HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso - CC - 061-20231
RESOLUTION NO. 061-2023
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR A
MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SAFETY ELEMENT PROJECT WITH THE COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO TO JOIN WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES OF ATHERTON, BELMONT,
BURLINGAME, EAST PALO ALTO, HALF MOON BAY, SAN BRUNO, BRISBANE,
AND PACIFICA AND SAN MATEO COUNTY AS AGENCY PARTICIPANTS AND
AUTHORIZE $$142,258 OF FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, the cities and towns in San Mateo County and the County of San Mateo
have a strong history of collaboration and resource sharing on various planning studies and
initiatives, including a new initiative to participate in the Multijurisdictional Safety Element
Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, recent changes to State law require local jurisdictions to review and
update their safety elements of the general plans to address climate adaptation and
resiliency strategies, fire hazards, flood hazards, and evacuation routes; and
WHEREAS, nine jurisdictions in San Mateo County have formed a Safety Element
Collaborative to address the legal requirements to update safety elements and to share
analysis and resources for greater efficiency for the jurisdictions participating in this
collaborative effort; and
WHEREAS, seven of the jurisdictions will participate in the Project’s full scope of
work (Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, San
Mateo County), and two of the jurisdictions will participate in certain tasks (Brisbane,
Pacifica); and
WHEREAS, for the seven jurisdictions participating in the Project’s full scope of
work, a legally compliant safety element will be produced; and
WHEREAS, through a competitive RFP process facilitated by San Mateo County,
PlaceWorks, Inc (“Contractor”) was identified as the preferred firm to provide consulting
services for the development and outreach associated with the Project; and
WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative, the consulting firm for the 21
Elements Project, has served as the project manager (“Project Manager”) for the Safety
Element Collaborative through the Collaboratives’ initial formation and the RFP process to
ensure the voice of each participating agency is heard and their needs addressed; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72BCEE96-8B4D-43A3-8C06-E6F3ED870850
2
WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative will continue to serve as Project
Manager for the Safety Element Collaborative for the duration of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the County will serve as fiscal agent for the Project and will enter into
contracts with PlaceWorks, Inc and Community Planning Collaborative and oversee the
payment of invoices on behalf of the participating agencies; and
WHEREAS, each participating agency will enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the County outlining the roles of each participating agency, the County,
the consultants, and the funding obligations for the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The City of Burlingame City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute
a Memorandum of Understanding with San Mateo County, in the form attached
hereto, to join the Multijurisdictional Safety Element Project with consultant support
from PlaceWorks, Inc. and Community Planning Collaborative for the term of June
15, 2023, through June 15, 2026, with a total obligation not to exceed $142,258.
2. The City Manager, in consultation and with agreement between the County and
other participants, is authorized to make minor changes to the MOU that may be
necessary to ensure consistency, accuracy and clarification across all of the
participating jurisdictions.
______________________________________
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
15th day of May, 2023, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: BEACH, BROWNRIGG, COLSON, ORTIZ, STEVENSON
NOES: Councilmembers: NONE
ABSENT: Councilmembers: NONE
______________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 72BCEE96-8B4D-43A3-8C06-E6F3ED870850
1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between
SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
and
CITY OF BURLINGAME
for the
MULTIJURISDICTIONAL SAFETY ELEMENT PROJECT
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), effective the 15th day of June, 2023 is
entered into by and between the County of San M ateo (“County”) and the City of
Burlingame (“Agency”), together referred to herein as the "Parties."
WHEREAS, the County and cities and towns in San Mateo County have a strong
history of collaboration and resource sharing on various planning studies and initiatives,
including a new initiative to participate in the Multijurisdictional Safety Element P roject
(“Project”); and
WHEREAS, recent changes to State law require local jurisdictions to review and
update the safety elements of their general plans to address climate adaptation and
resiliency strategies, fire hazards, flood hazards, and evacuation routes; and
WHEREAS, nine (9) jurisdictions in San Mateo County have formed a Safety
Element Collaborative (“Collaborative” and “Collaborative Partners”) to address the legal
requirement to update safety elements and to share analysis and resources for greater
efficiency for the jurisdictions participating in this collaborative effort; and
WHEREAS, seven (7) jurisdictions will participate in the full project scope of work
(Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, San Mateo
County), and two (2) jurisdictions will only participate in certain tasks (Brisbane, Pacifica);
and
WHEREAS, for those agencies participating in the Collaborative’s full scope of work,
a legally compliant safety element will be produced; and
WHEREAS, through a competitive RFP process facilitated by San Mateo County,
2
PlaceWorks (“Contractor”) was identified as the preferred firm to provide consulting
services for the Project for tasks such as community engagement, the vulnerability
assessment, and drafting updated safety elements; and
WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative, the consulting firm for the 21
Elements Project, has served as the project manager (“Project Manager”) for the Safety
Element Collaborative through the Collaboratives’ initial formation and the RFP process to
ensure the voice of each participating agency is heard and their needs addressed; and
WHEREAS, Community Planning Collaborative will continue to serve as the Project
Manager for the Safety Element Collaborative for the duration of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the County will serve as the fiscal agent for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the total cost of the Project is $1,316,416 and the Agency’s contribution
is $142,258; and
WHEREAS, the County and Agency desire to enter into this MOU to memorialize the
understanding that the Parties will work cooperatively to implement and fund the P roject in
accordance with Exhibits A, B and C.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County and Agency agree as follows:
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this MOU is to memorialize the understanding between the County and
Agency that (1) the Agency wishes to participate in the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety
Element Project, (2) the Agency wishes to utilize the Contractor and the Project
Manager as the consulting team, and (3) the County will serve as the fiscal agent to
facilitate the Project.
II. EXHIBITS
The following exhibits are attached to this MOU and incorporated into this MOU by this
reference:
Exhibit A – Project Contributions by Agency
Exhibit B – PlaceWorks - Scope of Work and Fee Proposals
3
Exhibit C – Community Planning Collaborative – Scope of Work and Fee
Proposal
III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
a. The County will serve as the Fiscal Agent for the Project and will enter into
separate agreements with Contractor and Project Manager. The County will
review and process payments and invoices on behalf of the Collaborative
Partners to the consultants pursuant to the terms of the relevant consulting
agreements.
b. The Agency will provide funding as set forth in Exhibit A for the Project and will
participate in obligations identified in the Scope of Work in Exhibit B, including
participating in the overall plan development and implementation.
c. Community Planning Collaborative will serve as Project Manager and will manage
and implement all aspects of the Project, in accordance with the Scope of Work
set forth in Exhibit C.
d. PlaceWorks will serve as Contractor and will carry out the tasks described in the
Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit B.
IV. FUNDING AND METHOD OF PAYMENT
a. Agency agrees to pay the County for the Agency contribution identified in Exhibit
A of this MOU. The Agency agrees to pay the County either (1) 100% of its
contribution by July 15, 2023, (2) 50% of its contribution by July 15, 2023 and the
remaining 50% by September 15, 2023, or (3) 20% of its contribution by July 15,
2023, 60% by September 15, 2023, and the remaining 20% by August 1, 2024.
The Agency will notify the County of its payment selection upon execution of this
MOU.
1. The Contractor will submit invoices to the Project Manager on a monthly
basis for Project activities. A brief narrative progress report shall be
included with each invoice. The Project Manager will review the
Contractor’s invoices and submit the invoices to the County for payment.
2. The Project Manager will submit the Project Manager’s invoices and brief
narrative progress reports to the County on a monthly basis for review and
payment.
3. The Contractor and Project Manager will provide a quarterly accounting of
invoices, charged and remaining funds for each Collaborative Partner to the
County and Agency.
b. The County and Agency each agree they are not entitled to reimbursement of costs
incurred while performing obligations as set forth in Section III, Roles and
Responsibilities.
c. In the event that the actual costs of completing the scopes of work, as set forth in
Exhibits B and C, exceed the budgets set forth in Exhibits B or C, respectively,
the Collaborative Partners, including the County and Agency, will confer and
agree either to reduce the relevant scope of work and/or to provide additional
4
funding subject to further written mutual agreement of the Parties. The
Collaborative Partners agree to use best efforts in such case to reach resolution
without causing a Project delay.
d. At the conclusion of the Project, the Project Manager will submit a final
accounting to each Collaborative Partner with any remaining funds returned to
each Collaborative Partner or a final invoice if required.
V. TERM
This MOU shall be effective from June 15, 2023 to June 15, 2026, unless terminated
sooner pursuant to Section XIII.
VI. AMENDMENTS
The Agency contact, or designee, is authorized to make minor modifications to the
scopes of work in Exhibits B and C, in consultation with the Project Manager and
County, to respond to necessary changes as the Project evolves as long as the Project
cost does not exceed the total approved cost estimate in Exhibit A. Such minor
modifications to the scopes of work shall be documented in writing, but shall not require
an amendment to this MOU.
This MOU can be amended, modified, or supplemented only in writing(s) si gned by
both Parties. No oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein will be
binding on either of the Parties.
VII. INDEMNIFICATION
a. It is agreed that Agency shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify County and
its officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all claims, suits, or
actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise
out of the terms and conditions of this MOU (collectively, “Claims”); provided that
such Claims are the direct result from the acts or omissions of Agency and/or its
officers, employees, agents, and servants.
b. Agency shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify County from and against any
and all claims for wages, salaries, benefits, taxes, and all other withholdings and
charges payable to, or in respect to, Agency’s representatives for services
provided under this MOU.
c. It is agreed that County shall defend, save harmless, and indemnify Agency and
its officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all claims, suits, or
actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third party which arise
out of the terms and conditions of this MOU and which result from the acts or
omissions of County and/or its officers and employees, agents and servants.
d. The duty of each party to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other as set
forth herein shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the
California Civil Code.
5
e. In the event of concurrent negligence (or intentional/reckless acts) of County
and/or its officers and employees, on the one hand, and Agency and/or its
officers, employees, agents, and servants, on the other hand, then the liability for
any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property which arise
out of terms and conditions of this MOU shall be apportioned according to the
California theory of comparative fault.
f. This indemnification will survive termination or expiration of this MOU.
VIII. NOTICES
a. All notices and communications deemed by either party to be necessary or
desirable must be in writing and may be given by personal delivery to a
representative of the other party or by mailing the same, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
If to the County:
San Mateo County Planning & Building Department
455 County Center
2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Steve Monowitz, Director of Community Development
650/363-1861; smonowitz@smcgov.org
If to the Agency:
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Rd
Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director
(650) 558-7263
jsanfilippo@burlingame.org
b. The address to which mailings may be made may be changed from time to time
by notice mailed as described above. Any notice given by mail will be deemed
given on the day after that on which it is deposited in the United States Mail as
provided above.
IX. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
The Parties agree and understand that the work/services performed by either of the
Parties or any consultant retained by either of the Parties under this MOU are
performed as independent contractors and not as employees or agents of the other
party. Nothing herein will be deemed to create any joint venture between the County
and Agency or any employment relationship between Agency and County, Contractor
and Project Manager.
X. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS
6
Neither party will assign, transfer, or otherwise substitute its interest in this MOU, nor its
obligations, without the prior written consent of the other party. All obligations created
under this MOU will be binding on, and the rights established herein will inure to the
benefit of, any successors or assigns of the Parties.
XI. COMPLIANCE
The Parties must comply with any and all laws, statues, ordinances, rules, regulations,
or requirements of the federal, state, and local governments, and any agency thereof,
which relate to or in any manner affect the performance of this MOU.
XII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The Parties agree to work together in good faith to resolve any dispute arising from this
MOU and agree to refer any dispute not resolved within 30 days to the County’s
Community Development Director and Agency’s Planning Director for resolution. In the
event resolution cannot be reached, the Parties may submit the dispute to mediation by
a neutral party mutually agreed to by the Parties prior to initiating any formal action in
court.
XIII. TERMINATION
Either Party may terminate this MOU with or without cause upon 30 days' prior written
notice. If either Party terminates this MOU with or without cause, the Agency will be
responsible for its pro rata share of costs incurred by the County or the County’s Project
consultants up through the effective date of termination.
XIV. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this MOU is be deemed invalid or unenforceable by a court of
competent jurisdiction, that provision will be reformed and/or construed consistently with
applicable law as nearly as possible to reflect the original intentions of this MOU; and in
any event, the remaining provisions of this MOU will remain in full force and effect.
XV. GOVERNING LAW
This MOU will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts
that are made and performed entirely in California.
XVI. NO WAIVER
No waiver of any default or breach of any covenant of this MOU by either party will be
implied from any omission by either party to take action on account of such default if
such default persists or is repeated. No express waiver will affect any default not
specified in the waiver, and the waiver will be operative only for the time or extent
stated. The consent or approval by either party to or of any act by either party
requiring further consent or approval will not be deemed to waive or render necessary
consent or approval to any subsequent, similar acts.
7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this MOU as follows:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
By: ____________________________
Lisa Goldman
City Manager
ATTEST:
By:________________________________
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ____________________________
Michael Guina, City Attorney
SAN MATEO COUNTY
By: ____________________________
David Pine, President, Board of
Supervisors, County of San Mateo
ATTEST:
By:_________________________________
Michael Callagy, Clerk of Said Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: ____________________________
Melissa Andrikopoulos, Deputy County
Attorney
8
EXHIBIT A
PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS BY AGENCY
BURLINGAME – TOTAL COST
SAFETY ELEMENT CONSULTANT
Placeworks Team
Base Contract $118,475
Additional scope items (public meetings/technical support) $0
CEQA Contingency $0
General Contingency $11,848
Subtotal $130,323
PROJECT MANAGER
Community Planning Collaborative – 21 Elements
Subtotal $11,935
TOTAL COST $142,258
9
EXHIBIT B
PLACEWORKS SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE PROPOSALS
*See Exhibits A AND B to the agreement between the County of San Mateo
and PlaceWorks, Inc., incorporated herein by this reference*
10
EXHIBIT C
COMMUNITY PLANNING COLLABORATIVE SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE
PROPOSAL
Multi-Jurisdictional Safety
Element Update
for the County of San Mateo
February 9, 2023 | Revised Proposal for Services
Multi-Jurisdictional Safety
Element Update
for the County of San Mateo
February 9, 2023 | Revised Proposal for Services
ORANGE COUNTY • BAY AREA • SACRAMENTO • CENTRAL COAST • LOS ANGELES • INLAND EMPIRE
www.placeworks.com
Prepared By: PlaceWorks
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
t 510.848.3815
In Association with:
Atlas Planning Solutions
Nexus Planning & Research
Climate Resilient Communities
Technical Proposal
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 3
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Understanding and Approach
California residents understand that natural hazards are an inescapable and inherent character of our state,
and San Mateo County is no exception. Lakes and streams regularly shrink and swell in cycles of drought and
downpours, hills and forests turn dry and burn, and the ground occasionally shakes and rumbles. As a
background of all of this, the consequences of global climate change alter our expectations of normality,
changing the frequency and intensity of many of our natural hazards, often with increasingly severe effects.
We cannot ignore these hazardous conditions, nor can we
completely eliminate the risk they pose. The continued success
of San Mateo County, as with the rest of our region and state,
depends on finding ways to adapt to these conditions and
increase our resilience to their harmful effects. We can reduce
the chance of these hazards occurring, design our physical and
social systems to resist their effects, and plan for rapid,
effective responses and recovery when they do inevitably
happen. The Safety Element of each jurisdiction’s General Plan
serves as a comprehensive framework and foundation for
community resilience with goals, policies, and programs that
address safety issues in the community, providing
opportunities to build community resilience throughout all
phases of the emergency management cycle.
The PlaceWorks team understands that nine jurisdictions in San
Mateo County have formed a Safety Element Collaborative
(Collaborative) for a coordinated update of their Safety
Elements (or in the case of Brisbane and Pacifica, selected aspects of the Safety Element). The Collaborative
includes the County of San Mateo and the Cities of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto,
Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, and San Bruno (also referred to as Participating Agencies or Participating
Jurisdictions). The updated Safety Elements should be responsive to all applicable State laws and pertinent
public safety issues, including climate change, the intersection between risks and equity, and evacuation
access. For many of these communities, there is a significant amount of overlap in the types of hazard
conditions they must address (refer to Table 1). In addition, they should integrate with other safety-related
planning efforts, including the recently updated Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, local
emergency operation plans, and climate adaptation plans, and comprehensively address both short-term
and long-term safety and resilience issues.
