East Palo Alto City Council
April 25, 2023

East Palo Alto City Council April 25, 2023 Agenda Page 1 of 3

EAST PALO ALTO JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND

PLANNING COMMISSION

SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MEETING AGENDA
April 25, 2023 6:00 PM
EPA Government Center
2415 University Ave, First Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
NOTICE
This meeting will be held virtually and in-person at the Council Chambers located on 2415 University Ave, First Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303. The virtual portion of this City Council meeting will be conducted in accordance with City of East Palo Alto Resolution adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 361.

The public may participate in the City Council Meeting via Zoom Meeting or by attending in-person in the Council Chambers at 2415 University Ave, First Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303. Community members may provide comments by emailing [email protected], submitting a speaker card at the meeting or using the “RAISE HAND” feature when the Mayor or City Clerk call for public comment. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting.

Please click this URL to join
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81037237142
Or join by phone:

Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):

US: +1 669 900 6833 or
+1 346 248 7799 or
+1 253 215 8782 or
+1 312 626 6799 or
+1 929 205 6099 or
+1 301 715 8592
Webinar ID: 810 3723 7142
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aMWYF4KT East Palo Alto City Council April 25, 2023 Agenda Page 2 of 3

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

1. City Council Roll Call

2. Planning Commission Roll Call

2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
(Government Code Section 54957.7(a))

3. STUDY SESSION

1. Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and Infrastructure
Recommendation: Host a Study Session on the Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan Update and provide direction to staff on next steps, including conducting a new Nexus Study to update development impact fees for infrastructure improvements.

4. ADJOURNMENT
East Palo Alto City Council April 25, 2023 Agenda Page 3 of 3 This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) This Notice of Availability of Public Records: All public records relating to an open session item which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, that are distributed to the majority of the City Council will be available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s Office, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the City Council. Such documents may also be available on the East Palo Alto website www.cityofepa.org subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting. Information may be obtained by calling (650) 853-3100.

The City Council meeting packet may be reviewed by the public in the Library or the City Clerk's Office. Any writings or documents pertaining to an open session item provided to a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, shall be made available for public inspection at the front counter at the City Clerk's Office, 2ND Floor, City Hall, 2415 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, California 94303 during normal business hours.

Information distributed to the Council at the Council meeting becomes part of the public record. A copy of written material, pictures, etc. should be provided for this purpose.

East Palo Alto City Council Chambers is ADA compliant. Requests for disability related modifications or accommodations, aids or services may be made by a person with a disability to the City Clerk's office at (650) 853-3127 no less than 72 hours prior to the meeting as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof.

DECLARATION OF POSTING
This Notice is posted in accordance with Government Code §54954.2(a) or §54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the City website. Under penalty of perjury, this Agenda was posted to the public at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

POSTED: April 21, 2023
ATTEST:

James Colin
City Clerk
Future Meetings:

Meeting Date Time
Regular Meeting May 2, 2023 6:30 p.m.

Regular Meeting May 16, 2023 6:30 p.m.

Budget Meeting May 25, 2023 6:00 p.m.

EAST PALO ALTO

CITY COUNCIL

STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 25, 2023
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Melvin E. Gaines, City Manager
BY: Amy Chen, Community & Economic Development Director Elena Lee, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and Infrastructure
Recommendation
Host a Study Session on the Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan Update and provide direction to staff on next steps, including conducting a new Nexus Study to update development impact fees for infrastructure improvements.

Alignment with City Council Strategic Plan
This recommendation is primarily aligned with:

Priority No. 2: Enhance Economic Vitality
Priority No. 4: Improve Public Facilities and Infrastructure Priority No. 6: Create a Healthy and Safe Community
Executive Summary
The project team has advanced standards, policies, and technical analysis related to the RBD (Ravenswood Business District) Specific Plan Update as follows:
• The maximum allowed floor area ratios or FARs for non-residential uses have been revised in the Waterfront Office, Ravenswood Employment Center, and Bay Road Central zones and 4 Corners.
• The maximum heights have been refined and reduced in key locations; additional stepback (upper floor height and building mass reduction) requirements have been developed, to reduce visual/privacy impacts and promote views through the employment district.
• A proposed parks and open space network has been developed that integrates applicants’ individual concepts into a new, comprehensive network that is connected both locally and regionally and that is accessible to EPA residents.

3.1 Packet Pg. 4
• The University Village neighborhood has been removed from the Plan Area boundary. • A new incentive or bonus has been added that allows for greater height and/or FAR in exchange for additional community benefits.
• The traffic impact analysis (TIA) was completed and identified all the improvements that would be needed to mitigate impacts of the development scenarios. These include widening Bay Road in two locations, new publicly accessible streets, signalization of many existing intersections, stop controls at new intersections, and two roundabouts. • The Loop Road was further analyzed and resulted in mixed benefits. The Loop Road would reduces delays at University and Bay Road but increase the delay at the intersections of Pulgas and Bay roads and the Loop Road with University Avenue.

While, the road produces some benefits, it remains a costly and jurisdictionally complex project.
• The completed Utility impact Study (UIS) has identified the needed improvements for water, sewer, and stormwater. The key conclusions are:
o There is adequate water supply to serve both scenarios. o There is inadequate regional sewer treatment allocation for either scenario. o There is a fairly marginal difference in total cost for upgrading wet utilities between Scenarios 1 and 2. However both scenarios collect impact fees that are about equal to the total wet utility costs.
o Key implementation actions have been identified that include initiating an update the City’s nexus fee study for wet utilities to properly assess the fair share attributable to new developments and updating the Storm Drain Master Plan.

Some items are recommended to begin immediately/concurrently with Plan update.
• The SAFERBAY flood control project is progressing on a separate timeline from the Specific Plan update, but ongoing coordination is occurring to align the City, the developers', and the SFCJPA’s (San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority) efforts.

Significant design and engineering work remains for the JPA, especially north of Bay Road.

Background
In September 2020, the City Council recommended exploring a focused amendment to the RBD/Four Corners TOD Specific Plan (“Specific Plan”). Although the overall vision of the plan would generally remain the same, the Specific Plan update analyzes the impacts of allowing an increased amount of office development and housing in the Specific Plan area. The key objectives for the Specific Plan update are to:
• Evaluate the relative impacts and benefits of allowing more office/R&D (research and development) square footage and define policies that address 1) traffic and trip reduction; 2) wet utility infrastructure, 3) fiscal revenues; 4) gentrification/indirect displacement and housing affordability, and 5) local jobs; • Develop a clear framework and program to promote community needs and receive community benefits;
• Articulate urban design standards and zoning standards that create a new, “complete” neighborhood; and
• Maintain the vision of the existing plan of “transforming the area into a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use destination with a significant increase in employment, institutional uses, and moderate increase in housing.”

3.1 Packet Pg. 5
An additional key objective related to Plan implementation has been identified during the course of the update process: Define financing options for construction and maintenance of public infrastructure improvements to support future development.

Past Project Meetings
To date, the City Council has held seven meetings or special study sessions to discuss the Specific Plan Update. The key topics covered and/or decisions made at each meeting are described below, along with a footnoted hyperlink to the relevant staff report:
• March 2021: Reviewed changes in area demographics; agreed on draft urban design objectives.1
• June 2021: Discussed transportation impacts and trip reduction methods. Consensus on the concept of a trip cap tied to the trips studied under the 2013 Plan. The largest scenario (5.25 million square feet or “s.f.”) was removed from consideration due to excessive trip impacts.2
• Sept 2021: Reviewed technical analysis of scenarios (traffic, indirect displacement, housing costs, fiscal revenues, community benefits, and visual impacts).3 • November 2021: Directed staff to study two non-residential scenarios for CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act): 2.8 million s.f. and 3.35 million s.f. of office/R&D. Removed 4.1 million s.f. scenario from consideration due to excessive impacts to the community.4
• February 2022: Selected two housing scenarios to study under the SEIR (Supplemental Environmental Impact Report): 1,350 and 1,600 units to accompany office/R&D square footage numbers.5
• May 2022: Presented priorities for specific benefits and draft “framework” for obtaining community benefits.6
• July 2022: Council endorsed the benefits framework at a high level, which was based on a discretionary allocation of square footage based on a comprehensive evaluation of the benefits packages proposed by the projects (in relation to their financial value and the priorities espoused by residents).7
At this point in the process, the Specific Plan and SEIR are considering two potential maximum office/R&D development scenarios:
• Scenario 1 would allow up to 2.82 million square feet of office/R&D space and up to 1,350 housing units.
• Scenario 2 would allow up to 3.35 million square feet of office/R&D space and up to 1,600 housing units.
1 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1330&Inline=True 2 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1352&Inline=True 3 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1383&Inline=True 4 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1400&Inline=True 5 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1423&Inline=True 6 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1768&Inline=True 7 http://eastpaloalto.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1791&Inline=True

3.1 Packet Pg. 6
Before the SEIR receives its final certification, the City Council will need to select which scenario (or a hybrid alternative) will become the final development capacity approved under CEQA. Direction may be given at a future study session (such as in September or December), but the ultimate selection of which scenario would be made at the time of SEIR certification and action on the project. at a hearing prior to the final certification hearing.

