Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgreement - Santa Clara County - Grand Nexus CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SUNNYVALE AND STRATEGIC ECONOMICS, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY THIS AGREEMENT, dated ________________________, is by and between the CITY OF SUNNYVALE ("CITY"), a California chartered municipal corporation, and STRATEGIC ECONOMICS, INC. (“CONSULTANT"), a California corporation. WHEREAS, CITY has a strong history of collaboration and resource sharing with other cities and towns in Santa Clara County on various planning studies and initiatives as part of the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative; and WHEREAS, one such planning study initiated by the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative is the SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY (“PROJECT”); and WHEREAS, the purpose of this PROJECT is to study the feasibility and address the legal requirements of inclusionary housing and commercial linkage fee requirements by sharing analysis and resources for greater efficiency for the six jurisdictions participating in this collaborative effort, which include the City of Gilroy, the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Town of Los Gatos, the City of Mountain View, the City of Santa Clara, and the City of Sunnyvale (collectively, “PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS”); WHEREAS, Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning, the consulting firm for the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative, has served as the project manager for (“PROJECT MANAGER”) for this collaborative effort through initial formation and the Request for Proposals (RFP) process to ensure that the voice of each PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS is heard and their needs are addressed; and WHEREAS, PROJECT MANAGER, in consultation with PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS, advertised a request for proposal (“RFP”) on November 3, 2023 for a firm to provide consulting services for the outreach, analysis, and planning associated with the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT submitted a proposal on December 5, 2023; and WHEREAS, PROJECT MANAGER, in consultation with PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS, determined that CONSULTANT possesses the skill and expertise to provide the required services and accepted CONSULTANT’s proposal submitted on September 27, 2024; and WHEREAS, PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS and PROJECT MANAGER entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) effective November 1, 2024, which outlines the roles of each PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION, CONSULTANT, PROJECT MANAGER, and the funding obligations for the project; and WHEREAS, the MOU declared that CITY will serve as fiscal agent for PROJECT and will enter into a separate agreement with CONTRACTOR and oversee the payment of invoices on behalf of PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS. Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E 11/26/2024 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT. 1. Services by CONSULTANT CONSULTANT shall provide services in accordance with Exhibit "A" entitled “Scope of Work”, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. CONSULTANT shall determine the method, details and means of performing the services. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it is the “CONTRACTOR” referenced in the MOU, attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by reference, and agrees to the terms and conditions of the MOU applicable to CONSULTANT, including, but not limited to, the role and responsibilities of “CONTRACTOR” and the funding and method of payment as outlined in the MOU. 2. Time for Performance The term of this Agreement shall be eighteen (18) months from the execution date, unless otherwise terminated in accordance with Section 17 below. CONSULTANT shall deliver the agreed upon services to CITY as specified in Exhibit "A". Extensions of time may be granted by the City Manager as an amendment in accordance with Section 18 below. 3. Duties of CITY CITY shall supply to CONSULTANT any documents or information available to CITY and required by CONSULTANT for performance of the services. Any materials provided shall be returned to CITY upon completion of the work. 4. Compensation CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT as full compensation for the services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, the amounts set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Total compensation shall not exceed Two Hundred Forty- Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine dollars ($249,999). CONSULTANT shall submit invoices to CITY no more frequently than monthly for services provided to date. All invoices, including detailed backup, shall be sent to City of Sunnyvale, attention Accounts Payable, P.O. Box 3707, Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3707 or accountspayable@sunnyvale.ca.gov. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days upon receipt of an accurate, itemized invoice by CITY’s Accounts Payable Unit. 5. Wage Rates CONSULTANT shall comply with the City’s the minimum wage set forth in Section 3.80.040 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code. 6. Ownership of Documents CITY shall have full and complete access to CONSULTANT's working papers, drawings and other documents during progress of the work. All documents of any Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E description prepared by CONSULTANT shall become the property of the CITY at the completion of the project and upon payment in full to the CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT may retain a copy of all materials produced pursuant to this Agreement. 7. Conflict of Interest CONSULTANT shall avoid all conflicts of interest, or appearance of conflict, in performing the services and agrees to immediately notify CITY of any facts that may give rise to a conflict of interest. CONSULTANT is aware of the prohibition that no officer of CITY shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or in the proceeds thereof. During the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall not accept employment or an obligation which is inconsistent or incompatible with CONSULTANT’S obligations under this Agreement. CONSULTANT’S duties and services under this agreement shall not include preparing or assisting the CITY with any portion of CITY’S preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with the CITY. The CITY shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. CONSULTANT participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. CONSULTANT shall cooperate with CITY to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same informat ion, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by contractor pursuant to this agreement. Pursuant to CITY’s Conflict of Interest Code, Council Policy 7.3.7, CITY has determined that, depending on the position, certain individuals performing services under this Agreement may be required to file a Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700), which can be found at www.fppc.ca.gov. If applicable, to facilitate electronic submittal of Form 700, CONSULTANT shall send the following information to cityclerk@sunnyvale.ca.gov: 1) first and last name(s) of CONSULTANT’s employee(s); 2) email address(es) of CONSULTANT’s employee(s); 3) date when CONSULTANT’s employee(s) will begin work under this contract; and 4) (if known) date when CONSULTANT’s employee(s) will cease work under this contract. Government Code Section 91013 provides that any person who files a statement after its deadline shall be liable in the amount of $10 per day, up to a maximum of $100, in addition to any administrative penalty (up to the statutory maximum, curren tly $5,000) imposed by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). If any of CONSULTANT’s employee(s) is required to submit Form 700, and CITY does not receive CONSULTANT’s Form 700, then CITY is required to refer this matter to the FPPC or other appropriate enforcement agency. 8. Confidential Information CONSULTANT shall maintain in confidence and at no time use, except to the extent required to perform its obligations hereunder, any and all proprietary or confidential Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E information of CITY of which CONSULTANT may become aware in the performance of its services. 9. Compliance with Laws A. CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against, or engage in the harassment of, any City employee or volunteer or any employee of CONSULTANT or applicant for employment because of an individual’s race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, veteran or military status, or any other protected characteristic in violation of federal or state law. This prohibition shall apply to all of CONSULTANT’s employment practices and to all of CONSULTANT’s activities as a provider of services to the City. B. CONSULTANT shall comply with all federal, state and city laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations and the orders and decrees of any courts or administrative bodies or tribunals in any manner affecting the performance of the Agreement. 10. Independent Contractor CONSULTANT is acting as an independent contractor in furnishing the services or materials and performing the work required by this Agreement and is not an agent, servant or employee of CITY. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between CITY and CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT is responsible for paying all required state and federal taxes. 11. Hold Harmless/Indemnification To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall hold harmless, defend at its own expense, and indemnify the City and its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers, against any and all liability, claims, losses, damages, or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, arising from all acts or omissions of CONSULTANT or its officers, agents, or employees in rendering services under this Agreement; excluding, however, such liability, claims, losses, damages, or expenses arising from the City’s sole negligence or willful acts. The defense and indemnification obligations of this agreement are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by, the insurance obligations contained in this agreement. CONSULTANT’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this agreement. 12. Insurance The City requires that CONSULTANT maintain insurance requirements on the City’s electronic insurance verification system. CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain, at its own expense, during the life of this Agreement, policies of insurance as specified in Exhibit "C", attached and incorporated herein by reference, and shall provide all certificates and endorsements as specified in Exhibit "C" electronically for approval by the City Risk Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Manager prior to CONSULTANT (or subcontractor) commencing any work under this Agreement. 13. CITY Representative Trudi Ryan, Community Development Director, as the City Manager's authorized representative, shall represent CITY in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered under this Agreement (“CITY representative”). All requirements of CITY pertaining to the services and materials to be rendered under this Agreement shall be coordinated through the CITY representative. 14. CONSULTANT Representative Derek Braun, Principal, shall represent CONSULTANT in all matters pertaining to the services and materials to be rendered under this Agreement (“CONSULTANT representative”). All requirements of CONSULTANT pertaining to the services or materials to be rendered under this Agreement shall be coordinated through the CONSULTANT representative. 15. Notices All notices required by this Agreement, other than invoices for payment which shall be sent directly to Accounts Payable, shall be in writing, and sent by first class with postage prepaid, or sent by commercial courier, to address below. Nothing in this provision shall be construed to prohibit communication by more expedient means, such as by email, to accomplish timely communication. Each party may change the address by written notice in accordance with this paragraph. Notices delivered personally shall be deemed communicated as of actual receipt; mailed notices shall be deemed communicated as of three business days after mailing. To CITY: Trudi Ryan, Community Development Director Community Development Department CITY OF SUNNYVALE 456 W Olive Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94086 To CONSULTANT: Derek Braun, Principal Strategic Economics, Inc 2991 Shattuck Ave, #203 Berkeley, CA 94705 16. Assignment Neither party shall assign or sublet any portion of this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other party. 17. Termination A. If CONSULTANT defaults in the performance of this Agreement, or materially breaches any of its provisions, CITY at its option may terminate this Agreement Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E by giving written notice to CONSULTANT. In the event of such termination, CONSULTANT shall be compensated in proportion to the percentage of satisfactory services performed or materials furnished (in relation to the total which would have been performed or furnished) through the date of receipt of notification from CITY to terminate. CONSULTANT shall present CITY with any work product completed at that point in time. B. Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY shall otherwise have by law, CITY also shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for any reason upon ten (10) days' written notice to CONSULTANT. In the event of such termination, CONSULTANT shall be compensated in proportion to the percentage of services performed or materials furnished (in relation to the total which would have been performed or furnished) through the date of receipt of notification from CITY to terminate. CONSULTANT shall present CITY with any work product completed at that point in time. C. If CITY fails to pay CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT at its option may terminate this Agreement if the failure is not remedied by CITY within (30) days after written notification of failure to pay. 18. Entire Agreement; Amendment This writing constitutes the entire agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT relating to the services to be performed or materials to be furnished hereunder. No modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless and until such modification is evidenced in writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by all parties. If the amendment is signed electronically, the digital signatures must comply with the requirements of California Government Code Section 16.5. 19. Governing Law, Jurisdiction and Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflict of law principles. Proper venue for legal actions will be exclusively vested in a state court in the County of Santa Clara. The parties agree that subject matter and personal jurisdiction are proper in state court in the County of Santa Clara, and waive all venue objections. 20. Miscellaneous Time shall be of the essence in this Agreement. Failure on the part of either party to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to compel enforcement of such provision or any other provision. Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement. CITY OF SUNNYVALE ("CITY") STRATEGIC ECONOMICS, INC. ("CONSULTANT") By___________________________ By_______________________________ City Manager ________________________________ Name and Title ATTEST: By______________________________ By_____________________________ City Clerk _______________________________ Name and Title APPROVED AS TO FORM: By____________________________ City Attorney Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Principal Exhibit A SCOPE OF WORK SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Scope of Work and Schedule | September 27, 2024 SELECTED SERVICES BY PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION Residential Nexus Study Residential Feasibility / Inclusionary Study Residential In- Lieu Fee Study Commercial Nexus Study Commercial Feasibility Study Gilroy X X Los Altos Hills X X X Los Gatos X X Mountain View X X Santa Clara (city) X X X X X Sunnyvale X X Total Jurisdictions 2 3 3 4 4 TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION AND GROUP KICK-OFF MEETING 1.1: REVIEW OF BACKGROUND MATERIALS Strategic Economics will review background information provided by Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) on the demographics and housing conditions in Santa Clara County, as well as any recently completed nexus studies and financial feasibility studies. 1.2: DATA REQUESTS Strategic Economics will submit data requests for the project to CPC, including descriptions of recent development activity, local active residential developers, current affordable housing policy information in the participating cities, etc. 1.3: COLLECTION OF EXISTING POLICIES AND FEES Strategic Economics will research and summarize information on residential affordable housing impact fees, commercial linkage fees, inclusionary requirements, and in-lieu fees for the participating cities and other comparable communities in the Bay Area. This information provides context for current policies in the participating cities and for the relative policies and fee levels enacted by communities competing for development activity and affordable housing production. 1.2: GROUP KICK-OFF MEETING The purpose of this meeting is to finalize the scope of work and schedule, review the proposed methodologies, and obtain any additional background materials or key information. An agenda will be provided in advance of the meeting. It is assumed that CPC s taff would convene the meeting and only one meeting would be held. At the kick-off meeting, the Strategic Economics team will discuss the types of deliverables that will be completed. The meeting will also be used to establish protocols for communication, project management, and timely review of deliverables, given the complexity of this multi-jurisdictional project. This meeting is envisioned to be conducted in-person but can also be held virtually if preferred by participants. Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E TASK 2: CITY-SPECIFIC KICK-OFF MEETINGS Strategic Economics will conduct a virtual kick-off meeting with each participating jurisdiction—scheduled by CPC—to inquire about specific goals, needs, and context. The meeting will also be used to clarify data and document requests. TASK 3: STAKEHOLDER AND WORK-IN-PROGRESS MEETINGS DURING RESEARCH AND DATA GATHERING PHASE (TASKS 4 THROUGH 6) 3.1: TWO DEVELOPER STAKEHOLDER GROUP VIRTUAL MEETINGS Strategic Economics will conduct two virtual convenings of developers of rental and housing products in Santa Clara County, with participants identified based on input from participating cities and review of development activity. These convenings will be used to share information about the project, collect information about current development conditions by product type, and to vet relevant assumptions applied in the analyses. 3.2: HOUSING ADVOCATES VIRTUAL MEETING During a virtual meeting with local housing advocates, Strategic Economics will provide information about the goals and purpose of the study and solicit feedback about how inclusionary policies and affordable housing mitigation fees can help meet the housing affordability challenges in Santa Clara County. Strategic Economics will work with the participating cities to identify housing advocacy organizations and active citizens, and will then send invitations, organize, plan, and facilitate the meeting. 3.3: PUBLIC VIRTUAL MEETING Strategic Economics will provide information about the goals and purpose of the study and solicit feedback about how inclusionary policies and affordable housing mitigation fees can help meet the housing affordability challenges in Santa Clara County during a virtual meeting with the public. Strategic Economics will organize and facilitate the meeting, but CPC and individual cities will be responsible for publicizing and promoting the meeting. The virtual meeting is envisioned to consist of a presentation about the project, a question-and- answer period, and a follow-up survey that invites participants to provide information about their priorities and feedback on the project. 3.4: TWO WORK-IN-PROGRESS PRESENTATIONS FOR ALL PARTICIPATING CITIES Strategic Economics will facilitate up to two total virtual meetings, including all participating cities, to share interim information about project status and interim findings. CPC will organize the meeting dates/times. TASK 4: RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS TASK 4.1: SHARED BASE RESIDENTIAL NEXUS MODEL In this sub-task, Strategic Economics will prepare the residential nexus study components that are broadly applicable to all cities requesting this analysis. Optional Task C specifies additional scope and budget to further customize the nexus model affordability gaps for cities requesting this service. The purpose of the residential nexus model is to estimate the increase in demand for affordable housing associated with growth in new residential development for “missing middle” housing developments with fewer than ten housing units. The primary driver for this increase in demand for affordable housing is the growth in expenditures for goods and services attributable to buyers and renters of new market rate housing units in Santa Clara County cities. The residential nexus analysis assumes that an increase in household expenditures associated with new housing units results in employment growth. Some of these new employees can afford market rate housing (based on household income), and some will earn incomes below the level needed to afford market rate housing. It is this second group of employee-households that will face financial challenges, if they want to work and live in the same city. The list below provides a summary of the analytic steps involved. This analysis answers the question, “What is the maximum impact fee that can be charged?” This analysis does not address “At what level should the housing impact fee be set?” This second question is addressed in sub -task 4.2 for each relevant city. Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E • Step 1. Define the residential prototypes that represent new market rate housing development with fewer than ten housing units in the applicable communities (or, if too few example projects are being built, the prototype can be based on generic examples of these products). • Step 2. Estimate household incomes of buyers and renters of new market rate units. • Step 3. Estimate economic impacts of new buyers and renters using a regional input/output model. • Step 4. Estimate the number of new worker households and annual household incomes. • Step 5. Estimate the demand for affordable housing from new worker households. • Step 6. Estimate the aggregate affordability gap of new households requiring affordable housing. • Step 7. Estimate the maximum nexus-based fee per unit and per square foot for the prototype. The methodology routinely used for the Step 6 affordability gap calculation is as follows: Step 1: Calculate affordable rents and sales prices for income groups to be served under proposed programs for participating cities. The team will confirm the target income groups with each city and establish four standardized income groups for purposes of all analyses. Most commonly, renter housing affordability gaps are calculated for very low, low, and moderate-income households. In most Bay Area cities, the housing affordability gap for ownership housing is calculated for moderate -income households (and possibly for low-income households as well). Affordable rents and sales prices will be calculated using standard methods used by state or local programs. Step 2: Calculate housing affordability gap for ownership housing, based on the difference between the cost of developing a new modest, residential unit (of the appropriate size for the household) and the amount a household can afford to pay at various income levels and household sizes. Step 3: Calculate the housing affordability gap for rental housing based on the difference between the annual capitalized value of the net affordable rent and the construction cost of the new rental unit. Again, separate calculations are made for each income group and household size included in the gap analysis. TASK 4.2: CITY-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND AB 602 ANALYSIS Strategic Economics will recommend a potential range of impact fees for each city based on the results of the financial feasibility analysis in Task 5, and review of the fees charged in similar or competing jurisdictions. The fee calculated under Task 4.1 or Optional Task C represents the maximum fee that can be levied on new residential units. Selecting the actual fee requires sensitivity to local conditions. Strategic Economics will review and consider the factors described below: Fees charged in neighboring jurisdictions. It is standard practice to consider the fee levels and requirements of neighboring and other peer jurisdictions. This analysis would compare recommended fees in Santa Clara County with those charged in other similar Bay Area jurisdictions (to be identifie d in conjunction with city staff). Financial Feasibility of Potential Fee Levels. The final recommendations for fees ideally are set so that they do not deter future development; the supportable fees determination will be informed by the financial feasibility analysis completed in Task 5. There are several ways to assess financial feas ibility of potential fee levels: • Assess how much the imposition of a fee will add to current fees on new residential developments. • Determine the percentage of total development costs represented by fees. Strategic Economics will determine the financial feasibility of various fee options (including the maximum nexus justified fee resulting from this analysis and lower fee scenarios) by estimating the increase in total development costs resulting from the fees. • Conduct financial feasibility sensitivity analyses (as part of Task 5) to determine how changing rents/prices, required return, and construction costs would interact with the ability to support different fee levels. Based on efforts above, information on recommended fee levels for all cities included in the study will be provided. Then, during any public process described in the optional task section below, these fees will be presented to public officials to elicit feedback. An AB 602 analysis will be completed for each participating city after that city selects a desired residential impact fee level. AB 602 requires the nexus study for a new fee to “identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E service is appropriate.” (Government Code § 66016.5). Strategic Economics will provide sufficient analysis and findings to meet the AB 602 requirements by first identifying the existing ratio of deed -restricted, “family” affordable units in each city to the number of housing units in the city. Then Strategic Economics will calculate the level of service associated with the proposed residential impact fee, or the number of family affordable units that could be