Disaster
Response
RecoveryMitigation
Preparation
The emergency management cycle
Technical Proposal
4 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
Table 1. Participating Jurisdictions and Hazards of Concern
Jurisdiction Scope
Participation
Hazards of Concern
Dam
Inundation
Evacuation
Concerns Flooding Geologic-
Landslides
Geologic-
Liquefaction
Sea
Level
Rise
Tsunami
Wildfire
CAL FIRE
review
San Mateo
County
Full
Atherton Full
Belmont Full ex. SB 99
Brisbane VA & Maps
Burlingame Full
East Palo
Alto
Full
Half Moon
Bay
Full
Pacifica VA & Maps
San Bruno Full
Tailored Holistic Planning
While recognizing the importance of having safety elements that are tailored to each community, the
PlaceWorks team understands that these elements must mesh and sync up with each other to create a
unified framework to public safety and resilience as much as possible. The successful efforts of OneShoreline
illustrate how effective a county-wide approach can be when it comes to policy frameworks, capital projects,
educational efforts, and data sharing, among others. Although not all jurisdictions in San Mateo County are
participating in this project, we still intend to pursue cross-boundary analyses and solutions that can help
inform surrounding communities and which other communities may be able to join later. For example,
unincorporated San Mateo County, Half Moon Bay, and Belmont include very high fire hazard severity zones.
As feasible, a unified approach to reduce the risks to new and existing development in these zones can help
ensure increased protection across community limits and make sure these Participating Jurisdictions are
prepared for any future fires.
The PlaceWorks team understands that despite the relatively close proximity of the nine Participating
Jurisdictions, there are substantial differences between these communities. These differences include
physical distinctions, such as terrain and distribution of land uses; socioeconomic differences among
community residents, such as income; a range of community characteristics, including quality and age of
housing stock; exposure to different hazards and safety issues; and numerous other factors.
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 5
We know that this project cannot be approached as a single Safety Element distributed to each community.
Each community must receive analyses, policies, community engagement strategies, and other resources as
part of their Safety Element that is uniquely prepared for that community’s needs. Pacifica’s vulnerabilities
are different from Belmont’s, and many policy solutions that work for East Palo Alto are not likely to be
applicable to Atherton. We pride ourselves on working with municipal agency staff, community-based
organizations (CBOs), and other local experts to better understand the unique challenges and opportunities
facing each community, allowing us to prepare plans that are specifically suited to each jurisdiction and not
cookie-cutter “one-size-fits-all” documents.
Assessing Vulnerability Through an Equity Lens
The PlaceWorks team is aware that acknowledging and helping to correct inequities is a key principle of this
planning effort, and this is a topic we are eager to address. Our team understands the nexus between equity
and resilience, recognizing that lack of access to secure housing, financial resources, healthcare and
education, decision-making, and numerous other consequences of systemic injustices and marginalization
make an individual or a group more likely to be harmed by natural hazards and their consequences, both
directly and indirectly. Many populations in the Participating Jurisdictions have experienced such
discrimination and vulnerability, and we see a key part of our role as learning from their experiences and
using our understanding of equity issues to elevate their needs and priorities.
Part of our understanding of equity, disproportionate impacts, and vulnerability is knowing the different
forms that these issues take. There are numerous factors that contribute to vulnerability, and we want to
make sure that the updated Safety Elements comprehensively address these issues. For example, it is well
known that income and other financial resources are one of the biggest determinants of resilience. Higher-
income persons can more easily afford to rehabilitate and harden their homes, pay for protective resources,
absorb temporary loss of income from hazard-related impacts, relocate to less vulnerable areas, and take
many other steps to reduce their vulnerability. However, this does not mean that wealthy individuals may
not also be vulnerable to the effects of natural hazards. In a county where the median income for a family of
four is $166,000, factors such as overpaying for housing, overcoming obstacles to home ownership (e.g., lack
of affordable homes, saving for down payment), and overcrowding can contribute substantially to
vulnerability. Social isolation, access and functional needs, chronic health conditions, and many other factors
also make an individual more sensitive to natural hazards regardless of their financial resources. A key goal
of these Safety Element updates will focus on working with community members, CBOs, and jurisdiction staff
to ensure that these plans include a comprehensive understanding of vulnerability that accurately reflects
•Brisbane: 4,850
•Unincorporated
San Mateo
County: 129,270
Population
•East Palo Alto:
$83,510
•Atherton: Over
$250,000
Median
household
income
•Half Moon Bay:
49%
•San Bruno: 84%
Percentage of
houses built
before 1980
Technical Proposal
6 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
the very real needs and priorities of the most at-risk groups, while also not excluding those who may not be
considered “traditionally” vulnerable but who may still suffer disproportionate impacts.
County-wide income limits for a household of four and median household income.
Taking the Long View
Under recent changes to State law, safety elements must be reviewed and updated (as needed) at least every
eight years. Despite this, safety elements must continue to provide a framework for long-term safety and
resilience. While they can (and should) include relevant short-term actions, as a part of the General Plan, a
safety element should traditionally support community action for 15 to 30 years. However, the PlaceWorks
team understands that this historic horizon is no longer sufficient in the era of climate change, and that our
communities should be planning for conditions decades in the future. We know that a building or piece of
critical infrastructure constructed during the eight-year active period of these safety elements may still be
operational by 2100. For example, Census data shows that
approximately 11 percent of the houses in San Mateo
County were constructed before 1940, long before the
advent of modern building codes, safety standards, or
many of the other land use planning tools that inform
today’s development. Meanwhile, consider that State
guidance recommends planning for at least 84 inches of
sea level rise by 2100, a level that would cause significant
inundation in parts of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East
Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and the
unincorporated county, and would likely create impacts in
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000
Acutely
low
Extremely
low Very low Low Moderate Above
moderate
East Palo
Alto
County average, San
Bruno, and Brisbane
Belmont Atherton
Pacifica and
Half Moon Bay
2100 sea level rise projections in East Palo Alto, according
to Adapting to Rising Tides modeling.
Burlingame
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 7
all other communities. We understand the importance of planning our communities now to account for long-
term future conditions, helping to ensure that future generations, including the infrastructure and critical
facilities that they rely on, are out of harm’s way as much as possible and are prepared for hazard events.
Inclusive Community Engagement
Any plan must have support from the community, or its success is in jeopardy. The PlaceWorks team
understands the importance of building community backing for the Safety Element updates. Our approach
to community engagement for comprehensive planning and resilience projects ensures that community
member concerns, goals, priorities, and values are elevated in the Safety Element updates and made central
to their intent. Our approach to public engagement emphasizes the importance of conducting outreach to
as broad a segment of the community as possible, including to people who historically have not participated
in community planning efforts. This includes using a range of in-person and virtual engagement approaches
and tools, using interactive and compelling ways to gather community feedback, and making information
available to community members in plain, easy-to-understand ways to help support informed participation.
Critically, we intend to collaborate very closely with CBOs and jurisdictions’ staff to understand how best to
reach out to community members, to learn what strategies have been successful in the past, as well as what’s
working well now in similar projects in Participating Jurisdictions, and to improve the engagement process.
We also intend to collaborate with CBOs and jurisdiction staff to conduct outreach in other languages, as
necessary.
Feasible Implementation
We cannot overstate the importance of implementation, and as many of our staff are former public
jurisdiction staff themselves, the PlaceWorks team understands that a plan that only sits on the shelf is of no
value to anyone regardless of how nicely it reads or how well it was put together. It is critical that the
strategies in the Safety Elements be appropriate and feasible for the communities, including that they can
be implemented with available staff time, funding levels, and other resources. Right now, there are
numerous opportunities to fund safety, resilience, and adaptation work coming from regional, state, and
federal sources, as well as private organizations. We plan to prepare Safety Elements that help to best
position the Participating Jurisdictions to secure these funds and take advantage of other emerging resources
that can support these efforts.
Technical Proposal
8 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
Scope of Work
PlaceWorks supports the work program presented in the Request for Proposals (RFP) with minor
modifications. The work program described in this section includes all tasks identified in the RFP plus an
additional sub task for project management and coordination with the Community Planning Collaborative
(CPC) Project Manager in Task 1 and small modifications to combine sub tasks. Task 1, project coordination
and communication, is an ongoing task. Task 2, community engagement and equity approach, will occur
throughout the process with targeted outreach or touchpoints at key points in the process. Tasks 3 through
10 will occur sequentially as each task builds up to the final review and approval of the Safety Element.
Our Scope of Work presents our proposed approach to the project; however, we look forward to discussing
the approach with the Collaborative and adjusting it as needed to support achievement of the project goals.
We recognize that not all Participating Agencies will participate in all tasks. Our understanding of agency
participation by task is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Participating Agency Participation by Task
Participating Agency Participation by Task
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Atherton
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
East Palo Alto
Half Moon Bay
Pacifica
San Bruno
Unincorporated San
Mateo County
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 9
Task 1. Project Coordination and Communication
1.1 Collaborative Steering Committee
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
The PlaceWorks team will participate in meetings with the Collaborative
Steering Committee throughout the project. As noted in the RFP, we
anticipate this Collaborative will include participation by at least one
representative from each Participating City and San Mateo County, in
addition to the CPC Project Manager and staff the PlaceWorks team.
Meetings of the Collaborative Steering Committee will be opportunities to
share information, provide feedback at key points in the process, discuss
options and opportunities for community engagement, and review
approaches to addressing key hazards of concern.
As part of the project kick-off meeting, we propose to review the project
schedule and identify topics, key project milestones, and opportunities to
engage the Collaborative Steering Committee. Some topics, like
community engagement, will likely occur on each meeting agenda, though
the time needed will vary by phase of the project. For scoping purposes,
we anticipate up to nine (9) meetings by video conference with the
Steering Committee.
PlaceWorks will develop the meeting approach and draft agenda in collaboration with the CPC Project
Manager and prepare deliverables and presentation materials for each meeting. PlaceWorks and the CPC
Project Manager will identify key decisions and discussion items for each agenda. PlaceWorks will review
meeting materials with the CPC Project Manager before distribution to the Committee members. After each
meeting, the CPC Project Manager will prepare and distribute a high-level summary of key points, action
items, decisions, and next steps. PlaceWorks understands the CPC Project Manager will facilitate each
meeting and that the PlaceWorks team will lead presentation and discussion of our work products during
the meeting. All meetings will be held online through Zoom.
Our scope for this task assumes the CPC Project Manager will lead the formation and overall coordination of
this Committee and serve as the Committee’s primary point of contact. At the time of project initiation, the
Committee and PlaceWorks will confirm the preferred option(s) for sharing files, either through email or
through a file-sharing site that is accessible by all Committee members.
1.2 Participating Agency Technical Advisory Committees and 1x1 Support
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
Each Participating Agency has the option to create a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide topic-
specific feedback and guidance on the development of their jurisdiction’s Safety Element. TACs may include
staff representatives from planning, building, public works, emergency management, parks, police/sheriff,
Collaborative Steering
Committee Members
Project Manager:
Community Planning
Collaborative (CPC)/21
Elements
Representatives from 8
Participating Cities and
County of San Mateo Dept.
of Planning & Building and
Office of Sustainability
Consultant Team
Technical Proposal
10 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
fire, city manager/county executive’s office, and other departments as identified by the Participating Agency.
Each TAC will be coordinated by the key staff from the Participating Agency who will use materials prepared
by PlaceWorks to support their discussions and decisions.
The role of the TAC is to support preparation of the Safety Element Update and to provide community-
specific expertise and background to the project team. We recommend TACs review interim and draft project
deliverables and provide important feedback to the PlaceWorks team. An example of an interim deliverable
is the review of draft lists of populations, hazards, and assets and confirmation of mapped data that will be
used to inform the key task of vulnerability scoring. This interim deliverable leads to the main task of
conducting a Vulnerability Assessment. It will be important to the success of the Safety Element for
Participating Agency staff with direct knowledge and local expertise to contribute to the project. Most
meetings will be to ensure key tasks are moving forward and producing locally appropriate results, although
some meetings might need to be reserved for focused issue-specific discussions, like wildfire or flooding.
Some of the work of the TAC can be done through email and may not require an in-person or virtual meeting
of all members. We recommend a brief kick-off for each TAC that includes a review of the project schedule
and roles and responsibilities to set expectations. The formation and role of TAC will vary by Participating
Agency. For budgeting purposes, we will provide the following support for each Participating Agency per
their request:
» Cities of Atherton, Brisbane, and Pacifica: No formal TAC meetings; all coordination will occur by email.
PlaceWorks will support informal communication and coordination appropriate to key deliverables.
» Cities of Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, and San Bruno: Support for up to six (6) virtual
TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for PlaceWorks staff to participate in TAC meetings (virtual
attendance).
» County of San Mateo: Meeting support and attendance in up to eight (8) TAC meetings. Our budget
assumes 6 hours of PlaceWorks team time to prepare for, attend, and summarize each meeting, assuming
average TAC meeting duration is 90 minutes.
For each meeting, the PlaceWorks team will provide a briefing packet that includes draft project deliverables
and project updates that each agency can share with their own internal jurisdiction-specific TAC. The timing
of the meetings will align with key product deliverables and milestones. In our experience, we have found it
helpful to agency staff and the project when the consultant team is available to meet with interdepartmental
teams, like TACs, to review materials, questions, and comments in a timely manner and ensuring an efficient
and consistent process. Our participation is at the discretion of the project team and the budget.
In addition to TACs, one-on-one meetings with the key staff from the Participating Agencies will be helpful
throughout the project, in addition to the Collaborative Steering Committee and TAC meetings. These one-
on-one meetings will allow time for more detailed review and discussion of key issues or deliverables for one
community. Between scheduled meetings, PlaceWorks will be available to coordinate and communicate with
Participating Agencies by email or by phone if that is easier.
Our budget assumes time for at least three one-on-one meetings (up to 1-hour meeting time per meeting)
by video conference for each Participating Agency. As part of this task, we will also offer all Participating
Jurisdictions up to four (4), shared drop-in sessions or “office hours” as an additional opportunity for
Participating Agency staff to sign-up or drop-in with a question. Office hours will be hosted through Zoom
with the option for small breakout rooms based on a topic or deliverable.
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 11
1.4 Ongoing Project Management
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
Consistent and regular communication between the CPC Project Manager and the PlaceWorks team
throughout the project will provide the opportunity for the project team to coordinate and keep the project
moving forward on time and within budget. This task includes a project kick-off meeting and regular project
check-ins of the project management team. At the project kick-off meeting, we will establish a schedule for
project check-ins with the CPC Project Manager.
Our budget assumes one monthly 1-hour meeting during most of the project or one 30-minute check-in
meeting twice a month, throughout the 24-month project. During these progress meetings, the PlaceWorks
project management team and CPC Project Manager will discuss deliverables and active tasks for the Safety
Element Update, identify any issues of concern and potentials solutions, and generally review the progress
of the project. Other staff may join occasional meetings as needed. Prior to each meeting, we will work with
staff to draft an agenda and identify the necessary participants to best meet the needs of each meeting. The
status meetings will be in addition to regular email and phone communication between project team
members.
This task includes project management activities, such as monitoring and tracking the budget, preparing and
reviewing monthly invoices, maintaining the schedule, and managing the overall team throughout the
process. The monthly invoice will detail PlaceWorks’ labor and expenses by task.
Deliverables:
» Monthly invoices and progress memos (electronic).
» Regular check-in meetings with the CPC Project Manager, including agenda preparation and action item
summaries (by email).
» Regular email communication and coordination with the CPC Project Manager and leads for each
Participating Agency.
» Preparation for and participation of the project management team in up to nine (9) meetings of the
Collaborative Steering Committee (online/virtual).
» Preparation for and participation in Technical Advisory Committee meetings as follows:
» Town of Atherton: No TAC meetings; email coordination/communication only.
» City of Belmont: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for
PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance).
» City of Brisbane: No TAC meetings; email coordination/communication only.
» City of Burlingame: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for
PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance).
» City of East Palo Alto: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved
for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance).
» City of Half Moon Bay: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved
for PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meetings (virtual attendance).
» City of Pacifica: No TAC meetings; email coordination/communication only.
» City of San Bruno: Support for up to six (6) virtual TAC meetings and up to eight (8) hours reserved for
PlaceWorks staff to participate in one or more TAC meeting (virtual attendance).
Technical Proposal
12 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
» County of San Mateo: Full support, including attendance, for up to eight (8) TAC meetings.
» Participation in up to three (3) one-on-one meetings with Participating Agencies (online/virtual).
Participating Jurisdictions can use their contingency budget if additional meeting time is needed.
» Up to four (4) virtual, shared office hour sessions (1 hour per session).
Task 2. Community Engagement and Equity Approach
Project success depends on successful community engagement. PlaceWorks ensures this by working with
clients to create a solid yet flexible community engagement plan that will guide engagement efforts
throughout the project. We strive for a community engagement process that invites participation, provides
a safe and inclusive collaborative space, builds capacity, and strengthens community relationships and
ensures the end product reflects the community’s experience and goals.
Our team offers the San Mateo County Collaborative expertise in community engagement and how
community engagement can inform and improve the technical tasks, like the Vulnerability Assessment and
policy development. Our team has recently worked in communities, like Butte County, Santa Rosa, and Santa
Barbara County that experienced devastating hazard events and has developed engagement plans that are
sensitive to and create space for the emotional, social, and physical disruption and loss, and trauma, caused
by these events and supportive techniques to reflect and improve the community’s public safety and hazard
mitigation framework to support recovery and resiliency in the face of likely future events. We also have
worked in Bay Area and Peninsula communities to integrate equity and environmental justice into
comprehensive plans. We look forward to the opportunity to partner with the Participating Agencies and
CBOs to engage with stakeholders in the Participating Jurisdictions. We recognize that many communities
have started conversations around climate change, adaptation, and resilience, and our team will work
diligently to get up-to-speed with recent and ongoing work to ensure it is incorporated into the project and
the outreach approach.