Plan Progress Update
This report (and the April 25, 2023 presentation to Council) is a preview of the updated Specific Plan’s key development standards, policies, and mobility and parks networks, as well as a summary of the extensive analysis that has been completed regarding transportation, utility, and levee improvements.

Analysis
Urban Design
The consultant team has created new development standards that are intended to achieve the City’s vision of an urban neighborhood and employment district. Key standards and diagrams regulate height and stepbacks (upper floor building height and massing reduction), active frontages, and the district’s parks and open space network. Figure 1 illustrates the vision for the plan area’s six different land use character areas:
• 4 Corners (maroon): an active, urban, "Downtown” for the whole City. • Bay Road Central Core (orange): a community-serving nonprofit, medical, and local business core anchored around a lively “Main Street” segment with some residential and mixed uses.
• Innovation & Arts Employment District that includes::
o Waterfront Office (blue): high-tech and higher-intensity job district with active ground floors and ample public spaces
o Ravenswood Employment Center: middle-intensity job district, with a mix of employment-supporting land uses
• Light Industrial Transition (gray): a low-tech and low-intensity job district that offers middle-income employment and a mix of production/warehousing spaces. • Urban Residential Edges (brown): multifamily housing intended for local residents and workers and that serves as a transition between the employment uses and existing neighborhoods.

3.1 Packet Pg. 7
Figure 1: Overall Plan Concept

3.1 Packet Pg. 8
Development Intensity - Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Units per Acre To better align proposed projects with the building scale desired by the community, the proposed plan will reduce the maximum allowed commercial Floor Area Ratios (FARs) in Waterfront Office, Ravenswood Employment Center, and Bay Road Central. The maximum commercial FAR remains 1.5 in the Four Corners zone, as per the adopted 2013 Ravenswood/Four Corners TOD Specific Plan (“Adopted Plan”). See Figure 2 below for the proposed Land Use and Intensity Map.

Table 1: Maximum Intensity / Density
Land Use
Zone
4 Corners Bay Road
Central
Waterfront
Office
Ravenswood
Employment
Center
Industrial
Transition
Zone
Urban
Residential
Maximum
Floor Area
Ratio

1.5 FAR 0.75 for
office/R&D
and retail;

1.5 for hotels
and medical
offices

1.75 FAR 0.75 FAR 0.75 FAR n/a (0.75 for
school or
community
uses)
Maximum
Residential
Density
65 units
per acre
50 units per
acre
-- n/a, see
overlay zones1
n/a, see
overlay
zones1
43 units per
acre
1Four residential overlays have been added that reflect the areas confirmed by Council in February 2022.

Proposed changes to maximum development intensity include:
• Waterfront Office reduced from 3.0 FAR to 1.75 FAR
• Ravenswood Employment Center reduced from 1.0 FAR to 0.75 FAR • Bay Road Central reduced from 2.0 FAR to 0.75 FAR for office/R&D and retail or 1.5 for hotels and medical offices
• 4 Corners remains 1.5 FAR (Note that this is the FAR in the existing Specific Plan; however, the General Plan has a standard of 2.5 FAR).
• 4 Corners residential density increased from 60 to 65 dwelling units per acre. • Urban Residential density increased from 40 to 43 dwelling units per acre.

Exemplary Bonus for Density and Height
In light of the above proposed design standards which reduce the maximum development potential (heights and FARs) in the Specific Plan, an “exemplary” bonus policy is under consideration that would offer a pathway for applicants to exceed the allowed density and/or height in return for increasing the amount of community benefits provided by the project. At Council’s discretion, projects could be granted greater FAR and/or height than normally allowed if the proposed benefits package substantially exceeds the base community benefits requirements (for affordable housing, local jobs, community space, parks, and/or other benefits). An exemplary zone is identified within a portion of each RBD land use zone.

3.1 Packet Pg. 9
Figure 2: Land Use and Development Intensity

3.1 Packet Pg. 10
Heights and Stepbacks
Concerns about the scale and bulk of proposed development projects were raised by the City Council and community members at the June, September, and November 2021 Council meetings. In response, the consultant team worked with staff and the applicants to adjust existing standards (which allowed eight stories in many locations). The intent of the updated height and stepback8 standards is to 1) build on the existing Plan’s concept of “view corridors”, 2) reduce the impacts of excess building height in the most crucial, publicly viewed/experienced locations, while 3) balancing the need for private property owners to construct financially feasible developments that can sustain community benefits.

The updated height standards focus the tallest buildings (seven to eight stories, or between 104-136’) at the far end of Bay Road and in the employment core, farthest from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The standards allow midrise (60’) buildings along the central portion of Bay Road to activate the street while acting as a buffer between neighborhoods and the tallest buildings. See Attachment 1-2 for the maximum height in feet (implied stories are in parentheses – these vary by land use). To limit overall bulkiness, special massing controls apply to portions of buildings above 65’ and 95.’
The Plan employs building step back requirements on Bay Road, along the levee, and along view corridors to realize transitions in height and building size. (See Attachment 1-3 for the locations of all proposed stepback/height transition zones.) The proposed step back approach is oriented around three objectives:
• Protecting existing character, privacy, and access to sunlight for single-family homes, especially in University Village. This is achieved through:
o A height transition zone along the back side of the 4 Corners parcel (maximum of 65’ height for 65’ inward from side or rear property lines). o A height transition zone near University Village (maximum of three stories within 200’ of rear property lines).
o An Industrial Transition stepback zone (within Industrial Transition, a maximum of two stories adjacent to any residential zones).
• Minimizing building shadow impacts on wetlands, natural open space, and habitat. This is achieved through an upper floor stepback/transition zone that extends in-land 100’ beyond the edge of BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) jurisdiction. Heights are restricted to four and six floors progressively within these zones.
• Enhancing public views of the waterfront. This is achieved through:
o An upper floor step back zone for buildings fronting along Bay Road past Tara Road.
o Step back & minimum building separation standards that apply along major and 8 Note: Stepbacks are defined as upper floor building height and massing reduction; in other words, the higher floors of buildings being stepped back away from adjacent homes or the waterfront. These are distinguished from setbacks which regulate the location of the ground floor of a building in relation to nearby property lines or streets.

3.1 Packet Pg. 11
minor “view corridors.”
Active Frontages
A key principle of the Adopted Plan is the activation of Bay Road. Realizing this goal is a challenge due to a lack of demand for new retail uses, fragmented ownership, shallow parcels that make redevelopment more challenging, and the presence existing businsses. In response, the updated Specific Plan utilizes an “active frontages” strategy that designates appropriate locations for a limited amount of retail and other active ground floor land uses. (See Attachment 1-4 for a map of the active frontage locations.) The most crucial frontages for active land uses are:
• At 4 Corners; along Bay Road and most of University Avenue, and around the proposed public plaza on the vacant corner site; and
• Along Bay Road between the Ravenswood Health Center and PG&E.

The plan also requires other types of active frontages at other identified locations in the Specific Plan area (including along Weeks Street, along the future extension of Purdue Avenue, along Pulgas Avenue (the “community spine”) and along planned greenways.

Public Parks and Open Space Network
Attachment 1-5 displays the proposed public park, trail, and open space network envisioned for the Plan Area. The Plan proposes approximately 31 total acres of publicly accessible outdoor spaces for the City. This is comprised of 8 acres of streetscape improvements, trails and paths, and 23 acres of park spaces (15 acres of community parks, 6 acres of neighborhood parks, 2 acres of pocket parks/urban plazas).

