HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2018.02.05City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, February 5, 2018
STUDY SESSION - 5:30 p.m. - Council Chambers
The Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing Development (Parking Lot F – 150 Park
Road) and Public Parking Structure (Parking Lot N – 160 Lorton Avenue)
a.
Staff Memorandum
October 2, 2017 Memorandum from Keyser-Marston
December 21, 2017 Memorandum from Keyser-Marston
January 7, 2018 Letter from The Pacific Companies
January 26, 2018 Memorandum from The Pacific Companies
2017 Income Limits San Mateo County.pdf
Attachments:
Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the
non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7.
Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and
hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is
optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in
light of the number of anticipated speakers.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record.
1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
Get Us Moving - San Mateo Countya.
PresentationAttachments:
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2018
February 5, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M .
Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter
that is not on the agenda.
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion .
Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker
slip for that item in advance of the Council’s consideration of the consent calendar.
Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes January 16, 2018a.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes January 27, 2018b.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Open Nomination Period to Fill Three Vacancies on the Planning Commissionc.
Staff ReportAttachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for
Professional Services with MIG for the Development of a Parks Master Plan
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Request for Proposals
MIG Proposal
Verde Design, Inc. Proposal
RHAA Landscape Architects Proposal
Firm Comparison Chart
Agreement for Professional Services with MIG
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Five -Year Agreement
with a Three-Year Optional Extension with LWP Claims Solutions for Third Party
Administration of the City’s Self-Insured Workers’ Compensation Program
e.
Staff Report
Resolution
Professional Services Agreement
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2018
February 5, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services
Agreement for Labor Relations Consultation Services with Burke, Williams & Sorensen,
LLP
f.
Staff Report
Resolution
Professional Services Agreement
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Lorton Ave Storm Line Cleaning Project, City
Project No. 84930
g.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Establishing an Automatic Rotation for Assignment to the
Economic Development Subcommittee
h.
Staff Report
Mayor Brownrigg's Memorandum
Resolution
Attachments:
Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending December 31, 2017i.
Staff Report
Portfolio Holdings 12-31-17
CERBT Performance at December 2017
PARS Statement November 2017
Attachments:
Approval of the City’s Participation in the Operation Eagle Visit — Homecoming 50 Years
Celebration
j.
Staff ReportAttachments:
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Adoption of a Resolution Waiving Registration Fees for Individual Massage Therapistsa.
Staff Report
Resolution
Attachments:
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2018
February 5, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Mayor Brownrigg's Committee Reporta.
Committee ReportAttachments:
Vice Mayor Colson's Committee Reportb.
Committee ReportAttachments:
Councilmember Beach's Committee Reportc.
Committee ReportAttachments:
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Tuesday,
February 20, 2018
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO
"CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS"
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda
will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose
Road during normal business hours.
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/2/2018
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Community Development Department
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE:
February 5, 2018
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
William Meeker, Community Development Director
Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager
SUBJECT:
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION - The Village at Burlingame
Affordable Housing Development (Parking Lot F – 150 Park Road)
and Public Parking Structure (Parking Lot N – 160 Lorton Avenue)
PURPOSE OF STUDY SESSION/ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN
As of the date of this memorandum, The Pacific Companies (also known as Pacific West Communities)
has submitted applications to the Community Development Department – Planning Division for
entitlements related to the development of affordable housing units on City-owned Parking Lot F (150
Park Road) and a four- to five-story City-owned parking structure on Parking Lot N (160 Lorton Avenue).
The project is tentatively scheduled to be taken before the Planning Commission for design review study
in late-February. However, before this occurs, the Council must make final determinations regarding
the following issues:
Shall Parking Lot F be leased or sold to The Pacific Companies (with appropriate
contingencies)?
The parking lot structure will be constructed using prevailing wage labor. As a public building
that will remain under City control, prevailing wage is required for the garage component of the
project. Shall The Pacific Companies be also required to pay prevailing wage to workers
involved in construction of the affordable housing development?
Pursuant to the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the City and The
Pacific Companies, the City Council must approve the “sources and uses” of all project funding
before further work on the project is undertaken. This approval relates to the funding plan at a
macro-level, as the details of the project’s finances may change somewhat as project
construction nears.
Prevailing Wage: The prevailing wage issue as it applies to this project has both legal and policy
aspects. As discussed below, the available legal analysis does not compel the housing portion of the
project to be built with prevailing wage labor. Therefore, the Council’s policy determination should
control on this issue.
Because the garage is a public building that is to remain under City control, the City required an up-front
agreement to pay prevailing wage for that component of the project. The affordable housing component,
however, will not be run by the City. California’s prevailing wage law includes exceptions for affordable
housing developments. According to analysis performed by the developer, the housing portion of this
Proposal from The Pacific Companies February 5, 2018
Re: Development of Parking Lots F and N
Page 2 of 11
project would qualify for such an exception. The law in this area is not well-settled in that the City does
not do not have a significant number of published decisions on which to rely. However, the project has
determined that the exception can apply here, provided the transfer of property interests to the developer
is structured appropriately so as to satisfy the language and intent of the statutory exceptions. The
question of prevailing wage is partially linked to that of sale vs. lease of the property: there are more
existing examples from which to draw for how to structure a sale in such a way as to fit the statutory
prevailing wage exception. If the Council directs that the housing property should be leased instead of
sold as part of the project, further analysis will be necessary as to the best way to structure that
transaction.
The law does not clearly constrain the project as currently contemplated to use prevailing wage on the
housing portion of the development. The question of whether to require it therefore becomes a policy
issue for the Council. The existing agreement with the developer leaves open the question of prevailing
wage on the housing development, while it explicitly requires it for the parking garage. As part of its
review of the finances for the project, the Council may determine whether prevailing wage should be
applied to the housing component.
The developer has articulated a strong preference for not being required to pay prevailing wage on the
housing portion of the project. On January 26, 2018, The Pacific Companies submitted a memorandum
stating the developer’s request that the Lot F portion of the project remain free of state prevailing wage
requirements. The inclusion of a prevailing wage requirement, according to the developer, will increase
construction costs by 25%, making the project no longer financially feasible. According to the memo,
bridging the financing gap created by mandating prevailing wage on the housing component will create
substantial delays to the project and may jeopardize its viability.
Lease vs. Sale of Lot F: In the same January 26 memorandum, the developer also expressed a strong
preference for being allowed to purchase rather than lease Lot F for the affordable housing development.
The developer’s intent is to purchase Lot F for fair market value, with the City to carry a long-term note
on the property, to be paid out of revenues. The developer contends that leasing the property would
have negative financial and legal impacts on the project.
Approval of Sources and Uses: At its meeting of June 6 2016, the City Council authorized the City
Manager to execute a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Pacific West Communities
with respect to its proposed affordable housing development on Parking Lots F and N. Included in the
DDA is a requirement that the City Council approve the “Sources and Uses” (i.e. the sources of funding
and the uses therefore) for the project. A letter from the applicant is attached to this memorandum which
explains the sources of funding; the following is a summary of the letter’s content:
Proposal from The Pacific Companies February 5, 2018
Re: Development of Parking Lots F and N
Page 3 of 11
To assist the Council in its deliberation regarding the Sources and Uses, staff enlisted the services of
Keyser-Marston to evaluate the project pro-forma, including the sources of funding. The attached
October 2, 2017 memorandum from Reed Kawahara of Keyser-Marston provides his expert analysis of
the project financials. Mr. Kawahara concludes that “with one notable exception KMA finds the TPC pro
forma to be generally reasonable at this early stage of project planning (as discussed below, the one
notable exception relates to the tax credit pricing assumed for the project). The development cost budget
appears to utilize reasonable assumptions for construction costs as well as indirect and financing costs
of development. Operating income projections for the project are generally reasonable as well.”
It is notable that the Sources and Uses identify a $1.85 million funding gap (resulting from the need to
remediate on-site contamination) for which a specific funding source has not been identified. However,
Proposal from The Pacific Companies February 5, 2018
Re: Development of Parking Lots F and N
Page 4 of 11
the developer has provided a letter (attached, dated January 7, 2018) that identifies potential sources of
funding the gap.
In a more recent memorandum dated January 26, 2018, the developer requests that the City provide
$1.85 million from its parking fund for the construction of the parking garage. The developer further notes
in the memorandum that it will be responsible for securing monies to fill all future funding gaps if and
when they emerge and will seek no further financial resources from the City.
During internal review of the entitlement applications by the various City departments, the Public Works
Department – Engineering Division has noted that Burlingame Municipal Code Section 12.16.075 (New
Developments and Subdivisions) will require The Pacific Companies to underground all utilities serving
both Parking Lots F and N at their cost. Staff estimates the total cost for this work to be approximately
$300,000 ($150,000 per property). Given the City’s involvement in the project and the public purposes
supported by the garage and affordable housing, however, it is within the purview of the City Council to
waive this requirement if it so chooses.
The remaining portions of this memorandum provide a summary of the project status, to date.
BACKGROUND
Selection of Developer: The City of Burlingame distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) in December
2014 seeking qualified developers interested in partnering with the City to develop City-owned Parking
Lots F & N (south of Howard Avenue, between Park Road and Highland Avenue) with affordable
housing. Responses to the RFP were due by January 31, 2015. By the response deadline, the City had
received responses from: Mid-Peninsula Housing, The Pacific Companies, Meta Housing Corporation,
Bridge Housing, Eden Housing, Core Builders, ROEM Corporation, and Mercy Housing.
The eight responses were vetted by the City Council's Downtown Specific Plan Implementation
Subcommittee, at that time consisting of Councilmember Ann Keighran and Vice Mayor Michael
Brownrigg, as well as City Manager Lisa Goldman and Community Development Director William
Meeker. Following the review, the Subcommittee recommended that the development teams from Mid-
Peninsula Housing, The Pacific Companies, and Meta Housing Corporation move forward to a session
with the full City Council where each team would be permitted the opportunity to present its concept,
financial capabilities, and experience in developing affordable housing.
On March 26, 2015, the City Council conducted a public session that provided an opportunity for the
three development teams to present to the full City Council and the interested public. At the conclusion
of the session, the City Council provided feedback to the teams and directed them to refine their
concepts based upon this feedback. Each team was provided the opportunity to present its refined
concept at a public session on Tuesday, June 9, 2015. Following that session, Meta Housing was
eliminated from further consideration.
The City Council considered further refined proposals from the two finalists, Mid-Peninsula Housing and
The Pacific Companies, at its regular meeting of July 6, 2015. At the end of the session, the City Council
Proposal from The Pacific Companies February 5, 2018
Re: Development of Parking Lots F and N
Page 5 of 11
selected The Pacific Companies as its preferred developer; since that time, the company has been doing
preliminary work on the project including financing, site conditions reconnaissance, and design
development.
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL PROJECT WITH CURRENT PROPOSAL
Since the City Council’s selection of The Pacific Companies in July 2015, the developer has been
performing due diligence regarding the conditions present on the properties. The developer submitted an
application for approval of entitlements for the residential portion of the project (Parking Lot F) to the
Planning Division of the Community Development Department on July 20, 2017, and a companion
application for development of the public parking structure on Parking Lot N on October 6, 2017. Since
that time, the applications have been undergoing review for completeness. It is anticipated that the
project plans will be presented to the Planning Commission for design review study and environmental
scoping in late-February 2018.
As submitted, the project described in the pending applications varies somewhat from the project
presented to the City Council in July 2015. The following tables provide information that permits the
Council to discern the changes that have been made as the project design has progressed.
Summary of July 2015 Project Concept - 144 Units Total:
Affordable Workforce Housing – 78 Units
# Type Sq. Ft. % AMI Rent % Below
Market
Monthly Rent Savings
5 1 BR / 1 Bath 650 50% $1,057 61% $1,683
43 1 BR / 1 Bath 650 60% $1,277 53% $1,463
3 2 BR / 1 Bath 850 50% $1,261 63% $2.139
23 2 BR / 1 Bath 850 60% $1,525 55% $1,875
3 3 BR / 2 Bath 1,150 60% $1,755 59% $2,560
*1 2 BR / 1 Bath 850 NA $0 100% $3,400
*Manager’s Unit
Affordable & Market Rate Senior Housing – 66 Units
# Type Sq. Ft. % AMI Rent % Below
Market
Monthly Rent Savings
7 1 BR / 1 Bath 573 50% $1,057 61% $1,683
35 1 BR / 1 Bath 573 60% $1,277 53% $1,463
6 1 BR / 1 Bath 573 Market $1,740 36% $1.000
11 2 BR / 1 Bath 850 60% $1,525 55% $1,875
6 2 BR / 1 Bath 850 Market $2,400 29% $1,000
*1 2 BR / 1 Bath 850 NA $0 100% $3,400
*Manager’s Unit
Proposal from The Pacific Companies February 5, 2018
Re: Development of Parking Lots F and N
Page 6 of 11
Public Parking Analysis*
Lot Current Public Spaces Public Spaces w/ Project Variance
Lot F 105 0 ‐105
Lot N 94 371 +277
Totals 199 371 +172
*+/‐ 3% variance due to handicap stalls, venting and mechanical, possible use of compact stalls, etc.
Summary of September 2017 Plans (Revision to July 2017 Submittal) – 132 Units Total:
(See Attached 2017 San Mateo County Income Limits Table for Income Categories)
Workforce Housing – 78 Units
# Type Sq. Ft. % AMI * Rent* % Below
Market*
Monthly Rent Savings*
6 1 BR 610 50% $1,107 64% N/A
46 1 BR 610 60% $1,337 56% N/A
9 1 BR 610 110% $2,490 18% N/A
1 2 BR 810 50% $1,320 67% N/A
13 2 BR 810 60% $1,597 61% N/A
2 2 BR 810 110% $2,979 26% N/A
Senior Housing – 54 Units
# Type Sq. Ft. % AMI * Rent* % Below
Market*
Monthly Rent Savings*
6 1 BR 610 50% $1,107 64% N/A
34 1 BR 610 60% $1,337 56% N/A
1 2 BR 760 50% $1,320 65% N/A
13 2 BR 760 60% $1,597 58% N/A
Public Parking Analysis (Five-Level Structure)
Lot Current Public Spaces Public Spaces w/ Project Variance
Lot F 105 0 ‐105
Lot N 94 384 +290
Totals 199 384 +279 +185
Proposal from The Pacific Companies February 5, 2018
Re: Development of Parking Lots F and N
Page 7 of 11
QUESTIONS RAISED BY CITY COUNCILMEMBERS, AND RESPONSES
Since the June 5, 2017 City Council Study Session regarding the project, a number of questions have
been received from Councilmembers. The following are the questions, with answers provided by staff,
consultants and the developer.
1. Wouldn't it be better to discuss the major policy questions (prevailing wage, sale vs. lease of land)
before the plan check process is complete in case these policy decisions affect the final design?
As noted in an earlier section of this memorandum, the applicant has formally submitted applications for
the entitlements for the project. Staff is bound by the provisions of the State of California’s Permit
Streamlining Act as it relates to the time limits imposed related to determining application completeness
(i.e. staff has 30 days from the date of each submittal to review and comment on application materials
relative to the level of completeness). Additionally, the City Council has agreed upon a general concept
for the development that permits the applicant to move forward in the entitlement review process. The
purpose of this study session is to provide guidance on the questions of the sources and uses
documents, sale vs. lease, and prevailing wage, so that the project can know what parameters it is
working within as it goes forward through the planning process. Should the Council postpone these
determinations or alter its guidance, changes and delays may occur in the planning review process.
2. Does the City’s financial consultant believe the developer’s proposed tax credits are still attainable
within the current regulatory climate?
From Keyser-Marston: “The Trump administration’s current efforts to reform corporate tax rates could
have implications for the LIHTC market. If successful, a reduction in corporate tax rates could reduce
demand and pricing for tax credits, which in turn could reduce the tax credit equity the project is able to
raise. However, there could be other changes to the LIHTC program that could mitigate the impacts from
reduced corporate tax rates. Since the full details of the tax reform proposal are not known at this time, it
is difficult to assess its full implications for project feasibility. Due to the importance of tax credits in the
project’s financing plan, close monitoring of the tax reform proposal would be prudent going forward.”
(See Keyser-Marston Memorandum dated October 2, 2017 for complete response.)
The tax reform bill was enacted into law after the Keyser-Marston memo was drafted. The developer’s
representative and the Keyser-Marston representative should be able to explain to the City Council what
impacts there will be, if any, on the project from the tax reform bill and the current regulatory climate.
3. What are the pros and cons of selling vs. leasing land to the developer? What is the financial
benefit (and/or liability) of retaining this asset. Are there pros and cons, particularly when it comes
to long-term responsibility (maintenance/renovations, eventual replacement in ~50 years.) When
cities sell, what are best practices for covenants about future land use?
From Keyser-Marston: “The Pacific Companies has proposed to acquire a 1.02-acre site from the City for
the development of the Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing Community, which will contain 132
affordable rental residential apartments. As proposed, the City will contribute the site, which is valued at
Proposal from The Pacific Companies February 5, 2018
Re: Development of Parking Lots F and N
Page 8 of 11
$10 million, at no upfront cost and the Developer will purchase the site through a note to be repaid by
residual receipts. We would recommend that the City initiate discussions with the Developer regarding
terms for leasing the site to the development, for the following reasons:
While the Developer has indicated that he would prefer to purchase the property, he has
indicated that he would be willing to lease the site;
The site is at a prominent location in the Downtown and a long-term lease would enable
the City to retain the site as an asset and control the long term use of the site;
The Developer’s pro forma does not indicate that there will be any residual receipts
available to repay the City’s site-acquisition loan;
Other 100% affordable projects have secured financing under long term ground leases;
Provided that the terms of the lease do not negatively impact securing financing for the
project, there are no critical negatives associated with leasing the property.
If the City does pursue a long term lease, the issues that will need to be negotiated include the following:
The term of the lease. It will need to be a long-term lease to enable the Developer to repay
senior debt and equity invested in the Project;
Subordination of the fee interest to financing;
Any interim payments upon the refinancing and/or sale of the project; and
Any interim payments upon the expiration of affordability covenants.”
(See Keyser-Marston Memorandum dated December 21, 2017 for complete response.)
Council should note that after the preparation of the memorandum quoted here, the developer did clarify
its request that the Lot F parcel be sold rather than leased. The developer’s representative will be able to
explain the problems they have identified relating to leasing in the discussion with Council.
4. Are maintenance and major renovations during 10-20 years built into the developer's financial
plan?
From Keyser-Marston: The development cost budget appears to utilize reasonable assumptions for
construction costs as well as indirect and financing costs of development. Operating income projections
for the project are generally reasonable as well. (See Keyser-Marston Memorandum dated October 2,
2017.)
5. What are the factors driving the $1.8m funding gap? Is it prevailing wage, or is this gap absent of
prevailing wage? This shortfall was not discussed at our June study session. The developer
implied in the past that the funding issues he flagged in April (relating to plume and underground
parking) were resolved with the proposed unit mix.
From The Pacific Companies: “The current funding gap is a product of addressing environmental
contamination on Lot F, although it is anticipated that other factors may very well result in a similar
outcome.” (See The Pacific Companies Letter dated January 7, 2018 for complete response.)
Proposal from The Pacific Companies February 5, 2018
Re: Development of Parking Lots F and N
Page 9 of 11
6. Should Lot F or N lot be re-appraised for current market value? Could a higher land value on Lot
F help close the funding gap?
From Keyser-Marston: The Pacific Companies “has estimated the value of the site at $10 million, or
$226/square foot for the 1.02-acre site. Ultimately the site’s value will need to be confirmed through a
third-party appraisal. Given the economics of the project however, any adjustments to the site’s value will
not change the fact that the site will need to be contributed at no cost by the City.” (See Keyser-Marston
Memorandum dated October 2, 2017.)
Note that Parking Lot N is to be retained by the City, with the developer replacing displaced public
parking spaces at that location. While Lot F will be “contributed at no cost” insofar as no money would be
transferred upon sale, the current agreement anticipates that the City would be paid out of residual
receipts over time. Given the nature of the proposed financing structure, the City should not rely on
these payments in the near term for budgeting purposes.
7. What are ways the developer proposes to fund the gap? Are there concessions the City should
consider in terms of height, unit mix, parking requirements, parking garage design?
From The Pacific Companies:
CalHFA Financing: It is possible to acquire financing through CalHFA that amortizes over
40 years as opposed to the 35 years currently modeled. This change would net an
additional $1,000,000 in permanent loan proceeds. Changes to the Scope of the Project:
None
CalHFA Workforce Housing Loan: CalHFA also has a program that funds workforce
housing units from 80% of AMI on up to 120% of AMI. The program provides $50,000 per
unit, so the project would be eligible for a total of $550,000. Changes to the Scope of the
Project: None
Increase in Area Median Income: The HUD data that serves as the foundation for
producing the annual area median income has a lag to it, so for the next few years we are
likely to see abnormally high increases due to the actual increase in incomes in the Bay
Area over the past five years. A 5% increase would result in an increased permanent loan
of $1,860,000. Changes to the Scope of the Project: None
City of Burlingame Parking Fund: As has been discussed at previous City Council work
sessions, the City’s parking fund may be able to play a crucial role in closing the financing
gap. It is our understanding that this source of financing could help pay for a portion of the
public parking garage. This would relieve some of the burden on the housing project and
could close the entire gap of $1,850,000. Changes to the Scope of the Project: None (that
we know of)
County of San Mateo Dept. of Housing: The County routinely provides financing to
affordable housing at an average of $62,000 per unit for new construction developments,
making the project eligible for over $7 million. These resources are funded from a sales
tax approved by the voters and known as Measure K (previously Measure A). These
Proposal from The Pacific Companies February 5, 2018
Re: Development of Parking Lots F and N
Page 10 of 11
funds are allocated through a competitive process. Changes to the Scope of the Project:
While we have not utilized this funding source on previous projects, our research shows
that in order to be competitive for this funding, the project would need to deeper target
some of the affordable units to 30% of AMI. This funding source would also trigger the
payment of state prevailing wages.
Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program: This program provides
grants and loans to projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These funds are
allocated through a competitive process that happens once a year, usually in the first
quarter. To be competitive, any affordable housing project must be paired with another
type of project that reduces dependency on vehicles. An example includes adding bicycle
lanes and sidewalks throughout a neighborhood to improve walkability. Projects can
receive up to $20 million, although to be competitive a much lower amount of $5 million is
reasonable for the proposed project. Changes to the Scope of the Project: Substantially
deeper income targeting is required to obtain these funds. This funding source would also
trigger the payment of state prevailing wages and require compliance with other
regulations specified by the State of California, Dept. of Housing and Community
Development.
(See The Pacific Companies Letter dated January 7, 2018.)
8. Has the developer considered whether the Home for All grant reduces resources required for their
public outreach, which can be re-invested into the project?
The development team is actively participating in public outreach events being conducted by the City and
Home for All as part of the grant-funded project currently underway. The first event is to be held on
February 10, 2018. It is unlikely that these activities will materially affect the project’s financing as public
outreach is not a major cost driver.
9. Does the parking garage include any adaptive re-use design characteristics we discussed in our
study sessions (i.e. wiring for high speed chargers, level floors so building can be re-purposed,
other innovative ideas?)
The design of the parking structure includes the usual driveway ramps that lead from level to level. There
may be some opportunity for conversion of the structure to other usage at some point in the future,
though this could be a challenge given the nature of parking structure design.
10. Does the housing design include SBWMA guidelines for new development?
Yes, the design will be required to comply with the SBWMA guidelines for new development.
11. In the past, the developer told the City that June 2018 was a hard deadline for ground-breaking
due to the tax credits he was seeking. Is that still the deadline? If not, does that mean the public
outreach/planning process need not be rushed?
Proposal from The Pacific Companies February 5, 2018
Re: Development of Parking Lots F and N
Page 11 of 11
The June deadline appears to no longer be an issue, although the financing mechanisms for the project
are not within the City’s realm of control. The Council may wish to ask the developer to elaborate on this
during the study session. The public outreach/planning process is currently underway and will proceed in
due course.
Exhibits:
October 2, 2017 Memorandum from Keyser-Marston
December 21, 2017 Memorandum from Keyser-Marston
January 7, 2018 Letter from The Pacific Companies
January 26, 2018 Memorandum from The Pacific Companies
2017 San Mateo County Income Limits Table
160 PACIFIC AVENUE, SUITE 204 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: 415 398 3050 FAX: 415 397 5065
001-001; jf
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 10970.001
ADVISORS IN:
REAL ESTATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SAN FRANCISCO
A. JERRY KEYSER
TIMOTHY C. KELLY
KATE EARLE FUNK
DEBBIE M. KERN
REED T. KAWAHARA
DAVID DOEZEMA
LOS ANGELES
KATHLEEN H. HEAD
JAMES A. RABE
GREGORY D. SOO-HOO
KEVIN E. ENGSTROM
JULIE L. ROMEY
SAN DIEGO
PAUL C. MARRA
MEMORANDUM
To: Bill Meeker
City of Burlingame
From: Reed Kawahara
Date: October 2, 2017
Subject: Feasibility Analysis – Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing
This memorandum summarizes Keyser Marston Associates’ (KMA’s) review of the pro
forma prepared by The Pacific Companies (TPC) regarding the proposed Village at
Burlingame affordable housing project. The purpose of the review was to assess the
reasonableness of the pro forma assumptions and inputs in order to analyze the
project’s financial feasibility. In performing this analysis, KMA reviewed TPC’s pro forma
dated 7/5/17, reviewed the project plans dated 5/23/17, and participated in a telephone
interview with Mr. Caleb Roope from TPC.
Project Description
The proposed project will be a 132-unit all-affordable project on a 1.02-acre site in
Downtown Burlingame. The site is currently owned by the City and is improved with a
municipal surface parking lot. The building will be 4-5 stories in height with parking for
the project’s residents in a subterranean parking garage utilizing a parking lift system.
Unit sizes range from 610 square foot one-bedroom units to 760 and 810 square foot
two-bedroom units.
Certain units in the project will be designated for senior households and certain units for
family households. In terms of the affordability mix, 14 of the units (11%) will be set-
aside for Very Low Income households, 106 units for Low Income households (80%), 11
units for Moderate Income households (8%), and one resident manager unit.
To: Bill Meeker October 2, 2017
Subject: Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing Page 2
001-001; jf
10970.001
Financial Feasibility Assessment
In summary, with one notable exception KMA finds the TPC pro forma to be generally
reasonable at this early stage of project planning (as discussed below, the one notable
exception relates to the tax credit pricing assumed for the project). The development
cost budget appears to utilize reasonable assumptions for construction costs as well as
indirect and financing costs of development. Operating income projections for the project
are generally reasonable as well. The pro forma indicates a need for the City to
contribute the site at no cost (to be structured as a loan repaid through residual receipts)
and $1.85 million in cash assistance. For reference, a summary of TPC’s pro forma is
included in the attached Tables 1-6.
The following includes discussion of certain assumptions in the TPC pro forma that will
require further follow up as project planning progresses:
1) Tax Credit Pricing – The largest source of funding available for the project, $31
million of the $84 million in total costs, is equity raised from the sale of 4% Low
Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). In estimating this amount, TPC assumes a
tax credit price of $1.12 per $1.00 of tax credits, which is high based on today’s
market. Utilizing an assumption of $1.05 per $1.00 of tax credits would reduce
the $31 million in tax credit equity by about $2 million, which increases the
project’s gap by an equal amount. While the tax credit market is dynamic (see
further discussion below), KMA would recommend assuming a $1.05 tax credit
price at this time.
2) Tax Credit Market Uncertainties – The Trump administration’s current efforts to
reform corporate tax rates could have implications for the LIHTC market. If
successful, a reduction in corporate tax rates could reduce demand and pricing
for tax credits, which in turn could reduce the tax credit equity the project is able
to raise. However, there could be other changes to the LIHTC program that could
mitigate the impacts from reduced corporate tax rates. Since the full details of the
tax reform proposal are not known at this time, it is difficult to assess its full
implications for project feasibility. Due to the importance of tax credits in the
project’s financing plan, close monitoring of the tax reform proposal would be
prudent going forward.
3) Public Parking Impact Fee – The pro forma includes a total of $12.2 million in
municipal fees and permits costs, a significant amount of which is an impact fee
for public parking (see Table 2). Since TPC’s pro forma assumes these impact
To: Bill Meeker October 2, 2017
Subject: Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing Page 3
001-001; jf
10970.001
fees are basis-eligible for tax credit calculation purposes, future confirmation of
this eligibility will be needed by tax counsel.
4) Series B Loan – TPC utilizes unique Series B bond debt to finance its affordable
housing projects. The Series B debt is raised from private investors and is repaid
through operating cash flow in a subordinate position to the senior debt. While
this Series B debt is an atypical source of funding for LIHTC projects, KMA is
familiar with other TPC projects in which it has been successfully implemented.
Based our discussion with Mr. Roope, the Series B funding estimate appears
reasonable at this time, but will also need to be monitored relative to the future
direction of interest rates and capital markets.
5) Land Acquisition – TPC has estimated the value of the site at $10 million, or
$226/square foot for the 1.02-acre site. Ultimately the site’s value will need to be
confirmed through a third-party appraisal. Given the economics of the project
however, any adjustments to the site’s value will not change the fact that the site
will need to be contributed at no cost by the City.
6) Affordable Rents – TPC estimates the net affordable housing rents (after tenant-
paid utilities) ranging from $1,107/month for a one-bedroom Very Low Income
unit to $2,979/month for a two-bedroom Moderate Income unit. Some of TPC’s
rents do not quite align with the current tax credit rent schedule for the Very Low
and Low Income units and Health and Safety Code Section 50053 (for the
Moderate Income units). While some clean-up of the pro forma rents is required,
the impact on the bottom line feasibility results will not likely change materially.
7) Property Taxes – Unlike the Very Low and Low Income units in the project, the
11 Moderate Income units do not qualify for a property tax exemption. The TPC
pro forma includes an estimate of property taxes for the Moderate Income units,
which appears reasonable at this time, but will require further vetting with the
County Assessor’s office.
_________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: Burlingame Pro forma 9.20.17.xlsx; Program
Table 1.
Development Program
The Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing
Land Area 1.02 acres
Units 132
Density 129.9 du/acre
FAR 2.6 FAR
Building Type 4-5 stories over subterranean parking
Building Square Feet
Net Rentable Area 86,020 76%
Common Areas 27,806 24%
Total 113,826 100%
Average Unit Size 652 sf
Parking
Total Parking Provided 145 spaces (incl. lifts)
Parking Ratio 1.10 spaces/unit
_________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: Burlingame Pro forma 9.20.17.xlsx;
Table 2.
Development Costs
The Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing
$/GSF $/Unit Total %Directs
113,826 132
Acquisition
Total Land Acquisition $88 $75,795 $10,005,000 21.6%
Directs
Site Work $35 $30,000 $3,960,000 8.6%
Structures $305 $263,188 $34,740,840 75.0%
General Requirements $20 $17,591 $2,322,050 5.0%
Contractor Overhead $7 $6,216 $820,458 1.8%
Contractor Profit $22 $18,647 $2,461,373 5.3%
Construction Contingency $18 $15,152 $2,000,000 4.3%
Total Directs $407 $350,793 $46,304,721 100.0%
Indirects
A&E $8 $6,818 $900,000 1.9%
Fees & Permits (incl. public parking)$108 $92,788 $12,247,968 26.5%
Insurance $6 $5,262 $694,600 1.5%
Taxes $1 $1,136 $150,000 0.3%
Operating Reserve $4 $3,737 $493,329 1.1%
Marketing $1 $866 $114,310 0.2%
Furnishings $1 $455 $60,000 0.1%
Market Study $0 $76 $10,000 0.0%
Title & Recording $1 $606 $80,000 0.2%
Cost Certification $0 $76 $10,000 0.0%
Legal $1 $833 $110,000 0.2%
Developer Fee $79 $68,182 $9,000,000 19.4%
Soft Cost Contingency $4 $3,788 $500,000 1.1%
Total Indirects $214 $184,623 $24,370,207 52.6%
Financing
TCAC Fees $1 $602 $79,435 0.2%
Construction Loan Interest - Series A $12 $10,606 $1,400,000 3.0%
Construction Loan Interest - Series B $6 $4,848 $640,000 1.4%
Post Construction Interest - Series A $5 $4,545 $600,000 1.3%
Post Construction Interest - Series B $2 $1,818 $240,000 0.5%
Construction Loan Fee $4 $3,030 $400,000 0.9%
Construction Lender Costs $1 $758 $100,000 0.2%
Bond Issuer/Trustee Fees $2 $1,515 $200,000 0.4%
Bond Counsel, Financial Advisor $3 $2,879 $380,000 0.8%
Permanent Loan Fees & Costs $1 $1,061 $140,000 0.3%
Total Financing $37 $31,662 $4,179,435 9.0%
Total Development Costs $746 $642,874 $84,859,363 183.3%
Source: TPC pro forma (7/5/17)
_________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: Burlingame Pro forma 9.20.17.xlsx; Income
Table 3.
Operating Income
The Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing
Unit SF Total SF
Gross
Rent
Utility
Allow.Net Rent Total
Very Low Income
1-Bedroom 12 9%610 7,320 $1,153 ($46)$1,107 $159,408
2-Bedroom - Senior 1 1%760 760 $1,383 ($63)$1,320 $15,840
2-Bedroom - Family 1 1%810 810 $1,383 ($63)$1,320 $15,840
Subtotal 14 11%635 8,890 $1,137 $191,088
Low Income
1-Bedroom 80 61%610 48,800 $1,383 ($46)$1,337 $1,283,520
2-Bedroom 13 10%760 9,880 $1,660 ($63)$1,597 $249,132
2-Bedroom - Family 13 10%810 10,530 $1,660 ($63)$1,597 $249,132
Subtotal 106 80%653 69,210 $1,401 $1,781,784
Moderate Income
1-Bedroom 9 7%610 5,490 $2,536 ($46)$2,490 $268,920
2-Bedroom - Family 2 2%810 1,620 $3,042 ($63)$2,979 $71,496
Subtotal 11 8%646 7,110 $2,579 $340,416
Manager's Unit 1 1%810 810 $0
Total 132 100%652 86,020 $1,460 $2,313,288
Laundry/Other Income $13 $19,800
(Less) Vacancy 5.0%($74)($116,654)
Effective Gross Income $1,399 $2,216,434
/unit/yr
Operating Expenses $5,322 $443 $702,500
Property Taxes & Assessments $378 $32 $49,900
Replacement Reserves $250 $21 $33,000
Total $5,950 $496 $785,400
NOI $903 $1,431,034
Debt Service - Series A 4.75%35 1.20 DCR ($1,187,916)
Cash Flow after Debt $243,118
Source: TPC pro forma (7/5/17)
Units
_________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: Burlingame Pro forma 9.20.17.xlsx; Sources
Table 4.
Permanent Sources of Funds
The Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing
$/Unit Total %Total
132
Tax-Exempt Permanent Loan - Series A $153,409 $20,250,000 23.9%
Tax-Exempt Permanent Loan - Series B $113,636 $15,000,000 17.7%
Tax Credit Proceeds (4%)$239,238 $31,579,363 37.2%
Deferred Developer Fee $46,818 $6,180,000 7.3%
City of Burlingame Land Loan $75,758 $10,000,000 11.8%
Remaining Gap $14,015 $1,850,000 2.2%
Total Sources $642,874 $84,859,363 100.0%
Total Uses (Table 2)$84,859,363
Source: TPC pro forma (7/5/17)
_________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: Burlingame Pro forma 9.20.17.xlsx; TC
Table 5.
Tax Credit Analysis 4% TAX CREDITS
The Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing
BASIS LIMITS 2017
San Mateo
Basis Limit Total
Units Unit %Per Unit Basis Limit
Affordable Units
Studio 0 0%$285,874 $0
1 BR 92 70%$329,610 $30,324,120
2 BR 29 22%$397,600 $11,530,400
3 BR 0 0%$508,928 $0
4 BR 0 0%$566,978 $0
121 92%$345,905 $41,854,520
Moderate Income Units 11 $0 $0
Threshold Basis Limit 132 $41,854,520
Basis Adjustments
Prevailing Wages Required 20%$8,370,904
Parking Beneath Units 7%$2,929,816.40
Day Care Center 2%no
100% Special Needs 2%no
Elevator Project 10%$4,185,452
Photovoltaic 5%$2,092,726
Energy Efficiency/Resource Conservation 10%no
Seismic Upgrade or Toxic Remediation 15%no
Local Development Impact Fees $92,788 $12,247,968
Deep Income Targeting (4% Projects)10.61%$4,439,116
Adjusted Threshold Basis Limit $629,095 $76,120,502
Per Unit Total
Eligible Basis $601,713 $72,807,289
(Less) Eligible Basis Voluntarily Excluded $0 $0
Requested Unadjusted Eligible Basis $601,713 $72,807,289
DDA/QCT Adjustment 130%$782,227 $94,649,476
Applicable Fraction 91.7%
Qualified Basis $717,041 $86,762,019
(Less) Credit Reduction $0 $0
Adjusted Qualified Basis $717,041 $86,762,019
Applicable Percentage 3.25%TPC
Annual Federal Credits $23,304 $2,819,766
x 10 Years $233,038 $28,197,656
Discount $1.12 TPC
Total Federal Tax Credit Equity $261,003 $31,581,375
TPC Pro forma $31,579,363
$72,807,289
_________________________________________________________
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates
Filename: Burlingame Pro forma 9.20.17.xlsx; CF
Table 6.
15-Year Operating Cash Flow
The Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Effective Gross Income 1.025 $2,216,434 $2,271,844 $2,328,641 $2,386,857 $2,446,528 $2,507,691 $2,570,383 $2,634,643 $2,700,509 $2,768,022 $2,837,222 $2,908,153 $2,980,857 $3,055,378 $3,131,763
(Less) Taxes 1.020 ($49,900)($50,898)($51,916)($52,954)($54,013)($55,094)($56,196)($57,319)($58,466)($59,635)($60,828)($62,044)($63,285)($64,551)($65,842)
(Less) Replacement Reserves 1.030 ($33,000)($33,990)($35,010)($36,060)($37,142)($38,256)($39,404)($40,586)($41,803)($43,058)($44,349)($45,680)($47,050)($48,462)($49,915)
(Less) Other OpEx 1.035 ($702,500)($727,088)($752,536)($778,874)($806,135)($834,350)($863,552)($893,776)($925,058)($957,435)($990,946)($1,025,629)($1,061,526)($1,098,679)($1,137,133)
NOI $1,431,034 $1,459,869 $1,489,179 $1,518,968 $1,549,238 $1,579,992 $1,611,232 $1,642,962 $1,675,182 $1,707,894 $1,741,100 $1,774,800 $1,808,996 $1,843,686 $1,878,872
(Less) Debt Service - Series A ($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)($1,187,916)
Cash Flow after Debt $243,118 $271,953 $301,263 $331,052 $361,322 $392,076 $423,316 $455,046 $487,266 $519,978 $553,184 $586,884 $621,080 $655,770 $690,956
15-yr total
(Less) Asset Management Fees ($348,000)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)($23,200)
(Less) Deferred Developer Fee ($1,636,565)($54,979)($62,188)($69,515)($76,963)($84,531)($92,219)($100,029)($107,961)($116,017)($124,194)($132,496)($140,921)($149,470)($158,143)($166,939)
(Less) Series B (residual receipts)($4,909,699)($164,939)($186,565)($208,548)($230,889)($253,591)($276,657)($300,087)($323,885)($348,049)($372,584)($397,488)($422,763)($448,410)($474,427)($500,817)
(Less) City Payments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Remaining Cash Flow ($0)($0)$0 ($0)($0)($0)$0 ($0)($0)($0)($0)$0 ($0)$0 $0
2040 BANCROFT WAY, SUITE 302 BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704 PHONE: 415 398 3050 FAX: 415 397 5065
001-002; jf
WWW.KEYSERMARSTON.COM 10970.001
ADVISORS IN:
REAL ESTATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
SAN FRANCISCO
A.JERRY KEYSER
TIMOTHY C. KELLY
DEBBIE M. KERN
DAVID DOEZEMA
LOS ANGELES
KATHLEEN H. HEAD
JAMES A. RABE
GREGORY D. SOO-HOO
KEVIN E. ENGSTROM
JULIE L. ROMEY
SAN DIEGO
PAUL C. MARRA
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Bill Meeker
City of Burlingame
Debbie Kern
December 21, 2017
Pros and Cons of Selling versus Leasing the City Owned Site to
be Developed with the Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing
Development Community
The Pacific Companies has proposed to acquire a 1.02-acre site from the City for the
development of the Village at Burlingame Affordable Housing Community, which will
contain 132 affordable rental residential apartments. As proposed, the City will contribute
the site, which is valued at $10 million, at no upfront cost and the Developer will
purchase the site through a note to be repaid by residual receipts.
We would recommend that the City initiate discussions with the Developer regarding
terms for leasing the site to the development, for the following reasons:
While the Developer has indicated that he would prefer to purchase the property,
he has indicated that he would be willing to lease the site;
The site is at a prominent location in the Downtown and a long-term lease would
enable the City to retain the site as an asset and control the long term use of the
site;
The Developer’s pro forma does not indicate that there will be any residual
receipts available to repay the City’s site-acquisition loan;
Other 100% affordable projects have secured financing under long term ground
leases;
Provided that the terms of the lease do not negatively impact securing financing
for the project, there are no critical negatives associated with leasing the
property.
To: Bill Meeker December 21, 2017
Page 2
001-002; jf
10970.001
If the City does pursue a long term lease, the issues that will need to be negotiated
include the following:
The term of the lease. It will need to be a long-term lease to enable the
Developer to repay senior debt and equity invested in the Project;
Subordination of the fee interest to financing;
Any interim payments upon the refinancing and/or sale of the project; and
Any interim payments upon the expiration of affordability covenants.
Please call to further discuss any questions or comments that you may have about
leasing versus selling the site.
Ph: 208.461.0022 // Fax: 208.461.3267 // 430 E. State Street, Ste. 100 // Eagle, ID 83616 // www.tpchousing.com
Date: January 7, 2018
To: William Meeker, Director
Community Development Department
City of Burlingame
From: Caleb Roope, President
Re: Briefing on Financing Sources to Fill Possible Funding Gap
The Village at Burlingame – Lots F & N
The purpose of this briefing is to provide further information on potential sources that
could fill a current funding gap of $1,850,000 as depicted in the financial pro forma dated
7/5/17 that we previously provided to your office. For convenience, that pro forma is
attached. As a reminder, the current funding gap is a product of addressing environmental
contamination on Lot F, although it is anticipated that other factors may very will result in
a similar outcome.
Before discussing possible funding sources, it is important to note that both the project
costs and financing sources will be evaluated as more information is known. There is a
good deal of fluctuation right now with both construction costs in the Bay Area and tax
credit equity pricing, so it is difficult to predict where final sources and uses will settle.
Once the project is fully approved, we will engage in a full cost assessment which will be
based in large part on other projects we are building throughout the region. At the same
time, we will be assessing all possible sources to finance the project and will consider them
as long as those sources don’t fundamentally change the nature of the development that the
Planning Commission and City Council ultimately approve, assuming such approvals are
forthcoming.
Having stated the above, the following are proposed financing sources as well as
mechanistic changes that will serve to reduce or eliminate the current funding gap of
$1,850,000 as well as an increase in the gap that may develop in the future:
CalHFA Financing: It is possible to acquire financing through CalHFA that
amortizes over 40 years as opposed to the 35 years currently modeled. This change
would net an additional $1,000,000 in permanent loan proceeds. Changes to the
Scope of the Project: None
CalHFA Workforce Housing Loan: CalHFA also has a program that funds
workforce housing units from 80% of AMI on up to 120% of AMI. The program
provides $50,000 per unit, so the project would be eligible for a total of $550,000.
Changes to the Scope of the Project: None
Briefing Memo – Lots F & N Project – Page 2 of 2
Increase in Area Median Income: The HUD data that serves as the foundation for
producing the annual area median income has a lag to it, so for the next few years
we are likely to see abnormally high increases due to the actual increase in incomes
in the Bay Area over the past five years. A 5% increase would result in an increased
permanent loan of $1,860,000. Changes to the Scope of the Project: None
City of Burlingame Parking Fund: As has been discussed at previous City Council
work sessions, the City’s parking fund may be able to play a crucial role in closing
the financing gap. It is our understanding that this source of financing could help
pay for a portion of the public parking garage. This would relieve some of the
burden on the housing project and could close the entire gap of $1,850,000.
Changes to the Scope of the Project: None (that we know of)
County of San Mateo Dept. of Housing: The County routinely provides financing
to affordable housing at an average of $62,000 per unit for new construction
developments, making the project eligible for over $7 million. These resources are
funded from a sales tax approved by the voters and known as Measure K (previously
Measure A). These funds are allocated through a competitive process. Changes to
the Scope of the Project: While we have not utilized this funding source on
previous projects, our research shows that in order to be competitive for this
funding, the project would need to deeper target some of the affordable units to
30% of AMI. This funding source would also trigger the payment of state prevailing
wages.
Affordable Housing Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program: This program
provides grants and loans to projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These
funds are allocated through a competitive process that happens once a year, usually
in the first quarter. To be competitive, any affordable housing project must be
paired with another type of project that reduces dependency on vehicles. An
example includes adding bicycle lanes and sidewalks throughout a neighborhood to
improve walkability. Projects can receive up to $20 million, although to be
competitive a much lower amount of $5 million is reasonable for the proposed
project. Changes to the Scope of the Project: Substantially deeper income
targeting is required to obtain these funds. This funding source would also trigger
the payment of state prevailing wages and require compliance with other
regulations specified by the State of California, Dept. of Housing and Community
Development.
Feel free to direct any questions or requests to me via e‐mail at calebr@tpchousing.com or
by telephone at 208.908.4865. Thank you.
CC: Lisa Goldman (via e‐mail)
Kathleen Kane (via e‐mail)
Carol Augustine (via e‐mail)
Kevin Gardiner (via e‐mail)
The Village at Burlingame
A 124-Unit Affordable Housing Community
Burlingame, CA
Financial Pro Forma
Rev. 7/5/17
Prepared By:
Caleb Roope
208.461.3267 fax
calebr@tpchousing.com
Pacific West Communities, Inc.
430 East State Street, Suite 100
Eagle, ID 83616
208.461.0022 x 3015
Rev. 7/5/17
DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
The Village at Burlingame
Burlingame, CA
Project Cost Per Cost Per Tax Credit
Costs Unit Res. Sq. Ft. Eligible Basis
Total Land Costs 10,005,000$ 75,795$ 87.90$ XXXXXXXXXX
Total Building Acquisition Costs -$ -$ -$ -$
Construction Costs
Off-Site Work -$ -$ -$ -$
Commercial Space -$ -$ -$ -$
On Site Work 3,960,000$ 30,000$ 34.79$ 3,960,000$
Structures 34,740,840$ 263,188$ 305.21$ 34,740,840$
General Requirements 2,322,050$ 17,591$ 20.40$ 2,322,050$
Contractor Overhead 820,458$ 6,216$ 7.21$ 820,458$
Contractor Profit 2,461,373$ 18,647$ 21.62$ 2,461,373$
Construction Contingency 2,000,000$ 15,152$ 17.57$ 2,000,000$
Total Construction Costs 46,304,721$ 350,793$ 406.80$ 46,304,721$
Financing Costs
Construction Loan Interest - Series A 1,400,000$ 10,606$ 12.30$ 1,400,000$
Construction Loan Fee 400,000$ 3,030$ 3.51$ 400,000$
Construction Lender Costs (Legal, Etc.)100,000$ 758$ 0.88$ 100,000$
Bond Issuer / Trustee Fees & Costs 200,000$ 1,515$ 1.76$ 200,000$
Permanent Loan Fees 90,000$ 682$ 0.79$ XXXXXXXXXX
Permanent Loan Costs 50,000$ 379$ 0.44$ XXXXXXXXXX
Tax Credit Fees 79,435$ 602$ 0.70$ XXXXXXXXXX
Bond Counsel, Financial Advisor, Etc. 380,000$ 2,879$ 3.34$ XXXXXXXXXX
Construction Loan Interest - Series B 640,000$ 4,848$ 5.62$ 640,000$
Total Financing Costs 3,339,435$ 25,299$ 29.34$ 2,740,000$
Soft Costs
Architectural 700,000$ 5,303$ 6.15$ 700,000$
Engineering/Surveying/Environmental 200,000$ 1,515$ 1.76$ 200,000$
Taxes During Construction 150,000$ 1,136$ 1.32$ 150,000$
Insurance 694,600$ 5,262$ 6.10$ 694,600$
Title & Recording 80,000$ 606$ 0.70$ 80,000$
Borrower Attorney 100,000$ 758$ 0.88$ 100,000$
Special Counsel & Servicing Costs 10,000$ 76$ 0.09$ 10,000$
Permit, & Impact Fees (Public Parking) 12,247,968$ 92,788$ 107.60$ 12,247,968$
Marketing 114,310$ 866$ 1.00$ XXXXXXXXXX
Relocation Costs -$ -$ -$ XXXXXXXXXX
Furnishings 60,000$ 455$ 0.53$ 60,000$
Cost Certification 10,000$ 76$ 0.09$ 10,000$
Market Study 10,000$ 76$ 0.09$ 10,000$
Soft Cost Contingency 500,000$ 3,788$ 4.39$ 500,000$
Developer Overhead & Profit 9,000,000$ 68,182$ 79.07$ 9,000,000$
Consultant Fee -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Soft Costs 23,876,878$ 180,885$ 209.77$ 23,762,568$
Post Construction Interest & Reserves
Post Construction Interest - Series A 600,000$ 4,545$ 5.27$ XXXXXXXXXX
Post Construction Interest - Series B 240,000$ 1,818$ 2.11$ XXXXXXXXXX
Operating Reserve 493,329$ 3,737$ 4.33$ XXXXXXXXXX
Total Post Construction Interest & Reserves 1,333,329$ 10,101$ 11.71$ XXXXXXXXXX
Totals 84,859,363$ 642,874$ 745.52$ 72,807,289$
Rev. 7/5/17
Tax Credit Financing 3,892,294$ Total Tax Credit Financing 31,579,363$
Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series B 9,000,000$ Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series A 20,250,000$
City of Burlingame Land Loan 10,000,000$ Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series B 15,000,000$
Gap Financing 1,850,000$ City of Burlingame Land Loan 10,000,000$
Other -$ Gap Financing 1,850,000$
Impact Fee Deferral -$ Other -$
Deferred Costs 1,333,329$ Other -$
Deferred Contractor Profit 3,000,000$ Other -$
Deferred Developer Fee 9,000,000$ Other -$
Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series A 46,783,740$ Deferred Developer Fee 6,180,000$
Total Sources of Funds 84,859,363$ Total Sources of Funds 84,859,363$
Total Land Costs 10,005,000$ Total Land Costs 10,005,000$
Off-Site Improvements (Parking) 11,058,194$ Off-Site Improvements (Parking) 11,058,194$
Construction Costs 44,304,721$ Construction Costs 44,304,721$
Construction Contingency 2,000,000$ Construction Contingency 2,000,000$
Financing Costs 3,339,435$ Financing Costs 3,339,435$
Architecture & Engineering 900,000$ Architecture & Engineering 900,000$
Other Soft Costs 2,418,684$ Other Soft Costs 2,418,684$
Developer Fees 9,000,000$ Developer Fees 9,000,000$
Soft Cost Contingency 500,000$ Soft Cost Contingency 500,000$
Post Construction Interest & Reserves 1,333,329$ Post Construction Interest & Reserves 1,333,329$
Total Uses of Funds 84,859,363$ Total Uses of Funds 84,859,363$
Sources of FundsSources of Funds
Uses of Funds Uses of Funds
SOURCES & USES
The Village at Burlingame
Burlingame, CA
CONSTRUCTION PHASE PERMANENT PHASE
FINANCING & COMPLIANCE DETAILS Rev. 7/5/17
The Village at Burlingame
Burlingame, CA
PERMANENT FINANCING
Total Project Costs 84,859,363$
Tax Credit Financing
Tax Credit Eligible Basis 72,807,289$
Less: Grant Proceeds & Other Exclusions -$
Voluntary Basis Reduction -$
Requested Eligible Basis 72,807,289$
Difficult to Develop Bonus (Yes - 130%, No - 100%)130%
Total Adjusted Eligible Basis 94,649,476$
Times % of Affordable Units or Sqr. Ft.91.67%
Qualified Basis Eligible to Receive Tax Credits 86,765,175$
Less Voluntary Credit Reduction 0.00%-$ 86,765,175$
Federal Credits State Credits
Times Credit %Estimate 3.25% 13.00%
Times Number of Years 10 1
Total Tax Credits 28,198,680$ + -$ = 28,198,680$
Syndicated at an Investment Rate of 99.99%at a Price of 1.1200$
Credit Price $1.12 $0.00
Equals Tax Credit Equity Proceeds 31,579,363$
Total Tax Credit Financing 37.21%(31,579,363)$
Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series A 23.86%(20,250,000)$
Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series B 17.68%(15,000,000)$
City of Burlingame Land Loan 11.78%(10,000,000)$
Gap Financing 2.18%(1,850,000)$
Other 0.00%-$
Deferred Developer Fee 7.28%(6,180,000)$
Financing Shortfall / (Overage)0.00%-$
Max. HOME - No Davis Bacon HOME Units #Max. Subsidy Total Limit
Max. HOME Units 0 1-Bedroom 0-$ -$ -$
Ratio to Tot. Units 0.00% 2-Bedroom 0-$ -$ Loan Amount
Tot. Project Costs 84,859,363$ 3-Bedroom 0-$ -$ -$
HOME Loan -$ 4-Bedroom 0-$ -$ O.K.