We support the Community Engagement tasks presented in the RFP and offer the following approach to
these tasks. In some instances, we found the RFP approach to be similar to our recommendation. We
recognize these are minimum levels of outreach; however, we have followed many of the same tasks in
similar projects and find them to be successful for a Safety Element Update as scoped in Tasks 3-10. As noted
in the RFP, we recognize the following assumptions for this task:
PlaceWorks will lead the development and implementation of certain tasks and defer to CBO partners
and/or Participating Agency staff to lead other tasks, with support from the PlaceWorks team, as noted in
the sub-task descriptions.
PlaceWorks commits to designing outreach materials to be easily accessible to non-technical audiences
and include the use of graphics and illustrations.
PlaceWorks and CRC will provide language translation as identified in this Scope of Work. Language
translation will be limited to public outreach and communication items identified in Task 2. The contingency
budget is available to support additional translation and/or interpretation if requested by the Participating
Jurisdictions. PlaceWorks will ensure that there is sufficient time to review and translate materials and
ensure they meet equity and inclusion goals.
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 13
PlaceWorks will attend only online outreach events, while most in-person events will be attended by
agency staff or contracted CBOs. In our task descriptions, we have noted opportunities for PlaceWorks to
support in-person events if needed.
Each Participating Agency will use their communication channels (social media, web) to publicize the
outreach initiatives. PlaceWorks will provide marketing content to support these tools.
2.1 Community Engagement Plan
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo
County.
We begin our community engagement planning process for every project with preparation of an outreach
and engagement approach or Community Engagement Plan (CEP). The engagement plan is the foundation
for the engagement process and provides transparency to all participants throughout the process. We follow
the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)’s core values and code of ethics in our approach
and design our strategies with IAP2’s Spectrum of Public Participation in mind, with flexibility to support
community-driven processes. PlaceWorks is a member of IAP2 and supports ongoing training of our staff to
ensure we are responsive to best practices and techniques.
For each phase of the planning process, we collaborate with staff to identify the desired level of engagement
on the spectrum (inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower), who should be involved, why they
should be involved, what their involvement will mean to the process and project, how they should be
involved, and how we will use their input in the process and project. We work with our clients to develop
goals and their commitment to the public for the outreach and planning process, and to ensure those goals
and objectives are shared with all stakeholders throughout the process.
Developing and implementing a strong community engagement process is a cornerstone of our work. As a
result, PlaceWorks’ projects reflect the interests and concerns of community members and decision makers.
We employ a variety of in-person and online outreach tools—including workshops, open houses, stakeholder
discussion groups, listening sessions, pop-up events, intercept surveys, phone calls, online surveys, and
special events—to elicit creative input and participation from all stakeholders. By successfully opening
dialogue and building support, we help move projects from vision to final approval. We are also able to
support translation and interpretation in a variety of languages.
At the kick-off meeting with the Collaborative Steering Committee, we will facilitate an outreach assessment
and discussion with Participating Agency staff to learn about previous, ongoing, and planned community
engagement approaches and strategies for similar projects, begin to identify key stakeholders and
opportunities for engagement, and discuss goals and objectives for the engagement process. Following the
kick-off meeting, PlaceWorks will prepare a draft Community Engagement Plan (CEP) integrating the
feedback and guidance from Participating Agencies. We anticipate the draft CEP that will be shared with the
Collaborative Steering Committee and the prospective CBO(s) for review and input. Following their review,
PlaceWorks will revise the CEP, discuss revisions with staff, and prepare a working draft CEP. This version will
guide the outreach and engagement activities, with the option to modify as needed to respond to
unexpected information or changes in conditions.
Technical Proposal
14 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
For scoping purposes, we anticipate that the CEP will include the following:
The purpose and desired outcomes for community engagement throughout the planning process and for
the project overall.
Identify target audiences and include a list of community stakeholders with identification of their networks
and areas of expertise, preferred outreach and engagement opportunities for stakeholder types, and key
questions and information for stakeholders.
Public information items, including the project timeline, a process chart showing the relationship of
community engagement activities to the plan preparation process, deliverables, and similar materials.
Protocol for documenting engagement activities and sharing the results with the project team and
members of the public.
Indicators of assessing effectiveness of community engagement and a process to collect information.
A protocol for communication, including how the project will be branded and messaged.
Protocol for marketing in-person and online engagement events. Promotion of the project and related
community engagement opportunities will be through a mix of techniques to reach residents and
stakeholders, including articles in agency newsletters, inclusion in newsletters or e-blasts from Council or
Board members, social media postings, newspaper advertisements, postings on online community
calendars, email blasts, word of mouth, and other techniques found successful by agency and CBO staff for
similar projects.
Protocol for interpretation and translation of English to Spanish for events and materials.
A description of community engagement activities, including targeted stakeholders, purposes, costs,
timing, and approach for each activity based on the activities included in Task 2. This will include general
community engagement and strategies for inclusive and equity-focused engagement to engage
communities that are traditionally under-represented in planning processes.
A schedule of outreach activities, including the responsible team members, location, format, and needs for
each event.
Roles and responsibilities of the PlaceWorks team, Participating Agencies, the CPC project manager, CBOs,
community members and stakeholders, and supporting agencies.
2.2 Equity Approach
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo
County.
As noted in the RFP, we’ve retained the Equity Approach as a stand-alone task; however, we anticipate
preparation of this approach as part of the Community Engagement Plan though it will be identified
separately. The intention of this task is to clearly identify how equity will be incorporated into public
engagement and all aspects of project development and execution. As part of our approach to integrating
equity into project development, we will review best practices and case studies used in the region to assess
goals, policies, and actions with equity considerations. In addition, we will ensure the community and
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 15
stakeholder engagement approach is sensitive to community characteristics. We support the Collaborative’s
acknowledgement that communities of color, low-income communities, persons with disabilities, and other
historically underrepresented groups bear a disproportionately high-risk burden in relation to natural
hazards and face higher exposure to hazards with fewer resources to withstand and recover from them. We
fully support and commit to meaningfully engagement of these groups throughout this project to ensure
that their lived experiences with hazard risk and priorities for policies and implementation strategies are
reflected in the updated Safety Elements.
2.3 Community-Based Organizations Partnerships
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo
County.
In most of our recent comprehensive planning and community-scale design projects, PlaceWorks has
partnered with one or more CBOs to support general and focused community outreach and engagement.
We highlighted two examples of these partnerships in our discussion of our firm’s cultural competence. In
addition to PlaceWorks’ experience with CBOs in the county and the Bay Area, our teaming partners Atlas
Planning Solutions and Nexus Planning are currently contracting with CBO partners to support outreach for
the Santa Clara County Safety Element Update. We anticipate some CBOs supporting the Santa Clara County
project that are based in San Mateo County will also have an interest in the San Mateo County Collaborative
Safety Element Update project.
Our goal is to continue successful partnerships in previous efforts to conduct targeted outreach with small
group meetings, pop-up events, and other engagement efforts. We agree that CBOs are trusted voices within
their communities and can provide targeted outreach to groups based on hazard issues, geography, special
needs, or equitable engagement.
This task will be led by Climate Resilient Communities (CRC), a local CBO that is well established in the county
with trusted partnerships and a successful track record with engagement and community-driven planning
for climate resilience. CRC is part of the PlaceWorks outreach and engagement team and will have a leading
role in the identification and engagement of San Mateo County-based CBOs in this process and the targeted
outreach and engagement for hard-to-reach community members. Their work to identify, include, and
engage local CBOs is integrated into multiple outreach and engagement sub-tasks. CRC will also provide
equity-focused reviews of select project deliverables to ensure goals, policies, and implementation programs
reflect the input and expertise received during community and stakeholder engagement.
This task is primarily dedicated to coordination with and compensation for the local CBO participation. CRC
will be a collaborator in the preparation of the overall Community Engagement Plan, during which time their
role in supporting multiple outreach tasks will be defined. CRC will lead identification of and outreach to key
CBO partners as well as representatives of hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations that might not be
represented by a formal CBO. CRC’s work on this project will build from lessons learned and successes in
similar outreach and engagement supporting the LHMP and adaptation planning work in the county.
The budget for this task assumes compensation of targeted stakeholders up to $25 per hour, assuming an
average of 2 hours per meeting, activity, or event. During preparation of the engagement plan, the project
team will detail the terms of eligibility for compensation. Priority use of the compensation will be to support
engagement of hard-to-reach community groups, vulnerability populations, and others as outline in Task 2.5
Technical Proposal
16 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
with funds also being available for participation in community workshops and review of draft materials if
supported by the Collaborative. The approach to compensation will be transparent, accountable, and
equitable.
2.4 Community Workshops
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo
County.
As part of a community engagement plan, we anticipate community workshops serving as one key
opportunity for broad community engagement. The purpose of the community workshops will be to provide
agency-wide and county-wide opportunities for the public to provide input and engage with the Safety
Element process. We support the use of virtual community workshops to provide opportunities for broad
access. As we have worked with our clients to provide meaningful engagement opportunities throughout the
COVID-19 pandemic and changing conditions, PlaceWorks developed guiding principles and best practices
for virtual engagement and developed expertise in using various online meeting and collaboration tools. The
agenda and activities used for each workshop will reflect the desired outcomes and expected participants
for the workshop. During virtual meetings, we use a mix of presentations, polls, small group discussions with
dedicated facilitators and notetakers, transparent and live notetaking using Google Docs (or similar online
tool), and a variety of online activities using Mentimeter, Jamboard, or similar tools to receive input and
feedback.
We ensure our virtual meetings are accessible during and after the event. During the meeting, we enable
the chat feature, provide closed captioning and an option for interpretation to other languages as
appropriate to our projects and clients. Before the meeting, we provide workshop registrants and
participants with pre-meeting materials and emails. We supplement our virtual meetings with online
content, usually through a project website, online surveys, and social media posts. These materials will be
provided in English and translated to Spanish as noted in the list of deliverables for this task. After the
meeting, we will send a post-event survey and provide a recording that can be posted on the project website
for viewing at the convenience of stakeholders. We prefer to use the Zoom platform to host virtual
workshops or events, but we are comfortable and able to use other software if preferred by Participating
Agencies.
For each workshop series, PlaceWorks will provide the workshop approach, agenda, marketing materials
(e.g. flyer, e-blast/newsletter content, social media content), a PowerPoint presentation with speaking notes,
facilitator training, appropriate digital engagement tools, a meeting summary, meeting recording, and a
summary for each phase. We will coordinate and collaborate with partner CBOs on workshop design and
materials to ensure that the workshops are accessible to a wide range of community members. For each
workshop, the PlaceWorks team will provide a facilitator/moderator and a key staff member to present
technical or project details. We can provide additional staff on a time-and-materials basis. As noted in the
RFP, workshop approaches that use breakout rooms will be supported by Participating Agency staff and/or
partner CBOs following facilitator training provided by PlaceWorks. PlaceWorks will manage logistics.
For scoping purposes, we assume two series of workshops with two workshops in each round for a total of
four virtual community workshops for the project. During development of the Community Engagement Plan,
we will further develop the timing and content of the workshop; though as noted in the RFP, we anticipate
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 17
one round of workshops during Task 3, preparation of the vulnerability assessment, and one round during
Tasks 5 and 6, during development of goals, policies, and implementation actions.
All community workshops will be facilitated in English. Simultaneous interpretation from English to Spanish
or other languages can be provided on a time-and-materials basis upon request. The contingency budget can
be used to accommodate these costs at the request of a Participating Agency.
2.5 Hard-to-Reach / Community Group Meetings
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo
County.
The Community Engagement Plan will provide options and recommendations for smaller community group
meetings or activities to complement the larger community workshops and allow outreach to specific groups
that are often hard-to-reach, historically underrepresented in community engagement, identified as
vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and/or offer focused expertise on a certain hazard, population,
hazard, or other component of the project. We’ve found in-person, small group meetings to be excellent
opportunities to have meaningful discussions and receive helpful input for climate adaptation and resilience
projects. Through preparation of the Community Engagement Plan, we will determine the locations and
target participants for these meetings. They could address specific geographic areas, topics, vulnerable
populations and communities, and/or historically underrepresented groups.
PlaceWorks, in partnership with our CBO partner Climate Resilient Communities (CRC), will create a Toolkit
for these small group meetings. The Toolkit could include a PowerPoint presentation with discussion
questions and/or live polling exercises and promotional flyer and text for promotion through various
networks. As noted in the RFP, Agency Staff and/or CRC will use the Toolkits to present Safety Element
information and lead discussions with community groups. The groups will be identified during preparation
of the Engagement Plan (Task 2.1).
CRC staff will organize, promote, and attend a minimum of seven in-person Hard-to-reach/Community Group
Meetings to provide technical expertise, answer questions, and take notes on community input.
Simultaneous interpretation from English to Spanish or other languages can be provided on a time-and-
materials basis upon request. CRC will identify language needs during preparation of the meeting approaches
and invitation lists for these meetings.
2.6 Stakeholder Meetings
In addition to engagement of community organizations, the Safety Element updates will benefit from
engagement of other key stakeholders, such as service providers and partners in emergency preparedness,
risk reduction, response, and management. This task targets private and public sector service providers like
utilities (PG&E, water/wastewater providers, Caltrans, OneShoreline, etc.). Engaging service providers
(including public, non-profit, and for-profit providers of energy, water, transportation, and communication
services), agency partners, business owners, employers, public land managers, and other community
partners early in the process supports preparation of the vulnerability assessment and safety elements. This
focused engagement supports preparation of goals, policies, and strategies that build upon the successes
and lessons learned, leverage existing and potential programs that share resilience goals and/or co-benefits,
Technical Proposal
18 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
reflects shared values, and ensures a collaborative and equitable approach to implementation. The
PlaceWorks team will coordinate with the Collaborative to prepare a stakeholder list during preparation of
the engagement plans, recognizing the Participating Agencies have several stakeholder groups with which to
coordinate and leverage for guidance, input, and feedback.
The approach to engagement will be small, facilitated group meetings or conversations hosted through
Zoom. Each group can be organized by location, stakeholder type, hazard, asset, or population group.
PlaceWorks will lead preparation of meeting logistics, agenda, discussion questions, facilitation, and a
summary for each meeting. The full series will include up to six meetings of 8-12 participants (no more than
15 per group) and will occur during Task 3, preparation of mapping and the vulnerability assessment. The
PlaceWorks team will provide a facilitator and notetaker for each meeting. At the completion of all
stakeholder meetings, PlaceWorks will prepare a memo summarizing what we heard during the discussions.
2.7 Develop Project Website
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo
County.
PlaceWorks will create and maintain an accessible and engaging website for the Safety Element Update. The
website will contain information about the project, including an explanation of the project, its key steps and
products, and what it means to stakeholders; a description of the Safety Element preparation process;
project schedule and updates as major milestones are achieved; links to each Participating Jurisdiction’s
website for review of existing safety elements and related materials; a document library; links to other
relevant resources; frequently asked questions (and answers); contact information; and an opportunity to
submit comments and questions, if desired. The website can be organized to allow viewing by geographic
area as well as by key topics and hazards.
The website will also provide information about upcoming events and activities, including community events,
online engagement opportunities, and Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors meetings
on the Safety Element Updates. Activities may include online surveys and interactive exercises. Public review
draft documents will be posted on the website when available, and links to other online engagement or
interactive products developed for the project, such as Esri-based maps, will also be provided if desired.
PlaceWorks staff will be responsible for creating, managing, and updating the website for the duration of the
project. PlaceWorks will prepare a mock-up of the website for the Collaborative’s review and approval prior
to building it. PlaceWorks will share a draft build of the website for the Collaborative’s review and incorporate
staff comments prior to launching the website. This scope does not assume significant redesign or
restructuring of the website once it is launched. Upon completion of the project, PlaceWorks can transfer
management of the website to the County if desired.
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 19
2.8Mapped Survey Tool
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay,
Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
Leveraging Survey123 for ArcGIS, PlaceWorks will create an interactive, map-based
online survey that stakeholders can access with any device with an internet
connection (i.e., computer, tablet, smartphone, or similar devices). Survey123
allows for web-based survey forms and for the creation of interactive activities that
incorporate the online surveys with interactive activities that allow the user to
place location-based comments, attach images, and incorporate other geographic
information in their responses. (This feature is optimized when using a smart
phone with location services enabled.)
This tool will connect residents with information, decision makers, and other
residents in a professionally facilitated community discussion that builds public
awareness of and trust in the project process, without constraints on the time,
place, or method of public input. We propose to use this mapped survey tool to
support community outreach and engagement related to identification of hazards,
impacts, and adaptive capacity as part of the Vulnerability Assessment. Based on
recent storm events, we anticipate receiving valuable information related to
experiences with wildfire and flooding in particular.
