Laserfiche WebLink
<br />taB <br /> <br />Exhibit A <br /> <br />Task 3: Peer Review of Technical <br />Studies <br /> <br />Purpose: To review and critique the technical <br />studies prepared by the project sponsor and <br />to determine their adequacy for use in the <br />SEIR. <br /> <br />Discussion: Senior EIP staff will review the <br />technical studies being prepared for the <br />Alameda County Surplus Property <br />Authority. EIP and the City will exercise <br />independent judgment in evaluating the <br />technical studies and comment on the <br />adequacy of the information and its validity <br />for incorporation into the SEIR. Efforts will <br />be made during this task to ensure that there <br />will be few, if any, data gaps when the <br />studies are completed. It is further expected <br />that limited field work will be performed by <br />EIP during this task to verify information in <br />the technical studies. For each technical <br />study, traffic, biology, and noise, EIP will <br />apply the same standards of peer review that <br />we would if those reports were prepared <br />internally: <br /> <br />. Is the setting accurately described? <br /> <br />. Is the assessment based on an accepted <br />methodology? For example, was the <br />wetland delineation performed using <br />the US Army Corps manual? Were <br />intersection levels of service derived <br />based on the procedures required by <br />the Alameda County Congestion <br />Management Agency? <br /> <br />. Were the field studies and <br />observations conducted at a time that <br />would yield reasonable results (i.e., the <br />desirable season for biological species <br />or the appropriate peak hours and <br />days for traffic counts or noise <br />measurements)? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Are assumptions explicit and <br />reasonable? Is it reasonable that more <br />conservative assumptions should be <br />used in order to identify the worst, <br />reasonably foreseeable impacts? <br /> <br />Are all the various aspects and <br />configurations of the proposed project <br />examined? How was the 12-acre <br />future retaill office development <br />evaluated in terms of trip generation? <br /> <br />Is the planning horizon for the impact <br />assessment the same for each study <br />and does it reasonably account for <br />when the development impacts are <br />expected to occur? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Are the potential impacts <br />delineated and supported <br />substantial evidence? <br /> <br />clearly <br />with <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Are the recommended mitIgation <br />measures feasible? Are there other <br />mitigation measures that should be <br />considered? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Does the analysis fulfill all of the <br />requirements for a CEQA document? <br />Do the reports consider the 'whole <br />of" the proposed project, including <br />short-term construction impacts, <br />direct long-term effects, and indirect <br />effects? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />EIP senior reviewers will prepare a <br />memo disclosing the key findings of <br />the peer review. Importantly, if there <br />are data gaps, questions about the <br />analyses, or additional analyses <br />required, the peer review memos will <br />disclose these potential omissions and <br />serve as the bases for further <br />discussions with the City and the <br />project sponsor. For purposes of the <br />cost proposal, it is assumed that the <br />project sponsor will request its <br /> <br />EIP Associates <br /> <br />2-5 <br />