Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2017.10.02
Monday, October 2, 2017 City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final City Council 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 6:15 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers b. Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time C. Adjournment into Closed Session d. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL --ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: One Case Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non -agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS a. Business Landscape Award b. Presentation on Peninsula Clean Energy ECO100 City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 912812017 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 2, 2017 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion. Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar. a. Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes September 18, 2017 Attachments: Meeting Minutes b. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Side Letter Agreement with the Association of Police Administrators Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Exhibit A C. Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association and the City of Burlingame and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Memorandum on Behalf of the City Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Exhibit A d. Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Pipe and Plant Solutions Inc.. for the Lorton Ave Storm Drain Line Cleaning Proiect City Proiect No. 84930 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Bid Summary Pro act Location Map Construction Contract City o/Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 912812017 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 2, 2017 e. Adoption of a Resolution Awarding the Contract to Community Playgrounds Inc. for the Paloma Playground Renovation Project (City Project #84940)and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Bid Summary Agreement with Community Playgrounds, Inc Paloma Playground Rendering Adoption of a Resolution Accepting a Habitat Conservation Fund Matching Grant in the Amount of $50,000 for the Mills Canyon Trail Improvements and Authorizing the Citv Manager to Execute the Contract Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Habitat Conservation Fund Contract Issue a Call for Applications to Fill a Vacancy on the Storm Drain Measure Oversight Committee Attachments: Staff Report 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Section 18.07.140 to the Burlinqame Municipal Code Regarding the Implementation of Statewide Standards for the Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance b. Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 3.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding Planning Commission Compensation Attachments: Staff Report Proposed Ordinance 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) City of Burlingame Page 3 Pdmed on 9/28/2017 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final October 2, 2017 a. Update on Eucalyptus Trees on Burlingame Avenue and Easton Drive and Adoption of a Resolution Amending the FY 2017-18 Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program Budget to Add $54,000 from General Fund Reserves to Fund the Removal of Nine of the Trees Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Staff Report from June 19. 2017 Council Meetin Tree Managment Experts Consulting Arborist Report Burlingame Avenue Recommended Tree Removals Easton Drive Recommended Tree Removals 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingarne.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.bullingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday, October 16, 2017 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO "CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS" Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 928/2017 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 'f r BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on September 18, 2017 CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Farris Horak. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. Mayor Ortiz reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. RUDY HORAK PROCLAMATION Mayor Ortiz read a proclamation honoring Rudy Horak's commitment to the City, including serving on the Storm Drain Measure Citizens Oversight Committee, assisting in founding the first Burlingame Pet Parade, and his eagerness to assist in making Burlingame a better place to live and work. The proclamation was presented to Rudy's wife Farris. Vice Mayor Brownrigg offered his thoughts on the great qualities of Rudy Horak and how much he will be missed. 1 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 b. RESIDENTIAL SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPE AWARD Commissioner Kirchner presented the first annual Residential Sustainable Landscape Award to Mike and Chris Reed, owners of 721 Walnut Avenue. Commissioner Kirchner stated that the purpose of the award was to recognize citizens who undertook sustainable landscaping and encourage and educate others on its importance. The Beautification Commission presented Mike and Chris Reed with a beautiful plaque made from a recycled tree. Congratulations! c. FIRST 5 SAN MATEO COUNTY PRESENTATION San Mateo County Supervisor Dave Pine spoke about the importance of early childcare and preschool. He stated that he is hopeful that the State Legislature will increase funding for these programs. However, he explained that the County and municipalities have a shortage of facilities to house early childcare programs. Therefore, he explained the County is meeting with cities to educate communities on the issue and share their recommendations. Kitty Lopez, Executive Director of First 5 San Mateo County, began the presentation by explaining that First 5 was created with the passage of Proposition 10 in 1998. The County utilized the tobacco tax dollars (nearly $7 million a year) to support 0-5 year olds and their families in the areas of health, early learning, and family engagement. She stated that there are approximately 53,000 children between the ages of 0-5 in San Mateo County. Ms. Lopez explained that in 2016, First 5 along with the Childcare Partnership Council and Human Services Agency commissioned a County -wide assessment to better understand the childcare facilities shortage in each municipality. She stated that from this assessment, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation convened a task force (that includes First 5) to propose recommendations on developing more childcare and preschool facilities in the County. Ms. Lopez reviewed the results of the County -wide assessment. She stated that in 2015, the County had a shortage of 10,789 spaces in childcare facilities. This number is predicted to increase to 13,981 in 2025. In Burlingame, the shortage in 2015 was 489 spaces, and it is predicted to increase to 642 in 2025. Ms. Lopez stated that in Burlingame, Palcare is the only facility that has dedicated spaces for low-income children. Currently, Palcare has 12 subsidized spaces for children between the ages of 0 and 2, and 24 subsidized spaces for children between the ages of 3 and 4. Ms. Lopez stated as part of the assessment, providers were interviewed to determine whether they were interested in expanding their site. Approximately 27% of the providers were interested in expansion. She stated that there are a lot of barriers to childcare facilities expanding in the county, including difficulty finding a site, lack of funding, lack of qualified staff, and the planning, zoning, and permitting processes. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 Ms. Lopez reviewed the recommendations from the task force. The first recommendation was to work with cities and the County to include childcare in General Plans, review permitting and zoning policies, and prioritize inclusion of childcare in future developments. The second recommendation was to work across sectors to identify and prioritize unused existing spaces. The third recommendation was to provide technical assistance to employers interested in providing on-site childcare to their employees. Lastly, the fourth recommendation was to pursue local tax measures and assist childcare providers in drawing down funds from already established funds. Councilmember Keighran asked if there was a list of the providers that were willing to expand in Burlingame. Ms. Lopez stated that she would get back to Council with that information. Councilmember Keighran asked if they had done this presentation to school boards and if not she recommended they do so. Ms. Lopez stated that they had not but that it was a great suggestion. