Berkeley
1900 Addison St, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94704
510.666.1010
Los Angeles
706 South Hill Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
213.599.7671
Riverside
3600 Lime Street, Suite 216
Riverside, CA 92501
951.801.5350
www.raimiassociates.com
June 27, 2022
City of Culver City General Plan Update
To: Sol Blumfield, City of Culver City
From: Eric Yurkovich, Raimi + Associates
Project: Culver City General Plan Update Services (R+A Project Number 19005)
As requested, this memorandum summarizes a series of amended and additional tasks for the General Plan Update Services (Prime Agreement dated June 25, 2019) for review and discussion.
Opportunities to reallocate unused task / expense resources are identified and included to offset the additional services request. A table summarizing estimated costs and remaining contingency are included below. Please do not hesitate to let us know if you have any questions.
Additional Services
This section summarizes the potential changes to Exhibit A, the Scope of Work.
• Task 2.7: General Plan Advisory Committee Meetings (amended task) would be amended to include one additional meeting with the General Plan Advisory Committee ( GPAC) for Raimi + Associates. The meeting would be timed with the launch of the Public Draft General Plan. The meeting is assumed to be in person.
• Task 2.9: Pop-Up Workshops + Community Meetings (amend task) the remaining Pop-Up Workshop + Community Meetings budget for Urban Systems would be reallocated to offset costs for additional work under this amendment.
• Task 2.16: Volunteer Communications Network (remove task) would be removed from the Scope of Work. City staff would continue coordinating with the network without the support of Raimi + Associates. Remaining resources to would be reallocated to offset costs for additional meetings.
• Task 2.17: Neighborhood and Corridor Engagement (new task) would be added to include neighborhood and corridor meetings lead by Perkins & Will at the request of Planning Commission and City Council. The scope will be added as follows:
Task 2.17: Neighborhood and Corridor Engagement
Perkins & Will will lead up to eight neighborhood and corridor meetings . These include:
o Residential (R1/2) stakeholder groups (x2);
o Stakeholders in existing multi-family neighborhoods (x2); and o Individual corridor and large-site stakeholders (x2).
Residential stakeholder groups and multifamily neighborhood meetings are assumed to be in held in smaller groups and in person, with no more than 20 people
2 at a time, pending Los Angeles County Public Health Department guidance. Meetings with corridor and large site stakeholders are assumed to be individual conversations. Each meeting type will require preparation of visuals , noticing, summary, and materials posted to the project website.
Neighborhood and corridor engagement would be timed with the la unch of the Public Draft General Plan. Nelson\Nygaard will also prepare for and participation in two of these meetings.
• Task 5.3: Team Working Meeting + Charrette (amend task) the remaining Team Working Meeting + Charrette budget for Urban Systems would be reallocated to offset costs for additional work under this amendment.
• Task 5.4: Alternatives for Areas of Change (amended task) has required a significantly higher level of effort than was anticipated in the original scope of work. The development of alternatives for R-1 neighborhoods required additional consultant time for exploration, analysis, and preparation of land use alternatives for Perkins & Will and has already been completed. This amendment covers the additional level of effort for that completed work.
• Task 5.6: Select Preferred Direction (amended task) would be amended to allow Perkins&Will and Nelson\Nygaard to continue collaborating with City staff to develop the Preferred Direction through revisions to the Aspirational alternative based on City, committee, and community feedback. The scope would be amended as follows:
Task 5.6: Select Preferred Direction
Through an extensive public process that will include input from public workshops, City staff, and the Planning Commission and City Council, the alternatives will be vetted, discussed, and evaluated. The Consultant Team will learn from community members and stakeholders and welcomes their input in a variety of meaningful ways. While we may not always be able to do everything the community asks, we can incorporate feedback into the alternatives and arrive at a preferred plan with significant buy-in.
At the end of this process, the preferred direction for each of up to three change areas will have been selected and refined. This finalized approach will present a clear picture of land use, open space, development intensity, circulation, and an economic framework for the continued evolution of each change area. It is assumed that the final direction for each area will represent a combination of elements from project alternatives. It is anticipated that elements of the transportation plan will include enhancements to the connectivity, functionality, and safety of all transportation modes through smart transportation management and a complete streets approach. The preferred alternative will be reviewed and approved by City staff, the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
3 Nelson\Nygaard will continue collaborating with City staff to develop the Preferred Direction through revisions to the Aspirational alternative based on City, committee, and community feedback. Key activities include:
o Documenting the relationship between the draft lists of mobility network capital investments developed for GPU and BPAP;
o Coordinating with City staff to update Roadway Table; and o Revising the alternative maps that illustrate the comprehensive long -range priority investment areas for transit, microtransit, active transportation, and emerging mobility network investments.
