overall project direction and oversight, preparation of the scope of work, budget, reporting oversight, QA/QC, client and agency coordination for construction of a 43-story tower. She co-authored the archaeological results report for the City and County of San Francisco for the testing and monitoring phases. The project used a consolidated version of the Section 106 process agreed to by the Memorandum of Agreement between the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration, and the California State Historic Preservation Officer; San Francisco Office of Community Investment was the lead agency.

Crittenden Lane Water Line Extension Project and Trailhead Improvements Archaeological Survey—Circlepoint, Mountain View, CA, 2017, 2019.

Project Director. While at PaleoWest, Dr. Wildt was responsible for overall project direction and oversight, preparation of the scope of work, budget, reporting oversight, and QA/QC, for the installation of a water line and trailhead improvements.

MIRO Towers Archaeological Testing—Bayview Development, San Jose, CA, 2017-2018.

Project Director. While at PaleoWest, Dr. Wildt developed an archaeological research design and treatment plan for testing a building site in downtown San Jose. Dr. Wildt was responsible for overall project direction and oversight, directed test excavations including backhoe trenching, and authored archaeological resources report that was accepted by the City of San Jose with no revisions.

Transbay Bus Storage Archaeological Testing—Transbay Joint Powers Authority, San Francisco, CA, 2016-2018.

Project Director. While at PaleoWest, Dr. Wildt directed archaeological testing in advance of construction of new Bus Storage facility by the TJPA in downtown San Francisco. The project used a consolidated version of the Section 106 process agreed to by the Memorandum of Agreement between the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration, and the California State Historic Preservation Officer. Dr. Wildt implemented archaeological testing including backhoe trenching, supervised artifact curation, and was responsible for overall project direction. She co-authored an archaeological results report for the City and County of San Francisco.

The Grove Archaeological Monitoring—Edenbridge Homes, Mountain View, CA, 2016-2017.

Project Director. While at PaleoWest, Dr. Wildt was responsible for overall project direction, preparation of SOWs, budget, monitoring, reporting, and QA/QC during the construction of a residential neighborhood near an archaeologically sensitive stream in Mountain View.

Page I-1.104
Jonathon Rusch, MA
Senior Historic Preservation Specialist
Jon Rusch is an architectural historian and historic preservation specialist with over 10 years of professional experience supporting public agencies and private-sector clients as they develop plans for historic buildings and cultural landscapes. His work has spanned the United States—with a focus on the Midwest and West Coast—and has involved preparing context studies and evaluating the historic resource status of properties in urban and rural settings. Jon has contributed to many regulatory documents that identify historic resources and assess development and rehabilitation projects for adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and other regulatory standards. He utilizes his skills to assist clients comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 106 and Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In his work with agency clients and members of the public, Jon meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History.

Willow Village Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report—City of Menlo Park, Menlo Park, California, 01/2021 – Present
Historic Preservation Specialist. Jon has served as the lead builtenvironment cultural resources author of the environmental document for a master plan that proposes new development, public realm improvements, and transportation features within an existing industrial and office park in Menlo Park. Jon’s role has involved preparing a detailed peer review of another consultant’s historical resource evaluation of the buildings currently located within the plan area and project impacts assessment, which ensured those documents meet industry standards and adequately support a defensible CEQA analysis. Jon has also drafted the cultural resources section of the project’s environmental impact report, which includes analysis of proposed tunnel construction on a historically significant railroad line.

San Francisco Housing Element Update Historic Context
Statements and Environmental Impact Report—City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA, 09/2020 – Present
Historic Preservation Specialist. Jon is currently a key staff member supporting built environment analysis for the City and County of San Francisco’s update to the housing element of its general plan. The document will introduce policies with far-reaching effects for housing development in San Francisco; an assessment of its potential impacts to historic buildings and structures citywide requires thoughtful and innovative approaches. Jon has drafted a historic theme study on small flats and apartment buildings, a common residential typology across the city that nevertheless has received little targeted attention in past investigations. Jon also serves as lead author of historic built environment analysis in the housing element’s Environmental Impact Report, for which he has worked closely with City staff to develop analysis frameworks that Years of Experience
Professional start date: 07/2012
ICF start date: 07/2017
Education
MA, Historic Preservation
Planning, Cornell University, 2013
BA, Geography and Scandinavian
Studies, University of Minnesota,
2006
Professional Affiliations
Member, National Council on
Public History
Member, Vernacular Architecture
Forum
Member, Docomomo US
Page I-1.105
assess potential impacts across a large geographic area and also touch on critical issues like social equity that are intertwined with housing construction in the city.