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the tension between neighborhoods and childcare facilities that are run out of individuals' homes. He asked if First 5 had any solutions to this issue. Additionally, he asked that the County create a model template on how to make childcare facilities less impactful for neighbors. Ms. Lopez stated that she would get back to Council on these questions. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if the number of spots Palcare reserved for children eligible for subsidies was based on space or money. Ms. Lopez stated that she would need to get back to Council on this question. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed the affordability problem in the county and the city. He stated that an important way to help working families is assisting with childcare programs. Councilmember Colson discussed parking requirements for daycare centers. She stated that the parking ratio puts a burden on childcare centers and is a hindrance on expansion. CDD Meeker will review the City's requirements. Councilmember Beach asked if Burlingame's shortage of 489 spots in 2015 represented the number of children that were eligible for subsidies or represented all children. Ms. Lopez stated that it represented all children. Councilmember Beach asked how many of the 489 children were eligible for subsidies. Ms. Lopez stated that she would get back to Council with that number. Councilmember Keighran stated that Palcare has childcare options for parents who work night shifts. She asked if the study incorporated the number of children that needed to be cared for outside of regular business hours. Ms. Lopez stated that she would get back to Council with an answer. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 Jennifer Devlin discussed her experience running a childcare facility and the issues that providers face from state laws to municipal regulations. PUBLIC COMMENT Burlingame resident Dion Heffernan spoke about the removal of a tree in front of his house and his concern that the proposed replacement tree was too tall. Life Steps Foundation representative Stephen Victoriano discussed his organization's desire to find new space in Burlingame as their lease at their current location is ending. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Ortiz asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Brownrigg pulled item 8d. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt 8a, 8b, 8c, 8e, 8f, 8g, 8h, and 8i; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2017. b. APPROVAL OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT RECREATION COORDINATOR'S OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested approval of the Parks and Recreation Department Recreation Coordinator's out-of-state travel. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SALARY RANGE ADJUSTMENT TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS CLASSIFICATION HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 106-2017. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) WITH THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SMCTA) AND PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD (PCJPB) FOR THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE OF THE BROADWAY GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 107-2017. 4 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 Councilmember Keighran asked how long it will take for the preliminary engineering and environmental phase of the project to be completed. DPW Murtuza stated that the environmental phase takes about 18-24 months. Councilmember Beach stated that the preliminary decision was approved in March 2017 and asked if any work was done while the details of the MOU were being worked out. DPW Murtuza stated that the Transportation Authority approved the funding in March 2017. He stated that since the formal award, a lot of work has been underway between all agencies including the creation of the scope of work. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked why this phase of the project cost $4.35 million. DPW Murtuza explained that during this phase the project would be environmentally cleared. Councilmember Keigbran noted that the City is only responsible for $500,000 of the $4.35 million price -tag. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked if during this phase, design and construction documents would be prepared in order that they may go out to bid. DPW Murtuza responded in the negative stating that this phase was pre - final design. Councilmember Colson asked if there was an estimate on when the project would be completed. DPW Murtuza stated that it depends on when the City acquires funding for the project but that if all funding was in place, he could see the project going into construction in 2025. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 107-2017; seconded by Councihnember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILSEY HAM FOR THE ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR PHASE 3 OF THE SOUTH ROLLINS AREA WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 83522, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 108-2017. E ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SUMMIT DRIVE CULVERT REPAIR PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84100 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 109-2017. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked that the City send thank you notes to the residents on Summit Drive. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 g. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE VANCOUVER BRIDGE REPAIR PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 82580 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 110-2017. h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AT 1499 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY CDD Meeker requested Council adopt Resolution Number 111-2017. L ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSE LETTER TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 44A DELICATE BALANCE: PRIVACY VS PROTECTION" Police Chief Wellman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 112-2017. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-18 Finance Director Augustine presented the staff report requesting adoption of Resolution Number 113-2017 to adopt the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District Assessments for fiscal year 2017- 18. Finance Director Augustine stated that after confirming with the City Clerk, the City received no protests. Mayor Ortiz opened the public hearing for comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 113-2017; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. EXTENSION OF AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE REGULATING CULTIVATION AND PROHIBITING THE MANUFACTURE PROCESSING, LABORATORY TESTING, LABELING STORING WHOLESALE, AND RETAIL DISTRIBUTION OF MARIJUANA IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(a) City Attorney Kane presented the staff report requesting an extension of an interim urgency ordinance regulating cultivation and prohibiting the manufacture, processing, laboratory testing, labeling, storing, 6 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 wholesale, and retail distribution of marijuana in Burlingame pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(a). City Attorney Kane explained that at the November 7, 2016 Council meeting, the City Council enacted the original interim urgency ordinance. The current requested extension would be for a year. City Attorney Kane reviewed the background on the interim urgency ordinance. She explained that last year, Proposition 64 passed, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana under state law. Proposition 64 requires the State to construct a regulatory apparatus by January 2018 to issue licenses for recreational marijuana business and land use. The State took an initial stab at providing guidance on how licenses would be issued in January but has since withdrawn it. Currently, the State is working towards combining the issuance of both recreational and medical marijuana licenses. She explained that many of the neighboring cities are waiting for the State to make decisions prior to enacting their own ordinances. City Attorney Kane explained that under the proposition, cities do retain some local control as to what is allowed within their jurisdictional area. However, pursuant to the proposition, cities must allow six indoor plants per person. Additionally, cities cannot ban marijuana delivery vehicles from moving through the cities. She explained that cities can ban outdoor cultivation and various commercial land uses. City Attorney Kane stated that staff is following how neighboring cines are handling the implementation of Proposition 64. She stated that the Belmont City Council is leaning towards allowing delivery to points within Belmont but is looking at a ban on storefront activities. The San Mateo City Council wants to ban outdoor cultivation and retain all other restrictions. Lastly, she stated that San Mateo County is reviewing how other counties and states have handled legalization with a focus on agricultural lands. City Attorney Kane noted that federal law still prohibits the use, manufacturing, distribution, etc. of marijuana. Therefore, she explained that when addressing the state law there is an inherent conflict with federal law. Councilmember Beach asked if the City Attorney knew when the County would come to a decision. City Attorney Kane stated that County Counsel is unwilling to predict when decisions will be made. Councilmember Keighran discussed the four policy questions that the City Attorney listed in the staff report. The four policy questions are: 1. Should the City allow storefront retail establishments for recreational or medical marijuana? 