funded per household created by new development. Finally, Strategic Economics will prepare findings justifying the need for additional affordable housing funding. TASK 5: RESIDENTIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY AND INCLUSIONARY ANALYSIS TASK 5.1: SHARED BASE RESIDENTIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY In coordination with CPC and the participating cities, Strategic Economics will develop up to five development project prototypes, ensuring that they represent the ownership and rental residential development types being built in the cities. The prototypes will vary based on assumptions regarding building type, density, unit size, ground-floor retail area, parking ratios, etc. The prototypes will be shared with CPC and the cities for comment before arriving at a final set of assumptions for the pro forma fe asibility analysis. Upon establishing the prototypes, Strategic Economics will research inputs and assumptions for the financial feasibility analysis. The key inputs into the pro forma model are the revenues (rents/sales prices), development costs, and land costs. Strategic Economics will collect and summarize data on construction costs in the county, using a combination of real estate industry publications, online information, and interviews with local developers and brokers. At this stage of the analysis, Strategic Economics will also research and apply generic rents/prices and land values, which will then be customized for the participating cities in sub -task 5.2. Strategic Economics will develop a pro forma model to test the financial feasibility of the prototypes. The analysis will first examine the feasibility of each prototype without any affordable housing requirements. The financial feasibility analysis of projects will be measured using a static pro forma model that will solve for the project’s rate of return and residual land value. The results will create a baseline understanding of prototype - specific project feasibility and ability to support on-site affordable housing requirements. TASK 5.2: CITY-SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND INCLUSIONARY ANALYSES Strategic Economics will then customize the pro forma analysis and test inclusionary requirements for each participating city. We will research and generate customized assumptions for land values and achievable rents and sales prices. We will also request that the cities provide applicable impact fees and permit fees for each prototype. Strategic Economics will work closely with City and CPC staff to create and test up to four scenarios of affordable housing requirements for each city. These policy alternatives will be informed by factors including the baseline feasibility results, findings from the analysis of nearby communities’ policies and performance, implications of AB 1505 requirements (including its guidance on affordability levels), and guidance from City staff. Strategic Economics will then adapt the development prototypes pro forma model to test the financial feasibility of varying the inclusionary housing requirements according to the policy alternatives. The pro forma analysis will be structured to understand what changes could be made to inclusionary requirements to support the continuing feasibility of projects while also incorporating affordable units. As part of this analysis, Strategic Economics will conduct sensitivity analyses based on potential changes in market rents and sales prices, variations in construction costs, variations in required return, or comparison of residual land value results against the range of actual land values. Based on the findings of these analyses, Strategic Economics will generate findings and recommendations regarding supportable inclusionary requirements both today and in the future, along with policy suggestions for balancing the requirements with any feasibility constraints. Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E TASK 5.3: CITY-SPECIFIC IN-LIEU FEE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Strategic Economics will calculate potential in-lieu fee levels corresponding to the applicable communities’ selected inclusionary requirements. Strategic Economics will identify the maximum in -lieu affordable housing fees that could reasonably be charged on market-rate developments by calculating the housing affordability gap. Unlike the affordability gap calculated for the impact fees, this gap will examine the difference between market rate rents/sales prices and affordable rents/sales prices. This appro ach reflects the equivalent cost for providing an on-site inclusionary unit and equivalent benefit to a lower-income household. Strategic Economics will also determine the community’s typical cost to subsidize a unit of affordable housing by reviewing the community’s average local contribution toward recently built or proposed affordable housing development projects. The affordability gap and local contribution respectively represent the maximum reasonable in-lieu fee (directly equivalent to the inclusionary requirement) and the actual typical City cost to leverage outside funds to produce a unit of affordable housing. After delivery of the administrative draft report, Strategic Economics will participate in a phone call with City staff to walk through the results and explain how to evaluate them for the purpose of establishing an in-lieu fee. TASK 6: COMMERCIAL NEXUS STUDY AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS TASK 6.1: SHARED BASE COMMERCIAL NEXUS MODEL AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Strategic Economics will complete an initial shared commercial nexus model and financial feasibility analysis. Optional Task D specifies additional scope and budget to further customize the nexus model for cities requesting this service. Strategic Economics will analyze information about recent and pipeline nonresidential development projects in the participating cities to establish five prototypes including office, industrial, life science/R&D, retail, and hotel uses. The prototypes will be shared and discussed with CPC and city staff to arrive at a final set of assumptions for the nexus and feasibility analyses. The nexus analysis and subsequent affordability gap calculation will together allow Strategic Economics to identify the maximum possible commercial linkage fee that could be charged to net new nonresidential development. The nexus analysis will demonstrate the impact of new commercial development on affordable housing needs. The nexus analysis is completed with the following steps: 1) Calculate the number of employees that will work in the space associated with the development prototypes. 2) Calculate the number of new households associated with this employment growth. 3) Estimate the incomes of the new employee-households. 4) Identify the number of associated moderate-, low-, very low-income households, all of which would reflect additional need for affordable housing. The affordability gap calculation described in sub-task 4.1 (and potential local adjustments in Optional Task D) will generate a maximum fee that can be levied on new nonresidential developments. Selecting the actual fee requires sensitivity to local market conditions. A base financial feasibility analysis will be prepared to examine development feasibility and assess the sensitivity of the feasibility model to changes in development costs, revenues, and required return. Strategic Economics will conduct a financial feasibility analysis for the nonresidential prototypes by employing a similar methodology as in sub-tasks 5.1 and 5.2 TASK 6.2: CITY-SPECIFIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSES AND AB 602 JUSTIFICATION ANALYSIS Strategic Economics will recommend a potential range of impact fees for each city based on the results of the financial feasibility analysis in sub-task 6.1, any local adjustments to the nexus analysis in Optional Task D, and review of the fees charged in similar or competing cities. The affordability gap calculation, feasibility analysis, and process for establishing recommended impact fees for each prototype and community will be completed using a similar approach and methodology as that described for the residential impact in sub-task 4.2. An AB 602 analysis will be completed for each participating city after that city selects a desired commercial linkage fee level. AB 602 requires the nexus study for a new fee to “identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.” (Government Code § 66016.5). Strategic Economics will provide sufficient analysis and findings to meet the AB 602 requirements by first identifying the existing ratio of deed-restricted, “family” affordable units in each city to the number of worker households associated with employment in the city. Then Strategic Economics will calculate the level of service associated with the proposed commercial li nkage fees, Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E or the number of family affordable units that could be funded per worker household created by new development. Finally, Strategic Economics will prepare findings justifying the need for additional affordable housing funding. TASK 7: DRAFT SUITE OF REPORTS Strategic Economics will prepare four draft “model” reports representing the range of analyses and policy recommendations completed under tasks four through six. These draft reports will summarize methodology, findings, and recommendations for one city, al ong with standardized appendices for use in all reports. The participating cities would then provide comments on the model reports, and Strategic Economics would then author draft reports for all participating cities. TASK 8: GROUP MEETING TO DISCUSS RESULTS Strategic Economics will conduct a meeting with all participating cities to present the model draft reports and provide an overview of the recommendations. This meeting can be conducted either in -person or virtually, with CPC responsible for scheduling the meeting. TASK 9: ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGS TO PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS Strategic Economics will conduct an additional virtual meeting with each city to present city-specific findings and recommendations, and to receive input and further direction. TASK 10: FINAL REPORTS Strategic Economics will revise the draft reports and provide final reports. Revisions will be completed in response to a single consolidated set of comments and direction provided from the participating cities on their respective draft reports. OPTIONAL TASKS OPTIONAL TASK A: PUBLIC HEARING As requested by participating cities, Strategic Economics would participate in public hearings with decision - makers such as city councils, planning commissions, and housing oversight bodies. For each requested hearing, Strategic Economics will coordinate with City staff, prepare presentations as-needed, and participate in the hearing. Each public hearing would be approved and billed as a separate optional task. OPTIONAL TASK B: ADDITIONAL ONE-ON-ONE VIRTUAL MEETINGS WITH CITIES As requested by participating cities, Strategic Economics will participate in additional one-on-one virtual meetings, with each meeting to be approved and billed as a separate optional task. OPTIONAL TASK C: CUSTOMIZATION OF RESIDENTIAL NEXUS MODEL ASSUMPTIONS Upon request by a participating city, Strategic Economics will further customize the residential nexus model to prepare results based on different household income levels and corresponding affordability gaps. For each applicable city, Strategic Economics will calculate the maximum nexus-based fee per unit and per square foot for the residential prototype with fewer than ten units. OPTIONAL TASK D: CUSTOMIZATION OF COMMERCIAL NEXUS MODEL ASSUMPTIONS Upon requests by a participating city, Strategic Economics will further customize the commercial nexus model. Potential customization areas include affordability gap calculations based on specific income levels and local market conditions, and changes to the development prototype assumptions to reflect different job densities and industry mixes. For each applicable city, Strategic Economics will prepare a customized calculation of the maximum nexus-based fee per square foot of each development prototype. Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Exhibit B COMPENSATION Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Exhibit C INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work by the Consultant, their agents, representatives, or employees. Minimum Scope and Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits not less than: 1. Commercial General Liability: coverage written on an occurrence basis with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. ISO Occurrence Form shall be at least as broad as CG 0001. 2. Automobile Liability: coverage with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence applying to all owned, non-owned, or hired vehicles used in conjunction with this Agreement for bodily injury and property damage. ISO Form shall be at least as broad as CA 0001. 