EAST PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 18, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Jaime M. Fontes, City Manager
BY: Elena Lee, Planning Manager
Amy Chen, Community & Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Amendments to contracts with Raimi + Associates related to the Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan and Project Management Services Recommendation
That the City Council:
1. Accept the staff report regarding the status update on the Raimi + Associates contract to provide the analysis, community engagement, and environmental review necessary for the City Council to consider an amendment to the Ravenswood Business District (RBD) Specific Plan;
2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the Raimi + Associates contract
Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:
Priority No. 2: Enhance Economic Vitality
Priority No. 3: Increase Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Background
On September 15, 2020, the City Council authorized the City to enter into a contract with Raimi + Associates (R+A), in an amount not to exceed $1,326,829 to provide the analysis, community engagement, and environmental review necessary for the City Council to consider an amendment to the Ravenswood Business District (RBD) Specific Plan and potentially increase the amount of development approved in the EIR. The staff report linked online1 details the phases of the analysis and the scope of work.
Approved R+A Budget
Chart 1
Total Base Cost $990,129
10% Contingency $99,000
(Loop Road SEIR + Computer Infrastructure Models) Total Optional Cost
$237,700
Base + Contingency + Optional $1,326,829
On October 6, 20202, the City Council authorized the City to enter into Developer Reimbursement Agreements with certain developers within the RBD to fund a share of the associated costs for the environmental review portion of the R+A contract. Although certain developers are funding a portion of the R+A contract, the City Council maintains full land use authority regarding decisions about the RBD and entering into developer reimbursement agreements does not commit the City to amend the RBD or any project approvals.
As previously directed by the City Council, it is expected that developers who required an amendment to the RBD Specific Plan for their projects to advance will be obligated to fund a share of the associated costs for: 1) the environmental review portion of the R+A contract; and 2) reimbursement of the City’s initial investment in data refresh, engagement, and amendments to the Specific Plan.
With that direction from City Council, the following cost split was included as two parts of the original R+A consulting contract that was executed on January 11, 2021 in an amount not to exceed $ 1,326,829. The term of the agreement commenced on September 15, 2020 and the contract was approved for three years. The table below describes the two parts of the existing R+A contract:
Chart 2
Part Entity Activities Cost
Estimate
Mechanism
A City of
East Palo
Alto
Data refresh,
analysis, community
engagement
$490,164 Paid initially by City
General Fund, later
reimbursed through
approved projects
B Large RBD
Developers
Environmental
Review
$737,665
(with
optional
tasks)
Paid directly through preexisting Developer
Reimbursement Account
(DRA)
Contingency $99,000 May be applied to either
1 September 15, 2020 City Council meeting, agenda item 11.1:
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1283&MediaPosition=15 893.831&ID=1306&CssClass=
2 October 6, 2020 City Council meeting, agenda item 6.11:
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1284&MediaPosition=31
41.636&ID=1416&CssClass=
part of the contract
Total Approved $1,326,829
On November 18, 20213, the City Council hosted a Study Session on the Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan Update Project. City Council provided direction on the growth scenarios to be studied under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Specific Plan Update and the additional requirements needed to accompany any increase in development capacity for the RBD/4 Corners area. Council determined it was best to study the following scenarios:
• Scenario 1: 2.82 million s.f. of office and R&D use.
• Scenario 2 analyzed 3.35 million s.f. of office and R&D uses.
Additionally, Council also accepted staff’s recommendations:
• Recommendation 2: Continue Community Engagement on the Scenarios • Recommendation 3: Select a Housing Scenario and Study Mechanisms to Link Job Production with Housing Production
• Recommendation 4: Explore Additional Plan Concepts and Strategies The analysis of two EIR scenarios instead of a single scenario, increasing the amount housing to be studied in the EIR adding community engagement activities and exploring additional plan concepts and strategies are not included in the approved scope and budget for the consultant.
Thus, the purpose of this staff report is to request more funds to be added to the agreements that support the RBD Specific Plan update effort.
Analysis
Status Update of Current Consultant Contracts
Since the execution of the agreement between R + A and EPA, the consultants have accomplished the following:
• Development and analysis of multiple growth scenarios and technical analysis (fiscal, infrastructure, traffic, community benefits, etc.). • Four Council Study Sessions on the following topics: initial data refresh; transportation, benefits and impacts; overview ofthe analysis on urban design, transportation, infrastructure, jobs, indirect displacement/housing affordability, fiscal impact, and direct community benefits from various levels of growth; and final section of the growth scenarios to be studied in the EIR. • Three public workshops which included a Spanish interpreter; prior to the meetings a city-wide postcard was mailed to all residents and owners, an announcement billboard was installed at the corner of University and Bay Road, and the team maintains a comprehensive website4 updates and sends out periodic list-serve 3 November 18, 2021 City Council Study Session:
http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=1432 4 RBD Webpage: https://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/planning/page/ravenswood-business-district-4- corners-specific-plan-update
notices.