2. Should the City allow cultivation of marijuana plants outdoors? 3. Should the City allow delivery of marijuana originating outside of the City? 4. Should the City allow manufacture or research and development apart from retail or cultivation? She asked how the City would enforce Council's decisions on these questions. City Attorney Kane stated that the Council would need to consider that aspect of the policy questions. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 Councilmember Keighran asked about Proposition 64's allowance of six indoor plants and how this would be regulated. Additionally she asked how this allowance works in multi -dwelling units and whether landlords could deny people this allowance through their leases. City Attorney Kane stated that she would need to review private lease regulations. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he is concerned that this is the City's final extension. He stated that he isn't certain that the County's decision will aid Council in determining how to answer the above -listed questions. He explained that the County will be more focused on the agricultural land aspect versus commercial business and private cultivation. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Attorney to share what the City's next steps would be for developing and implementing an ordinance under Proposition 64. City Attorney Kane stated that a study session should be scheduled in the spring to discuss the State's progress and review other cities' decisions. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he would like to see the latest reports from Colorado and other communities where this has been in existence to understand the consequences of legalization. Councilmember Colson asked if there is a legal limit on outdoor cultivation. City Attorney Kane stated that there is a personal limit of six plants total. She noted that the City could allow commercial cultivation, which would allow for more than six plants. Councilmember Keighran asked if it is six plants per residence or per person. City Attorney Kane stated that it was six plants per person. Councilmember Keighran stated that Sheriff Bolanos has some presentations about Colorado and unintended consequences and suggested that staff reach out to the Sheriff's office. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Brownrigg discussed how hydroponics was being used in New York City to grow vegetables. He asked that staff review the use of hydroponics in cities. City Attorney Kane stated that this could be a discussion with the zoning updates. Councilmember Beach stated that she believed the City should hold a study session and engage the public on the matter. She explained that it was important to hear from the community and ensure that all were educated on the matter. Councilmember Colson stated that she agreed with Councilmember Beach and wanted to ensure that extensive public outreach is done. Councilmember Keighran agreed that a study session is needed. Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt Ordinance 1945; seconded by Councilmember Keighran. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE PARKS & RECREATION City Manager Goldman presented the staff report concerning consideration of appointments to the Parks & Recreation Commission. She stated that there were two impending vacancies on the Parks & Recreation Commission due to the expiring terms of Commissioners Joseph Dito and Shari Lewis. She explained that the vacancies were publicized and notification letters were sent to past applicants. Commission Dito elected not to reapply. City Manager Goldman stated that four applications were received as of the deadline. The four applicants (Steven Pariani, Emily Burch Matthews, Shari Lewis and Mike Morearty) were interviewed by the Council. Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. CC Hassel -Shearer gave each Councilmember a ballot to vote for two candidates each for a three-year term. She then read the ballot of each Councilmember. Shari Lewis and Emily Burch Matthews were unanimously chosen by the Council. Mayor Ortiz thanked all the candidates for their time. Congratulations to Shari Lewis and Emily Burch Matthews on their appointments to the Parks & Recreation Commission. b. "ENVISION BURLINGAME" — EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS DISCUSSION Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner presented the staff report concerning "Envision Burlingame" — employment projections discussion. He explained that on December 6, 2016, the City Council held a study session to discuss the City's future employment and population growth, and potential development expansion. He stated that a majority of the meeting focused on population growth particularly in terms of how many additional units would be considered in developing the updated General Plan. The City Council and staff determined that up to 2,951 units could be considered for the future population growth. He added that 2,951 units may not be the final number after an EIR is completed. However, he stated that 2,951 was the upper threshold number. Planning Manager Gardiner explained that tonight the staff report focused on employment growth. He stated that at the December meeting, Council was given projected employment growth numbers. However, since that meeting, staff and consultants have refined the employment projections based on modifications to the methodology used. He noted that the residential numbers have not changed because the methodology for Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 projecting residential growth is much more straightforward and simple than commercial and employment growth. Planning Manager Gardiner introduced Dan Amsden from MIG to review the refined employment projections. Mr. Amsden gave a brief background on the population and employment projection process. He stated that in the summer of 2016, initial projections were developed based on CAC and community workshop/survey input regarding land use and growth alternatives. These numbers were presented to the City Council in December 2016, and the population projections and the land use diagram were confirmed for study. He stated that this summer the land use diagram was refined based on work with traffic consultants and the EIR team. Additionally, more detailed assumptions and estimates were made based on the projections related to growth. This resulted in refined employment projections. Mr. Amsden stated that one of the key differences between December's employment projections and the current projections was that consultants began using traffic analysis zones (TAZ). TAZs are tightly -defined geographical areas that correspond to regional traffic models and allow a more fine-grained analysis than the broader application of employment assumptions to land use. Using the TAZs in combination with the land use designations allowed employment ratios and floor area ratios (FAR) to be adjusted for each business district. Mr. Amsden stated that the refined employment projections are most noticeable in the Bayfront area. He stated that the adjustments resulted in a much lower jobs baseline because existing Bayfront office and commercial uses have lower FARs and employment densities than typical commercial or office uses. Mr Amcrlen explained that the refinement resulted in the followinc chances: December 2016 Employment Projections September 2017 Employment Projections Existing 36,810 29,879 General Plan Buildout (2040) 38,356 39,610 Net New 1,547 9,731 Therefore, under the new refined projections, the current employment number is much lower than what it had been projected to be in December. However the employment numbers projected for 2040 are similar to those presented in December. Mr. Amsden stated that the questions staff has for City Council are whether the refinement process makes sense, and should the team proceed with the refined employment projection in the EIR analysis. Mayor Ortiz asked how the projection for current employment went from 36,810 to 29,879. Mr. Amsden stated that the discrepancy was due partially to overestimating the number of employees and also due to refining land uses under the General Plan process. 