PlaceWorks will prepare one survey activity during Task 3 related to hazard mapping and vulnerability
assessment. The survey will be available in English and Spanish.
2.9 Story Map
Interested agencies: Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
PlaceWorks will design and format the results of the mapping, vulnerability assessment, and safety element
goals and policies using Esri’s Story Map application. A Story Map will complement the traditional hard-copy
materials and provide a way for the public to interact with the maps and data more closely. This interactive
platform could be used to help promote the project as well as provide a dynamic and accessible platform
where users can explore the data and gain deeper insights into the key hazard and climate issues affecting
their community. This Story Map will be available beginning with the public review of the vulnerability
assessment results. We will add more information about the draft goals, policies, and objectives to the Story
Map in advance of the public review of draft safety elements.
Story Maps provide a platform that is highly suited for Safety Element engagement and allows for the
combination of dynamic and interactive maps with narrative text, diagrams, images, and a full range of
multimedia content. While most planning processes strive to create a “living, breathing, document,” the
Story Map application empowers agencies to truly achieve this goal. The digital platform allows for regular
and seamless updates to the content prior to adoption and into implementation.
Technical Proposal
20 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
2.10 Community Input Report
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
In addition to providing summaries of outreach and engagement events and activities for each touchpoint,
PlaceWorks will lead preparation of a consolidated report that summarizes all outreach efforts for this
project, the input received, and how input was included or not included in the Vulnerability Assessment,
mapping, or Safety Elements. The Community Input Report will include feedback from all public outreach led
by PlaceWorks, CBO partners, or Participating Agency staff, including engagement with hard-to-reach and
underrepresented communities. In support of this report, PlaceWorks will provide a data collection and
summary template to all project teammates leading outreach to ensure consistency in assessment and
presentation of information. The report will include graphics, images, tables, and charts as appropriate to
share results and summaries of key takeaways. In the presentation of outreach and engagement results in
this report, PlaceWorks will not attribute comments to specific stakeholders or organizations to protect
privacy and ensure open engagement in the process, unless specifically requested by a stakeholder or
organization; however, we will provide a list of types of stakeholders and organizations engaged in each
touchpoint.
Deliverables:
» Public Engagement Plan (draft and final, electronic)
» Equity Approach (draft and final, electronic)
» Community Based Organization Partnership, including compensation for up to 400 participants at $50 per
2-hour meeting.
» Two series Virtual Community Workshops (two workshops per series) with the following materials for each
series:
» Agenda, meeting approach, agenda, facilitation, and small group facilitator training..
» Workshop promotional flyer and text for Collaborative member announcements/e-blasts in English and
Spanish
» Content for posting by Participating Agencies to their social media accounts, including suggested text
for posts and supporting graphics. Text will be provided in English and Spanish.
» PowerPoint presentation and use of break-out rooms, surveys, and/or live polling exercises available
in English and Spanish.
» Summary notes from all workshops, including easy segmentation for each Participating Jurisdiction.
» Two members of PlaceWorks team for each workshop. Additional staff can be provided with
authorization of the contingency budget.
» Community Group Meetings Support and Toolkits and in-person facilitation and notetaking with up to 7
meetings lead by CRC.
» Six stakeholder meetings (virtual), including an agenda, discussion questions, facilitation, and note taking
for each meeting.
» Project Website design, hosting, and content updates (English) during project.
» Community Input Report (draft and final, electronic, English only)
» Mapped Survey Tool (draft and final, English and Spanish)
» Story Map includes draft outline, template, and content and final Story Map (English with option to provide
Spanish with contingency funds).
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 21
TASK 3. Vulnerability Assessment and Hazard Maps
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
The vulnerability assessment and hazard mapping are core parts of the technical work needed to update the
Safety Element. The vulnerability assessment helps community members, agency staff, and decision makers
understand how community hazards may alter conditions due to climate change and what parts of the
community (people and places) are most at risk. Not only is the vulnerability assessment required by State
law, but it helps each community clearly understand the potential and far-reaching effects of climate change.
The vulnerability assessment incorporates hazard mapping that translates technical reports and data into an
easy-to-understand visual that drives home the threats posed by natural hazards. Understanding the extent
of wildfire hazard zones, projected flood inundation areas for sea level rise, how hazard areas overlap with
critical infrastructure, and other key facts illustrated by hazard mapping helps the community clearly grasp
the potential effects on their well-being.
The PlaceWorks team has unrivaled experience preparing vulnerability assessments and has worked closely
with State agencies to write this guidance. Our GIS experts have prepared both static and dynamic mapping
for hundreds of communities and are well versed in using the latest interactive visualization tools to
communicate hazard issues to members of the public and agency decision makers.
3.1 GIS Database for Hazards
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
Spatial data is at the heart of understanding current hazard conditions and potential future risks caused by
the effects of climate change. The PlaceWorks team understands that precise, accurate, and up-to-date data
play a critical role in the planning process and are necessary to garner support and incorporate ideas from
community members. PlaceWorks’ team of GIS experts have an intimate knowledge of the available datasets,
including a deep understanding of the key components and underlying data that define each layer. Building
on work done on past studies in the region, the PlaceWorks GIS team will start by gathering GIS datasets that
speak to existing hazards and future climate conditions, including the potential effects of climate change.
These datasets include, but are not limited to the following natural hazards:
• Seismic hazards
» Faults (on and offshore)
» Shaking potential
» Liquefaction potential
» Level of earthquake hazard
• Water hazards
» Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Special Flood Hazard Area
» Department of Water Resources (DWR) Awareness zones
» Dam inundation areas
» Sea level rise and coastal flooding
» Coastal erosion due to sea level rise
Technical Proposal
22 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
» Tsunami inundation zones (including any State mapping updates)
» Levees
• Fire Hazards
» Fire hazard severity zones
» Future fire risk projections
» Historic wildfire perimeters
» Wildland-urban interface
» Tree mortality
• Other Hazards
» Landsides and debris flows
» Smoke and air quality
» Heat islands tree equity score
• Future Climate Projections
» Extreme precipitation events and drought
» Extreme heat and cold
PlaceWorks will ask Participating Jurisdictions that include human-made/caused hazards in their existing
safety elements to confirm if those hazards should be retained and updated. These hazards could include
hazardous materials, airport operation-related hazards, or others requested by the community or
decisionmakers. This scope of work does not include updates to noise modeling and contours or noise-
related goals, policies, and implementation programs.
Deliverables:
» Geodatabase of hazard data (electronic, draft and final)
» Memo summarizing GIS database and any associated methods (electronic, draft and final)
3.2 GIS Database for Asset Layers
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
Along with the comprehensive set of hazards data, the PlaceWorks team will prepare a GIS database of
community assets that may be affected by climate change and so should be analyzed in the vulnerability
assessment. These assets will include aspects of the built environment, including public and private buildings,
infrastructure, habitats, and natural resources. Community assets will include assets that span jurisdictions,
such as freeways, the Caltrain line, and natural ecosystems, as well as assets that are fully within each
community. Preparation of this database will be done in consultation and collaboration with Participating
Jurisdictions through Steering Committee and TAC meetings and with community members and stakeholders
through Task 2.
These datasets include, but are not limited to:
• Bicycles and pedestrian trails
• Communication towers
• Commercial centers
• Electricity transmission lines and substations
• Forest and woodland habitat
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 23
• Government administrative buildings
• Grassland and chaparral habitat
• Historic buildings
• Highways and major roadways
• Medical facilities
• Natural gas pipelines
• Parks and other recreation facilities
• Public transit infrastructure, including bus stops, Caltrain stations, and BART stations.
• Police and fire stations
• Railway lines
• Residential structures
• Road and rail bridges
• Schools
• Water and wastewater infrastructure
• Wetland and riparian habitat
Deliverables:
» List of assets for each community (electronic, draft and final)
» Memo summarizing GIS database and any associated methods (electronic, draft and final)
3.3 Identify Sensitive Populations
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno,
and San Mateo County.
Although everyone is likely to be affected by climate change, not everyone is likely to be affected to the same
degree. We know that certain populations are likely to be disproportionately affected, including many groups
that already face systemic inequities, marginalization, and environmental racism. Climate change is already
exacerbating many of the challenges faced by these populations, and in the absence of robust action to
correct these issues, such inequities are likely to only get worse. The vulnerability assessment will help
identify these sensitive populations and describe the threats they face, forming a foundation for necessary
action to reduce these challenges and move to a more equitable future.
The PlaceWorks team will collaborate with Participating Jurisdiction staff, key stakeholders, and the broader
community through the engagement and equity approach discussed in Task 2, to identify sensitive
populations in the Participating Jurisdictions. We anticipate using as refined and detailed data as possible
from the US Census Bureau, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the California
Healthy Places Index, and other sources. After developing an initial list, we will consult and collaborate with
Participating Jurisdictions through Steering Committee and TAC meetings and with community members and
stakeholders through Task 2 to ensure this list is accurate and comprehensive before beginning the
vulnerability assessment. We expect that this effort will occur in parallel with conversations about the
connection between climate change and inequity, which may be part of community engagement efforts or
stand-alone small group discussions. Our past experiences in the county and working in other jurisdictions
throughout the state informs our methodical, yet flexible approach to collaboration. We believe the
engagement process is iterative, whereby information is revealed, analyzed, and validated through
continuous, transparent engagement with the public. Our team anticipates developing strong, trusting
Technical Proposal
24 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
connections from the start of the project, ensuring that as we begin analytical tasks, we don’t rely solely on
external data sources to tell the community’s story.
We want to ensure that the list of sensitive populations reflects the full range of groups who may be
disproportionately affected by climate change hazards. This includes people who are socially and physically
isolated, have limited financial resources, face elevated exposure to hazards, have underlying behavioral or
physical health issues, and other groups. We understand that the harm posed by natural hazards, especially
those driven or influenced by climate change, can lead to physical injuries, impacts to mental health,
economic damages, and reduced well-being and quality of life.
We will identify sensitive populations unique to each Participating Jurisdiction. While there are likely to be
similarities across the communities in San Mateo County, the different histories and socioeconomic
characteristics of each community necessitates tailored responses driven by individual community needs.
This will let us create vulnerability assessments with a continuous framework and format, but that reflect
the unique conditions in each Participating Jurisdiction.
Deliverables:
» List of sensitive populations for each community (electronic, draft and
final)
3.4 Prepare Asset Lists
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East
Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
Along with the list of sensitive populations, the PlaceWorks team will also
work with Participating Jurisdiction staff, stakeholders, and community
members to prepare a list of for inclusion in the vulnerability assessment.
This list will be based on the assets included in the GIS database discussed
in Task 3.2, along with some additional assets, such as key community
services and economic drivers, which may not be able to be easily mapped
but are still a critical component of their communities. This approach
allows for a vulnerability assessment that more accurately reflects the
breadth of climate change effects and can identify potential vulnerabilities
that might not show up in a more limited analysis.
After preparing an initial list of assets for each Participating Jurisdiction,
the PlaceWorks team will vet this list with Participating Jurisdiction staff,
key stakeholders, and community members through engagement activities
presented in Task 2. Through CBO engagement described in Task 2, CRC
will ensure CBOs are involved in this review, even if the assets are not
directly related to their missions, since many such organizations could rely
on these assets for their daily operations and have a detailed
understanding of how such assets may be affected. After this review, we will prepare a final list of assets for
inclusion in the vulnerability assessment.
WHY ANALYZE SERVICES
SEPARATE FROM
INFRASTRUCTURE?
Often, climate change can
affect an important service
without damaging the
underlying infrastructure
that the service depends on.
For example, droughts can
threaten a community’s
reliable water supply
without damaging water
pipelines, pumps, or
treatment plants. Analyzing
services and infrastructure
separately lets the
vulnerability assessment
more accurately consider a
fuller range of effects that
climate change may have.
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 25
Deliverables:
» List of assets for each Participating Jurisdiction (electronic, draft and final)
3.5 Identify Flood and Fire Hazard Data
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
State law requires that safety elements address flood and fire hazards in the jurisdiction, as well as develop
specific policy language to help protect communities against these hazards. The PlaceWorks team has
already secured many of the necessary pieces of data as part of our work on safety elements and related
documents across the state, but we will work with jurisdiction staff to secure the remaining data and to
confirm the relevance of the files we have already obtained.
We expect that we will collect or confirm the following datasets, consistent with the list in the RFP and our
understanding of Sections 65302(g)(2) and 65302(g)(3) of the California Government Code:
• Flood hazard maps as prepared by FEMA. This will cover all areas identified as 100-year (including all Zone A
designations) and 500-year floodplains. At the time of writing, these maps appear to have been updated
between 2012 and 2019, but we will incorporate any new mapping as it becomes available.
• DWR 100-year Flood Awareness zones.
• Levees and the areas they protect, along with identification of areas that have a reduced flood risk as a result
and areas that may be subjected to flooding in the event of levee failure and overtopping. We expect this will
include areas at risk of overtopping as a result of sea level rise, as identified in the Adapting to Rising Tides
modeling or other relevant datasets.
• Dam failure inundation maps that are available from DWR, as well as any other inundation mapping that may
be available from the California Office of Emergency Services or other resources.
• Sea level rise datasets available from the San Mateo County Sea Level Rise Mapping Tool, the Sea Level Rise
Risk Assessment for County-owned and operated assets and leased facilities, and the shallow/emergent
groundwater data from the San Francisco Estuary Institute. Additional datasets may include the San Mateo
County Sea Level Rise Project Database of major existing and planned sea level rise adaptation projects.
Finally, detailed information can be extracted and analyzed from the United States Geological Survey’s
Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) of storm-induced coastal flooding and erosion for both current
and future sea-level rise scenarios for San Mateo County (CoSMoS V3.1).
• Fire Hazard Severity Zones, as prepared by CAL FIRE. We will identify the areas in the unincorporated county
designated as Moderate, High, or Very High, as well as the areas in incorporated communities designated as
Very High. Our team is aware that these maps currently date to 2007, and that CAL FIRE is in the process of
updating them, with the expectation that updated mapping will be available over the timeframe of this
project. We will use the most up-to-date mapping in all circumstances.
• Wildland-urban interface zone mapping, based on regional, state, and federal studies.
• Public and other critical facilities in mapped flood and wildfire hazard zones. Such facilities may include roads
and highways, power lines, public safety buildings, community centers, schools, hospitals, and others to be
determined in coordination with jurisdiction staff and CBOs.
• Current and future land uses in mapped flood and wildfire hazard zones.
• Records of past flood and wildfire events in Participating Jurisdictions and the region, including information
on any injuries or death, extent and cost of damage, and other disruptions as available.
Technical Proposal
26 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
• The local, regional, state, and federal agencies responsible for flood and wildfire protection in the
Participating Jurisdictions.
We will collect this data for all Participating Jurisdictions, which will inform the hazard mapping, vulnerability
assessment, and background information sections. They will also be integrated into the online map viewer.
As part of these tasks, the data will help identify areas of greatest exposure to flood and wildfire hazards, as
well as the people, buildings, infrastructure, and other key assets in these areas who are most at risk. Based
on these findings, we expect that these data will inform policies in the Safety Elements intended to help
increase resilience to these hazards, prioritizing the areas, people, and assets who face the greatest potential
for harm.
Based on our initial survey of available data, we are not aware of any flood hazard mapping from the US
Army Corps of Engineers, or of any 200-year floodplains, in San Mateo County. However, we will conduct a
more thorough review of the available data and will include any new information as it becomes available.
Deliverables:
» Geodatabase of hazard mapping (electronic, draft and final)
» List of other relevant data sources (electronic, draft and final)
3.6 Evacuation Constraints Analysis
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Bruno,
and San Mateo County.
In 2019, the State adopted Senate Bill (SB) 99, requiring that Safety Elements identify residential areas in any
hazard area that lack at least two emergency evacuation routes. This law is intended to help identify
evacuation-constrained areas and to indicate where any additional resources may be necessary to facilitate
a smooth and effective evacuation if there is ever such a need for it. The PlaceWorks team has developed an
approach to identifying these areas that we have vetted with CAL FIRE and used in numerous communities
across the state.
Given the widespread potential of some hazard issues
across San Mateo County (such as seismic hazards), and
the fact that hazards may occur outside of mapped hazard
zones (such as recent wildfires, which have burned in
areas not officially identified as fire hazard zones), we
recommend that the SB 99 analysis apply to all residential
properties in the Participating Jurisdictions. We will
identify the roads that can function as likely evacuation
routes, including highways, arterials, and relevant
neighborhood roads, in coordination with jurisdiction
staff. We then assess the distance between residential
parcels and likely evacuation routes, as measured along
the road network. Parcels that lack convenient access to
multiple evacuation routes, or to a single evacuation route
that would allow them to evacuate in multiple directions,
are flagged as potentially evacuation constrained. We
Screenshot from an evacuation constraints analysis,
identifying residential parcels that lack convenient access to
multiple evacuation routes or options. Properties on
roadways with a single access point are particularly at risk
of evacuation constraints.
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 27
then vet these parcels with Participating Jurisdiction staff, community members, and local emergency
responders to confirm their accuracy.