Construction Financing
San Mateo Tax Credit Financing 3,892,294$
Size of Units Limits Totals Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series B 9,000,000$
1 40 329,610$ 13,184,400$ City of Burlingame Land Loan 10,000,000$
2 14 397,600$ 5,566,400$ Gap Financing 1,850,000$
1 61 329,610$ 20,106,210$ Other -$
2 17 397,600$ 6,759,200$ Impact Fee Deferral -$
30 -$ -$ Deferred Costs 1,333,329$
Base Limit 45,616,210$ Deferred Contractor Profit 3,000,000$
Base Limit Plus Adjustments 71,630,555$ Deferred Developer Fee 9,000,000$
Requested Eligible Basis 72,807,289$ Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series A 46,783,740$
% Below / (Above) Cost Limit -1.6428%Total Project Costs 84,859,363$
Subsidy by Type
Compliance with LIHTC Eligible Basis Limits
OPERATING & LOAN DETAILS
Project: The Village at Burlingame Location: Burlingame, CA Rev. 7/5/17
AMI Number Avg. Unit Gross Utility Net Monthly Annual
Type Rent Level of Units Sq. Ft. Rent Allowance Rent Totals Totals
1BR/1BA - Sr.50% 6 610 1,153 46 1,107 6,642 79,704
1BR/1BA - Sr.60% 34 610 1,383 46 1,337 45,458 545,496
1BR/1BA - Sr.110% 0 0000 00
2BR/1BA - Sr. 50%1 760 1,383 63 1,320 1,320 15,840
2BR/1BA - Sr. 60%13 760 1,660 63 1,597 20,761 249,132
2BR/1BA - Sr. 110%0 0000 00
1BR/1BA 50%6 610 1,153 46 1,107 6,642 79,704
1BR/1BA 60%46 610 1,383 46 1,337 61,502 738,024
1BR/1BA 110%9 610 2,536 46 2,490 22,410 268,920
2BR/1BA 50%1 810 1,383 63 1,320 1,320 15,840
2BR/1BA 60%13 810 1,660 63 1,597 20,761 249,132
2BR/1BA 110%2 810 3,042 63 2,979 5,958 71,496
3BR/2BA 50%0 0000 00
3BR/2BA 60%0 0000 00
3BR/2BA 110%0 0000 00
2BR/1BA Manager's 0000000
2BR/1BA Manager's 1 810 0 0 000
Total Units & Sq. Ft. 132 86,020 % of Sq. Ft. % of Units 192,774$ 2,313,288$
Communtiy Facilities & Common Area 27,806 Affordable Affordable
Total Project Sq. Ft.113,826 91.73% 91.67%
Total Annual Rental Income 2,313,288$
Operating Deficit Guarantee
10% of Perm.2,025,000$ Other Income
Year 1 Op. Exp.785,400$ Laundry /Unit/Year 100$ 13,200$
Guarantee 2,025,000$ Tenant Charges & Interest /Unit/Year 50$ 6,600$
Total Annual Other Income 19,800$
Replacement Reserves Total Annual Potential Gross Income 2,333,088$
Standard/Unit 250$ Vacancy & Collection Loss 5%(116,654)$
UMR Min/Unit 600$
Reserve / Unit 250$ Annual Effective Gross Income 2,216,434$
Project Unit Mix
Unit Type Number % of Total
1 Bdrm./1 Bath. 40 30.30%
2 Bdrm./1 Bath. 14 10.61%
1 Bdrm./1 Bath. 61 46.21%
2 Bdrm./1 Bath. 17 12.88%
3 Bdrm./2 Bath. 0 0.00%
Totals 132 100.00%
Unit Type Number % of Units Factor
50% 14 10.69% 0.05
60% 106 80.92% 0.49
110% 11 8.40% 0.09
63.13%
Average Affordability
Average Affordability
OPERATING & LOAN DETAILS (continued)
Project: The Village at Burlingame Location: Burlingame, CA Rev. 7/5/17
ANNUAL EXPENSES % of Annual % of Total
EGI Operating Exp. Per Unit Total
Real Estate Taxes & Special Assessments 2.25% 6.35% 378.00$ 49,900$
State Taxes 0.04% 0.10% 6.00$ 800$
Insurance 1.07% 3.03% 180.00$ 23,760$
Licenses 0.02% 0.04% 2.00$ 350$
Fuel & Gas 0.09%0.25%15.00$ 2,000$
Electricity 1.77%5.00%298.00$ 39,300$
Water & Sewer 4.25%12.00%714.00$ 94,200$
Trash Removal 2.83%8.00%476.00$ 62,800$
Pest Control 0.08% 0.23% 14.00$ 1,800$
Building & Maintenance Repairs 3.54%10.00%595.00$ 78,500$
Building & Maintenance Supplies 1.77%5.00%298.00$ 39,300$
Supportive Services 0.00% 0.00% -$ -$
Annual Issuer & Trustee Fees 0.93% 2.63%156.00$ 20,625$
Gardening & Landscaping 1.77%5.00%298.00$ 39,300$
Management Fee 4.00%11.19% 666.00$ 87,900$
On-Site Manager(s) 2.86% 8.07% 480.00$ 63,360$
Other Payroll 1.42%4.00%238.00$ 31,400$
Manager's Unit Expense 0.00% 0.00% -$ -$
Cleaning Supplies 0.71%2.00%119.00$ 15,700$
Benefits 0.09% 0.25% 15.00$ 2,000$
Payroll Taxes & Work Comp 0.98% 2.78% 165.00$ 21,800$
Advertising 0.53%1.50%89.00$ 11,700$
Telephone 0.07% 0.19% 11.00$ 1,500$
Legal & Accounting 0.45% 1.27% 76.00$ 10,000$
Operating Reserves 0.00% 0.00% -$ -$
Office Supplies & Expense 0.23% 0.64% 38.00$ 5,000$
Miscellaneous Administrative 2.23% 6.28% 373.00$ 49,405$
Replacement Reserves 1.49% 4.20% 250.00$ 33,000$
Annual Expenses - Per Unit & Total 5,950$ 785,400$
Annual Net Operating Income - Per Unit & Total 10,841$ 1,431,034$
PERMANENT DEBT ANALYSIS
LTV Restricted Loan Amounts DSC Ratio Restricted Loan Amounts
Cap Rate 8.500% 9.000% 9.500%** **Fixed Loan
Loan-To-Value Restriction 90% 90% 90%** **Amount
Debt Service Coverage 1.61 1.70 1.80 1.15 1.20 1.20
Loan Amount 15,152,125$ 14,310,340$ 13,557,164$ 21,212,373$ 20,328,524$ 20,250,000$
Constant ** ** **
0.058663 0.058663 0.058663
Interest Rate 4.750%4.750% 4.750% 4.750% 4.750% 4.750%
Amortization Period in Years 35 35 35 35 35 35
Annual Debt Service 888,866$ 839,485$ 795,301$ 1,244,377$ 1,192,528$ 1,187,916$
Annual Cash Flow 542,168$ 591,549$ 635,733$ 186,657$ 238,506$ 243,118$
Loan Selection x
The Village at Burlingame Burlingame, CA Rev. 7/5/17
Multi-Year Stabilized Operating Pro-Forma
Net Rent / No. of Annual Year Year Year Year Year
RENTAL INCOME % AMI Unit - Year 1 Units Increase 12345
1BR/1BA - Sr. 50% 1,107 6 2.5%79,704 81,697 83,739 85,832 87,978
1BR/1BA - Sr. 60% 1,337 34 2.5% 545,496 559,133 573,112 587,440 602,126
1BR/1BA - Sr. 110% 0 0 2.5% - - - - -
2BR/1BA - Sr. 50% 1,320 1 2.5% 15,840 16,236 16,642 17,058 17,484
2BR/1BA - Sr. 60% 1,597 13 2.5% 249,132 255,360 261,744 268,288 274,995
2BR/1BA - Sr. 110% 0 0 2.5% - - - - -
1BR/1BA 50% 1,107 6 2.5% 79,704 81,697 83,739 85,832 87,978
1BR/1BA 60% 1,337 46 2.5% 738,024 756,475 775,386 794,771 814,640
1BR/1BA 110% 2,490 9 2.5% 268,920 275,643 282,534 289,597 296,837
2BR/1BA 50% 1,320 1 2.5% 15,840 16,236 16,642 17,058 17,484
2BR/1BA 60% 1,597 13 2.5% 249,132 255,360 261,744 268,288 274,995
2BR/1BA 110% 2,979 2 2.5% 71,496 73,283 75,115 76,993 78,918
3BR/2BA 50% 0 0 2.5% - - - - -
3BR/2BA 60% 0 0 2.5% - - - - -
3BR/2BA 110% 0 0 2.5% - - - - -
2BR/1BA Manager's 0 0 2.5% - - - - -
2BR/1BA Manager's 0 1 2.5% - - - - -
TOTAL RENTAL INCOME 132 2,313,288 2,371,120 2,430,398 2,491,158 2,553,437
OTHER INCOME Units Incr./Yr. Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5
Laundry 132 2.5%13,200 13,530 13,868 14,215 14,570
Tenant Charges & Interest 132 2.5% 6,600 6,765 6,934 7,107 7,285
TOTAL OTHER INCOME 19,800 20,295 20,802 21,322 21,855
TOTAL INCOME 2,333,088 2,391,415 2,451,201 2,512,481 2,575,293
Less Vacancy Allowance 5% (116,654) (119,571) (122,560) (125,624) (128,765)
GROSS INCOME 2,216,434 2,271,844 2,328,641 2,386,857 2,446,528
OPERATING EXPENSES Per Unit - Yr. 1 %EGI Incr./Yr. Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5
Advertising 89$ 0.5%3.5%11,700 12,110 12,533 12,972 13,426
Legal 15$ 0.1%3.5%2,000 2,070 2,142 2,217 2,295
Accounting/Audit 61$ 0.4% 3.5% 8,000 8,280 8,570 8,870 9,180
Security -$ 0.0% 3.5% - - - - -
Other: Telephone, Office Expense, Misc. 424$ 2.5% 3.5% 55,905 57,862 59,887 61,983 64,152
Management Fee 666$ 4.0% 3.5% 87,900 90,977 94,161 97,456 100,867
Fuel 2$ 0.0% 3.5% 200 207 214 222 230
Gas 14$ 0.1% 3.5% 1,800 1,863 1,928 1,996 2,066
Electricity 298$ 1.8% 3.5% 39,300 40,676 42,099 43,573 45,098
Water/Sewer 714$ 4.3% 3.5% 94,200 97,497 100,909 104,441 108,097
On-Site Manager 480$ 2.9% 3.5% 63,360 65,578 67,873 70,248 72,707
Maintenance Personnel 238$ 1.4% 3.5% 31,400 32,499 33,636 34,814 36,032
Other: Payroll Taxes, Work Comp, Benefits 180$ 1.1% 3.5% 23,800 24,633 25,495 26,387 27,311
Insurance 180$ 1.1% 3.5% 23,760 24,592 25,452 26,343 27,265
Painting 50$ 0.3% 3.5% 6,600 6,831 7,070 7,318 7,574
Repairs 431$ 2.6% 3.5% 56,900 58,892 60,953 63,086 65,294
Trash Removal 476$ 2.8% 3.5% 62,800 64,998 67,273 69,627 72,064
Exterminating 14$ 0.1% 3.5% 1,800 1,863 1,928 1,996 2,066
Grounds 298$ 1.8% 3.5% 39,300 40,676 42,099 43,573 45,098
Elevator 114$ 0.7% 3.5% 15,000 15,525 16,068 16,631 17,213
Other: Cleaning & Building Supplies 417$ 2.5% 3.5% 55,000 56,925 58,917 60,979 63,114
Other: Licenses 3$ 0.0% 3.5% 350 362 375 388 402
Other: State Tax 6$ 0.0% 3.5% 800 828 857 887 918
Other: Issuer / Trustee Fees 156$ 0.9% 3.5% 20,625 21,347 22,094 22,867 23,668
Other: -$ 0.0% 3.5% - - - - -
Other: -$ 0.0% 3.5% - - - - -
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 5,322$ 702,500 727,088 752,536 778,874 806,135
Internet Expense -$ 0.0% 3.5% - - - - -
Service Amenities -$ 0.0% 3.5% - - - - -
Reserve for Replacement 250$ 1.5%3.0%33,000 33,990 35,010 36,060 37,142
Real Estate Taxes 378$ 2.3%2.0%49,900 50,898 51,916 52,954 54,013
TOTAL EXPENSES, TAXES & RESERVES 5,950$ 785,400 811,976 839,461 867,889 897,290
CASH FLOW AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE 1,431,034 1,459,869 1,489,179 1,518,968 1,549,238
DEBT SERVICE & OTHER DISTRIBUTIONS Loan Amount Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5
Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series A Hard 20,250,000$ 1,187,916 1,187,916 1,187,916 1,187,916 1,187,916
Other NA -$ - - - - -
Asset Management Fees Soft 23,200$ 23,200 23,200 23,200 23,200 23,200
Deferred Developer Fee Soft 6,180,000$ 54,979 62,188 69,515 76,963 84,531
Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series B Soft 15,000,000$ 164,939 186,565 208,548 230,889 253,591
City of Burlingame Land Loan Soft 10,000,000$ - - - - -
Gap Financing Soft 1,850,000$ - - - - -
Other Soft -$ - - - - -
ANNUAL NET CASH FLOW - - - - -
Deferred Dev. Fee Balance Interest Rate:0.00%6,125,021 6,062,833 5,993,318 5,916,355 5,831,824
Debt Service Coverage Ratio on Hard Debt 1.21 1.23 1.25 1.28 1.30
The Village at Burlingame Burlingame, CA
Multi-Year Stabilized Operating Pro-Forma
Net Rent / No. of Annual
RENTAL INCOME % AMI Unit - Year 1 Units Increase
1BR/1BA - Sr. 50% 1,107 6 2.5%
1BR/1BA - Sr. 60% 1,337 34 2.5%
1BR/1BA - Sr. 110% 0 0 2.5%
2BR/1BA - Sr. 50% 1,320 1 2.5%
2BR/1BA - Sr. 60% 1,597 13 2.5%
2BR/1BA - Sr. 110% 0 0 2.5%
1BR/1BA 50% 1,107 6 2.5%
1BR/1BA 60% 1,337 46 2.5%
1BR/1BA 110% 2,490 9 2.5%
2BR/1BA 50% 1,320 1 2.5%
2BR/1BA 60% 1,597 13 2.5%
2BR/1BA 110% 2,979 2 2.5%
3BR/2BA 50% 0 0 2.5%
3BR/2BA 60% 0 0 2.5%
3BR/2BA 110% 0 0 2.5%
2BR/1BA Manager's 0 0 2.5%
2BR/1BA Manager's 0 1 2.5%
TOTAL RENTAL INCOME 132
OTHER INCOME Units Incr./Yr.
Laundry 132 2.5%
Tenant Charges & Interest 132 2.5%
TOTAL OTHER INCOME
TOTAL INCOME
Less Vacancy Allowance 5%
GROSS INCOME
OPERATING EXPENSES Per Unit - Yr. 1 %EGI Incr./Yr.
Advertising 89$ 0.5%3.5%
Legal 15$ 0.1%3.5%
Accounting/Audit 61$ 0.4% 3.5%
Security -$ 0.0% 3.5%
Other: Telephone, Office Expense, Misc. 424$ 2.5% 3.5%
Management Fee 666$ 4.0% 3.5%
Fuel 2$ 0.0% 3.5%
Gas 14$ 0.1% 3.5%
Electricity 298$ 1.8% 3.5%
Water/Sewer 714$ 4.3% 3.5%
On-Site Manager 480$ 2.9% 3.5%
Maintenance Personnel 238$ 1.4% 3.5%
Other: Payroll Taxes, Work Comp, Benefits 180$ 1.1% 3.5%
Insurance 180$ 1.1% 3.5%
Painting 50$ 0.3% 3.5%
Repairs 431$ 2.6% 3.5%
Trash Removal 476$ 2.8% 3.5%
Exterminating 14$ 0.1% 3.5%
Grounds 298$ 1.8% 3.5%
Elevator 114$ 0.7% 3.5%
Other: Cleaning & Building Supplies 417$ 2.5% 3.5%
Other: Licenses 3$ 0.0% 3.5%
Other: State Tax 6$ 0.0% 3.5%
Other: Issuer / Trustee Fees 156$ 0.9% 3.5%
Other: -$ 0.0% 3.5%
Other: -$ 0.0% 3.5%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 5,322$
Internet Expense -$ 0.0% 3.5%
Service Amenities -$ 0.0% 3.5%
Reserve for Replacement 250$ 1.5%3.0%
Real Estate Taxes 378$ 2.3%2.0%
TOTAL EXPENSES, TAXES & RESERVES 5,950$
CASH FLOW AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE
DEBT SERVICE & OTHER DISTRIBUTIONS Loan Amount
Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series A Hard 20,250,000$
Other NA -$
Asset Management Fees Soft 23,200$
Deferred Developer Fee Soft 6,180,000$
Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series B Soft 15,000,000$
City of Burlingame Land Loan Soft 10,000,000$
Gap Financing Soft 1,850,000$
Other Soft -$
ANNUAL NET CASH FLOW
Deferred Dev. Fee Balance Interest Rate:0.00%
Debt Service Coverage Ratio on Hard Debt
Year Year Year Year Year
678910
90,178 92,432 94,743 97,112 99,539
617,179 632,608 648,423 664,634 681,250
- - - - -
17,922 18,370 18,829 19,300 19,782
281,870 288,917 296,140 303,543 311,132
- - - - -
90,178 92,432 94,743 97,112 99,539
835,006 855,882 877,279 899,211 921,691
304,258 311,865 319,661 327,653 335,844
17,922 18,370 18,829 19,300 19,782
281,870 288,917 296,140 303,543 311,132
80,891 82,913 84,986 87,111 89,289
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
2,617,273 2,682,705 2,749,772 2,818,517 2,888,980
Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 Year-10
14,935 15,308 15,691 16,083 16,485
7,467 7,654 7,845 8,041 8,242
22,402 22,962 23,536 24,124 24,727
2,639,675 2,705,667 2,773,308 2,842,641 2,913,707
(131,984) (135,283) (138,665) (142,132) (145,685)
2,507,691 2,570,384 2,634,643 2,700,509 2,768,022
Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 Year-10
13,896 14,382 14,886 15,407 15,946
2,375 2,459 2,545 2,634 2,726
9,501 9,834 10,178 10,534 10,903
- - - - -
66,398 68,722 71,127 73,616 76,193
104,398 108,052 111,833 115,748 119,799
238 246 254 263 273
2,138 2,213 2,290 2,370 2,453
46,676 48,310 50,001 51,751 53,562
111,880 115,796 119,849 124,043 128,385
75,252 77,886 80,612 83,433 86,353
37,293 38,599 39,950 41,348 42,795
28,267 29,256 30,280 31,340 32,437
28,219 29,207 30,229 31,287 32,382
7,839 8,113 8,397 8,691 8,995
67,579 69,945 72,393 74,926 77,549
74,587 77,197 79,899 82,696 85,590
2,138 2,213 2,290 2,370 2,453
46,676 48,310 50,001 51,751 53,562
17,815 18,439 19,084 19,752 20,443
65,323 67,609 69,975 72,424 74,959
416 430 445 461 477
950 983 1,018 1,053 1,090
24,496 25,353 26,241 27,159 28,110
- - - - -
- - - - -
834,350 863,552 893,776 925,058 957,435
- - - - -
- - - - -
38,256 39,404 40,586 41,803 43,058
55,094 56,196 57,319 58,466 59,635
927,699 959,151 991,681 1,025,328 1,060,128
1,579,992 1,611,233 1,642,962 1,675,182 1,707,894
Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9 Year-10
1,187,916 1,187,916 1,187,916 1,187,916 1,187,916
- - - - -
23,200 23,200 23,200 23,200 23,200
92,219 100,029 107,961 116,017 124,194
276,657 300,088 323,885 348,049 372,584
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
5,739,605 5,639,576 5,531,615 5,415,598 5,291,404
1.33 1.36 1.38 1.41 1.44
The Village at Burlingame Burlingame, CA
Multi-Year Stabilized Operating Pro-Forma
Net Rent / No. of Annual
RENTAL INCOME % AMI Unit - Year 1 Units Increase
1BR/1BA - Sr. 50% 1,107 6 2.5%
1BR/1BA - Sr. 60% 1,337 34 2.5%
1BR/1BA - Sr. 110% 0 0 2.5%
2BR/1BA - Sr. 50% 1,320 1 2.5%
2BR/1BA - Sr. 60% 1,597 13 2.5%
2BR/1BA - Sr. 110% 0 0 2.5%
1BR/1BA 50% 1,107 6 2.5%
1BR/1BA 60% 1,337 46 2.5%
1BR/1BA 110% 2,490 9 2.5%
2BR/1BA 50% 1,320 1 2.5%
2BR/1BA 60% 1,597 13 2.5%
2BR/1BA 110% 2,979 2 2.5%
3BR/2BA 50% 0 0 2.5%
3BR/2BA 60% 0 0 2.5%
3BR/2BA 110% 0 0 2.5%
2BR/1BA Manager's 0 0 2.5%
2BR/1BA Manager's 0 1 2.5%
TOTAL RENTAL INCOME 132
OTHER INCOME Units Incr./Yr.
Laundry 132 2.5%
Tenant Charges & Interest 132 2.5%
TOTAL OTHER INCOME
TOTAL INCOME
Less Vacancy Allowance 5%
GROSS INCOME
OPERATING EXPENSES Per Unit - Yr. 1 %EGI Incr./Yr.
Advertising 89$ 0.5%3.5%
Legal 15$ 0.1%3.5%
Accounting/Audit 61$ 0.4% 3.5%
Security -$ 0.0% 3.5%
Other: Telephone, Office Expense, Misc. 424$ 2.5% 3.5%
Management Fee 666$ 4.0% 3.5%
Fuel 2$ 0.0% 3.5%
Gas 14$ 0.1% 3.5%
Electricity 298$ 1.8% 3.5%
Water/Sewer 714$ 4.3% 3.5%
On-Site Manager 480$ 2.9% 3.5%
Maintenance Personnel 238$ 1.4% 3.5%
Other: Payroll Taxes, Work Comp, Benefits 180$ 1.1% 3.5%
Insurance 180$ 1.1% 3.5%
Painting 50$ 0.3% 3.5%
Repairs 431$ 2.6% 3.5%
Trash Removal 476$ 2.8% 3.5%
Exterminating 14$ 0.1% 3.5%
Grounds 298$ 1.8% 3.5%
Elevator 114$ 0.7% 3.5%
Other: Cleaning & Building Supplies 417$ 2.5% 3.5%
Other: Licenses 3$ 0.0% 3.5%
Other: State Tax 6$ 0.0% 3.5%
Other: Issuer / Trustee Fees 156$ 0.9% 3.5%
Other: -$ 0.0% 3.5%
Other: -$ 0.0% 3.5%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 5,322$
Internet Expense -$ 0.0% 3.5%
Service Amenities -$ 0.0% 3.5%
Reserve for Replacement 250$ 1.5%3.0%
Real Estate Taxes 378$ 2.3%2.0%
TOTAL EXPENSES, TAXES & RESERVES 5,950$
CASH FLOW AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE
DEBT SERVICE & OTHER DISTRIBUTIONS Loan Amount
Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series A Hard 20,250,000$
Other NA -$
Asset Management Fees Soft 23,200$
Deferred Developer Fee Soft 6,180,000$
Tax-Exempt Bonds - Series B Soft 15,000,000$
City of Burlingame Land Loan Soft 10,000,000$
Gap Financing Soft 1,850,000$
Other Soft -$
ANNUAL NET CASH FLOW
Deferred Dev. Fee Balance Interest Rate:0.00%
Debt Service Coverage Ratio on Hard Debt
Year Year Year Year Year
11 12 13 14 15
102,028 104,579 107,193 109,873 112,620
698,281 715,738 733,631 751,972 770,772
- - - - -
20,277 20,783 21,303 21,836 22,382
318,910 326,883 335,055 343,431 352,017
- - - - -
102,028 104,579 107,193 109,873 112,620
944,733 968,351 992,560 1,017,374 1,042,809
344,240 352,846 361,668 370,709 379,977
20,277 20,783 21,303 21,836 22,382
318,910 326,883 335,055 343,431 352,017
91,521 93,809 96,154 98,558 101,022
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
2,961,204 3,035,234 3,111,115 3,188,893 3,268,615
Year-11 Year-12 Year-13 Year-14 Year-15
16,897 17,320 17,753 18,196 18,651
8,449 8,660 8,876 9,098 9,326
25,346 25,979 26,629 27,295 27,977
2,986,550 3,061,214 3,137,744 3,216,188 3,296,592
(149,327) (153,061) (156,887) (160,809) (164,830)
2,837,223 2,908,153 2,980,857 3,055,379 3,131,762
Year-11 Year-12 Year-13 Year-14 Year-15
16,504 17,082 17,680 18,298 18,939
2,821 2,920 3,022 3,128 3,237
11,285 11,680 12,089 12,512 12,950
- - - - -
78,860 81,620 84,476 87,433 90,493
123,992 128,331 132,823 137,472 142,283
282 292 302 313 324
2,539 2,628 2,720 2,815 2,914
55,437 57,377 59,385 61,463 63,615
132,878 137,529 142,343 147,325 152,481
89,376 92,504 95,741 99,092 102,560
44,293 45,843 47,448 49,108 50,827
33,572 34,747 35,963 37,222 38,525
33,516 34,689 35,903 37,160 38,460
9,310 9,636 9,973 10,322 10,683
80,263 83,072 85,980 88,989 92,104
88,586 91,686 94,895 98,216 101,654
2,539 2,628 2,720 2,815 2,914
55,437 57,377 59,385 61,463 63,615
21,159 21,900 22,666 23,459 24,280
77,583 80,298 83,109 86,018 89,028
494 511 529 547 567
1,128 1,168 1,209 1,251 1,295
29,094 30,112 31,166 32,257 33,386
- - - - -
- - - - -
990,946 1,025,629 1,061,526 1,098,679 1,137,133
- - - - -
- - - - -
44,349 45,680 47,050 48,462 49,915
60,828 62,044 63,285 64,551 65,842
1,096,123 1,133,353 1,171,861 1,211,692 1,252,890
1,741,100 1,774,800 1,808,996 1,843,687 1,878,872
Year-11 Year-12 Year-13 Year-14 Year-15
1,187,916 1,187,916 1,187,916 1,187,916 1,187,916
- - - - -
23,200 23,200 23,200 23,200 23,200
132,496 140,921 149,470 158,143 166,939
397,488 422,763 448,410 474,428 500,817
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
5,158,908 5,017,987 4,868,517 4,710,374 4,543,435
1.47 1.49 1.52 1.55 1.58
Ph: 208.461.0022 // Fax: 208.461.3267 // 430 E. State Street, Ste. 100 // Eagle, ID 83616 // www.tpchousing.com
Date: January 26, 2018
To: Lisa Goldman, City Manager
City of Burlingame
From: Caleb Roope, President
Re: Policy Matters for City Council Consideration
The Village at Burlingame – Lots F & N
The purpose of this briefing is to provide information for the City Council to consider
related to policy matters concerning the proposed project. Final direction on these items
will help remove some of the remaining questions and provide a clear path for the project
to move forward, subject to obtaining land‐use approvals from the Planning Commission.
#1: Purchase or Lease of Lot F (Residential Site)
The Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) allows for Pacific West Communities,
Inc. (PWC) to either purchase or lease Lots F and N. We believe we have resolved that Lot
N (Parking Garage Site) will remain in City ownership and would neither be purchased nor
leased (other than temporarily as necessary to facilitate construction of the garage).
Our Request: PWC strongly prefers the option to purchase Lot F for its fair market value
with the City to carry a long‐term note.
Rationale: A purchase will be a less cumbersome transaction. The City, project lenders and
investors will have substantial additional legal structuring work to do to facilitate a lease.
Leasing the site for fair market value is also overly burdensome in that the City would have
to rebate or loan the FMV lease payment back to the project owner each year. A lease
would require the project owner to maintain a lease reserve to facilitate any payments. We
are committed to permanently deed‐restricting the site for affordable housing, and we feel
that any concerns about the project becoming “market rate” could be alleviated with such a
restriction.
#2: Applicability of State Prevailing Wages to Lot F (Residential Site)
The construction of the parking garage will be subject to the payment of state prevailing
wages due to the fact that the project is a public work sponsored by the City. The
residential project is not required to pay prevailing wages under the DDA, and none of the
proposed funding sources trigger state prevailing wages.
Our Request: PWC requests that the project continue to remain free of state prevailing
wage requirements.
Briefing Memo re. Policy Matters – Lots F & N Project – Page 2 of 2
Rationale: The proposed project has never contemplated the payment of state prevailing
wages and cannot afford to pay them across all trades on the project. On average, the
payment of state prevailing wages increase construction costs by 25%. Nevertheless,
various subcontractors on the project already will be union by virtue of the type of
construction skill set required and will pay their employees high wages. This is our
experience for a similar project in San Mateo County. If the City attempts to require
prevailing wages for Lot F, the project will not be financially feasible. While we could
attempt to obtain additional funding sources, there is no guarantee of success and we
would be delayed at least 18 months, resulting in the likelihood that we would abandon the
project altogether.
#3: Closing the Financing Gap
The project has a current funding gap of $1,850,000. This funding gap is a direct result of
the cost associated with mitigating environmental contamination on Lot F. PWC provided a
previous briefing dated January 7, 2018 that specified various opportunities to close this
funding gap.
Our Request: PWC requests that the City provide $1,850,000 from its parking fund for the
construction of the parking garage. By doing this, it will effectively reduce the public
parking cost burden on the residential project, thereby freeing up other resources to pay
for the remediation. PWC will be responsible for sourcing all future funding gaps if and
when they emerge. PWC will not seek any further financial resources from the City.
Rationale: The additional cost of environmental cleanup is associated with a pre‐existing
condition which the City has been monitoring and attempting to clean up for many years.
Upon PWC’s discovery of the details of the contamination, PWC proposed to elevate the
parking garage out of the ground which would have nearly eliminated these costs. For
other important policy and design reasons, the City Council gave direction to return to a
design program with subsurface parking. We concur that the direction the City gave will
result in a superior project; however, we ask that the costs associated with this issue be
supported by the City.
We look forward to the Study Session on February 5th and are excited to keep this
important project moving forward. Feel free to direct any questions or requests to me via
e‐mail at calebr@tpchousing.com or by telephone at 208.908.4865. Thank you.
revised 06/19/17
For HUD-funded programs, use the Federal Income Schedule. For State or locally-funded programs, you may use
the State Income Schedule. For programs funded with both federal and state funds, use the more stringent income levels.
Please verify the income and rent figures in use for specific programs.
San Mateo County (based on Federal Income Limits for SMC)
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low (30% AMI) *27,650 31,600 35,550 39,500 42,700 45,850 49,000 52,150
Very Low (50% AMI) *46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900
HOME Limit (60% AMI) *55,320 63,180 71,100 78,960 85,320 91,620 97,920 104,280
Low (80% AMI) *73,750 84,300 94,850 105,350 113,800 122,250 130,650 139,100
NOTES
*
California State Income Limits
Effective 6/09/17 - Area median Income $115,300 (based on household of 4)
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low (30% AMI) *27,650 31,600 35,550 39,500 42,700 45,850 49,000 52,150
Very Low (50% AMI) *46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900
Low (80% AMI) *73,750 84,300 94,850 105,350 113,800 122,250 130,650 139,100
Median (100% AMI)80,700 92,250 103,750 115,300 124,500 133,750 142,950 152,200
Moderate (120% AMI)96,850 110,700 124,500 138,350 149,400 160,500 171,550 182,600
NOTES
*2017 State Income limits provided by State of California Department of Housing and Community Development ;
2017 San Mateo County Income Limits
as determined by HUD - effective December 18 , 2013
Income Limits by Family Size ($)
Income figures provided by HUD for following San Mateo County federal entitlement programs: CDBG, HOME, ESG.;
Prepared 4/25/2017 - HUD-established area median Income $115,300 (based on household of 4).
Income Limits by Family Size ($)
6/19/17 revised Income limits effective 04/14/2017.
Please verify the income and rent figures in use for specific programs.
NOTES
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low (30% AMI) *27,650 31,600 35,550 39,500 42,700 45,850 49,000 52,150
Very Low (50% AMI) *46,100 52,650 59,250 65,800 71,100 76,350 81,600 86,900
HOME Limit (60% AMI) *55,320 63,180 71,100 78,960 85,320 91,620 97,920 104,280
HERA Special VLI (50% AMI) ***48,450 55,350 62,250 69,150 74,700 80,250 85,750 91,300
HERA Special Limit (60% AMI) ***58,140 66,420 74,700 82,980 89,640 96,300 102,900 109,560
Low (80% AMI) *73,750 84,300 94,850 105,350 113,800 122,250 130,650 139,100
State Median (100% AMI) 80,700 92,250 103,750 115,300 124,500 133,750 142,950 152,200
Income Category SRO *+Studio 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR
Extremely Low *691 740 888 1,026 1,145
Very Low *1,152 1,234 1,481 1,711 1,908
Low HOME Limit*1,436 1,152 1,234 1,481 1,711 1,908 effective 4/11/2017; 2017 HOME Limit
High HOME Limit *1,436 1,479 1,586 1,904 2,192 2,425 effective 4/11/2017; 2017 HOME Limit
HERA Special VLI (50% AMI) ***HERA Spec. Rents - Go to www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/2017/supplmental.asp
HERA Special Limit (60% AMI) ***
Low *
HUD Fair Market Rent (FMR)1,915 2,411 3,018 3,927 4,829 HUD-published Fair Market Rents
Median **2,304 2,468 2,962 3,422 3,816 CA Tax Credit Rent limits for Median Inc. Group
NOTES
*
**CA Tax Credit Rent Limits for Median Income Group
***
*+
Income Limits by Family Size ($)
Maximum Affordable Rent Payment ($)
SROs with -0- or 1 of the following - sanitary or food preparation facility in unit; if 5+ SRO HOME-assisted units, then at least 20% of units to be
occupied by persons with incomes up to 50% AMI.
2017 San Mateo County Income Limits
as determined by HUD, State of CA HCD, and County of San Mateo
Income figures provided by HUD for following San Mateo County federal entitlement programs: CDBG, HOME, ESG.
For San Mateo County, the Housing & Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) & the HUD 2010 HOME hold-harmless provision permit
multifamily tax subsidy projects (MTSPs) & HOME projects placed in service before 1/1/2009 to continue to use HOME/tax credit/tax exempt
bond rents based on the highest income levels that project ever operated under. Once these units are placed in service, the rents will not adjust
downward should HUD establish lower incomes/rents in any subsequent year. Marketing of vacant units should be targeted to the current
year's income schedule.
HUD-defined Area Median Income $115,300 (based on householdof 4). State median $115,300 (household of 4) due to hold harmless policy.
OTHER NOTES (generic)
1
High HOME Limit rent set at lower of: (a) 30% of 60% AMI,or (b) FMR (HUD Fair Market Rent).
For 2011, the FMR for Studio is the lower rent.
2
3 Table below provides rent guidance on appropriate income schedule to use:
03/28/2016 - 4/14/2017 2016
2014
6/1/2011 - 11/30/2011
Rent schedules at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdrdatas_landing.html for additional information as well as the various income schedules. Please also refer to
www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/2017/supplemental.asp
12/18/2013 - 03/05/2015
04/14/2017 to Present 2017
03/06/2015 - 03/27/16 2015
12/01/2012 - 12/17/2013 2013
Maximum Inc. Limits SchedulePlaced in Service Date
On or before 12/31/2008
2012
2012
5/14/2010 - 5/31/2011
12/01/2011 - 11/30/2012
2012
1/1/2009 to 5/13/2010
2017 HERA Special
Rent Calcuations - The following is the assumed family size for each unit: Studio:1 person 1-BR:1.5 persons 2-BR:3 3-BR: 4.5 4-BR:6
Maximum affordable rent based on 30% of monthly income and all utlilites paid by landlord unless further adjusted by HUD. Utliity allowances
for tenant-paid utliites may be established by Housing Authority of County of San Mateo Section 8 Program.
2009
Community Outreach on Transportation Priorities
Why Do We Need Get Us Moving?
We know we need to invest more in transportation
•We’re identifying solutions
•Funding options are available
•BUT we need public input to decide where to start
•The Get Us Moving effort lets anyone in San Mateo County
make their voice heard.
•GUM is led by the San Mateo County Transit District, and San
Mateo County Board of Supervisors, with help from cities &
community partners.
Background: County Transportation Agencies
San Mateo County Transit District
•Operates SamTrans bus and paratransit services
•Manages Caltrain system
•Administers local transportation funding programs (SMCTA Measure A)
City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG)
•Approves countywide plans & strategies to address traffic congestion
•Receives local, regional and state funding
Commute.org
•Collaborates with transit agencies, employers and cities to promote
alternatives to driving alone
•Funded by local and regional sources
Projected Growth in San Mateo County
Projections
•Population expected to grow to over 900,000 people by 2040
(26% increase between 2010 and 2040)
•Population age 65 and over expected to grow 137% by 2040
•Thousands of new housing units being built, many geared
towards public transit riders
•Paratransit ridership is projected to grow from over 320,000 rides
in 2010 to over 1 million expected rides in 2040
•Without new investment, transit services will need to be cut
Transportation Challenges
Just some of our transportation needs
•Updating aging systems and infrastructure
•Addressing record levels of highway congestion
•Separating Caltrain Corridor from local roads
•Increasing Caltrain capacity, frequency, travel times
•Evolving and expanding bus service
•Supporting expanded mobility options for seniors,
disabled, low-income residents
•Improving access and safety for cyclists and
pedestrians
•Enhancing first/last mile connections to transit
•Incentivizing public transportation and other
shared-ride solutions
Ideas to Relieve Congestion, Improve Transit &
Help the Environment…
•Dumbarton Hwy/Rail Plan Recommendations
•Caltrain Modernization: Fast, Frequent, Electric Train Service
•US 101 Managed Lanes and US 101/ Hwy 92 Interchange Improvements
•Senior and Youth Mobility Plans Recommendations
•Local Streets and Roads investment
•Railroad crossings (Separate roads from rail lines “Grade Separation”)
•City, County Bike/Ped Plans
•Express Bus Study
•Electric Bus Fleet Conversion
•Coastside Transit Study
•Expanded Ferry Service
•Transportation Demand Management
…But Solutions Require Investment
A few estimates
•Caltrain Ops. and Maint. ($20M per year)
•SamTrans Ops. and Maint. ($25M per year)
•Dumbarton Corridor ($2B total)
•Caltrain Modernization 2.0 ($400M San
Mateo County Share)
•US 101 Managed Lanes ($500M total)
•US 101/92 Interchange ($16-$160M total)
Existing Transportation Authority
Programs –Measure A
Transit (30%) Local Streets (22.5%) Pedestrian & Bicycles (3%)
Grade Separations (15%)Highways (27.5%)Alternative Congestion (1%)
This money is well spent (a few examples)But it is not enough to meet need (a few examples)
13 grade separations complete, 3 underway 29 crossings remaining
101 auxiliary lanes throughout,
101 Broadway interchange,
92 new lane in Half Moon Bay,
…many other highway projects
92/101 interchange, 101/Woodside interchange
101/Candlestick SR 1 safety project
Dumbarton Corridor US 101 Managed Lanes
Paratransit subsidy Paratransit needs skyrocketing with aging population
Local investment to repair streets, pave roads, and
promote alternative forms of transportation such as
shuttles and carpools.
$2 billion investment needed over next 30 years for local
roads
Senate Bill 1 and Regional Measure 3
SB 1 (threatened with repeal):
•Funds Statewide maintenance and capital priorities
•Small increase in transit funding for operations
•Local matching funds needed to compete for discretionary programs
RM 3 (on June 2018 ballot):
•$130 million for Dumbarton …………. Projected project cost $ 2 billion
•$50 million for 101/92 interchange …………. Projected project cost up to $160 million
•$300 million for Corridor Express Lanes …………. Eligible to compete, need local match
•$20 million for Regional Express Bus ………….Eligible to compete, need local match
How Can We Support These Solutions?
We have a new opportunity to fund local solutions
•AB 1613 (Mullin) allows ½-cent sales tax
•Could provide $80 million/year
Over 10 years ~$800 million
Over 30 years ~$2.4 billion
•Will need approval from the SamTrans Board and
the County Board of Supervisors
•Needs 2/3 approval from county voters
•Could be placed on November 2018 ballot
We’re Developing an Expenditure Plan,
and We Want You to Help Us Build it
Get Us Moving San Mateo County
•Community based planning
•Online and mail-in Survey
•Public meetings
•TV spots
•Social Media and Digital Promos
Expert Input and Community-Led Process
•Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
•City/County Public Works
•Transportation Agency Partners
•Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG)
•Community Groups
•Private Sector
•Process
•Identify Goals
•Work with Stakeholders to Identify Candidates for Projects/Programs
•Develop Recommended Expenditure Plan
•SamTrans Board Puts Measure on Ballot in with Concurrence of SMC Board of Supervisors
What is the Final Expenditure Plan?
TBD
Expenditure Plan Inputs
•Call for Projects
•Goal to identify Categories for investment
•122 projects, $12 billion in needs
•Technical/Stakeholder Feedback
•Public Survey data
•Polling
•Governing Board Input
Phase Two (March –June)
•Review of Draft Expenditure Plan Categories –“Did we get it
right? What did we miss?”
•Budgeting Tool –“Build your own Expenditure Plan”
•Finalizing the Plan for Governing Board review –June 2018
How Can You Help Get Us Moving?
•Help us get more county residents to take our online survey!
•Leverage your network!
Email, like, share, and promote our website and social media
•Tell us YOUR priorities for transportation spending in SMC!
•Suggestions to connect in-person –Where should we be?
Events, farmers markets, community groups, meetings, etc.
Come to our Town Hall Meetings
•San Mateo –Thurs. Jan. 25, 6:30 p.m.
Oak Room, San Mateo Public Library, 55 W. 3rd Ave, San Mateo
•Pacifica –Thurs. Feb. 1, 6:00 p.m.
Auditorium, Pacifica Community Center, 540 Crespi Drive, Pacifica
•Menlo Park –Thurs. Feb 15, 6:30 p.m.
Ballroom, Menlo Park Senior Center, 110 Terminal Ave, Menlo Park
•South San Francisco –Thurs. Feb. 22, 6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Dr.,
South San Francisco
Spread the Word and Get Us Moving!
Website: www.GetUsMovingSMC.com
Facebook: Get Us Moving SMC
Email: info@getusmovingSMC.com
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting on January 16, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Lee Thompson.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. STANFORD GRADUATE STUDENTS’ PRESENTATION ON SEA LEVEL RISE
Derek Ouyang, lecturer at Stanford, explained that graduate students are enrolled in two project-based, year-
long courses. He explained that the courses were developed to assist the County of San Mateo Office of
Sustainability to research, identify, and analyze the impacts of future land use development on flood damage
risk in the coastal and bayshore regions. Moreover, he stated that the focus of the project is to empower
local communities to mitigate the risk of sea level rise and other hazards.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
2
Mr. Ouyang explained that last quarter’s students produced an initial risk assessment in the region. He
explained that the idea of the risk assessment is to quantify the amount of damage that would be incurred
from future flood risks. These assessments can then be used to inform land use decisions on future projects.
Stanford graduate student Sabine Loos reviewed the background of their project. She showed images of
what the bayshore looked like in 1947 versus 2018. She explained that a majority of Burlingame’s economy
is located east of US Highway 101, which is land that is susceptible to flooding.
Ms. Loos explained that the students created a method for calculating economic loss as a result of flood
damage. Additionally, the students reviewed cascading impacts of flood damage like increased traffic or lost
work.
Next, Stanford graduate student Ben Mullet reviewed the results of the students’ findings. He stated that the
expected economic losses at the current sea level are $44 million a year in the Bay Area. He explained that
the loss varies throughout the Bay Area and that Burlingame has a mid-level risk. Mr. Mullet stated that if
their assessment includes an optimistic global CO2 emissions and sea level rise scenario, which is known as
RCP 2.6, the economic loss per year in the Bay Area is 30 times greater at $1.2 billion a year.
Councilmember Ortiz asked about the time frame of RCP 2.6. Mr. Mullet stated that it is over the next 100
years and that there are different levels of sea level rise.
Mr. Mullet discussed Burlingame’s bayfront. He explained that according to their calculations,
Burlingame’s hotels are expected to have minimal annual damage as a result of floods. The reason for this
lower level of damage is because of the elevation of the hotels.
Councilmember Beach asked if the data was showing that the City’s greatest vulnerability is not damage to
hotels but the cascading impacts like road closures. And if this is true, should the City be focused on
drainage in order to mitigate the risk. Mr. Ouyang replied that they hadn’t fully quantified the cascading
impact of roads being closed.
Mr. Ouyang reviewed the next steps. He explained that the County expressed an interested in having the
students look over the general and specific plans of municipalities. With this data, the students can review if
future land use development is exacerbating or mitigating risk. He stated that he is hoping to work with the
GIS departments of different cities on utilizing Stanford’s risk assessment tool.
Mayor Brownrigg stated he would find it helpful if they developed a matrix that showed the effects of
different stages of sea level rise. Additionally, he explained that he would like to hear about defensive
measures that would allow bayfront development.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City could incorporate the students’ presentation for their own use. Mr.
Ouyang replied in the affirmative.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
3
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no public comments.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the
Consent Calendar. Councilmember Keighran pulled 8b, 8c, and 8h. Councilmember Beach pulled 8i.
Mayor Brownrigg pulled 8d.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt 8a, 8e, 8f, 8g, 8j, 8k, 8l and 8m; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 2, 2018
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of January 2, 2018.
b. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR’S COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2018 AND
PROCESS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the Mayor’s Council Assignments for 2018 and process
for Economic Development Subcommittee assignment.
Councilmember Keighran discussed Mayor Brownrigg’s proposal to deviate from the established practice of
the Mayor assigning Councilmembers to committees and subcommittees. She explained that Mayor
Brownrigg’s memorandum outlined a process by which assignment to the Economic Development
Subcommittee would be an automatic rotation. The memorandum stated that the positions of Vice Mayor
and third-in-line would always be on the subcommittee. She asked why the Mayor was treating this
subcommittee different from the others.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the role of the Economic Development Subcommittee is an important one, as it
interacts with key economic constituents in the city. He explained that Council benefits from having
Councilmembers rotate through the subcommittee because they are exposed to different economic groups
and hear about new projects.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that creating a mechanical rotation would bring continuity as Councilmembers
would remain on the committee for two years. He noted that the rotation would also ensure fresh
perspective.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she didn’t agree with this line of thinking. She stated that the
Economic Development Subcommittee is not more important than the other committees and subcommittees.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
4
Councilmember Keighran stated that if the Mayor’s concern is Councilmembers serving too long on a
committee or subcommittee, this should be a general policy issue for all assignments. She suggested
establishing criteria for the Mayor when making assignments including: time commitments, expertise, and
interest. She added that because the Mayor rotates each year, there is always a fresh perspective when
making assignments.
Councilmember Keighran stated that if Mayor Brownrigg wanted to look at the general policy for how the
Mayor assigns committees and subcommittees, she would be interested in creating criteria. She suggested
including: expertise, interest and time commitment.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that there is a multifaceted approach to putting assignments together. She stated
that her concern with the Mayor’s suggested rotation is that a future Council could be put into a situation,
during a contentious time, where this would need to be un-memorialized.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the Mayor’s suggestion would require a resolution. City Manager Goldman
replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson explained that she believed that the assignment sheet should have an additional column
concerning the number of years served. Additionally, she stated she would lean towards granting the Mayor
discretion for assignments instead of a mechanical rotation.
Councilmember Ortiz explained that he enjoyed his time on the Economic Development Subcommittee and
understood the importance of the subcommittee. He stated that he believed assignments to this
subcommittee should rotate but that he understood Councilmember Keighran’s concern about time
commitment. Therefore, he suggested a set rotation but with Councilmembers having the ability to decline.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the meeting time of the Economic Development Subcommittee could change.
Moreover, he stated that if an individual didn’t want to be on the subcommittee, the Mayor would have the
discretion to assign another Councilmember.
Councilmember Beach stated she didn’t feel strongly either way. She stated that Mayor Brownrigg’s
proposal seemed reasonable and she liked the idea that built-in is the opportunity for a person to decline and
the Mayor to assign another.
City Attorney Kane suggested severing the two actions when calling for a vote on approval of th e
assignments and Mayor Brownrigg’s recommended rotation for Economic Development Subcommittee.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt the Mayor’s 2018 Committee Assignments; seconded by
Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to have staff memorialize a rotation in which the Vice Mayor and third in
line Councilmember are assigned to Economic Development Subcommittee each year, but they have the
option to decline if necessary, and the the Mayor would have the discretion to assign someone else to the
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
5
subcommittee; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed in a roll call vote 3-2
(Councilmember Keighran and Vice Mayor Colson voted against.)
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCURE
FIELD TURF PRODUCTS AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH INTERSTATE
GRADING AND PAVING, INC. FOR THE SITE WORK FOR THE INSTALLATION OF
SYNTHETIC TURF AT MURRAY FIELD
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 13-2018.
Councilmember Keighran asked how long the field turf fiber is expected to last. Parks and Recreation
Director Glomstad replied that it would last 8-10 years.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the shock absorbing system that is underneath the field turf lasted
approximately twice as long as the field turf fiber. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked how the turf was different from what BSD is using. Parks and Recreation
Director Glomstad replied that it is the same.
Councilmember Keighran asked about the timeline for the project. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad
explained that it is scheduled to start in March, and that the fields will be open in August.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 13-2018; seconded by Vice Mayor
Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH WILSEY HAM FOR THE SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL WATER
MAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 84890, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
Assistant DPW Morimoto requested Council adopt Resolution Number 14-2018.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if this was the right time to proceed with this project, in light of the work coming
down the pipe from the El Camino Real Task Force. Assistant DPW Morimoto replied in the affirmative and
stated that one of the reasons staff is moving forward with this project is in anticipation of the work that
Caltrans will be doing in 2019-2020.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if he was correct in assuming that the City’s plan was to dovetail the two projects.
Assistant DPW Morimoto replied in the affirmative.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
6
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City would need to delay this project if Caltrans’ work is delayed. Assistant
DPW Morimoto replied in the negative.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 14-2018; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson.
The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
e. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS SUPPORTING THE SUBMISSION OF GRANT
APPLICATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA DRIVE COMPLETE STREETS – PHASE II
PROJECT AND THE SCHOOL AREA PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ENHANCEMENTS
PROJECT UNDER THE MEASURE A PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 15-2018 and Resolution Number 16-2018.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND
REGULATIONS AND EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE RELATIONS RESOLUTION
HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 17-2018.
g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER
INTO A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH ECS IMAGING INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF
AN ELECTRONIC CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND SCANNING SERVICES
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 18-2018.
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND
THE SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH GRANICUS, INC. TO PURCHASE LASERFICHE
INTEGRATION AND ECOMMENT APPLICATION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 12-2018.
Councilmember Keighran asked what the deadline would be for people to submit an eComment on agenda
items. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer explained that eComment would open when the agenda is posted and
would close on the morning of the meeting. She stated that this would be done to ensure that Council and
staff had enough time to review all comments and questions.
Councilmember Keighran asked if eComment is open during meetings. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied in
the negative.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City Clerk would also ensure that individuals understood that writing an
eComment would not be treated like a letter that requires a response.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
7
Vice Mayor Colson asked if there was a way to articulate the fact that Council wouldn’t be required to
respond to eComment questions. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied in the affirmative stating that staff would
design the eComment template and ensure that this was articulated.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 12-2018; seconded by
Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
i. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE COMPOSITION AND SCOPE OF
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME’S MEASURE I CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
AND OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD FOR COMMITTEE APPLICANTS
City Manager Goldman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 11-2018.
Councilmember Beach stated that in regards to the application, she would like to include clarifying language
that individuals that are submitting their application to the committee don’t have budgetary, spending, or
contracting authority over Measure I funds. She explained that this would ensure that residents understand
the parameters of the committee.
City Manager Goldman stated that she had discussed Councilmember Beach’s recommendation with her
prior to the meeting. She explained that she had done a mock-up of the application adding the following
language below the Mission Statement: “In order to preserve the integrity and independence of the oversight
process, Committee members shall not have a formal role in contracting or project management, nor will
they have any budgetary authority related to the use and allocation of Measure I revenue.”
Councilmember Beach stated that the Mission Statement of the Oversight Committee is to review and report
on the receipt of revenue and expenditure of funds from the Measure I tax. She explained that the members
will review audit reports and tell the Council how much money was received and where it was spent. She
stated that after further reflection, she wondered if it would be of value for the committee to report on the
match between the actual expenditures and the Council’s expenditure plan. This would ensure that funds
were being spent on what was outlined in the Council’s policy.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that having previously served on oversight committees, she would recommend
against Councilmember Beach’s suggestion. She explained that an emergency could arise where the Council
has to have the flexibility to divert funds.
Councilmember Ortiz agreed with Vice Mayor Colson. He explained that the committee’s duty is to oversee
what has already been done.
Councilmember Beach explained that she hadn’t thought of the impact of emergencies. She stated that but
for emergencies, asking the committee members to compare expenditures to Council’s plan should match.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
8
City Manager Goldman explained that at the 2018 Goal Setting meeting, the expenditure plan would be
discussed. At this meeting, Council would give staff direction on the expenditure plan and it would be
brought back to Council for adoption at a later meeting. She stated that this document will keep staff and
Council honest as it will serve as a guiding document. She explained that each year this document will be
reviewed and it will be adjusted based on revenues.
Councilmember Beach thanked City Manager Goldman for her explanation and stated that the expenditure
plan would serve as a check on the spending of Measure I funds. She stated that her original question was
whether Council wanted to task the committee with ensuring that the funds match.
Councilmember Keighran stated she concurred with City Manager Goldman that having the expenditure plan
and audit reports would cover Councilmember Beach’s concerns and keep the Council and staff honest. She
stated that she didn’t want the plan to be so specific as to not allow for flexibility.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Mission Statement’s language implied that the oversight committee only
meets once a year. He suggested adding a comma so that it would read “auditor’s findings, and other matters
as the Council may direct.” This would imply there would be more than one meeting a year and there may
be other issues that the Council directs the committee to review. City Manager Goldman replied that the
application states that the Committee will meet at least annually. She stated at the beginning, she believed
the committee would meet more often as they are educated on their role and Measure I.
Vice Mayor Colson asked to insert the phrase “non-voting” to the resolution clause “Whereas, the members
of the City Council’s Audit Committee shall serve as ex-officio non-voting members of the Committee.”
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 11-2018 with the addition of the phrase
non-voting to the sentence “Whereas, the members of the City Council’s Audit Committee shall serve as ex-
officio non-voting members of the Committee” and adding the one comment that City Manager Goldman
proposed to the application clarifying that the committee does not have budgetary or contractual authority;
seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE ILLUMINATED LIBRARIES GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,881 FOR THE UPGRADE OF BURLINGAME LIBRARY WIFI
ACCESS POINTS
City Librarian McCulley requested Council adopt Resolution Number 10-2018.
k. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. TO
PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED
VILLAGE AT BURLINGAME AND PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
OF PARKING LOTS F AND N
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
9
CDD Meeker requested Council adopt Resolution Number 9-2018.
l. APPROVAL OF PUBLIC LIBRARY ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE OUT OF STATE
TRAVEL
City Librarian McCulley requested Council approve out-of-state travel to the Public Library Association
Conference.
m. INFORMATIONAL REPORT ON THE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE
CHARGING STATIONS AT CITY HALL AND THE POLICE STATION
Sustainability Coordinator Michael presented an informational report on the installation of electric vehicle
charging stations at City Hall and the Police Station.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO THE MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL BOARD
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the Council was presented with one candidate for the Mosquito & Vector
Control Board; Joe Galligan. The Council interviewed Mr. Galligan on January 3, 2018.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer handed Council ballots to determine whether to appoint Mr. Galligan to a two-
year term or a four-year term.
The Council unanimously voted to appoint Mr. Galligan to a four-year term on the Mosquito & Vector
Control Board.
b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT OF THE CITY
MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A SALARY INCREASE, AND
APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY
SCHEDULE)
HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 7-2018.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
10
HR Director Morrison reviewed the background of this item explaining that City Manager Goldman began
her service with the City on December 27, 2012. On December 6, 2017, the City Council met with the City
Manager in closed session to review her performance after her fifth year in office.
HR Director Morrison explained that following the evaluation, the City Manager left the closed session and
the Council discussed her compensation. In recognition of the City Manager’s positive performance
evaluation and existing market rates for comparable positions, the City Council recommended increasing her
salary by 3%, the same percentage increase that the Department Heads and Unrepresented Employees
received in 2018.
HR Director Morrison explained that in order to increase her salary, Section 5 of the employment agreement
must be amended to increase the monthly salary from $19,344.24 per month to $19,924.57, effective the first
pay period in January.
HR Director Morrison explained that the proposed increase requires the Council to authorize a new salary
schedule, that once approved will be available to the public via the City’s website. The financial impact of
this increase is approximately $9,087 annually, and the City Manager’s Office budget can absorb the
increase using existing funds for the remainder of this fiscal year.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 7-2018; seconded by Councilmember
Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
A SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT TO THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT PLAN FOR
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DEPARTMENT HEAD AND UNREPRESENTED
CLASSIFICATIONS
HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 8-2018.
HR Director Morrison reviewed the background of the report, stating that the Compensation and Benefit
Plan for the City Department Heads and Unrepresented Employees covers the position of Police Chief. She
explained that in 2017, the City’s external auditors discovered during their testing of payroll that the City is
paying more for flat rate premiums than was approved in the agreements with the bargaining units. Staff
researched this discrepancy and determined that there is no written document to support the slightly higher
premium pay rates. Therefore, they determined that there must have been a verbal agreement, over 16 years
ago, that the City would pay a portion of the employees’ PERS contribution on top of the flat rate premiums.
HR Director Morrison explained that on June 19, 2017, the Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City
Manager to execute side letter agreements with the various bargaining units to correct this issue. During a
recent comprehensive audit of the City’s payroll practices, covering 100% of all special pays paid to
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
11
employees, the City’s auditors discovered the same issue existed for the unrepresented Police Chief POST
certificate premium pay under the Compensation and Benefit Plan.
HR Director Morrison stated that staff is asking Council to authorize the City Manager to sign a side letter
agreement that specifies a new rate for POST certificate premium pay for the Police Chief in the
Compensation and Benefit Plan. The monthly premium is increased to a fixed amount based on the actual
amount currently being paid to the Police Chief for this certificate. This will ensure that the Police Chief
does not get a pay decrease, and that the rate being currently paid is approved by the Council. This is a one-
time correction that must be approved b y the Council and memorialized.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that this item has a total budget impact of $1,000 a year.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 8-2018; seconded by Councilmember
Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
d. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE US 101 MANAGED LANES PROJECT
Prior to the presentation of this staff report, Councilmember Keighran recused herself from the item. She
explained that legally she didn’t have to recuse herself, but felt it was best to do so, due to the fact that she
has had and will continue to have frequent conversations on this matter as part of her County job.
Councilmember Beach disclosed that she was a cities-at-large member on the San Mateo County
Transportation Authority. She explained that the Transportation Authority was one of the project sponsors.
She asked if she should recuse herself from this item. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative. She
explained that the reason Councilmember Keighran felt that she had to recuse herself was because of the dual
role she plays as both Councilmember and legislative aide in the County. Therefore, because
Councilmember Beach’s role on the Transportation Authority is due to her Council position, she does not
have the same potential conflict.
Assistant DPW Art Morimoto presented the staff report concerning the City of Burlingame’s comments in
response to the draft environmental impact report for the US 101 managed lanes project. He explained that it
is a Caltrans project that is being done in cooperation with the Transportation Authority and C/CAG. The
purpose of the project is to reduce congestion in the corridor, incentivize carpooling and transit, and improve
the ability to apply technology to help manage traffic.
Mr. Morimoto explained that the project proposes to construct an express lane in both directions on US 101
in San Mateo County. An express lane is a carpool lane that also allows lower occupancy vehicles to pay
tolls based on dynamic pricing depending on demand.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
12
Mr. Morimoto reviewed the impacts this project would have on Burlingame. He explained that to
accommodate the express lane, the current auxiliary lane (the transition lane between the Broadway on-ramp
and the Poplar Avenue exit), will be converted into a through lane. With the loss of the auxiliary lane, a new
acceleration lane will need to be added in the southbound direction for approximately 3,000 feet between the
Broadway on-ramp and the Poplar Avenue off-ramp to accommodate the converted auxiliary lane. The
proposed acceleration lane would require relocating the existing sound wall and encroaching it on Rollins
Road throughout the transition. Although the project will maintain the existing two-way traffic lanes with the
parking lane along Rollins Road, the relocation of the sound wall will result in the elimination of the existing
planter strip between the roadway and the sound wall. This impact to Rollins is a major concern to
Burlingame.
Mr. Morimoto explained that although the EIR shows parking on Rollins as well as one lane traffic in each
direction, the EIR does not provide sufficient detail on lane widths and movement of the wall, and instead is
more general in nature. He explained that staff’s comments are intended to provide specifics.