• Peer review of the traffic analysis by another transportation firm. • Managing all the sub-consultants that have developed that analysis mentioned above.
• Team check-ins with city staff and Good City Company from every two weeks to weekly
• Monthly coordination calls with the RBD developers
A majority of the contingency was used to support an additional public engagement, Spanish interpretation, send out the city-wide postcards, install the announcement billboard, attend additional Council meetings, write Council staff reports, and conduct the peer review of the traffic model (as requested by Council in September 2021).
Staff facilitates the work of consultants to ensure that the resultant product meets the City’s needs, the costs associated with these consultant contracts are wholly funded by the developer. For this reason, the General Fund is not impacted by the implementation of this contract.
Proposed Amendments to Contract
With the accepted recommendations from the November 18, 2021 City Council meeting, staff and the consultants have revised the R + A scope of work and budget. The following tasks are included in the proposed budget amendment:
• Quantitative analysis to support two EIR growth scenarios. • Revising the traffic analysis as requested by the City Council. This will include an analysis of two scenarios with increased housing and each with and without the loop road. This represents a significant amount of work since Hexagon (the traffic consultant) will need to revise all the model runs. At this time, the project team is recommending this approach/estimate, based on direction from Council and Public Works to study all aspects of both scenarios as well as continued interest in the impacts/feasibility of the Loop Road improvement.
• Adding an additional public workshop, another round of pop-up workshops, and informal meetings with community leaders.
• Additional City Council and/or Planning Commission meetings over and above the current scope of work.
• Additional research and policy development for the topics requested by the Council in Recommendation 4 from the November 18 Study Session. This analysis was not included in the original scope and budget.
• Additional project management and meeting with City staff and the potential developers in the RBD.
• Funds for the City Attorney’s office to engage with outside Counsel.
The following is a detailed table summarizing the costs for each item for the contract amendment:
Chart 3
City Contract - Amendment Budget Estimate Total
ADDITIONAL ENGAGEMENT REQUESTED BY COUNCIL
Workshop Expenses (Team) $10,000
Workshop Labor (R+A) $40,000
Subtotal $50,000
ADDITIONAL WORK TO DEVELOP MECHANISMS REQUESTED BY
COUNCIL
Added CC/PC Meetings or Adoption Hearings (R+A) $15,000 Additional Project Coordination & Meetings (R+A) $15,000 Additional Effort to Prepare Plan Mechanisms/Strategies (R+A) $45,000 Additional Meetings and Revised Fiscal Impact Analysis
(Strategic)
$40,780
Additional Meetings/Workshops (Hexagon) $38,200
Subtotal $153,980
ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC MODELING
Additional Modeling to Analyze Two Scenarios Plus Loop Road (Hexagon)
$108,600
Subtotal $108,600
ADDITIONAL CEQA ANALYSIS
Extra Quantitative EIR Analysis and Report Writing (David J Powers)
$52,700
Biological and Archeological/Cultural Studies (David J Powers) $40,000 City Attorney's Office (Goldfarb) $25,000
Subtotal $117,700
MISC.
On-Call / Flexible Task Budget (Team) $50,000
Sub management (7%) and office/accounting (3%) $28,028
Subtotal $78,028
Subtotal $480,280
PROPOSED TOTAL BUDGET AMENDMENT $508,308
Justification of R+A
City staff and R+A consultants discussed this cost proposal and determined that these estimates are in line with other jurisdiction’s planning and specific plan update processes.
Please see the below chart below comparing other plans that are similar scale (up to 4 million square feet and a combination of housing, office, etc.).
Chart 4
Jurisdiction Planning
Process and
Timing
Square
Footage and
Type
Consultant(s) Cost
Mountain
View
North
Bayshore
Precise Plan
2.0 (2016-18)
3,400,000 s.f.
office/R&D
9,800 units
R+A (SE,
Seifel, F+P)
$1,465,000
(original contract
was $700,000)
Mountain
View
East Whisman
Precise Plan
(2017 - 2019)
2,200,000 s.f.
office/R&D
5,000 units
R+A (F+P,
SE, S+W)
$1,030,000 (very
limited outreach)
Cupertino Vallco Town
Center Area
Specific Plan
(2017-2018)
2,000,000 s.f.
2,900 units
Opticos $1,000,000 initial
budget (final
unknown), rejected
by referendum.