10 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 Councilmember Beach stated that the new employment projections show an aggressive job growth rate. She discussed job growth concerns including traffic, lack of housing, overcrowding, etc. She asked what the value is in studying these numbers if they are concerned if this might be too much job growth. Dan Amsden stated that the value is that the projected numbers show the upper threshold, which allows them to more accurately review all the potential impacts in the EIR. Councilmember Colson stated that the Home for All initiative has reported that the jobs/housing gap from 2010-2015 was 19 to 1. But the jobs/housing gap from 2010-2014 was 24 to 1. She explained that the numbers reflect the fact that the County is slowly improving. She discussed that in looking at the refined employment growth projections, she wondered where the City was in comparison to the County. She stated that the City's goal should be to keep the jobs/housing gap in Burlingame below the County's reported numbers. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was comfortable with the projections and the uses that the General Plan laid out for the Bayfront. He stated that he believed it makes more sense to look at the jobs/housing gap from a County perspective as opposed to each individual city. Councilmember Keighran stated that she was okay with the numbers with the understanding that it is the upper level. Additionally, she stated she was concerned that the City's current projected employment level had drastically changed with the refinement. Councilmember Colson stated that she agreed with the refinement process. Councilmember Colson asked if the consultants consider legislation like `By -Right Housing" when they create their projections. Mr. Amsden stated that they are aware of the legislation but that the projections are based on the existing data. Councilmember Beach asked if potential future infrastructure projects, such as the Peninsula 101 Interchange project, are considered in the traffic analysis and EIR. Mr. Amsden stated that the analysis takes into account projects in the pipeline that are approved and funded. Mayor Ortiz stated that the new projected growth seems extremely reasonable when considering the projects that are underway for the Bayfront including Topgolf. He wondered if the number might be too conservative and if the employment growth would be more. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what happens if the City goes beyond the projected job growth in the next eight years. CDD Meeker stated that if the City exceeds the upper threshold, any future projects would be required to undertake additional environmental analysis, and the City would have the opportunity to update the General Plan. Councilmember Keighran asked how often cities update General Plans. CDD Meeker stated that General Plans should be reviewed every 10-15 years. 11 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 10/2/17 Mayor Ortiz opened the item for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson made a motion to accept the refinement process and proceed with the refined employment projection numbers in the Environmental Impact Report analysis; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No future agenda items were proposed. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 12 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2017 Unapproved Minutes To: Date: From: Subject: STAFF REPORT Honorable Mayor and City Council August 2, 2017 AGENDA NO: 8b MEETING DATE: October 2, 2017 Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director — (650) 558.7209 Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Side Letter Agreement with the Association of Police Administrators RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend the Memorandum of Understanding for the Association of Police Administrators to include the attached side letter agreement. BACKGROUND The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Association of Police Administrators ("Association") and the City of Burlingame ("City') is set to expire on December 31, 2018. On July 31, 2017, the City received a request from the Association to separate the Association into two separate bargaining units: one to represent the classifications of Police Captain and Police Lieutenant, and one to represent the Police Sergeants. Concurrently, the Association notified the City it would no longer be the exclusive representative for the Police Sergeants. The existing MOU contains certain provisions for wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment that apply solely to the classification of Police Sergeant. The City has recognized the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association as a separate bargaining unit representing the classification of Police Sergeant. The MOU for the Association of Police Administrators no longer covers this classification and needs to be amended accordingly. Therefore, the City and the Association of Police Administrators have agreed to MOU language revisions to remove reference to the Police Sergeant classification from the existing MOU. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. Exhibits: • Resolution • Side Letter Agreement with the Association of Police Administrators RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS WHEREAS, on July 31, 2017 the City received a request from the Association of Police Administrators ("Association") to separate the Association into two separate bargaining units: one to represent the classifications of Police Captain and Police Lieutenant, and one to represent the Police Sergeants; and WHEREAS, concurrently the Association notified the City it would no longer be the exclusive representative for the Police Sergeants; and WHEREAS, the City held meet and confer sessions with the Association of Police Administrators, whose Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) expires on December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, the existing MOU contains certain provisions for wages, benefits, and terms and conditions of employment that apply solely to the classification of Police Sergeant; and WHEREAS, the City has recognized the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association as a separate bargaining unit representing the classification of Police Sergeant; and WHEREAS, the MOU for the Association no longer covers the classification of Police Sergeant and needs to be amended accordingly; and WHEREAS, there is no fiscal impact associated with the amendments; and WHEREAS, the City and the Association of Police Administrators have met and conferred regarding a side letter to amend the MOU to remove provisions directly related to the classification of Police Sergeant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. The amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding for the Association of Police Administrators, set forth in the Side Letter attached as Exhibit A, are approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Side Letter agreement with the Association of Police Administrators. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of October 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME September 15, 2017 On July 31, 2017, the Association of Police Administrators (Association) split into two bargaining units — one with the classifications of Police Captain and Police Lieutenant and the other with the classification of Police Sergeant. Concurrently, the Association notified the City that it would no longer be representing the classification of Police Sergeants. Representatives for the City of Burlingame and representatives for the Association of Police Administrators have met and agree to modify the Memorandum of Understanding between the parties, which expires on December 31, 2018, via this side letter agreement as follows: 1) Amend Section 1 (Recognition) to delete the Police Sergeant classification as follows: rm'xczvcrgca*r� Police Lieutenant Police Captain 2) Amend Section 5 (Salary Plan and Premium Pays) to delete the Police Sergeant classification as follows: Effective the first pay period of January 2014, the following classification shall receive an increase in base salary: Poliee Sergeant 2.5% Police Captain—No increase 5.1 Premium Pays will be provided as follows: .AI... 5.1.3 The City will provide a 5% premium pay differential to employees designated as bi-lingual service providers. Such designation will be pursuant to the City's Administrative Procedure #4.28.1. 