We understand that the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research is developing guidance to
support evacuation analysis. We are prepared to modify our approach as necessary to comply with any
guidance from the State that may be released prior to the completion of this project, or to better meet the
needs of Participating Jurisdictions. We can review our method with staff before beginning work to make
sure it is suitable and appropriate for all communities. We also understand that an Assembly Bill (AB) 747
analysis will be conducted separately and is not part of this project. To the extent possible, we will sync our
efforts with that analysis to use the same datasets and other fundamental assumptions.
Deliverables:
» GIS layers of evacuation constraints analysis results (electronic, draft and final)
» Memo summarizing method for evacuation constraints analysis (electronic, draft and final)
3.7 Vulnerability Assessment
Exposure
The presence of
populations or assets that
are subject to climate
hazards.
Sensitivity
Levels to which a
population or asset would
be affected by exposure to
a changing climate.
Potential Impact
Potential effects on a
population or asset based
on its exposure and
sensitivity to a hazard.
Adaptive Capacity
The ability to moderate
harm or exploit
opportunities.
Vulnerability
The degree to which
natural, built, and human
systems are susceptible to
harm.
Adapted from the Adaptation
Planning Guide
Technical Proposal
28 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
After we confirm the lists of sensitive populations and assets, identify the hazard zones and supporting data,
and prepare hazard mapping, the PlaceWorks team will prepare vulnerability assessments for all Participating
Jurisdictions. We will prepare this in accordance with the recommendations in the Adaptation Planning
Guide.
San Mateo County has already performed a substantial vulnerability assessment of sea level rise on
community, built, and natural assets. Through the Sea Change program, the County has a strong
understanding as to how rising seas pose risks to its people and places. The PlaceWorks team does not intend
to redo the sea level rise vulnerability assessment, but rather extract information to (1) Inform policies and
actions in the Safety Element related to flooding and coastal hazards; and (2) Inform the development of
policies and actions for hazards or vulnerabilities that may be exacerbated or influenced by sea level rise
impacts.
We will begin by identifying the current risk posed by these hazards and how these hazards are likely to
change in the future given climate change projections and other considerations. We will assess which of the
populations and assets are likely to be harmed, given their locations, degree of connection, and other factors,
collectively known as the exposure. We will next determine how susceptible each population and asset is to
each relevant hazard (the sensitivity). This will allow us to identify the impact, or the anticipated effects that
a population or asset may experience as a result of climate change-related hazards on future conditions. We
will then assess the adaptive capacity of all populations and assets for each relevant hazard, determining
their ability to resist or respond to these impacts. Based on the combined impact and adaptive capacity
score, we can assign a draft vulnerability score.
Low Impact Medium Impact High Impact
Low Adaptive
Capacity V3 (medium vulnerability) V4 (high vulnerability) V5 (severe vulnerability)
Medium Adaptive
Capacity V2 (low vulnerability) V3 (medium vulnerability) V4 (high vulnerability)
High Adaptive
Capacity V1 (minimal vulnerability) V2 (low vulnerability) V3 (medium vulnerability)
An illustration of how impact and adaptive capacity scores can translate to vulnerability, on a five-point scale from Minimal to
Severe.
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 29
The impact and adaptive capacity analyses and the resulting vulnerability
score will draw on data from numerous sources. We will look at published
reports and studies that describe the impacts and adaptive capacities of
relevant populations and hazards, tailoring these findings to ensure they
are applicable to the Participating Jurisdictions. These sources include
academic papers, State and regional reports, and publications from
nonprofits, CBOs, and other groups. We will use the GIS data layers
identified in earlier tasks to inform the findings of the vulnerability
assessment. For example, we will look at where sensitive populations are
concentrated to see if they may be more exposed to a hazard than other
groups or if they are farther away from facilities that can provide resources
during emergencies. Where relevant, we will split populations or assets by
jurisdiction or region, recognizing that the vulnerability of the same
population or asset may vary depending on location.
We will make sure that the vulnerability assessment also considers
cascading and indirect impacts. This involves identifying instances in which
one hazard situation may lead to another (such as a severe wind event that
contributes to a significant wildfire), or in instances where a population or
asset is not directly harmed by a hazard but is ultimately susceptible to the effects of other direct damage
(such as a flood that damages an important business and forces it to close, creating economic harm for
employees, even if they were not physically harmed). Consideration of these factors allows us to conduct a
more holistic vulnerability assessment, taking a much wider range of potential effects of climate change into
account. By extension, this supports greater opportunities for resilience in the updated Safety Elements.
We will prepare an individual vulnerability assessment for each Participating Jurisdiction, but we will prepare
these sets of scores in coordination with each other, drawing on common datasets and studies to the extent
they are relevant. This approach will allow us to make sure that the findings of the vulnerability assessment
are tailored to the unique conditions present in each Participating Jurisdiction, but also that they have a
common background and foundation. This balance will help identify appropriate responses to the issues
facing each Participating Jurisdiction, as well as common vulnerabilities across San Mateo County that
support regional collaboration and resilience efforts.
It is critical that we vet the findings of the vulnerability assessment with the community and Participating
Jurisdiction staff. While the PlaceWorks team is proud of our expertise on this subject, we recognize that we
do not have the on-the-ground experience of people and organizations who have been living and working in
these communities for years. We plan to submit all potential data sources for staff and the community to
confirm through the activities identified in the Community Engagement Plan (see Task 2). All draft
vulnerability assessment scores will be released for public review following review by Participating
Jurisdiction. This approach allows us to incorporate the lived experience of the community and staff
thoroughly into the assessment process, creating a vulnerability assessment that is more accurate and better
representative of local understanding. Based on our experience with other communities, we expect this to
be a conversation between all involved to refine the scores and get to a set of results that satisfy both the
legal requirements and the needs of the participants.
CASCADING EFFECTS
Instances where one climate
change-related hazard
results in another.
INDIRECT EFFECTS
When a population or asset
is not directly harmed by
hazardous conditions, but
experiences impacts as a
result of other damage.
Technical Proposal
30 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
Deliverables:
» Summary of vulnerability assessment methods and relevant hazards (electronic, draft and final)
» Vulnerability assessment scoring results for review (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
3.8 Summarize Results of Vulnerability Assessment
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
An important part of the Safety Element Update will be helping members of the community and other
involved stakeholders understand the risks present in their community and what can be done to improve
resilience. The PlaceWorks team will prepare vulnerability assessment summaries to support this goal and
to help build a foundation of key findings that can be used to inform the development of resilience policies.
We will prepare these written summaries after Participating Jurisdiction staff review the findings of the
vulnerability assessment and we revise the scores accordingly to respond to these comments. We will draft
one summary for each Participating Jurisdiction. These summaries can function as stand-alone reports but
can also act as appendices to the Safety Elements or other resilience documents as appropriate. We will
submit a proposed outline of the written reports to Participating Jurisdiction staff to ensure that the
approach meets expectations before drafting the summaries.
These summaries will highlight the primary hazards of concern, along with the populations and assets who
are most vulnerable and why. The summaries will include a brief methodological description, explaining the
process that the team used to prepare the vulnerability assessment. We will write these summaries to be
easily accessible to community members without over-simplifying the content or omitting important details.
We will also make use of mapping and GIS files, including any already-prepared mapping, to help explain key
issues.
As with the vulnerability assessment scores themselves, we will submit the drafts of the vulnerability
assessment summaries to members of the public, jurisdiction staff, key CBOs and other stakeholders, the
Technical Advisory Committees and Collaborative Steering Committee, and other groups, consistent with the
approach laid out in the Public Engagement Plan. We expect that these reviewers will provide feedback on
the written summaries to make sure that they are highlighting important issues, presenting findings in a way
that is consistent with community experiences, and meeting all other expectations. We will revise the written
reports to incorporate these comments and ensure that the reports serve community needs.
Deliverables:
» Outline of vulnerability assessment summaries (electronic, draft and final)
» Vulnerability assessment summaries for each Participating Agency (electronic, draft and final, for each
Participating Jurisdiction)
3.9 Online Map Viewer
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
The goal of the online data viewer is to provide the project team, Technical Advisory Committee members,
stakeholder groups, and community members with a comprehensive repository of the GIS data layers used
for the vulnerability assessment along with the results of our analysis. Metadata will be included for each
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 31
layer presented through the online map viewer, which will provide details on the source data and analysis
methodology where applicable. PlaceWorks will use the latest web mapping technology available through
ArcGIS Online to create a user-friendly streamlined application that will provide users with deep
understanding of each of the included datasets and how they work together to answer key questions and
shed light on current and future conditions.
PlaceWorks team will use this task to supplement and enhance the County’s existing map viewer that was
created for the 2021 Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. If this is desired, we can modify our process
above to ensure our efforts expand on this existing resource and further enhances the outcomes. This allows
the Collaborative to capitalize on efficiencies from past work and enhancements that expand both the
knowledge base and usability of this information for all agencies participating in the process.
Deliverables:
» Online map viewer (electronic, draft and final)
3.10 Hazard Maps for Inclusion in Safety Element
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
PlaceWorks understands the importance of communicating technical information to a broad audience using
well-designed maps. PlaceWorks staff has the unique ability to understand complex planning issues and distill
them in an accessible, graphically-rich way. The California Government Code requires that the Safety Element
includes up-to-date maps. The PlaceWorks GIS team will prepare a comprehensive set of maps for the Safety
Element that will include data gathered in Tasks 3.1, GIS Database for Hazards, and 3.2, GIS Database for
Asset Layers. We will prepare a base map with community facilities and infrastructure and once reviewed
and approved by City staff, we will use the base map to create the hazard maps for the Background Report.
Deliverables:
» A set of PDF maps (electronic, draft and final)
Task 4. Background Information on Hazards
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San
Bruno, and San Mateo County.
The background reports of the updated Safety Elements provide important context and other information
that helps describe the issues present in the community. This information serves as a foundation for the
updated policies, along with the results of the vulnerability assessment, hazard mapping, and other analyses.
When written well, these documents help explain relevant issues to members of the public, jurisdiction staff
and officials, and other engaged stakeholders.
We know the importance of preparing these background reports to be thorough and complete, while still
ensuring that they are engaging and interesting. Despite their often-technical nature, we pride ourselves in
writing background reports that can be easily understood, allowing them to serve as valuable educational
materials in the Safety Element process. We will prepare a stand-alone background report for each
Participating Jurisdiction.
Technical Proposal
32 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
4.1 Update Hazard Background Information
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San
Bruno, and San Mateo County.
The PlaceWorks team will prepare a background report for each participating jurisdiction, complying with all
State laws and guidance regarding what must be included in this document. We expect that these
background reports will discuss the regulatory context that informs the Safety Element, the purpose of the
Safety Element and the reason for updating them, and each of the key issue areas. For issues that relate to
a specific hazard, such as wildfire or floods, we will introduce the hazard and why it is a community concern;
discuss past events in the Participating Jurisdiction or region; review the agency or agencies responsible for
protecting against it; and the future risk posed by it, including changes as a result of climate change. For
issues not related to a specific hazard, such as evacuations or emergency preparation, we will discuss other
relevant topics as needed to give the reader a good understanding of the issue and include mapping and
graphics, where relevant.
We plan to draft the background reports as stand-alone documents that can function as appendices to the
main Safety Element, along with the vulnerability assessment summaries discussed in Task 3.8. We
recommend this approach, as it allows us to incorporate sections of the background report into the main
Safety Element document, providing context to the policies while keeping much of the detailed information
in the appendix. However, if desired by Participating Jurisdictions, we can draft the background reports to
be part of the main document.
For all the background reports, we intend to follow the same basic format, although we recognize that the
issues discussed will vary from community to community, and some communities may wish to organize topics
differently. We will prepare an outline of the background report for review by jurisdiction staff and other
interested stakeholders before drafting the reports themselves. We will provide the final background reports
in the same formatted template for the draft Safety Elements themselves discussed in Task 7.
Deliverables:
» Outline of background reports (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
» Background reports for each Participating Agency (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating
Jurisdiction)
Task 5. Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
Developing goals, objectives, and policies into a framework is a major step in element development for a
jurisdiction. The previous tasks help set a strong foundation that this framework builds upon to ensure future
development and activities within a community are safer and more resilient. For many jurisdictions, policies
can take many forms depending on the issues that need to be addressed. For that reason, this task will work
with each jurisdiction to understand their needs and the types of policies that work best.
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 33
Examples of the types of policies that can be included in the updated Safety Elements.
5.1 Regional Best Practices Summary
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
The diversity of jurisdictions involved in this project requires a thorough review of best practice examples
from across the region, including a review of plans, policies, and programs prepared and implemented by
cities and partner agencies in San Mateo County that are not participating in this collaborative. Based on the
results of the Vulnerability Assessment (Task 3) and the review of the existing plans discussed in Task 5.2 the
PlaceWorks team will work to identify the policy needs for each jurisdiction. While we know there are cross-
cutting issues that all Participating Jurisdictions may face, there are a number of ways to address these issues
to better accommodate individual community needs. This summary will focus on key factors such as:
Methods for monitoring and evaluating progress towards risk-reduction goals.
Applicable guidance pertaining to resilience.
Equity-focused climate change policies.
Cross-cutting issues that may affect many jurisdictions.
Regional initiatives and collaboration that promote and enhance resilience at the local level.
We will identify potential solutions that take advantage of best practices and successful efforts in the county
and nearby communities, informed by jurisdiction staff and key stakeholders, input from members of the
community, and emerging opportunities in San Mateo County and the region. Following our review of best
practices appropriate to the project, PlaceWorks will prepare a Best Practices Summary Memo tailored to
the specific conditions in the Participating. We will build from and complement existing and planned efforts
whenever possible, allowing for a more efficient use of time and resources that avoid unnecessary
Programmatic: Strategies to expand or create new programs, activities, and initiatives.
Plans, regulations, and policy development: Strategies to revise policies, plans,
regulations, and guidelines.
Capital improvement projects: Strategies to address physical and functional needs in the
built and natural environment, or to secure funding for these projects.
Education, outreach, and coordination: Strategies to begin or expand partnerships and
relationships, communication, and expanding awareness.
Evaluation: Strategies to improve feedback, input, and data and information to conduct
further or new analyses.
Technical Proposal
34 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
duplication. At the same time, we plan to recommend entirely new programs where appropriate. This will
include actions that San Mateo County and Participating Jurisdictions can launch in partnership with other
agencies and CBOs.
Deliverables:
» Regional Best Practices Summary Memorandum (electronic, draft and final)
5.2 Review of Existing Plans, Requirements, and
Gaps
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto,
Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
The PlaceWorks team will prepare a review of each participating
jurisdiction’s existing Safety Element (or comparable document), along
with other relevant sections of the General Plan and other supporting
documents, such as the Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan,
climate action/adaptation or sustainability plans, and emergency
operations plans. We will check each existing Safety Element for
consistency with current State requirements and identify any content that
can be incorporated from supporting documents or other technical
documents to help meet these requirements.
While consistency with State laws is an important objective for Safety
Elements, it is not the only standard that they have to meet. We expect
that the vulnerability assessments will identify key gaps in each
community’s adaptation and resilience approach that are critical to
community well-being, but which may not be explicitly required by the
State. Similarly, we expect that community members, CBOs, and other
stakeholders who participate in the public engagement process will raise
other issues that the updated Safety Elements should address but are not mandated to do so. There may
also be other best practices or emerging opportunities that will be helpful to the updated Safety Elements.
We will prepare a gap analysis memo identifying these additional issues that we recommend the updated
Safety Elements address.
As part of this review, we will also consider the policies in the existing Safety Elements and provide
recommendations for whether to keep policies as-is, modify them, or remove them. We will use current
State requirements and the results of the gap analysis to inform these recommendations. As a part of this
work, we will coordinate with local jurisdiction staff to understand which policies have already been
implemented, what policies have been effective, and where policies can be revised or improved to better
meet the needs of the community.
We understand that the adoption dates of the existing Safety Elements vary widely across the Participating
Jurisdictions. Some were adopted within the past few years, while others are a few decades old. We expect
that compliance with current State laws and other community needs will be at least partly a function of age
and are prepared to make more substantial recommendations as needed.
RECENT STATE
REQUIREMENTS
- Include detailed
information about flood and
wildfire risks.
- Include specific policies
related to reducing the
threat from floods and
wildfires.
- Prepare a climate change
vulnerability assessment.
- Include policies to improve
adaptation and resilience to
climate-related hazards.
- Assess evacuation
constraints of residential
areas.
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 35
Deliverables:
» Review matrix for consistency with State laws (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
» Review matrix of existing policies and recommendations (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating
Jurisdiction)
» Gap analysis memo (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
5.3 Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
The PlaceWorks team will work with local jurisdiction staff, CRC, and other key stakeholders to prepare a set
of draft goals, policies, and objectives for each of the updated Safety Elements. These goals, policies, and
objectives will respond to State requirements, findings in the vulnerability assessment, results from the gap
assessment, and input from the public engagement process. The overarching goal will be to provide
increased protection for all populations, buildings and infrastructure, and other assets in the community,
with a specific focus on populations and assets that are uniquely susceptible.