South San
Francisco
Genentech
Campus
Master Plan
(2018-20)
4,500,000 s.f. Genentech
(Lamphier,
F+P, NN,
JRDV, W-H)
Exact cost not
made public; multimillion-dollar inhouse effort
Santa Clara El Camino
Real Corridor
Plan (2018-21)
6,200 units R+A (SE,
STP, BKF)
$1,190,000 Not
adopted. (original
contract was
$910K)
Sunnyvale Amended
Moffett Park
Specific Plan
(2019-)
8,000,000 s.f.
7,500 units
R+A (NN, SE,
BKF,
Hexagon,
SFEI)
$3,380,000
(original contract
was $2.7M)
San Carlos Eastside
Innovation
District Vision
Plan (2020-21)
2,500,000 s.f.
office/industrial
0 units
P+W (EPS,
HR&A)
$800,000 plus
local match. Basic
plan with only $50k
for EIR.
Milpitas Main Street /
Gateway
Specific Plan
Update (2021-)
1,600,000 s.f.
1,100 units
D+B $975,000 plus
local match (initial
budget)
San Jose Amended
Diridon Station
Area Plan
(2018 to 2021)
7,300,000 s.f.
office/R&D
5,900 units
SOM (SWA,
HR&A, R+A,
P2P)
Estimated $3-4M
for full plan/EIR
($475,000 for
engagement only)
San Bruno Bayhill Specific
Plan (2017-
2021)
2,300,000 s.f.
575 units
D+B (F+P,
ICF, EPS,
KHA, VWMP)
$3M+ final budget
(initially $785,000)
Redwood City Transit District
Plan (2022)
1,630,000 s.f.
office 1,100
units
AECOM $5M, including
multi-million Grade
Separation Study
South San
Francisco
Lindenville
Specific Plan
1,500,000 s.f.
>1,000 units
TBD $800,000 - tiers off
traffic work already
(2022) completed for GPU
Potential Alternatives
There are two options that could reduce cost:
1. Reduced Evaluation of Scenario 1. Council could elect to have a full CEQA analysis of Scenario 2 throughout the document but only a more cursory analysis of Scenario 1 (in the Alternatives Section only, and not in other technical sections). This would reduce costs by $52,700. We do not recommend this option.
2. Reduced Model Runs. Council could elect to not prepare a full traffic analysis for both growth scenarios and instead only prepare it for Scenario 2 (the larger amount of potential new development). Reducing the number of model runs related to the loop road and/or the second scenario analysis could lower costs by up to $108,000. We are prepared to conduct as many model runs as needed; however we will continue to seek avenues to reduce unneeded modeling.
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to amend the R+A agreement and increase the contract by $508,308, as noted above. Staff further recommends that the City be responsible for the contract increase (as opposed to the Developers) but that future developers, if projects are approved, be required to repay the City for the costs incurred due to the RBD update. Thus this proposed contract amendment would change Part A of the R+A agreement, but overall would follow the same provisions and formula for reimbursement by all the developers who benefit from this process. This would include current and future developers and they each would pay the City back, as part of a condition of their project approval. This is a proportional percentage of the City portion based on how much square footage their project is approved for relative to the overall costs the City paid up front. Some developers are already paying into a portion of the R + A contract (Part B that covers environmental analysis) through separately established developer reimbursement agreements.
Upon completion of the Specific Plan process and if specific project entitlements are approved, those developers that already paid reimbursement installments will be reconciled with this formula to recover Part A of the R+A contract.
Fiscal Impact
At this time staff would be asking for this amendment to be paid initially by City General Fund, later reimbursed through approved projects. Based on the original contract, the City Council appropriated funding to cover the City’s portion of the contract with R+A as part of the FY 2020-2021 Budget. Any project that benefits from a future update to the RBD Specific Plan will be required to reimburse the City on a proportional basis. The follow table summarizes the contract amendment amount:
Chart 5
Contracts Activities Cost Estimate Mechanism
Existing Data refresh,
analysis,
community
engagement
Environmental
Review
$1,326,829 Paid initially by City
General Fund, later
reimbursed through
approved projects
Paid directly through
pre-existing Developer
Contingency Reimbursement
Account (DRA)
Amendment Analysis of two
scenarios and more
public engagement
$508,308 Paid initially by City
General Fund, later
reimbursed through
approved projects
Amended Total $1,835,137
Public Notice
The public was provided notice of this agenda item by posting the City Council agenda on the City’s official bulletin board outside City Hall and making the agenda and report available at the City’s website and at the San Mateo County Library located at 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto.
Environmental
The action being considered does not constitute a “Project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15378 (b)(5), in that it is a government administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.
Attachments
1. Draft Resolution