Better Market Street Environmental Impact Report, Section 106/NEPA Documents, and Mitigation Implementation—San Francisco Department of Public Works, San Francisco, CA, 2018 – Present Historic Preservation Specialist. Jon has contributed to the development of the Environmental Impact Report and various Caltrans Section 106 and NEPA documentation for the Better Market Street project.

Jon’s role in the project has involved reviewing and synthesizing previous documentation for historic architectural resources within and adjacent to the project corridor and crafting detailed impact statements that analyze the project’s impacts to historical resources, which include a complex and large-scale cultural landscape district. Jon continues to support the project by completing deliverables that meet a detailed mitigation program: he specifically has planned a filmed tour of the Market Street corridor and has collaborated with a designer to develop the project’s interpretive plan, which encompasses display boards, temporary exhibit, and website.
1868 Ogden Drive Project Historical Resource Evaluation and Environmental Impact Report—City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 02/2020 – 10/2020 Historic Preservation Specialist. Jon oversaw the completion of technical studies and cultural resources environmental analysis for a project that proposes to replace an existing low-rise office building with a new multi-unit residential building. Because the existing building was more than 50 years old, it required evaluation for California Register of Historical Resources eligibility. Upon evaluation, ICF architectural historians found that the building had historical significance associated with mid-20th-century conflicts between the United Farm Workers of America and the Western Conference of Teamsters and was the site of an important jurisdictional agreement signed by Cesar Chavez. The significance of the building elevated the required CEQA document to an environmental impact report. Jon provided quality control for the building evaluation to ensure its clarity and accuracy and subsequently advised the project sponsor and planning department staff on the process-related implications of ICF’s evaluation. Jon provided input on potential project changes that may avoid an environmental impact report, as well as the anticipated alternatives analysis and mitigation commitments that the document would include. Jon was a primary author of the cultural resources section of the environmental impact report, which formally analyzed the project’s impacts to the significant resource.

The Hub Public Realm Plan Historic Resource Survey and Environmental Impact Report—City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco, CA, 01/2018 – 07/2019 Project Manager and Historic Preservation Specialist. Jon managed the team of architectural historians completing an intensive-level survey of age-eligible properties in the Hub neighborhood of San Francisco. The survey produced Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A and 523B form sets for each property, including evaluations of the properties’ eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Jon’s role involved training staff, coordinating research and field survey, and conducting QC review of major deliverables. Jon also served as lead author of the cultural resources section of the Environmental Impact Report for the Hub Plan, a complex neighborhood planning document that proposes new zoning controls and streetscape improvements.

Employment History
ICF. Architectural Historian/Historic Preservation Specialist. San Francisco, California and Minneapolis, Minnesota. 07/2017 – Present.

Page & Turnbull. Architectural Historian/Cultural Resources Planner. San Francisco, California. 03/2014 – 07/2017.

Colorado State University Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands. Project Historian. Fort Wainwright, Alaska. 06/2013 – 12/2013.

National Park Service. Cultural Landscape Inventory Intern. Omaha, Nebraska. 07/2012 – 04/2013.

Page I-1.106
Nicole Felicetti, MS
Historic Preservation Specialist
Nicole Felicetti joined ICF's San Francisco office in July 2021 as a historic preservation s pecialist. She holds a master's degree in Historic Preservation and has diverse experience in cultural resource management and interpretation, architecture, and public history.

Before joining ICF's Cultural Resources team, Nicole worked for The Woodlands, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and National Historic Landmark District, in multi-faceted preservation, interpretation, and community engagement opportunities. Her combined professional and educational experiences across history and architecture have provided a robust foundation to the evolving landscape of cultural resource management.

Project Experience
Better Market Street—City of San Francisco Department of Public Works, San Francisco, CA, 09/2021 – Present
Historic Preservation Specialist. ICF is contributing a series of technical documents supporting environmental review under Section 106, NEPA, and CEQA for the Better Market Street project. Nicole provides supplementary support for the Historic American Landscapes Survey documentation team by assisting in the conditions assessment and historical report. Nicole is also coauthoring the historic preservation treatment plan for the Embarcadero, Hallidie, and UN Plazas, including the
contextualization of plaza histories, the assessment of characterdefining features, and recommendations for rehabilitation.

Menlo Park City CouncilMarch 14, 2023

Menlo Park City Council
March 14, 2023