3) Amend Section 6 (Days and Hours of Work) to delete the Police Sergeant classification as follows: 6.1 Work Schedule: Work schedule is subject to Department policies and practices. 4) Amend Section 10 (Administrative Leave) to delete the Police Sergeant classification as follows: PeliseSefgeant 64 hours of administrative leffi,e per fiseapfeff Police Lieutenant — 84 hours of administrative leave per fiscal year Police Captains - 84 hours of administrative leave per fiscal year 5) Amend Section 13 (Leaves of Absence) to delete the Police Sergeant classification as follows: 13.2 Military Leaves of Absence: In addition to the leaves of absence herein provided for members of the classified service, those employees in such service who are members of the National Guard or Reserve Corps in the federal Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine or Coast Guard Service shall be entitled to leaves of absence authorized and provided by the military and veterans' code of the State of California, and in addition thereto shall be entitled to the rights and privileges authorized by said military and veterans' code with respect to status and re-employment. If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, please indicate your approval and acceptance in the space provided below. Approved and Accepted: For Police Administrators For City of Burlingame /4 Date: 11 -19. / Date: 9- )c-14 aBURS STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c MEETING DATE: October 2. 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: October 2, 2017 From: Sonya M. Morrison, Human Resources Director — (650) 558-7209 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Burlingame Police Sergeants Association and the City of Burlingame and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Memorandum on Behalf of the Citv RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to adopt the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association and the City of Burlingame and authorize the City Manager to execute the MOU on behalf of the City effective October 2, 2017, through December 31, 2018. The Burlingame Police Sergeants Association (Association) represents the classification of Police Sergeants (six employees). Until September 3, 2017, the Police Sergeants were represented by the Association of Police Administrators (which includes.the classifications of Captain and Lieutenant). The Police Sergeants sought to withdraw from the Association of Police Administrators, and on September 3, 2017, the City recognized them as a separate bargaining unit. The newly formed Association met with representatives for the City and agreed to continue the same wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment they have been receiving, with no changes. The parties agreed to an initial MOU for the Association that mirrors that of the Association of Police Administrators they were formerly subject to. This is within the authority provided by the City Council. DISCUSSION The major terms of the new agreement are identical to those included in the agreement with the Association of Police Administrators and are as follows: Term: Expires December 31, 2018. Police Sergeants MOU October 2, 2017 Salary: • 2.0 % increase effective the first pay period in January 2018 Medical: • The City will contribute up to the Blue Shield HMO rate for employee only, up to the Blue Shield rate for employee plus one, and up to the Kaiser Family rate for employee plus two or more. • Any employee that enrolls in a medical plan that has a higher premium than the City's contribution will pay the difference via pre-tax payroll deductions. • Employees who demonstrate that they have medical insurance from another source will receive $200 per month in lieu of medical benefits. The funds may be placed into a deferred compensation plan, Section 125 plan, or taken in cash. Vision: • Reimbursement of $600 per year for hardware, $100 per year for eye exam, and a cumulative maximum of $350 for all dependents. Dental: • Reimbursement of $1,250 per year per person; $2,000 orthodontics matching reimbursement (lifetime). Administrative Leave: • 64 hours per fiscal year. Life Insurance: • $100,000—City-paid premium. Deferred Compensation: • $30 per pay period City match. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. Exhibits: • Resolution • Memorandum of Understanding RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association (Association) represents the Police Department Police Sergeants, a unit that includes six employees; and WHEREAS, the Police Sergeants were represented by the Association of Police Administrators until September 3, 2017, when the City recognized them as a separate bargaining unit; and WHEREAS, the City and the Association have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as provided by State law; and WHEREAS, the City and the Association have reached agreement on terms and conditions of employment and on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Association; and WHEREAS, the MOU mirrors the terms and conditions the Sergeants received under the Association of Police Administrators MOU and there is no fiscal impact. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The terms and conditions of employment for the employees represented by the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association as contained in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association and the City of Burlingame effective October 2, 2017, through December 31, 2018, are approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the attached Memorandum of Understanding between the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association and the City of Burlingame. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of October 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME OCTOBER 2,2017- DECEMBER 31, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. RECOGNITION..............................................4 2. ASSOCIATION DUES AND RIGHTS ............................... 4 3. NO DISCRIMINATION ......................................... 5 4. ADVANCE NOTICE...........................................6 5. SALARY PLAN AND PREMIUM PAYS ..............................6 6. DAYS AND HOURS OF WORK ................................... 7 7. COURT PAY................................................8 8. HOLIDAYS..................................................9 9. VACATION..................................................9 10. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE ..................................... 10 11. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT ................................... 10 12. SICK LEAVE...............................................10 13. LEAVES OF ABSENCE.......................................11 14. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE .................................... 13 15. HEALTH AND WELFARE......................................16 16. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE ...................................... 19 2- 17. PROBATIONARY PERIOD ..................................... 20 18. LAYOFF AND RECALL........................................20 19. DEMOTION, SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEES...............................................21 20. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY BUSINESS ................. 22 21. LIVING DISTANCE ........................................... 22 22. SENIORITY................................................22 23. RESIGNATION ..............................................23 24. RETIREMENT..............................................23 25. CONCERTED ACTIVITIES ..................................... 24 26. NO LOCKOUT..............................................24 27. RIGHTS...................................................24 28. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT .....................................25 30. TOTAL AGREEMENT.........................................25 31. SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS ................................ 