This amendment also allows for the continued coordination of Perkins&Will with City Staff to evaluate and prepare additional land use designation an d policy changes anticipated to result from outreach meetings with residents and stakeholders
• Task 7.6: Public Draft Plan (amended task) has required a significantly higher level of effort than was anticipated in the original scope of work. Multiple revis ions to the Housing Element sites inventory, changes to the programs, and coordination with City Staff required additional consultant time for the preparation of Housing Element by Veronica Tam & Associates and has already been completed. This amendment co vers the additional level of effort for that completed work and also allows for the continued coordination of Veronica Tam & Associates with City Staff to finalize changes to the sites inventory and accommodate additional Housing Element changes through HCD certification and adoption of the comprehensive General Plan Update.
This amendment also includes additional time for the Nelson\Nygaard team to complete revisions to the Mobility Element street classifications, policies, and detailed implementation strategy, and continue coordination with Fehr & Peers traffic modeling team.
• Task 9.2: City Council, Planning Commission, + Other Updates and Study Sessions (amended task) have required a significantly higher level of effort than was anticipated in the original scope of work. This amendment allows for Raimi + Associates and Nelson\Nygaard to attend up to two additional meetings timed with the release of the Public Draft General Plan. All meetings are assumed to be in person.
• Task 11.2: Status/Management Meetings (amended task) have required a significantly higher level of effort than was anticipated in the original scope of work. This amendment allows for the continued coordination of Raimi + Associates and Nelson\Nygaard with City Staff. This will also allow for the continued update of the project work plan.
• Mileage and Travel Expenses (amended task) a portion of the remaining mileage and travel expenses for Raimi + Associates and Urban Systems would be reallocated to offset costs for additional meetings and coordination.
4 Estimated by Cost
This section summarizes the estimated costs by task.
Task Number Estimated Cost
Task 2.7: General Plan Advisory Committee Meetings (amended task) $5,222 Task 2.9: Pop-Up Workshops + Community Meetings (amended task) -$3,090 Task 2.16: Volunteer Communications Network (remove task) -$4,800 Task 2.17: Neighborhood and Corridor Engagement (new task) $33,409 Task 5.3: Team Working Meeting + Charrette (amended task) -$5,150 Task 5.4: Alternatives for Areas of Change (amended task) $18,952 Task 5.6: Select Preferred Direction (amended task) $19,364 Task 7.6: Public Draft Plan Elements (amended task) $68,071 ($28,325 for HE)
Task 9.2: City Council, Planning Commission, + Other Updates and Study Sessions (amended task) $10,352
Task 11.2: Status/Management Meetings (amended task) $12,240 Mileage and Travel Expenses (amended) -$25,000
Sub-Total $129,570
Note: Task budgets include all administrative and management fees.
Contracted and Contingency Budget
This section summarizes the contracted and contingency budget for the General Plan Update Services project. It also includes an estimate of the remaining contingency, which may be used to fund a portion of the amended services.
Contract Contingency Contract +
Contingency
Total
Original Contract $1,967,755 $196,776 $2,164,531
Amendment 1 (CMO Chiefs Panel) $1,995,234 $196,776 $2,192,010 Amendment 2 (SB 2 Grant) $2,106,241 $168,269 $2,274,510 Amendment 3 (LEAP Grant) $2,248,741 $168,269 $2,417,010 Amendment 4 (Terms) $2,248,741 $168,269 $2,417,010
5 Amendment 5 (HE IS/MND, SRTP) $2,298,505 $143,843 $2,442,348
Contingency funds were used at different times during the process . As of May 31, 2022, the contingency funds used is $33,746. The remaining contingency is $110,097 ($143,843 – $33,746).
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal for your consideration. Should you have any questions or require additional information please feel free to contract me at (510) 754 -2088.
Sincerely,
Eric Yurkovich
Principal