Mayor Brownrigg asked how much the wall is shifted in the existing view versus the simulated view, which
were both included in the packet. Mr. Morimoto replied that the simulation only shows San Mateo. He
explained that some preliminary cross sections staff received from Caltrans shows the wall shifting 3-4 feet
at the most.
Mr. Morimoto stated that currently the wall has ivy screening. Therefore in order to maintain that, staff
included in the letter a request to maintain some sort of planter. He stated that this would provide a buffer
between the roadway and the wall for vehicles and cyclists.
Mr. Morimoto added that it is unclear what impacts this project has on the new Broadway Interchange.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the last request on the draft letter was: “the project shall take adequate
measures to minimize construction noise and disruption to Burlingame businesses and residents during the
construction time.” She explained that those on Rollins Road and in the Lyon Hoag neighborhood are
already dealing with construction noise, and therefore this would only exacerbate the problem. She asked
what measures staff was proposing to minimize the noise. Mr. Morimoto stated that staff could include
stronger language in that portion of the letter, but it is not clear what the impacts will be at this time. He
stated that there will likely be some lane closures.
City Attorney Kane stated that if Council wanted to signal the seriousness of this issue, staff could state in
the letter: “cumulative impacts of construction noise”. She explained that this means something in terms of
the magnitude of the potential problem and the potential remedies that people may seek. She added that the
City needed to be careful about being too prescriptive about the mechanism. But the comment could be
expanded to say that the City wants to have an active engagement about appropriate mitigation measures.
Councilmember Beach thanked staff for taking the time to review the EIR and look at the potential impacts.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
13
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he appreciated that the letter requested continuing the tree motif. But he asked
that the letter be a little more specific and instead of saying consistent with features, say tree motif.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if Caltrans moves forward with this project would it affect San Mateo’s proposed
Peninsula Avenue project. Mr. Morimoto stated that he would need to get back to Council with an answer.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that if he was a property owner whose view changed from the existing look to the
simulated view, he would consider it a diminution of property value. He stated that the simulated view looks
more dangerous and much less hospitable to bicycles.
City Attorney Kane stated that aesthetics are one of the things reviewed under CEQA.
Councilmember Beach stated that the City might not want to request the tree motif as she believed the ivy
added softness.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that ivy looks pretty but can create garbage and vermin issues. Therefore, she
stated that staff should talk to the community to see what they wanted.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if when talking about the tree motif if they are talking about both sides of the wall.
Mr. Morimoto stated it was on the 101 side, but it could be requested on both.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to approve giving staff the authority to amend the letter and submit it
timely; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Councilmember
Keighran recused herself).
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
THE AMENDED AND RESTATED FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME AND RECOLOGY SAN MATEO COUNTY FOR SERVICES BEGINNING
JANUARY 1, 2021
Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 19-2018.
Finance Director Augustine stated that the franchise agreement between the City and Recology represents a
significant component of the City’s solid waste utility. The agreement covers collection services for
garbage, recycling, and organic materials. She explained that because the agreement with Recology expires
on Dec 31, 2020, the ad hoc franchise agreement extension committee spent more than a year negotiating
with Recology and creating a model franchise agreement. The negotiated deal provides consistency with
current solid waste, recycling, and organic services and continuity of a partnership that has served the City
well. Additionally, the agreement provides rate setting stability and predictability. After an initial rate true-
up in 2021, cities can expect some protection from volatile cost impacts.
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
14
Finance Director Augustine explained that the staff report lists other benefits including: cost savings,
efficiencies, and in-service delivery. She stated that Burlingame pays approximately $11 million for their
solid waste services. She explained that this agreement represents 53% of that total.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she would not be recusing herself, even though this was talked about at
the County level. She explained that she was only in meetings to be educated about the matter, not to decide
on the matter.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that Council had a thorough discussion about process in general at the last meeting.
He thanked Director of Rethink Waste Joe La Mariana.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Keighran stated the new agreement includes a cap of 30 pick-ups per day for abandoned
waste. Additionally, if the service area reaches an average of 25 there will be further discussion. She asked
if Recology knew what the current average is. Recology’s Public Affairs Manager, Gino Gasparini, stated
that the service area is at approximately 25 per day.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if there was a way to push back pick-up times, as he had received several
complaints, especially from multi-family units. Mr. Gasparini replied that if there are issues with the public,
they deal with them on a one-on-one basis and try to accommodate requests.
Mayor Brownrigg explained that as density increases, the City needs to be more thoughtful about where
garbage is put and where it is to be picked up. He also noted that if it takes Recology longer to pick up the
garbage in Burlingame, the City’s rates will go up.
Councilmember Beach stated that the City spends $11 million a year on solid waste services, of which 53%
is the Recology agreement. She stated the other 47% is South Bay Recycling, disposal costs, SBWMA, and
city agency fees. She asked if there would be additional contracts coming before the Council prior to 2021
concerning the other 47% of costs. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative, stating that staff
will be bringing contracts to Council for the recycling center and disposal costs.
Councilmember Beach stated that while the City can look ahead to what the Recology costs will be, there are
some other components to the garbage rates. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 19-2018; seconded by Councilmember
Keighran. The motion was passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Agenda Item 8a
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 16, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
15
Councilmember Beach explained that San Mateo is celebrating the 50th anniversary of their sponsoring of the
101st army airborne unit. She stated that there are about 9 or 10 cities in San Mateo County that have
sponsored units. Burlingame was the second city to sponsor a unit in the 10st airborne division. Therefore,
the City has been invited to participate in the festivities. She stated that she wanted the Council to consider
participating and how the City would participate. Mayor Brownrigg concurred. This item will be agendized.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m. in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. and in memory of
Jim Kaufman and Lora Colabianchi.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Goal Setting Session
Saturday, January 27, 2018
1. WELCOME
City Manager Goldman opened the annual goal setting session by welcoming the community. She explained
that last year, the City Council established four main priorities: sustainability, transportation, housing and
infrastructure. This year, the City Council would be using this meeting to focus on two of those priorities:
infrastructure and housing.
2. DEPARTMENT HIGHLIGHTS
City Manager Goldman asked each department head to list a few highlights from this past year.
City Manager Goldman began by stating that one of the biggest accomplishments was the passage of
Measure I. She discussed how Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, DPW Murtuza, Police Chief
Wollman, Finance Director Augustine, and herself met with different community groups to hear their
concerns and gain an understanding of where funds needed to be spent. Additionally, she stated that she was
proud of staff and appreciated their hardwork and dedication.
Police Chief Wollman discussed two highlights from the Burlingame Police Department. The first highlight
was the establishment of the community response team, composed of two officers who were assigned to
quality of life issues. He explained that over the course of the year they had investigated 1750 incidents and
made 106 arrests. Secondly, he discussed the implementation of body worn cameras and how footage from
the cameras had shown the discipline of officers.
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that her two highlights of the year were: 1) opening the first
new playground in 15 years with another coming this year, and 2) creating a database that tracks the removal
of trees by type, request made, address, and other categories.
Mayor Brownrigg asked about the Parks Master Plan. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that
the City is about start working on its first Parks Master Plan. The plan will assist staff in organizing
information and prioritizing needs.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
2
DPW Murtuza discussed the completion of the Broadway Interchange Project. Additionally, he stated that
he is proud to report that there are now less than five sewage overflows in the over 140 miles of sewer a year
in the city.
CDD Meeker discussed the City being awarded the Home for All grant to undertake a comprehensive
community engagement project on affordable housing.
Planning Manager Gardiner discussed the work that had been done in updating the City’s General Plan.
City Librarian McCulley stated that one of his department’s highlights was that attendance for Children’s
programming was over 39,000 this past year. Additionally, he discussed the collaborations his department
had with other departments, like firefighters reading to children and the police department’s training on
homelessness.
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer discussed the City’s commitment to transparency and organization with the
purchase of eComment and an electronic content management system. Additionally, she highlighted the
videotaping of Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission meetings.
CCFD Fire Chief Kammeyer discussed the accomplishments of his department by highlighting the
unprecedented amount of out-of-county responses his staff had undertaken this year including North Bay
fires and the hurricanes. He stated that he had been able to send out 12 personnel without compromising
local service and with zero injuries to his staff.
City Attorney Kane discussed the settlement of cases in the City’s favor and the addition of a risk
management staff member to the City.
HR Morrison discussed being able to establish collaborative and professional relationships with all of the
City’s labor groups. Additionally, she discussed the informational talks that HR and Finance had conducted
concerning the changes to the CalPERS discount rate.
Finance Director Augustine thanked the Council for allowing staff to be proactive (for example, setting up
the Pension Liability fund) instead of reactive. Additionally, she stated that staff is currently working on
purchasing a new financial system.
Assistant to the City Manager Blackburn discussed the City’s new website that was launched last week.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT
Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff thanked Nil Blackburn for her work on the new website. She asked if the
website could include a calendar listing all events in the City.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
3
Burlingame resident Adrienne Leigh from the Burlingame Pedestrian Advisory Committee (“BPAC”) asked
Council for funding to support the committee’s goals of upgrading pedestrian walkways and creating end-to-
end bike routes.
4. MEASURE I DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
a. DISCUSSION OF MEASURE I EXPENDITURE PLAN
City Manager Goldman began by explaining that last year, she and Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad,
Police Chief Wollman, DPW Murtuza, and Finance Director Augustine met with 25 community groups to
understand the priorities of the residents. Additionally, professional polls were conducted and surveys were
available on the City’s website. She stated that from these meetings, polls and surveys, staff was able to
prioritize community issues. Potholes, parks, and police were identified as the top three priorities in the
community.
City Manager Goldman explained that while it was originall y estimated that Measure I would yield
approximately $2 million a year, it is now expected to be closer to $1.75 million. She discussed staff’s
proposed expenditure plan for the $1.75 million. Staff proposes putting a majority of the funds into building
a community center. She explanted that the recreation center is outdated and has both seismic and HVAC
issues. She explained that today’s discussion was not about the design of the community center but rather
about establishing funds so that it could be built. She noted that she would talk to the Mayor about
scheduling a study session on the design of the community center.
City Manager Goldman stated that staff recommends putting $1 million of Measure I funds towards a bond
for the community center. If the Council is amenable to this, then each year, $1 million would be put
towards the bond.
City Manager Goldman stated that staff is recommending putting $575,000 of Measure I funds towards
streets and sidewalk repairs. She discussed the need of the City to make sidewalks ADA compliant with
ramps and curb cuts.
Lastly, City Manager Goldman stated that staff is recommending putting $200,000 of Measure I funds
towards hiring a new police officer. Attached to the staff report is a memorandum from the Police Chief
outlining why a new officer is needed. She highlighted the fact that in 2000, there were 50 officers and now
there are 39. However, since 2000, the City’s population has increased, the police department’s overtime is
large, and there has been an increase in property theft, particularly along the Bayfront. Accordingly, hiring a
new officer would assist the community.
Vice Mayor Colson asked how much money staff was recommending for the bond, how long it would take
for the City to pay the bond, and what the interest rate would be. Finance Director Augustine replied that she
had been talking with financial advisors who recommended a lease revenue bond where $1 million would
generate $15 million in proceedings. She stated that this would be a 30-year bond with interest rates between
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
4
4 and 4.5%. She added that if the City contributed an additional $1 million from the General Fund, the bond
would generate $30 million.
City Manager Goldman asked how much the City had in the Capital Investment Reserve Fund. Finance
Director Augustine replied that there was $23.5 million.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed the cost of parking for the new community center. She stated that
underground parking would cost more than expanding the parking lot. But expanding the parking lot would
take away open space. She asked if the City could use funds from the Parking Reserve for these expenses.
Finance Director Augustine replied in the negative stating that the Parking Enterprise Fund and the parking
in-lieu fees are to be used for the downtown areas.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the library bond was up soon. Finance Director Augustine replied that it
had matured last year.
Councilmember Beach asked about the City’s debt capacity and if the City could take on a new bond.
Finance Director Augustine reviewed the City’s bonds that were retiring and stated that the City could take
on this new bond.
Councilmember Beach stated that this bond would not need to go to ballot. Finance Director Augustine
replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg voiced his support for City Manager Goldman’s bond proposal. He stated that the City
should expedite their decision on this matter as interest rates aren’t going to get any lower.
Mayor Brownrigg asked when the City could go out for an RFP on the community center. City Manager
Goldman stated as soon as possible. She explained that it would most likely happen in this calendar year.
However, she noted that the City had to make a lot of decisions on what the building would look like and
how to handle parking.
Next, Mayor Brownrigg moved the discussion onto the City Manager’s recommendation concerning utilizing
funds to hire a new officer.
Councilmember Keighran agreed with the City Manager’s recommendation. She stated that after reading the
Police Chief’s memo and learning about the 8% population increase since 2000, and the amount of
development in the coming years, it was imperative that they hire a new officer.
Councilmember Beach asked for confirmation that the Police Department had requested and been granted
two new officers in the 2017/18 budget. Police Chief Wollman replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach explained that she was thankful for the measures the Police Department had taken to
maintain excellent service and act efficiently with a reduced work force. However, she stated that the new
developments mentioned in the staff report would not happen in the next few years.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
5
Mayor Brownrigg asked if Councilmember Beach was not in favor of the recommendation to use the funds
to hire a new officer.
Councilmember Beach stated that without a doubt the community is evolving and growth is on the horizon.
She stated that the City will need more officers. But her question is whether now is the right time to do that
when they just brought on two new officers this summer. She discussed the CalPERS discount rate and
pension liabilities that the City is facing and wondered if this was a best use for the funds now. She stated
that the funds could be used for additional training for the officers or for crime prevention programs.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that it was a reasonable question.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that hiring new officers was part of how Measure I was sold to the public. He
discussed the fact that during the construction phase of the new developments they will need additional
officers. Therefore, he stated he agreed with the City Manager’s recommendation.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the $200,000 included all costs of hiring a new officer: salary, benefits, and
pension. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the two officers the Police Department hired were straight out of the
academy. She explained that it is important to understand that these new officers are under a lower pension
formula, and therefore their pension costs are not equivalent to that of an officer who has been with the City
for 20 years. Additionally, she discussed that a number of police officers are reaching retirement age.
Therefore, she felt that this was a good time to hire new officers so that they could be trained by more senior
officers before they retire.
Councilmember Keighran reviewed the statistics that were in the Police Chief’s memorandum. She stated
that in 2000, the Police had 30,000 calls for service, and in 2017 had 42,000. She asked what this increase
was due to. Police Chief Wollman listed various reasons for this including: increased tourism, easy access
off and on the freeway, and Proposition 47. He explained that Proposition 47 reduced crimes that had
previously been felonies to misdemeanors. He stated that it is now only a misdemeanor if you steal less than
$900 of property. Therefore, criminals are more willing to take the risk if they know they will only get a
ticket if caught.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked the Police Chief for his memorandum and for benchmarking the City against
other cities in the area. He discussed that when advocating for Measure I, the City Council had made a
commitment to the community that funds would be used to enhance safety. He stated that he felt
comfortable with the City Manager’s recommendation and liked that the cost of the officer was tied to a
constant source.
Next, Mayor Brownrigg directed the City Council to discuss the City Manager’s recommendation of utilizing
approximately $575,000 for streets and sidewalks. He asked if City Manager Goldman was recommending a
certain percentage split between streets and sidewalks.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
6
City Manager Goldman stated that she would leave it up to the discretion of DPW Murtuza how the money
was split between streets and sidewalks.
City Attorney Kane stated that when it comes to sidewalk repairs, the City would be paying money out to
either plaintiffs or to fix sidewalks. She stated that DPW Murtuza had been working to prioritize projects
that would improve older infrastructure and make it accessible to as many as possible.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the way the City Manager’s recommendation worked was $1 million was
fixed for the lease revenue bond, $200,000 was for an officer, and the remainder goes towards streets and
sidewalks. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the tax became effective on April 1, 2018. Finance Director Augustine replied
in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson and Finance Director Augustine discussed how the funds would be handled between
when the tax becomes effective and when the City has enough to hire an officer or bond for the community
center.
Councilmember Keighran asked if Public Works would create a master plan informing the public of the list
of priorities for sidewalks and streets. Additionally, she asked if Measure I funds would be used to improve
El Camino Real. DPW Murtuza stated that the City has a master plan and that currently there is a backlog of
work that needs to be done on city streets. He stated that El Camino Real is owned by Caltrans and that the
ECR task force is creating a plan with Caltrans on how to improve the street.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she agreed with the City Manager’s recommendation for funds towards
streets and sidewalks. She discussed the fact that Burlingame enjoys its status as a City of Trees, but that the
trees are damaging sidewalks. Therefore, it is the City’s responsibility to address the damage that trees cause
to the sidewalks.
Councilmember Beach stated that she approved of spending money on infrastructure because it is an
essential city service. She discussed how SB1 funds could potentially double what the City receives from
the state to address street improvements.
Councilmember Ortiz asked about the Oversight Committee. City Manager Goldman stated that the
committee would have five members, and that applications were due on Januar y 31, 2018. She stated that
the committee is responsible for reviewing the audit and ensuring that the City is keeping its promise on how
funds are spent.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if establishing the expenditure plan now would lock them in for future years. City
Manager Goldman stated that staff would be bringing the expenditure plan back to the City Council ever
year for review.
Councilmember Ortiz stated his approval to spend money to fix both the sidewalks and streets.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
7
Councilmember Keighran asked if SB1 funds could be used for sidewalks. DPW Murtuza stated that SB1
funds will only be for road improvements.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she would leave it up to the discretion of DPW Murtuza to prioritize
funds for sidewalks and streets.
Councilmember Beach discussed the expense of bike paths and the need to address the funding that will be
required to create paths.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Brian from “Housing 4 All Burlingame” stated that Council should focus on affordable housing in
Burlingame and not a new recreation center.
Jennifer Pfaff discussed the high cost of creating an underground parking structure for a new community
center and whether Council could use parking funds from the Lots F and N project towards the community
center.
Elana Lieberman from “Housing 4 All Burlingame” stated that the Council’s top priority should be
affordable housing and discussed her review of the surveys.
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
City Manager Goldman thanked the Council for direction and stated that the expenditure plan would be
brought back to the City Council for adoption.
5. AFFORDABLE HOUSING DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
a. HOUSING GOALS DISCUSSION
CDD Meeker thanked William Lowell from Home for All and Armando Sanchez from HEART for attending
the meeting and stated that they would be available to answer questions.
CDD Meeker stated that Burlingame is in the midst of strong economic growth. The growth has resulted in a
sizable increase in new jobs, but communities throughout the area have had difficulty developing additional
housing to keep pace with the growth.
CDD Meeker stated that currently the jobs-housing gap ratio is 1 to 16. He explained that this situation is
particularly challenging for those making lower wages. A significant number of new jobs pay lower income
wages, including jobs generated by new development. Those in the low-wage workforce increasingly
commute into the area from long distances, which results in increased traffic in the region and ultimately
limits the pool of employees for local businesses.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
8
CDD Meeker continued by stating that the City has been proactive in addressing the supply aspect of the
housing situation through the encouragement and approval of significant numbers of new housing units. He
explained that 472 units have been approved, and an additional 334 units are currently being reviewed by the
Planning Commission, for a total of 806 units. Of these, 178 would be priced below market rate for
households in the moderate, median, low, or very low income categories. Additionally, approximately 500
units have been presented to the public in conceptual form, but either have not been formally submitted for
review, or are part of master plans with development projects to be submitted at a later date.
CDD Meeker stated that additional units have been discussed in conjunction with the update of the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
CDD Meeker stated that on June 19, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing commercial
linkage fees for new commercial development in Burlingame. These fees will provide a dedicated source of
funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame. Although no commercial linkage fees
have been collected yet, there are currently two projects under review that would be subject to commercial
linkage fees. It is estimated that the City will collect between $3.3 and $3.9 million from these projects.
CDD Meeker stated that on October 16, 2017, the City Council discussed potential uses for the commercial
linkage fees and housing impact fees. The City Council expressed interest in the following:
1. Housing Trust Funds-HEART of San Mateo – giving HEART a portion of the City’s linkage and
impact fees to use towards projects that are ready for development throughout the County. The funds
plus interest would be returned to the City when it is ready to deploy them locally.
2. Emergency Rent Assistance – allocating a portion of funds collected to emergency rent or assistance
with utility bills.
3. Samaritan House – currently provides emergency rent and utility bill assistance for individuals and
families facing unanticipated crises.
4. Retention and Rehabilitation of Existing Housing Stock – allocating funds for retention of existing
housing stock
5. Rent Subsidies – provide rental assistance to lower-income households
6. Notice of Funding Availability – City issues notice to receive proposals for housing services
7. Housing Resources webpage – City maintains a web page devoted to affordable resources at:
https://www.burlingame.org/departments/planning/affordable_housing.php.
CDD Meeker discussed the Home for All Community Engagement Strategy. He stated that the first
community engagement meeting is scheduled for Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 9 a.m. at the Lions Club.
CDD Meeker reviewed the next steps. He stated that staff is looking to confirm Council’s interest in
providing both short term and long term funding at a 25/75 ratio. Staff is also looking for direction on
housing impact fees. He stated that the staff report contains a table summarizing the housing impact fees of
other cities in San Mateo County.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
9
CDD Meeker stated that it is expected that the housing impact fees will collect $14-15 million. Lastly, he
stated that there is state legislation that provides for additional funding sources.
City Manager Goldman suggested that the first question that the City Council should focus on is how they
think the housing impact and commercial linkage fees should be spent. If the City Council decides it wants
to do both housing loans and emergency assistance, the Council should decide the ratio of funding.
Councilmember Keighran asked if Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) are included in the new unit
numbers. Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the negative, stating that it was hard to forecast ADUs.
Councilmember Keighran asked that staff track ADUs. She stated that she had gone to a Home for All
presentation on ADUs and it was noted that San Mateo County has the potential to add 14,000 ADUs in
unincorporated.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he felt certain that based on the passage of recent state legislation, Council
would need to create a subcommittee to help planning staff prioritize.
Councilmember Beach raised the concern of the “missing middle”, those who make above 60% AMI (Area
Median Income) but need assistance. She stated that the housing impact/commercial linkage fees might be
best served focusing on those individuals.
Home for All representative William Lowell stated that by limiting affordable housing to those below 60%
AMI, new buildings would be able to apply for tax credits. Therefore, he explained that Councilmember
Beach’s concern was valid and that most cities address this issue through inclusionary ordinances.
Armando Sanchez from HEART discussed recent Council meetings in Palo Alto where the fact that most
teachers fall into the missing middle was raised. He stated that there is a tremendous need to address this
missing middle.
Councilmember Ortiz asked given the limited resources what would Mr. Sanchez do. Mr. Sanchez stated
that he believed the City was on the right track of thinking about immediate needs, long term solutions, and
the missing middle.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if there was a “per door cost” estimate for affordable housing. Mr. Lowell stated
that it is rapidly increasing. He stated that it is $500,000 with land and $300,000 without land. He added
that finding land and the cost of development are the two main impediments to creating affordable housing.
Mr. Lowell stated that he was impressed that the City was dedicating its own land (Lots F and N) for
affordable housing. He explained that it was the first time he had heard of this being done, outside of land
from redevelopment agencies and federally funded projects.
Mayor Brownrigg opened up the item for public comment.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
10
Planning Commissioner Terrones stated that he hears from developers that there are a number of hurdles
they feel they have to go through in Burlingame that they don’t have to go through in other communities. He
stated that part of the problem is the Planning Commission and added that he hopes the update to the General
Plan helps solve some of the issues.
“Housing 4 All Burlingame” representative Cynthia Cornell stated that renter protections are essential and
that the City needs to adopt a just-cause eviction ordinance.
“Housing 4 All Burlingame” representative Brian stated that the City shouldn’t offer rent subsidies as this
was just redirecting money into the pockets of private developers. He urged the City to protect the renters in
the community.
Burlingame resident Mike McCord stated that the issue of affordable housing is a Peninsula-wide issue. He
stated that he believes the City needs to be open to the idea of higher density.
Former Mayor Terry Nagel thanked Council for addressing the issue and stated that the City Council should
ensure that housing developments add a public benefit like gardens and playgrounds. She also asked the
Council to consider restoring inclusionary housing and adopting an ordinance that requires safety inspections
of multi-family dwellings.
Burlingame resident Ross Bruce voiced his concern that if Measure T was repealed, the issue of housing
might be politicized by future Councils. Additionally, he suggested that the City Council consider increasing
density in the Broadway business district area.
“Housing 4 All Burlingame” representative Elana Lieberman stated that the Council must prioritize building
housing for the lowest income levels first, and Measure T must be amended or rescinded as it inhibits the
City’s ability to address the housing crisis.
Burlingame resident Steve Staluka stated that he was against the repeal of Measure T.
Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment.
Mayor Brownrigg noted for the audience that the discussion was not about rent control but rather a
conversation about how to create additional units.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that this discussion was the Council’s most important issue for the year and that it
would set up policy for the next 20 years. She stated that the challenge was to balance the impending needs
of the diverse community with the love of maintaining the City’s charming quaint aesthetic.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was in favor of putting 75-80% of the funds into a longer term strategy
and the rest into immediate strategies like emergency rent assistance. She stated that if the City invested
funds with HEART, the City would receive a 3-4% return which could be used to continue funding
immediate needs. Then when the City has a long term project they can call back the loan from HEART.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
11
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was in favor of allocating 25% to short term and 75% to long term.
Councilmember Keighran said she was in agreement with this distribution. She stated that the City needed
to figure out how best to partner with organizations like Mid-Peninsula Housing or HEART because they are
the experts in this field.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was struggling with this issue. He stated that that the missing middle
that make above 60% of AMI concerns him. He explained that he thought the City should focus their efforts
on the missing middle because there are a lot of resources and funding sources for those below 60% AMI.
However, he stated that he didn’t feel that he had enough information to set allocations now.
Councilmember Keighran stated that they needed to start somewhere and that this is new territory for the
City Council. She stated that she believed that a majority of the funds should go into long-term solutions.
Mayor Brownrigg concurred with Councilmember Keighran that while he too was struggling with this issue,
the City Council should approve allocations for now that could be reviewed later.
City Manager Goldman referred to page 6 of the staff report stating that based on City Council’s previous
discussions, funds should be used for:
1. Investment in proposed projects to be built by non-profit affordable housing developers with a higher
priority to funding projects to be built within Burlingame
2. Rent subsidies to assist existing residents who are vulnerable to loss of their homes for various
reasons (e.g. health issues, divorce, job loss, etc.) with an emphasis on very low income
individuals/families.
3. Rehabilitation of existing buildings in return for maintaining rents at an affordable level.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that if the City choses to partner with HEART, HEART would use the money to
build housing in or around Burlingame. She stated that this is one of the most expedient ways to help solve
the issue on a countywide level. Additionally, she added that lending the money to HEART not only
addresses housing issues on a countywide level, but it also gives the City time to raise funds and determine
how best to use them in their own community.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the Vice Mayor’s suggestion was to use the long-term allocation as a loan to
HEART, until the City had its own project.
Vice Mayor Colson replied in the affirmative, stating that there could be shovel ready projects in East Palo
Alto that would benefit from the loan, while the City looks at additional solutions.
Councilmember Ortiz voiced his concern about using a bulk of the funds to promote affordable housing
outside of Burlingame.
Councilmember Keighran echoed his concerns.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
12
Councilmember Beach stated she supported the Vice Mayor’s suggestion. She stated that in the short term,
the funds would help the County, but in the long term as the nest egg grew it would help the City.
Additionally, she stated that the City should ensure that emergency subsidies include the missing middle.
Councilmember Keighran stated that her concern with loaning funds to organizations like HEART is that she
wants to ensure that Burlingame residents are assisted.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he understood the need for emergency rent subsidies. However, he explained
that he had an aversion to subsidizing the private sector. Additionally, he stated that he would like more
information on how this program would be carried out.
City Manager Goldman stated that Samaritan House and United Way have programs in place for rent
subsidies.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed that re-location assistance should be borne by the landlord and
that emergency subsidies should be given to those who are in the midst of a crisis and need a little help.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if using funds for emergency rent subsidies would require hiring another staff
member. CDD Meeker stated that staff is pursuing different avenues for assistance, including consulting
help.
Councilmember Beach asked staff to engage with community stakeholders like Home for All and real estate
professionals to garner a better understanding of emergency subsidies.
Councilmember Ortiz suggested that the City partner with a non-profit that handles emergency subsidies.
Vice Mayor Colson agreed with Councilmember Ortiz and stated that non-profit organizations have
extensive expertise in this area.
City Manager Goldman asked if the Council wanted to provide subsidies for landowners to rehabilitate their
properties in exchange for maintaining affordable rents.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if there was any estimate of how many units this would protect.
Councilmember Keighran asked staff to look at what Redwood City had done in this area. She explained
that she believed that Redwood City had lent money to property owners for upgrades in exchange for
keeping rent at affordable prices. She asked staff to find out more about the program and whether it was
successful and how it was implemented.
At this point it was close to 11:45 am and the meeting was scheduled to end at noon, Mayor Brownrigg
asked if they should extend the meeting as they had not yet discussed housing impact fees.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
13
Councilmember Keighran stated that there was a lot to discuss and she didn’t want to rush the conversation.
Mayor Brownrigg concurred and asked that staff schedule a study session on housing impact fees.
Councilmember Beach stated she was very much in support of incentives for safety improvements to
buildings as she was especially concerned about seismic retrofits of older apartment buildings.
Mayor Brownrigg discussed Planning Commissioner Terrones’ comments about the hurdles that developers
face in Burlingame. He explained that with state legislation, affordable housing and the commercial linkage
and housing impact fees, the Council should review how this will affect the planning staff.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was proud of the Lot F and N project but that generally there is not City land
available for projects. Instead, the City is going to have to get creative and look at other options. He
explained that one of the reasons Burlingame has thrived is because it has a great school system. In order to
maintain a great school system, the City must ensure that it has housing for teachers. He noted that he had
recently had lunch with some of the hotel representatives and that they were concerned about Topgolf and
the number of employees it would need. He stated that it is hard for the hotels to find staff that can afford to
work in Burlingame and live in the area.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed the City needs to create inclusionary housing requirements. He
explained that Measure T prohibits the Council from requiring developers to include affordable units. And
while the Summerhill project did so on their own accord, this wouldn’t be standard. He discussed state
legislation that ties the Council’s hands when it comes to approving new units. Additionally, he stated that
he was disappointed with the hospital for building over 1200 units, none of which will be affordable.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he feels it is critical that the Council be able to require affordable units in
bigger developments.
Vice Mayor Colson and Mayor Brownrigg had a discussion about the state’s “by right” legislation and what
type of development was applicable. CDD Meeker explained that the “by right” legislation applies to
affordable housing that meets certain criteria.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was concerned that if the City instated housing impact fees and required a
certain amount of units be affordable, it would prevent development in the community. She stated that the
City shouldn’t get bogged down in a conversation about the need to repeal Measure T when the City
currently has tools in its tool box that can be used to assist in creating affordable housing. She asked if the
City could offer developers the choice of housing impact fees or a certain number of affordable units.
City Attorney Kane stated that she would need to further review the law on this matter.
Mayor Brownrigg suggested that the Council further discuss housing impact fees and inclusionary housing in
a study session.
Agenda Item 8b
Meeting Date: 2/5/18
Burlingame City Council January 27, 2018
Unapproved Minutes
14
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he agreed with Vice Mayor Colson that the conversation should be
combined to see if they could provide developers with the choice of a fee or require affordable units.
Councilmember Beach stated that the Council should also consider the interplay between the BMR
requirements, housing legislation, housing fees, and other fees that haven’t been updated since 2008.
Mayor Brownrigg asked about parking ratios. CDD Meeker stated that it would be discussed as part of the
zoning ordinance update.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the Council should have subcommittees to work separately on priorities for
long-term and short-term uses of impact fees.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he saw there being two long-term questions: 1. how do you manage the money
before you figure out how to spend it; and 2. what will the Council decide to ultimately spend the money on.
Mayor Brownrigg asked when the City would receive the impact fees. Planning Manager Gardiner stated
that the City is expected to obtain fees from the two large projects on the Bayfront in the next year or two.
Mayor Brownrigg suggested that the City should put out a Notice of Funding Availability. He explained that
HEART could be one of the proposals but that from these proposals the City could determine how best to
utilize the funds.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that Redwood City had also been awarded a grant from Home for All. Their grant
was looking at how best to structure and spend housing linkage fees. She stated that this would be a great
resource for the City.
City Manager Goldman informed the public that on February 5, 2018, the City Council would be holding a
study session to discuss the Village at Burlingame project on Lots F and N. Then on February 10, 2018,
planning staff would be hosting an event called “Talking about Housing” at the Lions Hall at 9am.
Councilmember Keighran asked that when the study session on housing impact fees is scheduled that she
would like to see a list of all the fees a developer currently pays in Burlingame.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 8c
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Three Vacancies on the Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill three impending vacancies on
the Planning Commission due to the expiring terms of Commissioners Peter Gum, Will Loftis, and
Richard Terrones. The recommended due date is Friday, March 16, 2018. This will allow
applicants three opportunities (February 12, February 26, and March 12) to attend a Planning
Commission meeting.
BACKGROUND
The City’s current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring
reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the
two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an
Agreement for Professional Services with MIG for the Development of a
Parks Master Plan
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City
Manager to execute an Agreement for Professional Services with MIG for the development of a
Parks Master Plan.
BACKGROUND
The City Council approved funds in the FY 17-18 Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program
to complete the City’s first Citywide Parks Master Plan. The Parks Master Plan will set the
framework for decision makers in the planning, maintenance, development, and/or rehabilitation
of Burlingame’s parks and recreational facilities by providing a systematic and prioritized
approach to implementation of parks and recreation projects. The City issued a request for
proposals (Exhibit B) on August 22, 2017, and received seven proposals by the October 17, 2017
deadline.
An Advisory Committee comprised of then-Mayor Ortiz, Councilmember Beach, Parks and
Recreation Commissioners Lewis and Matthews, Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad,
Recreation Supervisor Acquisti, Parks Supervisor Holtz, and Senior Planner Keylon reviewed the
proposals and determined that MIG, Verde Designs, and RHAA (Exhibits C, D, and E) were the
most qualified firms to be invited to an interview. The Advisory Committee conducted the
interviews on Wednesday, November 15, 2017.
At the conclusion of the interviews, the Advisory Committee selected MIG as the best qualified to
prepare the City’s Parks Master Plan based upon: 1) the firm’s involvement in numerous parks
master plans in comparable jurisdictions in the Bay Area; 2) the firm’s experience with and
approach to preparing a parks master plan, including the sub-consultants on the team who
specialize in Fee Nexus Studies and community surveys; 3) the firm’s recognized leadership in
community engagement, with the proposal including a comprehensive community participation
and outreach plan; 4) the firm’s current experience working with the Burlingame community
through the Envision Burlingame General Plan update process; and 5) the overall expertise and
energy of the team assembled for the project.
Parks Master Plan Agreement with MIG February 5, 2018
2
The City Council reviewed the recommendation from the Advisory Committee at the January 2,
2018 Council meeting but requested additional information about the qualifications of the firms
before approving the agreement.
DISCUSSION
The three firms selected for interviews submitted similar proposals in terms of projected cost and
deliverable tasks. As summarized in the comparison chart attached to this staff report, the costs
for similar work plans varied by less than $10,000. Therefore, the key differentiator in the process
was the interview and presentation to the Advisory Committee. The Committee’s strong
consensus after the presentations was to award the contract to MIG. The Advisory Committee
felt that MIG brought more energy and creativity to their presentation. MIG’s presentation
displayed the sense that they would generate new ideas and approaches while still focusing on
and fostering community involvement and providing the necessary deliverables.
While they are both qualified firms, Verde Design, Inc. and RHAA’s team presentations, in
comparison to MIG’s, lacked cohesiveness and an understanding of the City of Burlingame. The
Advisory Committee noted that during the question and answer session, responses from Verde
Design, Inc. and RHAA to some questions lacked confidence and gave the impression of
uncertainty. Those firms’ relative unfamiliarity with Burlingame and the City’s unique set of
circumstances/constituent expectations became evident in the interview process. Importantly, the
Advisory Committee felt MIG would be better able to respond to questions that may arise from
community members during the public process.
MIG has extensive experience in the Bay Area, and both their written proposal and presentation
reflected a familiarity with the City of Burlingame and knowledge of and attention to various
Burlingame-specific issues and projects, such as a desire for a town square in downtown
Burlingame, nearby Coyote Point and its existing amenities, possible indoor sports locations on
Rollins Road, Top Golf, and Measure I. Their written proposal was well-written, easy to read,
provided sample tools (flyer, project website, online survey) and followed and referenced the
RFP.
Because three qualified firms submitted similar proposals both in cost and scope of work, the
determination of which firm was best for this task turned on the Advisory Committee’s evaluation
of their performance and the confidence the Committee members had in the firms’ ability to
engage Burlingame constituents effectively.
Attached is a comparison of each firm’s deliverables (Exhibit F).
FISCAL IMPACT
The fee to complete the Parks Master Plan is $199,555. This includes an existing park and
facilities analysis, community engagement and surveying, a funding and implementation plan,
and a final Parks Master Plan to be approved by the City Council. The fee for optional tasks,
including an online interactive mapping survey, additional community/stakeholder
Parks Master Plan Agreement with MIG February 5, 2018
3
workshops/meeting, and public engagement support that may be required to ensure adequate
community input, is up to $50,000.
Adequate funds are available in the Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program budget.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Request for Proposals
MIG Proposal
Verde Design, Inc. Proposal
RHAA Landscape Architects Proposal
Firm Comparison Chart
Agreement for Professional Services with MIG
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH MIG FOR A PARKS MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council approved funds in the FY 17 -18 Parks and Trees Capital
Improvement Program to complete the City’s first Citywide Parks Master Plan in the amount of
$250,000; and
WHEREAS, the Parks Master Plan will set the framework for decision makers in the planning,
maintenance, development, and/or rehabilitation of Burlingame’s parks and recreational facilities by
providing a systematic and prioritized approach to implementation of parks and recreation projects;
and
WHEREAS, the City issued a request for proposals on August 22, 2017, and received seven
proposals by the October 17, 2017 deadline; and
WHEREAS, an Advisory Committee comprised of then-Mayor Ortiz, Councilmember Beach,
Parks and Recreation Commissioners Lewis and Matthews, Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad,
Recreation Supervisor Acquisti, Parks Supervisor Holtz, and Senior Planner Keylon reviewed the
proposals and determined that MIG, Verde Designs, and RHAA were the most qualified firms to be
invited to an interview; and
WHEREAS, the Advisory Committee conducted the interviews on Wednesday, November 15,
2017, and selected MIG as the best qualified to prepare the City’s first Parks Master Plan based upon:
1) the firm’s involvement in numerous parks master plans in comparable jurisdictions in the Bay Area;
2) the firm’s experience with and approach to preparing a parks master plan, including sub -consultants
on the team who specialize in Fee Nexus Studies and community surveys; 3) the firm’s recognized
leadership in community engagement, with the proposal including a comprehensive community
participation and outreach plan; 4) the firm’s current experience working with the Burlingame
community through the Envision Burlingame General Plan update process; and 5) the overall expertise
and energy of the team assembled for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council approves the agreement with MIG to complete the Parks Master Plan at a cost
not to exceed $249,555.
2. The City Manager is authorized to execute the contract amendment and any necessary documents
to undertake the above said work.
________________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer , City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 5th day
of February, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
for
Consulting Services for
The City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan
Issued: August 22, 2017
Proposals Due: October 17, 2017 at 3:00p.m.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ................................................ 1
2. PROJECT SCOPE ................................................................................................... 3
3. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................... 6
4. EVALUATION CRITERIA ......................................................................................... 8
5. SELECTION PROCESS AND TIMELINE ................................................................. 9
6. GENERAL CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 9
7. QUESTIONS AND INQUIRIES ............................................................................... 11
8. ATTACHMENT A - Professional Services Contract ............................................ 12
9. ATTACHMENT B - Insurance Requirements ....................................................... 17
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
1
1. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Introduction
The City of Burlingame invites qualified landscape architecture or park planning teams
to submit a response (the "Proposal") to the Request for Proposals ("RFP") for
managing, facilitating, and preparing the City of Burlingame's Parks Master Plan
("PMP"). This will be the City's first PMP. The PMP will set the framework for decision
makers in the planning, maintenance, development, and/or rehabilitation of
Burlingame’s parks and recreation facilities. Equally important will be that the PMP
provide a systematic and prioritized approach to implementation of parks and recreation
projects, including the following (not listed in priority):
1. Community Needs
2. Public Survey
3. Park and Facility Recommendations
The project is funded from City funds. Proposals that provide the scope of work in the
most cost-effective manner will be viewed more favorably.
Background
The City of Burlingame is situated within central San Mateo County and is bounded by
Millbrae to the north, Hillsborough to the west, San Mateo to the south, and San
Francisco Bay to the east. Occupying roughly 5.5 square miles of land area,
Burlingame’s population is approximately 30,310. Regional access to the community is
provided via U.S. Highway 101, which runs north-south through the eastern portion of
the city; State Highway 82/El Camino Real, which runs north -south through the central
portion of the city; and Interstate Highway 280, which runs along the western border of
the city.
The community boasts a healthy, balanced
economy; over 22,000 jobs are present within
the city and across multiple sectors. The city’s
residential property values are high, with a
median sale price of over $1 million for
residential units. The residential population is
split fairly equally between owners and renters,
with a slight predominance of renters at 52%.
The residential community of Hillsborough lies
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
2
to the west of Burlingame; Downtown Burlingame serves as the primary commercial
district serving this community as well.
Three primary commercial areas exist within the city: Burlingame Plaza shopping
center, located adjacent to El Camino Real near the boundary with Millbrae; the
Broadway commercial district, which provides a balance of local-serving businesses in
the central part of the city; and Downtown Burlingame, situated within the southerly
portion of the city.
Light-industrial uses are centered around Rollins Road, north of Broadway and west of
Highway 101, just a short distance south of the Millbrae BART intermodal facility on
Millbrae Avenue, adjacent to the northern portion of Burlingame. Office and addition al
light-industrial uses lie east of Highway 101 and west of Bayshore Highway, north of
Broadway in the city’s Bayfront area.
The city’s proximity to San Francisco International
Airport (SFO) has led to the development of 12
major hotels along the waterfront, with a total of
over 3,700 hotel rooms.
Transit operators within Burlingame include
Caltrain, which provides service at the historic
Burlingame Train Station located adjacent to
Downtown Burlingame, near the intersection of Burlingame Avenue and California
Drive; and SamTrans, which provides bus service. In addition, the Millbrae BART
intermodal facility, located near Millbrae Avenue and Rollins Road, is close to
Burlingame’s northern border.
Burlingame is a healthy, diverse, family-oriented community with a high quality of life.
The City offers a wide variety of services and recreational opportunities . The recreation
programs, which serve a variety of age and interest groups, include adult and youth
athletic programs, senior services, fitness and athletic instruction, classes, camps,
after-school programs, and aquatics programs. The City has a strong commitment to
providing high-quality parks and recreation programs for community members and
visitors. Currently, the Parks and Recreation Department (the Department) oversees
more than 110 acres of neighborhood and community parks. These facilities include
soccer, baseball and softball fields, the Bayside Dog Park, a Recreation Center, a Golf
Center, tennis courts, bocce ball courts, horseshoe pits, playgrounds, Bay trail, and
basketball courts. The Department administers year-round programming and events
for the community. Programming includes a preschool program and classes, youth and
adult sports, after school enrichment for school-age youth, and adult fitness,
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
3
educational, and support classes and programs. In addition, throughout the year the
Department offers about 15 different community events.
Purpose
Burlingame is essentially “built out,” with few vacant sites available for development. An
existing stock of parks and facilities date back to the 1930’s and has many elements
that may need rehabilitation or redesign to better meet current trends. The Parks
Master Plan (PMP) is intended as a tool to be used in guiding City decision-making
related to parks and recreation planning, programming, and funding on a long -term
basis. When complete, the PMP will support planning and programming by achieving
the following results:
Evaluation of the existing park system and amenities.
Establishment of the vision, goals, and policies that guide decision-making.
Documentation of the priorities and demands of the current population and
charting a long-range plan for accommodating anticipated population growth and
changes.
Development and prioritization of an implementation program that outlines
projects, anticipated costs, potential funding sources, and operation and
maintenance implications.
Creation of a maintenance priority plan.
Identification of facilities and amenities that should not be replaced.
Development of a record of issues discussed and decisions made.
Creation of a PMP that is viable for at least 15 years.
Development of a Parks and Recreation Fee Nexus Study to determine if the
existing impact fee is adequate, and to support an increase in the fee if
warranted.
In addition to Department staff involvement, a Master Plan Advisory Team (MPAT) will
be established to help oversee the development and progress of the master plan. The
City has established a tentative project budget of $200,000.
2. PROJECT SCOPE
A key component in creating the PMP will be a shared process that taps the opinions
and ideas of all stakeholders and includes a review of existing assets inventory,
demographics, and current planning standards. The scope of work will focus on the
following components: needs assessment; review and recommendation of
modifications, improvements, and additions to parks/facilities to meet current and future
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
4
needs; and financial implementation.
The following general description of the scope of services is not definitive and is
intended as a guide to illustrate minimum project requirements. Consultants are
encouraged to present their own path to producing a comprehensive PMP.
Project Management: Provide leadership, coordination, and facilitation for any
tasks proposed, such as schedule development (and updating), MPAT meetings,
staff meetings, sub-consultant services, etc.
Existing Facilities and Processes Analysis: Develop an assessment of
existing facilities, conditions, funding, and policies as an objective basis for the
identification of deficiencies and recommendations.
Trends and Standards: Review and interpret demographic, cultural, socio-
economic, and other trends relevant to Burlingame using available statistical
data. Highlight important changes expected in the demographic composition of
residents and discuss implications for future programs, facilities, and standards.
Provide additional analysis of emerging parks and recreation trends and current
state and national standards that will have an influence on the PMP.
Comparison of Parks and Recreation Resources: Compare the resources of
Burlingame with five (5) similar municipal parks and recreation departments on
the Peninsula and surrounding areas.
Citizen Interests, Needs and Customer Satisfaction : Determine community
member interests, needs, and customer satisfaction for recreation programs, the
parks, trails, open space, and other recreation facilities. Conduct a community -
wide, statistically valid survey to support and influence the recommendations.
Public Outreach: Develop and utilize effective methods to generate and
maximize public participation in development of the PMP. The outreach process
will include:
Gathering input through community workshops (3 minimum).
Stakeholder/focus group meetings.
Advisory Team meetings.
Contact with Burlingame School District and San Mateo Union High School
District.
A presentation to the Recreation and Parks Commission.
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
5
Presentations to other applicable committees.
A presentation before the City Council.
Other innovative methods (not listed above) for eliciting public and
stakeholder input.
Draft Master Plan and Final Master Plan: The Draft and Final PMP will
synthesize the data and information collected into a presentable document.
Additionally, the Draft and Final PMP should include:
Recommendations for standards.
A comprehensive list of recommended improvements and amenities for
individual existing and new facilities.
Cost projections per park (based on cost per square foot).
Department goals, policies, priorities, operations and maintenance needs.
Potential funding sources and a 10-year plan of implementation.
Inclusion of a Parks and Recreation Fee Nexus Study (pursuant to AB 16 00,
as codified in California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 5,
Sections 66000-6008) and/or “Quimby” Fee (pursuant to the “Quimby Act” as
codified in California Government Code, Title 7, Division 2, Chapter 4, Article
3, Sections 66475-66478).
A city-wide plan graphic illustrating existing and proposed facilities.
References to other applicable City documents as necessary.
To be Provided by the City:
A City Project Manager.
A Master Plan Advisory Team comprised of anticipated PMP
stakeholders and decision-makers.
Electronic access to all existing studies, plans, programs and other data.
Access to all applicable City records as determined by the City Project
Manager.
Assistance with community
meetings related to logistical
arrangements. City will be
responsible for the arrangement,
notice, and related costs associated
with the public input meetings. The
consultant shall review with the
Project Manager all prepared
information for the public meetings.
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
6
3. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A brief description of the consultant’s philosophy and/or approach to the project should
demonstrate the team’s understanding of the project. If the consultant is unable to
determine the extent of work required based on the information provided in the RFP,
this should be stated as well.
The City of Burlingame will not pay any cost incurred
by any consultant resulting from preparation or
submittal of a proposal in response to this RFP. The
City reserves the right to modify or cancel, in part or in
its entirety, this RFP. The City reserves the right to
reject any or all proposals and to waive any defects
and/or informalities.
Responding teams shall submit or deliver five (5) hard
copies of the complete proposal in a sealed envelope clearly marked "Parks Master
Plan" to:
City of Burlingame
Parks and Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
Attn: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Rec. Director
Proposals shall have a 30-page limit (not including front and back cover or table of
contents). Double sided is encouraged. Each consultant should adhere to the following
order and content for proposal sections. Each section should be labeled for ease of
reference:
A. Cover Sheet with Contact Information
The cover sheet should have the primary contact information including name,
organization, phone number, email, and address.
B. Transmittal Letter
The transmittal letter should state the team's interest in the project and
summarize the unique qualities and approach to the master plan, anticipated
interaction and involvement with City staff, approach to community outreach , and
a clear mission statement of how a mast er plan should be developed.
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
7
C. Qualifications
This section will discuss in detail the proposing team's qualifications, experience,
and ability in managing municipal master planning projects. Include:
1. Lead firm description.
2. Sub-consultant(s) description(s).
3. Team member resumes. Clearly identify the lead firm's project manager and
include up to three (3) resumes of lead firm staff and one (1) resume for each
sub consultant.
4. Organizational chart illustrating the management structure of the enti re
project team.
5. Similar projects. Include the name, location, completion date, and project
description of a minimum of three (3) similar master plan projects completed
in the last 10 years. In each example, provide the name(s) of team members
involved who will be assigned to this project and client contact references
(including name, title, phone number, and email address). The City of
Burlingame reserves the right to contact any of the organizations or
individuals listed.
D. Approach and Methodology
Describe your firm’s approach to master planning projects, the form or character
of the final product, and suggested methodologies for issues anticipated and
tasks to be completed. The City is open to any creative suggestions to the
Scope of Work outlined in the RFP that will improve the project.
E. Detailed Scope of Services
Using the general scope provided in this RFP as a
guide, describe the sequential work tasks planned
to carry out in accomplishing each of the
components including a detailed, itemized
description of each task and service to be
completed, meetings with staff and the community
as well as associated deliverables.
F. Project Schedule
Provide a project schedule indicating anticipated milestones and meetings , with
the estimated length of time for completion of the Master Plan process . Time
estimates should be expressed in number of days/weeks without reference to a
specific starting date. The schedule should identify when draft and final work
products will be submitted to City staff.
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
8
G. Contract Exceptions
Indicate any concerns with the terms of the City's "Agreement for Professional
Services" attached as "Attachment A". Please make comments as specific as
possible.
H. Conflict of Interest Statement
Include a statement disclosing any involvement with plan/development projects in
the City of Burlingame by the consultant (and sub-consultants) within the last two
years. The City of Burlingame reserves the right to reject any proposals having
the potential for conflict of interest.
I. Fee Proposal
Submit with the proposal, under separate sealed envelope, one (1) hard copy of
your compensation summary in a spreadsheet format to include breakdowns of
the phases and the costs for each. The consultant is free to format
tasks/milestones under each phase as deemed appropriate based on past
experience and understanding of the project. Also include the hourly rates (for
the lead firm and all sub-consultants), and any other applicable fees or expenses.
The City may elect to contract for all or only some of the phases of work.
J. Other Information
Include any other information you consider to be relevant to the proposal.
4. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Proposals may be evaluated using the following criteria and ranked accordingly:
A. Demonstrated ability to perform the services described.
B. Experience, qualifications, and expertise of the individuals assigned to the
project.
C. Experience in leading and delivering master planning services for Parks and
Recreation Departments.
D. Quality of work as verified by references.
E. Ability to complete the project on schedule.
F. An understanding of the City of Burlingame and its needs in a consultant.
G. Willingness to accept the City's contract terms.
H. Cost effectiveness.
I. Any other factors the selection committee deems applicable.
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
9
The City of Burlingame reserves the right to reject any late or incomplete submission,
and all proposals for whatever reason.
5. SELECTION PROCESS AND TIMELINE
The selection process is summarized below:
PRE-SELECTION: Proposals will be reviewed by a Selection Committee that will select
a short list of the two (2) or more "most qualified" finalists.
SELECTION: The Selection Committee will invite the finalists for an oral interview and
presentation. Project staff listed in the submittal must be present at the oral interview.
Interviews may or may not have their own separate scoring during the evaluation
process.
NEGOTIATIONS: The City will negotiate with the highest ranked firm. If an agreement is
not reached, negotiation will be terminated and started with the next highest-ranked firm.
This process will continue until an agreement is reached.
The City anticipates the following schedule:
A. Release of the Request for Proposals ...........................................August 22, 2017
B. Questions Submitted by...................................... 3:00 p.m. on September 20, 2017
C. Response to Submitted Questions by....................... 3:00 p.m. on October 3, 2017
D. Proposals due before...............................................3:00 p.m. on October 17, 2017
E. Development of short list of finalists for interviews ………...........October 26, 2017
F. Interviews ............................................................................November 14-15, 2017
G. Award of Contract by City Council..................................................January 2, 2018
6. GENERAL CONDITIONS
The following general conditions apply to Proposals:
A. General Guidelines for Content: The proposal shall be clear, concise, and
detailed enough to enable the Selection Committee to make a thorough
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
10
evaluation and arrive at a sound determination as to whether the respondent
meets the requirements of the City. The proposal should demonstrate that the
respondent has a thorough understanding of the City's requirements.
B. Duty to Inquire: Before submitting a proposal, respondents must carefully read
all sections of this RFP and fully inform themselves as to all conditions and
limitations. Should a respondent find discrepancies in, or omissions from, the
RFP documents, or should the respondent be in doubt as to their meaning, the
respondent shall at once notify the City. Such notifications and questions must
be in writing, and must be received by the City by 3:00 p.m. on September 20,
2017.
C. Explanation to Respondents: The City reserves the right to interpret or change
any provision of this RFP at any time prior to the due date. Such interpretations
shall be in the form of an addendum, and will be made available to each
organization that has received the RFP. Oral explanations will not be binding.
The City may determine that a time extension is required for submission of the
proposals. In such a case an addendum will be issued with a new due date.
D. Financial and Insurance Information: The City may require evidence, as it
deems necessary, of a respondent's financial stability. The City reserves the
right to request further information from the authorized representative of a
respondent, either orally or in writing. Written requests will be addressed to the
authorized representative of the respondent. The respondent is required to meet
the insurance requirements described in Attachment B of this RFP. Additionally,
the successful respondent will be required to obtain a City of Burlingame
business license.
E. Truth and Accuracy of Representations: False, incomplete, or non-
responsive statements will be cause for rejection of a proposal. The evaluation
and determination of the fulfillment of the above requirements will be the City's
responsibility, and its judgment will be final.
F. Rights to Proposal and Other Respondent Information: Information
disclosed in a proposal and attendant submissions, and all work submitted to the
City becomes the property of the City. Any information considered proprietary
shall be identified as such when the proposal is submitted. All documents
submitted as part of the proposal will be deemed confidential during the
evaluation process but may be subject to disclosure following an award.
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
11
G. Notification: All teams responding to this RFP will be notified of their selection
or non-selection after the Selection Committee has completed the selection
process.
H. Disclaimer: This solicitation does not commit the City to award a contract, to pay
any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal, or to procure a contract for
any services. The City, at its sole discretion, may reject any and all submittals.
7. QUESTIONS AND INQUIRIES
Your requests for information, questions, and clarifications should be submitted to:
Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – Phone: (650) 558-7307, Email:
mglomstad@burlingame.org
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
12
8. ATTACHMENT A - Professional Services Contract
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND ________________________________
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between (________________) (“Consultant”) and the City
of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California (“City”). Consultant and City agree:
1. Services. City wishes to obtain the services of Consultant for (Location) including
the following: (Description of Services) Consultant shall provide the Services set fort h in Exhibit
A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
2. Compensation. Consultant agrees to perform all of the Scope of Services herein
required of Consultant for an amount not to exceed $ 00,000.00, including all materials and
other reimbursable amounts “Maximum Compensation”. Consultant shall submit invoices on a
monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information to
determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills shall include a brief
description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours
spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the Consultant’s signature.
3. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereo f and terminates on
(Date) unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof. Consultant
agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to completion
and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this Agreement,
time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant’s control, other than
delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the Ci ty’s Contract Administrator
prior to the expiration of the specified completion date.
4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering
into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither thi s
Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without
the prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that
Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the Cit y.
5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the
duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance
coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached here to and
incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance
coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of
Certificates of Insurance and original endorsements to City. Except in the case of professional
design/errors and omissions insurance, the City shall be named as a primary insured.
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
13
6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless fro m and against any and all liability,
claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the
negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or
agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such
claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees,
agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and h old
harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and
indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to Cal ifornia Civil Code section 2782.8.
Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does
not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This
indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies
shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time
by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination,
Consultant shall be entitled to pro -rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior
to the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such
compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the
event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons
the project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall,
without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance
of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services
performed up to the time of Consultant’s cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any
damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment.
8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished
nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes,
photographs, computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final
revisions, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and
become the property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including
but not limited to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, an d any
other material referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this
Agreement, shall be made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without
restriction or limitation on their use. Upon City’s request, Consultant shall execute appropriate
documents to assign to the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this
Agreement. Consultant shall return all City property in Consultant’s control or possession
immediately upon termination.
9. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall
abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of
California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warra nts that all
work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws,
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
14
statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or
registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by
law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and
Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any
applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant
presently has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which
will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any
applicable state, local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should
nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such
conflict of interest so that the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement.
Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code §
81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement.
11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written
or oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter
hereof. The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a
beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established
herein. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by bot h
Consultant and the City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such
document shall expressly state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and
conditions of this Agreement. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any
provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any
subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agre ement. Multiple
copies of this Agreement may be executed but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in
the office of the City Clerk is the version of the Agreement that shall take precedence should
any differences exist among counterparts of the doc ument. This Agreement and all matters
relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to
the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity an d direction from its principal to
enter into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to
enter into this Agreement.
13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision
by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the
authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect , provided that the
remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to
give effect to the intentions of the parties.
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
15
14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be
in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i)
depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii)
transmitting such notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier
(“Courier”), postage paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii)
transmitting the same by facsimile, in which case notice s hall be deemed delivered upon
confirmation of receipt by the sending facsimile machine’s acknowledgment of such with date
and time printout; or (iv) by personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed
given on the date shown on the receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party
may, by written notice, change the address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be
sent.
15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of
the term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall
not be considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a
correct or complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor.
Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement.
When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the
masculine, the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singula r
includes the plural.
The terms “shall”, “will”, “must” and “agree” are mandatory. The term “may” is
permissive.
The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement
shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the
same or a different provision of this Agreement.
When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole
cost and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless spe cific provision
is made otherwise.
Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to
restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees,
contractors, subcontractors and employees.
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
16
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement.
CITY OF BURLINGAME CONSULTANT
501 Primrose Road Name
Burlingame, CA 94010 Address
By: By:
Lisa Goldman Name
City Manager Title
Date: Date:
Attest: Federal Employer ID Number:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number:
City Clerk Expiration Date:
Date:________________________________
Approved as to form:
Kathleen Kane
City Attorney
Date:________________________________
Attachments:
Exhibit A Scope of Services
Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
17
9. ATTACHMENT B - Insurance Requirements
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries
to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the
work hereunder and the results of that work by the Contractor, his agents, r epresentatives, employees or
subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 04
covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal &
advertising injury, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit
applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the
general aggregate limit shall be at least $2,000,000.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if
Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less
than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits,
and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily
injury or disease.
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the Contractor’s
profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.
If the contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be
entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the contractor.
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds on the auto
policy with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on
behalf of the contractor and on the general liability p olicy with respect to liability arising out of work or
operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished
in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the fo rm of an
endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20
10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance
as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self -insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after
thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City.
RFP - City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan, August 22, 2017
18
Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor
may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor
agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this
provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement
from the insurer.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may
require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of
ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the
retention.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless
otherwise acceptable to the City.
Claims Made Policies (note – should be applicable only to professional liability, see below)
If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:
1. The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the
beginning of contract work.
2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5)
years after completion of the contract of work.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form
with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase
“extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.
Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the
applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements
are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the
required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide
them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
including endorsements required by these specif ications, at any time.
Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk,
prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PROPOSAL | OCTOBER 17, 2017
PROFESSIONAL PLANNING AND DESIGN SERVICES
Parks Master Plan
800 HEARST AVENUE, BERKELEY, CA 94710 | 510-845-7549 | www.migcom.com
CONTACT: ELLIE FIORE, AICP | ellief@migcom.com
In association with
EPS | EMC RESEARCH
01 Transmittal Letter 1
02 Qualifications 3
03 Approach and Methodology 13
04 Detailed Scope of Services 16
05 Project Schedule 24
06 Contract Exceptions 25
07 Conflict of Interest Statement 25
08 Fee Proposal 25
09 Other Information 26
CONTENTS
800 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
P (510) 845-7549
F (510) 845-8750
www.migcom.com
PLANNING / DESIGN / COMMUNICATIONS / MANAGEMENT / TECHNOLOGY / SCIENCE
CALIFORNIA
BERKELEY, FULLERTON,
KENWOOD, PASADENA,
RIVERSIDE, SACRAMENTO,
SAN DIEGO AND SAN JOSE
COLORADO
DENVER
NEW YORK
PLEASANTVILLE
OREGON
EUGENE AND PORTLAND
TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO
WASHINGTON
SEATTLE
October 17, 2017
Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director
City of Burlingame, Parks and Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Request for Proposals for the City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan
Dear Ms. Glomstad and Members of the Selection Committee:
The MIG Team is thrilled with the opportunity to continue our partnership with the City of
Burlingame by leading the preparation of your first Parks Master Plan. Through our work
with Envision Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update over the last two
years, we have established a deep understanding of—and an appreciation for—this special
community. Since we have a core area of expertise in parks and recreation system planning,
we were delighted to see your RFP.
The Parks Master Plan is coming at the perfect time, following the General Plan Update
community process that refined the City’s goals and policies for parks and recreation and
affirmed its commitment to be a city of healthy people and healthy places. We understand
that Burlingame is a largely built-out community, yet it is experiencing growth and
anticipating more. This dynamic creates unique challenges for how the Parks and Recreation
Department can continue to best serve current and future residents. It also presents
exciting opportunities for creative solutions.
The MIG Team will create a Parks Master Plan that maximizes the city’s unique assets and
leverages recent, planned and potential investments. Our Plan will seek to strengthen and
improve the Bayfront as a recreation destination, building on the momentum created by
Topgolf’s planned improvements to the City-owned property. We will consider how the
outcome of November’s Ballot Measure I will impact Washington Park and the City’s overall
recreation system. And we will protect and strategically enhance key assets such as Mills
Canyon and the City’s system of creeks.
MIG is a regional and national leader in park and recreation system planning, with extensive
experience helping cities develop their first Parks Master Plans. We are also experts in
identifying strategies for built-out communities to maintain high service standards as the
population grows and higher-density housing develops. Our recently-adopted Palo Alto
Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan exemplifies this. The MIG Team is
uniquely positioned to support Burlingame in this effort, as we have a deep understanding
of the City’s governance and policies as well as its assets, character, and opportunities.
For this project, we have assembled the right team to match your needs outlined in the RFP.
Our veteran team of planners, landscape architects, and public engagement professionals
has a proven track record creating parks and recreation system plans. I will serve as
Principal-in-Charge alongside Project Manager Ellie Fiore, working collaboratively to provide
management and leadership for your Parks Master Plan. Ellie and Project Associate Lilly
Jacobson have worked with City Community Development and Planning staff and conducted
extensive outreach to the broader Burlingame community in support of the Envision
Burlingame General Plan Update.
We have complemented our core team of planners and landscape architects with
subconsultants who are experts in research and fiscal analysis. Frequent MIG partner, EMC
Research is an opinion research and strategic consulting firm that will conduct a statistically-
valid community survey to complement MIG’s community engagement efforts. EPS, also a
frequent MIG collaborator, will lend its economics expertise and undertake the impact fee nexus
study to support the Parks and Recreation Department’s fiscal health.
The MIG Team will partner with you on this effort in a manner that best supports your needs,
working alongside Burlingame's project manager to develop an actionable, exciting and
community supported master plan. Towards this end, our approach will result in a graphically
rich, easy-to-understand final product that will allow Burlingame staff, its partners and user
base to make informed decisions and accelerate project implementation.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me or project manager Ellie Fiore at 510-845-7549 or by email
at laurens@migcom.com or ellief@migcom.com to discuss our proposal in detail.
Sincerely,
Lauren Schmitt, ASLA, AICP Ellie Fiore, AICP
Principal Project Manager
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 3
About MIG, Inc.
MIG formed in 1982 to help our clients plan, design and
sustain places that support the environment and human
development. Our multidisciplinary firm has provided
strategic guidance in many areas of specialization
to clients across the nation. This includes park and
recreation planning as a core service, along with a focus
in public engagement, landscape architecture, park and
infrastructure design, urban planning, civil engineering,
and environmental and cultural resource planning. Our
team of 240 professionals assists public agencies on
projects that enhance community livability, support
revitalization and connect people with places.
MIG brings a strong facilitation and stakeholder
engagement process to all our projects to identify and
build consensus around the community’s vision for the
future and ensure community-driven outcomes from
our plans. For each endeavor—in planning, design,
management, communications or technology—our
approach is strategic, context-driven and holistic,
addressing social, political, economic and physical
factors to ensure our clients achieve the results they
want—on-time and within budget.
Our staff provide the strategic guidance needed to
invigorate and revitalize communities by increasing
momentum and support for implementation and
accommodating best practices, changing technology
and trends into defined and measurable actions that
enhance communities through parks, facilities, programs,
events and services. By incorporating technical rigor,
social understanding and economic realities from
the beginning, strategic plans that are realistic and
achievable can be readily implemented.
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
»Parks and Recreation Strategic /
Comprehensive Planning
»Needs Analysis and Level of Service Assessment
»Demographic and Trends Analysis
»Visioning and Goal Setting
»Operations and Maintenance Analysis
»Recreation Program and Service Planning
»Performance Measures and Metrics
Qualifications
02
»Recreation Economics
»Cost Recovery Analysis
»Community Outreach and Participation
»Meeting Facilitation / Graphic Recording
»Graphic Communications
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
»Park, Trails, Natural Areas and Greenways Design and
Master Planning
»Landscape Architecture, Urban Design and Placemaking
»Cultural Landscapes
»Environmental Education and Interpretation
»Healthy Communities Policy and Design
»Water Conservation Design
»Architecture and Interpretive Learning
»Civil/Infrastructure Engineering
»Environmental Planning/CEQA Documentation
»Universal Design and ADA Assessments
»Mapping and GIS Analysis
Subconsultants
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS
Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) provides
economic strategies and analysis that support the
use of land for parks, recreation, agriculture, and
habitat conservation. EPS funding plans and strategies
identify funding options and support the appropriate
programming and phasing of parks and recreation given
available resources. EPS conducts economic analyses
for a broad range of recreation and education uses
to determine demand and operating budgets. These
assessments support regulatory impact analyses as
well as public outreach efforts seeking to enhance and
sustain regional quality of life and the balance between
development, recreation, and conservation.
EMC RESEARCH
EMC Research (EMC) is a full-service research firm
having conducted thousands of quantitative surveys—
by phone, online, or mail. Staff has been involved in
more than 10,000 opinion surveys and over 1,000 focus
groups with an estimated 5,000 clients, at all levels,
ranging from political and public policy strategy polls
to extensive market share and customer satisfaction
surveys.
4 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
QUALIFICATIONS - TEAM MEMBERS
The MIG Team
For the Burlingame Parks Master Plan, we bring a highly experienced multidisciplinary team of professionals, including
top park and recreation strategists, planners and designers, economists, and public engagement professionals. Our
team members will work in a cross-disciplinary manner and bring local and national experience to help Burlingame
continue its legacy of high quality public service. A snapshot of the qualifications of our entire team is provided in the
table below. An organizational chart illustrating our team's management structure and five detailed resumes per the
RFP instructions (three for MIG, one for each subconsultant) are provided on pages 5-7.
Name/Role Education / Certifications Key Qualifications/Experience
MIG, Inc.
Lauren Schmitt, ASLA,
AICP, Principal-in-
Charge
MLA, University of Washington
BA, Architecture and Urbanism,
Smith College
Registered Landscape Architect
American Institute of Certified
Planners
»Firmwide practice leader for parks and recreation planning,
design and programming »Parks, recreation, trails and/or open space planning for cities
of Palo Alto, Morgan Hill, Cupertino, San Jose, Redwood City,
and El Dorado Hills and Sonoma County; Pittsburgh, PA; San
Antonio, TX; Minneapolis, MN; and Renton, Tacoma and
Edmonds, WA, among others
Ellie Fiore, AICP
Project Manager
Master of Urban and Regional
Planning, Portland State
BA, Sociology, Cornell University
American Institute of Certified
Planners
»Cross-disciplinary experience in parks and recreation, land
use, and sustainability planning and public engagement »In-depth understanding and knowledge of Burlingame with
current work on City's General Plan Update »Project manager for the Morgan Hill Bikeways, Trails, Parks
and Recreation Master Plan and Deputy Project Manager and
Public Engagement Lead for the Palo Alto Parks Master Plan
Richard Larson, RLA
Landscape Architect
BA, Landscape Architecture,
University of California, Berkeley
Registered Landscape Architect
»Accomplished landscape architect with over 35 years of
experience in master planning and site design of parks
including the Downtown Pleasanton Parks and Trails System
Steve Lang, RLA
Consulting Principal
BA, Landscape Architecture,
University of California, Berkeley
Registered Landscape Architect
»35 years of award-winning experience in master planning,
design and construction including specific experience
developing trails in powerline corridors
Lillian Jacobson
Project Associate
Master of City Planning and
Urban Design Certificate, MIT
BA, American Studies, University
of California, Berkeley
»Cross-disciplinary experience in community planning, design
and public engagement »In-depth understanding and knowledge of Burlingame with
current work on City's General Plan Update
Barbara Beard
CEQA Advisor
BS, Natural Resource Policy and
Management, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor
»Over 20 years of experience in preparing documentation
pursuant to CEQA and NEPA for a wide variety of projects
including recreational trails, public facilities, and parks,
including an IS/MND for Palo Alto's Parks Master Plan
Subconsultants
Teifion Rice-Evans, EPS
Principal/Fee Nexus
Study
MA, Economics, University of
Cambridge, UK
BA, Economics, University of
Cambridge, UK
»20 years of experience with particular expertise in public
finance and real estate economics to support sound policy-
making and prudent investment of public and private resources »A leading expert in nexus studies and development impact fees »Projects include park and recreation facilities fee nexus studies
for cities of Calistoga, Antioch, Fairfield and Santa Monica, CA
Sara LaBatt, EMC
Principal/Community
Survey
BA, Political Science, University
of California, Berkeley
»Nearly 20 years of experience in designing, conducting, and
analyzing opinion research »Her projects have resulted in improved parks systems, public
transportation, street and road improvements, public school
improvements, composting, pedestrian safety, and bike safety
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 5
QUALIFICATIONS - RESUMES
PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM
Lauren Schmitt Principal-in-Charge
Ellie Fiore Project Manager
TRENDS & NEEDS
Lauren Schmitt Ellie Fiore Lilly Jacobson
INVENTORY &
ASSESSMENT
Lauren Schmitt Ellie Fiore Richard Larson
NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
Lauren Schmitt Ellie Fiore Lilly Jacobson
RECOMMENDATIONS
& ACTION PLAN
Lauren Schmitt Ellie Fiore Barbara Beard
Trails &
Open Space
Richard LarsonSteve Lang
Fee Nexus
Study
Teifion Rice-Evans, EPS
Community
Survey
Sara LaBatt, EMC
Visualizations &
Technology
Richard Larson
Lilly Jacobson
Public
Engagement
Lauren Schmitt Ellie Fiore Lilly Jacobson
Parks & Recreation
Planning
Lauren Schmitt
Ellie Fiore
Richard Larson
Steve Lang Consulting Principal
TEAM ORGANIZATION
EDUCATION
»Master of Landscape
Architecture, University of
Washington
»BA, Architecture and
Urbanism, Smith College
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
»Registered Landscape
Architect: OR 428
»American Institute of
Certified Planners
PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE
Lauren Schmitt, ASLA, AICP
MIG Principal Lauren Schmitt, landscape
architect and planner, leads MIG’s parks
and recreation planning practice. She has
worked across the United States involving
communities in the planning and design
for parks and recreation for more than
17 years. Her facilitative leadership and
strong project management skills have
ensured the success of many complex,
multi-objective projects involving parks,
recreation facilities, natural and cultural
resources, trails, open space and events/
programming. By working on these
varied issues she stays well-informed
about national trends and best practices
in recreation, sustainability, resource
protection and funding. Lauren is
a frequent speaker on parks and
recreation issues at regional and national
conferences.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
»Parks, Trails, Open Space and
Recreation Plan, Palo Alto, CA
»Bikeways, Trails, Parks and Recreation
Master Plan, Morgan Hill, CA
»San Jose Greenprint, San Jose, CA
»Parks, Open Space and Recreation
Plan, Cupertino, CA
»Parks, Facilities and Recreation
Master Plan, Cosumnes Community
Services District, CA
»El Dorado Hills Parks and Facilities
Master Plan, CA
»Integrated Parks Plan, Sonoma Co., CA
»Comprehensive Open Space, Park &
Recreation Plan, Pittsburgh, PA
6 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
QUALIFICATIONS - RESUMES
EDUCATION
»Master of Urban and
Regional Planning,
Portland State University
»BA, Sociology, Cornell
University
PROFESSIONAL
AFFILIATIONS
»American Institute of
Certified Planners
PROJECT MANAGER
Ellie Fiore, AICP
Ellie Fiore is a planner who specializes
in developing and managing planning
processes and engagement strategies for
cities and public agencies. Ellie has worked
on a broad range of plans, including many
parks and recreation master plans and
sustainability plans. She was the project
manager for the Morgan Hill Bikeways,
Trails, Parks and Recreation Master
Plan and Deputy Project Manager and
Public Engagement Lead for parks and
recreation plans for the City of Palo Alto
and Sonoma County Regional Parks,
working collaboratively with Lauren on
these projects. She currently is Deputy
Project Manager and Planner for MIG's
ongoing update of the Burlingame General
Plan and brings an intimate understanding
of the community and city parks and
recreation facilities through this effort.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
»Envision Burlingame General Plan
Update, CA
»Parks, Trails, Open Space and
Recreation Master Plan, Palo Alto, CA
»Bikeways, Trails, Parks and Recreation
Master Plan Update, Morgan Hill, CA
»Integrated Parks Plan, Sonoma Co., CA
»Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan,
Cupertino, CA
»Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan,
San Jose, CA
»Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Plan and Community Cultural Plan,
Edmonds, WA
EDUCATION
»BA, Landscape Architecture,
UC Berkeley
REGISTRATION AND
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
»Licensed Landscape
Architect, CA #2042
»Lecturer, ASLA Licensing
Review
»CEDAT, AIA Emergency
Design Assistance Team,
Oakland Hills Fire area
»Guest Lecturer, Urban
Design Senior Studio, UC
Berkeley
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Richard Larson, RLA, ASLA
Richard Larson is a landscape architect
with over 35 years of experience in
the field, his work on design, design
development, and the preparation of
construction documents has benefited
projects of all types and scales, with a
focus on parks and activity centers in
urban and suburban settings. Richard’s
experience with park design includes
neighborhood and community parks with
consistent attention to incorporating
ADA-compliance and accessibility into
the fabric of site designs and program
areas, thorough attention to detail, client
concerns, construction issues, schedule,
and costs.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
»El Dorado Hills Parks and Facilities
Master Plan, CA
»Earl-Glenview Park Master Plan,
San Bruno, CA
»Florida Avenue Park Master Plan,
San Bruno, CA
»Cherryland Community Center,
Hayward, CA
»San Jose Three Creeks Trail, CA
»Downtown Parks and Trails System,
Pleasanton, CA
»Lions Wayside DeLucchi Park,
Pleasanton, CA
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 7
QUALIFICATIONS - RESUMES
EDUCATION
»MA and BA, Economics,
University of Cambridge, UK
PRESENTATIONS
»APA CA, 2015: Competition,
Collaboration, and
Prosperity in the East Bay
»League of Cities, 2005:
Parks and Open Space
Financing
AWARDS
»APA CA 2015, South
Fremont/Warm Springs
Community Plan
»AEP 2009, Outstanding
Document, East Contra
Costa County HCP/ NCCP
PRINCIPAL / FEE NEXUS STUDY, EPS
Teifion Rice-Evans
Teifion Rice-Evans is a land use economist
with 20 years of experience. He has
particular expertise in the areas of public
finance and real estate economics. He is
one of the firm’s leading experts in nexus
studies and development impact fees.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
»Calistoga Development Impact Fee
Study, CA; Citywide development impact
fee nexus study and commercial linkage
fee study for multimodal transportation
facilities, park and recreation facilities,
police and fire, public works facilities,
City administrative facilities
»Antioch Development Impact Fee Study,
CA; Citywide development impact fee
nexus study included fees for park and
recreation facilities, parkland, police and
fire, and public works facilities
»Fairfield Development Impact Fee
Studies, CA; Citywide development
impact fees and area development
impact fees for a broad range of
capital facilities including police, fire,
parks and recreation, transportation,
and other capital facilities
»Santa Monica Parks and Recreation
Fees, CA; Comprehensive parks,
recreation, and cultural facilities fee
nexus study. Fee schedule includes
fees on residential, commercial, and
visitor-serving uses and will help fund
a broad array of facilities
»South San Francisco, Public Safety
Capital Facilities Fee, CA; Fee covered
a broad range of public safety capital
improvements, including facilities,
equipment, vehicles and associated
replacement costs
EDUCATION
»BA, Political Science,
University of California,
Berkeley
PRINCIPAL / COMMUNITY SURVEY, EMC RESEARCH
Sara LaBatt
With nearly 20 years of experience in
designing, conducting, and analyzing
opinion research, Sara brings her can-do
attitude to managing a wide variety of
EMC’s projects and client relationships.
Well-versed in a number of topic areas,
Sara manages research for some of EMC’s
largest ongoing clients. Her expertise
includes travel and transportation, brand
studies, customer satisfaction, waste
reduction and water conservation.
Sara especially likes conducting
research that leads to improvements
for residents in their day-to-day life.
Her projects have resulted in improved
parks systems, public transportation,
street and road improvements, public
school improvements, composting,
pedestrian safety, and bike safety, and
she has additional experience conducting
research for elections and local offices at
all levels.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
»Santa Clara County Department
of Parks & Recreation Services,
CA; Multi-year, comprehensive
research program including: multiple
telephone surveys of voters or
County residents; intercept surveys
of parks visitors; focus groups among
residents who under-utilize parks;
and a survey of attendees of a Park
sponsored holiday event, followed
by a survey of residents and of
businesses
»City of Bellevue, Parks and
Community Services, WA; Print, web,
and phone survey to gauge Bellevue
households’ perceptions of city
services and facilities, understand
current behavior around parks and
facilities usage and identify residents’
priorities for future development and
programming
8 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
Planning Components
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATIONINVENTORY AND EVALUATIONRESEARCH AND ANALYSISGAP/NEEDS ASSESSMENTMISSION AND GOALSPRIORITIZATION AND FUNDINGPARKS AND RECREATIONTRAILSOPEN SPACE RE-ENVISIONING/MAXIMIZING PUBLIC SPACEPalo Alto Parks, Trails Natural Open Space and Recreation Plan, CA
Cupertino Parks and Recreation Master Plan, CA
Morgan Hill Bikeways, Trails, Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, CA
Emeryville Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, CA
San Bruno Earl-Glenview and Florida Avenue Parks Master Plans, CA
Coyote Point Recreation Area Eastern Promenade Project, San Mateo, CA
San Jose Greenprint, CA
Redwood City Parks and Facilities Needs Assessment, CA
El Dorado Hills Park and Recreation Master Plan Update, CA
Sonoma County Integrated Parks Plan, CA
Elk Grove's Plan for Play, Parks, Facilities & Recreation Master Plan, CA
Irvine Parks and Facilities Master Plan, CA
Pittsburgh Comprehensive Open Space, Park & Recreation Plan, PA
Anderson Park Renovation Master Plan, Wheat Ridge, CO
Longmont Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan, CO
Overland Park Comprehensive Parks System Master Plan, KS
Parks, Recreation, Open Space & Natural Resources Plan, Renton, WA
Loveland Parks, Recreation and Open Lands Master Plan, CO
Gunnison Parks and Recreation Master Plan, CO
Douglas County Recreation and Tourism Plan, NV
Sheridan Parks and Recreation Master Plan, WY
Napa Living River Strategy, CA
CPRA Strategic Vision Plan, Statewide, CO
Sparks Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update, NV
Pierce County Regional Trails Plan, WA
Minneapolis Downtown Service Area Master Plan, MN
Edmonds Parks, Recreation & Open Space Plan, WA
Coeur d’Alene Parks Master Plan, ID
Strategic Business Plan for Developed Parks, Metro Service Area, OR
Longmont Recreation Strategic Plan, CO
Lane County Parks Master Plan Update, OR
Wichita Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, KS
QUALIFICATIONS - SIMILAR PROJECTS
Similar Projects
The following matrix illustrates a sampling of MIG’s
depth and breadth of experience in projects involving
parks, recreation and open space planning. Relevant
projects on the following pages detail our expertise,
from vision through implementation, and address our
capabilities in project management and administration
of public projects that vary in scale and complexity.
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 9
QUALIFICATIONS - SIMILAR PROJECTS
Palo Alto Parks, Trails, Open Space and
Recreation Plan, Palo Alto, CA
The City of Palo Alto faced a significant challenge in
updating a long-standing Parks Master Plan within a
highly engaged community with complex and sometimes
conflicting priorities. The City chose to work with MIG
based on our innovative, problem-solving approach that
maximized flexibility in carrying out the project. The
Palo Alto system includes beloved community parks,
hillside open space preserves, bay lands, historic and
modern recreation facilities as well as local and regional
trail systems. To capture ideas across these many topics,
MIG utilized interactive online mapping to allow place-
based responses to questions about the quality, use
and ideas for the system. These geocoded comments
were incorporated into a GIS analysis of walkability
across the community that formed one of many layers
of analysis. Focusing on each of three elements of the
system (park lands and trails, recreation facilities and
programs) MIG’s custom-built analysis combined data
from nearly 60 different published sources, thousands
of comments from engaged community members and
extensive hands-on work with the Park and Recreation
Commission.
MIG embraced the complexity of this project and
designed public and decision-maker review exercises
that defined and prioritized action across 10 broad
categories. Public prioritization included an online
game—“Community Prioritization Challenge”—that
forced tradeoffs between highly desired actions based
on capital and operational budget realities. These action
areas were translated into on-the-ground ideas in a
conceptual plan for each of Palo Alto’s parks.
The resulting plan tells the story of the system and
highlights the most relevant findings across thousands
of data points in a clear and graphically rich document.
Ultimately the planning process won over critics, and
gained the support of a broad base of community
interests. The final adoption of the plan is only pending
the completion of a CEQA initial study/mitigated
negative declaration (completed by MIG to ease
implementation of resulting projects).
http://www.paloaltoparksplan.org/
Completion Date: 2017
Staff Involved: Lauren Schmitt, Ellie Fiore,
Barbara Beard
Client Contact: Peter Jensen, ASLA,
Landscape Architect
City of Palo Alto | (650) 617-3183
peter.jensen@cityofpaloalto.org
Cupertino Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, Cupertino, CA
The City of Cupertino, California, is a highly diverse
community known as a center of innovation in Silicon
Valley. Home of high-tech giant, Apple Inc., Cupertino
needed a consultant with expertise in park and facility
planning, recreation operations, design, outreach,
CAPRA accreditation, natural systems, diversity and
equity to lead in developing its Parks & Recreation
System Master Plan.
The Recreation and Community Services Department
turned to MIG, a proven entity who had helped update
the City’s General Plan and developed the Stevens
Creek Corridor Master Plan for their highest profile
park. By incorporating our local knowledge and the
preliminary analysis done by others, MIG redirected the
planning process to identify and respond more strongly
to the community’s vision for the future.
MIG summarized community priorities in key outreach
themes and critical directions for enhancing parks,
recreation facilities, trails, events and programs,
and open space. These were cross-checked with
residents through outreach to re-imagine and re-brand
Cupertino’s park system as a driver in establishing
the city’s character, interconnectedness, livability and
sense of place. Park access was evaluated through a
geographic analysis that considered different travel
10 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
modes, actual travel distances, barriers, forecasted
traffic congestion areas and needs for the equitable
provision of recreation opportunities for older,
underserved areas. Natural resources and systems were
mapped to better connect people to nature and tie the
benefits of park land to ecological functions.
While the project is still underway, these elements
will be used to create systemwide strategies and new
park guidelines to redevelop key sites through a better
understanding of operational needs and the benefits
desired by residents. City leaders are looking forward
to the adoption of this Master Plan and launching an
exciting new future for Cupertino realized through parks
and recreation enhancements.
www.cupertino.org/parksmp
Completion Date: 2019 (Anticipated)
Staff Involved: Lauren Schmitt, Ellie Fiore
Client Contact: Gail Seeds, Park Restoration and
Improvement Manager
City of Cupertino | (408) 777-3313
GailS@cupertino.org
Morgan Hill Bikeways, Trails, Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update,
Morgan Hill, CA
The City of Morgan Hill hired MIG to update and
consolidate three separate, outdated plans into a single
current and comprehensive plan for parks, recreation
and active transportation. The 2017 Bikeways, Trails,
Parks, and Recreation Master Plan (Master Plan) puts
into action the General Plan’s policy direction for usable,
complete, well-maintained, safe, and high-quality
activities and amenities that are accessible to all
ages, functional abilities, and socio-economic groups.
Drawing from community input and robust analysis,
MIG developed the Master Plan to provide a strategic
and practical guide for improving and expanding the
City’s recreation system, to support the vision of a high
quality of life and family-friendly culture in Morgan
Hill. Community engagement was foundational to the
development and direction of the Master Plan.
MIG led public outreach and engagement over two
years. This involved gathering extensive input from
the local community about current use, needs, and
preferences for the recreation system as well as
prioritizing projects for implementation. This entailed a
variety of methods and tools to engage and inform the
community including workshops, stakeholder interviews,
a stakeholder advisory group, project website, intercept
surveys (at parks, community centers, and popular
public spaces), an online mapping questionnaire and
community survey as well as public meetings and
hearings.
The resulting Master Plan provides a cohesive
community-based vision for the future along with a
comprehensive and implementable set of policies,
priority projects, and programs. These tactical
components will guide decisionmaking and investments
related to capital projects and recreation programs.
The document is designed for use by City staff,
private developers, and other decision makers in
shaping a vibrant recreation system tailored to the
community’s current and future needs. MIG also
prepared environmental review documentation for the
project, and developed an illustrative bikeways map to
implement one of the Master Plan recommendations.
https://mhparksplan.com
Completion Date: 2017
Staff Involved: Lauren Schmitt, Ellie Fiore
Client Contact: Chris Ghione, Director
City of Morgan Hill | (408) 779-7247
chris.ghione@morganhill.ca.gov
QUALIFICATIONS - SIMILAR PROJECTS
Morgan Hill Bikeways, Trails, Parks and Recreation Master
Plan Community Intercept/Pop-Up Event
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 11
Emeryville Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, Emeryville CA
After completing a major new General Plan effort,
the City of Emeryville selected MIG to create a Parks
and Recreation Strategic Plan. The project is designed
to build on the work completed for the General Plan
process and deliver a plan that sets immediate and
long-term actions for the community’s ambitious
vision. The implementation of this vision will continue
Emeryville’s transition from a primarily industrial enclave
to a thriving employment and residential center in
the East San Francisco Bay Area. This project included
extensive public input drawing from Emeryville’s
engaged citizens and expanding the involvement of
youth, employees and visitors. The analysis addresses
the challenges of a very confined community with
limited open space by carefully considering the activities
that should be supported in each site and within the
system as a whole. The result of this analysis includes a
series of existing park improvements and a preliminary
site program and conceptual design for each new park
site identified in the General Plan.
Implementation of this plan is driven by the
redevelopment of large areas in the city and key
partnerships with the Emeryville School District and the
East Bay Regional Parks District. Specific projects are
guided by a strong ethic of environmental and financial
sustainability. The ability to continue to maintain and
operate new facilities plays a key role in the prioritization
and phasing decisions alongside the ability of the park
system to improve water and air quality or capture and
store carbon.
http://www.ci.emeryville.ca.us/919/
Parks-and-Recreation-Strategic-Plan
Completion Date: 2011
Staff Involved: Lauren Schmitt
Client Contact: Diana Keena, AICP, Associate Planner
City of Emeryville | 510-596-4335
dkeena@ci.emeryville.ca.us
Earl-Glenview Park and Florida Avenue
Park Master Plans, San Bruno, CA
The Earl-Glenview Park Master Plan is a community-
driven vision for a new neighborhood park in San
Bruno’s Crestmoor Neighborhood. This Master Plan
was created through a collaboration between the City
of San Bruno, Crestmoor residents and community
members, and the MIG Team. This Master Plan provides
a framework for detailed design documents that will
guide the development of the park. It was shaped by an
extensive community process through which Crestmoor
neighbors of all ages engaged in thoughtful, informed,
and respectful dialogue to envision their future
neighborhood park. City staff and a subcommittee of
Parks and Recreation Commissioners participated at the
community workshops. The Master Plan is consistent
with the City’s neighborhood park standards. The park
design includes context sensitive features that respond
to the park’s unique setting and that meet the needs
and desires of the community.
The Florida Avenue Park Master Plan is a community
inspired vision for a new neighborhood pocket park in
San Bruno’s Florida Avenue Neighborhood. This Master
Plan was created through a collaborative effort of the
City of San Bruno, local community members, property
owners and the MIG-led Design Team. This Master Plan
provides a framework for detailed design documents
that will guide the development of the park. The
Master Plan was shaped by an extensive community
process through which neighbors of all ages engaged in
thoughtful, informed, and respectful dialogue. The Park
Master Plan is consistent with the City’s neighborhood
park standards and includes amenities that respond to
the park’s context, meet the needs of the neighborhood
and reflect the desires of the community.
Completion Date: 2017
Staff Involved: Richard Larson
Client Contact: Kerry Burns, Community Services Dir.
City of San Bruno | (650) 616-7181
kburns@sanbruno.ca.gov
QUALIFICATIONS - SIMILAR PROJECTS
12 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
Coyote Point Recreation Area Eastern Promenade Project, San Mateo County, CA
Coyote Point Recreation Area is a well-loved and
well-used park that is undergoing phased improvements.
The current Eastern Promenade Project will improve
and expand the only publicly accessible beach on San
Francisco Bay within San Mateo County, and will update
adjacent facilities to activate and accommodate the
anticipated increase in the area’s use.
MIG is currently assisting the San Mateo County
Parks Department with the programming, design and
environmental permitting for the improvements, which
include the expanded beach, a dune restoration area,
a multi-use beach promenade, a new restroom and
parking areas with stormwater biofilters. Additional
program elements to help activate the space may also
include a food truck gathering area, sand play area, wind
surfing amenities and interpretive signage or sculptural
elements. MIG is also assisting the County with public
outreach and facilitation to engage park users and the
community regarding the design, and updating the
existing CEQA documentation for the project as needed.
Completion Date: Ongoing
Staff Involved: Richard Larson, Barbara Beard
Client Contact: Sam Herzberg, Senior Planner
San Mateo County Parks Dept.
(650) 363-1823
sherzberg@smcgov.org
Santa Monica Parks and Recreation Development Impact Fee Study,
Santa Monica, CA - EPS
The City of Santa Monica was interested in establishing
a parks and recreation development impact fee to
help provide funding for future investments in parks
and recreation capital improvement and parkland
acquisition. The City had a special tax and development
impact fee that only generated modest revenue and
only applied to a limited number of land uses. With
the loss of tax increment revenues and continuing
desire of the community for investments in existing
and new parks and recreation facilities, development
impact fee revenues were viewed as an important,
potential contributor to future investments in parks
and recreation. EPS worked closely with staff in the
Community and Cultural Services Department, Planning
and Community Development Department, and Legal
Department to determine the appropriate methodology
and then conducted the necessary technical analysis
to determine the maximum, supportable fee schedule.
To help inform fee level recommendations, EPS also
conducted a comparative analysis of parks fee programs
in a broad range of cities in Southern and Northern CA.
Completion Date: 2013
Staff Involved: Teifion Rice-Evans, EPS
Client Contact: Travis Page, Senior Planner
City of Santa Monica
(310) 458-8341
Travis.Page@SMGOV.NET
Santa Clara County Parks & Recreation
Department Survey Services, Santa Clara
County, CA - EMC Research
EMC Research is contracted with the Santa Clara County
Department of Parks & Recreation for a multi-year,
comprehensive research program including: multiple
telephone surveys of voters or County residents;
intercept surveys of parks visitors; focus groups among
residents who under-utilize parks; and a survey of
attendees of a Park sponsored holiday event, followed
by a survey of residents and of businesses in the
neighborhood in which the event takes place.
Completion Date: Ongoing
Staff Involved: Sara LaBatt, EMC Research
Client Contact: Robb Courtney, Santa Clara County
Parks & Recreation Department
(408)-355-2244
robb.courtney@prk.sccgov.org
QUALIFICATIONS - SIMILAR PROJECTS
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 13
Furthering City and Community Goals
The MIG Team understands that the City of Burlingame
wishes to develop a Parks Master Plan that reflects the
community’s vision for its parks, recreation and open
spaces while providing clear direction for decision-
making and investments. To this end, our proposed
approach to the Parks Master Plan balances data
collection and analysis with meaningful – and fun! –
community engagement.
MIG’s interdisciplinary team of managers, planners and
landscape architects offers sound project management
skills, thoughtful process design, and engaging technical
approaches that are creative and data-driven. Our plan
will incorporate industry innovations and best practices,
including robust funding strategies. We will use
community and stakeholder input at key milestones to
guide the direction of the plan and
work with City staff and leaders
throughout the process. The result
will be a Parks Master Plan that is
customized to the unique needs
of the Burlingame community, has
broad-based stakeholder support,
and is readily implementable.
Specifically, the MIG-led Parks
Master Plan will provide specific
strategies, projects and tools to
help the City:
»maintain excellent service as
the community grows and
evolves;
»maximize the potential of
existing land and open space;
»identify creative solutions to
provide a range of diverse and
engaging park experiences; and
»implement strategies to incorporate usable open
space in new development.
Approach and Methodology
03
Advancing General Plan Directives
Following on the heels of the City’s first General Plan
Update in a generation, the Parks Master Plan is ideally
timed to advance the goals and policies articulated
by residents for parks and recreation, as well as
community character, urban design and health. Key
community goals include the following.
PROTECTING EXISTING COMMUNITY
CHARACTER, PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
A key finding from our General Plan outreach was that
Burlingame residents wish to preserve many cherished
features of their community, including existing parks
and open spaces. The MIG-led Parks Master Plan will
provide a roadmap to protect and strengthen existing
assets and reflect Burlingame’s unique character
throughout the system.
14 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
TARGETING AREAS FOR CHANGE
Just as the General Plan process began by identifying
areas of stability and areas of change in city
neighborhoods, our approach to the PMP will identify
strategies and system elements to maintain, improve or
replace. Many of Burlingame’s parks and facilities were
established many decades ago. Some of these features
may merit preservation and renovation while others
should be phased out to make room for more modern
solutions. Likewise, the General Plan identifies areas of
the City for change and new residential communities
– most notably the Rollins Road area and north El
Camino Real. New types and scales of development will
occur in these neighborhoods, necessitating new and
creative approaches to providing open spaces and parks
experiences.
CREATING MORE GATHERING PLACES
Burlingame residents wish to see more public spaces
that support both formal and information social
interaction. During MIG’s outreach for Envision
Burlingame, we frequently heard the desire for a
centrally-located “town square”. We will work with the
community and City staff to identify ways to create or
enhance gathering places in existing parks, new open
spaces, and throughout the city.
SUPPORTING OTHER COMMUNITY GOALS
The Parks Master Plan is an ideal opportunity to create
multiple benefits through targeted investment. Projects
identified in the PMP can diverse goals including support
community heath, access to healthy food, active
transportation and environmental sustainability.
Ensuring Diversity and Access
Burlingame residents have access to parks and
recreation experiences provided by adjacent
communities and private entities. These include the
Coyote Point Recreation Area and the diverse indoor
recreation uses in the Rollins Road area. The MIG-led
plan will take a full account of these facilities to ensure
the City focuses on complementary services and
equitable access. Our team will also bring innovations
and creative best practices that can help the city bring
unique, customized experiences to the city.
Our approach to park and recreation system planning
supports access to parks and open spaces for all
residents by considering the geographic distribution of
amenities as well as physical access and connectivity.
We also look for opportunities to support universal
design and play for all, while minimizing barriers to
participation, including linguistic, cultural and financial
barriers.
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 15
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Supporting Fiscal Sustainability
The City of Burlingame has established a set of parks
and recreation facilities that contribute to its high
quality of life, yet also currently has some of the lowest
park development fees on the Peninsula. The City
wants to ensure that future investments in its parks
and recreation facilities reflect community preferences
and are able to be sustained. This Master Plan will
explore the range of funding sources available, looking
for long-term financial stability. The Parks Master Plan
will develop funding strategies, including appropriate
development fees to ensure that new development of all
types addresses its impacts and contributes to the City’s
overall parks and recreation capital funding needs.
Incorporating Effective Community
Outreach
MIG’s process and products emphasize fair, transparent
and community-based decision making. Our proposed
work plan includes both “high-touch” and “high-tech”
engagement tools to facilitate participation by a range of
community members. Each engagement tool is designed
to generate meaningful input and data that can guide
staff and decision-makers in the development and
implementation of the Parks Master Plan. By developing
and sharing interim work products, including meeting
summaries and memos, we allow staff and stakeholders
to fully understand our analysis and how it informs
the planning process. Our iterative planning approach
uses feedback strategically, and clearly illustrates and
documents the basis for decisions.
Developing Engaging Plan Documents
The Parks Master Plan document will be user-friendly,
graphically-rich and accessible to residents, City staff
and decision-makers. We will strategically use maps,
tables, infographics and other visualizations to convey
key data, concepts and recommendations. The Plan
will include the right amount of data and detail for
staff to implement capital projects, secure funding and
make programmatic changes. The extensive data and
analysis developed during the planning process will be
included as appendices and technical supplements to
the document.
For example, MIG is developing the new Burlingame
General Plan as an ePlan. This tool allows easy access
and navigation to plan content access and enables
stakeholders to track implementation of key policies
and strategies. We propose linking the final Parks
Master Plan to the ePlan and including key plan
elements in the ePlan as appropriate, to increase
awareness of and access to the product.
16 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
Proposed Work Plan
The MIG Team’s proposed work plan builds upon the
scope elements outlined in the City’s RFP, and includes
subtasks and deliverables to further detail each project
task. We welcome the opportunity to refine this work
plan upon further discussion with you to best meet
Burlingame's needs.
TASK 1. PROJECT INITIATION AND ONGOING
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
MIG will work closely with the Burlingame Parks &
Recreation Department from kick-off through plan
adoption, providing project leadership and project
management. This initial task will position the project
team to launch the project quickly, ensuring smooth
project management, effective communication, and
team coordination.
Task 1.1: Kick-off Meeting
MIG will initiate the project by meeting with
Burlingame’s Project Manager and project team. At
this kick-off meeting, we will review the scope, budget
and schedule, further define deliverables, confirm
communication protocols, and discuss community
engagement efforts. As part of the project initiation
effort, MIG will prepare a consolidated request for
information (RFI) letter outlining information needs,
including existing studies, plans and other data.
Following the meeting, MIG will provide a revised
project scope and schedule that further detail the
critical path to completing both master plans.
Task 1.1. Deliverables
Meeting agenda, RFI; revised project scope and
schedule; brief meeting summary memo (Word/Excel/
PDF)
Detailed Scope of
Services
04
Task 1.2: Site Tour
MIG will tour City-selected representative parks
and recreation facilities, accompanied by the City’s
Project Manager and other City team members,
such as planning and maintenance staff. The tour
will provide an opportunity to discuss strengths and
challenges of the park system including operations and
maintenance issues, park and facility design, and recent
improvements. MIG will take notes and photos during
the site tour. We assume this tour will take place on the
same day as the kick-off meeting.
Task 1.2 Deliverables
Site tour notes (incorporated into the meeting summary
in Task 1.1. above) and photographs (Word/JPG/PDF)
Task 1.3: Community Engagement Plan
Following the project kick-off meeting, MIG will prepare
a draft community engagement plan that clearly defines
the City’s goals for soliciting public input and identifies
target audiences to engage in the planning process.
The draft community engagement plan will identify the
strategies and tools best suited to this effort, clarify
roles and responsibilities, and outline a schedule for
engagement activities.
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 17
This task will also include work by MIG’s graphic
designers to develop a project identity and “look and
feel” with a title, logo and templates to be used for all
project materials. Following review by City staff, MIG
will finalize the community engagement plan and begin
communication and engagement activities which are
described further in Task 3 below.
Task 1.3 Deliverables
Draft and final community engagement plan (Word/PDF);
draft and final project logo (JPG)
Task 1.4: Ongoing Project Management and Team
Meetings
MIG’s Project Manager will coordinate closely with the
City’s Project Manager throughout the project. This
task includes project management and coordination for
the entire duration of the project (assumed to be 12
months). We propose holding bi-weekly coordination
calls over the course of the project, as well as at least
four longer team meetings (in person or via screen
sharing) at key project milestones.
Task 1.4 Deliverables
Ongoing phone and email communication; bi-weekly
conference calls (up to 20); up to 4 additional team
meetings; monthly invoices and progress reports (PDF)
TASK 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRENDS
ANALYSIS
MIG will leverage its work on the Burlingame General
Plan Update to quickly develop a more nuanced
understanding and detailed documentation of the
City’s existing parks and recreation system. We will
also analyze relevant trends and other information to
understand the context in which the Parks Master Plan
(PMP) will be developed. These findings and analysis
will be summarized and presented in graphically-rich
Community Needs Assessment.
DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
18 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
Task 2.1 System Inventory
During this task, MIG will develop a comprehensive
inventory of the City’s parks and recreation system.
MIG will compile available data for the physical
system, including information such as park use, history,
condition and facilities. We will also compile inventory
data for the City’s recreation program offerings, and
evaluate resources that are accessible to the Burlingame
community but not owned or provided by the City.
Task 2.1 Deliverables
Parks and recreation inventory (Word/Excel/PDF)
Task 2.2: Policy, Process and Funding Analysis
MIG will develop a thorough understanding of
Department and relevant City policies and practices
to serve as a basis for recommendations. This will
include an analysis of Department budgets and existing
funding streams for capital projects as well operations
and maintenance. We will also review any existing joint
use agreements or other inter-agency cooperative
agreements in order to understand past, current and
potential partnerships. We will identify key issues
and considerations to inform the subsequent plan
recommendations.
Task 2.2 Deliverables
Draft and final memo (Word/Excel/PDF)
Task 2.3: Community and Trends Analysis
MIG will review available demographic data and
population forecasts, including data from the
Burlingame Unified and San Mateo Union High School
Districts, to understand implications for Burlingame’s
parks, recreation facilities, and programming. We will
describe national and regional recreation trends that
are relevant to Burlingame and likely to influence Plan
recommendations and Department decision-making.
This assessment will also include a discussion on
alternatives and best practices for evaluating level of
service.
Task 2.3 Deliverables
Draft and final trends memo (Word/PDF)
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 19
DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 2.4: Base Mapping and GIS Data Analysis
MIG will refine the Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Map we created during the General Plan Update process
to illustrate the City’s existing parks, open space and
recreation facilities. We will collaborate with the City’s
Project Manager to identify desired map features,
such as playgrounds, schools and trails, to develop
a comprehensive picture of the existing assets in
Burlingame.
MIG will evaluate access to parks and recreation facilities
to identify gaps in access through a technical analysis
using ArcGIS Network Analyst™. The geographic analysis
will consider how residents travel to parks and facilities
using existing access points and roadways, trails,
bikeways and sidewalks. This approach provides more
detail and accuracy than the traditional radial service
area analysis (which MIG completed during the General
Plan process). The service area for each site will be
depicted graphically, highlighting gaps and considering
land uses and population density.
Task 2.4 Deliverables
Base map and up to three geographic analysis maps
(ArcGIS/PDF)
Task 2.5: Agency Resource Comparison
MIG, in consultation with the City, will identify up to 5
cities and/or organizations to research and compare with
Burlingame in terms of park, open space and recreation
facility provision. We will also compare maintenance and
operation resources, including staff positions, budgets
and funding sources. MIG will present these findings
in a memo that provides benchmarks for the City of
Burlingame to consider in the PMP process, using local
and national best practices.
Task 2.5 Deliverables
Draft and final summary memo (Word/PDF)
Task 2.6 Community Needs Assessment
The Community Needs Assessment task will build on
the preceding work and present community priorities,
park land and reinvestment needs, facility and program
improvements as well as the draft vision and goals
for the Parks Master Plan. The Needs Assessment
will include maps, tables, infographics and other
visualizations to communicate our findings and will
be used as the basis for the first round of public and
stakeholder engagement.
Task 2.6 Deliverables
Draft and revised Community Needs Assessment
(ArcGIS/Illustrator/Word/PDF)
TASK 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND
SURVEY
This task is designed to help the MIG Team and the
City promote participation in the planning process and
generate data so that the Plan reflects community
values and priorities. We will leverage our extensive
community experience with Envision Burlingame to
ensure all activities are effective and efficient. Our
data-driven approach supports transparency, allowing
us to create a comprehensive record of input received
and how it was used to shape decisions. The proposed
timing of specific subtasks is illustrated in the schedule
on page 24.
Task 3.1 Stakeholder Interviews
MIG will conduct up to 6 hours of one-on-one or
small group interviews with community members.
Participants will be chosen to represent users
and interest groups such as organized sports
and environmental advocacy groups, as well as
representatives from the Burlingame and San Mateo
Union High School Districts, including students. This
task assumes that these interviews will take place
on one day and that the City will be responsible
for invitations and meeting arrangements. MIG will
prepare a summary of findings and themes from these
interviews, with input reported in the aggregate (so that
no comment is attributed to individuals or groups).
San José Greenprint
20 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 3.1 Deliverables
Two team members for up to 6 hours of interviews;
Draft and final summary (Word/PDF)
Task 3.2 Phone and Online Surveys
The MIG Team will conduct a statistically-valid phone
survey and two online surveys to gauge community
interests, needs, and current satisfaction with parks,
programs, open spaces and facilities. EMC will conduct
live telephone interviewing, using both landlines and
cell phones, among City residents registered to vote.
EMC will program an online version of the survey and
provide a survey link for the City of Burlingame to
distribute to gather additional data to supplement the
statistically-valid survey. A second online survey will be
used to collect feedback on the draft plan framework
(Task 4). MIG will develop a promotional strategy for
both online surveys to encourage participation, and the
City will be responsible for distributing the survey links
and promotional materials.
Task 3.2 Deliverables
Phone Survey: Draft and final survey questions,
approximately 300 phone surveys, topline results, data
analysis and a summary of key findings (Word/Excel/
PPT/PDF)
Online Surveys: Draft and final survey questions, web
links, data analysis and a summary of key findings
(Word/Excel/PPT/PDF)
Task 3.3: Pop-Up Activities
MIG proposes to conduct up to four “pop-up” activities
in City parks, at recreation facilities, during planned
community events (such as the Pet Parade or Movies
in the Park) and in high-traffic public places. These
pop-ups use interactive displays that allow residents
to identify community needs and priorities and learn
about the planning process. This format is effective at
capturing the ideas of residents who may not normally
participate through other, more conventional activities.
Task 3.3 Deliverables
Draft and final pop-up boards and activities; staff at four
events; pop-up activities summary memo (PDF)
Task 3.4 Master Plan Advisory Team
MIG will plan and facilitate three meetings of the
Master Plan Advisory Team (MPAT) during the 12-month
planning process. This group will be convened by the
City with input from MIG and include a range of Plan
stakeholders, including participants in the stakeholder
interviews (Task 3.1). At key project milestones, the
MPAT will provide input and guidance to the project
team. At the end of the process, these stakeholders will
also be well-positioned as informed proponents who
can help the City support implementation efforts. The
preliminary timing of these meetings is included in the
schedule on page 24.
Task 3.4 Deliverables
Draft and Final meeting materials and concise
summaries for three MPAT meetings (Word/PPT/PDF)
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 21
Task 3.5: Community Workshops
MIG will plan and facilitate three interactive community
engagement workshops during the planning process.
For each, MIG will create a draft agenda and meeting
materials and facilitate these sessions. Preliminarily,
we envision the first community workshop to include
a visual preference exercise to discuss and evaluate
community needs and priorities. The second workshop
will likely include a hands-on activity to explore the
trade-offs required to address priority park and
recreation needs. The third workshop will be an open
house to review the Draft Plan.
Task 3.5 Deliverables
Draft and final agendas and meeting materials, and
concise summaries for three workshops (PDF)
Task 3.6 Commission, Committee and Council
Meetings
MIG will develop materials for and present at three
meetings of the Recreation and Parks Commission and
an additional three meetings of City Council and/or
other Commissions or Committees. These meetings will
be strategically scheduled at key project milestones so
that the Project Team can gather feedback and input to
shape the Master Plan. The preliminary timing of these
meetings is included in the schedule on page 24.
Task 3.6 Deliverables
Draft and final meeting materials for six meetings (PPT/
PDF)
TASK 4: PLAN FRAMEWORK
Prior to developing the full draft plan, the MIG Team will
prepare a plan framework that presents elements of the
master plan to review, confirm or refine direction with
City staff and the MPAT.
Task 4.1: Draft Park Master Plan Framework
Responding to the Community Needs Assessment
and stakeholder input, MIG will create a Draft
Plan Framework. This document will include the
revised vision and mission (Task 2.6); systemwide
goals, strategies and policies; and site-specific
recommendations. It will present a preliminary
prioritization of projects, as well as operations
recommendations and a maintenance priority plan. The
Draft Plan Framework will be reviewed in the second
round of staff and stakeholder review.
Task 4.1 Deliverables:
Draft Plan Framework (Word/Excel/PDF)
22 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
Task 4.2: Revised Plan Framework
With input from City staff, the MPAT and the Recreation
and Parks Commission, MIG will make one round of
changes and finalize the Plan Framework including goals,
policies and a prioritized project list. The framework will
be the basis for the Draft Plan (Task 6).
Task 4.2 Deliverables
Revised Plan Framework (Word/PDF)
Task 4.3 Plan Outline and Design
MIG will develop a draft document template, detailed
plan outline, and list of graphics, maps and appendices
for the PMP for City staff review and approval. This will
allow us to confirm the desired content, organization
and level of detail for the Plan before developing the full
first draft (in Task 6 below).
Task 4.3 Deliverables
Draft plan template, outline and list of graphics. (Word/
InDesign/PDF)
TASK 5: FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
Building on the Plan Framework, the MIG Team will
develop specific recommendations and tools for the
funding and implementation of the Plan projects. This
includes determining a new impact fee schedule and
producing the appropriate nexus study to support their
adoption.
Task 5.1: Cost Module
MIG will develop a cost module that will identify
planning-level costs of building, operating and
maintaining individual projects. The model will
incorporate park improvement cost data (capital costs,
rehabilitation/renovation costs, capital replacement
costs, and operations costs) and assumptions about
in-house versus contracted staff. This model will be
designed to be flexible to changing conditions, and
to serve as a tool for City staff to use following plan
adoption.
Task 5.1 Deliverables:
Draft and revised cost module (Excel/PDF)
Task 5.2: Funding Strategy
MIG will develop cost estimates, alternative
funding strategies, and a plan for implementation
of maintenance and capital improvement
recommendations in the PMP. This will include applying
the cost model developed in Task 5.1 to develop
planning-level cost estimates. This task will also identify
potential funding sources.
Task 5.2 Deliverables
Draft and revised funding strategy (Word/ Excel/PDF);
Meeting agenda, materials and summary memo (Word/PDF)
Task 5.3 Fee Program and Nexus Study
Based on City goals, PMP recommendations, and the
expected nature of new development, EPS will advise
the City on the most appropriate fee types and the best
technical approach to establishing fees. The approach
will depend on the types of improvements required as
well as the level of information developed through the
PMP. Other important decisions will include whether how
best to allocate costs/ fees between different land uses.
EPS will conduct the technical analysis to establish
the maximum, justifiable development fees under
the Mitigation Fee Act and/or Quimby Act. EPS will
work closely with MIG and City staff to collect all
necessary data, including existing and anticipated
future development projections, current and implied
service standards, and proposed parks and recreation
improvements and other relevant information. EPS will
then develop a fee model and calculate the maximum,
supportable fees for parks fees and review this analysis
with City staff and MIG to determine if refinements
to technical assumptions or methodologies are
appropriate.
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 23
DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
Next, EPS will prepare and provide an Administrative
Draft Nexus Study that will include methodology,
assumptions, recommended impact fees, and the
necessary nexus findings. EPS will confer with MIG
and City staff to determine whether City staff wants to
recommend fees levels below the maximum justifiable
levels. EPS will prepare a Public Review Draft based on
one consolidated round of City comments.
Task 5.3 Deliverables
Fee program approach and calculations; draft and
revised fee model; Administrative Draft and Public
Review Draft Nexus Study (Word/Excel/PDF)
Task 5.4: Action Plan
MIG will organize the work done in the preceding
tasks into a coherent Action Plan to support City
implementation. It will include roles, responsibilities,
timeline, phasing and funding for projects and
improvements. The Action Plan will be reviewed by City
staff and the MPAT and revisions will be reflected in the
Draft Parks Master Plan (Task 6).
Task 5.4 Deliverables:
Draft Action Plan (Word/Excel/PDF)
TASK 6: MASTER PLANS AND ADOPTION
Task 6.1: Administrative Draft Parks Master Plan
MIG will produce the first full Administrative Draft PMP
for internal review by staff. The Plan elements developed
in Tasks 4 and 5 will be organized into the administrative
draft with additional narrative. Graphics will be provided
for review in a single PDF.
Task 6.1 Deliverables:
Administrative Draft Parks Master Plan (ArcGIS/
Illustrator/Word/PDF)
Task 6.2 Public Review Draft Parks Master Plan
Based on one set of consolidated comments and the
results of the City staff review meeting, MIG will revise
the PMP for public and Commission review.