25 32. TERM....................................................25 APPENDIX A ....................................................27 Salary Schedule........................................................27 Grievance Form........................................................28 -3- The Burlingame Police Sergeants Association and representatives of the City of Burlingame have met and conferred in good faith regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment of employees in the representation unit listed in Section 1, have freely exchanged information, opinions and proposals and have endeavored to reach agreement on all matters relating to the employment conditions and employer- employee relations of such employees. This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act and has been jointly prepared by the parties. RECOGNITION The Burlingame Police Sergeants Association, hereinafter referred to as the "Association", is recognized as the majority representative, as provided in the City's Employer -Employee Relations Ordinance, for all employees assigned to the following classifications: Police Sergeant 2. ASSOCIATION DUES AND RIGHTS 2.1 The Association shall be entitled to have their regular dues of its members deducted from their paychecks. 2.2 Bargaining unit members shall be entitled to have dues deducted byfilling out, signing and filing with the City an authorization form provided by the Association. Any employee who signs such an authorization shall not revoke such authorization during the term of this Memorandum, except during the following time periods: 2.2.1 His/her first thirty (30) calendar days of employment; 2.2.2 The first thirty (30) calendar days following approval of this Memorandum by City Council; 2.2.3 The thirty (30) calendar day period between ninety (90) calendar days and sixty (60) calendar days preceding the expiration of this Memorandum of Understanding. Revocation during said period shall be by a written signed statement furnished by the Association. 2.3 The employee's earnings must be regularly sufficient after other legal and required deductions are made to cover the amount of the dues check -off authorized. When a member is in good standing of the Association and is in a non -pay status for the pay period when his/her dues would normally be withheld, no dues withholding will attach to future earnings nor will the member be required to deposit the amount with the City which would have -4- been withheld if the member had been in a pay status during that period. In the case of an employee who is in a non -pay status during only a part of the pay period and the salary is not sufficient to cover the full withholding, no deduction shall be made. In this connection, all other legal and required deduction(s) shall be made. In this connection, all other legal and required deductions have priority over Association dues. 2.4 Dues withheld by the City shall be transmitted monthly to the officer designated in writing by the Association as the person authorized to receive the funds, at the address specified. 2.5 The Association shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless against any claims made and against any suit instituted against the City on account of check -off of employee organization dues. In addition, the Association shall refund to the City any amounts paid to it in error upon presentation of supporting evidence. In the event the City fails to collect an employee's Association dues, the City shall transmit delinquent dues to the Association collected from future employee payroll deductions. 2.6 The Association may use portions of City bulletin boards to post Association materials under the following conditions: 2.6.1 All materials must receive the approval of the Police Chief or his/her designee in charge of the department bulletin board for conformance with this section. 2.6.2 All materials must be dated and must identify the organization that published them; 2.6.3 The City reserves the right to determine where bulletin boards shall be placed. 2.7 The Association shall designate in writing to the City Manager or his/her designee the names of the Association officers and representatives within thirty (30) days of any change in officers or representatives. 3. NO DISCRIMINATION The City agrees not to discriminate against any employee because of membership in the Association or because of any activities on behalf of the Association. Association activities shall not interfere with the normal operation of the City. Neither the City nor the Association shall discriminate for or against any employee or applicant for employment on account of race, color, creed, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability which does not prevent an employee from meeting the minimum job standards established. -5- 4. ADVANCE NOTICE Except in cases of emergency, the Association shall be given reasonable advance written notice of any ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation directly relating to matters within the scope of representation proposed to be adopted by the City and shall be given the opportunity to meet and confer with management representatives prior to adoption. 5. SALARY PLAN AND PREMIUM PAYS Effective the first pay period of January 2014, the following classification shall receive an increase in base salary: Police Sergeant - 2.5% Effective the first pay period of January 2015, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.0%; however, 0.5% of the 2.0% salary increase shall offset the City's cost of medical premiums, such that the actual increase to base salary shall be 1.5%. Effective the first pay period of January 2016, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.0%. Effective the first pay period of January 2017, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 1.0%. Effective the first pay period of January 2018, there shall be an increase in base salary for all classes of 2.5%; however, 0.5% of the 2.5% salary increase shall offset the City's cost of medical premiums, such that the actual increase to base salary shall be 2.0%. 5.1 Premium Pays will be provided as follows: 5.1.1 A sergeant assigned to a shift from 18:00 — 06:00 shall receive a 6% shift differential. 5.1.2 A sergeant that is not assigned to the shift defined above will qualify for a 6% shift differential if more than one-half ('h) of the sergeant's shift is from 18:00 — 06:00. The differential will apply to the entire shift. If less than one-half (1/2) the shift is between 18:00 - 06:00, the differential will only apply to the hours worked within 18:00 - 06:00. 5.1.3 The City will provide a 5% premium pay differential to employees designated as bi-lingual service providers. Such designation will be pursuant to the City's Administrative Procedure #4.28.1. 5.1.4 Sergeants assigned to Detective, Traffic, Administrative Services and 3 Crime Prevention shall receive a 7.0% differential. In exchange for this differential, Sergeants assigned to Traffic, Administrative Services and Crime Prevention will forego 16 hours of Paid Administrative Leave. 5.1.5 The education increment for POST certifications shall be considered as wages for the purposes of computing overtime and holiday pay. 5.1.5.1 An employee with a POST certificate shall receive a premium pay differential in the following amounts: POST Advance Certificate = $430/month POST Supervisory Certificate = $700/month POST Management Certificate = $885/month Effective June 26, 2017 the POST certificate pay will be: POST Advance Certificate = $468.70 POST Supervisory Certificate=$763.00 POST Management Certificate=$924.82 5.2 Hourly Rate of Pay The hourly rate of pay for unit members shall be calculated bi-weekly. The rates of pay set forth herein represent, for each classification, the standard rate of pay for full-time employment, except for overtime compensation, any applicable premium pay and other benefits specifically provided for by the City, unless specifically indicated otherwise in the schedule. 5.3 Acting Pay Any regular full-time unit member who is assigned to work in an upgraded position/classification within the unit fora limited duration shall receive a fifteen percent (15%) increase for the duration of the (acting) assignment. 6. DAYS AND HOURS OF WORK 6.1 Work Schedule: Work schedule is subject to Department policies and practices. 6.2 Overtime Definition: Overtime is authorized time worked in excess of an employee's normal daily work schedule. 6.2.1 Effective April 15, 2002 the Department will implement an Alternative Work Schedule Program. Once implemented, Sergeants who are assigned to 12 -hour shifts will be authorized overtime for time worked in excess of 12 hours in a day. Overtime shall be compensated at one and one-half (1-1/2) times the -7- 7 employee's regular rate of pay for every hour of overtime worked. Payment for overtime shall not be made unless such overtime has been authorized by the City prior to such overtime being worked. 6.2.2 Overtime details are assigned in accordance with Section 1037 of the Burlingame Police Manual, Department Standard Operating Procedures. 6.3 Compensatory Time Off: Compensatory Time Off shall be allowed to accrue to a maximum of 160 hours. 