Key features include:
• Several larger community parks, including at the end of Bay Road, on both sides of the street (this would require acquisition of the Infinity Salvage property). • Several smaller neighborhood parks, such as at the end of Weeks Street or along the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) property. • Four public plazas, one within each major development. Two are envisioned as anchors at either end of Bay Road while two are intended to act as significant waterfront gathering spaces.
• A comprehensively integrated waterfront park/Bay Trail with amenities to enhance jogging, sports, biking, and birdwatching activities.
• Two east-to-west greenway connections (one north and one south of Bay Road) through new developments.
• Mini-parks throughout the project area.

This proposed park and trail expansion would more than double the existing amount of park

3.1 Packet Pg. 12
and trail space in East Palo Alto. In addition to publicly usable spaces, over 15 acres of restored wetlands would be protected and put under long-term management.

Infrastructure
A summary of the progress made on transportation and utility infrastructure is presented below. Please note that additional analysis is required prior to development beyond what has been completed for the Specific Plan Update, including consideration of a financing district for the Specific Plan area and/or adjustment of development impact fees to fund needed district capital improvements (and ongoing maintenance). Staff recommends that the City initiate an update to the City’s impact fees in order to define and distribute financial responsibility among the property owners for infrastructure improvements.. The Council is asked to provide direction to staff regarding this analysis tonight.

Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Roadway Improvements
The consultant team conducted extensive traffic modeling and impact analysis to compare the future conditions under the Adopted Plan (Base Scenario of 1.44 million s.f.) scenario and the two study scenarios (Scenario 1 of 2.82 million s.f. and Scenario 2 of 3.35 million s.f.). The transportation analysis included projected future regional traffic volumes and other known nearby developments such as the Willow Village Facebook project. The following are some of the key conclusions from the TIA.

1. VMT. Both scenarios would have a less than significant impact on vehicle miles travelled (VMT). This is critical CEQA now requires that impact be defined according to VMT and not traffic congestion on individual roadway segments or intersections.

2. New Roadways. The model assumes the construction of the following new streets would be the responsibility of private developers:
• An internal connection at Four Corners between University Ave and Bay Road (specific alignment to be determined);
• An east-west connection north of Bay Road connecting between Demeter Street and Tara Road;
• A southern extension of Tara Road to Weeks Street;
• An east-west connection south of Bay Road between the Tara Road extension and Pulgas Avenue;
• A new connection that curves southeast from Tara Road to Bay Road; and • A transit-only curved connection between Demeter Street and Pulgas Avenue.

3. Improved Roadways. The traffic impact analysis identified a number of required improvements, including:
• Widening of Bay Road, east of Pulgas Road.
• Widening of two or three legs of the University and Bay Road intersection • Signalization of 12 – 14 intersections throughout the Plan area and the City • New roundabouts at two locations (Tara/Bay Road, Pulgas/E-W Connector).

With the recommended improvements, future development would have an adverse effect on two or three more locations than under the Adopted Plan (9 intersections under the Adopted Plan versus 11 intersections under the 2.8M s.f. option and 12 intersections under the 3.35M s.f. option).

3.1 Packet Pg. 13
(See Attachment 1-6 for a depiction of new planned streets, Attachment 1-7 for the necessary intersection improvements combined with the proposed pedestrian network, and Attachment 1- 8 for the proposed bicycle multimodal network.)
Loop Road
The TIA indicates that the benefits of the Loop Road are mixed. Specifically, construction of the Loop Road would result in lower delay at intersections along Bay Road and University Avenue but higher delay at selected intersections providing access to the Loop Road. Further, without the Loop Road, a few intersections would require more extensive improvements to achieve an acceptable level of service. The conclusion of the TIA is that while the Loop Road has some limited positive traffic impacts, it is not explicitly necessitated as a mitigation measure. The challenges of the building the Loop Road include:
• Significant Coordination with many adjacent jurisdictions; • A high cost that is estimated at $25,000,000 in 2018; • It is difficult to construct given the limited physical space between the single family neighborhoods, the potential levee location and design, and sensitive natural areas.

The proposed approach for the Loop Road in the Specific Plan is as follows:
• The Loop Road will continue to be shown as an option to provide additional access for employers in the RBD.
• The Specific Plan will include two options for the design of the mobility network (with and without the Loop Road).

The City Council should weigh whether the Loop Road is a worthy use of limited transportation funding and balance this project with other community benefits that could be funded by developers.

Water, Stormwater, and Sewer Improvements
As part of the SEIR process, a draft Utilities Impact Study (UIS) was completed. See Attachment 3 for an executive summary of findings, which are as follows:

Water Supply – The City has sufficient current water supply (even before accounting for future Pad D improvements) to support in the amount of development in both Scenario 1 and 2. The water system has sufficient capacity to meet the required fire-fighting flows in the Project area assuming the CIPs proposed in the WMP are constructed (however, multiple nodes elsewhere across the City remain deficient).The UIS also confirmed the need for a new water storage tank (at least 2 million gallons) within the Plan Area.

Sanitary Sewer System – The sewer system collects sewage from East Palo Alto and conveys flows to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant in Palo Alto. The East Palo Alto Sanitary District (EPASD) has a total treatment allocation of 2.9 million gallons per day, measured as average dry weather flow. However, for both Scenario 1 and 2, EPASD will not have sufficient treatment allocation. Additional treatment allocations will need to be secured in the future to support development scenarios analyzed in the Specific Plan update.

Storm Drain System – The storm drain system does not have sufficient capacity to serve future storm water runoff demand. Improvements are necessary to adequately serve storm water runoff demand, especially given the projected increase in storm water runoff caused by the planned flood control improvements. In response, an updated drainage plan and an

3.1 Packet Pg. 14
amendment to the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan will be needed to accommodate a 100-year storm event.

Wet Utility Cost Estimates – The total estimated costs for wet utilities ($58 million under Scenario 1 and $61 million under Scenario 2) is similar to the estimated developer contributions generated by impact fees ($54 million under Scenario 1 and $64 million under Scenario 2). Improvement costs are also similar under both scenarios (and do not scale linearly with development square footage). Each system has a different balance of costs and fee expectations, with Scenario 1 listed first and Scenario 2 listed after:
• Water capacity impact fees would generate between $27.6 and $32.4 million o Water costs are estimated at $16 million based on current construction cost, including a new storage tank and 4th turnout for the main SFPUC service line. • Sewer impact fees would generate approximately $20 or $23 million, based on City staff’s understanding of the 2018 EPASD impact fee structure. o Sewer costs are estimated at $18.4 or $21.2 million based on current construction costs including current deficiencies of $8.2 or 11.2 million. • Storm Drainage impact fees would generate roughly $6.8 to $8.3 million o Storm drainage costs are estimated at $24 million based on current construction costs, including new pump stations and a share of the cost of upgrading O’Connor Station.

A critical implementation item from the Specific Plan is the preparation of an updated nexus study for infrastructure. This is important to ensure that a defensible proportionality can be established between fee obligations and developer impacts. Staff will include a nexus study funding request in the upcoming City budget process.
(Note: The above estimated costs are preliminary only and further engineering design analysis is necessary to confirm the cost of infrastructure improvements.) SAFERBAY Flood Control Improvement Project
The updated Specific Plan will describe the City’s general approach and expectations for the SAFERBAY flood control project (https://www.sfbayrestore.org/projects/safer-bay-planningproject). In particular, the Specific Plan will contain an approximate alignment for the project (as it is known at the time of adoption), and parameters for implementation of adjacent developments. These include requirements for projects to dedicate land (or provide easements) to enable construction of a FEMA-certified flood control structure and to require buildings to be sited outside of the 100’ BCDC jurisdictional zone. The Plan will include minimum Design Flood Elevations (DFEs) to ensure developments will raise the elevation of their sites in an appropriate manner.

The vision is for a seamless transition between private development, future flood control structures (levee/floodwalls), and the Bay Trail, with private development sites being raised to meet the levee grade (or close to it). This integration will transform the City’s previously inaccessible edge into a beautifully landscaped open space and recreational amenity. The design of the SAFERBAY project will vary based on site conditions with segments designed as 80-100’ wide earthen berms at standard 3:1 slopes, segments with wider slopes designed as ‘horizontal’ levees, short segments where narrower levee slopes are necessitated by site or

3.1 Packet Pg. 15
utility constraints, and segments built as floodwalls.

Infrastructure Implementation Actions
Based on the above analysis, the City needs to undertake multiple infrastructure-related implementation actions either concurrent with the Specific Plan or immediately after its adoption. These include:

1. A nexus study to update transportation, water, sewer, and stormwater impact fees (described above);

2. A Storm Drain Master Plan update and related analysis;

3. The formation of a financing district such as a Community Facilities District/Mello-Roos (CFD) or Climate Resilient District (CRD) to pay for and construct the infrastructure improvements.