Task 6.2 Deliverables:
Public Review Draft Parks Master Plan (PDF)
Task 6.3: Public Review Draft Parks Master Plan
Based on public input, staff review and MPAT
consultation, MIG will develop the Final Draft PMPM for
presentation to the Burlingame Parks and Recreation
Commission and City Council for adoption.
Task 6.3 Deliverables
Final Draft Parks Master Plan (PDF and printed copies);
presentation (PPT)
Task 6.4: Final Adopted Parks Master Plan
MIG will finalize the Master Plan documents to
incorporate any final changes and provide web- and
print-ready files of the PMP to the City.
Task 6.4 Deliverables
Final Parks Master Plan (PDF)
Cupertino Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 24123456789101112Task 1: PROJECT INITIATION AND MANAGEMENT1.1Kick-off Meeting 1.2Site Tour1.3Community Engagement Plan 1.4Ongoing Project Management / Team Meetings Task 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TREND ANALYSIS 2.1System Inventory 2.2Policy, Process and Funding Analysis2.3Community and Trends Analysis 2.4Base Mapping and GIS Analysis 2.5Agency Resource Comparison2.6Community Needs AssessmentTask 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SURVEY 3.1Stakeholder Interviews 3.2Phone Survey / Online Surveys (2) 3.3Pop-Up Activities (4)3.4Master Plan Advisory Team Meetings (3) 3.5Community Workshops (3)3.6Commission, Committee and Council Meetings (6) Task 4: PLAN FRAMEWORK 4.1Draft Plan Framework4.2Revised Plan Framework4.3Plan Outline and TemplateTask 5: FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN5.1Cost Module5.2Funding Strategy 5.3Fee Program and Nexus Study 5.4Action Plan Task 6: MASTER PLAN AND ADOPTION 6.1Administrative Draft Parks Master Plan6.2Public Review Draft Parks Master Plan6.3Final Draft Parks Master Plan6.4Final Adopted Parks Master Plan 05 Project Schedulemonths Individual Subtasks MilestoneCommunity WorkshopCommittee/CC/PC Work SessionPC/CC HearingsProject Management Check-In Calls Project Team Meetings
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 25
Minneapolis Downtown Service Area Master Plan
MIG does not take exceptions to the City's Agreement
for Professional Services at this time.
Contract Exceptions
06
MIG and our team members, EPS and EMC Research,
disclose no involvement with plan/development projects
in the City of Burlingame within the last two years that
have the potential for conflict of interest.
Conflict of Interest
Statement
07
Per the RFP instructions, our fee proposal is submitted
under separate cover.
Fee Proposal
08
San Jose Greenprint Interconnected Park System Map
Pittsburgh Open Space, Parks and Recreation Plan
26 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
Other Information
09
In this section, we share additional
information about several online and
digital tools to demonstrate the types
of deliverables we propose for the Parks
Master Plan or are available to Burlingame.
RENTON CIVIC CORE VISION AND
ACTION PLAN
The Renton Civic Core Vision and Action Plan
project website was designed and is hosted
and updated by MIG, and includes the
project logo, also designed by MIG.
http://rentonciviccore.com/
BEND PARK AND RECREATION
DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
For our current planning process with the
NRPA Gold Medal award-winner Bend Metro
Parks and Recreation District, we used
Mapita, a map-based online participation
tool and questionnaire. This mobile-friendly
tool allows participants to give detailed
place-based feedback.
https://app.maptionnaire.com/en/2082
Burlingame | Parks Master Plan | 27
OTHER INFORMATION
Also in the Bend project, we are using digital
tools to share and review GIS analysis results
with our client online.
http://migcom.maps.arcgis.com/apps/
webappviewer/index.html?id=be22104bf16
d41bb855059b41cfd3ca4
CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION
SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
In our current park system planning project
in Cupertino, California, we recently
conducted a community online survey to
get feedback on draft vision and goals, to
make sure we interpreted earlier community
feedback correctly. This type of tool is similar
to what we envision for Burlingame.
http://lime.migwebtech.com/index.php/
survey/index/sid/668979/lang/en
28 | Burlingame | Parks Master Plan
Los Angeles Countywide Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment Community Meeting Flyer
DESIGNING OUTSTANDING RECREATION FACILITIES FOR CALIFORNIA’S COMMUNITIES
Primary Point of Contact: Derek McKee, RLA, Principal | 408.850.3410 | derek@verdedesigninc.com
CITY OF BURLINGAME
RFP FOR CONSULTING SERVICES FOR
CITY OF BURLINGAME PARKS MASTER PLAN
OCTOBER 17, 2017
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. COVER SHEET WITH CONTACT INFORMATION ..................Cover
B. TRANSMITTAL LETTER
C. QUALIFICATIONS .................................................................P1
D. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ......................................P11
E. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES .............................................P14
F. PROJECT SCHEDULE .............................................................P24
G. CONTRACT EXCEPTIONS ....................................................P25
H. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT ..................................P25
I. FEE PROPOSAL (Sealed in Separate Envelope)
J. OTHER INFORMATION .........................................................P26
ROTARY PLAYGARDEN, SAN JOSE
October 17, 2017
Ms. Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director
City of Burlingame, Parks and Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Subject: Request for Proposals for Consulting Services for the City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan
Dear Ms. Glomstad;
Verde Design is pleased to provide the enclosed qualifications statement and proposal to assist the parks department in the planning
and development of a new Parks Master Plan for the community of Burlingame. We are interested and excited for the opportunity to
participate in shaping the future of Burlingame’s neighborhood parks, and will provide proven outreach techniques, comprehensive
park planning services, and an easy-to-read document that you and your staff can count on for the next 15 years.
Verde Design’s park planners, landscape architects, and licensed engineers have successfully collaborated with numerous cities
and park districts during the past 10 years. The result of these efforts have been master plans and parks that have enriched the
recreational experiences of the community and improved the quality of life in residential and urban neighborhoods. We specialize
in the process of master planning parks with community input, and have honed outreach tools to maximize the creativity and
interest of those involved, and ensure that they gain a sense of ownership, pride, and identity from the public spaces where they will
spend time, participate in athletic activities, and socialize.
Our planning process approach utilizes a number of community-specific data collection methods to ensure the development
of an inclusive master plan that reflects the needs and goals of the community. Verde Design will provide factually-based
recommendations, using a scientific and statistically valid survey tool to develop facility needs based on verifiable participation
rates. The tool is primarily internet-based, but uses a variety of methods to obtain a series of random samples throughout the process.
We have hand-selected FlashVote, co-founded by renowned social scientist Kevin Lyons, to collaborate with us and develop these
customized input tools.
Funding is a common issue for public agencies that strive to stretch their limited resources. We have previously provided analysis and
recommendations for funding vehicles, as well as developed thoroughly vetted Developer Impact Fee Nexus Studies which have resulted
in approved municipal code changes. For your project, we are teaming with Harris & Associates, Inc. to provide this specialty service.
Specifically, Alison Bouley, project manager, who recently collaborated with John Courtney, Verde Design senior project manager, to
prepare the City of Manteca Parks Development Fee Nexus Study. This effort resulted in a City Council-approved Ordinance.
With a deep bench of qualified professional staff, Verde Design is capable and ready to provide the appropriate staffing
required for your project. The proposed team will collaborate with your staff, City Council, the Master Plan Advisory Team, and
the Parks and Recreation Commission in a team-based and transparent manner.
Margaret, thank you again for the opportunity to submit the enclosed proposal. Should you have any questions or require
clarification or supplemental information, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 408.850.3410, or derek@verdedesigninc.com. Thank
you in advance for your consideration.
Yours truly,
Verde Design, Inc.
Derek McKee, RLA
Principal
Mission Statement for your Master Plan
Backed by data, mindfulness, and inclusion, the City of Burlingame’s
Parks Master Plan will be based on proven outreach techniques,
with specialized services from subconsultants and expertise
from Verde Design’s seasoned team.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 1
LEAD FIRM OVERVIEW
Verde Design, Inc. is a landscape architecture and civil
engineering firm that specializes in comprehensive master
planning, design, and construction management services for
public recreational facilities throughout Northern California.
Our mission is to provide excellence in design and
outstanding service to our clients. We have an extensive
portfolio of successful public-use facilities, including
regional, community, and neighborhood parks, as well as
multi-use athletic fields, sports parks, skate parks, plazas,
amphitheaters, and tennis courts. Verde Design is a Certified
Small Business Enterprise (SBE).
BRIEF HISTORY
On July 1, 2007, Derek McKee, RLA, and Devin Conway, PE,
QSD/QSP, elected to combine their talents and abilities to
found a new firm, Verde Design, and purchased the assets of
the Santa Clara office from their former firm.
Most of our multi-disciplinary senior staff members have
worked together for over a decade, developing a culture of
feedback from experienced peers, which adds more value to
our clients' projects.
MASTER PLANNING QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE
Our history of successful public agency partnerships have
resulted in dozens of well-planned parks. Many of these parks
have been community and destination parks that receive a high
level of attention, traffic, and use.
If selected to partner with The City of Burlingame, our team will
take time to learn your goals, preferences, priorities, and values,
so we can work together to be successful. This begins with a
shared vision built upon your project goals, and is supported
by Verde Design’s portfolio of similar work, and through the
adoption of our simple, but clear approach to projects.
For your project, we will draw upon experience and lessons
learned from similar planning and park design projects to
provide options that balance program, budget, and your
sustainability goals. This specialized expertise means that the
City of Burlingame will receive an unmatched level of service
and an unwavering commitment from our team of design
professionals and engineers, who understand the unique
constraints of your systems. We have the tools to deliver the
City with a parks master plan with which we can all be proud.
C. QUALIFICATIONS
1. LEAD FIRM DESCRIPTION
This section will discuss in detail the proposing team's qualifications, experience, and ability in managing municipal master plan-
ning projects. Include: (1) Lead firm description; (2) Sub-consultant(s) description(s); (3) Team member resumes. Clearly identify
the lead firm's project manager and include up to three (3) resumes of lead firm staff and one (1) resume for each sub consultant;
(4) Organizational chart illustrating the management structure of the entire project team; (5) Similar projects. Include the name,
location, completion date, and project description of a minimum of three (3) similar master plan projects completed in the last 10
years. In each example, provide the name(s) of team members involved who will be assigned to this project and client contact refer-
ences (including name, title, phone number, and email address).
MASTER PLANS CREATED
FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS
PUBLIC AGENCIES
PARTNERED WITH
IN THE PAST 10 YEARS
PARK AND
PLAYGROUND
PROJECTS
OSAGE STATION PARK | DANVILLE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN2
C. QUALIFICATIONS
2. SUBCONSULTANTS DESCRIPTIONS
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE, STATISTICALLY VALID
COMMUNITY INPUT TOOL DEVELOPMENT,
AND ADMINISTRATION (WEB SURVEYS)
FlashVote helps local governments make better decisions.
They are a collaboration of scientists and technologists
working to provide better decision-making tools to public
agencies throughout California.
The FlashVote team has used its unique expertise in survey
design, software development, and local government to
build a proprietary survey technology specifically for local
governments. Surveys are designed to work on computers,
mobile phones, and traditional phone calls to meet the
needs of all citizens.
Along with multichannel communications, they have
advanced the science of public input with geo-coded
demographics and automated results reporting. Their
reports provide all the detail governments need for decision
making, including the ability to dynamically filter the
responses based upon demographic and neighborhood or
district boundaries.
FlashVote's short, automated scientifically valid surveys
capture actionable input from representative local citizens
in just 48 hours, from launch to results. By making FlashVote
surveys 95% faster, 95% cheaper and 100% easier than
traditional surveys, government officials can use FlashVote
to acquire the reliable community input they want, on-
demand, and whenever they want it.
Counties, cities, towns and special districts are using
FlashVote to help update plans, design facilities, understand
priorities, get ideas, test solutions, track performance,
measure satisfaction, and much more. Government officials
who use FlashVote can make better decisions that improve
services, save money, and make citizens much happier.
COSTS AND FUNDING(OPTIONAL SERVICES)
Harris & Associates, founded in 1974, specializes in serving
the professional service needs of public agencies, institutions,
and private clients in the western states. They have an
extensive staff of employee-owners, including licensed
engineers and architects, certified construction managers,
and inspectors throughout the western states.
Harris provides their clients with the technical expertise and
knowledge needed to develop and implement sound financial
strategies that will provide your community with the services
and facilities required to meet the needs of your residents. To
date, their staff has work with more than 100 public agencies
throughout the state.
Because they work only for public agencies, there is never
a conflict of interest, and they are continuously focused on
finding the best solution for projects. They also understand
that implementing the best funding strategy often requires the
support of the elected officials, residents, businesses, and the
development community. Their public financing team works
with all stakeholders in developing a plan that meets the
specific needs of our clients, and they understand that there is
not a “one size fits all” solution.
In developing Impact Fee Programs in accordance with the
Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600), Harris develops the projected
costs of facilities. This experience and knowledge helps
ensure that the recommended fees will provide the revenues
needed to construct the facilities needed to serve new
development. Because their team works with agencies to
develop all types of facilities financing plans, they identify
strategies for funding current deficiencies that cannot
be paid for using impact fee revenues. This experience
and knowledge is critical in creating a solid foundation in
justifying your AB1600 fees.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 3
C. QUALIFICATIONS
3. TEAM MEMBER RESUMES - VERDE DESIGN
QUALIFICATIONS
B.S., Landscape Architecture,
California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo, 1993
Urban Design & Community
Development Studies, South
America,1991
Construction Management,
San Jose State, 1997
CA 4148, Landscape Architect, 1995
American Society of Landscape
Architects
California Parks and Recreation
Society
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities
City of Santa Cruz, Public Works
Commission 2005-2013
City of Santa Cruz - Clean River,
Beaches and Ocean Tax Oversight
Committee
Guadalupe River Park Board of
Directors, 2004-2009
Derek McKee is a principal and co-founder of Verde Design. He will be
responsible for client relationships, project oversight, and production
coordination. Practicing landscape architecture for more than 23 years, Derek
has worked on public park master planning, athletic facilities, school facilities,
mass transit design and habitat restoration/preservation. He has worked on large
regional parks over 100 acres to mini-parks for communities.
Derek ensures continuity of communication by attending all staff, community and
stakeholder meetings/workshops. For public park and community projects, his role
includes overall management throughout the project's duration, specifically, this
includes community facilitation and outreach, design of facilities, quality control,
and cost setup/budget coordination.
Derek has received specialized training in public playground design and green
roof design. He is an active member in the California Parks and Recreation Society.
He served on the Public Works and Transportation Commission for the City of
Santa Cruz for eight years and currently serves on the City’s Clean River, Beaches
and Ocean Tax oversight committee. He has been serving on the Santa Cruz Little
League Board since 2012.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
City of San Jose
• Tillman Park master plan
• Arcadia Softball Complex
• Alternative sports field feasibility
study
• Camden Park Kid-Zone
• Kelley Park feasibility study
• Lake Cunningham skate park
• Guadalupe River Park Community
Garden
City of Alameda
• Estuary Park
x Master plan
x Dog park and playground
x Picnic areas
x Synthetic turf fields
City of San Mateo
• Casanova Park renovation
x
City of Menlo Park
• Seminary Oaks Park and Reservoir
feasibility study
City of Oakland
• Raimondi Sports Park renovation
City of Palo Alto
• Magical Bridge Playground
• Rinconada Park master plan
• Cubberley soccer field
City of Santa Clara
• Central Park
x Wayfinding study and design
• Santa Clara Youth Soccer Park
x Feasibility study
City of Concord
• Concord Median Islands and Parks
Landscape assessment
City of Santa Cruz
• Depot Field
City of Tracy
• Legacy Youth Sports Complex
• Schulte Youth Sports Park
City of Walnut Creek
• Heather Farms Park
x Feasibility study
Town of Danville
• Osage Station Park master plan
Town of Mammoth Lakes
• Parks Master Plan
Town of Woodside
• Barkley Fields and Park
DEREK MCKEE, RLA
PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN4
C. QUALIFICATIONS
3. TEAM MEMBER RESUMES - VERDE DESIGN
City of Fremont
• Swim lagoon master plan
Ambrose Recreation and Park District
• Community park master plan
City of Davis
• Aquatic center master plan
• Playfields Park renovation
City of El Cerrito
• Aquatic center master plan
El Dorado Hills Community Services
District
• Community park master plan
• Recreation center expansion
• New York Creek Trail renovation
City of Elk Grove
• Park development master plan and
capital improvements program
City of Folsom
• Parks and recreation master plan
WITH VERDE DESIGN
City of Davis
• Central Park fountain replacement
master plan
Field of Dreams, West Sacramento
• Sports field complex master plan
Fulton - El Camino Recreation and
Park District
• Bellview Park renovation
Yard Dogs Ballpark, Madera
• Baseball training and tournament
complex
WITH PREVIOUS FIRMS
City of Saratoga
• District cemetery master plan
City of Foster City
• Recreation center needs assessment
City of Manteca
• Parks and recreation master plan and
Fee Nexus Study
City of Patterson
• Parks master plan
City of Pleasanton
• Parks, recreation, and ppen space
master plan
Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park
District
• Strategic business plan
City of Sacramento
• Parks and recreation master plan
City of Sonoma
• City cemeteries master plan
City of Woodland Parks
• Recreation and open space master
plan, and five-year update
As your project manager, John is responsible for leading the project team
through effective communication to ensure that the City of Burlingame Parks
Master Plan project exceeds your expectations.
John’s experience designing and facilitating the development of large scale
recreation sites spans 28 years and three time zones. For the past 20 years in
California, he has concentrated his practice in master planning, public outreach
and prime consulting the design and sustainable development of aquatic centers,
sports parks, community parks, and recreation special-use facilities (such as skate
parks), recreation centers, trails, and synthetic turf fields.
His project leadership and successful track record with clients has resulted in
several awards, including the California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS)
District 2 Regional Treasure Award for Folsom Zoo Sanctuary, and CPRS Juried Design Awards for Cameron Park Community
Center, Lembi Aquatic Center in Folsom, and Gora Aquatic Center in Galt. John encourages participatory skills development
in the industry by speaking at conferences and engaging in conversations geared toward pushing forward the design,
sustainability, maintainability and inclusive usefulness of recreation and community infrastructure.
QUALIFICATIONS
B.L.A., Louisiana State University, 1990
Minor in Art History
CA 4776, Landscape Architect, 2000
NV 501, Landscape Architect, 1997
AL 404, Landscape Architect, 1992
CA QSD/QSP certification #22462, 2012
LEED Accredited Professional BD+C, 2010
CLARB certified #50210, 2017
American Society of Landscape Architects
California Parks and Recreation Society
Sacramento Parks Foundation
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
JOHN COURTNEY, RLA, LEED AP (BD+C), QSD/QSP
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 5
C. QUALIFICATIONS
3. TEAM MEMBER RESUMES - SUBCONSULTANTS
Kevin Lyons has 20+ years of experience developing unique expertise in governance
design and dynamics. Kevin has founded three startups and one hedge fund. He is
currently Founder and CEO of Governance Sciences Group, a thought leader in
good governance systems, and the creator of FlashVote, which enables busy citizens
provide rapid feedback and other valuable inputs to governments between elections.
Kevin has experience as a serial entrepreneur, activist value investor, law and
economics scholar, and public official. He has prepared community survey research
aimed at Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plans or Recreation Needs Assessments
for more than fifty public agencies.
Alison Bouley is a registered civil engineer and has 16 years of experience in
providing program management and financial engineering services to cities, counties,
and special districts on a wide variety of project types, including AB 1600 Development
impact fees. Alison is head of the Development Impact Fee Group.
She has worked on a wide variety of projects throughout California, and has been
involved through the entire development process, from the creation of master plans,
EIR documents, and fee programs, to special financing districts, CIP projects, and
reimbursement audits. Alison has extensive experience facilitating discussion among
public agency representatives and building industry representatives.
QUALIFICATIONS
B.S., University of the Pacific,
Civil Engineering & Engineering
Management, 1998
QUALIFICATIONS
B.S., Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY, Chemical Engineering, 1992
M.S., UCSB, Chemical Engineering
PhD Program, 1994
M.S., University of California,
Berkeley, Business & Public
Policy PhD Program, 1997
KEVIN LYONS
SURVEY SPECIALIST, FLASHVOTE, DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE, STATISTICALLY VALID
COMMUNITY INPUT TOOL DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION (WEB SURVEYS)
ALISON BOULEY, PE
FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT FEE NEXUS ANALYST, HARRIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ROLE: COSTS AND FUNDING (OPTIONAL SERVICES)
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN6
C. QUALIFICATIONS
4. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART & 5. SIMILAR PROJECTS
City of Burlingame
Derek McKee, RLA
Principal-in-Charge
Verde Design, Inc.
Production Staff
FlashVote
Kevin Lyons
Harris & Associates
Alison Bouley, PE
John Courtney, RLA
Senior Project Manager
SIMILAR MASTER PLAN EXPERIENCE
Verde Design has earned a reputation for collaboration, consensus-building and teamwork. In the past 10 years, we have
teamed with dozens of public agencies to produce 60+ successful master plans, with additional park projects underway. To
demonstrate our relevant experience, we have included a brief overview of several park projects below, and in the following
pages. These clients and their projects illustrate our past successes with parks of a similar scope and nature. Further, throughout our
proposal, we feature testimonials from clients that demonstrate our community engagement expertise and client satisfaction. We
encourage you to contact our references, as they can attest to our abilities.
RINCONADA PARK | PALO ALTO
Verde Design prepared a long-range plan for one of the
oldest and most heavily used parks in Palo Alto. The multi-use
park includes open space, the Magic Forest, picnic areas,
and it is adjacent to the City’s main aquatic facility, library,
children’s zoo, Girl Scout meeting center, and Lucie Stern
Center - with its theatre and community meeting facilities.
Verde has continued its relationship with the City on
additional projects, including Magical Bridge Playground.
Completion Date: 2012
Team Members: Derek McKee (PIC)
Client Contact Reference: Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect
| City of Palo Alto at 650.617.3183 | peter.jensen@
cityofpaloalto.org
A SEASONED, COMMITTED TEAM
We propose a team of the following staff members
work collaboratively with the City staff and Parks and
Recreation Commision as we manage and design the
City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan. Derek McKee and
John Courtney will be active throughout the project
process, and serve as the core project team. During
the design phase, Derek and John will attend all staff
project meetings and lead discussions. In addition to our
proposed project team, we have hand-selected a team
of local, qualified subconsultants to provide web surveys
and cost and funding expertise for the project.
Your key project staff - Derek and John - have led
efforts for parks and public facilities, from half an
acre to 200 acres. They will utilize Verde Design's
comprehensive menu of in-house services to support your
goals and meet project needs.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 7
C. QUALIFICATIONS
5. SIMILAR PROJECTS
BEACH CHALET FIELDS | SAN FRANCISCO
Verde Design was selected by the City Fields Foundation and the
City and County of San Francisco to provide conceptual design,
construction documents, and construction administration services to
renovate Beach Chalet Fields in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park.
We developed solutions within the footprint of the existing facility
that address a number of issues, the first of which was to design
four synthetic turf fields to meet the high demand for sports fields
and help achieve the City's sustainability goals. A particular focus
of this project was lighting - many in the neighboring communities
expressed differing opinions, and Verde and its team worked
closely with the City to manage their feedback and expectations.
Completion Date: December 2015
Team Member: Derek McKee (PIC)
Client Contact Reference: Dan Mauer, Rec & Parks Dept., Project
Manager | City and County of San Francisco at 415.581.2542
dan.mauer@sfgov.org
CLIENT TESTIMONIAL
The extensive experience that the staff at Verde Design has...and their understanding of the various turf systems available have
been invaluable to us in implementing our plans for this project. We appreciate the meticulous attention they've given to the overall
performance of the facility and to addressing the long term operational concerns of our maintenance and operations staff.
DAN MAUER, PROJECT MANAGER, RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
FELTON MEADOWS RECREATION COMPLEX |
MOUNT HERMON
This project involved the development of a 15-acre property
adjacent to Mount Hermon Christian Conference Center’s entry
drive into a regional recreation complex for the use of conference
campers, after-school programs and the public. The site featured
a wide variety of activity opportunities that appeal to all ages
and skill levels of the users. Verde provided a plan for BMX pump
and skills track, mountain bike flow trails, ropes course, community
garden, splash park, play area, target sports, rock climbing walls,
natural turf soccer field, picnic areas, two community buildings,
parking, and two bridges.
Completion Date: N/A, not yet built
Team Members: Derek McKee (PIC)
Client Contact Reference: Dale Pollock, Facilitiy Engineer | Mount
Hermon Christian Conference Center at 831.430.1204
dale.pollock@mounthermon.org
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN8
C. QUALIFICATIONS
5. SIMILAR PROJECTS
ESTUARY PARK | ALAMEDA
Verde Design led an integrated design process for the City
of Alameda, which included community members, user groups
and Recreation and Park Commission staff, providing input and
direction. The core principals of the project were to provide
space, activities, and features for a broad range of users.
The result of our efforts was a facility that provides a diverse
and exciting list of elements, including “Challenger” baseball
field, a lighted, synthetic multi-use field (providing program
requirements for soccer, rugby, football and field hockey),
a multi-age playground with integral seating, picnic and
bbq areas, basketball courts, and dog runs. A new network
of lighted pathways, new restroom and storage facilities,
parking, bay-friendly landscape, and irrigation system tie the
entire park together. Verde Design worked with user groups
and City staff to develop the park overall design, and an
improvement construction plan package.
THREE DOWNTOWN PARKS | MORGAN HILL
Verde Design was selected to provide planning, environmental
assessment, design, construction documents and construction
administration services for three of the City of Morgan Hill’s
newest parks. First introduced in 2014 by city planners and later
planned and designed by Verde Design, the three projects are
enhancing Morgan Hill’s current park and recreational offerings
to its residents and many visitors.
Completion Date: Summer 2017
Team Member: Derek McKee (PIC)
Client Contact Reference: Chris Ghione, Community Services
Director | City of Morgan Hill at 408.782.9154
chris.ghione@morganhill.ca.gov
Verde Design provided planning, assessment, design, and construction documentation/support to the City for our three new park projects. The
staff was knowledgeable, and their workshops and planning approach helped us facilitate informed decision making, resulting in three
parks that are sure to be destination parks for the City, and ones that will serve residents for many years.
CHRIS GHIONE, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR, CITY OF MORGAN HILL
CLIENT TESTIMONIAL
Completion Date: Design completed September 2014
Team Members: Derek McKee (PIC)
Client Contact Reference: Amy Wooldridge, Director
of Recreation & Parks | City of Alameda at 510.747.7570
awooldridge@alamedaca.gov
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 9
C. QUALIFICATIONS
5. SIMILAR PROJECTS
LAKE CUNNINGHAM BMX BIKE PARK | SAN JOSE
Verde Design’s team worked with the City of San Jose to
develop a revised master plan, programming, and project
budgeting plan for the project. Once this was approved, we
prepared a construction document package that took future
utilities and bike park features into consideration.
The Verde team assisted the City through community
meetings and focus group workshops held to discuss the
specific location of the skate park on a 10-acre site, within
Lake Cunningham Park. During these meetings, Verde Design
facilitated collaboration to customize the design of the skate
bowl and street facilities to respond to the needs of the
local skate community. Verde Design also addressed several
environmental concerns on the site.
Completion Date: September 2017
Team Members: Derek McKee (PIC)
Client Contact Reference: Chris Mastrodicasa, Landscape
Architect | City of San Jose at 408.535.8416
chris.mastrodicasa@sanjoseca.gov
PARKS & REC MASTER PLAN | CITY OF MANTECA
This recently completed master plan was a comprehensive planning, design and outreach effort that included trails, recreation
programs, facility planning, and a Park Development Fee Nexus Study. John Courtney, ASLA, principal of a former consulting
design firm, provided a full needs assessment that included a statistically valid survey, park intercept interviews, focus groups
and public input workshops. Based on the identified needs, program and facility recommendations, John prepared cost estimates
for the recreation facilities and developed the City’s CIP budget to allocate resources for current and future facility and
recreation needs.
A comprehensive Fee Nexus Study was also conducted to fairly distribute the cost burden between future development and
current city population. The City Council adopted the plan, and the Park Development Fee Nexus Study, along with the revised
Ordinance that enacts the fee program. The result was a fee of $7,123 per single-family unit of housing for community parks and
special use parks/facilities, plus the developer-provided neighborhood park land and improvements (a 300% increase above
the existing impact fee level).
Completion Date: December 2016
Team Members: John Courtney (PM) - with previous firm; Alison Bouley, Harris & Associates (PM for Developer Impact Fee Nexus Study)
Client Contact Reference: Kevin Fant, Director | City of Manteca at 209.456.8639 | kfant@ci.manteca.ca.us
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN10
C. QUALIFICATIONS
5. SIMILAR PROJECTS
STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN | PLEASANT HILL
The District Administration of the Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park
District was faced with a double hit to its budget from the economic
recession of 2008-2011 as well as a take from California's ERAF
reallocation. This impacted the District’s ability to operate and
maintain the parks, facilities and programs, and there was a need to hire
consultants to assess the operations, provide a strategic business plan
for action, and plan for the future of the District.
The District hired John Courtney, ASLA, principal of a former
landscape architecture consulting firm, to provide analysis of the
demographics, the core services, maintenance and operations
practices, and develop goals and objectives to put into action a
strategic business plan to resolve the financial issues facing the
District. John facilitated public workshops, stakeholder interviews
with key stakeholders and District Staff over a six-month period
to deliver an evaluation of programs, recommend modifications
to existing lines of business, and adjust O/M practices to increase
economic and environmental sustainability.
PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN | PLEASANTON
The City undertook a comprehensive analysis to create a
sustainable vision for future management of the system. The parks
and recreation master plan process included a comprehensive
public involvement program that featured a three-step process
of public workshops, sports organizations and community group
questionnaires and a community-wide survey.
The consultant team, lead by John Courtney as project manager,
provided an overall operational assessment for efficiencies and best
management practices to guide the Department, including an analysis
and identification of core recreation services, effective resource
allocation, SWOT analysis, cost recovery, and pricing strategies that
considered community-wide benefits vs. individual benefits.
A six-year capital improvement plan was developed with
recommendations for acquisitions, development, preservation and
rehabilitation projects.
Completion Date: 2013
Team Members: John Courtney (PM) - with previous firm
Client Contact Reference: Susan Andrade-Wax, Director |
City of Pleasanton at 925.931.5340
sandrade-wax@cityofpleasantonca.gov
Completion Date: February 2013
Team Members: John Courtney (PM) - with previous firm
Client Contact Reference: Bob Berggren, Retired General
Manager | Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District | 925.682.0896
mlacy@pleasanthillrec.com (Although Bob Berggren recently retired, the current GM, Michelle
Lacy, has knowledge of, and is currently using the SBP, and can speak to its quality and usefulness.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 11
D. APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
APPROACH OVERVIEW
Over years of preparing over 60 parks and recreation master
plans and needs assessments, we have continuously evaluated
our process internally, and solicited external critique of our
products to better address our clients' needs.
The feature of our planning process that sets the Verde team
apart from all others is our focus on providing a validated,
community-driven process and final product, which will
accurately reflect the unique recreation characteristics and
collaborative vision identified for the City of Burlingame.
The accuracy of our needs assessment approach is
primarily due to the collection of actual recreation activity
participation data, and the identification of facility needs
based on those levels of participation. By analyzing current
recreation activity, and incorporating calculations for
demographic variables that are predictors of future growth
in activities, our process facilitates modelling a plan for
the future as the population changes due to growth, aging,
shifting demographics, and other characteristics.
This "forecast of needs" becomes vital in making decisions,
as financing of major capital expenditures for facilities must
take into account not only today’s needs, but the needs of the
future community as well.
SUGGESTED METHODOLOGY
Our needs assessment approach does not simply repeat
national, state, or other neighboring city community
standards. In fact, our refined methodology provides the
only master planning process that can accurately reflect
the specific recreation needs of all residents, not only those
residents who choose to be active in the public meeting
process.
Each community presents a unique demographic profile,
availability of facilities and programs, proximity to major
recreational opportunities, weather conditions, and socio-
demographic or lifestyle characteristics. There are no
communities similar enough to the City of Burlingame to justify
direct application of their solutions to the Burlingame’s Parks
and Recreation system.
The community, residents, and recreation facilities are
distinctive to the population of Burlingame. Our suggested
methodology is to study neighboring city profiles to ensure
that Burlingame is bench-marked appropriately to the
recreational trends in the Peninsula region.
Describe your firm's approach to master planning projects, the form or character of the final product, and suggested methodolo-
gies for issues anticipated and tasks to be completed. The City is open to any creative suggestions to the Scope of Work outlined
in the RFP that will improve the project.
BEACH CHALET FIELDS & PARK, SAN FRANCISCO - MULTI-USE COMMUNITY PARK SERVING A WIDE VARIETY OF USERS.
PARK MASTER PLANS
CREATED FOR PUBLIC
PROJECTS TO DATE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN12
The Verde Design team has the proven process, experience,
and knowledge to produce an accurate and community-driven
Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the City of Burlingame.
Verde Design's planning methodology is designed to establish
recreation facility standards for Burlingame using activity
participation data from the City. This way, the vision for the
future of recreation in Burlingame is driven purely by the
residents of the City.
CREATIVE PROJECT SUGGESTIONS
Verde Design has considered, and offers, the following
creative ideas, which we believe may serve as creative
opportunities for the City, and are a product of past
experience providing successful parks master plans for public
agencies. Our suggestions/ideas include the following:
• One (1) month before the workshop, send out
invitations by personal letter to community leaders or
stakeholders important to this process.
• Include an RSVP for increased accountability
(Eventbrite offers an automatic, web-based tool
to make this easier).
• Distribute fliers to classes/activities, inviting
existing participants to the workshop.
• Distribute fliers to schools and/or organizations,
as is appropriate, inviting their participation.
• Send information to City Council, Community
Services, and other staff members.
• Invite local press to the workshop
• Two (2) weeks before the workshop
• Second mailing of invitation by personal letter to
community leaders or stakeholders important to
this process.
• Include an RSVP for increased accountability
• One (1) week prior, contact community leaders and
other stakeholders, encouraging their participation and
support for the workshop by following up on RSVPs.
Another creative idea, and an example of what has
worked on past projects, is to provide a few key additional
recommended scope items that can enhance the effectiveness
of the final product.
D. APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
THE COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER MEETING PROCESS PROVIDES VALUABLE
PROJECT INSIGHT.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 13
D. APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
The first item is a Goals, Objectives and Policies development
component, which provides actionable items, and a structure
for measuring results of the master plan over time. We also
suggest providing a study of sustainable practices to the
City. Your staff can apply new techniques to improve the
sustainability of the operation and maintenance of the City
park sites, and a user-fee pricing strategy. Cost recovery can
be standardized and improved across all the park sites and
programs as a result.
SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES STUDY
Verde Design can establish and develop a vision for the
development and operation of a sustainable park system for
the City of Burlingame. This task includes research on best
practices, review of case studies, analysis of existing practices
or policies, input from the public and key City leadership,
and a Strengths, Opportunities, Threats, and Weaknesses
analysis (SWOT) that results in identifying a vision, goals and
objectives for a park system that addresses environmental
and economic sustainability.
Recommendations can be prepared for specific sustainability
practices for both new and rehabilitation projects, including
ongoing sustainable operation and maintenance practices for
incorporation into future bid requirements for maintenance
suppliers, as well as design and construction guidelines for
proposed new projects or project improvements that address
environmental and economic sustainability goals.
CORE SERVICES & PRICING STRATEGIES
Resources for all agencies today are limited and valuable. In
analyzing what the City of Burlingame and others provide to
the community, duplication of programs or facilities by public
or other organizations does not effectively utilize limited
resources and, more importantly, may result in community
needs being unmet.
The Verde team will develop an overall operational
assessment for efficiencies and best management practices
that can be employed to guide the organization. This includes
an analysis and identification of core recreation services,
effective resource allocation, cost recovery, and pricing
strategies that take into consideration community-wide
benefits vs. individual benefits.
Recommended broad strategies for improvement or elevation
of current operations to a best practice level will be
presented. We will provide deliverables at key stages in the
development of the update document, as well as progress
prints for public display during meetings, and for internal
staff review.
The scope of work above identifies specific work products
that will be delivered at each stage in the process. In
addition, wall posters, flip chart-sized written notes,
summaries of the key meetings and community input sessions
will be provided.
FOCUS GROUPS
The use of focus groups is a method to engage stakeholders,
staff, community leaders, youth or adults in an interactive
planning process. Focus groups provide effective interaction
with specific population groups in more detail than possible in
a large group or one-on-one setting.
These groups may include representatives from City staff,
public agencies, schools, public safety, non-profit community
agencies, business leaders, faith-based organizations, special
interest groups, or others. Verde Design will facilitate three
(3) focus groups to elicit comments from the participants to
identify issues, concerns, and current or emerging facility or
program needs.
The optional scope addition of focus groups is also listed in
the following section.
We were impressed by the way they approached a project and
their emphasis on establishing a partnership with us for the design
and construction of the park renovations. They wouldn’t just tell us
what we ‘should’ do. We felt that they sincerely wanted to give us
community parks that we could use and that met our needs.
KEVIN MILLER, CITY MANAGER
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CLIENT TESTIMONIAL
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN14
E. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK 1 - WORK PLAN AND KICKOFF
A significant work effort is envisioned to establish an
understanding of the context, unique attributes, existing park
conditions, maintenance practices, and ongoing initiatives
of the City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department;
identify challenges that impact the provision of recreation
services and issues that may be addressed by the City; review
historical and forecast population and demography trends
to ensure that the master plan takes into account all of the
changes that have occurred in recent history, and anticipated
changes on the horizon. Each of these tasks provides valuable
building blocks for assessing existing and future City need for
recreation facilities.
The consultant will review pertinent existing documents
prepared for the City, including the General Plan, current and
past development plans, department goals, City standards,
policies, and objectives. Throughout the master plan process,
the consultant team will assist the City in identifying and
refining a long-term vision for Burlingame’s parks and
recreation facilities.
The process starts with the consultant team establishing a
strong working relationship with City staff and the Master
Plan Advisory Team (MPAT), and gaining an understanding
of previous relevant efforts. We will review, summarize,
and include in the final master plan all existing planning
and development documentation. A list of other existing
documents to be provided by the City, such as budgets, policy
reports, facility inventories, programs offered, previously
planned park site plans, organizational charts, etc. will be
identified and submitted by the Verde team. We will facilitate
a Verde team/City staff kickoff meeting to begin the working
relationship, convey our understanding of the above listed
documents, and begin the planning for the community input
process.
MEETINGS: One (1) Kickoff Meeting
PRODUCTS: Preliminary Schedule, Related Document Summary
List and Review
TASK 2 - INVENTORY OF EXISTING PARKS,
FACILITIES, AND PROGRAMS
A. RECREATION FACILITIES INVENTORY
An important part of the database of existing informa-
tion for the City is a thorough documentation of recre-
ation facilities that are existing and planned, which are
available for use in the City, including joint-use providers
and facilities within the City operated by other agencies.
We will utilize existing inventories developed by the
City, modified to fit into a spreadsheet format for use in
the documentation for the project.
We will conduct a City-wide tour with City staff, to
inventory and assess the current condition of recreation
facilities, including joint-use school and/or private facili-
ties that are currently under cooperative agreement for
the utilization of the City. This snapshot of the supply of
recreation facilities available to residents will include an
assessment of current conditions, quality, and functional-
ity for each facility.
A facility inventory matrix will be prepared in coordina-
tion with City staff and upon gathering input from the
City-wide tour. The matrix will include for each facility:
land use planning, acreage, amenities by type, and for
sports fields identification of game, practice, or overlay
status, presence of lighting and playing surface condi-
tions. A City service area map for facilities will also be
prepared to facilitate the identification of geographic
level of service gaps.
Using the general scope provided in this RFP as a guide, describe the sequential work tasks planned to carry out in accomplishing
each of the components including a detailed, itemized description of each task and service to be completed, meetings with staff
and the community as well as associated deliverables.
BRACHER PARK | SANTA CLARA
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 15
B. TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE CONNECTIVITY AND
ACCESSIBILITY STUDY
Consultant will develop an inventory on the walkability
and bike-ability to parks from adjacent neighborhoods,
walkability within parks, and an evaluation of safe routes
to schools and parks. This will include the following:
1. Accessibility to riparian (creek and river) beds.
2. Accessibility to and from parking lots and within
parks for different ability groups.
3. Surrounding pedestrian and bike infrastructure
leading to parks.
4. Bicycle and multiple-use trails as both recreation
opportunities and transportation alternatives to
motorized vehicles.
MEETINGS: One (1) Team/Staff Meeting, Two (2)
GoToMeeting/Teleconference Coordination Meetings, Two-day
(2) Parks Inventory Tour
PRODUCTS: Recreation Facilities Inventory Matrix, Facility Map,
Level of Service Gaps Map, Connectivity and Accessibility Study
TASK 3 - TRENDS AND STANDARDS ANALYSIS
A. DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Understanding the needs and preferences of the Burl-
ingame community depends on an understanding of the
population and its demographic characteristics from a
historical perspective, in current terms, as well as a future
view. Demographic characteristics have been demon-
strated to be dependent variables in recreating patterns
and preferences, which suggests that these characteris-
tics can be used as predictors of future recreation needs.
Steps in this analysis include a review of historical
population trends in the City and the region, as well as a
forecast for change in the future. A demographic profile
for the residents of Burlingame will be compiled, examin-
ing change over time by age, ethnicity, income, and other
metrics gathered by the U. S. Census. Infographics will
illustrate the data to reveal how community demography
has been evolving, creating a foundation for anticipating
future demography in the City. This approach to analyz-
ing the resident community acknowledges that today’s
decisions regarding parks and recreation facilities,
amenities, open space, and trails must accommodate an
understanding of the forecast for population growth and
change in demography of the City over time.
B. RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS
Verde will determine the community’s interests and needs
for enhancements to the park system through the master
plan process. This will include research of trends and
issues information relevant to the City of Burlingame
through resources such as American Demographics,
Institute of the Future, CPRS, NRPA, Outdoor Industry
Association Surveys, and others to complete an issues,
trends, and implications report. This analysis may include
conclusions regarding impacts to the City’s provision of
future recreation services, as well as the City’s role in
addressing these impacts. Consultant will participate in
a teleconference to present and discuss the findings of
this task.
E. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
CLIENT TESTIMONIAL
Verde Design worked with us, not for us...Verde
demonstrated a deep breadth of expertise and
knowledge, which was extremely helpful to our
team during all phases of the project. This project
required the team to develop many creative design,
lighting, and safety solutions, while meeting the
evolving needs of the community and multiple project
stakeholders. Verde was extremely helpful during the
environmental review phase of the project...Verde
was consistently proactive and responsive to our
Department, the project's construction management
team, the community, consultants, and other project
stakeholders. I highly recommend them.
DAN MAUER, PROJECT MANAGER, RECREATION AND PARKS
DEPARTMENT, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
MINNIE AND LOVIE RECREATION CENTER | SAN FRANCISCO
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN16
E. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
C. BENCHMARKING
Northern California and the Burlingame area have
a unique regional character that occasionally super-
sedes and overlaps political boundaries. Comparing key
characteristics from neighboring communities can provide
meaningful indicators. This data will be gathered and ana-
lyzed to ascertain trends in the region and the potential
relationships to the City of Burlingame. A comparison with
five (5) similar and regionally located park and recreation
agencies will be conducted. Potential jurisdictions could
include San Mateo, Foster City, Redwood City, Palo Alto,
Pleasant Hill, or Dublin, but we will collaborate with the
City to select final comparison cities with similar demo-
graphic, geopolitical, or other characteristics.
MEETINGS: One (1) Team/Staff Teleconference
PRODUCTS: Demographics Report, Trends Analysis,
Benchmarking Data
TASK 4 – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND
ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY NEEDS
An active, collaborative, and synergistic public involvement
process is a high priority in this scope. The public involvement
process envisioned for Burlingame must respond to the need
for public participation, needs identification, and consensus-
building among staff, user organizations, stakeholders, and
citizens to define the goals for the City’s parks, recreation
programs, open space, trails, and facilities.
Based on our current understanding of your requirements, we
propose the following elements for inclusion in your public
involvement process:
A. STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Face-to-face interviews with selected stakeholders, such
as key City personnel, community leaders, business leaders,
school district leaders, etc., provide the opportunity to gain
valuable perspective. These interviews seek insight into the
City’s values, strengths and weaknesses, unique attributes,
and distinctive competencies and initiatives, as well as help
identify any private sector and/or non-profit organizations
and their capabilities to compete or collaborate with the
City in delivery of recreation services. This process lays
the groundwork for an engaging and active public involve-
ment process. Consultant will work with staff to identify and
schedule interviewees, with a maximum of eight (8) inter-
views to be scheduled over the course of two days.
B. FOCUS GROUPS (optional item)
The use of focus groups is a method to engage stake-
holders, staff, community leaders, and youth or adults in
an interactive planning process. Focus groups provide
effective interaction with specific population groups in
more detail than possible with larger groups or one-on-
one settings. These groups may include representatives
from City staff, public agencies, schools, public safety,
non-profit community agencies, business leaders, faith-
based organizations, special interest groups, or others.
Verde Design will facilitate three (3) focus groups to elicit
comments from the participants to identify issues, concerns,
and current or emerging facility or program needs.
C. SPORTS ORGANIZATION'S QUESTIONNAIRE
Soliciting the attitudes and perceived needs of rec-
reation facilities user groups in the City is an essential
element in the process. This questionnaire is designed to
achieve the objective of outreach to these community
groups and further provide valuable information regard-
ing current and anticipated growth of facility usage,
team size, recreation seasonality, and player volume that
is important to the understanding of current actual-usage
and potential future facility demand. The consultant
will provide a questionnaire form regarding informa-
tion relevant to the usage of recreation facilities in the
City. The City will be responsible for encouraging sports
organizations active in the City to complete and return
the questionnaires in a timely fashion. The responses
would then be tabulated and analyzed by the consultant
for inclusion in the estimate of recreation facility demand
and needs.
CATAMARAN PARK | FOSTER CITY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 17
E. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
D. CITY-WIDE RESIDENT RANDOM SAMPLE,
STATISTICALLY VALID INTERNET SURVEY
The resident survey is a critical public planning
tool due to its ability to represent the City as
a whole, with statistical reliability, rather than
obtaining feedback only from those citizens
who choose to participate in venues such as
public workshops or other survey methods. The
results of a statistically-reliable survey provide
context to input received from all other forms
of public participation. The scope of the City-
wide internet survey will be approximately four surveys
that are short, two to five-minute surveys, completed via
email, to residents of the City who have signed up to
participate in the surveys. The initial outreach effort to
solicit volunteers will utilize the City’s existing database
of email addresses from previous recreation program
sign-ups, utility invoices, or other tools the City has, with
a realistic goal to collect at least 300 survey respon-
dents, and collect completed surveys from this sample
of all households to achieve statistical reliability of +/-
5.8% margin of error with a 95% confidence level.
The survey questionnaires will be custom designed to ad-
dress the unique and particular requirements of the City’s
residents. A two-step design, review, and agreement pro-
cess that includes City staff will be employed. Randomizing
of the distribution of invitations, as well as the creation
of a common set of responders, will enable the planning
effort to conduct multiple surveys over the course of the
project to gauge effectiveness of the outreach effort, pre-
liminary results, and specific end-user parks and recreation
utilization data.
Survey responses will be tabulated and the data will be
analyzed for multiple different subgroups of respon-
dents, including geographic location within the City, age,
income, presence of children, frequency of facility or
programs use, etc. The report of findings will highlight
differences in responses that are statistically significant
based on a review of responses provided by these
different groups of the City, as well as the entire City
sample of respondents.
E. PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
An integral component in the development of the parks
master plan update is our public workshop process. Our
philosophy is that workshops should be facilitated by the
consultant team and driven by the participants and City
staff. The goals of the workshops are three-fold: 1) to
provide opportunities for the community to participate,
share issues and concerns, and learn about the master plan
process, 2) to foster synergistic public dialogue regard-
ing expectations, solutions, and vision, and 3) to create a
pathway for the community-to-author recommendations
regarding priorities, through consensus-building and com-
munity support development.
The results of the City-wide survey would be presented
in the course of the workshop presentations and program
or facility desires would be solicited and catalogued.
Importantly, the outcome of these workshops would
provide important input to prioritization of future recre-
ation program or facility improvements in the City. The
workshop process will clarify and augment the identified
desires of the community developed through other public
planning methods. Most importantly, the workshop process
is designed to arrive at consensus regarding the priorities
perceived by the public for improvements to the recre-
ation programs, trails, and facilities system.
Each of the proposed two (2) workshops, as further
described below, includes up to a four-hour session for up
to 50 participants. We propose to work closely with City
staff to organize and further define the approach for each
workshop, and Verde will provide staff training on how to
work within groups as a scribe and/or facilitate individual
groups. City staff will be responsible for promotion of the
workshops, facility location scheduling, refreshments, and
provision of staff to assist with the workshop groups.
UPPER RIGHT: COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS FOR
THE INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND IN MORGAN HILL
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN18
E. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
Community Workshop #1: The first public workshop is
envisioned to present the master plan process and focus
on what the public sees as community recreation charac-
teristics, issues, and current opportunities and constraints.
We will also focus on special interests (i.e. sports groups,
active adult community, youth community, etc.) and their
experiences with the facilities in the City.
Community Workshop #2: The second workshop
will be designed to reflect the citizen input from the
first workshop, summarize the master plan process, and
seek comments from the public on the findings of the
first workshop. Specifically, this workshop is aimed at
reaching consensus regarding prioritization of parks and
recreation facility needs in the City.
F. PROJECT WEBSITE (optional item)
Consultants shall develop color graphic materials for re-
view and comment, and submit final revised and ready-for-
publication materials for the City to upload to its project
webpage (hosted by the City’s website). This public
participation tool will inform the public of the plan project
status, updates to the community, City Council, staff, and
project team, and may be utilized to gather feedback or
comment on the materials as may be desired.
G. FACILITY NEEDS ANALYSIS
The bedrock of the needs assessment is the actionable
facilities demand and needs method we employ. It is
designed to evaluate the recreation activities that meet
the City’s core services philosophy and to recommend
effective resource allocation and pricing strategies.
Further, recreation facility needs that are specific to
the residents of the City today and in the future will be
quantified. The results of this needs assessment method
are presented through the public involvement process,
providing community context, and inspiring communica-
tion and consensus during the public workshops.
A comparison of our program and facility needs method
to other approaches demonstrates two important and
unique assumptions at the heart of our method. First, we
believe that “I want” does not define community needs.
While skillfully facilitated workshops can derive essential
information about community expectations (“wants”), the
inevitable result of the use of workshop results alone to
assess needs is the community wants “more.”
Many outreach efforts to communities and stakeholders,
if done without the dynamic techniques we utilize, will
result in the basic answer, "yes, we need more recreation
facilities." Advising an agency that they need to deliver
“more” facilities is insufficient information upon which to
make decisions. Our clients must know how many, when,
and where these facilities should be planned to meet
current and forecast community needs, and that it would
be based not just on anecdotal preferences, but also
verified through the needs assessment tools described
below in Section H.
The second unique assumption at the heart of our
method is that an informed, engaged community is
a valuable resource in making decisions regarding
needed facility or program priorities. We facilitate
opportunities for the community to be informed about
what facilities are needed as a basis for them to discuss,
consider, and agree on the priorities of needed facilities.
These community-driven priorities are taken into consid-
eration along with funding or partnership opportunities,
as well as conclusions regarding the City’s core services
to derive recommendations in the master plan.
SEA CLOUD PARK | FOSTER CITY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 19
E. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
H. FACILITIES DEMAND AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Verde team utilizes statistical techniques to develop
measures of demand for many types of recreation facili-
ties, indoor and outdoor. Our approach is designed to
quantify demand for recreation facilities that are specific
to residents of the City, today and in the future.
This method has been proven to be both actionable and
defensible, following the most recent recommendations
of the National Recreation and Park Association as
determined by their Standards Revision Task Force. Our
approach replaces the original NRPA national facility
standards, as the NRPA Standards Revision Task Force
has deemed them to be obsolete.
Our needs assessment method is based on current, actual
reported facility usage, facility size norms, peak facility
needs, and seasonality for the City. Using a statistical
technique we have developed and employed for many
other city-wide Parks Master Plans or Needs Assess-
ments, the usage rates will be converted into peak day
demand estimates. These peak day demand estimates
represent the volume of users that a facility type needs
to accommodate on a given peak day.
By then applying local facility size norms, an estimate
of the number of facilities required to meet the demand
is calculated. From this demand, a meaningful level of
service facility standard for the City will be calculated
for each facility type for the effective delivery of rec-
reation services.
The current facility demand will be projected to a future
horizon by not only accommodating population growth,
but also forecast change in the demographic profile of
the City that can result in changing recreation patterns.
Both current and forecast demand estimates may then be
compared with the current inventory of facilities in the
City (those operated by the City as well as joint-use
school City facilities) to identify the needs, expressed
as either a surplus or a deficit, for each facility type.
The product of the analysis process provides insight into
any possible gaps in level of service by facility type
throughout the City, and will help indicate where land
acquisition and development would benefit user groups
that could be currently under-served.
A primary advantage to this method for determining
facility needs is that it offers an unbiased, quantitative
evaluation of the level of service in terms of surplus or
deficit condition of facilities, and provides a valuable
context to the input received from stakeholders and
residents during the public involvement process, facilitat-
ing community consensus. Further, this methodology has
the ability to identify the potential needs for types of
recreation facilities not available at this time in the City.
MEETINGS: Three (3) Coordination Meetings and Three (3)
Follow-Up GoToMeeting/Teleconference Survey Coordination
Meetings, One Day of Stakeholder Interviews; One (1) Pre-
Workshop Coordination Meeting, Three (3) Focus Groups; Three
(3) Public Workshops, One (1) Post-Workshop GoToMeeting/
Teleconference
PRODUCTS: Stakeholder Interview Summaries, Focus
Group Findings (optional items), Draft and Final Internet
Survey Questionnaires, Internet Survey Findings Report and
Tabulations, Public Workshop Presentation PowerPoint,
Public Workshops Consensus Reports and Matrices, Sports
Organization Questionnaire and Draft Distribution List
Cover Letter, Analysis of Responses to Sports Organization
Questionnaires Completed, Online Survey Summary Report,
Facility Needs Assessment
CASANOVA PARK | SAN MATEO
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN20
E. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK 5 – PARK ACQUISITION AND
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
This task begins with a feasibility analysis to identify
opportunities for renovated and new community recreation
facilities to meet identified needs and priorities. Properties
suitable for acquisition can be identified and cost estimates
prepared. Based on these opportunities, the consultant can
match funding resources and capacities to specific capital
improvements proposed for the plan. This information
will provide decision-makers with the tools required for
implementation of each proposed project.
A. PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR SPECIFIC PARK SITES
Based upon the community input and needs assessment,
the consultant team will evaluate the specific needs and
preferences for improvements, renovations, and ameni-
ties at the existing and potential future City park sites.
Planning for potential locations, size, and program ele-
ments of park sites, as well as the undeveloped sites, will
be evaluated during the community input process, and
included in the recommendations for future parks depart-
ment and fiscal planning.
B. COST ESTIMATES
Cost estimates for development and maintenance (short-
and long-term) of new parks and/or facilities, as well
as recommended improvements at existing sites, will be
identified and presented. The consultant team will iden-
tify any property acquisition necessary to implement the
recommended improvements and the City’s real property
agent will provide the estimated cost to acquire such
properties. Costs associated with current facility defi-
ciencies will be segregated from those necessitated by
growth from new development, or those that may be the
result of increasing existing standards.
C. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
The consultant team will prepare a Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) that forecasts at least six years of recommen-
dations and will include acquisitions, development, pres-
ervation, or rehabilitation projects. For each project, the
anticipated year of implementation and funding oppor-
tunities would be identified. The CIP can provide options
for single year and multiple year funding scenarios based
on priorities developed in the City needs assessment
phase of the planning process. The sequencing of the
recommended projects in the CIP will be coordinated
with realistic time frames to put the recommended fund-
ing options into place and incorporate them into the
City’s budgeting process. For example, projects with
dedicated funding sources may be incorporated into the
CIP prior to projects that may have been a higher prior-
ity according to the City needs assessment, but do not
have a dedicated funding source.
D. FUNDING STRATEGIES
Based on each recommended improvement cost to exist-
ing parks, recommended development cost of new parks,
and the cost of each site identified for acquisition, the
consultant team will perform an analysis of possible fund-
ing options and implementation strategies, and a Park and
Facility Development Fee Nexus Study as follows:
1. The consultant team, including Harris & Associates, will
attend a kickoff meeting with the City to discuss the
project timeline and finalize the project approach. We
will discuss both the park and recreation fee and the
Quimby fee to determine if one single impact fee will
be used or if the City wishes to continue utilizing the
two separate funding mechanisms.
2. Based on the cost estimates prepared by the consul-
tant team, Harris will determine the cost of provid-
ing park and recreation facilities, including inciden-
tal costs to the population and workers projected
in the planning horizon. Harris will determine the
planning horizon population and employee projec-
tions. Harris will then calculate a cost per capita
and per employee, and develop a fee schedule for
the various land uses in the City. Harris will ensure
that the “Nexus” requirements, as outlined in the
Mitigation Fee Act, are satisfied. Harris will provide
these draft fees to the City to review.
MAGICAL BRIDGE PLAYGROUND | PALO ALTO
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 21
E. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
3. As part of this task, Harris will also survey surround-
ing communities and provide a comparison of the
proposed fees with other communities.