6.4 Shooting Range Time: Any represented employee who is required to attend the shooting range on off-duty time shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one-half (1%) for shooting at the range with a minimum of two (2) hours. 6.5 Call Back: Employees shall be eligible for call back time if they are called back to work with less than 48 hours notice. Call back time shall be paid at time and one- half (1'/z) with a four-hour minimum. 6.6 Paid Work Details: Employees who volunteer for Paid Work Details outside their scheduled hours shall receive payment in accordance with Section 6.2 Overtime Definition for a minimum of three (3) hours or actual time worked whichever is greater. If an employee is mandatory assigned to Paid Work Detail, then the employee shall be compensated in accordance with Section 6.5 Call Back. COURT PAY Any represented employee who is required to be in court on off-duty time as part of his/her job duties shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one-half (1'/z) for all court time with a minimum entitlement of three (3.0) hours at time and one-half (1'/Z). In addition, such employee shall be entitled to a maximum of one (1) hour of total travel time at time and one-half (1'/z) for such court appearance, unless the employee utilizes a City vehicle to travel to court. It is understood that a represented employee who is required to appear in court during his/her shift and who is required to stay beyond the end of his/her shift, shall be entitled to pay at the rate of time and one- half (1'/2), but shall not be entitled to any minimum number of hours or to any travel time. 8. HOLIDAYS 8.1 Holiday Pay: Employees will receive 112 hours of holiday pay per year. Effective 1/1/03, the City agrees to pay out holiday pay over 26 pay periods. Holiday pay will be calculated by converting the number of observed and floating holidays in a calendar year to hours and multiplying that number by the employee's hourly rate. The figure derived will be divided by 26 pay periods. 8.2 Mandatory Overtime on Holidays: Double time will be paid to any personnel who are ordered to work (mandatory) overtime on the following four holidays: New Year's Day, July 4th Thanksgiving and Christmas. 9. VACATION 9.1 Vacation Eligibility: Employees shall be entitled to annual vacation leave with pay as it is accrued. 9.2 Vacation Schedule: Years of Service Bi -Weekly Accrual Rate Annual Hours of Vacation 4 & fewer 4.00 104 5 4.93 128 10 6.46 168 15 7.45 194 On an employee's 20th anniversary date of employment with the City of Burlingame, the employee will receive a one-time allotment of 16 hours of vacation in his/her vacation accrual bank. This allotment will be provided to current active Association members that have 20 or more years of service. 9.3 Vacation Accumulation: Earned vacation time may be accumulated to a maximum of two (2) times the employee's annual accrual. Once in a calendar year (January — December), an employee who has reached the maximum vacation accrual may request to be paid -out Forty (40) hours of accrued vacation time. Such payout is subject to the Police Chiefs approval. 9.4 Vacation During Leave of Absence: An employee who is on leave of absence without pay shall not accrue vacation leave benefits. 9.5 Vacation Scheduling: Vacations shall be scheduled bi-yearly by employees with the approval of the Police Chief or his/her designee. Scheduling shall be done in accordance with Sections 1015 of the Burlingame Police Manual, Department Standard Operating Procedures. Unit members shall be allowed to change scheduled vacation days if an opening exists on the vacation schedule, provided that the Chief or his/her designee is given notice forty-eight (48) hours in advance of such proposed change. 10. ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE In lieu of overtime, Police Sergeants receive 64 hours of administrative leave per fiscal year and are entitled to overtime. Administrative leave is prorated based on the date of promotion. 10.1 Administrative Leave Payout Employees eligible for administrative leave may have a maximum of one year of administrative leave on the books and may request administrative leave payout at any time by submitting the payout request on the timesheet. When administrative leave balances exceed the one-year maximum of 64 hours for Police Sergeants, hours that exceed the one-year maximum will automatically be paid out. 11. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT The City will reimburse employees up to $3000 a year for the cost of tuition, and up to $500 a year for the cost of books and/or computer equipment and programs. Credit/No credit courses will be reimbursed when verification of course credit is submitted. 12. SICK LEAVE 12.1 Sick Leave Defined: Sick Leave is absence from duty with pay because of an employee's illness or injury; or to attend medical, dental, or optical examinations or treatments for the employee; or to care for an immediate family member who is ill and requires the employee's care. Sick leave shall not be considered as a right that an employee may use at his/her discretion, but shall be allowed in case of necessity and actual personal or immediate family illness. 12.2 Sick Leave Accrual: All full time regular and probationary members shall accrue sick leave at the rate of 3.69 hours per bi-weekly pay period to a maximum of 2080 hours. An employee who is on paid leave shall continue to earn sick leave credit. An employee who is on leave without pay shall not accrue sick leave credit. Sick leave shall accrue during an absence that is a result of occupational disability resulting from employer service. 10- 13. 12.3 Maximum Sick Leave Accrual: Sick Leave with pay shall be granted to all full-time regular and probationary employees to a maximum of 2080 hours. 12.4 Notification of Sickness: Sick leave usage will be in conformance with the Police Manual Standard operating Procedure Section 1014 12.5 Sick Leave Monitoring Program: The record keeping to determine sick days used will be from January 1 to December 31 of each year. Sick leave monitoring will be in accordance with the Department's standard operating procedures. 12.6 Sick Leave for Care of Family: Sick leave to care for family members will be in conformance with the City's Administrative Procedure, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and other federal and state leave requirements. Generally, these laws grant up to twelve (12) weeks of leave in a twelve (12) month period, to care for members of the employee's immediate family. Employees who feel they may need to exercise their rights for extended family medical leaves should talk to their supervisors and/or the Human Resources Department. The immediate family shall consist of the spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, domestic partners, and stepchildren. The employer shall grant such sick leave only for the purposes of sickness or disability as provided above when the relationship of the sick or disabled person to the employee warrants such use of accumulated sick leave. 12.7 Sick Leave Upon Retirement: Upon retirement, the employee shall be entitled to and be compensated for up to 600 hours of the employee's accumulated sick leave. 12.8 Sick Leave Conversion: Employees can elect to have all sick leave hours converted to CalPERS credible service per GC Section 20965. If an employee elects to have sick leave hours paid out per Section 12.7, the remaining sick leave balance not paid out is eligible for conversion to credible service per GC Section 20965. The maximum available for conversion after payout is 2080 hours. Any sick leave hours paid out at retirement are not eligible for conversion. LEAVES OF ABSENCE 13.1 Industrial Accident Leave: Industrial accident leave means the absence from duty of an employee -11- because of work -incurred illness or bodily injury when such absence has been accepted for coverage under the provisions of the Worker's Compensation laws of the State of California, and such leave shall not be deducted from the employee's sick leave balance. Police unit members shall be provided benefits pursuant to Section 4850 of the Labor Code of the State of California and other applicable State law. All temporary disability benefits shall be assigned to the City. 13.1.1 Benefits During Disability: No represented employee shall be denied the normal accrual of vacation or sick leave benefits during a period of disability covered by Section 4850 of the Labor Code. While covered by Section 4850, all benefits, which include medical, dental, vision, and life insurance are continued. 