The PlaceWorks team, in partnership with CRC, will ensure the draft goals, policies, and objectives
incorporate the equity approach prepared as part of Task 2. As part of this commitment, when drafting and
reviewing the goals, policies, and objectives, the PlaceWorks team will use the County’s equity assessment
tool, or other tool as directed by the Participating Jurisdiction or recommended through best practice. As
part of the equity review, CRC will ensure the draft goals, policies, and objectives fairly incorporate
comments, suggestions, and requests received through the engagement and outreach activities conducted
as part of Task 2.
We will draft the goals, policies, and objectives to take advantage of the full range of strategies available for
local communities to improve public safety, adapt to changing conditions, and grow their community
resilience. These may include new regulatory standards or development review processes, educational
efforts, community partnerships, specific capital improvement projects, and more involved planning
processes. We will also recommend goals, policies, and objectives that support monitoring and reporting of
Safety Element strategies to determine their effectiveness and to allow them to be revised in future updates.
We will incorporate recommendations from the Adaptation Planning Guide, California Climate Adaptation
Strategy, and other reports and guidance documents where appropriate. We will include strategies from
existing local plans, such as policies in the Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and OneShoreline’s
priority projects, where it makes sense to have a clear linkage between the documents. State law also
requires including certain strategies in the draft elements, such as policies around siting new critical facilities
outside of hazard-prone areas and using natural infrastructure systems to support resilience efforts.
Deliverables:
» Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives Memorandum (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
» Equity Assessment of draft goals, policies, and objectives.
Technical Proposal
36 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
5.4 Revise Goals, Policies, and Objectives
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
Upon completion of Task 5.3, the Goals, Policies, and Objectives will be shared with the Technical Advisory
Committees, stakeholder groups, and members of the public for review and feedback. Based on this
feedback, which will be integrated with engagement and outreach opportunities in Task 2, the PlaceWorks
team will gather input received and identify the changes and recommendations necessary and what content
was removed or not included in the final draft. In our experience, many goals, policies, and objectives that
do not make it into a Safety Element are usually out of scope from what a Safety Element is intended to
accomplish or may be infeasible because of political or financial constraints. However, as part of this task,
any goals, policies, and objectives that aren’t taken forward will be documented to ensure decision makers
understand how the process informed the final element development.
Deliverables:
» Final Goals, Policies, and Objectives Memorandum (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
Task 6. Implementation Measures
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
The implementation measures will build upon the data collection efforts, vulnerability assessment, and
community and stakeholder feedback to detail the specific steps required to implement the Safety Element
policies. Collectively, the measures will also serve as a guidance and reference document for the jurisdictional
staff from each city. The PlaceWorks team will develop a framework with the full list of the implementation
measures to include which agencies, partners, or departments are responsible for implementation; agency,
department, or partner implementation costs based on a scale of low to medium to high (i.e., $, $$, $$$);
timeframe for implementation on a scale of near-term or long-term; and potential funding opportunities.
These metrics will be used to prioritize implementation of the Safety Element policies and actions. Our team’s
standard planning and analytical process already includes collecting a variety of these variables. Therefore,
our team will provide efficiencies for the cities and County in development of the measures.
6.1 Develop Draft Implementation Measures
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
We will develop draft implementation measures designed to carry out the updated goals, policies, and
objectives of each jurisdiction. As part of the implementation measure development, the team will review
state and federal guidance, including guidance for equitable climate planning from sources such as the
California Adaptation Planning Guide, the Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN), and the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR). We will also review examples of best practices from other relevant
local jurisdictions throughout the state to identify resilience and adaptation projects and programs that may
be advantageous for the Participating Jurisdictions to consider and incorporate. We will identify needed
updates to zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, Local Coastal Programs, building regulations, and
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 37
similar to inform the creation or revision of goals, policies, and objectives. Implementation measures from
SB 379 (Government Code Section 65302(g)(4)I) and SB 1241 (Government Code Section 65302(g)(3)(C)) will
be incorporated as appropriate to comply with state law. In keeping with our team’s holistic integration of
equity in our planning processes, we will objectively evaluate the placement of projects, benefits and
burdens, and cumulative risks to historically underserved communities from the implementation measures.
The PlaceWorks team, in partnership with CRC, will ensure the draft implementation measures incorporate
the equity approach prepared as part of Task 2. As part of this commitment, when drafting and reviewing
the implementation measures the PlaceWorks team will use an equity assessment tool, either prepared by
the Participating Jurisdiction or recommended through best practice. As part of the equity review, CRC will
ensure the draft implementation measures fairly incorporate comments, suggestions, and requests received
through the engagement and outreach activities conducted as part of Task 2.
6.2 Revise Implementation Measures
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
The project team will share draft implementation measures, and any prioritization as determined by
Participating Jurisdictions, with the Technical Advisory Committees, stakeholder groups, and members of the
public, as determined by the Public Engagement Plan to gather feedback and input. We will revise draft
implementation measures based on that feedback and input, and then will use the Community Input Report
to communicate what implementation measures were or were not incorporated. This subtask should
incorporate with Task 2.
6.3 Implementation Recommendations
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
The team will offer recommendations for critical next steps to implement the mitigation measures, including
strategies for the: (1) monitoring and evaluation of implementation of measures; (2) bundling of measures
to optimize efficiencies in funding, planning, and implementation; and (3) incorporation of new, best
available science and best management practices. This document will also include any recommendations on
prioritization as made by Participating Jurisdictions.
Deliverables
» Implementation Measures Document (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
» Recommended Next Steps: Implementation Memorandum (electronic, draft and final, for each
Participating Jurisdiction)
Technical Proposal
38 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
Task 7. Safety Elements Drafted for Jurisdictions
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
After all the individual segments of the Safety Element updates are ready, we will assemble the results into
a complete Safety Element. These documents will incorporate all the content and analyses prepared to date.
As a part of this stage of the work, we anticipate preparing two drafts of each Safety Element: an
administrative draft for jurisdiction staff, and a public review draft for widespread review that includes staff
revisions.
The PlaceWorks team, in partnership with CRC, will ensure the draft safety elements incorporate the equity
approach prepared as part of Task 2. As part of this commitment, when drafting and reviewing the safety
elements the PlaceWorks team will use an equity assessment tool, either prepared by the Participating
Jurisdiction or recommended through best practice. As part of the equity review, CRC will ensure the draft
safety elements fairly incorporate comments, suggestions, and requests received through the engagement
and outreach activities conducted as part of Task 2.
7.1 Administrative Draft Safety Elements for Jurisdictions
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
The PlaceWorks team will prepare a stand-alone administrative draft Safety Element for each of the
Participating Jurisdictions. These Safety Elements will compile all the previously prepared content. We expect
that the Safety Elements will include the goals, objectives, and policies from Task 5, the implementation
measures from Task 6, and all relevant mapping. We recommend incorporating short sections of text from
the background reports and vulnerability assessment summaries to help provide important context while
keeping the elements short and streamlined. However, if desired, we can fully include the content from these
documents to create a much larger element. We will confirm preferences with jurisdiction staff before
preparing the combined element.
We will include the final Community Input Report prepared as part of Task 2.8 along with the administrative
draft Safety Element. This will illustrate how we incorporated feedback and comments from the public
engagement process into the element. If requested, we can also include a section in the main body of the
element to discuss how public comments have informed the preparation of the document.
Prior to preparing the administrative draft Safety Elements, we will prepare a template for the document.
These templates may be the same across all jurisdictions or may be unique to each Participating Jurisdiction,
depending on staff preferences. We can also use an existing General Plan template or prepare the new
template to match existing styles.
Deliverables:
» Safety Element template (electronic, draft and final, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
» Administrative draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
» Community Input Report (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 39
7.2 Public Review Draft Safety Elements
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
After each jurisdiction’s staff provide us with a compiled set of comments on the administrative draft Safety
Element, we will make revisions in response to the feedback. This will include a discussion with jurisdiction
staff to review potential changes and confirm the revisions. We will return the revised draft Safety Elements
to jurisdiction staff for review by members of the public.
Deliverables:
» Public review draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
TASK 8. CEQA Analysis
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
PlaceWorks will prepare the required environmental review for each of the seven proposed Safety Elements
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Over the years, PlaceWorks has prepared a
variety of CEQA documents for Safety Elements, including making use of CEQA streamlining mechanisms
such as the Common Sense Exemptions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)) and General Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addenda (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). In some cases, PlaceWorks
has also prepared Negative Declarations or Mitigated Negative Declarations (CEQA Guidelines Section
15071) and Focused EIRs (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168).
PlaceWorks understands that each of the six proposed Safety Elements will come with their own unique
circumstances and proposed changes. However, the proposed action for each jurisdiction, the adoption of
an updated Safety Element, in general would have no effect on the environment because they do not commit
the County or City to any particular development project. In addition, the updated Safety Elements, as we
understand them to date, would consist of County/City conditions of approval, existing regulatory
requirements, and other best practices that are adopted for the purpose of reducing the effects of land use
development and infrastructure projects on the environment. For these reasons and based on our previous
work preparing Safety Element updates, we believe that the preparation of either a CEQA Exemption
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) or a General Plan EIR Addendum pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15164 will be appropriate for the proposed Safety Elements.
However, if the proposed Safety Elements require changes to the project or mitigation measures to reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level, this scope of work also includes the preparation of Negative
Declaration (ND) as a contingency. If impacts cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level and an EIR
is required, then PlaceWorks will collaborate with staff to discuss next steps and modify scope of work,
budget, and schedule as appropriate.
Additionally, because each Safety Element update constitutes an amendment to the General Plan for each
jurisdiction, our scope of work under this task also includes assisting the County and each City with Native
American tribal consultation pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 18.
Technical Proposal
40 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
The following Tasks 8.1 through 8.4 describe the scope of work for the preparation of the CEQA streamlining
documents and Native American tribal consultation that PlaceWorks will complete for each Safety Element
Update. Task 8.5 is an optional, add-on task for Participating Jurisdictions that determine, after preparation
of the Environmental Checklist Memo in Task 8.2, to prepare an Initial Study and Negative Declaration, which
will also include tribal consultation as directed by AB 52.
8.1 CEQA Project Management and Initiation
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
Terri McCracken will serve as the Principal-in-Charge. Vivian Kha and Miles Barker will serve as the Project
Managers for each participating jurisdiction. Terri will be responsible for overseeing the preparation and final
review of the CEQA document, as well as overseeing the budget and schedule. Vivian and Miles will serve as
the day-to-day contact and will oversee the coordination of data needs and conference calls. Vivian and Miles
will also be responsible for overall team coordination throughout the preparation of the CEQA document.
For the initiation of each CEQA process, the CEQA management team will begin by reviewing all relevant
documents pertaining to proposed Safety Elements for baseline information and any certified/approved
CEQA documents to be used for tiering. PlaceWorks will then schedule and participate in a kick-off meeting
with staff to discuss expectations and concerns, and to review key issues, information needs, work products,
and delivery schedule. The data to be used for environmental impact analysis will also be reviewed at this
meeting to ensure it is fully aligned with that used on other CEQA documents in the jurisdiction.
8.2 Environmental Checklist Memo
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
Making use of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, PlaceWorks will prepare a
qualitative memo (i.e., no technical modeling will be conducted) following the environmental checklist topics
to support the preparation of a notice of exemption (NOE) or General Plan EIR Addendum for the proposed
Safety Elements depending on the appropriateness and the preference of the jurisdiction as discussed at the
kick-off meeting in Task 8.1. Given the Safety Element is a required part of the General Plan, the memo will
address each environmental topic at a programmatic level. PlaceWorks will make maximum use of existing
information from each jurisdiction and other governmental agencies.
Deliverable(s):
» Administrative and Final Draft Environmental Checklist Memo (Word and PDF formats)
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 41
8.3 Prepare CEQA Document – Notice of Exemption or Addendum
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
Based on the outcome of the environmental checklist memo and preferences of the jurisdiction as described
in Task 8.2, PlaceWorks will prepare either a NOE pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062, an Addendum
to the General Plan EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, or a Negative Declaration (refer to Task
8.5). This task presents the approach to preparation of an Exemption or Addendum. If a Participating
Jurisdiction selects a Negative Declaration, that work is described in Optional Task 8.5. The CEQA document
will include a brief project description and through the preparation of the environmental checklist memo in
Task 8.2 and will provide the substantial evidence to demonstrate how the proposed projects would not
result in any significant effects. The CEQA document will be submitted to the jurisdiction for review, as
follows:
» One electronic copy of an Administrative Draft to the jurisdiction for review. Staff will provide PlaceWorks
with a single set of consolidated comments on the Administrative Draft.
» One electronic copy of a revised, second draft as an electronic “Screencheck.” PlaceWorks assumes that a
minimal level of effort, not exceeding four hours, would be required to respond to a single set of
consolidated comments from the jurisdiction on the Screencheck Draft.
Following approval of the Screencheck, PlaceWorks will provide the jurisdiction with one electronic copy of
the Final document for inclusion in the staff reports and approval by the decision-making body.
If it is determined that potential impacts from the proposed Safety Elements require changes to the project
or mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, then Task 8.5 would be
implemented based on collaboration with staff.
Following the approval of the Safety Elements, PlaceWorks will prepare the Notice of Determination (NOD).
Our scope of work assumes that staff will be responsible for overseeing the filing of the NOE (if the selected
document) and NOD with the County Clerk following the approval of the proposed projects and PlaceWorks
will post the NOE/NOD with the State Clearinghouse.
Deliverable(s):
» Administrative, Screencheck, and Final Draft NOD/NOE (Word and PDF formats)
» Administrative and Final Draft NOE/NOD (Word and PDF formats)
Our proposed schedule for the environmental review includes two-week review periods for the jurisdiction
at each submittal phase. Applying these assumptions and depending on the receipt of all the project
materials, we anticipate that each CEQA document can be completed within 60 days.
Technical Proposal
42 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
8.4 Native American Tribal Consultation (SB 18)
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
PlaceWorks will complete the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) form requesting a tribal contact
list for each jurisdiction. Using the addresses on the list from NAHC, PlaceWorks will draft letters (on the
letterhead of each jurisdiction) to each of the tribes on the NAHC list inquiring whether they want
consultation. As consultation is a government-to-government process, it must be initiated by the local
government agency, and counties are usually represented at the consultation(s). PlaceWorks can facilitate
and attend the consultation(s); however, each jurisdiction must be represented. Following the consultation
meetings (or conference calls), PlaceWorks will provide a record for the environmental documentation
showing that consultation has been completed. Completion of the SB 18 process is needed prior to acting
on the project.
Deliverable(s):
» Draft letter to the NAHC
» Draft letters to the identified tribes
» Facilitation, attendance, and documentation of requested consultations
8.5 Optional Add-on: Prepare Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Conduct AB 52 Tribal Consultation
Potential Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San Mateo
County.
Based on the outcome of the environmental checklist memo and preferences of the Participating Jurisdiction
as described in Task 8.2, PlaceWorks will complete a Negative Declaration form in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15071. PlaceWorks will prepare a Screencheck of the environmental checklist memo as
an Initial Study, responding to staff comments on the Administrative Draft document described in Task 8.2.
If mitigation measures are required, PlaceWorks will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program
(MMRP) for the mitigation measures pursuant to the jurisdiction’s policies and procedures. The MMRP,
shown in tabular form, will identify responsibility for implementing and monitoring each mitigation measure,
along with monitoring triggers and reporting frequencies.
PlaceWorks will draft a Notice of Intent (NOI) of a Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15072. PlaceWorks will work together with agency staff to prepare a master distribution list. PlaceWorks will
be responsible for circulation to the State Clearinghouse, and mailings to local, regional, and state agencies.
Agency staff will be responsible for local noticing.
A maximum 30-day public review period will be required under CEQA if the notification of a State Agency(s)
is determined to be necessary, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. This scope does not include
participation in any public hearings conducted during the 30-day review period.
While not required under CEQA, following the close of the public review period, PlaceWorks will respond to
substantive comments received on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration in a memorandum form. This scope
of work includes 8 hours of PlaceWorks time to respond to comments in an Administrative Draft Response
to Comments Memorandum. If public comments exceed assumptions and more than 8 hours is required to
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 43
address comments received on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration, we will request use of contingency
funds or a contract amendment to complete Response to Comments. We will prepare an Administrative
Draft Response to Comments Memorandum for review by staff. Based on staff comments, we will complete
revisions and deliver a Final Response to Comments Memorandum.
If it is determined that the preparation of a CEQA document requires public circulation (Negative Declaration,
Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an EIR), consultation with any Native American tribes that have requested
consultation pursuant to AB 52 would be required, which can be combined with outreach efforts described
in Task 8.4.
Deliverables:
» Screencheck and Public Review Drafts of the IS/ND (Word and PDF formats)
» Administrative and Public Review Draft of the MMRP (Word and PDF formats)
» Administrative and Final Draft of the NOI (Word and PDF formats)
» Administrative and Final Draft of the Response to Comments Memorandum (Word and PDF formats)
» Draft letters to the identified tribes
» Facilitation, attendance, and documentation of requested consultations
Task 9: Board of Forestry Review
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Half Moon Bay, and San Mateo County.