4. Harris will prepare the Parks and Recreation Fee
Nexus Study which will incorporate all decisions,
assumptions, methodologies, and calculations made
over the course of the project. Specifically, the
report will:
a. Discuss the overall methodology
b. Outline the nexus findings associated with cal-
culation of the fees
c. Provide information regarding the facilities and
costs included in the calculation and the appli-
cation of other funding sources, if any
d. Identify the projections for future development
that were used as a basis in calculating the fees
e. Identify any existing deficiencies and ensure that
the cost of the facilities needed to eliminate the
deficiency is not included in the fee calculation
f. Discuss the interaction with the Quimby fee or,
if desired, the replacement of Quimby with a
single park fee
g. Discuss the accounting, reporting, and adminis-
trative procedures that are required pursuant
to the Mitigation Fee Act
h. Discuss the process for future fee updates
i. Project fee revenue that will be collected based
on City-provided development assumptions
j. It is critical that the development impact fees meet
the five findings required by the Mitigation Fee
Act (Government Code 66000 et seq). The follow-
ing findings will be documented in the report:
• Identifying the purpose of the fee
(§66001(a)(1) of the Act)
• Identifying the use to which the fees will be
put. If the use is financing facilities, the facili-
ties shall be identified. That identification
may, but need not, be made by reference to
a capital improvement plan as specified in
§65403 or §66002, may be made in appli-
cable general or specific plan requirements,
or may be made in other public documents
that identify the facilities for which the fees
are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act)
• Establishing the relationship between the
fees’ use and the type of development
project on which the fees are imposed
(§66001(a)(3) of the Act)
• Establish the relationship between the need
for the public facilities and the types of
development on which the fees are imposed
(§66001(a)(4) of the Act)
• Documenting how there is a reasonable
relationship between the fees amount and the
cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities
attributable to the development on which the
fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act)
5. The draft Nexus study will be presented to the City.
Once comments are received, Harris will revise the
draft report and prepare a final report. Harris will
also provide the City with suggested revisions to the
park fee ordinance. It is assumed that City legal staff
will review and finalize these changes.
MEETINGS: Four (4) Coordination GoToMeeting/
Teleconferences, Two (2) Team/Staff Coordination Meetings,
One (1) Recreation and Parks Commission Presentation
PRODUCTS: Cost Estimates and Phasing Plan for Parks and
Trails Renovation and Acquisition/Development, Facilities
Maintenance Cost Estimates, Fee Nexus Study, Funding Plan,
Funding Analysis and Recommendations
One way Verde Design is different from other firms I’ve worked
with is they really listen to the client. Some design firms come into
a project and they want to sell you on something they’ve already
conceptualized or that fits their own artistic purpose, but Verde
comes in with an open mind and listens first before drawing.
GREG BETTS, FORMER COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CLIENT TESTIMONIAL
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN22
E. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK 6 – DRAFT PARKS MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Verde Design will develop a text only “screen” draft master
plan document and submit to the City for review. The City
would review the “screen” draft document and provide all
refinements compiled on one copy.
The team will conduct a meeting with City staff to review
and discuss refinements to the “screen” draft document.
Following City staff review, we would prepare a final draft
version for general public distribution and consideration
at formal public meetings. Final draft documents would
include recommendations and all summaries related to the
development of the findings.
The master plan will have the following three sections:
1. Research
a. Park and Facility Analysis and Assessment Study
b. Demographic Analysis Study
2. Outreach/Needs Assessment
a. Public Input Process
b. Community Needs Study
3. Recommendations
a. Acquisition, Maintenance, Cost and Funding Study
b. Detailed Parks, Facilities and Open Space Complete
Build-Out Concept
c. Recommendations for Standards
d. Identify appropriate development within the com-
munity to properly time the availability of services
and infrastructure to accommodate new parks, trails,
and facilities.
MEETINGS: Two (2) Team/Staff Coordination Meetings, Two
(2) GoToMeeting/Teleconference Coordination Meetings, One
(1) Team/City Draft Review Meeting, One (1) GoToMeeting/
Teleconference Coordination Meeting
PRODUCTS: Parks/Facilities/Trails Opportunities Map, Park
Conceptual Diagrams, Cost Estimates, CIP Spreadsheet/
Funding Matrix Screen Draft Master Plan, PowerPoint
Presentations, Ten (10) Hard Copies and Camera-Ready Final
Master Plan Document
TASK 7 – PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER
PLAN ADOPTION
Verde Design will conduct meetings with City staff to preview
the PowerPoint presentation and discuss board/staff joint
work session logistics. We will attend one (1) City Council
Work Session and one (1) City Council Meeting for final
adoption. After formal City adoption, Verde Design will
prepare a final camera-ready master plan document that
incorporates all executive directed changes. A total of 10
final master plan documents will be provided, as well as
a read-only pdf version that can be posted to the City’s
website. Charts, Excel spreadsheets, and wall graphics will be
provided digitally in native software formats, so the City can
utilize the master plan as a living document.
MEETINGS: One (1) Team/Staff Coordination Meeting, One
(1) GoToMeeting/Teleconference Coordination Meeting, Three
(3) Public Agency Meetings/Presentations
FINAL WORK PRODUCTS: The final product will be a
camera ready, fully edited and proofread Parks Master Plan
document with flyout full color maps, illustrations, diagrams,
conceptual plans and cardstock covers. The plan will be
provided in digital format, suitable for publication on-line.
PowerPoint presentations, Ten (10) hard copies and camera-
ready Final Master Plan document.
RED MORTON PARK | REDWOOD CITY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 23
E. DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES
TASK 8 – GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND
POLICIES DEVELOPMENT (OPTIONAL TASK)
The consultant team will synthesize all pertinent research
data, community input, and recreation program and facility
analyses to address issues and identify opportunities. The
team will work with City staff to define goals, priorities, and
strategies that will address park, facility, and trails needs for
the future.
MEETINGS: Two (2) Coordination GoToMeeting
Teleconferences, One (1) Team/Staff Coordination Meeting
PRODUCTS: Summary Action Plan
TASK 9 – SUSTAINABILITY PRACTICES
ANALYSIS, AND USER FEE PRICING
STRATEGIES (OPTIONAL TASK)
A. SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES STUDY
Verde Design can develop and establish a vision for the
development and operation of a sustainable park system
for the City of Burlingame. This task includes research on
best practices, review of case studies, analysis of existing
practices or policies, public input, input from key City
leadership, and a Strengths, Opportunities, Threats, and
Weaknesses analysis (SWOT) that results in identifying
a vision, goals, and objectives for a park system that ad-
dresses environmental and economic sustainability.
Recommendations can be prepared for specific sus-
tainability practices for both new and rehabilitation
projects, including ongoing sustainable operation and
maintenance practices for incorporation into future bid
requirements for maintenance suppliers, as well as design
and construction guidelines for proposed new projects
or project improvements that address environmental and
economic sustainability goals.
Sample outline may include:
1. Development of a Sustainability Section for the City
resulting from research on best practices, public
input, MPAT and input from key leadership. This
shall include:
2. Develop a vision for sustainability for the City
3. Develop a vision for the development of sustain-
able park systems. Establish and prioritize goals
and objectives
4. Detail case studies related to sustainable practices
5. Evaluate current internal strengths and weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats towards the development
of a sustainable park systems
6. Recommend specific sustainability practices
7. Detail specific recommendations on sustainable
practices for both new and rehabilitation projects
8. Detail specific recommendations on ongoing sus-
tainable operation and maintenance practices
B. IDENTIFICATION OF CORE SERVICES AND PRICING
STRATEGIES
Resources for all agencies today are precious. In analyz-
ing what the City of Burlingame and others provide to
the community, duplication of programs or facilities by
public or other organizations does not effectively utilize
precious resources and, more importantly, may result in
community needs being unmet. The consultant will de-
velop an overall operational assessment for efficiencies
and best management practices that can be employed
to guide the organization including an analysis and
identification of core recreation services, effective re-
source allocation, cost recovery, and pricing strategies
that take into consideration community-wide benefits
vs. individual benefits. Recommended broad strategies
for improvement or elevation of current operations to a
best practice level will be presented that will apply to:
1. Pricing strategies for facilities and programs
2. Staffing standards for recreation services used by
the community
3. Inventory of potential community partnerships and
outside providers
The consultant team provides deliverables at key stages in
the development of the update document, as well as progress
prints for public display during meetings, and for internal staff
review. The scope of work above identifies specific work
products that will be delivered at each stage in the process.
In addition, wall posters, flipchart-sized written notes, and
summaries of the key meetings and community input sessions
will be provided.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN24
F. PROJECT SCHEDULE
Provide a project schedule indicating anticipated milestones and meetings, with the estimated length of time for completion of the
Master Plan process. Time estimates should be expressed in number of days/weeks without reference to a specific starting date. The
schedule should identify when draft and final work products will be submitted to City staff.
Project Approach Summary Table - Nine (9) Month Schedule
Tasks Meetings Deliverable(s)
Work Plan & Kickoff 2w ►Kickoff Meeting with the City ►Preliminary Schedule
►Related Document Summary
Parks & Facilities
Inventory
6w
►(1) Team/Staff Meeting
►(2) GoToMeeting/Teleconferences
►2 Days - Facility Inventory Tour
►Comprehensive Recreation Programs
Inventory Matrix
►Parks & Recreation Facility Inventory Matrix
►Facilities Map
►Trails & Open Space Connectivity Map
►Level of Service Gap Map
Trends, Benchmarks
& Standards Analysis 2w ►(1) Team/Staff Teleconference
►Demographics Report
►Trends Analysis Report
►Benchmarking Study
Assess Community
Needs & Outreach
14w
►(2) Coordination Meetings
►(4) Review Meetings via GoToMeeting/
Teleconferences
►1 Day Stakeholder Interviews
►(3) Focus Groups
►(1) Meeting to Prepare for Workshops
►(3) 3-hour Public Workshops
►Stakeholder Interview Summaries
►Focus Group Summaries
►Internet Survey Questionnaire and Summary
►Public Presentations
►Sports Organization Questionnaire and
Summary
►Project Website
►Facility and Programs Needs Assessment
Summary Matrix
Park Acquisition,
Construction Costs 6w
►(4) GoToMeeting/Teleconferences
►(2) Team/Staff Coordination Meeting
►(1) Recreation & Parks Commission Presentation
►Park Site Plans for Regional Park,
Sand Creek Park and Empire Park
Cost Estimates and Phasing Plans
►Funding Plan/Analysis
►Fee Nexus Study Report
►Sustainable Practices Study (optional)
►Identification of Core Services and Pricing
Strategies (optional)
Goals, Objectives
& Policies
(If Desired)
3w
►(2) GoToMeeting/Teleconferences
►(1) Team/Staff Coordination Meeting
►Summary Action Plan
Final Report &
Presentations 6w
►(3) Team Meetings
►(3) GoToMeeting/Teleconferences
►(1) Draft Review Meeting
►(3) Public Agency Presentations
►(10) Copies of Final Report
►(1) Camera-Ready Original
►(1) Digital Copy
►(1) Set Wall Maps & Digital Copy
Time/Weeks
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 25
G. CONTRACT EXCEPTIONS
Verde Design has no concerns with the terms of City's "Agreement for Professional Services."
Indicate any concerns with the terms of the City's "Agreement for Professional Services" attached as "Attachment A". Please make
comments as specific as possible.
MASTER PLAN GRAPHIC FOR SEMINARY OAKS, MENLO PARK
H. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
In the past two years, Verde Design has completed three projects for the City of Burlingame. These include Murray Soccer Field
(2016), Bayside Park (2016), and a driving range (2016). To the best of our knowledge, these projects do not create a potential
conflict of interest.
Include a statement disclosing any involvement with plan/development projects in the City of Burlingame by the consultant (and
sub-consultants) within the last two years. The City of Burlingame reserves the right to reject any proposals having the potential for
conflict of interest.
I. FEE PROPOSAL
SEE SEPARATE SEALED ENVELOPE
Submit with the proposal, under separate sealed envelope, one (1) hard copy of your compensation summary in a spreadsheet
format to include breakdowns of the phases and the costs for each. The consultant is free to format tasks/milestones under each
phase as deemed appropriate based on past experience and understanding of the project. Also include the hourly rates (for the
lead firm and all sub-consultants), and any other applicable fees or expenses. The City may elect to contract for all or only some of
the phases of work.
Verde Design's fee proposal is included in a separate sealed envelope, as requested in the RFP.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN26
J. OTHER INFORMATION
• City of Walnut Creek
• City of Alameda
• City of Burlingame
• City of Concord
• City of Daly City
• City of Fort Bragg
• City of Foster City
• City of Fremont
• City of Menlo Park
• City of Milpitas
• City of Modesto
• City of Morgan Hill
• City of Morro Bay
• City of Mountain View
• City of Oakland
• City of Palo Alto
• City of Paso Robles
• City of Redwood City
• City of Riverbank
• City of Roseville
• City of San Bruno
• City of San Francisco
• City of San Jose
• City of San Leandro
• City of San Mateo
• City of San Ramon
• City of Santa Clara
• City of Santa Cruz
• City of Seaside
• City of Tracy
• Town of Atherton
• Town of Danville
• Town of Mammoth
Lakes
• Town of Woodside
In the past 10 years, Verde Design has partnered with more than
80 public agencies to transform cities and counties, many through
master planning projects. When we partner with cities, our team
takes time to learn their goals, preferences, priorities, and values
so we can work together to be successful. Below is a list of cities
we have provided park and planning services.
Osage Station Park Master Plan
Using mailers and online surveys, Verde Design and Town
staff collaborated to gather tremendous input from
the residents about their future vision for the park. The
process of gaining community input
continued with public workshops.
An excerpt from a community survey
is included on the following page.
IN 2016, 96% OF OUR CLIENTS
RE-SELECTED US TO SUPPORT THEM
ON THEIR NEXT PROJECT.
CLIENT SATISFACTION
Rinconada Park Long Range Plan
Verde Design conducted surveys and
facilitated public meetings and workshops
to identify the community's wants and
needs, and analyzed the impact of this
input on the existing and future uses of
the park. An excerpt from a recreation
participation survey is shown on page 29.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN 27
J. OTHER INFORMATION
Town of Danville
Osage Station Park Master Plan Update
Community Survey
Dear Resident,
The Town of Danville is currently assessing the future needs of Osage Station Park. We would like your
input to help us determine what is needed.
Please help us by taking the time to answer the following questions. You can also complete the survey
on our website: www.ci.danville.ca.us. Each member of your household ages 16 and over is asked to fill
out a separate questionnaire. Unless otherwise instructed, check only one answer to each question. If
you have any questions, please call me at (925) 314-3334. Thank you for your time and help.
Marcia Somers
Community Services Director
1.The ages of your family members that use Osage
Station Park are:
2-5 6-12
13-15 16-18
19-24 25-34
35-44 45-54
55-64 64+
Gender and # of family members using the park
Male Female
2.How long have you lived in the Town of
Danville?
3 years or less
4-6 years
7-10 years
11-19 years
20+ years
3.What neighborhood do you live in?
Alamo Blackhawk
Cameo Acres Danville South
Diablo Crow Canyon
Country Club
Eastside Greenbrook
Green Valley Sycamore
Westside Tassajara Valley
4.How would you rate the overall level of park and
recreation services in Danville?
Outstanding
Excellent
Adequate
Needs Improvement
I am not familiar with the park operations
5.Have you participated in a recreation program
sponsored by the Town in the last 12 months?
Yes No
EXCERPT FROM A COMMUNITY SURVEY USED
FOR THE OSAGE STATION PARK MASTER
PLAN TO ILLUSTRATE COMMUNITY OUTREACH
EFFORTS THAT CAN ENHANCE YOUR PROJECT.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CIVIL ENGINEERING • SPORT PLANNING & DESIGN28
RECREATION PARTICIPATION
Step 1 How many times a year do you participate in the following activities? Please check the
appropriate box.
Step 2 From all of the recreation activities listed on this page, pick the ten (10) activities you would most
like to do it the facilities were available. Rank them in order of your preference in the shaded column.
For example, write 1 next to your favorite activity, write 2 next to your second choice, etc.
Recreation
Acitvity
None 1-5 Times 6-10
Times
11-15
Times
16-20
Times
21-30
Times
Step 2
Badmitten
Baseball (adult)
Baseball (youth)
Basketball
Bicycling (BMX)
Bicycling for Pleasure
Bicycling (unpaved)
Bird
Watching/Feeding
Bocce
Camping
Computer (personal)
Concerts
Cultural Arts Classes
& Activities
Cultural Events
Dancing (ballet, tap,
etc.)
Dancing (social)
Dog Walking
Drama (participate)
Exercising/Aerobics
Fairs & Festivals
Family Activities
Fishing (freshwater)
Gardening
Gourmet Cooking
Group Day Trips
Gymnastics
Handball/Racquetball
Hiking/Backpacking
Hobbies
Horseback Riding
Horseshoes
Instructional Classes
Jogging/Running
Judo/Karate/Martial
Arts
J. OTHER INFORMATION
THIS RECREATION PARTICIPATION SURVEY WAS USED FOR THE
RINCONADA PARK MASTER PLAN AND PROVIDED USEFUL DATA
ON ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION AND FACILITY NEEDS.
Parks Master Plan
City of Burlingame • October 17, 2017
contents
1A. Cover Sheet
3B. Transmittal Letter
5C. Qualifi cations
21D. Approach and Methodology
26E. Detailed Scope of Services
29G. Contract Exceptions
28F. Project Schedule
29H. Confi lict of Interest Statement
I. Fee
(See separate sealed envelope.)
1A. Cover Sheet
PRIMARY CONTACT INFORMATION
Barbara Lundburg, Principal in Charge
RHAA Landscape Architects
225 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941
barbara@rhaa.com
415.383.7900
3
October 17, 2017
Re: Response to RFP for Consulting Services for the City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan
Margaret Glomstad
Parks and Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Margaret,
RHAA is excited to present our team’s qualifi cations for the City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan. The Master Plan will
focus the City’s goals of providing a high-quality, well-balanced park and recreation system that will continue to serve the
needs of your community and visitors well into the future, while continuing to wisely manage resources.
RHAA’s contribution for planning and designing parks for California cities is signifi cant. We have developed park
and recreation master plans for the Cities of Los Altos, Oakley, Roseville, Larkspur, Oroville, Newark, and Santa Cruz
California. We are currently developing the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan for the City of El Cerrito. The
depth of our experience goes well beyond preparation of Parks and Recreation Master Plans. We have designed and
seen implemented more than 500 parks throughout our 50+ years of experience.
As described further in our methodology, we see the key issues for this project as:
•Engaging the community in a constructive outreach process
•Developing a fl exible and balanced park and recreation system
•Creating a realistic and sustainable implementation strategy
Community outreach is key to a project. Building on commonality is one of our primary strengths. We will work with the
City staff, stakeholders, and the citizens of Burlingame to generate the ideas and priorities for the Parks Master Plan.
Through this process we will fi rst establish a common set of goals from which fi nal policies, plans, and programs are
developed. Our detailed approach to community involvement is described in the Approach and Methodology section.
Our approach to working with the City of Burlingame is collaborative and comprehensive. We are committed to a shared
process in which we work together with your project manager and staff to develop the fi nal policies and objectives that
will frame the plan. We consider them as part of the greater team. Working with you project manager, we will develop a
schedule for “check –in /update” phone and “face to face” meetings throughout the master plan process. We will rely
on project manager and staff to assist with the arrangement and facilitation of all community meetings.
Our mission is to participate with you in a comprehensive master planning process that is informative as well as
enjoyable for City staff and community alike.
Developing the Master Plan with include the following steps:
•Understanding who you are
•Identifying core values through community input
ROYSTON HANAMOTO ALLEY & ABEY
225 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941 T 415 383 7900 F 415 383 1433 www.rhaa.com
B. Transmittal Letter
4
•Creating a vision for a fl exible and balanced park system
•Establishing a realistic and sustainable implementation strategy
For your Master Plan, we have teamed with Applied Development Economics (ADE), a consulting fi rm specializing in
public fi nancing, as well as, Park and Recreation Fee Nexus Study. For the statistically valid survey, we have included
Godbe Research, who are leaders in public opinion research. Assisting RHAA in the inventory and evaluation of park
building, will be Group 4. Both Group 4 and RHAA have experience working with the City of Burlingame on the concept
plan for the Community Center.
I will pursue this approach as Principal-in-Charge and will be your primary contact. My strength is in leading a public
dialogue around community needs and priorities for their park systems. Lauren Ivey will be the Project Manager,
responsible for guiding the project process and production of the overall Master Plan. Cordy Hill, with her specialized
expertise in parks master plans will assist the team as Resource Principal. Nathanael Gray, staff, will assist the team
during the project and can provide GIS expertise.
RHAA and our team would love to assist you, City staff and the community in providing a well-balanced park system that
will serve your community’s needs well into the future. I look forward to presenting our qualifi cations to you in person.
Sincerely,
Barbara Lundburg
Principal-in-Charge
barbara@rhaa.com
Telephone: 415.383.7900
ROYSTON HANAMOTO ALLEY & ABEY
225 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941 T 415 383 7900 F 415 383 1433 www.rhaa.com
5
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
RHAA Description
Expertise
RHAA is a landscape architecture fi rm with a broad practice in the
design and planning of outdoor spaces. Our extensive portfolio includes
natural sites of 10,000 acres, regional and neighborhood parks,
urban plazas and streetscapes, and small urban interventions and
playgrounds. We are both planners and technical designers, so while we
dream big we do so with a foundation built on decades of experience
constructing projects. We provide a full range of services that include
site assessment, park planning programming and design, community
facilitation, conceptual design, construction design documents, and
construction support. We have been providing services for 59 years and
continue to move forward with experienced leadership and a current
design staff of 26 employees.
Our approach is to collaborate closely with our clients as partners,
involving them throughout our process, to ensure that work products
meet your goals precisely, and are completed effi ciently. We manage
project documentation to ensure that design decisions are recorded
and approved by City staff. Our design process responds to the context
of each project and with stakeholder input. Our strategy and the key
elements for RHAA’s Statement of Qualifi cations are 1) the fl exibility to
work on a variety of project types and scales, 2) the experience of RHAA
and our consultant team, and 3) the quality of the work produced.
Select Relevant Experience
• El Cerrito Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan, El Cerrito, California
• Newark Park & Recreation Master Plan, Newark, California
• Oroville Parks, Trails, & Open Space Master Plan, Oroville, California
• Santa Cruz 2030 Parks, Recreation Facilities & Open Space Master
Plan, Santa Cruz, California
• Los Altos Parks & Recreation Master Plan Los Altos, California
• Windsor Parks & Recreation Master Plan, Windsor, California
• Monte Rio Parks & Recreation Master Plan, Monte Rio, California
• Reedley Citywide Parks & Recreation Master Plan, Reedley, California
• Soledad Parks & Recreation Master Plan, Soledad, California
• North Tahoe Parks & Recreation Master Plan, Tahoe, California
• Vacaville Parks, Recreation & Open Space Master Plan, Vacaville,
California
• Roseville Parks & Recreation Master Plan, Roseville, California
• City of Oakley Park & Recreation Master Plan, Oakley, California
• Coalinga-Huron Recreation & Park District Master Plan Coalinga,
California
• Dinuba Park & Recreation Master Plan, Dinuba, California
• Galt Park & Recreation Master Plan, Galt, California
LEGAL NAME
Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey
(Under present business name since
1979.)
LEGAL STATUS/OWNERSHIP
RHAA is a California corporation in
business since 1958. Incorporated in
1967.
RHAA is Principal-owned. Barbara
Lundburg , Manuela King, and
Douglas Nelson each own an interest
of 10% or greater. Nathan Lozier, and
Jimmy Chan own an interest of less
than 10%.
RHAA does not have a fi nancial
interest in other lines of business.
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
323 Geary Street, #602
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.861.7900
F 415.861.7908
MILL VALLEY OFFICE
225 Miller Avenue,
Mill Valley, CA 94941
T 415.383.7900
F 415.383.1433
POINT OF CONTACT
Barbara Lundburg,
Principal in Charge
RHAA Mill Valley
225 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
barbara@rhaa.com
415.383.7900
TAX IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
94-1649892
CERTIFICATIONS
RHAA is certifi ed by the State
of California and the Federal
Government as a Small, Women-
Owned and Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise.
C. Qualifi cations
6
ABOUT ADE
)LUP+LVWRU\DQG2UJDQL]DWLRQ
Applied Development Economics, Inc. (ADE) is a consulting firm specializing in economic
planning and development services. Since its founding in 1985, the firm has established a
distinguished body of work resulting in tangible benefits for our clients. Our base of private-
and public-sector clients includes government agencies, economic development
organizations, foundations, research institutes, businesses, and private investors. The firm’s
headquarters is in Walnut Creek and is managed by ADE President Doug Svensson. The
firm currently has three professional staff in addition to administrative support staff.
$'(6HUYLFHV
ADE’s services include a wide range of economic planning services, fiscal and financial
analysis, funding services, and strategic planning. ADE has worked on local and regional
projects throughout the western United States. The firm also has experience on national
projects and in the Midwest. Over the years, the firm has received numerous critical
accolades, including 16 state and national awards since 1995.
5HOHYDQW([SHULHQFH
City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation Master Plan
ADE prepared a financing strategy for this plan that addressed a variety of potential funding
sources including development impact fees, land based financing mechanisms and general
obligation bonds as well as a variety of grant funding sources. ADE prepared capital cost
estimates in collaboration with RHAA for the top priority projects in the Master Plan and
focused the funding strategy on developing revenues for those key projects.
Newark Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Mr. Svensson worked with City staff to develop operating cost estimates for major facilities
upgrades to 15 parks, including three new parks, in Newark. The City was concerned that its
existing maintenance standards may be inadequate for the proposed new facilities, but it was
necessary to work through several iterations to achieve a balance of sufficient maintenance
levels within available budget resources. ADE also prepared an estimate of capital funding
available through impact fees as well as other potential capital funding sources
Rohnert Park Soccer Stadium
ADE assisted the City of Rohnert Park to program and design a synthetic turf soccer
stadium that could be used jointly Sonoma State as well as City programs. ADE conducted a
survey of cities in the Bay Area to determine how similar facilities are programmed and
funded. ADE also evaluated the potential for economic benefits to the City from visitors
coming to regional tournaments at the facility.
7
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
GODBE RESEARCH FIRM PROFILE
/HJDO1DPH &RUSRUDWH$GGUHVVRI&RPSDQ\
*RGEH&RUSRUDWLRQGED*RGEH5HVHDUFK
2OG%D\VKRUH+LJKZD\6XLWH%XUOLQJDPH&$
SPDLQ
IPDLQ
ZZZZJRGEHUHVHDUFKFRP
3URMHFW0DQDJHU&RQWDFW,QIRUPDWLRQ
*RGEH5HVHDUFK
%U\DQ*RGEH3UHVLGHQW
S
HZEJRGEH#JRGEHUHVHDUFKFRP
<HDU)RXQGHGDQG/HJDO)RUPRI&RPSDQ\
*RGEH5HVHDUFKZDVIRXQGHGLQ-DQXDU\RIDQGKDVEHHQLQEXVLQHVVFRQWLQXDOO\
VLQFHRXUIRXQGLQJSURYLGLQJVXSHULRUTXDOLW\SXEOLFRSLQLRQUHVHDUFKVHUYLFHVWRORFDO
UHJLRQDODQGVWDWHDJHQFLHVWKURXJKRXW&DOLIRUQLDDQGWKHZHVWHUQ8QLWHG6WDWHV
*RGEH5HVHDUFKLVD&DOLIRUQLDFRUSRUDWLRQDQGLVLQJRRGVWDQGLQJZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD
6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWH*RGEH5HVHDUFKKDVQHYHUGHFODUHGEDQNUXSWF\KDVQHYHUEHHQD
GHIHQGDQWLQDQ\OLWLJDWLRQRUDUELWUDWLRQQRUZHKDYHQHYHUGHIDXOWHGLQWKHSHUIRUPDQFH
RIDFRQWUDFWGXULQJWKH\HDUKLVWRU\RIWKHILUP
6HUYLFHV3URYLGHG
*RGEH5HVHDUFKLVDIXOOVHUYLFHSXEOLFRSLQLRQUHVHDUFKDQGYRWHUSROOLQJDJHQF\:H
RIIHUH[SHUWLVHLQDOODFFHSWHGTXDQWLWDWLYHWHOHSKRQH,QWHUQHWPDLODQGLQWHUFHSWDQG
TXDOLWDWLYHIRFXVJURXSVRQHRQRQHLQWHUYLHZVWULDGVUHVHDUFKPHWKRGRORJLHVDVZHOO
DVK\EULGVWXGLHVPRUHWKDQRQHPHWKRGRORJ\DQGUHVHDUFKFRQVXOWLQJ
*RGEH5HVHDUFKGRHVQRWSURYLGHSROLWLFDOFRQVXOWLQJVWUDWHJLFSODQQLQJILQDQFLDO
DGYLVRU\OHJDORUHQJLQHHULQJVHUYLFHVWKDWDUHLQFRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVWZLWKRXUSXEOLF
RSLQLRQUHVHDUFKVWXGLHVE\KDYLQJIXWXUHSURMHFWGROODUVWLHGWRWKHUHVXOWVDQG
UHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIURPRXUUHVHDUFK
$GGLWLRQDO,QIRUPDWLRQ
)RUPHGLQ*RGEH5HVHDUFKLVD&DOLIRUQLD2IILFHRI6PDOO%XVLQHVVDQG'9%(
&HUWLILFDWLRQDQG6DQWD&ODUD9DOOH\7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ$XWKRULW\97$FHUWLILHG6PDOO
%XVLQHVV(QWHUSULVH6%(DQGLVDQHTXDORSSRUWXQLW\HPSOR\HU
*RGEH5HVHDUFK([SHULHQFH
2XUH[SHULHQFHLQWKH%XUOLQJDPHFRPPXQLW\ZKHUHZHDUHEDVHGDQGVXUURXQGLQJ
FRPPXQLWLHVDQGLQJUHDWHU6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\LVXQPDWFKHG6LQFH*RGEH
5HVHDUFKKDVFRQGXFWHGWZRVXUYH\VIRUWKH&LW\RI%XUOLQJDPHDVZHOODVILYHVXUYH\V
IRUWKH%XUOLQJDPH6FKRRO'LVWULFW,QDGGLWLRQZHKDYHDOVRFRQGXFWHGVXUYH\VRQD
YDULHW\RIWRSLFVIRURWKHU6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\FOLHQWVVXFKDVWKH&LW\RI0LOOEUDH&LW\RI
6RXWK6DQ)UDQFLVFR&LW\RI6DQ%UXQR&LW\RI6DQ0DWHR&LW\RI%HOPRQW&LW\RI+DOI
0RRQ%D\&LW\RI6DQ&DUORV&LW\RI5HGZRRG&LW\&LW\RI0HQOR3DUN&RXQW\RI6DQ
0DWHR6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\&RPPXQLW\&ROOHJH'LVWULFW3HQLQVXOD7UDIILF&RQJHVWLRQ
5HOLHI$OOLDQFH&RPPXWHRUJ&&$*6DQ0DWHR&RXQW\3HQLQVXOD+HDOWK&DUH'LVWULFW
DQGRWKHUV
8
INTRODUCTION TO GROUP 4
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc., is a full-service architecture firm
dedicated to creating vibrant public places that cultivate dynamic communities. For more
than four decades, our inspired and talented staff has provided quality services to public
clients and the cities, counties, and districts they serve. Our distinctly inclusive design process
engages diverse constituent, staff, and stakeholder groups in shaping the future of their
communities.
Exceeding our clients’ expectations and planning facilities that create and communicate a vision for
their communities are key reasons behind the success of our projects and the fact that more
than half of our business is for repeat clients. The firm prides itself on forming
interactive relationships with clients that incorporate the voices of user groups as well as
facility managers. Group 4’s priorities of excellence in planning and design result in many long-
term relationships with our clients.
Our staff includes planners, architects, interior designers, and technical and construction support
specialists. We are active in professional organizations such as the American Institute of
Architects and the Environmental Design Research Association. Most of our professional staff
are LEED accredited.
CONTACT
Group 4 Architecture, Research + Planning, Inc.
211 Linden Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080
(650)871-0709 | www.g4arch.com
Dawn Merkes, Principal
dmerkes@g4arch.com
(30611"3,43&$3&"5*0/."45&31-"/&91&3*&/$&
(SPVQIBTNPSFUIBOGPVSEFDBEFTPGFYQFSJFODFXPSLJOHGSPNPVSPGGJDFJO4PVUI4BO'SBODJTDP
BOEIBWFQMBOOFEBOEEFTJHOFEIVOESFETPGQVCMJDGBDJMJUJFT
JODMVEJOHSFDSFBUJPODFOUFST
DPNNVOJUZDFOUFST
BOEQBSLGBDJMJUJFTBSPVOEUIF#BZ"SFB
4JNJMBSQSPKFDUTJODMVEF
⿏ #VSMJOHBNF$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS8BTIJOHUPO1BSL.BTUFS1MBO
⿏ 4BO.BUFP3FDSFBUJPO'BDJMJUJFT.BTUFS1MBO
⿏ 4BO"OTFMNP3FDSFBUJPO'BDJMJUJFT.BTUFS1MBO
⿏ .JMMCSBF$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS
⿏ 1BMP"MUP$VCCFSMFZ$PNNVOJUZ'BDJMJUJFT'FBTJCJMJUZ4UVEZ
⿏ "MBNFEB $JUZ
1BSLT3FDSFBUJPO'BDJMJUJFT.BTUFS1MBO
⿏ -BSLTQVS3PTF(BSEFO$PNNVOJUZ'BDJMJUJFT.BTUFS1MBO
⿏ 4BO3BGBFM1JDLMFXFFE1BSL$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS
⿏ "MBNFEB,SVTJ1BSL$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS
⿏ 4BO+PTF3PPTFWFMU$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS
⿏ 4BO+PTF$BMBCB[BT1BSL$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS
⿏ 8FTU4BDSBNFOUP$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS
⿏ 1BMP"MUP.JUDIFMM1BSL$FOUFS
⿏ 4PVUI4BO'SBODJTDP-JCSBSZ$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS1SPHSBNNJOH
GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE, RESEARCH + PLANNING
9
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
With over 40 years of professional experience, Barbara Lundburg is
highly qualifi ed in all aspects of landscape architecture, from large-
scale environmental studies to urban design, park master plans and
community and campus development. Her design work is typifi ed by
intimate detail, powerful contextual linkages, and expert use of specially
selected plant materials. Barbara combines a sense of artistry and
appreciation for personal expression, in all its forms, with her passion
for gardening. Her work responds to the environment while also being
informed by cultural, historical and architectural references. The
sensitivity extends to her collaborative approach to design.
Select Project Experience
El Cerrito Park and Recreation
Facilities Master Plan
El Cerrito, California
Newark Park and Recreation
Master Plan
Newark, California
Oroville Parks, Trails, and Open
Space Master Plan
Oroville, California
Santa Cruz 2030 Parks, Recreation
Facilities and Open Space Master
Plan
Santa Cruz, California
Malibu Legacy Park
Malibu, California
Auburn School Park Preserve
Auburn, California
Gary Falati Neighborhood Park
Fairfi eld, California
Antioch Community Park
at Contra Loma
Antioch, California
Hiddenbrooke Community Park
and School Study
Vallejo, California
Fort Canning Park
Republic of Singapore
Bayfront Park
Menlo Park, California
Shephard Canyon Park
Oakland, California
Newbury Park
San Jose, California
San Ramon Community Park
San Ramon, California
Barbara Lundburg
Landscape Architect, LEED AP
Principal In Charge
EDUCATION
University of California, Berkeley
Bachelor of Landscape
Architecture
CERTIFICATION
Landscape Architect, State
of California #1591
LEED Accredited Professional US
Green Building Council
ASSOCIATIONS
Berkeley Architectural Heritage
Association
California Historical Society
ASLA, NCC Chapter Director,
1985-86, Vice President 1987
10
Cordelia Hill has experience with a wide variety of projects, including
park and recreation planning, commercial and professional facilities,
and community planning. Cordy is familiar with all phases of project
management, from initial design through fi nal construction drawings.
Her strong communication skills are used extensively both in public
workshops and presentations and in management of multi-disciplinary
teams. Cordy’s interests and background include universal architectural
and landscape design that accommodates disabled individuals.
Select Project Experience
Santa Cruz 2030 Parks, Recreation
Facilities and Open Space Master
Plan
Santa Cruz, California
Oroville Parks, Trails, and Open
Space Master Plan
Oroville, California
Los Altos Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
Los Altos, California
Windsor Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
Reedley, California
Monte Rio Parks and Recreation
Master Plan
Monte Rio, California
Reedley Citywide Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
Reedley, California
Soledad Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
Soledad, California
North Tahoe Parks and Recreation
Master Plan
Tahoe, California
Vacaville Parks, Recreation and
Open Space Master Plan
Vacaville, California
Roseville Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
Roseville, California
Cordelia Hill
Principal, ASLA, LEED AP
Resource Principal
EDUCATION
University of California, Berkeley
Master of Landscape Architecture
Smith College, Bachelor of Art,
American Studies
CERTIFICATION
Landscape Architect, State of
California #2024
LEED Accredited Professional US
Green Building Council
CPTED Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design Training
Certifi ed Playground Inspector
ASSOCIATIONS
American Society of Landscape
Architects
11
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
Lauren Ivey is an urban designer interested in the relationship
between landscape design, city planning, and community building
through active participation and engagement. While earning a dual
master in City Planning and Landscape Architecture at the University
of California, Berkeley, Lauren pursued research in design through
community engagement, professionally and academically. As a Student
Recreational Planner with the National Park Service, she produced
a national report and strategy by which to better engage the NPS
agency with communities of recreational need throughout the State of
California. In her academic research and design work, Lauren combined
her vibrant architectural aesthetic with strong contextual relationships,
in order to create unique and locally relevant site design. Her passion
to create lasting design through collaborative processes remains a
prevalent goal as she embarks fully into the professional realm.
Select Project Experience
El Cerrito Park and Recreation
Facilities Master Plan
El Cerrito, California
Newark Park and Recreation
Master Plan
Newark, California
Santa Cruz 2030 Parks, Recreation
Facilities, and Open Space
Master Plan
Santa Cruz, California
Burlingame Community Center
Burlingame, California
Candlestick Point Wedge Plaza
San Francisco, California
Lauren Ivey
Landscape Designer
Project Manager
EDUCATION
Princeton University, Bachelor of
Architecture + Certifi cate in Urban
Studies
University of California, Berkeley,
Master of City Planning + Master of
Landscape Architecture
ASSOCIATIONS
CED Alumni of Color
*indicates project completed while at another fi rm
Candlestick Point CP-01 Streetscape
San Francisco, California
Hunters Point Streetscape PG&E
San Francisco, California
RTCA Urban Outreach Strategy:
Answering the Call*
San Francisco, California
McClymonds Mini Park: A Study
in Community-Based Recreational
Design*
Oakland, California
12
Nathanael Gray has a Master in Landscape Architecture from Ball State
University and Bachelor Degrees in Fine Arts Painting and Theater.
Nathanael has experience designing and helping lead public outreach
for multiple park and master plan projects such as Andy’s Unity Park,
Moraga Commons Master Plan, and Newark Parks Master Plan. He has
helped design sports fi elds for the Reedley Sports Park and McInnis
Park, where he helped the client evaluate artifi cial turf alternatives.
During his graduate research Nathanael spent fi ve weeks in Brazil
studying sustainable development in rural areas of the South Atlantic
Rain Forest. Prior to pursuing landscape architecture, Nathanael
worked for a community not-for-profi t arts organization where he helped
build consensus for community projects and led fundraising campaigns.
Nathanael’s experience in art, not-for-profi t community work, and
performance enriches the perspective he brings to each project.
Select Project Experience
Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan
Newark, California
Oroville Parks, Trails and Open Space
Master Plan
Oroville, California
Santa Cruz 2030 Parks, Recreation
Facilities and Open Space
Master Plan
Santa Cruz, California McInnis Park
Master Plan
San Rafael, California
Reedley Sports Park
Reedley, California
Andy’s Unity Park
Santa Rosa, California
Nathanael Gray
Landscape Designer
EDUCATION
Ball State University, Master in
Landscape Architecture
Indiana Wesleyan University, Bachelor
of Science, Fine Arts
ASSOCIATIONS
American Society of Landscape
Architects
Lakeport Unifi ed School District:
Learning Plaza and Outdoor Dining
Lakeport, California
Gateway Monument
South San Francisco, California
Moraga Commons Site Specifi c
Master Plan
Moraga, California
City of Ten Thousand Buddhas
Ukiah, California
Bayer Neighborhood Park & Garden
Santa Rosa, California
13
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
Mr. Svensson is a planner and economist with thirty years’ experience in economic
development. He has been a Principal at Applied Development Economics since 1987
and its President for the past eleven years. Mr. Svensson has worked with a variety of
public and private clients including the State of California, regional air quality districts,
city and county governments, and nonprofi t community development corporations.
Mr. Svensson specializes in public fi nance as well as his practice in economic
development strategic planning. He has prepared more than 50 fi scal and public
fi nance studies for a wide range of project types, including general plans for Palo Alto
and San Jose, long range development plans for major universities, and major mixed
use developments such as the 2,400 acre Future Growth Area in Salinas as well as
the Rancho San Juan Specifi c Plan in Monterey County. Th is latter project included
preparing a market analysis for a proposed golf course.
He has worked i11 a number or selli11gs lo devise fi nancing programs For regional
parks, community facilities and tourism development programs. He is currently
working on parks and recreation master plans for the cities of Santa Cruz and Newark.
He prepared an operational fi nancing plan for Bayer Park in Santa Rosa, which includes
a community garden, and has completed such projects as designing an endowment
fund for the Central California Veterans Cemetery at former Fort Ord, analyzing
the feasibility of installing yurts in Santa Clara County campgrounds as a revenue
enhancing measure, and preparing integrated fi nancing plans for the Stanislaus County
Park and Recreation Master Plan as well as for the Hayward Area Recreation District.
Th is past year Mr. Svensson completed an analysis for the American Farmland Trust
and the Greenbelt Alliance to help stimulate fi nancial investment in value-added
agricultural enterprises in the Bay Area. ADE and Mr. Svensson have extensive
experience working with agricultural communities to expand agricultural operations
through enhancement of the agricultural value chain.
Mr. Svensson obtained his bachelor’s degree from the U.C. Santa Barbara, where he
was a Regent Scholar and he holds a master’s degree in city and regional planning from
the U.C. Berkeley with an emphasis in housing and economic development. He is a
member of the American Planning Association and the American Institute of Certifi ed
Planners.
Doug Svensson
President
Applied Development Economics
EDUCATION
U.C. Santa Barbara,
Bachelor of Science, Regent
Scholar
U.C. Berkeley, Master’s in
City and Regional Planning
ASSOCIATIONS
American Planning
Association
American Institute of
Certifi ed Planners
14
GODBE RESEARCH PROJECT MANAGER RESUME
7KHWHDPDW*RGEH5HVHDUFKLVFRPSULVHGRIUHFRJQL]HGH[SHUWVLQVXUYH\UHVHDUFK
GHVLJQDQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQDQGIRUWKHVWDWLVWLFDOO\YDOLGFRPPXQLW\VXUYH\SRUWLRQRIWKH
3DUNV0DVWHU3ODQSURFHVVZHZLOODVVLJQRQHRIRXUPRVWH[SHULHQFHGUHVHDUFKHUV
%U\DQ*RGEH3UHVLGHQWDVWKHSURMHFWPDQDJHUDQGGD\WRGD\FRQWDFWIURP*RGEH
5HVHDUFK%U\DQ*RGEHZLOOFRQGXFWDOODFWLYLWLHVLQWKHPDLOVXUYH\SURFHVVLQFOXGLQJ
TXHVWLRQQDLUHGHYHORSPHQWVDPSOLQJGHVLJQRYHUDOOSURMHFWPDQDJHPHQWDQDO\VLVDQG
UHSRUWLQJRIWKHUHVHDUFKGDWDSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKHUHVHDUFKGDWDDVZHOODVSRVWSURMHFW
FRQVXOWLQJRQWKHUHVXOWVDQGUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVIURPWKHVWDWLVWLFDOO\YDOLGVXUYH\ZLWK
ERWKWKH&LW\DQG5+$$
,QDGGLWLRQ%U\DQKDVFRQGXFWHGGR]HQVRIVXUYH\VLQWKH%XUOLQJDPHFRPPXQLW\
LQFOXGLQJWZRUHFHQWVXUYH\VIRUWKH&LW\RI%XUOLQJDPHDQGPXOWLSOHVXUYH\VIRUWKH
%XUOLQJDPH6FKRRO'LVWULFW$EULHIUHVXPHIRU%U\DQKDVEHHQSURYLGHGEHORZDQGKH
ZLOOEHDVVLVWHGE\RWKHU*RGEH5HVHDUFKWHDPPHPEHUVDVQHHGHG
%U\DQ*RGEH0$
3UHVLGHQWDQG3ULQFLSDO5HVHDUFKHU
$VWKH3UHVLGHQWDQGIRXQGHURI*RGEH5HVHDUFK0U*RGEHKDVPRUHWKDQ\HDUVRI
H[SHULHQFHLQSXEOLFRSLQLRQUHVHDUFKSXEOLFUHODWLRQVJRYHUQPHQWDIIDLUVDQGFDPSDLJQ
PDQDJHPHQW,QWKLVFDSDFLW\KHKDVFRQGXFWHGKXQGUHGVRISXEOLFRSLQLRQDQGPDUNHW
UHVHDUFKSURMHFWVDWWKHQDWLRQDOVWDWHDQGORFDOOHYHOVIRUFRXQFLOVRIJRYHUQPHQW
OLEUDULHVZDWHUGLVWULFWVDQGKXQGUHGVRIFLWLHVFRXQWLHVVFKRROGLVWULFWVDQGVSHFLDO
MXULVGLFWLRQV+HLVDUHFRJQL]HGOHDGHUDQGLQQRYDWRULQXVLQJYRWHURSLQLRQUHVHDUFKWR
DVVHVVWKHIHDVLELOLW\RIUHYHQXHPHDVXUHVDQGWRGHVLJQSXEOLFLQIRUPDWLRQFDPSDLJQVWR
JHQHUDWHVXSSRUWIRUPHDVXUHVWKDWZRXOGRWKHUZLVHIDLODQGWRKHOSHYDOXDWHDQGEXLOG
FRPPXQLW\FRQVHQVXVIRUSODQQLQJSURMHFWV
0U*RGEHUHFHLYHGD6LOYHU$QYLO$ZDUGIURPWKH3XEOLF5HODWLRQV6RFLHW\RI$PHULFDIRU
WKHGHYHORSPHQWDQGLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIDQRXWVWDQGLQJJRYHUQPHQWDIIDLUVSURJUDPRQ
EHKDOIRIWKH&RQWUD&RVWD:DWHU'LVWULFW7KLVSURJUDPZDVEDVHGRQ0U*RGEH
V
H[WHQVLYHUHVHDUFKLQFOXGLQJEDVHOLQHUHVHDUFKIRFXVJURXSVDQGWKUHHWUDFNLQJSROOV
0U*RGEHKDVDOVREHHQWKHSURMHFWPDQDJHUIRUVHYHUDOUHFHQWSDUNVDQGUHFUHDWLRQ
PDVWHUSODQRURWKHUSXEOLFSROLF\VXUYH\VIRUFOLHQWVXFKDVWKH&LW\RI/RV$OWRV3DUNV
DQG5HFUHDWLRQ'HSDUWPHQW1DSD&RXQW\/DQG7UXVW&LW\RI6DQWD&UX]3DUNVDQG
5HFUHDWLRQ'HSDUWPHQW0DULQ&RXQW\3DUNVDQG2SHQ6SDFH1DSD/DQG7UXVW&LW\RI
:DWVRQYLOOH3DUNVDQG5HFUHDWLRQ'HSDUWPHQWDQGPDQ\RWKHUV)LQDOO\%U\DQKDVDOVR
UHFHQWO\PDQDJHGVHYHUDOVXUYH\SURMHFWVIRUWKH&LW\RI%XUOLQJDPH%XUOLQJDPH6FKRRO
'LVWULFWDQGRWKHUDJHQFLHVWKDWVHUYHWKH%XUOLQJDPHFRPPXQLW\HJ&RXQW\RI6DQ
0DWHR6DQ0DWHR8QLRQ+LJK6FKRRO'LVWULFW&RPPXWHRUJ
3ULRUWRIRXQGLQJWKHILUP0U*RGEHZDV9LFH3UHVLGHQWRI5HVHDUFKDWD&DOLIRUQLD
EDVHGSXEOLFUHODWLRQVILUP+HDOVRSUHYLRXVO\VHUYHGDVWKH6HQLRU5HVHDUFK&RQVXOWDQW
DWWKH&HQWHUIRUWKH6WXG\RI/RV$QJHOHVDW/R\ROD0DU\PRXQW8QLYHUVLW\+HKDVD
0DVWHUVIURPWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI0LFKLJDQZKHUHKHVWXGLHGVXUYH\UHVHDUFKPHWKRGRORJ\
DWWKH,QVWLWXWHIRU6RFLDO5HVHDUFKDQGD%$IURPWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI&DOLIRUQLD%HUNHOH\
15
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
DAWN MERKES AIA LEED – PRINCIPAL
Dawn Merkes is an active proponent of user-based planning for
public and private projects. The interactive planning process
she helped Group 4 develop results in partnerships and facilities
that meet user needs for decades to come. Given her strong
communication skills and excellent public meeting facilitation
abilities, it is no surprise that Dawn excels in working with
communities and people to create a vision that ultimately leads
to facilities that have a significant impact on people’s daily lives.
Dawn previously led work with the City of Burlingame to re-
envision the Burlingame Community Center and planning of
Washington Park – a project that was informed by extensive
community and stakeholder engagement. She is currently
working with the city and community of Millbrae to establish
program and park spaces for a new community center.
EDUCATION AND REGISTRATION
Bachelor of Architecture, Montana State University, Bozeman
Registered Architect, State of California, C24206
LEED Accredited Professional BD+C
REPRESENTATIVE PROJECTS
ƒBurlingame Community Center + Washington Park Master Plan
ƒSan Mateo Recreation Facilities Master Plan
ƒSan Anselmo Recreation Facilities Master Plan
ƒPalo Alto Cubberley Community Facilities Feasibility Study
ƒAlameda (City) Parks & Recreation Facilities Master Plan
ƒLarkspur Rose Garden Community Facilities Master Plan
ƒSan Rafael Pickleweed Park Library + Community Center
ƒSouth San Francisco Library + Community Center
Programming
ƒMillbrae Community Center
ƒElk Grove Community/Senior Center
ƒSan Jose Roosevelt Community Center
ƒSan Jose Calabazas Park Community Center
ƒWest Sacramento Community Center
ƒAlameda Krusi Park Community Center
ƒSan Rafael Pickleweed Park Community Center
ƒPalo Alto Mitchell Park Center
Dawn Merkes
Alameda Parks + Recreation Facilities Master Plan
Burlingame Community Center +
Washington Park Master Plan
GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE, RESEARCH + PLANNING
16
City of Burlingame
RHAA Landscape Architecture + Planning
Barbara Lundburg, LEED AP, Principal In Charge
Cordelia Hill, LEED AP, Resource Principal
Lauren Ivey, Project Manager
Nathanael Gray, Landscape Designer
Applied Development Economics (ADE)
Economic Planning and Development
Doug Svensson, AICP, President
1756 Lacassie Ave., Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.934.8712
Godbe Research
Public Opinion Research
Bryan Godbe, M.A., President
1575 Old Bayshore Highway, Suite 102, Burlingame, CA 94010
650.288.3020
Group 4
Architecture, Reseach + Planning
Dawn Merkes, AIA, Principal in Charge
211 Linden Ave., South San Francisco, CA 94080
650.871.0709
Team Organization
17
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
El Cerrito Park and Recreation Facilities
Master Plan
El Cerrito, California
The El Cerrito Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan will serve
as a comprehensive guide for the future of El Cerrito’s park, open
space, and recreation system. The Master Plan will serve the City as a
long-range planning and asset management document that provides
an assessment of El Cerrito’s recreational and open space elements,
services provided, and the funding required to maintain, repair, and
rehabilitate these assets. The Master Plan will identify and prioritize the
maintenance, repair and rehabilitation of existing park and recreational
facilities with the aid of City staff, community participation, past
and present planning efforts, and an understanding of El Cerrito’s
demographic and recreational trends. Additionally, the Master Plan will
explore opportunities for the potential enhancement and expansion of
its recreational system.
DATES
2017 - Ongoing
TEAM MEMBERS
Barbara Lundburg, Principal in Charge
Lauren Ivey, Project Manager
CLIENT CONTACT REFERENCE
Chris Jones
Recreation Director
City of El Cerrito
10890 San Pablo Avenue
El Cerrito, CA 94530
510.559.7005
CJones@ci.el-cerrito.ca.us
City of El Cerrito
PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES
Master Plan
18
DATES
June 2016 - February 2017
TEAM MEMBERS
Barbara Lundburg, Principal in Charge
Cordy Hill, Resource Principal
Lauren Ivey, Project Manager
CLIENT CONTACT REFERENCE
David Zehnder
Recreation and Community Services
Director
City of Newark
6800 Mowry Avenue
Newark, CA 94560
510.578.4405
david.zehnder@newark.org
Newark Citywide Park and Recreation
Master Plan
Newark, California
The Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan will be a comprehensive
document used to shape the future of Newark’s park system. The Plan
identifi es and prioritizes potential park projects based on an inventory
of the City’s existing park system, input from City staff, and community
participation as well as an analysis of the City’s demographic and
recreational trends. The Master Plan also addresses costs for major
capital improvements, operating costs, and possible phasing based
on priorities to serve short, medium and long range needs of the
community. The fi nalized Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan will
provide recommendations and actions for the City’s parks as well as
guidance on the Plan’s management and implementation. Additionally,
the Newark Citywide Parks Master Plan includes the creation of
schematic park site designs for the City’s 16 public parks.
19
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
Oroville Parks, Trails, and Open Space
Master Plan
Oroville, California
Within Oroville’s city limits, there are 497 acres of parks and
recreational facilities with additional open spaces that are protected by
State agencies or conservation trusts.
The City of Oroville received a State of California, Community
Development Block Grant, Planning and Technical Assistance Grant to
provide a thorough analysis of the recreation facilities and programs,
including the development of guidelines for park development. The
Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan for the City of Oroville
represents an opportunity to harness the unique character of recreation
in the area. Oroville’s location on the Feather River in the foothills of
the Sierras and its adjacency to Lake Oroville gives its citizens access
to a wide variety of recreation opportunities. The plan provides a
thorough analysis of the recreation facilities and programs, including
specifi c quantitative and qualitative data, opportunity and constraint
analyses and guidelines for park development. This plan represents the
culmination of public outreach efforts and refl ects the desires of the
current community.
DATES
2009-2016
TEAM MEMBERS
Barbara Lundburg, Principal in Charge
Cordy Hill, Resource Principal
Lauren Ivey, RHAA Project Manager
CLIENT CONTACT REFERENCE
Luis A. Topete, Associate Planner
City of Oroville
1735 Montgomery Street
Oroville, CA 95965
530.538.2408
topetela@cityoforoville.org
20
Santa Cruz 2030 Parks, Recreation
Facilities and Open Space Master Plan
Santa Cruz, California
RHAA is working closely with the City of Santa Cruz to develop a Park
and Recreation Plan that will guide decisions for the next fi fteen years.
The Master Plan will help focus the City’s goals of providing a high-
quality, well-balanced park, recreation and open space system that
will continue to serve the needs of its citizens well into the future,
while continuing to wisely manage public fi nances and resources.
One challenge is the need to provide facilities for tourists as well as
residents. The plan will be framed by the input received during the
public outreach. Outreach has included both qualitative input in the
form of interviews, two public workshop, kiosk at community events,
an on-line survey as well as a quantitative, statistically valid telephone
survey.
DATES
2015-Ongoing
TEAM MEMBERS
Barbara Lundburg, Principal in Charge
Cordy Hill, Resource Principal
Lauren Ivey, Project Manager
CLIENT CONTACT REFERENCE
Noah Downing, Park Planner
City of Santa Cruz
323 Church Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.420.5362
NDowning@cityofsantacruz.com
21
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
D. Approach & Methodology
Burlingame is a healthy, diverse, family oriented community with a high quality of life. The City has a strong
commitment to providing parks and recreation programs for the community, serving a variety of ages and
interest groups, as well as visitors. We understand that the City maintains 21 parks and recreation facilities
totaling about 107 acres. In addition, recreational resources include open space and recreation facilities
including Bayside Fields, the Golf Center, Aquatic Center and Burlingame Recreation Center. Goals of
Burlingame’s Park Master Plan will be to:
•Create a framework for decision makers in the planning, maintenance, development and/or
rehabilitation of parks and facilities.
•Provide a systematic and prioritized approach to implementation of park and recreation projects.
We understand that the Master Plan needs to provide an inventory and assessment of existing facilities,
conditions, funding, and policies as a basis for identifi cation of defi ciencies and recommendations. We are
aware that there are ongoing long range planning studies currently being prepared. In developing the Master
Plan, we will utilize and build upon these planning documents, as well as others that have been prepared.