4. Other less high-profile but equally critical actions include key property acquisitions and ensuring adequate sanitary service in the Project Area.

Community Engagement
The following are the scoped community engagement activities for the project through adoption/certification:
• April through July (prior to release of the Updated Specific Plan) o Small group stakeholder meeting to review key policies and standards in the Draft Plan
• August and September
o Continued small group stakeholder meetings to discuss Public Draft Plan concepts and policies
o Online comment form that allows residents and stakeholders to provide input on the Draft Specific Plan.
• September
o Online public listening sessions or ‘office hours’ on the Specific Plan and EIR.

Next Steps and Timeline
If needed, the project team will return on July 25, 2023 for a joint study session on any items or topics that require follow-up discussion as well as key issues not discussed tonight (such as Transportation Demand Management, potential trip cap, parking, and implementation/financing measures).

The Public Draft of the updated Specific Plan is scheduled to be released in early August and public comments will be accepted until approximately mid-October to coincide with the close of comments on the DSEIR.

The public draft of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) related to this project is scheduled to be released in late August for a 45-day review period. A joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on the DSEIR is scheduled for September 26, 2023, with a tentative date of October 9, 2023 for a public hearing at Planning Commission on the DSEIR.

After the close of public comments, the Planning Commission will meet again to deliver a

3.1 Packet Pg. 16
recommendation on the Final SEIR and updated Specific Plan (tentatively scheduled for early December). Following the Planning Commission, the City Council hearings on the adoption of the Plan and certification of the SEIR will begin (estimated for January 2024).

Fiscal Impact
In 2020, the City hired Raimi and Associates (R+A) to facilitate the update to the Specific Plan.

The R+A contract is split into two parts: 1) Data Refresh, Analysis, Community Engagement, and 2) Environmental Review. The City Council appropriated $998,472 funds to cover part 1 of the R+A contract ($490,164 initially, and then an added $508,308 amended on January 18, 2022). Three developers (Sandhill, Harvest, and Emerson) have contributed installments towards the reimbursement of the environmental review portion (Part 2) of the R+A contract.

Any project that benefits from a future update to the RBD Specific Plan will be required to reimburse the City for Part 1 on a proportional basis. If expanded public engagement or substantial draft Plan revisions are requested by Council, or if additional Council hearings are required for Plan review and adoption, then additional project budget will be necessitated.

An update to the City’s nexus study is estimated to cost $200,000-250,000. This nexus study update is recommended as a separate (from the R+A contract) but concurrent implementation action for the Specific Plan. Staff will include a nexus study funding request in the upcoming City budget process.

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. Additionally, the public was provided electronic advance notice of the study session through a notification sent from the City’s email contact database which contains hundreds of resident and stakeholder emails. The study session date and RBD website link was posted on a physical billboard at the corner of University and Bay Road.

Environmental
The proposed action does not constitute a “project” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(4) and (5) in that it is a governmental fiscal, organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment. No action or decision on the Project will occur at this study session. As discussed above, a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is under preparation for the proposed Specific Plan update.

When the DSEIR public comment period begins later this year (approximately in August 2023), a Notice of Availability (NOA) will be distributed as required by CEQA law, and the document will be posted on the project website. After the 45-day public comment period ends, the City will consider and respond to substantive comments received on the draft SEIR and compile a response to comments document. Once the responses and revisions are complete, a final SEIR will be released, consisting of the response to comments document and the draft SEIR.

The final SEIR will be considered by the City Council for certification in compliance with CEQA.

3.1 Packet Pg. 17
Glossary
RBD. Ravenswood Business District, the primary area within the Plan update (in addition to Four Corners).

SPU. Specific Plan Update, or “this project.”
SEIR. Supplemental Environmental Impact Review, the legally required environmental study and analysis of the potential impacts of new development.

DSEIR/FSEIR. Draft and Final SEIR documents.

CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act, the State law requiring EIRs.

FAR. Floor Area Ratio, or a measure of how large/intense a development is.

SFCJPA. San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, the entity that is leading the SaferBay flood control effort.

BCDC. Bay Conservation and Development Commission, a body that reviews and approves developments located adjacent to the Bay.

EPASD. East Palo Alto Sanitary District, the entity which currently provides sanitary sewer services in the City and oversees the sewer infrastructure.

R&D. Research and Development, a broad land use category that encompasses a variety of scientific/technical, medical/pharmaceutical, and laboratory/life science uses.

S.F. Square feet, a common measurement of a development’s total interior building size.

R+A. Raimi + Associates, primary consultant overseeing the Specific Plan Update.

Attachments

1. Design Framework Maps

2. Executive Summary from Traffic Impact Analysis

3. Executive Summary from Utilities Impact Study

3.1 Packet Pg. 18
1-1: Allowed Land Uses and Maximum Development Intensity3.1.a Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Design Framework Maps (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and 1-2: Maximum Building Heights 3.1.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Design Framework Maps (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and 1-3: Required Stepbacks and Height Transitions 3.1.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Design Framework Maps (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and 1-4: Required Active Frontages 3.1.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Design Framework Maps (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and 1-5: Public Parks and Open Space Network 3.1.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Design Framework Maps (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and 1-6: New Publicly Accessible Streets 3.1.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Design Framework Maps (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and 1-7: Bicycle Network 3.1.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Design Framework Maps (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and 1-8: Pedestrian and Roadway Improvements 3.1.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Design Framework Maps (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and 1-9: Levee Alignment (within Plan Area) 3.1.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Design Framework Maps (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and 1-10: Levee Alignment (outside Plan Area) 3.1.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Design Framework Maps (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Mobility, and Ravenswood Specific Plan Update March 7, 2023
P a g e | i
Executive Summary
Project Overview
This report presents the results of the transportation analysis (TA) prepared for the Ravenswood Specific Plan (RSP) Update in East Palo Alto, California. The Ravenswood Specific Plan Area encompasses approximately 350 acres and is generally bounded at the west by University Avenue; at the north by a rail line; at the east by the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve; and at the south by Weeks Street. In addition to University Avenue, which is an important corridor within the city as well as the region, the Plan Area includes Bay Road, a major east-west corridor in East Palo Alto. Some small parts of the Plan Area are located outside these general boundaries. At the southeast boundary, a small area south of Weeks Street is included because it is part of the City’s Redevelopment Area.

Similarly, the southwest boundary extends to include blocks west of University Avenue in the 4 Corners Area that are within the Ravenswood Redevelopment Area.

The Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan was adopted in 2013. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to identify the impacts and mitigation measures associated with new development permitted under the Specific Plan including 1,268,500 square feet of office development, 351,820 square feet of light industrial/Research and Development (R&D) space, 112,400 square feet of retail space, 61,000 square feet of civic uses, and 835 residential units (hereafter referred to as the ‘1.4M s.f.’ option). In recent years, there has been developer interest in additional development above the adopted capacity in the Specific Plan Area.

This transportation analysis evaluates the following two new development options:
• 2,824,000 million square foot (2.8M s.f.) option: Up to 1,835,600 s.f. of office, 988,400 s.f. of research and development, 250,000 s.f. of light industrial, 112,400 s.f. of commercial/retail space, 154,700 s.f. of civic uses, 43,870 s.f. of amenity use, and 1,350 residential dwelling units.
• 3,335,000 million square foot (3.35M s.f.) option: Up to 2,167,750 s.f. of office, 1,167,250 s.f. of research and development, 300,000 s.f. of light industrial, 112,400 s.f. of commercial/retail space, 154,700 s.f. of civic uses, 53,500 s.f. of amenity use, and 1,600 residential dwelling units.

The 2013 Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report assumed that a new “Loop” Road would be constructed as part of the project. The new roadway would extend northward from the current termination point of Demeter Street. The new roadway would turn to the west and connect with University Avenue near the East Palo Alto city limits. The new Loop Road was intended to provide a direct route between the Plan Area and University Avenue. However, the feasibility and benefits of the Loop Road are uncertain, therefore the RSP Update was analyzed with and without the Loop Road.

