Loading...
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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roup 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"3,4 3&$3&"5*0/."45&31-"/&91&3*&/$& (SPVQIBTNPSFUIBOGPVSEFDBEFTPGFYQFSJFODFXPSLJOHGSPNPVSPGGJDFJO4PVUI4BO'SBODJTDP  BOEIBWFQMBOOFEBOEEFTJHOFEIVOESFETPGQVCMJDGBDJMJUJFT JODMVEJOHSFDSFBUJPODFOUFST  DPNNVOJUZDFOUFST BOEQBSLGBDJMJUJFTBSPVOEUIF#BZ"SFB 4JNJMBSQSPKFDUTJODMVEF ⿏ #VSMJOHBNF$PNNVOJUZ$FOUFS 8BTIJOHUPO1BSL.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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he 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.