3. Workers’ Compensation: Statutory Limits and Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. Industry Specific Coverages. If checked below, the following insurance is also required: ☒ Professional Liability / Errors and Omissions Liability coverage with limits not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim. ☐ Valuable Papers and Electronic Data Processing with limits not less than $10,000 each. ☐ Cyber & Tech Liability coverage with limits not less than of $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim. ☐ Crime coverage with limits not less than $500,000 to include third party premises endorsement. Deductibles, Self-Insured Retentions and Other Coverages: Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared and reviewed by the City of Sunnyvale, Risk Manager. The Consultant shall guarantee payment of any losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses within the deductible or self-insured retention. Policies containing any self-insured retention provision shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the SIR may be satisfied by either the Named Insured or the City. The aforementioned insurance requirements can be met through any combination of self-insured, primary and excess/umbrella policies that fulfill the stipulated coverage as cited above. Other Insurance Provisions: 1. During the term of the Agreement, the City of Sunnyvale, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as an additional insured in the Consultant’s commercial general liability policy (and if industry specific coverage is checked above, valuable papers, electronic data processing, and cyber liability policies) with respect to liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Sunnyvale, its officers, officials, employees, agents, or volunteers. Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Additional Insured Endorsement for ongoing operations at least as broad as ISO CG 20 10 Scheduled, or automatic CG 20 38. 2. During the term of the Agreement, the Consultant’s Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City of Sunnyvale. 3. For all Architects, Engineers and Design Professionals - If Industry Specific Coverage box is check above and if the Consultant’s Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions coverage is written on a claims made basis: a. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement or the beginning of contract work. b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least three (3) years after completion of the contract of work. c. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims- made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the Agreement effective date, the Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of three (3) years after completion of contract work. 4. For any claims related to this agreement, the Consultant’s insurance shall be primary. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Sunnyvale, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it and shall be at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13. 5. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Sunnyvale, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. 6. The Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 7. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by email to riskmanagement@sunnyvale.ca.gov, has been given to the City of Sunnyvale. 8. Any umbrella or excess Insurance Liability policies shall be true “following form” of the underlying policy coverage, terms, conditions, and provisions and shall meet all of the insurance requirements stated in this document, including the additional insured, SIR, and primary and non-contributory insurance requirements for the benefit of City (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) until all coverage carried by or available to the Consultant’s primary and excess liability policies are exhausted and before the City’s own Insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to contribute to a loss. 9. The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy. The minimum limits stated above shall not serve to reduce the Consultant’s policy limits of coverage. Therefore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this agreement, or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured and also available to the Additional Insured, whichever is greater. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A: VII, and who are admitted and authorized to do business and in good standing in California unless otherwise acceptable to the City of Sunnyvale’s Risk Manager. Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Verification of Coverage: City utilizes an electronic insurance verification system to track and verify all insurance related documents. City is no longer accepting insurance documents by mail and will only accept electronic insurance documents. City will email the Contractor/Consultant requesting proof of insurance for this Agreement through an electronic insurance verification system, which includes instructions on how to upload insurance documents electronically. Contractor/Consultant shall furnish the City with an electronic Certificate of Insurance effecting the coverage required. The certificates are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf and name City of Sunnyvale, Attn: Risk Management, 456 W. Olive Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94088 as the certificate holder. All certificates are to be received and approved by the City, Risk Manager prior to commencement of work. The Contractor/Consultant shall provide certificate(s) evidencing renewals of all insurance required herein prior to the expiration date of any such insurance. Contractor/Consultant shall submit insurance certificates, reflecting the policy renewals through the City’s electronic insurance verification system. City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. Subcontractors Consultant shall require all sub-contractors to procure and maintain insurance policies subject to these requirements. Failure of Consultant to verify existence of subcontractor’s insurance shall not relieve Consultant from any claim arising from subcontractors work on behalf of Consultant. Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Exhibit D MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG CITY OF GILROY, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY OF SUNNYVALE, AND BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING FOR THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY [to be attached] Docusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 1 of 20 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG CITY OF GILROY, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY OF SUNNYVALE, AND BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING FOR THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), effective November 1, 2024, is entered into by and among the City of Gilroy, the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Town of Los Gatos, the City of Mountain View, the City of Santa Clara, the City of Sunnyvale, and Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning, dba Community Planning Collaborative, together referred to herein as the "PARTIES." RECITALS WHEREAS, Santa Clara County and the cities and towns in Santa Clara County have a strong history of collaboration and resource sharing on various planning studies and initiatives as part of the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative, which includes the City of Gilroy, the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Town of Los Gatos, the City of Mountain View, the City of Santa Clara, and the City of Sunnyvale, among other jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, one such planning study initiated by the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative is the Grand Nexus and Feasibility Study (“PROJECT”); and WHEREAS, the purpose of this PROJECT is to study the feasibility and address the legal requirements of inclusionary housing and commercial linkage fee requirements by sharing analysis and resources for greater efficiency for the six jurisdictions participating in this collaborative effort, which include the City of Gilroy, the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Town of Los Gatos, the City of Mountain View, the City of Santa Clara, and the City of Sunnyvale (collectively, “PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS”); and WHEREAS, through competitive bidding and a request for proposal (“RFP”) process facilitated by the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative, Strategic Economics (“CONTRACTOR”) was chosen as the firm to provide consulting services for the outreach, analysis and planning associated with the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning, the consulting firm for the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative, has served as the project manager (“PROJECT MANAGER”) for this collaborative effort through initial formation and the RFP process to ensure that the voice of each PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION is heard and their needs are addressed; and Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 2 of 20 WHEREAS, Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning will continue to serve as the PROJECT MANAGER for the collaborative effort for the duration of the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, the City of Sunnyvale will serve as fiscal agent (“FISCAL AGENT”) for the PROJECT and will enter into a separate contract with CONTRACTOR and oversee the payment of invoices on behalf of the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS; and WHEREAS, all PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS enter into this Memorandum of Understanding with the PROJECT MANAGER outlining the roles of each PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION, the CONTRACTOR, the PROJECT MANAGER, and the funding obligations for the PROJECT; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the PARTIES agree as follows: AGREEMENT I.PURPOSE The purpose of this MOU is to memorialize the understanding among the PARTIES that (1) the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS wish to participate in the PROJECT, (2) the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS agree to the utilization of the CONTRACTOR and PROJECT MANAGER as the consulting team, and (3) the City of Sunnyvale is serving as a FISCAL AGENT to facilitate the PROJECT. II.EXHIBIT AND ATTACHMENTS The following exhibits and attachments are attached to this Agreement and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference: Exhibit A – Strategic Economics Work Program and Cost Proposal Exhibit B – Project Management Scope from Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning Exhibit C – Project Budget and Agency Costs III.PARTIES, ROLES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES A.FISCAL AGENT: The City of Sunnyvale shall serve as the FISCAL AGENT for the project and enter into a separate contract with CONTRACTOR. All payments and invoices shall be reviewed and recommended for payment by the PROJECT MANAGER and paid by the FISCAL AGENT on behalf of the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS to the CONTRACTOR. The FISCAL AGENT shall not be responsible for paying any reimbursement requests or other expenditures that are not in compliance with this MOU or any other MOUs executed by PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS regarding the PROJECT. The FISCAL AGENT shall not be responsible for determining the accuracy of each PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION’S invoices. B.PARTICPATING JURISDICTION: The City of Gilroy, the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Town of Los Gatos, the City of Mountain View, the City of Santa Clara, and the City of Sunnyvale shall be “PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS” for the purposes of this MOU. Each of the Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 3 of 20 PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS shall provide funding as outlined in Exhibit C for the PROJECT and participate in obligations outlined in the Work Program set forth in Exhibit A, including participation in the overall plan development and implementation. C. PROJECT MANAGER: Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning, a California corporation, shall serve as PROJECT MANAGER and shall manage and implement all aspects of the PROJECT, in accordance with the Project Management Scope set forth in Exhibit B. D. CONTRACTOR: Strategic Economics, Inc., a California corporation, shall serve as the consultant team to carry out any or all aspects of the PROJECT as the CONTRACTOR, in accordance with the Work Program set forth in Exhibit A. IV. FUNDING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT A. Each of the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS agrees to pay the FISCAL AGENT for their prescribed portion as set forth in Exhibit C, within 60 calendar days of the executed MOU. 1. The CONTRACTOR shall submit invoices to the PROJECT MANAGER on a monthly basis for PROJECT activities. Monthly invoices shall include an itemized report of costs incurred by each PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION. A brief narrative progress report shall be included with each invoice. 2. The PROJECT MANAGER shall review and submit the CONTRACTOR’S invoices to the FISCAL AGENT on a monthly basis for PROJECT activities. 3. Upon recommendation of payment by the PROJECT MANAGER, the FISCAL AGENT shall pay CONTRACTOR’s monthly invoices. 4. The FISCAL AGENT and PROJECT MANAGER shall provide a quarterly accounting of invoices, charged and remaining funds for each of the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS. A final accounting shall be submitted to all PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS with any remaining funds returned or an additional invoice if required. B. The FISCAL AGENT agrees that it will not be entitled to reimbursement of its costs incurred while performing its obligations as set forth in Section III.A above. C. In the event that the actual costs of completing the PROJECT’s Work Program, as set forth in Exhibit A, exceed the budget as outlined in Exhibit C (including the contingency budget amounts), the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS shall confer and, if the majority of the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS are in agreement, decide to either to reduce the PROJECT Work Program and/or to provide additional funding based on mutual agreements in writing, subject to approval by their respective legislative bodies if applicable. All PARTIES agree to use best efforts in such case to reach agreement without causing a PROJECT delay. Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 4 of 20 V. TERM This MOU shall remain in effect from November 1, 2024 to June 30, 2026, unless terminated sooner pursuant to Section XIII below. VI.AMENDMENTS A.This MOU may be amended only by the written agreement executed by all PARTIES unless the change constitutes a minor modification as described herein. A contact, or designee, from each of the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS is authorized to make minor modifications to Exhibits A or B regarding the Work Program or the scope of work to respond to necessary changes as the PROJECT evolves, so long as the minor modification (1) impacts only that PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION desiring the modification and (2) does not exceed $5,000.00. Such minor modifications to the Work Program or scopes of work shall be documented in writing, but shall not require an executed amendment to this MOU, and such minor modifications shall be considered incorporated into this MOU. B.If any of the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS requires additional services that exceed the approved total cost estimate in Exhibit C, then such services shall be subject to an individual service agreement between that PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION and the CONTRACTOR without the participation of the FISCAL AGENT. The FISCAL AGENT shall not serve as the fiscal agent for any individual service agreements with the CONTRACTOR. C.This MOU can be amended, modified, or supplemented only in writing(s) signed by all PARTIES. No oral understanding or agreement, present or prior, not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the PARTIES and the terms of this MOU shall supersede any such understanding or agreement. VII.INDEMNIFICATION A.Each PARTY shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the FISCAL AGENT and its officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers and representatives from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise out of the terms and conditions of this MOU (collectively, “Claims”); provided that such Claims are the direct result from the acts or omissions of the PARTIES and/or its officials, officers, employees, agents, and representatives. B.Each PARTY shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the FISCAL AGENT and its officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers and representatives from and against any and all claims for wages, salaries, benefits, taxes, and all other withholdings and charges payable to, or in respect to, the PARTIES’ representatives for services provided under this MOU. C.FISCAL AGENT shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the PARTIES and its officers, employees, agents, and representatives from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise out of the terms and Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 5 of 20 conditions of this MOU and which result from the acts or omissions of FISCAL AGENT and/or its officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers and representatives. D.The duty of each party to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other as set forth herein shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. E.In the event of concurrent negligence (or intentional acts) of FISCAL AGENT and/or its officials, officers, employees, agents, volunteers and representatives on the one hand, and the PARTIES and/or its officers, employees, agents, volunteers, and representatives, on the other hand, then the liability for any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property which arise out of terms and conditions of this MOU shall be apportioned according to the California theory of comparative fault. F.PARTIES’ responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations shall survive the termination or completion of this MOU. VIII.NOTICES A.All notices and communications deemed by any party to be necessary or desirable must be in writing and may be given by personal delivery to a representative of the other party or by mailing the same, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: If to the City of Gilroy: City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Sharon Goei, Community Development Director 408-846-0250 sharon.goei@cityofgilroy.org If to the Town of Los Altos Hills: Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Rd Los Altos Hills, CA 94923 Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk 650-941-7222 amiller@losaltoshills.ca.gov If to the Town of Los Gatos: Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Joel Paulson, Community Development Director 408-354-6879 jpaulson@losgatosca.gov Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 6 of 20 If to the City of Mountain View: City of Mountain View: Affordable Housing Division 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Julie Barnard, Affordable Housing Manager 650-903-6011 julie.barnard@mountainview.gov If to the City of Santa Clara: City of Santa Clara, Housing and Community Services Division 1500 Warburton Avenue Santa Clara, CA 95050 Adam Marcus, Housing and Community Services Manager 408-615-2491 amarcus@SantaClaraCA.gov If to the City of Sunnyvale: City of Sunnyvale Housing Division 456 W. Olive Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Ryan Dyson, Housing Specialist 408-730-7466 rdyson@sunnyvale.ca.gov If to Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning: Community Planning Collaborative 2639 Benvenue Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704 Joshua Abrams, Principal 510-761-6001 abrams@planningcollaborative.com B. The address to which mailings may be made may be changed from time to time by notice mailed as described above. Any notice given by mail shall be deemed given on the day after that on which it is deposited in the United States Mail as provided above. IX. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The PARTIES agree and understand that the work/services performed by any of the PARTIES or any consultant retained by any of the PARTIES under this MOU are performed as independent contractors and not as employees or agents of the other party. Nothing herein shall be deemed to create any joint venture between the FISCAL AGENT, PROJECT MANAGER, or any of the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS. Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 7 of 20 X. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS No PARTY shall assign, transfer, or otherwise substitute its interest in this MOU, nor its obligations, without the prior written consent of the other PARTY. All obligations created under this MOU shall be binding on, and the rights established herein shall inure to the benefit of, any successors or assigns of the PARTIES. XI. COMPLIANCE The PARTIES must comply with any and all laws, statues, ordinances, rules, regulations, or requirements of the federal, state, and local governments, and any agency thereof, which relate to or in any manner affect the performance of this MOU. XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION The PARTIES agree that any dispute arising from this MOU that is not resolved within 30 days by the PARTIES’ representatives responsible for the administration of this MOU shall be set forth in writing to the attention of the FISCAL AGENT’s Director of Community Development Department for resolution. In the event resolution cannot be reached, the PARTIES may submit the dispute to mediation by a neutral party mutually agreed to by the PARTIES prior to initiating any formal action in court. XIII. TERMINATION Any PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION may terminate its participation in this MOU, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) calendar days' prior written notice to all PARTIES. Such PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION who terminates its participation in this MOU shall be responsible for its pro rata share of all Individual Task costs as set forth in Exhibit B that are incurred by the FISCAL AGENT up through the effective date of termination. Any PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION who terminates its participation in this MOU shall still be responsible for the entirety of its prescribed portion of all Shared Task costs as set forth in Exhibit B. This MOU shall continue in effect among the remaining PARTIES. In addition, the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS may terminate this MOU at any time, with or without cause, by unanimous vote of the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS. Any such action shall specify the date on which the termination shall be effective. XIV. CONFLICT OF INTEREST If and when a PARTY identifies an actual or potential conflict of interest among one or more of the PARTIES, that PARTY shall send written notification to all PARTIES. The PARTY with the actual or potential conflict shall respond to the notice within three (3) business days. The response shall indicate whether the PARTY agrees or disagrees that a conflict exists. If the PARTY agrees that a conflict exists, then that PARTY may take appropriate action to cure the conflict, if possible, and shall describe its corrective actions in its response. If the PARTY disagrees, or cannot cure an actual conflict, the PARTIES shall follow the dispute resolution process provided under Section 12, Dispute Resolution, in an effort Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 8 of 20 to resolve the conflict. The applicable approving body/legislative body of the PARTY shall schedule a special meeting if necessary to meet this timeline. All notices under this section shall be provided under Section 8, Notices. XV. COOPERATIVE DRAFTING This MOU has been drafted through a cooperative effort of the PARTIES, and all PARTIES have had an opportunity to have the MOU reviewed and receive advice by qualified legal counsel. No PARTY shall be considered the drafter of this MOU, and no presumption or rule that an ambiguity shall be construed against the PARTY drafting the clause shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this MOU. XVI. COUNTERPARTS This MOU may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each executed counterpart shall have the same force and effect as an original instrument and as if all signing PARTIES had signed the same instrument. XVII. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this MOU is be deemed invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that provision shall be reformed and/or construed consistently with applicable law as nearly as possible to reflect the original intentions of this MOU; and in any event, the remaining provisions of this MOU shall remain in full force and effect. XVIII. GOVERNING LAW This MOU shall be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts that are made and performed entirely in California. Proper venue for legal shall be exclusively vested in a state court in the County of Santa Clara. The parties agree that subject matter and personal jurisdiction are proper in state court in the County of Santa Clara, and waive all venue objections. XIX. NO WAIVER No waiver of any default or breach of any covenant of this MOU by any PARTY shall be implied from any omission by the PARTY to take action on account of such default, if such default persists or is repeated. No express waiver shall affect any default not specified in the express waiver, and the express waiver shall be operative only for the time or extent stated. The consent or approval by any PARTY to or of any act by a PARTY requiring further consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary consent or approval to any subsequent, similar acts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have executed this MOU as follows: Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 9 of 20 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG CITY OF GILROY, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY OF SUNNYVALE, and BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING for the SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY The individuals executing this MOU represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. The undersigned approve the terms and conditions of this MOU. CITY OF GILROY By: ____________________________ Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator ATTEST: By:_________________________________ Beth Minor, Interim City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ____________________________ Andy Faber, City Attorney Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 10 of 20 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG CITY OF GILROY, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY OF SUNNYVALE, and BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING for the SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY The individuals executing this MOU represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. The undersigned approve the terms and conditions of this MOU. TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS By: ____________________________ Peter Pirnejad, City Manager ATTEST: By:_________________________________ Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ____________________________ Steven Mattas, City Attorney Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 11 of 20 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG CITY OF GILROY, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY OF SUNNYVALE, and BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING for the SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY The individuals executing this MOU represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. The undersigned approve the terms and conditions of this MOU. TOWN OF LOS GATOS By: ____________________________ Joel Paulson, Community Development Director ATTEST: By:_________________________________ Wendy Wood, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ____________________________ Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 12 of 20 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG CITY OF GILROY, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY OF SUNNYVALE, and BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING for the SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY The individuals executing this MOU represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. The undersigned approve the terms and conditions of this MOU. CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW By: ____________________________ Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager ATTEST: By:_________________________________ Heather Glaser, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ____________________________ Jennifer Logue, City Attorney Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 13 of 20 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG CITY OF GILROY, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY OF SUNNYVALE, and BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING for the SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY The individuals executing this MOU represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. The undersigned approve the terms and conditions of this MOU. CITY OF SANTA CLARA By: ____________________________ Jōvan D. Grogan, City Manager ATTEST: By:_________________________________ Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ____________________________ Glen R. Googins, City Attorney Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 14 of 20 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG CITY OF GILROY, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY OF SUNNYVALE, and BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING for the SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY The individuals executing this MOU represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. The undersigned approve the terms and conditions of this MOU. CITY OF SUNNYVALE By: ____________________________ Tim Kirby, City Manager ATTEST: By:_________________________________ David Carnahan, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ____________________________ Rebecca Moon, City Attorney Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Grand Nexus MOU Page 15 of 20 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG CITY OF GILROY, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY OF SUNNYVALE, and BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING for the SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY The individuals executing this MOU represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. The undersigned approve the terms and conditions of this MOU. BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING By: ____________________________ Joshua Abrams, Principal Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E EXHIBIT A WORK PROGRAM and COST PROPOSAL from Strategic Economics Exhibits A and B from Contract dated November 1, 2024 between City of Sunnyvale and Strategic Economics Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Scope to Prepare Nexus and Feasibility Studies | September 27, 2024 1 SANTA CLARA COUNTY GRAND NEXUS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY Final Scope of Work and Schedule | September 27, 2024 SELECTED SERVICES BY PARTICIPATING JURISDICTION Residential Nexus Study Residential Feasibility / Inclusionary Study Residential In- Lieu Fee Study Commercial Nexus Study Commercial Feasibility Study Gilroy X X Los Altos Hills X X X Los Gatos X X Mountain View X X Santa Clara (city) X X X X X Sunnyvale X X Total Jurisdictions 2 3 3 4 4 TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION AND GROUP KICK-OFF MEETING 1.1: REVIEW OF BACKGROUND MATERIALS Strategic Economics will review background information provided by Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) on the demographics and housing conditions in Santa Clara County, as well as any recently completed nexus studies and financial feasibility studies. 1.2: DATA REQUESTS Strategic Economics will submit data requests for the project to CPC, including descriptions of recent development activity, local active residential developers, current affordable housing policy information in the participating cities, etc. 1.3: COLLECTION OF EXISTING POLICIES AND FEES Strategic Economics will research and summarize information on residential affordable housing impact fees, commercial linkage fees, inclusionary requirements, and in-lieu fees for the participating cities and other comparable communities in the Bay Area. This information provides context for current policies in the participating cities and for the relative policies and fee levels enacted by communities competing for development activity and affordable housing production. 1.2: GROUP KICK-OFF MEETING The purpose of this meeting is to finalize the scope of work and schedule, review the proposed methodologies, and obtain any additional background materials or key information. An agenda will be provided in advance of the meeting. It is assumed that CPC staff would convene the meeting and only Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Scope to Prepare Nexus and Feasibility Studies | September 27, 2024 2 one meeting would be held. At the kick-off meeting, the Strategic Economics team will discuss the types of deliverables that will be completed. The meeting will also be used to establish protocols for communication, project management, and timely review of deliverables, given the complexity of this multi-jurisdictional project. This meeting is envisioned to be conducted in-person but can also be held virtually if preferred by participants. TASK 2: CITY-SPECIFIC KICK-OFF MEETINGS Strategic Economics will conduct a virtual kick-off meeting with each participating jurisdiction— scheduled by CPC—to inquire about specific goals, needs, and context. The meeting will also be used to clarify data and document requests. TASK 3: STAKEHOLDER AND WORK-IN-PROGRESS MEETINGS DURING RESEARCH AND DATA GATHERING PHASE (TASKS 4 THROUGH 6) 3.1: TWO DEVELOPER STAKEHOLDER GROUP VIRTUAL MEETINGS Strategic Economics will conduct two virtual convenings of developers of rental and housing products in Santa Clara County, with participants identified based on input from participating cities and review of development activity. These convenings will be used to share information about the project, collect information about current development conditions by product type, and to vet relevant assumptions applied in the analyses. 3.2: HOUSING ADVOCATES VIRTUAL MEETING During a virtual meeting with local housing advocates, Strategic Economics will provide information about the goals and purpose of the study and solicit feedback about how inclusionary policies and affordable housing mitigation fees can help meet the housing affordability challenges in Santa Clara County. Strategic Economics will work with the participating cities to identify housing advocacy organizations and active citizens, and will then send invitations, organize, plan, and facilitate the meeting. 3.3: PUBLIC VIRTUAL MEETING Strategic Economics will provide information about the goals and purpose of the study and solicit feedback about how inclusionary policies and affordable housing mitigation fees can help meet the housing affordability challenges in Santa Clara County during a virtual meeting with the public. Strategic Economics will organize and facilitate the meeting, but CPC and individual cities will be responsible for publicizing and promoting the meeting. The virtual meeting is envisioned to consist of a presentation about the project, a question-and-answer period, and a follow-up survey that invites participants to provide information about their priorities and feedback on the project. 3.4: TWO WORK-IN-PROGRESS PRESENTATIONS FOR ALL PARTICIPATING CITIES Strategic Economics will facilitate up to two total virtual meetings, including all participating cities, to share interim information about project status and interim findings. CPC will organize the meeting dates/times. Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Scope to Prepare Nexus and Feasibility Studies | September 27, 2024 3 TASK 4: RESIDENTIAL NEXUS ANALYSIS TASK 4.1: SHARED BASE RESIDENTIAL NEXUS MODEL In this sub-task, Strategic Economics will prepare the residential nexus study components that are broadly applicable to all cities requesting this analysis. Optional Task C specifies additional scope and budget to further customize the nexus model affordability gaps for cities requesting this service. The purpose of the residential nexus model is to estimate the increase in demand for affordable housing associated with growth in new residential development for “missing middle” housing developments with fewer than ten housing units. The primary driver for this increase in demand for affordable housing is the growth in expenditures for goods and services attributable to buyers and renters of new market rate housing units in Santa Clara County cities. The residential nexus analysis assumes that an increase in household expenditures associated with new housing units results in employment growth. Some of these new employees can afford market rate housing (based on household income), and some will earn incomes below the level needed to afford market rate housing. It is this second group of employee-households that will face financial challenges, if they want to work and live in the same city. The list below provides a summary of the analytic steps involved. This analysis answers the question, “What is the maximum impact fee that can be charged?” This analysis does not address “At what level should the housing impact fee be set?” This second question is addressed in sub-task 4.2 for each relevant city. • Step 1. Define the residential prototypes that represent new market rate housing development with fewer than ten housing units in the applicable communities (or, if too few example projects are being built, the prototype can be based on generic examples of these products). • Step 2. Estimate household incomes of buyers and renters of new market rate units. • Step 3. Estimate economic impacts of new buyers and renters using a regional input/output model. • Step 4. Estimate the number of new worker households and annual household incomes. • Step 5. Estimate the demand for affordable housing from new worker households. • Step 6. Estimate the aggregate affordability gap of new households requiring affordable housing. • Step 7. Estimate the maximum nexus-based fee per unit and per square foot for the prototype. The methodology routinely used for the Step 6 affordability gap calculation is as follows: Step 1: Calculate affordable rents and sales prices for income groups to be served under proposed programs for participating cities. The team will confirm the target income groups with each city and establish four standardized income groups for purposes of all analyses. Most commonly, renter housing affordability gaps are calculated for very low, low, and moderate-income households. In most Bay Area cities, the housing affordability gap for ownership housing is calculated for moderate-income households (and possibly for low-income households as well). Affordable rents and sales prices will be calculated using standard methods used by state or local programs. Step 2: Calculate housing affordability gap for ownership housing, based on the difference between the cost of developing a new modest, residential unit (of the appropriate size for the Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Scope to Prepare Nexus and Feasibility Studies | September 27, 2024 4 household) and the amount a household can afford to pay at various income levels and household sizes. Step 3: Calculate the housing affordability gap for rental housing based on the difference between the annual capitalized value of the net affordable rent and the construction cost of the new rental unit. Again, separate calculations are made for each income group and household size included in the gap analysis. TASK 4.2: CITY-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND AB 602 ANALYSIS Strategic Economics will recommend a potential range of impact fees for each city based on the results of the financial feasibility analysis in Task 5, and review of the fees charged in similar or competing jurisdictions. The fee calculated under Task 4.1 or Optional Task C represents the maximum fee that can be levied on new residential units. Selecting the actual fee requires sensitivity to local conditions. Strategic Economics will review and consider the factors described below: Fees charged in neighboring jurisdictions. It is standard practice to consider the fee levels and requirements of neighboring and other peer jurisdictions. This analysis would compare recommended fees in Santa Clara County with those charged in other similar Bay Area jurisdictions (to be identified in conjunction with city staff). Financial Feasibility of Potential Fee Levels. The final recommendations for fees ideally are set so that they do not deter future development; the supportable fees determination will be informed by the financial feasibility analysis completed in Task 5. There are several ways to assess financial feasibility of