3.1.b
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Executive Summary from Traffic Impact Analysis (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Ravenswood Specific Plan Update March 7, 2023
P a g e | ii
The RSP Update also assumes the following new roadway connections: an east-west connection north of Bay Road between Demeter Street and Tara Road (hereafter referred to as Emmerson Street), an extension of Pulgas Avenue from its northern terminus to Emmerson Street, an extension of Tara Road from its northern terminus to Emmerson Street and from Bay Road south to Weeks Street, an east-west connection south of Bay Road between the Tara Road extension and Pulgas Avenue (hereafter referred to as Montage Street), a new connection that curves southeast from Tara Road to Bay Road, and a transit-only east-west connection between Pulgas Avenue and Demeter Street.

Key Takeaways
The overall findings and conclusions of the transportation analysis for the RSP Update are listed below:
• VMT: Because the RSP Area developments would be required to comply with the City’s new Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, the RSP Update would have a less than significant impact on vehicle miles travelled (VMT) under all RSP buildout scenarios. • Intersection Operations: The RSP update would result in adverse effects at roughly twice as many intersections compared to the Adopted Plan (13 affected intersections under the Adopted Plan versus 26 intersections under the 2.8M s.f. option and 29 intersections under the 3.35 M s.f. option). The extent of required intersection improvements funded by RSP developments would increase with the Plan buildout size. With the recommended improvements, the RSP Update would have an adverse effect on slightly more locations than under the Adopted Plan (9 intersections under the Adopted Plan versus 11 intersections under the 2.8M s.f. option and 12 intersections under the 3.35M s.f. option).
• Loop Road: The Loop Road would generally result in lower delay at intersections along Bay Road and University Avenue and higher delay at selected new RSP intersections providing access to the Loop Road. There would be minimal differences in delay at intersections further from the Plan Area. Thus, the list of adversely affected intersections would be nearly the same without and with the Loop Road. A few intersections would require more extensive improvements to achieve an acceptable level of service without the Loop Road than that required with the Loop Road. While the Loop Road has some utility from a transportation perspective, East Palo Alto residents and elected officials should weigh whether the limited benefits of the Loop Road warrant the high cost of this improvement or if the Loop Road funding should be redirected to other transportation improvements or other community priorities. • Freeways: The adverse effects on freeway segments under all project scenarios would be nearly identical. Developments within the RSP Area should make fair-share contributions towards unfunded costs of the identified express lane projects along US 101 and SR 85. • Queuing: Intersection improvements within the existing right-of-way are recommended at several intersections on Bay Road to address deficiencies in left-turn storage under the RSP Update.
• Peak Spreading: For streets providing direct access to the Plan Area, the duration of congestion would substantially increase by the Year 2040 under the Adopted Plan and all Plan Update scenarios. However, the recommended improvements would bring the duration of congestion down to existing levels. At the University/Donohoe gateway, the duration of congestion would continue to be substantial even with the recommended improvements with no perceptible difference between the Adopted Plan and the Plan Update scenarios. • Multimodal Transportation: The RSP Update would result in substantial improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

3.1.b
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Executive Summary from Traffic Impact Analysis (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Ravenswood Specific Plan Update March 7, 2023
P a g e | i i i
Detailed Summary
VMT Analysis
The East Palo Alto VMT policy establishes a significance threshold for residential projects equal to the existing citywide average home-based VMT per capita and for employment projects equal to 15 percent below the existing citywide average home-based work VMT per employee. The East Palo Alto Travel Demand Model (EPA Model) was used to estimate Citywide average VMT and average VMT within the Plan Area without any trip reductions for transportation demand management (TDM) measures. Using the EPA Model, the VMT impact threshold for residential developments is equal 11.68 and VMT impact threshold for office and retail developments is equal 16.38.

The residential VMT per capita and the employment VMT per job is expected to be below the CEQA impact threshold under all scenarios without developer TDM measures due to increase in development density, mix of complementary land uses in close proximity, and increase in the number of residents and employees in the area. This would lead to more internal trips, shorter trip lengths, and more biking and walking.

In accordance with the City’s TDM policy that requires an average daily trip reduction goal of 40 percent for all new nonresidential developments greater than 10,000 square feet and new residential developments with 10 or more units, the VMT reductions resulting from compliance with the City’s TDM policy were estimated manually. With a 40 percent reduction in daily trips per the City’s TDM ordinance, it is estimated that the VMT per RSP Area resident would range from 7.04 to 6.69 and VMT per RSP Area employee would range from 10.82 to 10.34 under all RSP buildout scenarios under existing and cumulative conditions resulting in a less than significant impact on VMT.

Local Transportation Analysis
A Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) was conducted to demonstrate conformance with multimodal transportation system strategies, goals, and policies in the General Plan and to address adverse effects on the transportation system. The LTA supplements the VMT analysis by identifying potential adverse operational effects that may arise due to a new development, as well as evaluating the effects of a new development on site access, circulation, and other safety-related elements in the proximate area of the project.

The LTA satisfies the requirements of the Cities of East Palo Alto, Palo Alto and Menlo Park, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). C/CAG administers the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) and VTA administers the Santa Clara County CMP. Potential adverse effects associated with the RSP update were evaluated at key intersections, freeway segments, and freeway ramps that provide primary access to the Plan Area or would experience a substantial increase in traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Plan Area.

Traffic conditions were evaluated for existing conditions, existing plus RSP buildout (2.8M s.f.) with and without Loop Road, existing plus RSP buildout (3.35M s.f.) with and without Loop Road, cumulative (2040) no project conditions with Adopted Plan (1.4M s.f.) with Loop Road, cumulative plus RSP buildout (2.8M s.f.) with and without Loop Road, and cumulative plus RSP buildout (3.35M s.f.) with and without Loop Road.

Project Trip Generation
The vehicle trips generated by buildout of the RSP Area under each development scenario were estimated using the trip rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). A 40 percent TDM reduction was applied to daily and peak hour trips in accordance with the City’s TDM policy.

3.1.b
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Executive Summary from Traffic Impact Analysis (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Ravenswood Specific Plan Update March 7, 2023
P a g e | iv
The buildout of the adopted specific plan (1.4M s.f.) is expected to generate a total of 21,547 daily trips with 2,144 trips (1,559 in and 585 out) during the AM peak hour and 2,221 trips (740 in and 1,481 out) during the PM peak hour.

The buildout of the proposed 2.8M s.f. development option is expected to generate a total of 34,105 daily trips with 3,464 trips (2,588 in and 876 out) during the AM peak hour and 3,512 trips (1,050 in and 2,462 out) during the PM peak hour.

The buildout of the proposed 3.35M s.f. development option is expected to generate a total of 38,281 daily trips with 3,955 trips (2,977 in and 978 out) during the AM peak hour and 3,982 trips (1,154 in and 2,828 out) during the PM peak hour.

Intersection Levels of Service
The intersections that would be adversely affected under RSP buildout conditions with and without the Loop Road and recommended improvements for both project options are listed in Table ES-1. For comparison, the adverse effects and recommended improvements under the Adopted Plan are also listed.

The RSP update would result in adverse effects at additional intersections compared to the Adopted Plan. The list of adversely affected intersections and the recommended improvements under the 2.8M s.f. development option is nearly the same as that under the 3.35M s.f. development option with intersection delay being marginally higher under the 3.35M s.f. development option. Three additional intersections would be adversely affected under the 3.35M s.f. development option compared to the

2.8M s.f. development option: Newbridge Street/Bay Road, Pulgas Avenue/Weeks Street, and Clarke Avenue and Schembri Lane/Garden Street. Furthermore, three intersections that are adversely affected under both development options would require additional turn lanes under the 3.35M s.f. development option compared to the 2.8M s.f. development option to improve their operations to an acceptable level of service.

The intersection analysis results without and with the Loop Road are quite similar at most intersections.

The following intersections would require more extensive improvements to achieve an acceptable level of service without the Loop Road than that required with the Loop Road: University Avenue/Purdue Avenue, University Avenue/Bay Road, Clarke Avenue/Bay Road, and Pulgas Avenue/Weeks Street.

Many of the improvements required under the RSP Update have been identified previously in the 2013 Ravenswood/TOD Specific Plan EIR, the Menlo Park Transportation Impact Fee Program, or in transportation studies for other approved developments in East Palo Alto. Additional improvements not previously identified would be required at eleven study intersections. These include signalization at four intersections, addition of turn lanes at three intersections, turn restrictions at two intersections, and a roundabout at two intersections. At the University Avenue and Bay Road intersection, the analysis shows that not all of the previously recommended improvements would be required to achieve an acceptable level of service under all of the RSP update scenarios.