Using available statistical data, we will interpret demographic, cultural and socioeconomic trends relevant
to Burlingame and the implications for future recreation programs, facilities and standards. We will note
emerging trends and current state and national standards that will inform the Master Plan. A comparison of
resources with fi ve similar municipal parks and recreation departments on the Peninsula will be undertaken.
With public outreach, the community’s interest, needs, values, priorities and satisfaction will be determined.
Both a quantitative (statistically valid) survey and a qualitative survey (online community-wide survey by
Survey Monkey or similar) will support and infl uence recommendations.
GENERAL APPROACH
The Parks Master Plan will provide the City of Burlingame with a comprehensive assessment of its parks,
facilities and recreation assets, articulate the community’s needs, and guide the future development of its
parks and recreation facilities and programs for at least the next 15 years. Our approach is collaborative and
comprehensive. We are committed to a shared process in which we work together and with City staff, the
community and the general public to develop the fi nal policies and objectives that will frame the Plan. Our
approach for this project will be threefold:
1. Engage the community
Community outreach is key to a project. Building on commonality is one of our primary strengths. We will
work with the City staff, stakeholders, and the citizens of Burlingame to generate the ideas and priorities for
the Parks Master Plan. Through this process we will fi rst establish a common set of goals from which fi nal
policies, plans, and programs are developed. Our detailed approach to community outreach follows.
2. Develop a balanced park and recreation system that will cater to all community members
The existing Burlingame park system serves a variety of communities and interests including: children
and parents, teens, seniors, dog-owners, picnickers, community gardeners, and members of youth and
intramural sports leagues, and fi tness enthusiasts. Through the Master Plan process, we will evaluate how
well the variety of existing recreation users are served.
22
Additionally, we will bring our knowledge of emerging trends in park and recreation throughout California, to
explore potential missing or under-represented park programs. We will work with the community to identify
their most immediate and pressing needs, and potential future needs, to create a balanced park system that
offers something for everyone.
3. Create a realistic and sustainable implementation strategy
The vision for Burlingame’s parks system can only be realized if it is economically sustainable. We will focus
on sound economic analysis that will lead to solutions that can be implemented without adding a burden to
tax-payers, and that can be maintained with the support of self-generated income. Our goal for this project
will be to create a Master Plan that can be further built upon - one that will generate community enthusiasm
and maintain momentum as well as be fi nancial feasible and sustainable.
APPROACH TO GATHER & ASSESS COMMUNITY NEEDS
General Approach
RHAA’s approach to each project is participatory and interactive. We understand that the public process
is key to the success of the project. We recognize that consensus building is a function of how effectively
community involvement is integrated into the development of the plan.
Although every community is different in its awareness of planning issues and involvement in the process,
two objectives must be achieved. First, a level of trust must be established between the community and the
consultant team, and second, the expectations of the process must be clear and reinforced throughout the
study.
Public outreach will be designed to engage all age groups and provide an interactive forum for residents to
share their views regarding recreation facilities, services, defi ciencies, and what they value. All community
interaction is designed to achieve the following goals:
•Identifi cation of community values and goals that become the foundation for planning.
•Creation of atmosphere in which legitimate confl icting demands for limited resources can be resolved.
•Opportunities for decision-makers and the public to suggest alternate solutions and to participate in the
evaluation and selection of alternatives.
Process for Community Outreach
The process to accomplish these goals includes several key steps.
1- Public Outreach/ Community Engagement Plan
The fi rst step in our engagement process is the development of a Public Outreach/ Community Engagement
Plan at the fi rst meeting with City Staff. We will review our proposed approach and listen to suggested
changes that better suit the City of Burlingame. In consultation with staff, key dates for each piece will be
established. The schedule will coordinate with City’s proposed timeline as well as try to capture additional
community input at events, promotions, and launching of new season programs. We will work with City Staff
23
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
to develop a calendar not only for community meetings but community publicity resources and networking
opportunities as well.
2- Advisory Team
The Advisory Team has an important role in the community engagement plan. This group will serve as the
public voice throughout the process. If not already in place, RHAA will work with the City staff to identify
potential members who are willing to commit to the entire process.
We suggest a minimum of fi ve meetings with the Advisory Team corresponding to each task identifi ed in the
scope of services. We will work with staff to identify critical milestones for their input throughout the project.
The Advisory Team’s input will be especially invaluable in needs assessment, goal setting, and prioritization.
Their feedback and comment for the Draft Plan will be critical.
3- Stakeholder Meetings and Interviews
Stakeholders, also have an important role in the community engagement plan. We suggest that a series
of meetings with stakeholder groups be included as part of the needs assessment. We will work with City
staff to identify these recreation user groups such as soccer clubs, etc. A series of group meetings will be
scheduled to discuss their specifi c needs and program participation trends. We suggest fi ve group meetings.
4- Community Workshops
The fi rst community workshop will be to collect initial information regarding the community’s needs and
desired recreation facilities. The workshop will be an open public forum designed to promote quality
interaction through large and small group discussions, prioritization exercises, and comment sheets. The
comment sheets will be provided at the workshops for use by persons who are not comfortable with public
speaking, to capture additional comments as they arise, and for additional outreach throughout the course
of the project. The Consultant Team will record the comments received and incorporate them into the
Needs Assessment. We suggest that a web based community-wide survey (Survey Monkey or equivalent), in
combination with social media that we can prepare, be used to gather more input.
The second workshop will present the inventory, analysis, and needs assessment information prepared
during the fi rst two project phases. The Consultant Team will identify the gaps between needs and demands.
We will prepare presentation materials (PowerPoint, graphics, maps) for the open forum workshop.
The third workshop will present the analysis outcome with suggested priorities for park and facilities
improvements, goals, objectives and action items for discussion and comment. This workshop is designed
to elicit feedback and comment on the master planning proposals and reach consensus on priorities. A work
session with the Recreation and Parks Commission is also recommended.
5- Web Outreach/Survey
RHAA will provide web-ready uploads for the City’s webmaster, including surveys and other supporting data.
The electronic survey (Survey Monkey or equivalent) can be easily accessed with a QR code. Paper surveys
will also be available. The survey will be designed to engage all age groups and will provide a forum for
24
residents to share their views about parks, recreation facilities, services, defi ciencies, and what they value.
6- Social Media
We will engage the broader public through interactive information sharing such as blogs, Twitter, YouTube,
Burlingame Nextdoor and Facebook.
7– Statistically Valid Survey
We are recommending a hybrid quantitative survey using an Internet survey as a primary source of data
collection. We will supplement the Internet survey with a telephone survey after a review of Internet survey
respondent demographics to identify sub-groups that might not respond adequately to the Internet version of
the survey. In addition, for the telephone portion of the overall survey, we will also make sure to include ‘cell
phone only’ voter households.
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS AND COMMUNITY PROFILE
Demographic analysis and the development of a community profi le is one of many tools employed to
gain insight into community needs and interests. In addition to providing data regarding the size and
characteristics of the potential market, demographics are an effective instrument in the measurement of the
demand for recreational activities and programs.
This analysis identifi es the status and changes in age groups, family households, income, educational
attainment, spending habits, and other information that can be used to project recreation demand and likely
participation. Recreation interests vary based on these factors and other demographic characteristics.
This population analysis will provide insights into likely programs, activities, and underserved groups for
future planning considerations.
The demographic analysis begins with defi ning the primary, secondary, and, if desired, the tertiary study
area. The demographic profi le for each study area is generated from multiple sources of demographic data,
including:
•City of Burlingame Census data
•United States Census data
•National Parks and Recreation Society data
•Neilson Site reports
•Association of Bay Area Government 2030 Forecast
RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS
State and national social, economic, environmental, and recreational trends have a signifi cant impact on the
demand and the delivery of recreation services. The Team will identify the trends impacting the service area
and the unique characteristics of Burlingame’s population that are most likely to impact recreational services
now, and over the next decade. The planning implications for recreation programs, services, and facilities are
identifi ed.
25
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
Using information as available in such sources as the National Sporting Goods Association survey, National
Park and Recreation Association listed trends, State of California attitudes survey, and other sources, a
discussion of recreation trends will be prepared. Specifi c Burlingame demographic trends will be examined
and used to ensure that the trends analysis accurately refl ects the local community, and recognizes the
differences between Burlingame and other California cities. We will identify the trends and the unique
characteristics of Burlingame most likely to impact recreational services now and over the next decade.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The Consultant Team will work with City staff to review both capital and operating revenues and costs
associated with the Master Plan. The capital funding analysis will address planned and projected
projects identifi ed and will match known and potential funding sources to the appropriate project costs.
Following completion of the Impact Fees Nexus Study described below, we will project City in-lieu fees
based on projected development. We will also scan grant funding agencies to identify any upcoming grant
opportunities that may be useful, as well as potential applicability of a new state bond measure if passed by
the voters.
Operating costs and revenues will be reviewed. Building on an analysis of existing costs and revenues, we will
project operating costs and potential revenue sources for each park and recreation facility. Working with City
staff, we will identify operating revenue strategies that can address both short and long term maintenance
and operation needs. We will propose a short term and long term comprehensive funding strategy to
implement the Master Plan, including both capital fi nance and sustainable operating revenues and costs.
PARKS AND RECREATION FEE NEXUS STUDY
The Team will review the existing and proposed park and recreation level of service standards for the City as
well as current costs for land acquisition, park development, and other recreation facilities as appropriate.
Based on the proposed improvement program in the draft Master Plan, we will determine if the current fee
structure of the City adequately addresses future park and recreation needs and anticipated costs. We will
calculate new nexus levels separately for park acquisition under the Quimby Act and park and recreation
development fees under AB 1600 Mitigation Fee Act procedures. We will prepare a full documented,
complete report showing both fees by land use category, compared to existing City fees levels. The report
will provide a recommendation on whether a change in the fee structure is warranted based on the updated
nexus analysis.
26 E. Detailed Scope of Services
Task 1: Needs Assessment
At a kickoff meeting the Consultant Team will discuss and refi ne the proposed scope and schedule for the
project. We will confi rm project goals and objectives, set a communication plan, schedule parks and facilities
tours, discuss and set the schedule for the public involvement process, refi ne specifi c tasks, and establish
milestone dates for meetings, presentations and deliverables.
The Consultant Team will review all planning documents and relevant information to be utilized in the
preparation of the Master Plan. With staff, we will review all current park and facilities conditions and
maintenance practices and policies. The City’s Capital Improvements Program will be evaluated. Gaps in plans
and resources will be identifi ed. The Consultant Team will refi ne the Public Involvement Process with staff and
prepare web-ready uploads for the City’s webmaster, including surveys and other supporting data. We will
assist Godbe Research with the content for the statistically valid survey. RHAA will examine trends in relation
to the demographic composition and characteristics of the City of Burlingame community. We will identify and
examine key demographic and societal trends that likely shape and impact park and recreation services. The
needs assessment will include Stakeholder interviews and meeting with the Advisory Team for input.
Deliverables: Document Review Summary; Demographic and Trends Analysis; On Line Community-wide
Survey; Statistically Valid Survey
Task 2: Inventory and Assessment
Working with staff, the Consultant Team will compile a list parks, facilities, and recreational assets to be
included in the Master Plan. We will prepare a comprehensive inventory and assessments of all parks,
recreation facilities and programs. Each park and facility will be documented for size, location, recreation
provided, and conditions. Opportunities and constraints will be noted, as well as, an analysis of estimated
maintenance, repair or replacement and code compliance. Recreational programs will be inventoried for
all City facilities that provide recreational services to Burlingame residents. Working with City staff, we will
facilitate the fi rst workshop to encourage involvement and input in the needs assessment process and develop
community buy-in to the fi ndings. This fi rst workshop will gather information regarding community desired
recreation facilities and park amenities and an initial understanding of the community’s priorities. A Powerpoint
presentation will be prepared to illicit and engage the community’s input. With community input and information
from the surveys we will develop a gap analysis evaluating the capacity of existing parks and facilities to meet
current and future demands.
Deliverables: Inventory and Assessment Report of Existing Parks and Facilities; Materials for Community
Meeting #1; Summary of Community Meeting #1
Task 3: Potential Expansion and Enhancement Analysis
Based on the gaps analysis, we will review and identify potential locations to improve and expand the City’s
recreation facilities. Potential projects will be defi ned by size, location, cost and feasibility. Goals, policies,
priorities, operations and maintenance needs will be identifi ed. The team will perform fi nancial analyses to
identify the probable operating costs, including annual and long-term maintenance and revenue potential.
The Team will recommend potential approaches the fi ll the gaps between desired and available recreation.
Following input from the Advisory Team, the analysis outcome will be presented to the Community at the second
workshop.
Deliverables: Recommendations to Improve and Expand Facilities; Materials for Community Meeting #2;
Summary of Community Meetings#2
Task 4: Priority Setting
The Consultant Team will identify specifi c goals and objectives for the Master Plan. We will prepare a
methodology and framework to guide the prioritization of projects and their capital funding. We will also provide
recommendations or action items for development or improvements based on community input, the needs
assessment, and existing park capacity to meet community needs. A matrix with criteria will be developed
for prioritizing projects – short, medium and long term development and/or improvements. We will work
with City Staff and the Advisory Committee to prepare the preliminary prioritization recommendations. The
Preliminary Prioritization will be presented to the Recreation and Park Commission at a work session along
with the fi nancial analysis. With input, we will fi nalize the prioritization recommendations and present them at
Community Meeting #3.
Deliverables: Prioritization Matrix; Action Recommendations; Materials for Community Meeting #3; Summary
of Community Meeting #3
Task 5 Financial Evaluation and Prioritization
Concurrent with Task 4, the Consultant Team will prepare the Financial Analysis. The analysis will identify
probable operating costs including annual and long term maintenance. Detailed capital costs, operating
expenses, on-going maintenance, revenue estimates, and potential cost recovery and cost/benefi t analysis
will be identifi ed. Potential revenue and funding sources will be identifi ed for various strategies. A Park and
Recreation Nexus Fee Study will be developed. Recommendations will be made to prioritize the fi nancial
resources needed to sustain the City’s current and future recreation level of service and facilities’ needs.
Deliverables: Draft Financial Analysis; Park and Recreation Nexus Fee Study
Task 6: Final Report and Action Plan
The Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan will summarize all the fi ndings and data from the previous
tasks and synthesize that information into a comprehensive report. Recommendations will be made for
the current and future needs related to parks, programs, and conditions of existing facilities and cost of
improvements to serve short, medium and long range needs of the community. The report will address costs
for major capital improvements, operations, and possible phasing based on priorities. A City-wide graphic
illustrating existing and proposed facilities will be developed. At a minimum the report will include the following
sections/chapters: Introduction; Existing Framework; Needs Assessment; Action Plan/Recommendations;
Implementation; and Appendices
The Draft Parks Master Plan Report will be developed with input from City staff and the Advisory Team. The
Draft Report will be presented to the Recreation and Parks Commission and City Council for approval. With
input the draft will be fi nalized.
Deliverables: Draft Park Master Plan; Final Park Master Plan; City-wide Parks Map
28 F. Project Schedule
• Develop Public Involvement Process• Parks comparisonTASK 1: NEEDS ASSESSMENTTASK 2: INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT• Inventory and analyze current parks and facilities• Inventory and analyze current programs and services• Gap analysisTASK 3: POTENTIAL EXPANSION AND ENHANCEMENT ANALYSIS•Review and identify potential locations to• City policy and document Review• Community demographics and trends• Current capital Improvements programJANUARY 2018FEBRUARYMARCHAPRILMAYAUGUSTThe City of Burlingame Parks Master Plan SCHEDULEJUNEJULYOCTOBERSEPTEMBERAdvisory Committee• Prepare draft Parks Master Plan• Prepare final Parks Master PlanTASK 4: PRIORITY SETTINGTASK 5: FINANCIAL EVALUATION AND PRIORITIZATION• Establish goals, strategies, priorities and actions • Develop a methodology and framework for prioritization of projects and their capital funding• Develop action items for development or improvements• Financial analysisTASK 6: FINAL REPORT AND ACTION PLAN• Prepare City-wide parks mapCity Council Review and identify potential locations to improve and expand the City's recreation facilities• Develop recommendations for potential approaches to fill the gaps• Identify possible funding sources such as grants, impact fee revenue, donations, and user feesCity Staff Community MeetingPark and Recreation Commission
29
The City of Burligame Parks Master Plan
G. Contract Exceptions
The insurance requirements are acceptable to RHAA.
RHAA requests that the following adjustments be made to the Indemnifi cation language: Text in blue should
be deleted, text in red should be added.
6. Indemnifi cation. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors, offi cers, employees,
agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability claims, suits, actions, damages, and
causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct
of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of
the Services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City,
its offi cers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify
and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City
shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8. Acceptance of insurance
certifi cates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under
this indemnifi cation and hold harmless clause. This indemnifi cation and hold harmless clause shall apply
whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages
or claims for damages.
Notwithstanding the above, Consultant has no obligation to pay for any defense related cost prior to a fi nal
determination of its liability. Following any such determination of its liability, Consultant shall be responsible
to pay an amount of such costs equal to the fi nally determined percentage of liability based upon the
comparative fault of Consultant.
H. Confl ict of Interest Statements
RHAA has no confl icts of interest to disclose.
Applied Development Economics has no confl icts of interest to disclose.
Group 4 has no confl icts of interest to disclose.
Godbe Research has a deep history in the City of Burlingame, where the fi rm is based. We have not
conducted any voter polling or other public opinion research for any private entities in the City of Burlingame
on any matter, including plan/development projects. Having said this, we have conducted two surveys for the
City of Burlingame (City Manager’s Offi ce) and two surveys for the Burlingame School District, one of which
was a bond measure feasibility survey for School District facilities.
Corporate Headquarters
225 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, California 94941
T 415 383 7900
F 415 383 1433
barbara@rhaa.com
Mill Valley / San Francisco
Deliverables by Firm
MIG
1. Kick-off Meeting
2. Site Tour
3. Community Engagement Plan
4. Ongoing Project Management & Team
Meeting (up to 20 conference calls and 4
additional team meetings)
5. Existing Conditions and Trends Analysis
6. System Inventory
7. Policy, Process & Funding Analysis
8. Community & Trends Analysis
9. Base Mapping & GIS Data Analysis
10. Agency Resource Comparison
11. Community Needs Assessment
12. Stakeholder Interviews (up to 6 hours of one-
on-one and/or small group)
13. Phone & Online Survey (approximately 300
phone surveys)
14. Pop-Up Activities (4 events)
15. Master Plan Advisory Team Meetings (3)
16. Community Workshops (3)
17. Commission, Committee & Council Meetings
(6)
18. Draft & Revised Master Plan Framework
19. Draft Plan Outline & Design
20. Cost Module & Funding Strategies
21. Nexus Fee Study
22. Action Plan to Support Implementation
23. Admin. Draft Parks Master Plan
24. Public Review of Draft Parks Master Plan
25. Final Adopted Parks Master Plan
26. $199,555
Verde
1. Kick-off Meeting
2. Site Tour
3. Work Plan
4. Ongoing Project Team Meetings (up to 12
meetings and 17 conference calls)
5. Inventory & Assessment of Existing Parks,
Facilities, and Programs
6. Trails & Open Space Connectivity &
Accessibility Study
7. Trends & Standards Analysis (Demographics,
Recreation Trends & Benchmarking)
8. Community Needs Assessment
9. Stakeholder Interviews (up to 8 interviews)
10. Sports Organizations Questionnaire
11. Online Survey
12. Public Workshops (3)
13. Commission Meeting (1)
14. Public Meetings/Presentations (3)
15. Facilities Demand & Needs Analysis
16. Parks Acquisition, Construction Costs &
Funding Strategies
17. Nexus Fee Study
18. Draft Master Plan
19. Adoption of Parks Master Plan
20. $193,870
Exhibit F
Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department
Parks Master Plan Project
City Project Number: 85060
RHAA
1. Kick-off Meeting
2. Site Tour
3. Develop Process and Plan
4. Ongoing Project Team Meetings (8)
5. Advisory Team Meetings (6)
6. Needs Assessment
7. Online Survey
8. Trends Analysis
9. Inventory & Assessment of Facilities and
Programs
10. Community Meetings (4)
11. Commission Meetings (3)
12. Council Meeting (1)
13. Potential Expansion, Enhancement & Financial
Analysis
14. Priority Setting (Short, Medium & Long Term
Development)
15. Nexus Fee Study
16. Draft Master Plan
17. Final Master Plan
18. $199,910
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO: 18-074
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Five-
Year Agreement with a Three-Year Optional Extension with LWP Claims
Solutions for Third Party Administration of the City’s Self-Insured Workers’
Compensation Program
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to
execute a five-year agreement with a three-year optional extension with LWP Claims Solutions
for third party administration of the City’s self-insured workers’ compensation program.
BACKGROUND
The City is self-insured for workers’ compensation, and LWP Claims Solutions has been the
City’s third party administrator since they were first awarded the contract in 2014. The contract
expired December 31, 2017. While that contract provides for a potential short extension, upon
review, staff has determined that the City’s interests are better served by entering into a new
contract for services with LWP going forward.
DISCUSSION
LWP Claims Solutions has met the expectations for claims management and outcomes, and
customer service outlined in the first professional services agreement from 2014 -2017. Staff is
satisfied with their services as the third party administrator of the City’s self-insured workers’
compensation program. Payment for continued services from the expiration of the existing
contract has been made to ensure no interruption of services or disruption of case management.
The proposed agreement is for a five-year term with the option to extend the agreement for an
additional three-year term upon mutual agreement by both parties. The scope of services
required to provide third party administrative services includes, but is not limited to:
Claims administration
Litigation management
Nurse case management
Administration of the risk management information system
Professional Services Agreement for Workers’ Compensation Third Party Administrator February 5, 2018
2
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for the first year of the contract is $90,640. The price will increase by a reasonable
amount in the remaining years of the contract, as outlined in the pricing section of the agreement.
Sufficient funds are available within each year’s budget of the City’s Workers’ Compensation
Fund.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Professional Services Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT
WITH A THREE-YEAR OPTIONAL EXTENSION WITH LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS
FOR THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY’S SELF-INSURED WORKERS’
COMPENSATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City is self-insured for workers’ compensation, and LWP Claims
Solutions has been the City’s third party administrator since 2014; and
WHEREAS, the contract with LWP Claims Solutions expired Decembe r 31, 2017;
and
WHEREAS, LWP Claims Solutions has met the expectations for claims
management and outcomes, and customer service outlined in the first professional
services agreement from 2014-2017; and
WHEREAS, payment for continued services from the expiration of the existing
contract has been made to ensure no interruption of services or disruption of case
management; and
WHEREAS, the cost for the first year of the contract is $90,640, increasing in the
remaining years of the contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby
authorized to execute the agreement with LWP Claims Solutions, attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
____________________________
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on the 5th day of February, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
____________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between LWP Claims Solutions, Inc (“Consultant”) and
the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California (“City”). Consultant and City
agree:
1. Services. City wishes to obtain the services of Consultant to provide third party
administrative services for the City’s self-insured workers’ compensation program. Consultant
shall provide the Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and
materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of
the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for pricing as presented in the attached
Exhibit C, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts (“Maximum Compensation”).
Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall
contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is
accurate. Bills shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services were
performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and
the Consultant’s signature.
3. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof, for a period of five
years. Upon mutual agreement at that time, the contract may be extended by the City Manager
for a period of up to three years. Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be
provided under this Agreement to completion and in accordance with any schedules specified
herein. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays
beyond the Consultant’s control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in
writing to the City’s Contract Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion
date.
4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering
into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the
prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that
Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City.
5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the
duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance
coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance
coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of
Certificates of Insurance and original endorsements to City. Except in the case of professional
design/errors and omissions insurance, the City shall be named as a primary insured.
6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability,
claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the
negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or
agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim
arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees,
agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold
harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and
indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8.
Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not
relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This
indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall
have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time
by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination,
Consultant shall be entitled to pro-rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to
the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such
compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the
event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the
project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall,
without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance
of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services
performed up to the time of Consultant’s cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any
damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment.
8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished
nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs,
computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions,
prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the
property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited
to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material
referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be
made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation
on their use. Upon City’s request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to
the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall
return all City property in Consultant’s control or possession immediately upon termination.
9. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall
abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of
California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all
work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws,
statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or
registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by
law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and
Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any
applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently
has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render
the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable stat e,
local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter
arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that the
City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its
compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) respecting this
Agreement.
11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or
oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary
of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This
Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and the
City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly
state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement.
The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not
constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a
different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but
the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the
Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the
document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California.
12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to
the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter
into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into
this Agreement.
13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision
by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the
authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the
remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give
effect to the intentions of the parties.
14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be
in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i)
depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such
notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight comme rcial courier (“Courier”), postage
paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by
facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the
sending facsimile machine’s acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by
personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the
receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the
address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent.
15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the
term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be
considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or
complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor.
Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement.
When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine,
the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the
plural.
The terms “shall”, “will”, “must” and “agree” are mandatory. The term “may” is
permissive.
The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement
shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same
or a different provision of this Agreement.
When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost
and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is
made otherwise.
Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to
restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees,
contractors, subcontractors and employees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement.
CITY OF BURLINGAME LWP Claims Solutions, Inc
501 Primrose Road 35 Miller Avenue, Suite 214
Burlingame, CA 94010 Mill Valley, CA 94941
By: By:
Lisa K. Goldman Judy Adlam
City Manager President, CEO
Date: Date:
Attest: Federal Employer ID Number:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number:
City Clerk Expiration Date:
Approved as to form:
Kathleen Kane
City Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A Scope of Services
Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions
Exhibit C Pricing
Exhibit A
Scope of Services
LWP Claims Solutions, Inc will provide third party claims administration services for the
City of Burlingame's self-insured workers' compensation claims. The Scope of Services includes:
Claims Administration Requirements and Expectations
TPA must perform all services required to supervise and administer a self-insured
workers' compensation program for the City of Burlingame, and to act as the City of
Burlingame's representative in matters relating to the City of Burlingame's obligations
under the workers' compensation laws of the state of California.
Provide a toll free telephone number for the City of Burlingame and claimants.
Process all claims, including but not limited to investigation, reserving and payment,
filing reports, negotiating and settling of claims for amount pre-approved by the City of
Burlingame.
Contact the City of Burlingame, claimant and medical provider within 24 hours of
receipt of all claims.
Upon knowledge of a serious injury, illness, exposure or catastrophic claim, and/or if
employee is hospitalized, notification will be made immediately via telephone to the
City of Burlingame.
First aid claims are to be flagged with notice to the City of Burlingame and shall be
identified as first aid on all loss run data reports. Bill payments for first aid claims shall
be determined by the City of Burlingame.
Response to any questions or inquiries by the City of Burlingame or claimants should be
responded to within one business day.
Initial investigation will be completed within 14 days from day of receipt of the claim
and if needed, further investigation completed within 30 days or as soon as all the facts
of the case can be reasonably gathered.
Initial plan of action must be clearly documented in the claim file within 14 days from
receipt of the claim and updated every 30-60 days.
Initial estimate of reserves established within 14 days of receipt of claim. Adjusters must
document the basis for each reserve calculation.
Significant reserve increases on any one claim must be communicated and discussed
with the City of Burlingame.
Adjuster's notes should include but not limited to; comments regarding exposure,
disposition plan for claim closure, financial transactions, supervisor's notes, and any
other relevant claim information.
Witten status reports will be provided to the City of Burlingame during scheduled claim
reviews or upon request.
A comprehensive status report will be provided to the City of Burlingame the time any
claim exceeds a total incurred value of $50,000.
TPA must keep the City of Burlingame informed and involved in all accepted cases
prior to sending acceptance letters to employees.
Transitional/modified duty must be documented in the claim file and should include the
medical diagnosis, work restrictions and estimated duration of disabilit y.
Documented follow-up to the treating physician(s) is required no later than every 30
days prior to MMI status. Ongoing disability will be documented through ongoing
medical reports.
Adjuster will notify the City of Burlingame of any legal or administrative actions that
affect their claims including: appeals, pre-notification of depositions, pre-trial or
workers' compensation board hearings.
The City of Burlingame will have final approval for all outside case management
services utilized, including but not limited to defense attorneys, nurse case managers,
vocational experts and investigative firms.
On all settlements, including 0% PD and future medical, a settlement authorization
request must first be submitted to the City of Burlingame for their approval.
Notify the excess carrier of potential claims as provided by the carrier's Service
Agreement terms.
Monitor and collect all recoveries due the City of Burlingame.
Review medical provider bills for appropriateness of fees charged utilizing the
California Official Medical Fee Schedule.
The City of Burlingame maintains a workers' compensation claims trust checking
account. The TPA shall be responsible for payments of benefits from this account.
Litigation Management
The City of Burlingame reserves the right to select counsel.
All defense counsel referrals need prior approval by the City of Burlingame.
Review each legal bill for accuracy.
Procedures in place to audit the effectiveness of legal counsel on the outcome of claims.
Nurse Case Management
Pre-authorization by the City of Burlingame is required on all nurse case management
assignments.
Nurse case manager's (NCM’s) action plans and notes will be documented in the claim
file, and as appropriate NCM's will participate in claim reviews or when consultation
with the NCM is requested by the City of Burlingame.
Claim Staffing expectations and Claim Handling Philosophies
Assigning an account manager to the City.
A dedicated claims team must be provided.
Maintain contact with claimants.
Identify and manage fraudulent claims.
Determine length of disability.
Obtain pre-authorization for all assignments of investigation and sub-rosa.
Timely pay benefits.
Establish and maintain reserves for open claims.
Work to return injured workers to work.
Assign medical case management as required.
Monitor and work to prevent duplicate and other overpayments.
Assign UR as required.
Risk Management Information System (RMIS)
Internet based claim system with access 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to view claim
adjuster and supervisor notes, view the progression of claims, generate loss runs or other
pre-scheduled or adhoc loss management/claim reports.
Ability to export claim data into various Microsoft products, i.e. Word, excel, power
point.
Provide RMIS technical support for questions, problems or development of customized
reporting.
Provide scheduled loss reports to be sent electronically to the City of Burlingame.
Customized reports will be provided as required.
Quality control program to ensure data integrity and claimant confidentiality. Any RMIS
problems will be resolved within 24 hours or less.
Image system to scan all documents received pertaining to the case.
Fully compliant with MMSEA Section 111 reporting requirements.
Exhibit B
City Insurance Provisions
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries
to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the
work hereunder and the results of that work by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 04
covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal &
advertising injury, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit
applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the
general aggregate limit shall be at least $2,000,000.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Contractor
has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than
$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits,
and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily
injury or disease.
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the Contractor’s profession,
with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.
If the contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall
be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the contractor.
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds on the auto
policy with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on
behalf of the contractor and on the general liability policy with respect to liability arising out of work or
operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished
in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an
endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20
10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance
as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after
thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City.
10
Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor
may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor agrees
to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision
applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the
insurer.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may
require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of
ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the
retention.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless
otherwise acceptable to the City.
Claims Made Policies (note – should be applicable only to professional liability, see below)
If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:
1. The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the
beginning of contract work.
2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5)
years after completion of the contract of work.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form
with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase
“extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.
Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the
applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements
are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the
required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide
them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk,
prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
11
Exhibit C
Pricing
Claims Administration Rates
Life of Contract – flat fee. Year 1 – $90,640
Year 2 – $93,360
Year 3 – $93,360
Year 4 – $96,160
Year 5 – $96,160
Year 6 (Optional) - $99,045
Year 7 (Optional) - $99,045
Year 8 (Optional) - $102,016
Administrative fee None
RMIS fee No charge, unlimited users
Subrogation recovery fee No charge
Self-Insurance Plan Annual Report fee No charge
Claim Reporting (telephonic, fax, online) No charge
Medical Bill Review, Negotiation &
Reporting
Rates (Through 12/31/2019)
Bill Review/official medical fee schedule $8 per bill
PPO Reductions 25% of PPO savings
Hospital inpatient/outpatient bill review $200 per bill
Hospital bill not covered by state fee schedule
or PPO savings
20% of savings
Pharmacy review fees $3 per bill
Legal bill review No charge
Medical Savings Programs Fee $3.00 per bill
This flat fee is in lieu of medical bill review
and PPO fees and includes EDI reporting.
Negotiation Fees, including lien negotiations
for disputed medical treatment.
15% savings achieved through negotiations
Reporting Fees EDI Fees - $1.00 per bill
E-Bill Fees - $1.00 per bill submitted
by a provider through a clearinghouse
Index and OFAC reporting – Direct
pass through of ISO charge, ISO
adjusts every January 1 ($10.05 in
2018)
2018 rates will be offered through
12/31/2019. Fees as of 1/1/2020 are subject
to change with prior notice
Managed Care & Investigation Rates (Through 12/31/2019)
Utilization Review Tier 1- Nurse Level Review - $110 Flat Fee
Nurse Level Review - Includes 3 medical
requests in a single review.
12
Tier 2 - Peer Review- $235 Flat Fee (in
addition to Tier 1 review fee)
This includes up to 3 medical requests per
single medical referral.
Pharmacy Review –includes unlimited
medical requests per single medical referral.
Tier 1 - Nurse Level Review $ 110 flat
fee without physician peer review
Tier 2 - Physician Peer Review - $385
flat fee (in addition to Tier 1 review fee)
Nurse Case Management Telephonic Case Management, $102.00
per hour
Field Case Management, $108.00 per
hour (including travel and wait time) +
incidental expenses (including tolls,
mileage, telephone and parking)
Investigations $86.00 per hour for all investigations
$96.00 per hour for SIU related work
2018 rates will be offered through 12/31/2019. Fees as of 1/1/2020 are subject to change
with prior notice
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director – (650) 558-7209
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a
Professional Services Agreement for Labor Relations Consultation
Services with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City
Manager to execute an agreement for professional labor relations consultation services with
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP.
BACKGROUND
The City enjoys a mutually respectful relationship with the seven bargaining units representing
more than 90% of the City’s employees. In support of this relationship, the City partners with a
consultant to provide professional labor relations services. These services include consulting with
and advising the City Council, City Manager, and Human Resources in employer-employee
relations; and assisting the Human Resources Department with meeting and conferring in good
faith with representatives of recognized employee organizations.
The City issued a request for proposals (RFP) for Labor Relations and Consultation Services on
September 19, 2017 t an initial vendor listing of 14 firms. The RFP was also posted to the City’s
web page. Proposals were due on October 27, 2017.
DISCUSSION
The City was fortunate to receive six quality responses to its RFP. Staff evaluated the proposals
based on their scope of work, budget, project team staffing references, and other criteria. In
addition, three of the proposing firms were allowed to further present their approach for these
services in a final interview. These interviews also allowed staff to get any clarifications needed
on the proposals, and meet the consultants who would be providing these services to the City.
This is a key relationship for the Human Resources Department, and the in-person interviews
were a critical component of the decision making process.
The three finalists interviewed in person on December 12, 2017, were Liebert Cassidy Whitmore,
Jackson Lewis, and Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP. The interview panel consisted of the
Human Resources Director, Finance Director, Deputy Public Works Director, and Police Captain.
Legal Advisor - Professional Services Agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP February 5, 2018
2
All the firms interviewed proved to be more than qualified to provide the City with expert labor
relations advisory services. The panel determined that Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP was the
top firm of the three interviewed. Burke, Williams & Sorensen’s significant staff and research
resources, experience negotiating contracts in cities similar to Burlingame, and approach to labor
and employee-employer relations in general were impressive. The Human Resources Director
called on various municipal clients of the firm in the Bay Area in order to complete r eference
checks. Based on the references obtained, including feedback about the integrity of the staff
assigned by the firm to the City’s account, the Human Resources Director is recommending that
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP be named as the City’s next labor relations advisor.
The proposed agreement is for a five-year term with the option to extend the agreement for an
additional three-year term upon mutual agreement by both parties. The scope of services
required includes:
Assisting Human Resources in advising and consulting with the City Council and the City
Manager on matters relating to employer-employee relations;
Meeting and conferring in good faith for and on behalf of the City, as the designated
representative of the City Manager, with representatives of recognized employee
organizations of the City of Burlingame;
Assisting Human Resources in reporting to the City Council and the City Manager on the
progress of meeting and conferring in good faith with each of the recognized employee
organizations; and
Preparing and presenting training to Human Resources staff and managers.
The City needed immediate consultation on a labor relations issue prior to the execution of this
contract. The situation was a narrow issue involving a single department and a sing le bargaining
unit, and the City’s past provider was unable to assist in the matter. The situation required
immediate attention; the timeline for response is governed by the applicable Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), and the City is required to abide by this timeline. Due to these exigent
circumstances, the City made a management decision to utilize the services of the selected
consultant prior to the execution of the agreement. Staff requests, as part of its action on this
item, that Council ratify the expenditure for the limited consultation services provided in
December 2017.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City will pay for services by the hour based on the hourly rates shown below, subject to an
annual increase beginning after December 31, 2018, by an amount equal to the Consumer Price
Index (CPI-U) for the San Francisco Area for the previous year.
$295-$310 Partners
$260 Senior Associates
$250 Associate Attorneys
$150 Paralegals
It is understood that the consultant will incur various costs and expenses in performing legal
services under this Agreement. The City agrees to pay for all costs, disbursements, and
Legal Advisor - Professional Services Agreement with Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP February 5, 2018
3
expenses in addition to the hourly fees as detailed in the Professional Services Agreement.
Funding for these services is provided for in the annual General Fund Operating (contractual
services) budget of the Human Resources Department.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Professional Services Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. __________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
FOR LABOR RELATIONS CONSULTATION SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City enjoys a mutually respectful relationship with the bargaining
units representing City employees; and
WHEREAS, in support of this relationship, the City partners with a consultant to
provide professional labor relations services; and
WHEREAS, City staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant
services for Labor Relations; and
WHEREAS, the City received proposals from six firms meeting minimum
qualifications, and evaluated them initially on the basis of the written proposals and then
through follow-up questions, select interviews, and reference checks; and
WHEREAS, Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP was selected as the best qualified
to provide the needed services in support of the City’s labor relations; and
WHEREAS, due to exigent circumstances, the City made a management
decision to utilize the services of the selected consultant prior to the execution of the
agreement on a limited but urgent matter involving a single bargaining unit; and
WHEREAS, staff requests, as part of its action on this item, that Council ratify the
expenditure for the limited consultation services provided in December 2017 .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized to
execute the agreement with Burke Williams & Sorensen LLP, attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
5th day of February, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP.
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENEN, LLP.
(“Consultant”) and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California (“City”).
Consultant and City agree:
1. Services. City wishes to obtain the services of Consultant to provide legal advice
and representation on labor relations and employment matters. Consultant shall provide the
Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. No representation
outside of the matters set forth in Exhibit A shall be provided by Consultant to the City. No
representation of any officers, employees, or any other persons or entities affiliated with the City
shall be provided unless such representation is expressly included in Exhibit A. Consultant will
provide those legal services reasonably required to represent the City. Separate arrangements
must be agreed to for services including administrative charges or litigation. Services in any
matter not described above will require a separate written agreement or a written modification to
this Agreement.
2. Compensation. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, City will
pay by the hour at Consultant prevailing rates for all time spent on City matters by Consultant
legal personnel. Current hourly rates through December 31, 2018 are:
$295-$310 Partners
$260 Senior Associates
$250 Associate Attorneys
$150 Paralegals
The above rates shall be increased annually beginning after December 31, 2018 by an amount
equal to the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the San Francisco Area for the previous year.
It is understood that Consultant will incur various costs and expenses in performing legal
services under this Agreement. City agrees to pay for all costs, disbursements and expenses in
addition to the hourly fees. Except for the items listed below, all costs and expenses will be
charged at Consultant’s cost.
In-office photocopying/page: $ .20
In-office color photocopying/page $ 1.00
Facsimile charges/page: $ 1.00
Mileage/mile: $ 0.54.5 (or current IRS rate)
City agrees to pay transportation, meals, lodging and all other costs of any necessary out-of-town
travel by Consultant’s personnel.
To aid in the preparation or presentation of City’s case, it may become necessary to hire expert
witnesses, consultants, investigators, and outsourced support services. City agrees to pay such
fees and charges. Consultant will select any expert witnesses, consultants, investigators or
support services to be hired, and City will be informed of persons chosen and their charges.
2
Additionally, City understands that if the matter proceeds to court action or arbitration, City may
be required to pay fees and/or costs to other parties in the action. Any such payment will be
entirely the responsibility of City.
Consultant shall submit invoices on a periodic basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall
contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is
accurate. Bills shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services were
performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and
the Consultant’s signature.
3. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof, for a period of five
years, at which time the performance of the firm will be evaluated. Upon mutual agreement at
that time, the contract may be extended by the City Manager for a period of up to three years.
4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering
into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this
Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the
prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that
Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City.
5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the
duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance
coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance
coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of
Certificates of Insurance to City.
6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors,
officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability,
claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the
negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or
agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim
arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees,
agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold
harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and
indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8.
Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not
relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This
indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall
have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time
by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination,
Consultant shall be entitled to pro-rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to
the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such
compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the
event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the
3
project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall,
without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance
of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services
performed up to the time of Consultant’s cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any
damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment.
8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished
nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs,
computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions,
prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the
property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited
to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material
referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be
made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation
on their use. Upon City’s request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to
the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall
return all City property in Consultant’s control or possession immediately upon termination. City
understands under Consultant’s document retention policy, Consultant normally destroys files five
(5) years after a matter is closed, unless other arrangements are made with City.
9. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall
abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of
California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all
work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws,
statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or
registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by
law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and
Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any
applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently
has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render
the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state,
local, or federal law. In addition, Consultant will restrict from engaging in activities on behalf
the City that produce a direct or indirect financial gain for Consultant, other than the agreed-upon
compensations, without the City’s informed consent. In the event that any conflict of interest
should nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of
such conflict of interest so that the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement.
Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code §
81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement.
11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire
understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions
mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or
oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary
of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This
4
Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and City's
City Manager, and approved as to form by the City’s City Attorney. Such document shall
expressly state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this
Agreement. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this
Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of
either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement
may be executed but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of City's City Clerk
is the version of the Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among
counterparts of the document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by
the laws of the State of California.
12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to
the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter
into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into
this Agreement.
13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision
by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the
authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the
remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give
effect to the intentions of the parties.
14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be
in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i)
depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such
notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier (“Courier”), postage
paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by
facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the
sending facsimile machine’s acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by
personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the
receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the
address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent.
15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the
term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be
considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or
complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor.
Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement.
When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine,
the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the
plural.
5
The terms “shall”, “will”, “must” and “agree” are mandatory. The term “may” is
permissive.
The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement
shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same
or a different provision of this Agreement.
When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost
and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is
made otherwise.
Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to
restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees,
contractors, subcontractors and employees.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement.
CITY OF BURLINGAME Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
501 Primrose Road 1503 Grant Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010 Mountain View, CA 94040
By: By:
Lisa K. Goldman Timothy L. Davis
City Manager Partner
Date: Date:
By:
Janet Cory Sommer
Partner
Date: Date:
Attest: Federal Employer ID Number:
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number:
City Clerk Expiration Date:
Approved as to form:
6
Kathleen Kane
City Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A Scope of Services
Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions
7
EXHIBIT A
Consultant shall represent City and provide legal advice and representation on labor relations
and employment matters as requested by City.
8
EXHIBIT B
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries
to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the
work hereunder and the results of that work by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees or
subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 04
covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal &
advertising injury, with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit
applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the
general aggregate limit shall be at least $2,000,000.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if
Contractor has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less
than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits,
and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily
injury or disease.
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the Contractor’s
profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate.
If the contractor maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City
requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the contractor.
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds on the auto
policy with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on
behalf of the contractor and on the general liability policy with respect to liability arising out of work or
operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished
in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an
endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20
10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance
as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance
maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after
thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City.
9
Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor
may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor
agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this
provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement
from the insurer.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may
require the Contractor to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of
ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the
retention.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless
otherwise acceptable to the City.
Claims Made Policies (note – should be applicable only to professional liability, see below)
If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:
1. The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the
beginning of contract work.
2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5)
years after completion of the contract of work.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form
with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor must purchase
“extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.
Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the
applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements
are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the
required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide
them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies,
including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
Special Risks or Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk,
prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works – (650) 558-7230
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Lorton Ave. Storm Line Cleaning
Project, City Project No. 84930
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Lorton Ave
Storm Line Cleaning Project in the amount of $456,686.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2017, the City Council awarded the Lorton Ave. Storm Line Cleaning Project to
Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc., in the amount of $398,477. The project involved cleaning a 54”
diameter storm drain line that runs from Burlingame Avenue to California Drive and outfalls into
an open channel by the Caltrain tracks. The 54” diameter storm line has been accumulating
sediment for years as this pipeline was designed to be an overflow storm line in the downtown
area. This has resulted in sediment filling over 75% of the pipe in some areas. The project
consisted of using hydrocleaning equipment to remove the sediment from the pipe. The
improvements have allowed the inspection of the pipe’s condition, restored the pipe to its original
design capacity, and reduced the potential for future flooding in the downtown area and upstream
areas west of El Camino Real.
DISCUSSION
The Lorton Ave Storm Line Cleaning Project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with
the plans and specifications. The final construction cost is $456,686, which is $58,209, or 14.6%,
above the awarded contract amount, and within the approved contingencies. The increase in
construction cost was because of additional material that was removed from the pipeline, which
resulted in additional labor and equipment and disposal costs.
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Lorton Ave Storm Line Cleaning Project February 5, 2018
2
FISCAL IMPACT
The following are the project construction expenditures:
Construction Contract $456,686
Construction Inspection $34,580
Staff Administration $11,248
Total $502,514
Funding Availability:
There are adequate funds available in the Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Program to cover
the cost of the project.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Final Progress Payment
Project Location Map
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ACCEPTING THE LORTON AVE STORM LINE CLEANING PROJECT BY
PIPE AND PLANT SOLUTIONS, INC.
CITY PROJECT NO. 84930
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, which finds,
orders and determines as follows:
1. The Director of Public Works has certified the work done by Pipe and Plant Solutions,
Inc. under the terms of its contract with the City dated October 2nd, 2017, has been completed in
accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 84930
3. Said work is accepted.
__________________________
Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day
of February, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
__________________________
City Clerk
Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. DATE: January-23-18 ADDRESS: 225 3rd StreetFOR THE MONTH OF: October Oakland, CA 94607PURCHASE ORDER #14245 TELEPHONE: (650) 863-9556 FAX (888) 978-8264 **** * ********************************************************************** * ************ * ********** ************* * **************** ************* *********** * **************** * **************** * ****************ITEM :: UNIT : BID:UNIT : BID : QUANTITY : % : AMOUNT : PREVIOUS : AMOUNT# : ITEM DESCRIPTION : PRICE : QUANTITY:SIZE : AMOUNT : TO DATE : PAID : TO DATE : PAID : THIS PMT. **** * ********************************************************************** * ************ * ********** ************* * **************** * ********** * ********** * **************** * **************** * ****************: :: : ::: :1:Mobilization/Demobilization:19,900$ :1:LS : $19,900.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $19,900.00 : $4,975.00 : $0.002:Traffic Control:35,000$ :1:LS : $35,000.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $35,000.00 : $8,750.00 : $0.003:Clean 54” Storm Drain Segment #1 (E7-31004 to E6-31010 (Junction Box)) (Est. 190 LF):56,000$ :1:LS : $56,000.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $56,000.00 : $0.00 : $0.00 4:Clean 54” Storm Drain Segment #2 (E6-31010 (Junction Box) to E6-31009) (Est. 75 LF):22,130$ :1:LS : $22,130.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $22,130.00 : $0.00 : $0.00 5:Clean 54” Storm Drain Segment #3 (E6-31009 to E6-31008) (Est. 245 LF):73,000$ :1:LS : $73,000.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $73,000.00 : $0.00 : $0.00 6:Clean 54” Storm Drain Segment #4 (E6-31008 to E6-31007) (Est. 125 LF):37,000$ :1:LS : $37,000.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $37,000.00 : $0.00 : $0.00 7:Clean 54” Storm Drain Segment #5 (E6-31007 to E6-31006) (Est. 80 LF):23,500$ :1:LS : $23,500.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $23,500.00 : $23,500.00 : $0.00 8:Clean 54” Storm Drain Segment #6 (E6-31006 to E6-32035) (Est. 150 LF):45,000$ 1:LS : $45,000.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $45,000.00 : $45,000.00 : $0.00 9:Clean 54” Storm Drain Segment #7 (E6-32035 to Outlet) (Est. 165 LF):49,272$ :1:LS : $49,272.00 : 1.00 : 100.00% : $49,272.00 : $49,272.00 : $0.00 10 :Sediment Disposal - Class 1:252$ :45:CY : $11,340.00 : 0.00 : 0.00% : $0.00 : $0.00 : $0.00 11 :Sediment Disposal - Class 2:157$ :115:CY : $18,055.00 : 286.60 : 249.22% : $44,996.20 : $44,996.20 : $0.00 12 :Sediment Disposal - Class 3:35$ :60:CY : $2,100.00 : 0.00 : 0.00% : $0.00 : $0.00 : $0.0013 :CCTV Inspection and PACP Condition Assessment of Pipelines after cleaning:6$ :1,030:LF : $6,180.00 : 1,030.00 : 100.00% : $6,180.00 : $2,370.00 : $0.00 Subtotal$398,477.00 $411,978.20 $178,863.20 $0.00Change OrdersCO 1 : Additional Cleaning Due to Additional Sediment Removal : $44,707.80 : 1:LS : $44,707.80 : 1.0 : 100.00% : $44,707.80 : $44,707.80 : $0.00::: ::::::::::::::::**** * ********************************************************************** * ************ * ********** *************** **************** * ********** * ********** : **************** * **************** * ****************DATE : ********** : ********** : : : SUBTOTAL****************** $398,477.00 : ********** : ********** : $456,686.00 : $223,571.00 : $0.00 PREPARED BY: Jonathan Lee1-23-2018 LESS RETENTION (5%) : ********** : ********** : $0.00 : ($11,178.55) : $22,834.30********** ************* * **************** : ********** : ********** : ---------------- : ---------------- : ---------------- CHECKED BY: Hillary Tung1-23-2018 SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS : ********** : ********** : $456,686.00 : $212,392.45 : $22,834.30 APPROVED BYAMOUNT DUE FROM CONTRACTOR : ******** : ********** : $0.00 : $0.00 : $0.00CITY ENGINEER: ********** *************** **************** : ********** : ********** : ---------------- : ---------------- : ----------------APPROVED BYTOTAL THIS PERIOD **************** : ********** : ********** : $456,686.00 : $212,392.45 $22,834.30 CONSULTANT: ========================= : ================ : ========== : ========== : ================ : ================ : ================ CITY OF BURLINGAMEPROGRESS PAYMENT NO. 3 and FINALLorton Avenue Storm Line CleaningCITY PROJECT NO. 84930S:\A PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORY\PROJECTS\82600\Progress Payment #1, (SHEET - PAYMENT NO. FINAL)1/23/2018, 1:50 PMPAGE 1 OF 1
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk – (650) 558-7203
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing an Automatic Rotation for
Assignment to the Economic Development Subcommittee
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution establishing an automatic
rotation for assignment to the Economic Development Subcommittee (“EDS”).
BACKGROUND
At the January 16, 2018 City Council meeting, Mayor Brownrigg submitted a memorandum to the
Council requesting that assignment to the Economic Development Subcommittee be routinized.
He requested that EDS be removed from Mayoral assignment and instead its membership be
made automatic. Each year, the Vice Mayor and the Councilmember that is third-in-line would be
assigned to EDS.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed that “the Economic Development Subcommittee is a
very important liaison to the business/development community in Burlingame. The Subcommittee
has opined on a number of critical contracts and potential business partnerships for Burlingame
over the years. It is often the first stop for developers with unusual or bold proposals, and it
maintains close and important contact with key economic constituencies such as hotels, auto
sales, and commercial property owners.” He explained that it was important to ensure that all
Councilmembers are provided an opportunity to serve on EDS for both the community and the
Council.
DISCUSSION
At the January 16, 2018 meeting, the City Council discussed the Mayor’s request and, by a vote
of 3-2, approved the creation of an automatic rotation process to the EDS. The City Council
requested that:
1. The Vice Mayor and third-in-line for Mayor be automatically assigned to the EDS each
year; and
2. If a Councilmember chooses not to be on the EDS, the Mayor is given the authority to
assign a councilmember of their choosing, including himself/herself.
Automatic Rotation of EDS Assignment February 5, 2018
2
Exhibits:
Mayor Brownrigg’s Memorandum
Resolution
1
Memorandum
To: City Council
Date: January 10, 2018
From: Mayor Brownrigg
Subject: Committee Assignments and Process for Economic Development
Subcommittee Assignment
SUMMARY
This memo outlines the new assignments for the various committees and subcommittees,
including those that are not subject to Mayoral assignment. It also proposes that the City Council
routinize the assignment to the Economic Development Subcommittee.
BACKGROUND
In the City of Burlingame, the Mayor is given wide discretion to appoint Councilmembers to
various working groups and subcommittees within the City of Burlingame. Likewise, the Mayor is
given authority to vote for representatives to various elected regional bodies. Each Mayor must
try to balance his or her views of what is both equitable but also effective for the management of
city policies and issue areas. There is inevitably a trade-off between Councilmembers acquiring
specific working group expertise versus the potential interest in having widespread familiarity with
various issues, that is, sharing the assignments and moving people around.
I appreciated the conversation at our last Council meeting. Herewith are my revised Council
assignments. I have tried to be mindful of requests and constraints, albeit without being able to
satisfy all of them. Please note that we each also have assignments “below the line” that are not
subject to Mayoral assignment but which nonetheless consume in some case significant time for
the relevant members. The Council Assignments are attached.
As you can see, every Councilmember has either nine or 10 assignments going forward. I also
want to note that I anticipate our Council may create additional working groups over the year
ahead, given the volume of work I perceive on the horizon. It was with that in mind that I deleted
several older working groups that I felt had outlived their usefulness.
PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
I propose to my colleagues the following change to our assignment procedures. If the City
Council agrees with me, we would remove the Economic Development Subcommittee from
Mayoral assignment and instead make its membership automatic on the following basis: the Vice
Mayor and the 3rd in seniority would be assigned to the subcommittee (as is the case in my
Memorandum January 16, 2018
2
assignments). At the end of each calendar year, the Vice Mayor would rotate off the
subcommittee (as she/he becomes Mayor); the 3rd in seniority would now be Vice Mayor and
would remain on the Economic Development Subcommittee; and the new 3rd in line would be
appointed to the subcommittee. This would be automatic.
Should a member be unable or unwilling to serve, then the Mayor would have discretion to fill the
seat as she/he deems appropriate, but it would be the intention of Council to revert to the system
as soon as practical. Of course, this system can be changed in future by vote of the City Council.
My rationale is straightforward, but let me briefly address it. I believe the Economic Development
Subcommittee is a very important liaison to the business/development community in Burlingame.
The Subcommittee has opined on a number of critical contracts and potential business
partnerships for Burlingame over the years. It is often the first stop for developers with unusual or
bold proposals, and it maintains close and important contact with key economic constituencies
such as hotels, auto sales, and commercial property owners.
As such, I think Burlingame is better governed if each of the Councilmembers cycles through the
Economic Development Subcommittee over time. My suggestion would ensure that members
spend 2 years in a row on the subcommittee – providing continuity -- and then graduate to Mayor
where they may be able to see some of the projects they first considered on the subcommittee
come to conclusion. Yet it would also ensure that new Councilmembers are brought into the
Economic Development Subcommittee and become acquainted with various matters that come
before it. Not only is this a benefit to the City Council’s collective education, but it would ensure
that critical constituencies, such as hotels, get to interact with all members of Council over time,
which is to everyone’s benefit in my opinion.
Needless to say, one consequence of my proposal is that I would NOT be on the subcommittee
for several years, which is a personal disappointment to me. But that is how strongly I believe in
the merits of this suggested revision to our appointment procedures. I hope you will agree.
Thank you for your service.
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ESTABLISHING AN AUTOMATIC ROTATION FOR ASSIGNMENT TO THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITEE
WHEREAS, at the January 16, 2018 City Council meeting, the City Council discussed,
and a majority indicated approval for, separating the Economic Development Subcommittee
from the Mayor’s assignment responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, assignment to the Economic Development Subcommittee each will be an
automatic rotation in which the Vice Mayor and the Councilmember that is third-in-line for the
Mayor serve; and
WHEREAS, if either the Vice Mayor or third-in-line choose not to be on the Economic
Development Subcommittee, the Mayor will be given the authority to assign a different
Councilmember to the committee, including himself/herself.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Council representation on the Economic Development Subcommittee will be an
automatic rotation of the Vice Mayor and third-in-line as described above.
________________________________
Mayor
I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day
of February, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
________________________________
City Clerk
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222
Subject: Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending December 31, 2017
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and approve the City’s investment report through
December 31, 2017.
BACKGROUND
This report represents the City’s investment portfolio as of December 31, 2017. The report includes
all invested City funds with the exception of bond proceeds; the City’s account with the California
Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), which is used to pre-fund the City’s retiree
medical obligations; and the new §115 trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services
(PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program. All other investments are covered by and in
compliance with the City’s adopted Statement of Investment Policy.