Any Participating Jurisdiction that includes State Responsibility Areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
must submit its updated Safety Element to the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board of
Forestry) at least 90 days prior to adoption, per State law. The PlaceWorks team has collaborated extensively
with staff from CAL FIRE’s Land Use Planning Program, who review the Safety Elements and present them to
the Board of Forestry and has established very good working relationships with them. We work closely with
CAL FIRE staff to address any recommended revisions to the Safety Element informally, before submitting
them to the Board of Forestry. Many of our Safety Elements require no revisions before going to the Board
of Forestry, and all others need only minor changes. We have never had the Board of Forestry recommend
changes for any Safety Element that we have submitted.
Per California Government Code 51178, the State Fire Marshal is required to provide local agencies with the
areas within their jurisdiction that meet Fire Hazard Severity Zone criteria for their local adoption and
implementation, including inclusion in the Safety Element of the General Plan. Cal FIRE has been working to
review, update, identify, and map Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas. We anticipate CAL
FI–E - Office of the State Fire Marshal will begin providing local governments updated draft Fire Hazard
Severity Zone maps for Local Responsibility Areas in mid to late 2023 or possibly early 2024. These updated
maps could change High Fire Severity Areas within the incorporated cities, which could result in the
requirement for CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry review for additional cities than currently identified in this task.
The PlaceWorks team can provide Task 9 services to additional Participating Jurisdictions upon Participating
Jurisdiction approval through the use of the contingency budget.
Technical Proposal
44 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
9.1 CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry Safety Element Review
Participating Jurisdictions: Belmont, Half Moon Bay, and San Mateo County.
As required by State law, PlaceWorks will submit draft Safety Elements to CAL FIRE’s Land Use Planning
Program for all applicable jurisdictions. CAL FIRE staff will review the draft Safety Elements and make
recommendations. We will discuss any recommendations with jurisdiction staff and will either revise the
Safety Element in response or will provide a written explanation for why the revision has not been made. We
will make all appropriate revisions to the Safety Element before CAL FIRE staff pass the element on to the
Board of Forestry. We recommend that we submit the Safety Elements to CAL FIRE staff at the beginning of
the public review process.
State law requires that any jurisdiction containing State Responsibility Areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity
Zones must submit their Safety Element to CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry. Currently, this applies to Belmont,
Half Moon Bay, and unincorporated San Mateo County. However, we are aware that CAL FIRE is currently
revising their hazard severity zone mapping, and it is possible that additional communities may include Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in this updated mapping. The updated mapping is expected to be released
sometime in 2023.
Deliverables:
» CAL FIRE Safety Element review checklist (electronic, for each relevant Participating Jurisdiction) and
submittal to CAL FIRE.
» Coordination, and meetings if needed, with CAL FIRE staff during review of Safety Element.
» Participation in Board of Forestry Resource Protection Committee meeting during review of Safety Element
(1 virtual meeting per participating jurisdiction).
Task 10: Public Agency Boards – Review and Approval
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
Each Participating Agency’s Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors must formally review
the draft Safety Element and its associated environmental review document. To support a successful review
and adoption of each Safety Element, we will support staff to provide regular updates to their Planning
Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors as informational items or as Commission/Council/Board
workshops or study sessions at key points during the process. At the end of the process, after all public and
external agency comments are incorporated into the draft Safety Elements, they will be ready for final review
and adoption by each jurisdiction through public hearings. These hearings will be the culmination of the
Safety Element Update process and will allow members of the public to provide additional input prior to
adoption. The PlaceWorks team will work with Participating Jurisdiction staff materials in support of these
hearings.
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 45
10.1 Prepare Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor
Materials
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
During the planning process, the PlaceWorks team will prepare a Planning Commission/City Council/Board
of Supervisors Briefing Packet for Participating Jurisdiction staff at three points in the process: (1) project
initiation/vulnerability assessment, (2) draft goals, policies, and action preparation, and (3) draft element
review. These Briefing Packets will provide an overview of the project status in a brief memo and set of slides
that will highlight work completed to-date, opportunities for public engagement, and next steps.
Participating Jurisdiction staff will be responsible for putting this content into agency specific templates or
formats, modifying it if needed to include jurisdiction specific details, and for presenting it to their Planning
Commission/City Council/Board of Supervisors.
Following completion of Tasks 2-9, the PlaceWorks team will prepare drafts of the Safety Elements
incorporating all relevant comments from members of the public, CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry and other
public agencies, and other stakeholders as relevant. These drafts will serve as the “public hearing drafts” that
will be brought forward to the Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors for review and
adoption. Additionally, we will work with jurisdiction staff to support preparation of materials for the
Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisors public hearings. This support may include
preparing drafts of materials and reviewing content prepared by Participating Jurisdiction staff. We
anticipate that such materials may be staff reports, presentations, resolutions, or other items that may be
helpful for hearings. We will prepare all materials using consistent graphics, branding, and other design
features as requested.
Deliverables:
» Public hearing draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
» Briefing packets (three, electronic, draft and final)
» Staff report content and PowerPoint slides to support on study session during the final public review phase
and two public hearings (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction, draft and final)
10.2 Attend Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor
Meetings
Participating Jurisdictions: Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, San Bruno, and San
Mateo County.
Staff from the PlaceWorks team will attend one study session of the Planning Commission or City Council (or
a joint meeting) at the initial release of the draft Safety Element, and one Planning Commission, and one City
Council/Board of Supervisor meeting for each participating jurisdiction at the adoption stage. We expect that
these meetings will be in-person, although we are able to participate virtually if preferred. PlaceWorks will
be prepared to support staff with presentations, respond to questions from officials, and fill other roles as
needed.
If any Planning Commissions or City Councils/Board of Supervisors direct changes to the draft Safety
Elements prior to recommendation/adoption, we will incorporate these changes into a separate final draft
Technical Proposal
46 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
following adoption. Otherwise, the public hearing drafts will serve as final drafts, with any necessary changes
to reflect their adopted state.
Deliverables:
» Final draft Safety Element (electronic, for each Participating Jurisdiction)
» Attendance at one study session and two public hearings (one Planning Commission meeting and one City
Council/Board of Supervisors meeting) for Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay,
San Bruno, and San Mateo County. Meeting attendance is assumed to be in person and includes travel
time from the office location of the lead staff person assigned to the agency plus travel costs. Participating
Jurisdictions can elect for virtual participation of the PlaceWorks team to reduce costs.
10.3 Add-on: Attend Additional Public Meetings
Participating Jurisdictions: East Palo Alto, San Bruno, and San Mateo County.
We recognize that the preferences and processes for review of General Plan Amendments can vary by
jurisdiction and that some Participating Jurisdictions may need additional meeting support beyond the three
public meetings scoped in Task 10.2. Members of the PlaceWorks team can participate in additional meetings
of the Planning Commission and/or City Council/Board of Supervisors if requested by Participating
Jurisdiction staff. Participation in additional meetings may be virtual or in-person as desired. We can support
Participating Jurisdiction staff to prepare or review any additional meeting materials as may be needed. This
task assumes additional meeting support as noted below by jurisdiction; however, if additional meeting is
requested, it can be available on a time-and-materials basis through the contingency budget. Meeting
attendance is assumed to be in person and includes travel time from the office location of the lead staff
person assigned to the agency plus travel costs. Jurisdictions can elect for virtual participation of the
PlaceWorks team to reduce costs.
» East Palo Alto: One additional public meeting, hearing, or study session with Planning Commission and/or
City Council.
» San Bruno: One additional public meeting, hearing, or study session with Planning Commission and/or City
Council.
» San Mateo County: Three additional public meetings, hearings, or study sessions with the Planning
Commission and/or Board of Supervisors.
Deliverables:
» Attendance at additional public hearings as noted.
» Support with meeting materials for additional meetings. (electronic, draft and final)
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 47
Project Schedule
PlaceWorks’ proposed schedule for completion of the Safety Element Multi-Agency Collaborative is shown
in Figure 1. In our experience, Safety Element preparation with the tasks included in the proposed scope of
work can average 18 to 24 months to allow for robust stakeholder engagement, potential delays with receipt
of data from external agencies, and environmental review. We have prepared a 24-month schedule.
PlaceWorks has a strong track record in meeting project schedules and coordinating closely with its clients
as part of our approach to quality project management. Our project management process allows for
potential project delays to be revealed early and to identify options to keep the project on-track or to adjust
the schedule if needed. We recommend reviewing and confirming a detailed schedule during contract
negotiations or as part of project initiation. Over years of managing projects, we have developed a variety of
tools to keep projects on schedule and ensure that staff are well informed at all times.
We maintain an up-to-date schedule throughout the project, to ensure that all team members are aware
of upcoming meetings and product due dates.
We stay in close, regular contact with staff and our community partners and document important decisions
about the project in writing, which ensures that decisions are understood by all team members.
We schedule project due dates for staff with adequate time for editing and formatting into finished reports.
Our team takes a project management approach that focuses on providing a quality process and product in
sync with the budget and schedule while enjoying our work and collaborating as a team to ensure that
everyone’s strength and input are well-integrated. We approach project management as a dynamic process
and one that is critical to the process. This starts during the preparation of the proposal and continues
through the project initiation, execution, and completion. Our project manager maintains regular
coordination and check-ins with the project team, including our teaming partners and clients. We use tools
such as Deltek, Asana, MS Project, and others as needed to support our projects.
In addition to our overall project kick-off meeting, we begin each task by reviewing objectives, budget,
schedule, roles, and workflows with all members of our team so that everyone knows both their individual
roles and the big picture. We also review each task at completion to assess the work, identify any issues of
concern for the project team, identify any lessons learned that should be applied to later tasks, and consider
any potential scope or budget considerations. Our project managers assess financial project performance
monthly as part of invoice preparation.
Our team uses ongoing quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) processes throughout the project
development process as an integral component of our project management approach. We deliver work that
is scientifically accurate, consistent with all legal requirements, and meets all needs of our clients. This not
only includes plan documents and memos, but technical analyses, data workbooks, outreach materials, and
all other work products prepared for our projects. All work is reviewed by the project manager and other
senior PlaceWorks staff to ensure that it meets this rigorous set of criteria. A technical editor reviews all work
to ensure accurate spelling and grammar, consistent tone, and proper sourcing. Our Word processing staff
and graphic designers also review work products for consistent formatting and readability.
Technical Proposal
48 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
Figure 1 Project Schedule
Tasks April
2023 May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan
2024 Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan
2025 Feb Mar
Task 1. Project Coordination and Communication
1.1. Collaborative Steering Committee ********
1.2. Technical Advisory Committees and 1x1 Support * ** ** *
1.4. Ongoing Project Management * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * ** * * * * * * *
Task 2. Community Engagement and Equity Approach
2.1. Public Engagement Plan
2.2. Equity Approach
2.3. Community Based Organizations Partnerships
2.4. Community Workshops * ** *
2.5. Hard-to-Reach/Community Group Meetings * ** *** ***
2.6. Stakeholder Meetings * ** *** **
2.7. Develop Project Website
2.8. Mapped Survey Tool
2.9. Story Map **
2.10. Community Input Report
Task 3. Vulnerability Assessment and Hazard Maps
3.1. GIS Database for Hazards *
3.2. GIS Database for Asset Layers *
3.3. Identify Sensitive Populations *
3.4. Prepare Asset Lists *
3.5. Identify Flood and Fire Hazard Data *
3.6. Evacuation Constraints Analysis *
3.7. Vulnerability Assessment *
3.8. Summarize Results of Vulnerability Assessment *
3.9. Online Map Viewer
3.10. Hazard Maps for Inclusion in Safety Element
Task 4. Background Information on Hazards
4.1. Update Hazard Background Information
Task 5. Goals, Objectives, and Policies
5.1. Regional Best Practices Summary
5.2. Review of Existing Plans, Requirements, and Gaps
5.3. Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives *
5.4. Revise Goals, Policies, and Objectives
Task 6. Implementation Measures
6.1. Develop Draft Implementation Measures *
6.2. Revise Implementation Measures
6.3. Implementation Recommendations
Task 7. Safety Elements Drafted for Jurisdiction
7.1. Administrative Draft Safety Elements for Jurisdictions
7.2. Public Review Draft Safety Elements
Task 8. CEQA Analysis
8.1. CEQA Project Management and Initiation *
8.2. Environmental Checklist Memo
8.3. CEQA Document
8.4. Native American Tribal Consultation
Task 9. Board of Forestry Review
9.1. CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry Safety Element Review *
Task 10. Public Agency Boards - Review and Approval
10.1. Prepare Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Materials
10.2. Attend Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Meetings * * *
10.2. Attend Additional Public Hearings or Meetings * * *
PlaceWorks Preparation of Project Task
Staff Review of Work Products
Meetings - Conference Calls or In-Person *
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 71
PRICE PROPOSAL
As shown in Table 3, the estimated cost to complete the scope of work described in this proposal is
$1,224,016 for the baseline scope of work plus add-on tasks, expenses, and a contingency budget.
Table 4 shows the fee proposal broken down by agency. Tables 3 and 4 are included as separate files.
PlaceWorks bills its work on a time-and-materials basis with monthly invoices.
Assumptions
In addition to the assumptions for the scope of work, this cost estimate assumes that:
PlaceWorks bills its work on a time-and-materials basis with monthly invoices.
Our cost estimate includes the meetings as scoped. Additional meetings will be billed on a time-and-
materials basis at the direction of the CPC Project Manager. At least one member of the project
management team will attend project meetings, public workshops, and other public meetings identified
in the scope.
All products will be submitted to the City in electronic format, which includes Microsoft Word, Microsoft
Excel, and Adobe Acrobat.
Participating Jurisdiction staff will be responsible for TAC, planning commission, City Council/Board of
Supervisors, and advisory body meeting logistics, including coordination, document production,
applicable public noticing, mailing costs, room reservations, room set-up and take-down, refreshments,
and final preparation and posting of staff reports.