3.1.b
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Executive Summary from Traffic Impact Analysis (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Ravenswood Specific Plan Update March 7, 2023
P a g e | v
Table ES 1
Intersection Level of Service Summary
Adopted Plan1 # Intersection
with
Loop Rd
without
Loop Rd
with
Loop Rd
without
Loop Rd
with
Loop Rd
Improvement in Adopted
RSP Plan
Improvement Identified in other
Transportation Studies
Additional Recommended Improvement for
RSP Update Funding Responsibility 1 Willow Rd (SR 114) and Bayfront Expy (SR 84) Y Y Y Y Y
Add third NBR lane
(improvement has since
been completed)
Multimodal improvements [Menlo Park TIF] No Fair share contribution 2 Willow Rd (SR 114) and Newbridge St N Y Y Y Y -- Modify signal timing.

Multimodal Improvements [Menlo Park TIF] No Fair share contribution 3 University Ave (SR 109) and Bayfront Expy
(SR 84) Y Y Y Y Y
Adaptive signal timing
(partial mitigation);
No other feasible
improvements identified.

Multimodal improvements [Menlo Park TIF] No Fair share contribution 4 Newbridge Street and Bay Rd N/A N N Y Y -- -- Signalize RSP Area developments would be responsible for fully funding the improvement. 5 Euclid Ave and Donohoe St N/A Y Y Y Y -- Signalize and restripe WB approach to 1 WBT, 1
WBR [Sobrato University Plaza Phase II] No
Fair share contribution by Menlo Park’s TIF, University Plaza Phase II, JobTrain, and University Circle Phase II. The RSP Area developments would be responsible for funding the remaining costs. 6
US 101 Northbound On Ramp and
Donohoe St N/A Y Y Y Y --
Signalize, shift the US 101 NB on ramp 30 feet
to the east, restripe the WB approach to 1 WBL,
1WBL/T, 1 WBT/R, widen the US 101 NB on
ramp to 2 lanes [Sobrato University Plaza
Phase II]
No Same as int #5 7
University Ave (SR 109) and Loop Rd
(future) Y N/A Y N/A Y
Signalize and add
1 SBL lane --
(3.35M s.f. with Loop Rd) Widen WB
approach to include 1 WBL, 1 WBR
RSP Area developments would be responsible for fully funding the improvement. 8 University Ave (SR 109) and Purdue Ave Y Y N Y N Signalize -- No RSP Area developments would be responsible for fully funding the improvement.
(All Scenarios with Loop Rd) Same as
Adopted Plan except without second NBL
lane and without 1 NBR
(All Scenarios without Loop Rd ) Same as
Adopted Plan except without second
NBL lane
14 University Ave and Donohoe St Y Y Y Y Y
Add 1 SBR lane and
restripe WB approach to 2
WBL, 1 WBT, 1 WBR;
Modify signal phasing
Widen and restripe WB approach to 2 WBL,
1 WBT, 1 WBT/R, and 1 WBR and the EB
approach to 1 EBL, 1 EBT/R and modify signal
to protected EB/WB approaches [Sobrato
University Plaza Phase II]
No Same as int #5
15 University Ave and US 101 SB Ramps Y Y Y Y Y
No feasible improvements
identified
Donohoe Street improvements [Sobrato
University Plaza Phase II] No Same as int #5
16 University Ave and Woodland Ave Y Y Y Y Y
No feasible improvements
identified
Donohoe Street improvements [Sobrato
University Plaza Phase II] No Same as int #5
17 University Circle Dwy and Woodland Ave N Y Y Y Y --
Donohoe Street improvements [Sobrato
University Plaza Phase II] No Same as int #5
18 US 101 NB Off Ramp and Donohoe St N Y Y Y Y --
Widen WB approach to 4 WBT lanes and modify
median to narrow eastbound approach to 1EBL
(full length) and 2 EBT [Sobrato University Plaza
Phase II]
No Same as int #5
Scenario Requires Improvement (Y/N)2
Menlo Park TIF to provide fair share contribution. RSP Area developments would be responsible for funding the remaining costs.
11 University Ave and Bay Rd Y --

2.8M s.f. Project Y Y Y Y
Widen and restripe to add
second SBL, second WBL,
second NBL and 1 NBR;
Modify signal phasing

3.35M s.f. Project

3.1.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Executive Summary from Traffic Impact Analysis (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Ravenswood Specific Plan Update March 7, 2023
P a g e | vi
Table ES 1 (Continued)
Intersection Level of Service Summary
Adopted Plan1 # Intersection
with
Loop Rd
without
Loop Rd
with
Loop Rd
without
Loop Rd
with
Loop Rd
Improvement in Adopted
RSP Plan
Improvement Identified in other
Transportation Studies
Additional Recommended Improvement for
RSP Update Funding Responsibility
19 Cooley Ave and Donohoe St N Y Y Y Y --
Restripe EB to 1 EBL, 2 EBT [Sobrato
University Plaza Phase II] No Same as int #5
20 East Bayshore Rd and Donohoe St N Y Y Y Y --
Donohoe Street improvements [Sobrato
University Plaza Phase II] No Same as int #5
21 Clarke Ave and Bay Rd Y Y Y Y Y Signalize --
(3.35M s.f. without Loop Rd) Modify SB
approach to 1 SBL, 1 shared SBT/R
JobTrain to provide fair share contribution. RSP Area
developments would be responsible for funding the remaining costs.
23 Clarke Ave and Runnymede St N/A Y Y Y Y -- -- Signalize RSP Area developments would be responsible for fully funding the improvement.
26 Demeter St and Bay Rd Y Y Y Y Y Signalize -- No RSP Area developments would be responsible for fully funding the improvement.
28 Pulgas Ave and Weeks St N N N Y N -- Signalize [Jobtrain & 965 Weeks Street] No JobTrain and 965 Weeks Street to provide fair share contribution.

RSP Area developments would be responsible for funding the remaining costs.
29 Pulgas Ave and Runnymede St N Y Y Y Y -- Signalize [Jobtrain & 965 Weeks Street] (3.35M s.f. without Loop Rd) Modify NB approach to 1 NBL, 1NBT/R
JobTrain and 965 Weeks Street to provide fair share contribution.

RSP Area developments would be responsible for funding the remaining costs.
30 Pulgas Ave and O'Connor St N/A Y Y Y Y -- -- Signalize RSP Area developments would be responsible for fully funding the improvement.
31 Pulgas Ave and E. Bayshore Road Y N N N N
No feasible improvements
identified -- -- --
32 Embarcadero Rd and Bayshore Rd Y N N N N
No feasible improvements
identified -- -- --
34 University Ave (SR 109) and Adams Dr N/A Y Y Y Y -- Signalize [Menlo Park TIF] No Menlo Park TIF 35 Clarke Ave and Schembri Lane/Garden
Street N N N Y Y -- -- Signalize RSP Area developments would be responsible for fully funding the improvement. 39 University Ave and 4 Corners Dwy (Future) N/A Y Y Y Y -- -- Restrict the driveway to right turns only in and
out of the 4 Corners property.

The proposed 4 Corners project would be responsible for constructing this intersection with the recommended turn restrictions.
40 4 Corners Dwy and Bay Rd (Future) N/A Y Y Y Y -- --
Restrict the driveway to right turns only in and
out of the 4 Corners property
The proposed 4 Corners project would be responsible for constructing this intersection with the recommended turn restrictions.
42 Pulgas Ave and Emmerson St (Future) N/A N Y Y Y -- -- Roundabout The RSP Area developments would fully fund the cost of the new roadway and the recommended roundabout.
45 Tara Rd and Bay Rd N/A Y Y Y Y -- -- Roundabout The RSP Area developments would fully fund the cost of the recommended roundabout.

Notes:

NB = northbound; WB = westbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; L/T/R = left/through/right; Y Outline indicates that the intersection would continue to operate at a substandard LOS with recommended improvements. 1 Source: 2013 Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Intersections analyzed under the RSP Update that were not analyzed in the 2013 Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report are shown as N/A. 2
Scenario requires improvement under either existing or cumulative conditions.

JobTrain to provide fair share contribution. RSP Area
developments would be responsible for funding the remaining costs.