DISCUSSION
The City’s investments are guided by the Statement of Investment Policy (the “Policy”), which is
reviewed and approved by the Council annually. The Policy was last approved by the City Council
on August 21, 2017. The Policy directs that investment objectives, in order by priority, are safety,
liquidity, and return. This conservative approach ensures assets are available for use while also
allowing the City to earn additional resources on idle funds. The City utilizes a core portfolio of
investments managed by the City’s investment advisor, PFM Asset Management (PFM), and also
maintains funds invested in the State’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California
Asset Management Program (CAMP) to achieve its investment goals.
CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS
Actions by the Federal Reserve (Fed) and U.S. Government policymakers dominated the fixed-
income markets during the fourth quarter. As was widely expected, the Fed raised the range of the
Federal Funds Target Rate by another 25 basis points (0.25%) in December to a new level of
1.25% and 1.50%. With this move, the Fed met its stated expectations of initiating a total of three
rate hikes in 2017. Looking ahead, the Fed forecasts an additional three hikes in 2018, which,
coupled with its balance normalization plan, should continue to drive yields even higher. However,
Investment Report, December 31, 2017 February 5, 2018
2
persistently low inflation and dissenting opinions among the voting members of the Fed could stall
these plans.
Short-term yields moved notably higher for the year ended December 31, 2017; the increase was
most pronounced during the fourth quarter as markets responded to the widely anticipated rate
hike by the Federal Reserve and the passage of the largest overhaul of the U.S. tax system in more
than 30 years. Intermediate- and long-term yields decreased year-over-year as expectations of
future growth and inflation prospects have dimmed. Year-over-year, the yield on the 2-year U.S.
Treasury note increased by 70 basis points (0.70%), while the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury
note decreased by 3 basis points (0.03%) since the beginning of the year. As a result, the yield
curve has flattened even further, with the spread between the 10-year U.S. Treasury and the 2-
year U.S. Treasury ending the year near a 10-year low.
December’s domestic economic data releases showed a slight pull-back from the strength of prior
months; nonetheless, the U.S. economy remains on strong footing heading into the new year.
Gross domestic product (GDP) increased at an annualized rate of 3.2% in the third quarter of 2017,
capping off the best six-month stretch of growth since 2014. GDP has averaged 2.3% over the last
four quarters. The acceleration in third quarter GDP reflected positive contributions from personal
consumption and business investment, which was boosted primarily by a rise in private inventories
and exports. These contributions were offset by negative contributions from residential housing.
The pace of domestic job growth slowed slightly in December as the economy added 148,000 jobs,
falling short of economists’ expectations of 196,000 new jobs. However, the headline
unemployment rate remained at 4.1% for a third consecutive month, its lowest level in more than
16 years. The U-6 (under-employment) rate decreased from 8.3% in September to 8.1% in
December. Nonetheless, average hourly earnings – an important gauge of wage growth –
remained tepid, edging up just 2.5% year-over-year.
Maturity 12/31/16 12/31/17 Change
3-Mo. 0.50% 1.38% + 0.88%
6-Mo. 0.61% 1.53% + 0.92%
1-Yr. 0.81% 1.74% + 0.93%
2-Yr. 1.19% 1.89% + 0.70%
3-Yr. 1.45% 1.97% + 0.52%
5-Yr. 1.93% 2.21% + 0.28%
10-Yr. 2.44% 2.41% - 0.03%
20-Yr. 2.76% 2.58% - 0.18%
30-Yr. 3.07% 2.74% - 0.33%
Yield Curve History
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3M 6M 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 5 Yr
U.S. Treasury Yield Curve
December 31, 2017
September 30, 2017
December 31, 2016
Investment Report, December 31, 2017 February 5, 2018
3
Forward-looking economic indicators continue to point towards a steady pace of economic
expansion, supported by strong consumption and an improving business investment. Solid job
growth, a robust housing market, and continued expansion of the manufacturing and services
sectors are expected to fuel growth in the near term. However, some political and geo-political risks
remain and may continue to dominate the headlines.
PORTFOLIO INFORMATION
The City’s cash, excluding bond proceeds, is pooled for investment purposes. As of December 31,
2017, invested funds totaled $155,445,358. These investments are assets of the City of
Burlingame, which includes the General Fund, the enterprise funds (such as Water, Sewer, and
Solid Waste), as well as various non-major funds. Note that the City’s account with the California
Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), used to pre-fund the City’s retiree medical
obligations, is not included in this report. In addition, funds held within the City’s new §115 Trust
account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program
are not part of the City’s investment portfolio.
City’s Investments
Market Value as of December 31, 2017
Main Investment Portfolio $102,374,581.32
Main Investment Portfolio - Cash Balance in Custody Account 306,794.10
CAMP Balance 14,031,731.16
LAIF Balance 38,732,251.90
$155,445,358.48
In this uncertain environment, the portfolio’s duration was kept slightly short of the benchmark's
duration in order to hedge against the negative impacts of rising interest rates. At the end of the
quarter, the main portfolio’s duration was 2.50 years, slightly short of the benchmark’s duration of
2.59 years. Factoring in additional liquid investments, such as LAIF and CAMP, the average
effective duration of the City’s aggregate investments was 1.65 years.
Bolstered by positive economic data in the U.S., increases in the stock market, and optimism over
the future path of rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, short- and intermediate- term U.S. Treasury
yields increased significantly during the fourth quarter. In early December, PFM took advantage of
these elevated yields when it recommended the purchase of a $2.25 million U.S. Treasury note
with approximately five years to maturity at a yield of 2.15%, which was near its highest level in six
years.
Strong investor appetite for high-quality alternatives to U.S. Treasuries caused the yield spreads
on investment-grade fixed income sectors to tighten over the quarter (relative to U.S. Treasuries),
resulting in positive relative performance for non-Treasury sectors like supranational obligations,
corporate notes, negotiable CDs, commercial paper, and asset-backed securities.
PFM continued to seek opportunities to purchase well-priced corporate notes for the City’s portfolio
as they became available. In early November, a $1.84 million U.S. Treasury note was sold with
approximately four years to maturity at a yield of 1.81%; the proceeds were reinvested in corporate
Investment Report, December 31, 2017 February 5, 2018
4
notes issued by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley with similar maturity dates at an average
yield of 2.45%. The trade picked up approximately 64 basis points (0.64%) in incremental yield for
the portfolio.
Negotiable bank certificates of deposit (CDs) continued to offer value during the quarter. PFM
recommended the November 16th sale of U.S. Treasury notes with approximately three years to
maturity and a reinvestment of the proceeds in a $1.86 million Swedbank NY negotiable CD with a
similar maturity date at a yield of 2.30%, picking up approximately 46 basis points (0.46%) in
incremental yield.
High-quality asset-backed securities (ABS) continued to perform well relative to U.S. Treasuries.
In early December, PFM took advantage of the relative value available in the ABS sector when it
recommended the sale of FHLMC notes with approximately two years to maturity at a yield of
1.84% and the reinvestment of the proceeds in a Aaa-rated ABS issued by Nissan Auto
Receivables Owner Trust at a yield of 2.13%. This trade represented a pick -up in yield of
approximately 29 basis points (0.29%), without a meaningful duration extension. Unfortunately,
due to the high demand for this new issue, only $340,000 could be purchased for Burlingame. This
was the first ABS issue purchased in the City’s portfolio.
Please see below for a summary of transactions for the quarter ended December 31, 2017:
Trade Date Settlement
Date Transaction CUSIP Description Term
(Mths)
YTM/YTC
%(Yield) Principal
10/3/2017 10/4/2017 Sale 3130A7CV5 FHLB Notes 41 1.69% 2,250,000
10/3/2017 10/4/2017 Sale 3130A7CV5 FHLB Notes 41 1.69% 2,300,000
10/3/2017 10/4/2017 Purchase 912828P87 U.S. Treasury Notes 41 1.71% 4,590,000
10/2/2017 10/10/2017 Sale 3130ABF92 FHLB Notes 20 1.49% 1,000,000
10/2/2017 10/10/2017 Sale 3137EADG1 FHLMC Notes 20 1.47% 870,000
10/2/2017 10/10/2017 Purchase 4581X0CD8 IADB Supranational
Note 37 1.81% 1,870,000
10/11/2017 10/16/2017 Sale 912828N48 U.S. Treasury Notes 39 1.72% 1,850,000
10/11/2017 10/20/2017 Purchase 931142EA7 Wal-Mart Corp Note 38 1.95% 1,850,000
11/1/2017 11/3/2017 Sale 3130A8DB6 FHLB Notes 20 1.60% 1,150,000
11/1/2017 11/3/2017 Purchase 06051GFW4 Bank of America Corp
Note 42 2.40% 920,000
11/1/2017 11/3/2017 Sale 3137EAEB1 FHLMC Notes 20 1.63% 1,000,000
11/1/2017 11/3/2017 Purchase 9128282P4 U.S. Treasury Notes 57 2.00% 1,225,000
11/2/2017 11/6/2017 Sale 912828P87 U.S. Treasury Notes 40 1.81% 1,840,000
11/2/2017 11/6/2017 Purchase 38141GVU5 Goldman Sachs Corp
Note 42 2.47% 920,000
11/2/2017 11/6/2017 Purchase 61746BEA0 Morgan Stanley Corp
Note 41 2.42% 920,000
11/8/2017 11/9/2017 Purchase 3137EAEH8 FHLMC Notes 21 1.67% 1,670,000
11/8/2017 11/9/2017 Purchase 3137EAEJ4 FHLMC Notes 35 1.79% 1,670,000
11/8/2017 11/9/2017 Purchase 912828L57 U.S. Treasury Notes 59 1.99% 1,685,000
11/16/2017 11/17/2017 Sale 912828M98 U.S. Treasury Notes 36 1.84% 1,860,000
11/16/2017 11/17/2017 Purchase 87019U6D6 Swedbank NY CD 36 2.30% 1,860,000
11/20/2017 11/22/2017 Sale 912828F96 U.S. Treasury Notes 47 1.99% 920,000
Investment Report, December 31, 2017 February 5, 2018
5
The portfolio strategy for 2018 will continue to favor broad allocation to the various non-Treasury
sectors permitted by California Government Code and the City’s Investment Policy. These sectors
have performed well in recent quarters and are expected to continue to do so.
PFM will continue to monitor the markets and will recommend relative-value trades as appropriate
in order to safely enhance portfolio earnings. However, as always, while PFM continues to seek
opportunities to enhance the earnings, the priority will always be to maintain the safety and liquidity
of the City’s portfolio investments.
As noted in the pie charts below, the City’s investment portfolio as of December 31, 2017, was
heavily weighted towards the State Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and high-quality (AA+
rated) federal agency and U.S. Treasury securities to maintain the focus on safety and liquidity.
Trade Date Settlement
Date Transaction CUSIP Description Term
(Mths)
YTM/YTC
%(Yield) Principal
11/20/2017 11/22/2017 Purchase 172967LC3 Citigroup Corp Note 49 2.72% 920,000
12/4/2017 12/4/2017 Maturity 17284CUX0 Cit Bank CD 0 - 250,000
12/4/2017 12/5/2017 Sale 3135G0N33 FNMA Notes 20 1.84% 2,000,000
12/4/2017 12/5/2017 Purchase 912828L57 U.S. Treasury Notes 58 2.15% 2,250,000
12/6/2017 12/6/2017 Purchase 09659CF52 BNP Paribas NY CP 6 1.66% 1,500,000
12/6/2017 12/7/2017 Purchase 3137EAEK1 FHLMC Notes 35 1.98% 1,000,000
12/6/2017 12/7/2017 Purchase 912828L40 U.S. Treasury Notes 9 1.63% 1,500,000
12/6/2017 12/7/2017 Purchase 912828W89 U.S. Treasury Notes 52 2.07% 1,000,000
12/6/2017 12/13/2017 Sale 3137EAEH8 FHLMC Notes 20 1.84% 340,000
12/6/2017 12/13/2017 Purchase 65478HAD0 Nissan Auto
Receivables ABS 52 2.13% 340,000
Investment Report, December 31, 2017 February 5, 2018
6
* The “BBB+” category comprises securities rated in the category of A or better by Moody’s and/or Fitch,
which meet the credit rating criteria established in the City’s Statement of Investment Policy.
** The NR (Aaa) category comprises an asset-backed security issued by Nissan Auto Receivables Owner
Trust that is not rated by S&P but is rated Aaa by Moody’s and AAA by Fitch.
As of December 31, 2017, 34% of the City’s funds were invested in very short-term liquid
investments; 21% of the funds were invested with maturities between one day and two years; and
45% of the investment portfolio had a maturity ranging from two to five years. This distribution
gives the City the necessary liquidity to meet operational and emergency cash needs while
maximizing returns on funds not needed in the immediate future. The City’s aggregate investments
maintain an effective duration of 1.65 years and currently generate annual interest income of 1.60%
before investment expenses. The City’s funds are invested in high credit quality investments, and
continue to meet the City’s goals of safety, liquidity, and yield/return.
Investment Report, December 31, 2017 February 5, 2018
7
As of December 31, 2017, the yield to maturity at cost on the main portfolio of securities was 1.81%.
Including additional investments such as LAIF and CAMP, the average yield to maturity** on the
City’s aggregate investments was 1.60%. During the quarter, the main portfolio generated interest
income and net realized gains that totaled $298,932.
* Ratings by Standard & Poor’s. Average excludes ‘Not Rated’ securities.
** The yield to maturity was calculated using the quarterly apportionment rate for LAIF, the monthly distribution
yield for CAMP, and the yield to maturity at cost for the City’s managed portfolio.
The chart on the next page compares the yield of the City’s managed portfolio to the yields on the
2-year U.S. Treasury note, LAIF, and the San Mateo County Pool for the past three years.
City Investments Statistical Information
Market Value $155,445,358.48
Effective Duration 1.65 Years
Average Credit Quality* AA
Yield To Maturity** 1.60%
Investment Report, December 31, 2017 February 5, 2018
8
Below is a summary of cash and investment holdings held by each fund as of December 31, 2017,
which includes invested funds, debt service reserves, amounts held in overnight (liquid) accounts,
the City’s main checking account and other operating funds:
Cash holdings in the General Fund decreased slightly in the second quarter of the 2017-18 fiscal
year. Although major property tax receipts of over $8 million were received, transfers in/out of the
General Fund were also posted during the quarter. In accordance with the adopted budget, the
General Fund received $3.2 million from other funds, largely to reimburse the cost of administration
of the utility funds. Transfers out of the General Fund totaled $18.2 million, including $5.8 million
As of 12/31/17 As of 09/30/17 Change $
General Fund 22,363,224$ 28,378,025$ (6,014,801)$
Capital Project Funds 58,089,587 42,143,677 15,945,910
Internal Service Funds 19,120,680 18,984,206 136,474
Water Fund 16,712,330 17,228,677 (516,347)
Sewer Fund 17,471,650 17,884,970 (413,320)
Solid Waste Fund 4,639,017 4,706,613 (67,597)
Parking Fund 7,759,071 7,580,535 178,537
Building Fund 8,691,103 8,642,129 48,975
Landfill Fund 1,321,796 1,239,926 81,870
Debt Service Fund 9,028,542 7,592,014 1,436,528
Subtotal, Operating Funds 165,196,999 154,380,770 10,816,229
Other Funds 10,260,960 14,135,736 (3,874,776)
Total Cash and Investments 175,457,959$ 168,516,506$ 6,941,453$
Cash and Investments by Fund
Investment Report, December 31, 2017 February 5, 2018
9
for debt service, $6.3 million for authorized capital improvement projects, $3 million for the Capital
Investment Reserve within the Capital Projects Fund, and $3.1 million for the General Fund’s
proportionate share of the initial contribution to the Pension Rate Stabilization Program – the §115
trust fund established with Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS).
Decreases in the Water and Sewer funds over the quarter are a reflection of the funds’ receipts
being temporarily out-paced by annual transfers out to the General Fund - $1.3 million and $1.1
million, respectively, and contributions to the §115 pension trust fund ($375,000 in total for the two
funds).
The Debt Service Fund cash balance reflects transfers in of $5.6 million from the General Fund
and $2.1 million from the Storm Drain Fund to provide for the debt obligations of these funds. The
fund was decreased by the transfer out of $5.5 million in bond proceeds to fund Storm Drain capital
projects. Actual debt service payments for the quarter amounted to $770,000. The decrease in
the “Other Funds” category is largely the result of transfers out of the Gas Tax ($1.5 million) and
Measure A Funds ($2.2 million) to support streets capital improvement projects.
As for performance of the City’s trust funds, which adhere to different strategies than reflected in
the City’s Investment Policy for its main portfolio, the most recent statements are attached to this
staff report. As the City’s funding of its retiree medical obligations is relatively low (<20%), the
City’s trust account is invested in the most aggressive (Strategy 1) portfolio available with the
California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) Fund. The net return for the portfolio was
16.6% for the year. The PARS § 115 trust account for funding the City’s pension liabilities was just
recently established in October, and the November statement attached is the most current
information available for the City’s account.
CONCLUSION
All City funds are invested in accordance with the approved Statement of Investment Policy with
an emphasis on safety, liquidity, and return (in that order). The City’s investment strategy of
balancing the investment portfolio between short-term investments (to meet cash flow needs) and
longer-term maturities (to realize a higher rate of return) is appropriate given current market
conditions.
Due to the ease of access of the City’s funds in liquid accounts such as LAIF and CAMP, the City
has more than sufficient funds available to meet its liquidity (expenditure) requirements for the next
six months.
Staff and the City’s investment advisor will continue to closely monitor the City’s investments to
ensure the mitigation of risk and ability to meet the City’s investment goals , while being able to
respond to changes in market conditions.
FISCAL IMPACT
Quarterly reporting of the City’s Investment Portfolio will not result in any direct impact on City
resources.
Investment Report, December 31, 2017 February 5, 2018
10
Exhibits:
Portfolio Holdings as of December 31, 2017.
CERBT Strategy 1 Performance Data as of December 31, 2017
PARS Monthly Statement for November, 2017
For the Month Ending December 31, 2017Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
U.S. Treasury Bond / Note
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/15/2015 1.000% 09/15/2018
1,492,734.00 1,493,437.40 4,475.14 1,492,792.97 12/07/1712/06/17AaaAA+ 1,500,000.00 912828L40 1.63
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 04/01/2013 1.125% 03/31/2020
982,930.00 992,623.92 2,874.31 984,140.63 04/30/1504/29/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828UV0 1.46
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 04/30/2015 1.375% 04/30/2020
1,036,997.85 1,052,327.60 2,472.72 1,054,183.59 02/02/1602/01/16AaaAA+ 1,050,000.00 912828K58 1.28
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 05/17/2010 3.500% 05/15/2020
1,036,562.00 1,046,553.29 4,544.20 1,095,625.00 05/29/1505/29/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828ND8 1.49
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 11/30/2015 1.625% 11/30/2020
138,594.54 140,881.35 200.00 141,214.06 11/14/1611/10/16AaaAA+ 140,000.00 912828M98 1.40
US TREASURY N/B
DTD 12/31/2015 1.750% 12/31/2020
148,957.05 150,231.99 7.25 150,304.69 01/10/1701/05/17AaaAA+ 150,000.00 912828N48 1.70
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 12/31/2013 2.375% 12/31/2020
849,450.00 869,234.60 55.11 880,654.69 10/19/1610/18/16AaaAA+ 840,000.00 912828A83 1.19
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 02/28/2014 2.000% 02/28/2021
1,124,340.75 1,150,719.23 7,645.03 1,163,803.71 05/06/1605/03/16AaaAA+ 1,125,000.00 912828B90 1.26
US TREASURY N/B
DTD 02/29/2016 1.125% 02/28/2021
2,674,267.75 2,700,772.17 10,511.91 2,697,041.02 10/04/1710/03/17AaaAA+ 2,750,000.00 912828P87 1.71
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 05/31/2016 1.375% 05/31/2021
2,443,750.00 2,465,268.25 3,021.98 2,460,546.88 07/10/1707/07/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 912828R77 1.80
US TREASURY N/B
DTD 07/31/2014 2.250% 07/31/2021
1,609,312.00 1,658,897.33 15,065.22 1,678,687.50 10/05/1610/03/16AaaAA+ 1,600,000.00 912828WY2 1.20
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/02/2014 2.000% 08/31/2021
2,142,945.85 2,154,348.72 14,610.50 2,155,542.97 12/05/1612/01/16AaaAA+ 2,150,000.00 912828D72 1.94
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 10/31/2014 2.000% 10/31/2021
1,000,681.52 1,010,998.10 3,442.54 1,012,105.66 04/05/1704/03/17AaaAA+ 1,005,000.00 912828F96 1.84
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022
988,711.00 991,924.48 4,790.52 991,796.88 12/07/1712/06/17AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828W89 2.07
Page 1
For the Month Ending December 31, 2017Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
U.S. Treasury Bond / Note
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 07/31/2017 1.875% 07/31/2022
1,208,395.13 1,218,109.53 9,611.92 1,217,870.12 11/03/1711/01/17AaaAA+ 1,225,000.00 9128282P4 2.00
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 07/31/2015 2.000% 07/31/2022
2,431,338.35 2,479,096.25 20,505.43 2,481,103.52 09/01/1708/31/17AaaAA+ 2,450,000.00 912828XQ8 1.73
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022
1,651,234.29 1,666,715.58 7,533.89 1,666,175.39 11/09/1711/08/17AaaAA+ 1,685,000.00 912828L57 1.99
US TREASURY NOTES
DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022
2,204,912.25 2,209,389.03 10,060.10 2,208,779.30 12/05/1712/04/17AaaAA+ 2,250,000.00 912828L57 2.15
121,427.77 25,166,114.33 25,451,528.82 1.72 25,532,368.58 25,420,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Supra-National Agency Bond / Note
INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV
NOTE
DTD 09/19/2017 1.561% 09/12/2020
1,836,657.90 1,865,928.84 8,270.70 1,865,512.00 09/19/1709/12/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 45905UP32 1.64
INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK
DTD 11/08/2013 2.125% 11/09/2020
1,871,580.15 1,886,108.33 5,739.86 1,887,333.22 10/10/1710/02/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 4581X0CD8 1.81
14,010.56 3,708,238.05 3,752,037.17 1.73 3,752,845.22 3,740,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Federal Agency Bond / Note
FREDDIE MAC NOTES
DTD 07/19/2017 1.375% 08/15/2019
1,318,587.27 1,323,710.62 8,229.38 1,323,150.50 11/09/1711/08/17AaaAA+ 1,330,000.00 3137EAEH8 1.67
FHLB GLOBAL NOTES
DTD 09/09/2016 1.000% 09/26/2019
2,166,296.00 2,198,901.01 5,805.56 2,198,086.00 09/09/1609/08/16AaaAA+ 2,200,000.00 3130A9EP2 1.03
FREDDIE MAC GLOBAL NOTES
DTD 10/02/2012 1.250% 10/02/2019
247,022.75 248,170.73 772.57 246,145.00 12/31/1512/30/15AaaAA+ 250,000.00 3137EADM8 1.68
FREDDIE MAC GLOBAL NOTES
DTD 10/02/2012 1.250% 10/02/2019
1,052,316.92 1,065,372.84 3,291.15 1,065,830.70 10/15/1510/14/15AaaAA+ 1,065,000.00 3137EADM8 1.23
FNMA BENCHMARK NOTE
DTD 11/07/2014 1.750% 11/26/2019
996,617.00 1,004,640.64 1,701.39 1,010,930.00 04/30/1504/29/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3135G0ZY2 1.50
Page 2
For the Month Ending December 31, 2017Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Federal Agency Bond / Note
FREDDIE MAC NOTES
DTD 01/17/2017 1.500% 01/17/2020
2,476,345.00 2,497,756.75 17,083.33 2,496,800.00 02/13/1702/10/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3137EAEE5 1.54
FNMA NOTES
DTD 01/12/2015 1.625% 01/21/2020
993,448.00 1,002,533.53 7,222.22 1,005,810.00 03/27/1503/24/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3135G0A78 1.50
FNMA NOTES
DTD 01/12/2015 1.625% 01/21/2020
993,448.00 998,584.38 7,222.22 996,920.00 06/29/1506/24/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3135G0A78 1.70
FNMA NOTES
DTD 01/12/2015 1.625% 01/21/2020
1,142,465.20 1,152,983.54 8,305.56 1,156,712.30 05/01/1504/30/15AaaAA+ 1,150,000.00 3135G0A78 1.50
FNMA NOTES
DTD 02/28/2017 1.500% 02/28/2020
1,049,000.38 1,059,508.91 5,432.50 1,059,321.60 02/28/1702/24/17AaaAA+ 1,060,000.00 3135G0T29 1.52
FNMA NOTES
DTD 08/01/2017 1.500% 07/30/2020
1,827,115.50 1,845,158.07 11,562.50 1,844,394.50 08/01/1707/28/17AaaAA+ 1,850,000.00 3135G0T60 1.60
FHLB NOTES
DTD 09/08/2017 1.375% 09/28/2020
874,490.86 885,804.27 3,161.35 885,380.90 09/19/1709/13/17AaaAA+ 890,000.00 3130ACE26 1.55
FHLB NOTES
DTD 09/08/2017 1.375% 09/28/2020
992,399.74 1,007,082.45 3,587.60 1,006,757.90 09/08/1709/07/17AaaAA+ 1,010,000.00 3130ACE26 1.48
FHLMC NOTES
DTD 09/29/2017 1.625% 09/29/2020
1,650,921.92 1,662,649.31 6,935.14 1,662,267.90 11/09/1711/08/17AaaAA+ 1,670,000.00 3137EAEJ4 1.79
FHLMC NOTES
DTD 11/15/2017 1.875% 11/17/2020
994,759.00 997,076.74 2,395.83 997,010.00 12/07/1712/06/17AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3137EAEK1 1.98
FNMA NOTES
DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021
227,721.11 234,410.84 1,093.40 234,196.07 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 235,000.00 3135G0N82 1.32
FNMA NOTES
DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021
741,304.89 762,729.27 3,559.38 761,901.75 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 765,000.00 3135G0N82 1.33
FNMA NOTES
DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021
1,526,215.95 1,567,885.54 7,328.13 1,565,361.00 09/02/1609/01/16AaaAA+ 1,575,000.00 3135G0N82 1.38
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022
1,574,559.61 1,594,037.84 15,497.78 1,595,128.15 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,585,000.00 3135G0S38 1.85
Page 3
For the Month Ending December 31, 2017Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Federal Agency Bond / Note
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022
2,483,532.50 2,502,203.75 24,444.44 2,502,650.00 02/13/1702/10/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0S38 1.98
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022
1,585,008.12 1,604,797.67 7,189.06 1,604,759.25 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,605,000.00 3135G0T45 1.88
FANNIE MAE NOTES
DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022
2,468,860.00 2,487,031.88 11,197.92 2,485,150.00 05/09/1705/08/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0T45 2.00
163,018.41 29,382,435.72 29,703,030.58 1.63 29,704,663.52 29,740,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Corporate Note
TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP
DTD 01/09/2017 1.700% 01/09/2019
1,995,862.00 2,001,351.68 16,244.44 2,002,620.00 01/10/1701/05/17Aa3AA- 2,000,000.00 89236TDM4 1.63
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY NOTES
DTD 10/28/2013 2.150% 01/15/2019
1,772,840.85 1,773,875.63 17,547.58 1,785,345.90 10/16/1410/10/14A2A 1,770,000.00 94974BFQ8 1.94
JP MORGAN SECURITIES
DTD 04/23/2009 6.300% 04/23/2019
1,052,797.00 1,052,011.17 11,900.00 1,188,900.00 05/09/1405/09/14A3A- 1,000,000.00 46625HHL7 2.25
US BANCORP (CALLABLE) CORPORATE
NOTES
DTD 04/24/2014 2.200% 04/25/2019
1,764,982.56 1,765,149.99 7,098.67 1,777,952.00 10/16/1410/10/14A1A+ 1,760,000.00 91159HHH6 1.96
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON NT
(CALLABLE)
DTD 09/11/2014 2.300% 09/11/2019
1,789,653.50 1,787,906.19 12,544.58 1,793,353.80 10/16/1410/10/14A1A 1,785,000.00 06406HCW7 2.20
AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT (CALLABLE)
CORP
DTD 03/03/2017 2.200% 03/03/2020
1,296,064.90 1,310,241.28 9,374.44 1,311,765.00 09/07/1709/05/17A2A- 1,300,000.00 0258M0EE5 1.83
JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP NOTES
DTD 06/22/2017 1.950% 06/22/2020
218,439.76 219,888.72 107.25 219,865.80 06/22/1706/19/17A2A 220,000.00 24422ETS8 1.97
JP MORGAN CHASE & CO CORP NT
(CALLABLE)
DTD 06/23/2015 2.750% 06/23/2020
973,426.38 984,031.40 589.72 994,432.50 08/22/1608/17/16A3A- 965,000.00 46625HLW8 1.92
Page 4
For the Month Ending December 31, 2017Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Corporate Note
WAL-MART STORES INC CORP NOTE
DTD 10/20/2017 1.900% 12/15/2020
1,838,084.15 1,847,489.37 6,932.36 1,847,317.50 10/20/1710/11/17Aa2AA 1,850,000.00 931142EA7 1.95
WELLS FARGO CORP NOTES
DTD 03/04/2016 2.500% 03/04/2021
964,558.03 981,561.81 7,840.63 988,343.35 08/22/1608/17/16A2A 965,000.00 949746RS2 1.94
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP
(CALLABLE)
DTD 02/19/2016 2.500% 04/15/2021
2,004,504.00 2,031,601.56 10,555.56 2,034,600.00 09/07/1709/05/17A1A 2,000,000.00 06406FAA1 2.00
BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTE
DTD 04/19/2016 2.625% 04/19/2021
924,693.84 926,521.47 4,830.00 926,826.40 11/03/1711/01/17A3A- 920,000.00 06051GFW4 2.40
MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES
DTD 04/21/2016 2.500% 04/21/2021
918,459.92 922,291.64 4,472.22 922,392.00 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 61746BEA0 2.42
GOLDMAN SACHS GRP INC CORP NT
(CALLABLE)
DTD 04/25/2016 2.625% 04/25/2021
919,360.60 924,436.64 4,427.50 924,636.80 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 38141GVU5 2.47
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST (CALLABLE)
NOTE
DTD 05/10/2016 2.050% 05/10/2021
1,478,580.00 1,498,501.44 4,356.25 1,497,810.00 05/16/1605/12/16A2A- 1,500,000.00 05531FAV5 2.08
CITIGROUP INC CORP (CALLABLE) NOTE
DTD 12/08/2016 2.900% 12/08/2021
926,054.52 926,127.40 1,704.56 926,283.60 11/22/1711/20/17Baa1BBB+ 920,000.00 172967LC3 2.72
IBM CORP BONDS
DTD 01/27/2017 2.500% 01/27/2022
2,006,632.00 2,011,355.38 21,388.89 2,013,700.00 02/09/1702/06/17A1A+ 2,000,000.00 459200JQ5 2.35
141,914.65 22,844,994.01 22,964,342.77 2.08 23,156,144.65 22,795,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Commercial Paper
CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY COMM PAPER
DTD 05/18/2017 0.000% 02/12/2018
998,131.00 998,390.00 0.00 993,023.33 08/14/1708/14/17P-1A-1 1,000,000.00 22533UBC6 1.39
BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD
COMM PA
DTD 05/22/2017 0.000% 02/16/2018
1,396,914.40 1,397,459.78 0.00 1,389,839.11 08/16/1708/14/17P-1A-1 1,400,000.00 06538CBG5 1.43
Page 5
For the Month Ending December 31, 2017Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Commercial Paper
BNP PARIBAS NY BRANCH COMM PAPER
DTD 09/08/2017 0.000% 06/05/2018
1,488,486.00 1,489,343.75 0.00 1,487,556.25 12/06/1712/06/17P-1A-1 1,500,000.00 09659CF52 1.66
0.00 3,883,531.40 3,885,193.53 1.51 3,870,418.69 3,900,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Certificate of Deposit
COMPASS BANK
DTD 08/21/2013 1.800% 08/21/2018
250,378.75 250,000.00 1,639.73 250,000.00 08/21/1308/21/13NRNR 250,000.00 20451PCL8 1.73
AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION
DTD 08/22/2013 1.900% 08/22/2018
250,589.50 250,000.00 1,717.81 250,000.00 08/22/1308/22/13NRNR 250,000.00 02587DSF6 1.83
CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK NY CD
DTD 12/05/2016 1.760% 11/30/2018
1,496,833.50 1,499,462.61 2,273.33 1,498,830.00 12/05/1612/01/16P-1A-1 1,500,000.00 13606A5Z7 1.78
NORDEA BANK FINLAND NY CD
DTD 12/05/2016 1.760% 11/30/2018
1,500,930.00 1,500,000.00 2,346.67 1,500,000.00 12/05/1612/01/16P-1A-1+ 1,500,000.00 65558LWA6 1.74
SVENSKA HANDELSBANKEN NY LT CD
DTD 01/12/2017 1.890% 01/10/2019
1,991,158.00 2,000,000.00 18,375.00 2,000,000.00 01/12/1701/10/17Aa2AA- 2,000,000.00 86958JHB8 1.91
BANK OF MONTREAL CHICAGO CERT DEPOS
DTD 02/09/2017 1.880% 02/07/2019
2,002,474.00 2,000,000.00 15,040.00 2,000,000.00 02/09/1702/08/17A1A+ 2,000,000.00 06427KRC3 1.90
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON LT CD
DTD 04/06/2017 1.910% 04/05/2019
1,693,846.00 1,700,000.00 7,937.11 1,700,000.00 04/06/1704/05/17A1A+ 1,700,000.00 06417GUE6 1.91
SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CD
DTD 05/04/2017 2.050% 05/03/2019
1,698,837.20 1,700,000.00 5,711.53 1,700,000.00 05/04/1705/03/17A1A 1,700,000.00 86563YVN0 2.05
SKANDINAV ENSKILDA BANKEN NY CD
DTD 08/04/2017 1.840% 08/02/2019
1,776,887.21 1,799,442.65 13,800.00 1,799,298.00 08/04/1708/03/17Aa3A+ 1,800,000.00 83050FXT3 1.85
BANK TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ LTD LT CD
DTD 09/27/2017 2.070% 09/25/2019
925,648.53 930,000.00 5,133.60 930,000.00 09/27/1709/25/17A1A+ 930,000.00 06539RGM3 2.07
WESTPAC BANKING CORP NY CD
DTD 08/07/2017 2.050% 08/03/2020
1,612,319.10 1,615,000.00 13,243.00 1,615,000.00 08/07/1708/03/17Aa3AA- 1,615,000.00 96121T4A3 2.05
SWEDBANK (NEW YORK) CERT DEPOS
DTD 11/17/2017 2.270% 11/16/2020
1,849,952.28 1,860,000.00 5,277.75 1,860,000.00 11/17/1711/16/17Aa3AA- 1,860,000.00 87019U6D6 2.30
Page 6
For the Month Ending December 31, 2017Managed Account Detail of Securities Held
Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle
Par
Certificate of Deposit
92,495.53 17,049,854.07 17,103,905.26 1.95 17,103,128.00 17,105,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
Asset-Backed Security / Collateralized Mortgage Obligation
NAROT 2017-C A3
DTD 12/13/2017 2.120% 04/15/2022
339,413.74 339,942.51 320.36 339,942.51 12/13/1712/06/17AaaNR 340,000.00 65478HAD0 2.13
320.36 339,413.74 339,942.51 2.13 339,942.51 340,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total
103,040,000.00 103,459,511.17 1.81 533,187.28 103,199,980.64 102,374,581.32 Managed Account Sub-Total
$103,040,000.00 $103,459,511.17 $533,187.28 $103,199,980.64 $102,374,581.32 1.81%
$102,907,768.60
$533,187.28
Total Investments
Accrued Interest
Securities Sub-Total
Page 7
$7,868,002,781.
California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT)
CERBT Strategy 1
December 31, 2017
Objective
The objective of the CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio is to seek returns that
reflect the broad investment performance of the financial markets
through capital appreciation and investment income. There is no
guarantee that the portfolio will achieve its investment objective.
Strategy
The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio is invested in various asset classes in
percentages approved by the CalPERS Board. The specific percentages
of portfolio assets allocated to each asset class are shown under
“Composition”. Generally, equities are intended to help build the value of
the employer’s portfolio over the long term while bonds are intended to
help provide income and stability of principal. Also, strategies invested in
a higher percentage of equities seek higher investment returns (but
assume more risk) compared with strategies invested in a higher
percentage of bonds.
Compared with CERBT Strategy 2 and Strategy 3, this portfolio consists
of a higher percentage of equities than bonds and other assets.
Historically, equities have displayed greater price volatility and therefore
this portfolio may experience greater fluctuation of value. Employers that
seek higher investment returns, and are able to accept greater risk and
tolerate more fluctuation in returns, may wish to consider this portfolio.
CalPERS Board may change the list of approved asset classes, in
composition as well as targeted allocation percentages and ranges at
any time.
Assets Under Management
As of the specifed reporting month-end, the aggregate total of assets
under management for all CERBT Strategies was
Composition
Asset Class Allocations and Benchmarks
The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio consists of the following asset classes and
corresponding benchmarks:
Portfolio Benchmark
The CERBT Strategy 1 benchmark is a composite of underlying asset class
market indices, each assigned the target weight for the asset class it
represents.
Target vs. Actual Asset Class Allocations
The following chart shows policy target allocations compared with actual asset
allocations as of the specified reporting month-end. CalPERS may overweight
or underweight an allocation to a particular asset class based on market,
economic, or CalPERS policy considerations.
1 Month 3 Months Fiscal YTD 1 Year 3 Years*5 Years*Since Inception*
(June 1, 2007)
Gross Return1,3 1.53%4.36%8.31%16.70%7.11%8.10%5.07%
Net Return2,3 1.53%4.34%8.27%16.60%7.02%7.99%4.99%
Benchmark returns 1.50%4.26%8.13%16.15%6.62%7.64%4.60%
Performance quoted represents past performance, which is no guarantee of future results that may be achieved by the fund.
*Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.
1 Gross performance figures are provided net of SSGA operating expenses.
2 Net Performance figures deduct all expenses to the fund, including investment management, administrative and recordkeeping fees.
3 See the Expense section of this document.
CERBT Strategy 1 Performance as of December 31, 2017
Asset Class Target
Allocation1
Target
Range Benchmark
Global Equity 57%± 2%MSCI All Country World Index IMI (net)
Fixed Income 27%±2%Bloomberg Barclays Long Liability
Index
Treasury Inflation-
Protected Securities
("TIPS")
5%± 2%Bloomberg Barclays U.S. TIPS Index,
Series L
Real Estate Investment
Trusts ("REITs")8%± 2%FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed
Liquid Index (net)
Commodities 3%± 2%S&P GSCI Total Return Index
1 Allocations approved by the Board at the October 2014 Investment Committee meeting
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Global EquityFixed Income TIPS REITs Commodities
Target Actual
California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT)
CERBT Strategy 1
December 31, 2017
General Information
Information Accessibility
The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio consists of assets managed internally
by CalPERS and/or external advisors. Since it is not a mutual fund, a
prospectus is not available nor is information available from a
newspaper source. This summary is designed to provide descriptive
information. CalPERS provides a quarterly statement of the employer’s
account and other information about the CERBT. For total market
value, detailed asset allocation, investment policy and current
performance information, including performance to the most recent
month-end, please visit our website at: www.calpers.ca.gov.
Portfolio Manager Information
The CalPERS Investment Committee and Board of Administration
directs the investment strategy and investments of the CERBT. Under
that direction, CalPERS Investment staff manages fixed income,
treasuery inflation-protected securities and commodities assets; and
State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) manages the global equity and
real estate investment trust assets.
Custodian and Record Keeper
State Street Bank serves as custodian for the CERBT. Northeast
Retirement Services serves as record keeper.
Expenses
CERBT is a self-funded trust in which participating employers pay for all
administrative and investment expenses. Expenses reduce the gross
investment return by the fee amount. The larger the fee, the greater the
reduction of investment return. Currently, CERBT expenses are 0.10%
which consist of administrative expenses borne by CalPERS to
administer and oversee the Trust assets, investment management and
administrative fees paid to SSGA to manage the global equity and real
estate trust assets, and recordkeeping fees paid to Northeast
Retirement Services to administer individual employer accounts. The
expenses described herein are reflected in the net asset value per
share. CERBT’s actual expenses may differ from the amount currently
being accrued due to factors such as changes in average fund assets
or market conditions. The expense accrual rate may change without
notice in order to reflect changes in average portfolio assets or in
expense amounts. The CalPERS Board annually reviews the operating
expenses and changes may be made as appropriate. Even if the
portfolio loses money during a period, the fee is still charged.
What Employers Own
Each employer choosing CERBT Strategy 1 owns a percentage of this
portfolio, which invests in pooled asset classes managed by CalPERS
and/or external advisors. Employers do not have direct ownership of the
securities in the portfolio.
Price
The value of the portfolio changes daily, based upon the market value of the
underlying securities. Just as prices of individual securities fluctuate, the
portfolio’s value also changes with market conditions.
Principal Risks of the Portfolio
The CalPERS CERBT Fund provides California government employers with
a trust through which they may prefund retiree medical costs and other post-
employment benefits. CERBT is not, however, a defined benefit plan. There
is no guarantee that the portfolio will achieve its investment objectives nor
provide sufficient funding to meet these employer obligations. Further,
CalPERS will not make up the difference between actual health care
premiums for payment of future benefits provided to retirees should CERBT
assets not be sufficient to cover future obligations.
An investment in the portfolio is not a bank deposit, and it is not insured nor
guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC),
CalPERS, the State of California or any other government agency.
There are risks associated with investing, including possible loss of
principal. The portfolio’s risk depends in part on the portfolio’s asset class
allocations and the selection, weighting and risks of the underlying
investments. For more information about investment risks, please see the
document entitled “CERBT Principal Investment Risks” located at
www.calpers.ca.gov.
Fund Performance
Performance data shown on page 1 represents past performance and is no
guarantee of future results. The investment return and principal value of an
investment will fluctuate so that an employer’s units, when redeemed, may
be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be
higher or lower than historical performance data shown. For current
performance information, please visit www.calpers.ca.gov and follow the
links to California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust.
CERBT Strategy Risk Levels
CalPERS offers employers the choice of one of three investment strategies. Risk levels among strategies vary, depending upon the target asset class
allocations. Generally, equities carry more risk than fixed income securities.
Asset Class Target Allocations Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3
Global Equity 57%40%24%
Fixed Income 27%39%39%
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities 5%10%26%
Real Estate Investment Trusts 8%8%8%
Commodities 3%3%3%
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PARS Post•-Employment Benefits Trust 11/1/2017 to 11/30/2017
Carol Augustine
Finance Director
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Rd., 1st Floor
Burlingame, CA 94010
Source 11/1/2017 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 11/30/2017
PENSION 1002 $3,758,873.60 $0.00 $11,543.61 $783.10 $0.00 $0.00 $3,769,634.11
Totals $3,758,873.60 $0.00 $11,543.61 $783.10 $0.00 $0.00 $3,769,634.11
Source
PENSION
Source
PENSION
Source 1-Month 3-Months 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years
PENSION 0.31%-----10/3/2017
Information as provided by US Bank, Trustee for PARS; Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value
Headquarters - 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250.1250 www.pars.org
Plan's Inception Date
Account Report for the Period
The dual goals of the Moderate Strategy are growth of principal and income. It is expected that dividend and interest income will comprise a
significant portion of total return, although growth through capital appreciation is equally important. The portfolio will be allocated between
equity and fixed income investments.
Investment Return
Account Summary
Investment Selection
Account balances are inclusive of Trust Administration, Trustee and Investment Management fees
Annualized Return
Investment Return: Annualized rate of return is the return on an investment over a period other than one year multiplied or divided to give a comparable one-year return.
Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance returns may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees, which could reduce returns. Information is deemed reliable but may be subject to change.
Ending
Balance as of
Moderate HighMark PLUS
Investment Objective
Beginning Balance as
of
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243
Subject: Approval of the City’s Participation in the Operation Eagle Visit —
Homecoming 50 Years Celebration
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City’s participation in the Operation Eagle
Visit – Homecoming 50 Years Celebration.
BACKGROUND
In March, the City of San Mateo will be celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the adoption of 1/327 A
Company of the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) “Screaming Eagles.” The Brigade Commander has
agreed to send troops out to California to celebrate this anniversary, with the overarching goal to
continue to build a strong bond with the Peninsula communities, including Burlingame, that support
them. This item is being brought to the Council for approval because it is not on the City’s work
plan, nor has funding been set aside for participation in the celebration.
DISCUSSION
In March 1968, the City of San Mateo adopted A Company of the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) first
brigade, 327th regiment. The City of Burlingame adopted its unit (1/327 B Company, 101st Airborne,
Air Assault) in 2004.
In 2012, the Cities of San Mateo, Burlingame, and Hillsborough welcomed soldiers from their
adopted units to the area for celebrations. Since that time, six other Peninsula cities have adopted
units in this brigade. The City of San Mateo is now spearheading a 50th Anniversary celebration
scheduled for the evening of March 22 through mid-day on March 25. The celebration includes
several group events throughout the weekend as well as an opportunity for the representatives of
each unit to visit their city for about five hours in the middle of the day on Friday, March 23.
Central County Fire Department Captain Ryan Klarich served as the City’s liaison to the unit in
2012 and has volunteered to assist with this year’s celebration. Captain Klarich, the Fire Chief, and
the City Manager recently met to brainstorm how best to welcome the soldiers (likely five total) to
Burlingame. Given that the soldiers will be on the go quite a bit during the weekend, staff thought
they might appreciate having the City and Fire Department host a lunchtime barbecue for them in
Washington Park. The soldiers can participate in a bocce ball tournament or other games or athletic
Operation Eagle Visit February 5, 2018
2
activities, or they can just relax. The Town of Hillsborough is interested in partnering with
Burlingame for the day, so their soldiers would join Burlingame’s soldiers for the barbecue and
other activities. There is also a possibility of taking the soldiers on a tour of Burlingame and
Hillsborough. Those details must still be worked out over the next several weeks.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact is anticipated to be less than $5,000. There are sufficient funds in the City
Manager’s Office budget for this purpose, so no additional appropriation is required.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: February 5, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Kathleen A. Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Waiving Registration Fees for Individual Massage
Therapists
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution waiving registration fees for
individual massage therapists in Burlingame.
BACKGROUND
The regulation of the massage industry has undergone wide swings over the last decade, as
changes in state legislation removed and then re-granted in part local control over massage
establishments. Originally managed on the local level, regulation of massage was concentrated
in a statewide industry group in 2009. Cities were stripped of their ability to impose different or
additional requirements on massage practitioners, and licensing happened through the statewide
board. In January of 2015, some local land use and regulatory control was restored to local
jurisdictions. Burlingame has updated its massage ordinance to reflect these legislative changes
as they occurred. Currently, we have a registration requirement that parallels the state licensing
procedures. Burlingame’s approach was designed to be minimally burdensome on individual
massage therapists; we do not require different information than what they are already providing
to the state board. We have a separate registrat ion procedure for massage businesses, as
opposed to the individual practitioners. The purpose of the individual permit requirement is to
ensure that the City has accurate and up to date information on massage therapists working in
Burlingame and to facilitate communications where necessary with the state licensing board. The
registration procedure may be reviewed in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 6.39.050.
DISCUSSION
Given the work involved in record keeping and verifying the information provided, the City
established a fee for individual registration of $200, with a fee of $100 for renewal. In
implementing the program, the Police Department has learned that in most cases, massage
businesses are requiring their therapists to pay these fees individually rather than covering the
costs of registration for them. Because individual therapists are frequently contractors rather than
employees and may work in multiple locations, having to pay the City’s registration fee can be
onerous and may provide a disincentive to complying with the requirement.
Waiver of Massage Practitioner Registration Fees February 5, 2018
2
The City has a strong public safety interest in having accurate information regarding massage
practitioners working within our jurisdiction. While the vast majority of such practitioners are
professionally appropriate, the private nature of their work makes it possible for them to be
victimized or for them to be accused of inappropriate or criminal behavior. In either case, having
immediate and accurate information about them is important to the Police Department’s ability to
protect the public. In one recent case, the Department received a complaint of a sexual assault
by an unregistered practitioner at an existing massage establishment, and the investigation of
that case was hampered by the lack of information regarding that individual. The Police
Department would like to ensure that any unnecessary barriers to registration are removed, for
the protection of both practitioners and their clients.
Because of the public safety interest involved, the waiver of the previously established fee does
not constitute a gift of public funds. It is not anticipated that the waiver of the fee will have a
significant effect on the Department’s budget.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are 30 currently permitted massage therapists in the City, who paid an initial $200 fee and
a bi-annual $100 renewal fee. Assuming a blended rate for future registrations, the fiscal impact
of waiving the fee is approximately $2,250 dollars a year.
Exhibit:
Proposed Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME WAIVING
INITIAL AND RENEWAL REGISTRATION FEES FOR INDIVIDUAL MASSAGE
PRACTITIONERS UNDER BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 6.39
WHEREAS, the health and safety of both the public and massage therapists is
enhanced by the Police Department having accurate information regarding individual
massage practitioners working in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has enacted reasonable registration requirements in line
with State law in Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 6.39; and
WHEREAS, the previously established fees for individual massage practitioner
registration may present a barrier to registering with the City; and
WHEREAS, the public safety interest in facilitating registration outweighs the
fiscal impact of waiving fees for individual therapists’ registration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council waives the
individual registration fees for initial registration and renewal for individual massage
practitioners under Chapter 6.39 of the Municipal Code, keeping all other fees and costs
under that Chapter in place as previously established.
Michael Brownrigg, Mayor
I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
5th day of January, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
1
Memorandum
Agenda No: 11a
To: City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Mayor Michael Brownrigg
Subject: Committee Report
There are two items I wish to report on.
Physical Fitness Center on Trousdale
The first concerns the cancellation of rehabilitation and physical therapy services by Mills
Peninsula Hospital. On January 19, I attended a public meeting organized by Mills Peninsula
CEO, Janet Wagner, to discuss the rather abrupt closure of the hospital’s physical therapy, rehab,
and fitness center. These services are offered in a building owned by the Peninsula
Healthcare District but leased to Sutter.
There were over 100 pretty angry people in the room, mostly patients but also staff. They felt that
the notice had been very brief, without any input, and was a bad decision. Also present were
members of the PHC district board. Both Helen Galligan and Frank Pagliaro spoke passionately
about Sutter not conferring with them before making this announcement.
I spoke briefly on behalf of the City, noting that we are really a bystander to this but we care
deeply about health and health options for our residents, and offering our good offices to help
search for a solution. You may have also received letters, as I have, from residents who really
value this service.
At the end of an hour long session, I believe the conclusion was that Sutter will keep the fitness
center open for 6 to 9 months, while it works with the District to see if it can convert the service
into a nonprofit (possibly) and fund it through donations. The consolidation of cardio therapy and
other physical rehab services at Mills will go forward on the same timeframe as noted in Wagner’s
letter.
Hotel Forecast
At the January 26, 2018 annual luncheon at the San Mateo County Visitors Bureau, keynote
speaker, Mike Dominguez, spoke about the state of the hotel industry nationwide. He gave an
incredibly quickly delivery packed with talking points and charts, but the picture he painted was
Brownrigg Committee Report February 5, 2018
2
basically very rosy for the travel industry over the next two years, especially full service hotels
(like ours). His contention, among other things, is that the only time Airbnb succeeds is when
hotels are running full. In his mind, Airbnb is a sign of success, not a threat. His talk is available
on vimeo if you’re interested: https://vimeo.com/253487643. Go to Minute 40. The bottom line
was a very encouraging one for our hoteliers over the next two years. One other side comment: I
was seated at the DoubleTree Table, and I heard a lot about the growing challenges of finding
workers for their hotel.
Other city activities in the period included attending the SBWMA Board Meeting, the opening of
Paloma Park, the Goals Setting session (thanks to staff for a great meeting), participating in two
PCE meetings with Vice Mayor Colson, and attending and speaking at the Burlingame Chamber
of Commerce Annual luncheon.
1
Memorandum
Agenda No: 11b
To: City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Vice Mayor Donna Colson
Subject: Committee Report
Home For All – Funding Group Meeting January 17, 2018
Updates
Federal Tax Reform - Some wins for housing, but impact is yet to be seen. Concern over
reduction of demand for municipal bonds.
State Housing Legislation - SB 2 and SB 3
o SB 2 - Fees expected to be available in late spring early summer - Statewide $250
mm. They expect every city will get funding and there is some projection on
funding, but we could use for small allocations to individuals.
o SB 3 - Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act requires 2/3 vote and will be a
general fund obligation. Anticipated 30 years. $1 billion for veterans and $3 billion
for affordable housing
o SAM TRANS 1/2 cent sales tax is likely for November 2018 ballot initiative and
needs 2/3 approval rating - would be $80 million per year for 30 years and might be
a “cap and trade” element that make small amount available for transit oriented
housing. Currently in road show mode and then starting to accept proposals for
interest and projects.
Have NOFA out and due Feb 2 - About $2.5 mm for capital and $1 mm for public services and we
are in early stages for affordable housing round.
Funding Work Plan
The first topic was a discussion around Impact Fees V Inclusionary Zoning - There is presently a
scoping document - AB 1505 Palmer Fix - Workshop to help navigate the questions around the
inclusionary zoning ordinance. Local government has to do all the compliance work. Seems most
developers option to fee out and fewer build. The problem with the build is that the units revert
after 25 years and are hard to manage by city staff. Large projects can roll over with refinancing
and extend the affordability - easier to manage a single large project to keep the units truly viable
and extend longer term. The individual units are harder to monitor and do come off of the property
after a certain time - often 25 years.
Colson Committee Report February 5, 2018
2
Some cities have a Strategic Property Acquisition Fund and can use that to start friendly
condemnation or eminent domain and there are tax benefits for the property owner on this
situation.
Impact fee over certain square footage for SFD in unincorporated county.
Armando at HEART - Lending program - working to develop a prospectus and program
guidelines and working to develop the a way to protect cities - First loss is HEART and then
second would be a foundation and then third would be the cities.
Update on Schools - Pacifica wants to build teacher housing and want very low rents so they have
to go back to the drawing board and issue 35-40 year bonds to drive down the payments and allow
for lower rents. Hoping to fund a loan in February to get that project going.
County - Loan fund to help non-compliance secondary units to come into compliance in
unincorporated county. $500K toward amnesty program meeting standards to habitat and can use
the loan program as an offering to help on repairs. Roll out is next meeting.
Home For All – Convening Meeting on Accessory Dwelling Units January 25, 2018
Meeting to discuss ADU production
14,000 possible increase in ADU units in the county alone
Can be detached, attached, interior, garage apartment, above garage
Why Build? Rental income, housing for relatives, downsizing, flexible space, sound
investment, community benefits of increased housing
Environmentally friendly, lower cost, invisible density
Cities like Vancouver, Portland and Seattle are developing more ADUs to help meet the housing
demand.
Obstacles include zoning regulations and permitting fees, financing, parking requirements.
The County is working to develop hard copy and web-based information to facilitate production of
ADUs as a viable means of adding affordable housing units to the market.
1
Memorandum
Agenda No. 11c
To: City Council
Date: February 5, 2018
From: Councilmember Emily Beach
Subject: Committee Report
I’d like to highlight three items during the past two weeks:
I. Thursday, 1/18/18 League of California Cities, Policy Committee Day in Sacramento:
League published a helpful pamphlet (I have paper copies for colleagues) and website
on housing legislation: https://www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-
Articles/2017/December/League-Releases-Guide-to-New-Housing-Legislation
Widespread concern from the League about the possible repeal of gas tax via citizens’
initiative in November 2018. If successful, it would be a devastating blow to cities
throughout California. Communities like Burlingame would lose millions of dollars to
repair roads and aging infrastructure in upcoming years.
I serve on the League’s Environmental Quality Policy Committee. Our committee
recommended the League should support legislation that opposes new federal efforts to
increase offshore oil and natural gas production off the coast of California.
I’ve listed below the top three environmental concerns surfaced by member cities – we
should monitor potential impact on Burlingame:
1) Solid waste/organics/recycling diversion standards and costs
Organics diversion: received briefing from Director of CalRecycle. New standards
from state legislation SB 1383 will require an estimated $2-$7 billion investment in
CA; need for likely 50-100 new facilities to meet standards by 2022 when new laws
take effect. First target year to meet new benchmarks coming in 2020. Local
cities/JPA’s will need to respond. Expect significant cost increases to achieve
standards.
2) Stormwater/groundwater management
3) Community Choice Aggregation programs like Peninsula Clean Energy; maintaining local
control
Beach Committee Report February 5, 2018
2
II. 1/29/18: Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Committee C/CAG
Scoop Carpooling incentive program report:
Data from July-November 2017
$308,000 of $1 million County carpooling incentive subsidies spent
August-November averaged between 15,000-20,000 additional one-way carpool trips
using Scoop compared to prior months’ run-rate.
Scoop https://www.takescoop.com is different than rideshare like Lyft and Uber --
Scoop connects people who are traveling to/from the same destination rather than
creating more cars/taxi/congestion on roads. The County subsidy pays driver $2
more per ride; and reduces passenger fee by $2 per ride.
Foster City and Fremont are top two origins/destinations
Burlingame has the 6th highest trips per capita (5%) in the county, behind Foster City,
Redwood City, SSF, San Mateo, and Menlo Park.
III. 1/30/18 – Burlingame School District Board of Trustees Meeting
We celebrate McKinley Elementary and Burlingame Intermediate School for receiving the
prestigious Golden Bell Award for their dual language immersion programs from the
California School Boards Association. Both Mayor Brownrigg and I attended the
presentation.