Price Proposal
72 SAN MATEO COUNTY • Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Update
Table 3 – PlaceWorks Fee Proposal - Detailed by Task
Seale Krispi Rohr Jansen McCracken Mazur Guy/Giffin Barker/Kha Lau DiPierro Robbins/
Miller
Atlas Planning
Solutions
Nexus
Planning CRC
Principal-in-
Charge
Project
Manager
Asst. Project
Manager
Principal
Advisor CEQA Lead GIS
Principal
GIS
Associate Associate Website &
Outreach
GIS
Analyst
Project
Planner
$250 $210 $175 $260 $245 $225 $155 $155 $165 $125 $140 $135 $135 $125
TASK 1. TASK 1. PROJECT COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION (9 agencies)
1 Collaborative Steering Committee 27 36 45 4 36 148 $565 $28,830 $3,150 $0 $0 $315 $3,465 $32,295
2 Participating Agency Support: Technical Advisory Committees and 1x1 Support 18 56 56 24 12 6 172 $636 $32,426 $9,440 $0 $0 $944 $10,384 $42,810
3 Ongoing project management 44 56 48 148 $623 $31,783 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $31,783
Task 1. Subtotal 89 148 149 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 12 6 468 $1,824 $93,039 $12,590 $0 $0 $1,259 $13,849 $106,888
TASK 2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND EQUITY APPROACH (8 agencies)
1 Public Engagement Plan (PEP)8 8 8 8 16 2 50 $193 $9,863 $700 $0 $2,275 $298 $3,273 $13,136
2 Equity Approach 6 8 8 4 4 10 40 $154 $7,834 $350 $0 $2,020 $237 $2,607 $10,441
3 Community Based Organizations (CBOs) Partnerships 8 4 4 16 $71 $3,611 $0 $0 $21,275 $2,128 $23,403 $27,014
4 Community Workshops (4)20 20 32 36 40 4 4 156 $540 $27,560 $700 $0 $3,650 $435 $4,785 $32,345
5 Hard-to-Reach / Community Group Meetings 2 4 4 12 6 2 2 32 $101 $5,151 $0 $0 $14,250 $1,425 $15,675 $20,826
6 Stakeholder Meetings 6 18 24 18 18 84 $296 $15,086 $2,100 $0 $0 $210 $2,310 $17,396
7 Develop Project Website 8 8 24 40 32 40 8 160 $509 $25,949 $1,180 $0 $0 $118 $1,298 $27,247
8 Mapped Survey Tool 4 4 8 2 4 16 50 12 100 $294 $15,014 $2,360 $0 $0 $236 $2,596 $17,610
9 Story Map 4 4 8 4 8 50 16 6 100 $294 $14,974 $1,180 $0 $0 $118 $1,298 $16,272
10 Community Input Report 6 8 16 40 2 4 4 80 $258 $13,148 $1,660 $0 $3,550 $521 $5,731 $18,879
Task 2. Subtotal 72 86 136 12 0 6 12 70 44 100 196 60 14 10 818 $2,710 $138,190 $10,230 $0 $47,020 $5,726 $62,976 $201,166
TASK 3. VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND HAZARD MAPS (9 agencies)
1 GIS Database for Hazards 1 2 2 1 1 27 34 $96 $4,871 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $6,565
2 GIS Database for Asset Layers 1 2 9 1 1 27 41 $120 $6,120 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $7,814
3 Identify Sensitive Populations 2 9 18 4 1 16 18 16 4 88 $285 $14,530 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $16,224
4 Prepare Asset Lists 2 9 9 1 32 18 40 111 $339 $17,269 $700 $0 $840 $154 $1,694 $18,963
5 Identify Flood and Fire Hazard Data 2 9 9 2 2 32 56 $175 $8,900 $1,400 $0 $0 $140 $1,540 $10,440
6 Evacuation Constraints Analysis 8 8 16 2 16 96 146 $428 $21,838 $2,800 $0 $420 $322 $3,542 $25,380
7 Vulnerability Assessment 8 18 54 70 70 220 $718 $36,598 $2,800 $4,680 $1,180 $866 $9,526 $46,124
8 Summarize Results of Vulnerability Assessment 10 18 54 40 40 24 24 210 $675 $34,445 $2,800 $3,120 $1,180 $710 $7,810 $42,255
9 Online Map Viewer 2 8 16 2 9 60 97 $287 $14,612 $3,060 $0 $840 $390 $4,290 $18,902
10 Hazard Maps for Inclusion in Safety Element 2 9 18 2 9 72 112 $328 $16,713 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,713
Task 3. Subtotal 38 92 205 4 0 10 40 158 0 350 166 4 24 24 1115 $3,451 $175,896 $15,660 $7,800 $6,980 $3,044 $33,484 $209,380
TASK 4. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON HAZARDS (8 agencies)
1 Update Hazard Background Information 8 24 32 60 68 30 24 246 $770 $39,280 $8,560 $1,560 $0 $1,012 $11,132 $50,412
Task 4. Subtotal 8 24 32 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 68 0 30 24 246 $770 $39,280 $8,560 $1,560 $0 $1,012 $11,132 $50,412
TASK 5. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES (7 agencies)
1 Regional Best Practices Summary 4 6 12 12 12 2 48 $163 $8,333 $1,530 $0 $0 $153 $1,683 $10,016
2 Review of Existing Plans, Requirements, and Gaps 7 12 14 40 48 8 8 137 $434 $22,154 $5,940 $2,340 $0 $828 $9,108 $31,262
3 Draft Goals, Policies, and Objectives 14 16 16 40 48 32 16 182 $578 $29,478 $11,800 $4,680 $4,650 $2,113 $23,243 $52,721
4 Revise Goals, Policies, and Objectives 7 12 12 20 24 16 8 99 $320 $16,310 $5,200 $3,120 $0 $832 $9,152 $25,462
Task 5. Subtotal 32 46 54 0 0 0 0 112 0 0 132 0 58 32 466 $1,495 $76,275 $24,470 $10,140 $4,650 $3,926 $43,186 $119,461
TASK 6. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES (7 agencies)
1 Develop Draft Implementation Measures 8 14 24 4 24 24 14 8 120 $403 $20,553 $9,440 $3,120 $4,650 $1,721 $18,931 $39,484
2 Revise Implementation Measures 4 4 24 16 16 4 68 $225 $11,485 $4,720 $1,560 $0 $628 $6,908 $18,393
3 Implementation Recommendations 8 14 24 16 16 4 82 $287 $14,647 $4,720 $1,560 $0 $628 $6,908 $21,555
Task 6. Subtotal 20 32 72 4 0 0 0 56 0 0 56 0 14 16 270 $915 $46,685 $18,880 $6,240 $4,650 $2,977 $32,747 $79,432
TASK 7. SAFETY ELEMENTS DRAFTED FOR JURISDICTION (7 agencies)
1 Administrative Draft Safety Elements for Jurisdictions 14 32 32 32 60 60 60 290 $896 $45,676 $9,960 $3,120 $4,225 $1,731 $19,036 $64,712
2 Public Review Draft Safety Elements 8 24 24 24 32 28 32 172 $544 $27,764 $7,820 $1,170 $0 $899 $9,889 $37,653
Task 7. Subtotal 22 56 56 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 92 0 88 92 462 $1,440 $73,440 $17,780 $4,290 $4,225 $2,630 $28,925 $102,365
TASK 8. CEQA ANALYSIS (7 agencies)
1 CEQA Project Management and Initiation 36 24 60 $251 $12,791 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,791
2 Environmental Checklist Memo 2 2 24 36 48 12 12 136 $441 $22,511 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,511
3 CEQA Document (NOE or Addendum)2 2 4 12 24 36 12 12 104 $329 $16,769 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,769
4 Native American Tribal Consultation (SB 18)4 24 36 48 112 $378 $19,258 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,258
Task 8. Subtotal 2 4 10 0 96 0 0 120 0 0 132 0 24 24 412 $1,399 $71,329 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $71,329
TASK 9. BOARD OF FORESTRY REVIEW (3 agencies)
1 CAL FIRE/Board of Forestry Safety Element Review 6 6 12 $46 $2,356 $7,080 $0 $0 $708 $7,788 $10,144
Task 9. Subtotal 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 $46 $2,356 $7,080 $0 $0 $708 $7,788 $10,144
TASK 10. PUBLIC AGENCY BOARDS – REVIEW AND APPROVAL (7 agencies)
1 Prepare Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Materials 14 58 30 40 40 8 21 211 $733 $37,378 $7,600 $0 $0 $760 $8,360 $45,738
2 Attend Planning Commission and City Council/Board of Supervisor Meetings (21)120 120 $504 $25,704 $8,400 $0 $0 $840 $9,240 $34,944
Task 10. Subtotal 14 178 30 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 40 8 21 0 331 $1,237 $63,082 $16,000 $0 $0 $1,600 $17,600 $80,682
Labor Hours Total 297 672 750 24 96 16 52 672 44 450 942 72 285 228 4600 956 170 529
Labor Dollars Total $74,250 $141,120 $131,250 $6,240 $23,520 $3,600 $8,060 $104,160 $7,260 $56,250 $131,880 $9,720 $38,475 $28,500 $15,287 $779,572 $131,250 $30,030 $67,525 $22,882 $251,687 $1,031,259
EXPENSES
PlaceWorks Reimbursable Expenses $8,487
Subconsultants' Reimbursable Expenses $2,500
Expenses Total $10,987
Subtotal: Baseline Tasks + Expenses $1,042,246
CONTINGENCY
Varies by agency $100,135
ADD ON TASKS - Vary by Agency
8.5 CEQA Contingency Add-on: Initial Study/Negative Declaration/AB 52 (per agency)2 4 8 22 36 4 4 80 $251 $12,821 0 0 0 $0 $0 $64,105
10.3 Optional Add On: Attend Additional Public Meetings/Cost per meeting 8 8 $34 $1,714 $0 $0 $8,570
1.2 Additional TAC Meeting Support & Attendance (County only)0 $0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 $8,960
Add-On Task Total $81,635
ALL TASKS
PlaceWorks Grand Total $1,224,016
PlaceWorks
Total
10% Subconsultant
Markup
Subconsultant
Total Safety
Element
Planning
SLR/VA Community
Outreach
PLACEWORKS SUBCONSULTANTS
Total
Labor
Budget
Hourly Rate:
GRAPHICS TECH.
EDITOR
WP/
CLERICAL PlaceWorks
Hours
PlaceWorks
2% Office
Expenses
Price Proposal
Proposal for Services • PLACEWORKS 73
Table 4 – PlaceWorks Fee Proposal - By Agency
COUNTY ALL
San Mateo Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame East Palo Alto Half Moon Bay Pacifica San Bruno Total
Task 1. Project Coordination and Communication 14,095$ 10,525$ 14,095$ 6,223$ 14,095$ 14,095$ 14,095$ 5,570$ 14,095$ 106,888$
Task 2. Community Engagement and Equity Approach $ 102,394 $ - $ 19,754 $ 19,754 $ 19,754 $ 19,754 $ 19,754 201,166$
Task 3. Develop Vulnerability Assessment and Hazard Maps $ 67,839 $ 15,180 $ 15,180 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 $ 18,530 209,380$
Task 4. Background Information on Hazards $ 10,082 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 $ 5,761 50,412$
Task 5. Goals, Objectives, and Policies $ 29,865 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 $ 14,933 119,461$
Task 6. Implementation Measures $ 19,858 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 $ 9,929 79,432$
Task 7. Safety Elements Drafted for Jurisdictions $ 25,591 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 $ 12,796 102,365$
Task 8. CEQA Analysis (Exemption or Addendum) $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 $ 10,190 71,329$
Task 9. Board of Forestry Review $ 3,381 $ 3,381 $ 3,381 10,144$
Task 10. Public Agency Board – Review & Approval $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 $ 11,526 80,682$
PW Reimbursable Expenses (Website Hosting, GIS fee, limited travel) $ 3,296 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 $ 961 10,987$
PlaceWorks Total $ 298,118 $ 91,801 $ 118,507 $ 31,476 $ 118,475 $ 118,475 $ 121,857 $ 25,061 $ 118,475 1,042,246$
Add-On Tasks San Mateo Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame East Palo Alto Half Moon Bay Pacifica San Bruno Total
Additional TAC Meeting Support & Attendance $ 8,960 8,960$
Additional Public Agency Meetings $ 5,142 $ 1,714 $ 1,714 8,570$
Contingency - CEQA (Initial Study/Negative Declaration/AB 52 consultation) $ 12,821 $ 12,821 $ 12,821 $ 12,821 $ - $ 12,821 64,105$
Contingency - General (5% or 10%) $ 31,222 $ 4,590 $ 11,851 $ 3,148 $ 11,848 $ 12,019 $ 12,186 $ 1,253 $ 12,019 100,135$
PlaceWorks Total $ 356,263 $ 96,391 $ 143,178 $ 34,623 $ 130,323 $ 145,029 $ 146,863 $ 26,314 $ 145,029 $ 1,224,016
Baseline Scope of Work
CITIES
2635 Benvenue Ave
Berkeley, CA 94704
510.761.6001
info@planningcollaborative.com | planningcollaborative.com
February 11, 2023
Katie Faulkner, Planner III
County of San Mateo
455 County Center
Redwood City, CA 94063
Subject: Project Management -- San Mateo County Safety Element Collaborative
Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element
We are pleased to provide this proposal for continued project management services for the Multi-
Jurisdictional Safety Element Collaborative.
For the past year, Community Planning Collaborative (formerly Baird + Driskell Community
Planning) has been serving as the convenor, facilitator and project manager of a collaborative of
nine agencies working together on efforts related to their Safety Elements. Specifically,
Community Planning Collaborative (CPC) has acted the project manager for the Safety Element
Collaborative project through the Collaborative’s initial formation and the RFP process, ensuring
that the voice of each participating agency was heard, and their needs addressed. To date,
Community Planning Collaborative acted project manager through their role as lead consultant for
the 21 Elements Project. 21 Elements was originally created to assist San Mateo County
jurisdictions (20 cities and the county) with required Housing Element updates and has now
expanded to assist with other General Plan element updates.
With the selection of PlaceWorks, Inc. to serve as the professional Safety Element consultant,
there is still the need to provide oversight and orchestration of this multi-agency effort over the
next two years. To support staff from the nine agencies, CPC will convene and facilitate the
Steering Committee meetings, meet with PlaceWorks to provide preliminary review and direction
of process and product components; review public outreach and engagement materials and other
deliverables; monitor and provide updates on budget and deliverable requirements to each
agency; coordinate with PlaceWorks for efficient and effective work with all agencies; and prepare
documents for staff for their communications to Planning Commissions and elected bodies.
As a Principal, Josh Abrams is authorized to bind CPC to the contents of this submittal and to
negotiate contracts on behalf of CPC. We propose to have Cathy Capriola continue to serve as the
Project Manager of the Safety Element Collaborative. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Josh Abrams
Principal
info@planningcollaborative.com
SCOPE OF WORK
In consideration of the payments set forth in Exhibit B, Contractor shall provide the following services:
Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element Overall, serve as PROJECT MANAGER for the Multi-Jurisdictional Safety Element project with nine public agencies in San Mateo County.
Full Scope Participating Agencies: San Mateo County and six San Mateo County cities (Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, and San Bruno)
Partial Scope Participating Agencies: Cities of Brisbane and Pacifica; and
1. Steering Committee – Coordinate, facilitate and communicate with the agencies individually and
together as a Collaborative Steering Committee throughout the project. Lead the Steering Committee
and serve as the Committee’s primary point of contact. Ensure meetings of the Collaborative Steering
Committee provide opportunities to share information, provide feedback at key points in the process,
discuss options and opportunities for community engagement, and review approaches to addressing
key hazards of concern. Review meeting materials prepared by PlaceWorks Team before distribution
to the Committee members. After each meeting, prepare and distribute a high-level summary of key
points, action items, decisions, and next steps.
2. Project Management – Monitor and oversee the overall project per the executed contract with
PlaceWorks. Ensure timeline and project deliverables are met in a timely manner and at the quality
expectation of the project.
3. Reporting & Agency Communication – Conduct quarterly check-in meetings with each participating
agency and ensure concerns, ideas or issues are reviewed and resolved with the PlaceWorks Team.
Prepare quarterly project progress reports regarding status of the project, overall progress on budget,
and update on individual agency costs to date.
4. Invoice Review & Budget Monitoring – Review submitted invoices by PlaceWorks; monitor and track
invoices and submitted charges against the overall approved budget for the project as a whole and for
each individual agency. Communicate with County as fiscal agent on monthly invoices and provide
updates to the Steering Committee as a whole and individual agencies as needed.
5. Coordination with Lead Safety Element Consultant (PlaceWorks) – Coordinate on a regular basis with
PlaceWorks on project process, deliverables, and community outreach. Provide guidance and conduct
necessary outreach to individual agencies or the Steering Committee as a whole.
6. Work Product Review – Review all public engagement tools and products in a comprehensive manner.
Review technical work products (such as vulnerability analysis and individual safety elements) at a
higher level focused on clarity and broad objectives with the detailed review to be completed by the
individual agencies based on their specific knowledge and expertise).
7. Adoption Staff Reports – Prepare staff reports and enacting resolutions at the completion of the
project for adoption of the completed Safety Elements by each jurisdiction.
info@planningcollaborative.com
8. Participate in Key Community Outreach Activities – Participate in occasional community outreach
activities, such as the community workshops, to monitor outcomes and to understand the key
community issues within the Safety Element processes.
9. Respond to Requests from Participating Agencies -- Provide easy and direct access for Jurisdictions to
ask questions, distribute information, query other jurisdictions, obtain updated information on State
laws and particular items of importance, etc.
info@planningcollaborative.com
FEE PROPOSAL
Contractor shall submit monthly invoices for services rendered during the prior month to
planning_fiscal@smcgov.org, identifying the Agreement Number, specific work completed, the contract do-
not-exceed amount, and the amount remaining unspent under this Agreement. The invoice shall be based
on the following fee schedule and terms as set forth in the table below which identify the overall budget,
distribution of total hours by task, and the amount to be billed to the County by fiscal year. Modifications
to the estimated annual billing amounts may be made separately, without amendment to this Agreement,
through consultation between the Director of Community Development or designee, and Contractor
followed by written authorization from the Director of Community Development or designee. County shall
pay Contractor within thirty (30) business days of receipt of a satisfactory invoice.
In no event shall total payment for services under this Agreement exceed ninety two thousand four hundred
dollars ($92,400) without a written amendment signed by both parties.
The hourly rate for this project is $200 per hour.
Estimated Annual Billing Amounts: The project spans three fiscal years and is roughly expected to be
executed within these parameters:
FY 22/23 – 20% equal to $18,480
FY 23/24 – 60% equal to $55,440
FY 24/25 – 20% equal to $18,480
Hours Costs
Steering Committee Coordination 54 $10,800
Coordination Meetings with Fiscal Agent 36 $7,200
Coordination Meetings with Safety Element Consultant
Team
78 $15,600
Quarterly 1x1 Outreach to Participating Agencies &
Quarterly Reports on Progress, Timeline and Budget
Updates by Project and via Individual Agencies
136 $27,200
Monthly Invoice Review 48 $9,600
Review of Work Products & Community Engagement 60 $12,000
Preparation of Final Staff Report and Resolutions 10 $2,000
Sub-Total 422 $84,400
Contingency 40 $8,000
TOTAL 462 $92,400
info@planningcollaborative.com
COST SHARING
Below is a chart outlining the cost sharing based on scope of each agency (full scope with full public
engagement; full scope with limited engagement; and partial scope with no public engagement and
technical aspects only.)
AGENCY ESTIMATED COSTS
San Mateo County $11,935
Atherton $8,778
Belmont $11,935
Brisbane $6,006
Burlingame $11,935
East Palo Alto $11,935
Half Moon Bay $11,935
Pacifica $6,006
San Bruno $11,935
TOTAL $92,400