Signalize and modify NB approach to 1 NBL, 1
NBL/T/R and WB approach to 1 WBL, 1WBT/R [Jobtrain]27 Pulgas Ave and Bay Rd Y Y Y Signalize No Scenario Requires Improvement (Y/N)2

2.8M s.f. Project 3.35M s.f. Project Y Y

3.1.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Executive Summary from Traffic Impact Analysis (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Ravenswood Specific Plan Update March 7, 2023
P a g e | v i i
Freeway Ramp Analysis
The queues on freeway ramps at the US 101/University Avenue interchange were evaluated under buildout of the RSP. With the buildout of the RSP and the proposed Donohoe Street and University Avenue improvements, the 95th percentile queue at the northbound US 101 on-ramp from westbound Donohoe Street would continue to exceed the available storage under all scenarios with the project under both peak hours both without and with the Loop Road. Under cumulative plus project conditions (2.8M s.f. and 3.35M s.f.) without and with the Loop Road, the 95th percentile queue on the US 101 northbound off ramp to Donohoe Street would exceed the available storage length during both the AM and PM peak hours.

Increasing the ramp queue storage further is not feasible as it would require acquisition of additional right-of-way to widen the ramp to include another lane.

Freeway Segment Evaluation
The freeway analysis results reflect the freeway trips generated by buildout of the Ravenswood Specific Plan under two development options (2.8M s.f. and 3.35M s.f.) both without and with the Loop Road.

Freeway segments were analyzed along US 101 between Peninsula Avenue in San Mateo County and Mathilda Avenue in Santa Clara County, along the Dumbarton Bridge, and along SR 85 between US 101 and El Camino Real.

Existing Conditions
Due to the existing freeway congestion in the vicinity of the Plan Area, the EPA model shows that freeway traffic volumes would increase very little under existing plus project conditions, compared to existing conditions. This is because the additional trips generated by the RSP developments are somewhat offset by changes in the distribution and assignment of existing trips not associated with the Plan Area that would divert to other routes. The adverse effects on freeway segments were analyzed based on the project-generated trips without accounting for diversions of existing trips. Based on this conservative approach, most of the freeway segments would be adversely affected under existing conditions with the buildout of the RSP. The adverse effects on freeway segments under the two development options (2.8M s.f. and 3.35M s.f.) both without and with the Loop Road would be nearly identical.

Freeway Improvements
The VTA’s Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 identifies freeway express lane projects along US 101 between Cochrane Road and Whipple Avenue, and along all of SR 85. On all identified freeway segments, the existing HOV lanes are proposed to be converted to express lanes. On US 101, a second express lane is proposed to be implemented in each direction for a total of two express lanes.

Similarly, C/CAG’s Countywide Transportation Plan identifies a highway improvement project to accommodate an HOV lane or express lane on US 101 from Whipple Avenue to I-380. The Phase 3 portion of the Silicon Valley Express Lane Project, which extends along US 101 from SR 237 to San Mateo County and on SR 85 from SR 237/Grant Road to US 101, and the Phase 1 portion of the San Mateo US 101 Express Lane Project, which extends from Santa Clara County to Whipple Avenue, opened in February 2022. The Phase 5 portion of the Silicon Valley Express Lanes Project, which extends along US 101 from SR 237 to I 880, is expected to be completed in 2025. Additional freeway improvements such as the addition of mixed-flow lanes are generally not feasible due to right of way constraints and secondary impacts associated with induced travel.

East Palo Alto may collect fair share contributions from developments within the Ravenswood Specific Plan Area towards unfunded costs of the identified express lane projects along US 101.

3.1.b
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Executive Summary from Traffic Impact Analysis (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Ravenswood Specific Plan Update March 7, 2023
P a g e | v i i i
Cumulative Conditions
Cumulative no project conditions reflect buildout of the adopted Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan with the Loop Road. This scenario represents baseline conditions against which cumulative plus project scenarios are judged to identify cumulative adverse effects of the updated RSP. Cumulative conditions reflect the Year 2040 transportation network and thus assume completion of the US 101 express lane project in San Mateo County. Within Santa Clara County, Valley Transportation Authority’s Valley Transportation Plan 2040 identifies freeway express lane projects along US 101 that would convert the existing HOV lanes to express lanes and add a second express lane in each direction.

The RSP buildout under cumulative plus project conditions would have adverse effects along US 101 between SR 92 and the Santa Clara County Line and between Oregan Expressway and Shoreline Boulevard, along Dumbarton Bridge, and along SR 85 between US 101 and El Camino Real. The adverse effects under the two development options (2.8M s.f. and 3.35M s.f.) both without and with the Loop Road would be nearly identical.

Freeway Improvements
The analysis of freeway segments under cumulative conditions reflects the Year 2040 transportation network and thus assumes completion of the express lane projects identified in the VTA’s Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2040 and C/CAG’s Countywide Transportation Plan. Additional freeway improvements that would address the remaining freeway deficiencies under cumulative conditions are generally not feasible due to right of way constraints and secondary impacts associated with induced travel.

Turn Pocket Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection levels of service was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis for intersection turning movements where the RSP development would add a substantial number of trips.

This analysis provides a basis for estimating future storage requirements at the intersections.

Recommended intersection improvements to accommodate projected queues are listed below:
• University Avenue and Bay Road – A second westbound left-turn lane is recommended to offset the project’s adverse effects on the intersection level of service. The dual westbound leftturn lanes should be extended by 125 feet back to the new driveway of the proposed Four Corners project under both the 2.8M s.f. and the 3.35M s.f. options both without and with the Loop Road.
• Clarke Avenue and Bay Road - Under the 2.8M s.f. option without the Loop Road and under the 3.35M s.f. option both without and with the Loop Road, the 95th percentile queue would extend past the existing storage of the left-turn pocket on eastbound Bay Road at Clarke Avenue during the AM peak hour. Under these scenarios, the existing left-turn pocket should be extended by 50 feet to accommodate the estimated queue by modifying the landscaped median.
• Demeter Street and Bay Road - The southbound left-turn pocket should be extended to accommodate the projected queue lengths by restriping the street and extending the no-parking restriction on the east side of the street farther north. This improvement would be required only with the Loop Road under both the 2.8M s.f. and 3.35M s.f. development options Peak Spreading
As traffic congestion increases due to the proposed development in the Plan Area and regional growth under cumulative conditions, the proportion of the 24-hour traffic volume that occurs during the peak hours may decrease. This behavioral response, known as peak spreading, occurs when motorists shift their departure time to non-peak hours due to growing congestion during the peak travel times.

3.1.b
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Executive Summary from Traffic Impact Analysis (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Ravenswood Specific Plan Update March 7, 2023
P a g e | ix
Therefore, instead of congestion generally being limited to one or two hours, peak spreading leads to an increase in the hours of congestion beyond the typical commute hours.

Peak spreading for segments along Pulgas Avenue south of Bay Road, Clarke Avenue south of Bay Road, and University Avenue south of Bayfront Expressway shows that daily traffic volumes and the duration of congestion would substantially increase under all project scenarios, however, the recommended improvements at the capacity constraining intersections would release the bottleneck and substantially increase the capacity of the corridor bringing the congested time period down to existing levels.

At University Avenue north of Donohoe Street, under project conditions, the duration of congestion would increase to over six hours. The recommended Donohoe Street improvements would reduce congestion under existing plus project (2.8M s.f.) conditions to two to four hours in both directions.

Under existing plus project (3.35M s.f.) conditions, the improvements would reduce the duration of congestion to two to four hours in the northbound direction and four to six hours in the southbound direction. Under the cumulative no project (1.4M s.f.) and cumulative plus project (2.8M s.f. and 3.35M s.f.) conditions, the recommended Donohoe Street improvements would reduce the duration of congestion to four to six hours in the northbound direction, however the southbound direction would continue to experience congestion for over six hours.

Potential Impacts on Pedestrians, Bicycles and Transit
The RSP Update would result in substantial improvement to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. It would build several new pedestrian and bicycle connections and would be consistent with the City’s adopted policies and planned facilities related to bicycle and pedestrian activity.

The project would also not interfere or conflict with existing or planned transit facilities and would include bus stops for shuttles or other micro transit services. The potential for Dumbarton Rail service and new station locations are uncertain at this time. The RSP Update provides new connections that would enable vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians to travel to and from the potential Dumbarton Rail line at the northern edge of the Plan Area. Thus, the project is expected to have a positive effect on transit services.