potential fee levels: • Assess how much the imposition of a fee will add to current fees on new residential developments. • Determine the percentage of total development costs represented by fees. Strategic Economics will determine the financial feasibility of various fee options (including the maximum nexus justified fee resulting from this analysis and lower fee scenarios) by estimating the increase in total development costs resulting from the fees. • Conduct financial feasibility sensitivity analyses (as part of Task 5) to determine how changing rents/prices, required return, and construction costs would interact with the ability to support different fee levels. Based on efforts above, information on recommended fee levels for all cities included in the study will be provided. Then, during any public process described in the optional task section below, these fees will be presented to public officials to elicit feedback. An AB 602 analysis will be completed for each participating city after that city selects a desired residential impact fee level. AB 602 requires the nexus study for a new fee to “identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.” (Government Code § 66016.5). Strategic Economics will provide sufficient analysis and findings to meet the AB 602 requirements by first identifying the existing ratio of deed-restricted, “family” affordable units in each city to the number of housing units in the city. Then Strategic Economics will calculate the level of service associated with Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Scope to Prepare Nexus and Feasibility Studies | September 27, 2024 5 the proposed residential impact fee, or the number of family affordable units that could be funded per household created by new development. Finally, Strategic Economics will prepare findings justifying the need for additional affordable housing funding. TASK 5: RESIDENTIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY AND INCLUSIONARY ANALYSIS TASK 5.1: SHARED BASE RESIDENTIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY In coordination with CPC and the participating cities, Strategic Economics will develop up to five development project prototypes, ensuring that they represent the ownership and rental residential development types being built in the cities. The prototypes will vary based on assumptions regarding building type, density, unit size, ground-floor retail area, parking ratios, etc. The prototypes will be shared with CPC and the cities for comment before arriving at a final set of assumptions for the pro forma feasibility analysis. Upon establishing the prototypes, Strategic Economics will research inputs and assumptions for the financial feasibility analysis. The key inputs into the pro forma model are the revenues (rents/sales prices), development costs, and land costs. Strategic Economics will collect and summarize data on construction costs in the county, using a combination of real estate industry publications, online information, and interviews with local developers and brokers. At this stage of the analysis, Strategic Economics will also research and apply generic rents/prices and land values, which will then be customized for the participating cities in sub-task 5.2. Strategic Economics will develop a pro forma model to test the financial feasibility of the prototypes. The analysis will first examine the feasibility of each prototype without any affordable housing requirements. The financial feasibility analysis of projects will be measured using a static pro forma model that will solve for the project’s rate of return and residual land value. The results will create a baseline understanding of prototype-specific project feasibility and ability to support on-site affordable housing requirements. TASK 5.2: CITY-SPECIFIC RESIDENTIAL FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND INCLUSIONARY ANALYSES Strategic Economics will then customize the pro forma analysis and test inclusionary requirements for each participating city. We will research and generate customized assumptions for land values and achievable rents and sales prices. We will also request that the cities provide applicable impact fees and permit fees for each prototype. Strategic Economics will work closely with City and CPC staff to create and test up to four scenarios of affordable housing requirements for each city. These policy alternatives will be informed by factors including the baseline feasibility results, findings from the analysis of nearby communities’ policies and performance, implications of AB 1505 requirements (including its guidance on affordability levels), and guidance from City staff. Strategic Economics will then adapt the development prototypes pro forma model to test the financial feasibility of varying the inclusionary housing requirements according to the policy alternatives. The pro forma analysis will be structured to understand what changes could be made to inclusionary requirements to support the continuing feasibility of projects while also incorporating affordable units. As part of this analysis, Strategic Economics will conduct sensitivity analyses based on potential changes in market rents and sales prices, variations in construction costs, variations in required return, or comparison of residual land value results against the range of actual land values. Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Scope to Prepare Nexus and Feasibility Studies | September 27, 2024 6 Based on the findings of these analyses, Strategic Economics will generate findings and recommendations regarding supportable inclusionary requirements both today and in the future, along with policy suggestions for balancing the requirements with any feasibility constraints. TASK 5.3: CITY-SPECIFIC IN-LIEU FEE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Strategic Economics will calculate potential in-lieu fee levels corresponding to the applicable communities’ selected inclusionary requirements. Strategic Economics will identify the maximum in- lieu affordable housing fees that could reasonably be charged on market-rate developments by calculating the housing affordability gap. Unlike the affordability gap calculated for the impact fees, this gap will examine the difference between market rate rents/sales prices and affordable rents/sales prices. This approach reflects the equivalent cost for providing an on-site inclusionary unit and equivalent benefit to a lower-income household. Strategic Economics will also determine the community’s typical cost to subsidize a unit of affordable housing by reviewing the community’s average local contribution toward recently built or proposed affordable housing development projects. The affordability gap and local contribution respectively represent the maximum reasonable in-lieu fee (directly equivalent to the inclusionary requirement) and the actual typical City cost to leverage outside funds to produce a unit of affordable housing. After delivery of the administrative draft report, Strategic Economics will participate in a phone call with City staff to walk through the results and explain how to evaluate them for the purpose of establishing an in-lieu fee. TASK 6: COMMERCIAL NEXUS STUDY AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS TASK 6.1: SHARED BASE COMMERCIAL NEXUS MODEL AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Strategic Economics will complete an initial shared commercial nexus model and financial feasibility analysis. Optional Task D specifies additional scope and budget to further customize the nexus model for cities requesting this service. Strategic Economics will analyze information about recent and pipeline nonresidential development projects in the participating cities to establish five prototypes including office, industrial, life science/R&D, retail, and hotel uses. The prototypes will be shared and discussed with CPC and city staff to arrive at a final set of assumptions for the nexus and feasibility analyses. The nexus analysis and subsequent affordability gap calculation will together allow Strategic Economics to identify the maximum possible commercial linkage fee that could be charged to net new nonresidential development. The nexus analysis will demonstrate the impact of new commercial development on affordable housing needs. The nexus analysis is completed with the following steps: 1) Calculate the number of employees that will work in the space associated with the development prototypes. 2) Calculate the number of new households associated with this employment growth. 3) Estimate the incomes of the new employee-households. 4) Identify the number of associated moderate-, low-, very low-income households, all of which would reflect additional need for affordable housing. The affordability gap calculation described in sub-task 4.1 (and potential local adjustments in Optional Task D) will generate a maximum fee that can be levied on new nonresidential developments. Selecting the actual fee requires sensitivity to local market conditions. A base financial feasibility analysis will be prepared to examine development feasibility and assess the sensitivity of the feasibility Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Scope to Prepare Nexus and Feasibility Studies | September 27, 2024 7 model to changes in development costs, revenues, and required return. Strategic Economics will conduct a financial feasibility analysis for the nonresidential prototypes by employing a similar methodology as in sub-tasks 5.1 and 5.2 TASK 6.2: CITY-SPECIFIC FEASIBILITY ANALYSES AND AB 602 JUSTIFICATION ANALYSIS Strategic Economics will recommend a potential range of impact fees for each city based on the results of the financial feasibility analysis in sub-task 6.1, any local adjustments to the nexus analysis in Optional Task D, and review of the fees charged in similar or competing cities. The affordability gap calculation, feasibility analysis, and process for establishing recommended impact fees for each prototype and community will be completed using a similar approach and methodology as that described for the residential impact in sub-task 4.2. An AB 602 analysis will be completed for each participating city after that city selects a desired commercial linkage fee level. AB 602 requires the nexus study for a new fee to “identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.” (Government Code § 66016.5). Strategic Economics will provide sufficient analysis and findings to meet the AB 602 requirements by first identifying the existing ratio of deed-restricted, “family” affordable units in each city to the number of worker households associated with employment in the city. Then Strategic Economics will calculate the level of service associated with the proposed commercial linkage fees, or the number of family affordable units that could be funded per worker household created by new development. Finally, Strategic Economics will prepare findings justifying the need for additional affordable housing funding. TASK 7: DRAFT SUITE OF REPORTS Strategic Economics will prepare four draft “model” reports representing the range of analyses and policy recommendations completed under tasks four through six. These draft reports will summarize methodology, findings, and recommendations for one city, along with standardized appendices for use in all reports. The participating cities would then provide comments on the model reports, and Strategic Economics would then author draft reports for all participating cities. TASK 8: GROUP MEETING TO DISCUSS RESULTS Strategic Economics will conduct a meeting with all participating cities to present the model draft reports and provide an overview of the recommendations. This meeting can be conducted either in- person or virtually, with CPC responsible for scheduling the meeting. TASK 9: ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGS TO PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS Strategic Economics will conduct an additional virtual meeting with each city to present city-specific findings and recommendations, and to receive input and further direction. Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Scope to Prepare Nexus and Feasibility Studies | September 27, 2024 8 TASK 10: FINAL REPORTS Strategic Economics will revise the draft reports and provide final reports. Revisions will be completed in response to a single consolidated set of comments and direction provided from the participating cities on their respective draft reports. OPTIONAL TASKS OPTIONAL TASK A: PUBLIC HEARING As requested by participating cities, Strategic Economics would participate in public hearings with decision-makers such as city councils, planning commissions, and housing oversight bodies. For each requested hearing, Strategic Economics will coordinate with City staff, prepare presentations as- needed, and participate in the hearing. Each public hearing would be approved and billed as a separate optional task. OPTIONAL TASK B: ADDITIONAL ONE-ON-ONE VIRTUAL MEETINGS WITH CITIES As requested by participating cities, Strategic Economics will participate in additional one-on-one virtual meetings, with each meeting to be approved and billed as a separate optional task. OPTIONAL TASK C: CUSTOMIZATION OF RESIDENTIAL NEXUS MODEL ASSUMPTIONS Upon request by a participating city, Strategic Economics will further customize the residential nexus model to prepare results based on different household income levels and corresponding affordability gaps. For each applicable city, Strategic Economics will calculate the maximum nexus-based fee per unit and per square foot for the residential prototype with fewer than ten units. OPTIONAL TASK D: CUSTOMIZATION OF COMMERCIAL NEXUS MODEL ASSUMPTIONS Upon requests by a participating city, Strategic Economics will further customize the commercial nexus model. Potential customization areas include affordability gap calculations based on specific income levels and local market conditions, and changes to the development prototype assumptions to reflect different job densities and industry mixes. For each applicable city, Strategic Economics will prepare a customized calculation of the maximum nexus-based fee per square foot of each development prototype. Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Scope to Prepare Nexus and Feasibility Studies | September 27, 2024 9 Schedule The following schedule achieves completion of the project within ten months of full execution of the services agreement. Schedule for Cities Association of Santa Clara County Inclusionary and Linkage Fee Study Task # Task Name Approximate Task Start Approximate Task Finish Approximate Duration Task 1 Project Initiation and Group Kick-Off Meeting October October .5 month Task 2 City-Specific Kick-Off Meetings October December 2 months Task 3 Stakeholder and Work-In-Progress Meetings 3.1 Two Developer Stakeholder Group Virtual Meetings December March 4 months 3.2 Housing Advocates Virtual Meeting December January 1 month 3.3 Public Virtual Meeting January February 1 month 3.3 Two Work-In-Progress Presentations to Cities January May 4 months Task 4 Residential Nexus Analysis October March 6 months Task 5 Residential Feasibility Study and Inclusionary Analysis October March 6 months Task 6 Commercial Nexus Study and Feasibility Analysis October March 6 months Task 7 Draft Suite of Reports March May 2 months Task 8 Group Meeting to Discuss Results May May 1 month Task 9 One-On-One Meetings to Present Recommendations June July 2 months Task 10 Final Reports July August 2 months Notes: Schedule assumes a start date in October 2024. All listed calendar months are in 2024 or 2025. Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Proposed Budget for Cities Association of Santa Clara County Inclusionary and Linkage Fee Study - Updated 9/30/2024 to modify contingency Staff Title Billing Rate Tasks Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Task 1 10 2,350$ 0 -$ 12 2,160$ 14 2,100$ 18 2,070$ 54 $8,680 Task 2 10 2,350$ 0 -$ 13 2,340$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 23 $4,690 Task 3 3.1 5 1,175$ 0 -$ 9 1,620$ 4 600$ 0 -$ 18 $3,395 3.2 6 1,410$ 0 -$ 6 1,080$ 10 1,500$ 2 230$ 24 $4,220 3.3 6 1,410$ 0 -$ 6 1,080$ 10 1,500$ 2 230$ 24 $4,220 3.3 8 1,880$ 0 -$ 10 1,800$ 10 1,500$ 2 230$ 30 $5,410 Task 4 Residential Nexus Analysis 4.1 Shared Base Residential Nexus Model 2 470$ 0 -$ 12 2,160$ 40 6,000$ 8 920$ 62 $9,550 4.2 City-Specific Recommendations, AB 602 Analysis 3 705$ 1 310$ 16 2,880$ 40 6,000$ 23 2,645$ 83 $12,540 Task 5 Residential Feasibility Study and Inclusionary Analysis 5.1 Shared Base Residential Feasibility Study 4 940$ 0 -$ 36 6,480$ 90 13,500$ 20 2,300$ 150 $23,220 5.2 City-Specific Residential Feasibility & Inclusionary Analyses 5 1,175$ 1 310$ 52 9,360$ 68 10,200$ 14 1,610$ 140 $22,655 5.3 City-Specific In-Lieu Fee Analysis and Recommendations 12 2,820$ 0 -$ 15 2,700$ 72 10,800$ 6 690$ 105 $17,010 Task 6 Commercial Nexus Study and Feasibility Analysis 6.1 Shared Base Commercial Nexus Model and Feasibility Analyses 5 1,175$ 0 -$ 32 5,760$ 100 15,000$ 40 4,600$ 177 $26,535 6.2 City-Specific Feasibility and AB 602 Analyses 5 1,175$ 1 310$ 28 5,040$ 60 9,000$ 16 1,840$ 110 $17,365 Task 7 Draft Suite of Reports 7 1,645$ 1 310$ 56 10,080$ 154 23,100$ 23 2,645$ 241 $37,780 Task 8 Group Meeting to Discuss Results 4 940$ 0 -$ 4 720$ 4 600$ 2 230$ 14 $2,490 Task 9 One-On-One Meetings to Present Recommendations 10 2,350$ 0 -$ 16 2,880$ 18 2,700$ 6 690$ 50 $8,620 Task 10 Final Reports 10 2,350$ 1 310$ 19 3,420$ 39 5,850$ 9 1,035$ 78 $12,965 Task Subtotals 112 26,320$ 5 1,550$ 342 61,560$ 733 109,950$ 191 21,965$ 1,383 $221,345 Contingency $27,054 Expenses Expenses (data, travel)$1,600 TOTAL BUDGET $249,999 Derek Braun Dena Belzer Chris Holcomb Madeleine Galvin Gus Stephens Principal President Associate II Associate R.A. Subtotal: Stakeholder and Work-In-Progress Meetings $235 $310 $180 $150 $115 Project Initiation and Group Kick-Off Meeting City-Specific Kick-Off Meetings Two Developer Stakeholder Group Virtual Meetings Housing Advocates Virtual Meeting Public Virtual Meeting Two Work-In-Progress Presentations to Cities Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Optional Tasks Budget for Cities Association of Santa Clara County Inclusionary and Linkage Fee Study Staff Title Billing Rate Tasks Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Opt A 11 2,585$ 0 -$ 4 720$ 4 600$ 0 -$ 19 $3,905 Opt B 2 470$ 0 -$ 4 720$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 6 $1,190 Opt C 0 -$ 0 -$ 8 1,440$ 20 3,000$ 0 -$ 28 $4,440 Opt D 1 235$ 0 -$ 4 720$ 20 3,000$ 0 -$ 25 $3,955 Expenses Expenses (data, meetings)$0 Subtotal: Principal President Associate II Associate R.A. Derek Braun Dena Belzer Chris Holcomb Arpita Banerjee Gus Stephens $115 Public Hearing (prep and attendance) Additional One-On-One Virtual Meetings with Cities $235 $310 Customization of Residential Nexus Model Assumptions Customization of Commercial Nexus Model Assumptions $180 $150 Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E Strategic Economics Cost Breakdown by City - Updated 9/30/2024 to modify contingency Tasks Task Cost % of Task Amount % of Task Amount % of Task Amount % of Task Amount % of Task Amount % of Task Amount % of Task Amount Task 1 $8,680 17%$1,447 17%$1,447 17%$1,447 17%$1,447 17%$1,447 0%$0 17%$1,447 Task 2 $4,690 17%$782 17%$782 17%$782 17%$782 17%$782 0%$0 17%$782 Task 3 3.1 $3,395 17%$566 17%$566 17%$566 17%$566 17%$566 0%$0 17%$566 3.2 $4,220 17%$703 17%$703 17%$703 17%$703 17%$703 0%$0 17%$703 3.3 $4,220 17%$703 17%$703 17%$703 17%$703 17%$703 0%$0 17%$703 3.3 $5,410 17%$902 17%$902 17%$902 17%$902 17%$902 0%$0 17%$902 Task 4 Residential Nexus Analysis 4.1 Shared Base Residential Nexus Model $9,550 0%$0 50%$4,775 0%$0 0%$0 50%$4,775 0%$0 0%$0 4.2 City-Specific Residential Nexus, Recommendations, AB 602 $12,540 0%$0 50%$6,270 0%$0 0%$0 50%$6,270 0%$0 0%$0 Task 5 Residential Feasibility Study and Inclusionary Analysis 5.1 Shared Base Residential Feasibility Study $23,220 0%$0 33%$7,740 0%$0 0%$0 33%$7,740 0%$0 33%$7,740 5.2 City-Specific Residential Feasibility & Inclusionary Analyses $22,655 0%$0 33%$7,552 0%$0 0%$0 33%$7,552 0%$0 33%$7,552 5.3 City-Specific In-Lieu Fee Analysis and Recommendations $17,010 0%$0 33%$5,670 0%$0 0%$0 33%$5,670 0%$0 33%$5,670 Task 6 Commercial Nexus Study and Feasibility Analysis 6.1 Shared Base Commercial Nexus Model and Feasibility Analyses $26,535 25%$6,634 0%$0 25%$6,634 25%$6,634 25%$6,634 0%$0 0%$0 6.2 City-Specific Commercial Nexus, Feasibility, AB 602 Analyses $17,365 25%$4,341 0%$0 25%$4,341 25%$4,341 25%$4,341 0%$0 0%$0 Task 7 Draft Suite of Reports $37,780 15%$5,812 15%$5,812 15%$5,812 15%$5,812 31%$11,625 0%$0 8%$2,906 Task 8 Group Meeting to Discuss Results $2,490 17%$415 17%$415 17%$415 17%$415 17%$415 0%$0 17%$415 Task 9 One-On-One Meetings to Present Recommendations $8,620 17%$1,437 17%$1,437 17%$1,437 17%$1,437 17%$1,437 0%$0 17%$1,437 Task 10 Final Reports $12,965 15%$1,995 15%$1,995 15%$1,995 15%$1,995 31%$3,989 0%$0 8%$997 Task Subtotals $221,345 12%$25,736 21%$46,768 12%$25,736 12%$25,736 30%$65,550 0%$0 14%$31,819 Contingency $27,054 12%$3,146 21%$5,716 12%$3,146 12%$3,146 30%$8,012 0%$0 14%$3,889 Expenses Expenses (data, travel)$1,600 $267 $267 $267 $267 $267 $0 $267 TOTAL BUDGET $249,999 $29,148 $52,751 $29,148 $29,148 $73,828 $0 $35,975 Mountain View Santa Clara Saratoga SunnyvaleGilroyLos Altos Hills Los Gatos Stakeholder and Work-In-Progress Meetings Project Initiation and Group Kick-Off Meeting City-Specific Kick-Off Meetings Two Developer Stakeholder Group Virtual Meetings Housing Advocates Virtual Meeting Public Virtual Meeting Two Work-In-Progress Presentations to Cities Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E EXHIBIT B PROJECT MANAGEMENT SCOPE from Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning will provide project management and supplementary technical assistance to the project. Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning’s scope will be funded by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. Project Management: Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning will convene the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS (the City of Gilroy, the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Town of Los Gatos, the City of Mountain View, the City of Santa Clara, the City of Saratoga and the City of Sunnyvale) and serve as a single point of contact for the technical consultant (CONTRACTOR), with authority to make minor decisions when appropriate. Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning will coordinate logistics, including arranging meetings and phone calls as needed. Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning will also help the CONTRACTOR with collecting data and information about existing requirements from the participating and neighboring jurisdictions. Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning will also support the FISCAL AGENT with review of contracts and assistance with budgeting and invoices. Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning will review all monthly CONTRACTOR invoices and verify for accuracy prior to sending to the FISCAL AGENT for payment. Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning will track monthly invoices and with assistance from the FISCAL AGENT provide quarterly accounting of invoices, and charged and remaining funds for each of the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS. Technical Assistance: Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning will provide additional technical assistance to the project. Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning will review products and help the PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS vet the nexus and feasibility study recommendations. Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning will summarize decisions/direction for the CONTRACTOR. Baird + Driskell + Abrams Community Planning may provide additional analysis to help guide jurisdictions' decision-making in setting their requirements. Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E EXHIBIT C PROJECT BUDGET and COST ALLOCATION FOR PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS For a breakdown of the Strategic Economics Work Program budget by task, see Exhibit A. TOTAL PROJECT COST TECHNICAL CONSULTANT – STRATEGIC ECONOMICS $249,999 PROJECT MANAGER – BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING Silicon Valley Community Foundation is providing funding for BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING’s Scope of Work $0 TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED PROJECT COST $249,999 Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E BY JURISDICTION: PROJECT COST for CITY OF GILROY TECHNICAL CONSULTANT – STRATEGIC ECONOMICS CITY OF GILROY Share of Total Contract $25,736 CITY OF GILROY Share of Contingency $3,146 SUBTOTAL $267 PROJECT MANAGER – BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING Silicon Valley Community Foundation is providing funding for BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING’s Scope of Work $0 TOTAL COST $29,148 PROJECT COST for TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS TECHNICAL CONSULTANT – STRATEGIC ECONOMICS TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Share of Total Contract $46,768 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Share of Contingency $5,716 SUBTOTAL $267 PROJECT MANAGER – BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING Silicon Valley Community Foundation is providing funding for BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING’s Scope of Work $0 TOTAL COST $52,751 PROJECT COST for TOWN OF LOS GATOS TECHNICAL CONSULTANT – STRATEGIC ECONOMICS TOWN OF LOS GATOS Share of Total Contract $25,736 TOWN OF LOS GATOS Share of Contingency $3,146 SUBTOTAL $267 PROJECT MANAGER – BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING Silicon Valley Community Foundation is providing funding for BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING’s Scope of Work $0 TOTAL COST $29,148 Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E PROJECT COST for CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW TECHNICAL CONSULTANT – STRATEGIC ECONOMICS CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Share of Total Contract $25,736 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW Share of Contingency $3,146 SUBTOTAL $267 PROJECT MANAGER – BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING Silicon Valley Community Foundation is providing funding for BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING’s Scope of Work $0 TOTAL COST $29,148 PROJECT COST for CITY OF SANTA CLARA TECHNICAL CONSULTANT – STRATEGIC ECONOMICS CITY OF SANTA CLARA Share of Total Contract $65,550 CITY OF SANTA CLARA Share of Contingency $8,012 SUBTOTAL $267 PROJECT MANAGER – BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING Silicon Valley Community Foundation is providing funding for BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING’s Scope of Work $0 TOTAL COST $73,829 PROJECT COST for CITY OF SUNNYVALE TECHNICAL CONSULTANT – STRATEGIC ECONOMICS CITY OF SUNNYVALE Share of Total Contract $31,819 CITY OF SUNNYVALE Share of Contingency $3,889 SUBTOTAL $267 PROJECT MANAGER – BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING Silicon Valley Community Foundation is providing funding for BAIRD + DRISKELL + ABRAMS COMMUNITY PLANNING’s Scope of Work $0 TOTAL COST $35,975 Docusign Envelope ID: FFC17223-F25B-45AB-A480-035ACCE20CAFDocusign Envelope ID: D9DA082D-7159-4E25-8CDB-C0B447101A4E