CC 12-03-2024 Item No. 10. Alta Planning + Design, Inc. Contract_Supplemental Report
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: December 3, 2024
Agenda Item #10
Subject
Approval of a contract with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for the Development
of an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) in the amount of $300,000.
Recommended Action
1. Approve a contract services agreement with Alta Planning + Design, Inc.
in the amount of $300,000 for the development of a citywide Active
Transportation Plan.
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement and any necessary
amendments within the approved budget of $330,000.
3. Authorize the City Manager to execute any change orders up to a project
contingency amount of $30,000 (10%), for a total contract amount of
$330,000.
Background:
Q1: The staff report states ʺThe RFP resulted in four proposals, each of which
was evaluated based on established criteria. Alta Planning + Design was
selected as the top proposer due to its strong scoring across all criteria and
demonstrated knowledge of Cupertinoʹs unique needs and priorities. The RFP
issued by the City is available at https://apps.cupertino.org/details/720.ʺ
(Chao)
Q1‐1: Please include all documents of the RFP as attachments. I was not able
to access the documents from the above URL, except one paragraph
description. (Chao)
Staff response: The RFP is attached to this supplemental report. The RFP documents
are typically not provided as attachments. These documents can be found
here: https://apps.cupertino.org/details/720 .
Q1‐2: Please provide a description of each of the 4 proposals for transparency.
(Chao)
Staff response: The City received proposals from Alta Planning + Design, TJKM
Transportation Consultants, Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, and Toole
Design Group.
Alta Planning + Design
Alta was chosen for their exceptional technical expertise, particularly in using tools
that perform GIS and demographic analysis. Their proposal stood out with a detailed
and well‐structured roadmap, clearly outlining the sequence of activities required for
project completion. Unlike other proposers who relied heavily on sub‐consultants for
public outreach, Alta’s highly experienced in‐house team seamlessly integrated
engagement strategies into the project framework.
Toole Design Group
Toole seems to emphasize equity‐focused planning, offering tools like equity
prioritization (which are less relevant to Cupertinoʹs priority needs).
TJKM Transportation Consultants
TJKM’s proposal is focused on safety, with an emphasis on small‐scale projects and
the utilization of antiquated GIS collision dashboards.
Nelson\Nygaard
Nelson\Nygaard has Bay Area experience and excels in policy analysis and
community engagement.
Q1‐3: Please provide the criteria used for evaluation to demonstrate why the
chosen proposer is ʺthe top proposerʺ.
(Chao)
Staff response: The evaluation criteria are included in the RFP.
Q1‐4: Please provide more information on why the chosen proposer has
ʺdemonstrated knowledge of Cupertinoʹs unique needs and prioritiesʺ, and
why the other three proposers do not have such knowledge.
(Chao)
Staff response: All the proposers appeared to be qualified. However, Alta’s robust in‐
house community engagement team, previous experience in preparing the 2016
Bicycle Transportation Plan, and clear description of how they intend to integrate the
work completed in the City’s adopted Vision Zero Plan into the new ATP separated
them as the most qualified consultant for this project.
Q1‐5: Please provide the proposal of the chosen proposer as attachment for
transparency. (Chao)
Staff response: The City does not provide this document with staff reports.
Q1‐6: Please provide the proposals of the other three proposers not chosen to
the City Council for review.
(Chao)
Staff response: To ensure fair competition among respondents to the RFP, the City
does not provide these documents with staff reports.
Q2: The project description from the RFT is ʺThe Consultant will develop a
clear and actionable plan to prioritize transportation projects that promote
active transportation within the City. This includes conducting an inventory of
existing infrastructure, developing a prioritized list of implementation
projects, identifying non‐infrastructure elements for community engagement,
creating a realistic approach to project funding, and conducting extensive
public outreach. Additionally, the Consultant will assist City staff in
coordinating with local stakeholders, including school districts, local
businesses, and community groups. This project will build off similar past
efforts, such as the Cityʹs 2016 Bike Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Plan. By
leveraging the insights and successes of these previous plans, the Consultant
will ensure that the new plan is comprehensive, informed by past experiences,
and aligned with the Cityʹs long‐term goals for active transportation.ʺ (Chao)
Q2‐1: It seems the project is mainly based on existing plans, rather than
developing a brand‐new plan. Why does this plan would cost $330,000, rather
than $100,000 or $200,000? (Chao)
Staff response: The scope and the proposal breakdown show the allocation of project
costs. More than one‐third of the project costs are associated with tasks related to
public engagement and community outreach. Public outreach is the foundation of this
project, as there needs to be sufficient resources dedicated to educating and gathering
feedback from the public in various formats throughout the entire project.
Over time, community priorities, mobility patterns, and regional and state policies
change, making it essential to update transportation plans approximately every 5‐7
years to reflect these shifts. Most importantly, many competitive grant programs
prioritize or require cities to have up‐to‐date plans to secure funding. This new Plan
will unify goals for walking, bicycling, and other active transportation modes,
ensuring a cohesive strategy to enhance connectivity, improve safety, and position
Cupertino to compete for funding opportunities.
Q2‐2: Please demonstrate what justifies the high cost for this plan?
(Chao)
Staff response: See Q2‐1 above.
Q2‐3: Whatʹs the cost of other similar projects? Who were the consultants.
For example, the Vision Zero plan, completed in July 2024, the Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP), completed in 2023, the 2018 Pedestrian Plan and the 2016
Bike Plan?
(Chao)
Staff Response:
Relevant City of Cupertino Plans
Plan Consultant Cost ($)
2024 Vision Zero Plan TJKM 100,000
2023 Local Roadway Safety Plan TJKM 80,869
2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan Alta Planning + Design 45,000
2018 Pedestrian Transportation
Plan
Toole Design 108,702
Relevant Other City Plans
Plan Consultant Cost ($)
City of Mountain View – Active
Transportation Plan (Ongoing) Nelson\Nygaard 440,000 plus an
additional 108,000
City of Sunnyvale – Active
Transportation Plan (2020) Alta Planning + Design 364,000
City of Los Altos – Complete Streets
Plan Alta Planning + Design 165,340
City of San Jose – Walk Safe San
Jose (2024) Nelson\Nygaard 502,000
City of Alameda – Active
Transportation Plan (2022) Toole Design Group 330,000
City of Dinuba – Active
Transportation Plan (2023) TJKM 300,000
Q13: What grants are used to cover the cost of $330,000 for this plan?
(Chao)
Staff response: Transportation Development Article 3 (TDA3)
Q3‐1: What other qualifying uses are there for each of the grants used, besides
an Active Transportation Plan? (Chao)
Staff response: All project costs are entirely offset by TDA3 funds, and there is no
impact on the City general fund. According to MTC Resolution 4108, TDA3 can be
utilized for one or more of the following purposes:
1. Construction and/or engineering of a bicycle or pedestrian capital or quick
build projects.
2. Maintenance of a Class I shared‐use path and Class IV separated
bikeways.
3. Bicycle and/or pedestrian safety education program (no more than 5% of
county total).
4. Development of a comprehensive bicycle or pedestrian facilities plan(s)
(allocations to a claimant for this purpose may not be made more than once every
five years).
5. Restriping Class II bicycle lanes and buffered bicycle lanes.
6. Purchase of maintenance equipment for exclusive use on Class I and/or
Class IV facilities.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Draft Contract
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
B. Request for Proposals