3.1.b
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Executive Summary from Traffic Impact Analysis (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan Update Utility Impact Study Executive Summary
January 31, 2023 ES-1 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Executive Summary
Schaaf & Wheeler has been retained by Raimi & Associates to determine impacts from the City of East Palo Alto (City) Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan Update (Project) on the public potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain systems that serve the Project area. The Project encompasses approximately 350 acres bounded by University Avenue at the west, the City boundary and a rail line at the north, the Bay at the east, and Weeks Street at the south (Figure A-1). The Project serves as a Specific Plan Update considering additional development above and beyond that studied in the 2013 Ravenswood/4 Corners TOD Specific Plan. The Specific Plan described a vision for a transit-oriented center, an improved multimodal transportation network, and a greater diversity of land uses. As a portion of this study, the levels of development proposed in the 2013 Specific Plan were considered along with two additional scenarios (Scenario 1 and 2) with land use densities above those studied in the 2013 Specific Plan.

Project impacts to the potable water system are analyzed for both Existing and Future Cumulative Condition.

Hydraulic models simulating pre- and post-Project development scenarios are performed to examine hydraulic deficiencies. The Existing Condition and Future Cumulative Condition is based on the 2022 City of East Palo Alto Water System Master Plan (WMP). The Future Cumulative Condition includes CIPs considered in the WMP and outlines the highest priority CIPs needed to serve the Project’s increased demands while meeting the City’s Standards.

Project impacts to the sanitary sewer system are analyzed for Existing and Future Cumulative Conditions.

Hydraulic models simulating pre- and post-Project development scenarios are performed to examine hydraulic deficiencies. The Existing and Future Condition is based on the 2020 East Palo Alto Sanitary District (EPASD) Sewer Master Plan Update (SMP). The Future Cumulative Condition includes CIPs considered in the Master Plan Update and outlines modified CIPs needed to serve the existing and proposed demands while meeting EPASD’s standards. A portion of the Project area is served by West Bay Sanitary District (WBSD). S&W was not able to obtain detailed information from WBSD for this study. The majority of the planned development areas within the Project area are served by EPASD, and therefore this study focuses on EPASD impacts.

Project impacts to the storm drain system are analyzed for both Existing and Future Cumulative Condition.

Hydraulic models simulating pre- and post-Project development scenarios are performed to examine hydraulic deficiencies. The Existing Condition and Future Cumulative Condition is based on the 2014 City of East Palo Alto Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP). The Project modeling assumes the SDMP Alternative 2 improvement program CIPs, as well as CIPs that were completed after the SDMP was completed. The modeling also addresses modified parameters associated with the current San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) SAFER Bay Project. The analysis discusses CIPs required to meet the City’s standards and mitigate Project impacts.

Water System Project Impacts
The water system has deficiencies pre-project under peak hour demand (PHD) at Existing Condition. Similarly, there are many nodes that do not meet planning level fire flow requirements at Existing Condition. As a portion of this study, CIPs are identified that are required to meet the fire flow demands at the Project area and mitigate impacts on the fire flow availability due to increased water demands from the Project. The highest priority CIPs are outlined based on each level of development proposed.

The water system has sufficient capacity in the Future Cumulative Condition pre- and post-Project to meet the required fire flows in the Project area assuming the CIPs proposed in the WMP are constructed, however, multiple nodes across the City remain deficient. The Future Cumulative Condition meets the minimum pressure requirements under Peak Hour Demands (PHD) pre- and post-project. The actual fire flow requirements may change as the planning process continues and Project specific requirements are determined by the City Fire Marshal. If Project conditions require higher fire flow than what is analyzed, revised modeling should be conducted.

The water system for the City is primarily served with purchased water delivered through the SFPUC Supply Turnouts. Per the Water Supply Agreement between the City and SFPUC, the City has a total capacity of 3.56 million gallons per day (Average Daily Demand). As a portion of this study the total estimated demands in the DRAFT

3.1.c
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Executive Summary from Utilities Impact Study (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan Update Utility Impact Study Executive Summary
January 31, 2023 ES-2 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
Future Cumulative Condition were compared to the City’s supply capacity. The City has sufficient capacity to support the estimated demand increase associated with land uses proposed in the General Plan and the 2013 Specific Plan. With the proposed land uses of the Project, the City has sufficient water supply capacity to support the land use levels proposed in both future development Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.

Sewer System Project Impacts
The sanitary sewer system does not have sufficient capacity in the Existing Condition nor the Future Condition with or without the estimated increase in incremental Project flow. In the pre-Project condition, model results indicate that many pipes within the Project boundary and the remainder of the City are surcharging. CIPs are developed to address existing deficiencies and future deficiencies pre- and post-project. CIPs outlined in this report are based on CIPs recommended in the 2020 SMP and further modified to ensure all pipes meet the performance criteria outlined in the 2020 SMP.

For the purposes of this study, CIPs were developed using the 2020 SMP recommended CIPs; however, the CIPs outlined in the 2020 SMP did not correct all of the deficiencies in the existing nor in the future conditions. Additional CIPs are outlined to address all deficiencies pre-Project in both the existing and future condition. The increase in flows for post-Project Scenarios both existing and future condition created additional deficiencies. CIPs were developed above and beyond those required pre-Project for each level of development and increased land use density proposed by the Project.

The sewer system collects sewage from East Palo Alto and conveys flows to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant in Palo Alto. The EPASD has a total treatment allocation of 2.9 million gallons per day (Average Dry Weather Flow). As a portion of this study, the total estimated sewer flows in the Future Cumulative Condition were compared to the EPASD treatment allocation. The EPASD has sufficient allocation to support the estimated sewer flow increase associated with land uses proposed in the General Plan and the 2013 Specific Plan.

With the proposed land uses of the Project, the EPASD will not have sufficient treatment allocation for either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2. Additional treatment allocations will need to be secured in the Future Condition to support the level of development analyzed in the SP update.

Storm Drain System Project Impacts
The storm drain system does not have sufficient capacity in the Existing Condition nor the Future Condition with or without the estimated increase in storm water runoff due to Project development. The 2014 SDMP identifies storm drain performance is significantly affected by SF Bay tides and low-lying topography within the City boundaries. The storm drain system on the east side of the City is comprised of several local gravity outfalls that discharge directly to the SF Bay. The SDMP improvement program concept eliminates individual local gravity outfalls and conveys storm water south to the existing O’Connor Pump Station, thereby eliminating the influence of SF Bay tides on the storm drain system. The RBD SP envisions development in areas that currently do not drain to the City’s storm drain system. In addition to new land development, the SFCJPA SAFER Bay project plans to protect the City from high tides by constructing a perimeter levee system along the eastern boundary of the City, which in turn results in increased storm water runoff to the City’s storm drain system. The culmination of several factors requires modification to the SDMP findings. The 2014 SDMP recommended CIPs are modified to include the construction of an additional storm drain pump station to be located adjacent to the existing Runnymede storm drain outfall and several pipe improvement project modifications.

Infrastructure Improvement Costs
Improvement costs for the public utility systems are outlined for the water, sewer, and storm drain systems. Costs are only included for CIPs in the RBD or downstream of the RBD. CIPs only include City or Municipal level improvements and do not include private property improvements needed to serve development projects. Water CIP costs include water conveyance improvements, storage improvement costs, and new supply connections.

Sewer CIP costs include conveyance in the RBD and along the Project-affected flow path but do not include treatment capacity improvements or additional treatment capacity rights. Storm CIP costs include City conveyance improvement projects and pump stations but do not include any regional levee projects or individual development grading or onsite storm systems including LID, drainage, and trash capture systems. Table ES-1 represents CIP DRAFT

3.1.c
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Executive Summary from Utilities Impact Study (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design, Ravenswood Business District Specific Plan Update Utility Impact Study Executive Summary
January 31, 2023 ES-3 Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
costs related to the RBD SP area for each utility system. The cost values are totals and do not differentiate cost sharing analysis for new RBD development.

Table ES-1: Infrastructure Improvement Costs Summary
Utility 2013 Specific Plan
(Baseline) Project Scenario 1 Project Scenario 2
Water $9,628,200 $16,051,200 $16,051,200
Sewer $16,677,950 $18,356,030 $21,226,450
Storm Drain $23,800,000 $23,800,000 $23,800,000
Total $50,106,150 $58,207,230 $61,077,650
DRAFT
(2.82 million sf office/R&D) (3.35 million sf office/R&D)

3.1.c
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Executive Summary from Utilities Impact Study (2649 : Ravenswood Business District / 4 Corners Specific Plan – Urban Design,