13.2 Military Leaves of Absence: In addition to the leaves of absence herein provided for members of the classified service, those Sergeants/Commanders or employees in such service who are members of the National Guard or Reserve Corps in the federal Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine or Coast Guard Service shall be entitled to leaves of absence authorized and provided by the military and veterans' code of the State of California, and in addition thereto shall be entitled to the rights and privileges authorized by said military and veterans' code with respect to status and re-employment. 13.3 Other Leaves of Absence With or Without Pay: The City Manager may, for good cause, grant other leaves of absence with or without pay for up to one (1) year. 13.4 Jury Duty Leave: Every full-time employee of the City who is called and required to serve as a trial juror shall be entitled to jury duty leave during the period of such service or while necessarily being present in court as a result of such call. Under such circumstances, the employee shall be paid his/her full salary and shall reimburse the City any payments received, except for travel pay. 13.5 Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL): Failure on the part of any employee, to report to duty at his/her regularly scheduled starting time shall be considered absence without official leave and may be cause for disciplinary action. 13.6 Bereavement Leave: In the event of a death in the immediate family or a member of the household of an employee, absence from duty shall not exceed three (3) work days. In the event of the death of a relative not a member of the immediate family, absence from duty shall not exceed one (1) day. Such absences shall not be -12- charged to sick leave. In the event of the death of a non -family member, an employee shall be allowed to use vacation or CTO. For the purposes of this section, "immediate family" means parent, spouse, domestic partner, child, sibling, grandparents, mother-in-law, or father-in-law. 14. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 14.1 Definitions: 14.1.1 "Days" as used herein shall be days when the City Hall of the City of Burlingame is open for business. 14.1.2 "Grievance" is a written allegation by a unit employee, submitted as herein specified, claiming violation(s) of the specific express terms of this Agreement for which there is no Civil Service or other specific method of review provided by City law. 14.1.3 "Grievant' is an individual employee or employee organization adversely affected by any dispute over the interpretation or application of any provision of this Memorandum of Understanding. 14.2 Steps: 14.2.1 Step 1: The grievant shall discuss the grievance with his/her immediate supervisor within fifteen (15) days of actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the grievance. If the issue is not resolved, the grievant shall be entitled to proceed to Step 2. 14.2.2 Step 2: Within ten (10) days of the conclusion of the Step 1 meeting, the grievant shall file with the Police Chief a written grievance on the agreed upon form, which is attached as "Appendix A," setting forth the following: Name Classification Section or sections of the MOU allegedly violated Remedy sought Within ten (10) days of receipt of the written grievance, the Police Chief will meet with the grievant and his/her representative to attempt to reach a satisfactory resolution. 14.2.3 Step 3: If the grievance remains unresolved at Steps 1 and 2, it may be appealed to the Human Resources Director within ten (10) days of the conclusion for the meeting described in Step 3. Said appeal shall be -13- in the form of a written request to proceed to Step 3, along with the written grievance. The Human Resources Director shall respond to the grievance within ten (10) days of receipt of the written appeal. The determination of the Human Resources Director shall be final, except as provided in Step 4. 14.2.4 Step 4: (a) If not satisfied with the decision at Step 3, the grievant, within five (5) days after receipt of the Step 3 response, may request in writing that the Association submit the grievance to advisory arbitration. Within ten (10) days of the grievant's receipt of the decision at Step 3, the Association shall inform the City of its intent as to whether or not the grievance will be arbitrated. Should the Association deem that the grievance not be continued as an Association grievance, it shall so inform the City within ten (10) days. This shall not preclude an individual grievant from pursuing the arbitration procedure, as provided below. (b) The Association or individual grievant, by written notice to the City Manager within fifteen (15) days of the Step 3 response, may submit a grievance to an arbitrator who shall be selected by mutual agreement. If no agreement can be reached within five (5) days of the notice, the parties shall request of the State Mediation Conciliation Service (SMCS) a list of five (5) names of persons experienced in hearing grievances. Each party shall alternately strike a name until only one name remains. The order of strike shall be determined by lot. (c) In each dispute, the arbitrator shall, as soon as possible, hear evidence and render a decision on the issue(s) submitted. If the parties cannot agree upon a submission agreement, the arbitrator shall determine the issue(s) by referring to the written grievance and the answers thereto at each step. After the hearing, and after both parties have been given the opportunity to make written arguments, the arbitrator shall submit, in writing, his/her findings and award to the Association and the City. (d) The award of the arbitrator shall be advisory to the City Manager. (e) The arbitrator will have no power to add to, subtract from, or modify the terms of the Agreement or the written policies, rules, regulations and procedures of the City; nor shall the arbitrator be empowered to render a decision on issues not before the arbitrator or on facts not supported by the evidence. (f) The fees and expenses of the arbitrator and each hearing shall be borne equally by the City and the Association; or if an individual 14- pursues arbitration without the Association's consent, said individual shall share equally in the cost with the City. All other expenses shall be borne by the party incurring them. (g) If any question arises regarding the arbitrability of a grievance, the party raising the question of arbitrability may, upon request, have such question first ruled upon and decided by an arbitrator prior to any other hearing on the merits of the grievance that would thereafter be conducted by a second and different arbitrator. The selection of the arbitrator will be as described in Section 14.2.5 (b) above. The fees and expenses of the separate arbitrator deciding the issue or arbitrability shall be borne by the party that raised the question of arbitrability. 14.3 Failure to Pursue: 14.3.1 Any failure by a grievant to pursue his/her grievance to the next step within the time limits shall be a voluntary abandonment of the grievance and the grievant shall not thereafter be entitled to pursue said grievance. The grievance will be deemed settled. 14.3.2 Any failure by the City to respond within the time limits set forth shall entitle the grievant to pursue his/her grievance to the next step. 14.3.3 By mutual written consent by both the City and grievant, an extension can be granted for any step in the grievance process. 14.4 Representation: 14.4.1 A grievant shall be entitled to be represented by his/her Association and/or his/her attorney at any grievance meeting or discussion described in any one (1) of the steps of the grievance procedure; provided, however, in no event shall more than one (1) City employee, in addition to the grievant, attend such grievance meetings as representative. The limitations of this Section shall apply to employees on paid release time and not to Association staff or witnesses who may be necessary to the grievance. 14.4.2 Neither the grievant nor his/her representative shall suffer loss or pay for attending the meetings described in the steps of the grievance procedure. 14.4.3 Except for grievance meetings described in the steps of the grievance procedure, neither grievant nor any representative of the grievant shall be entitled to use regular work time to process the grievance. 14.5 Other Procedures: The grievance procedure set forth herein shall supersede and replace any -15- other grievance or appeal procedures otherwise available to represented employees and are deemed sufficient to satisfy procedural due process requirements for such hearings and/or appeals. Nothing contained herein to the grievance procedure shall apply to employee disciplinary matters. 15. HEALTH AND WELFARE 15.1 Flexible Benefits Plan: Under the Flexible Benefit Plan the City's monthly contribution for the individual employee and the employee's eligible dependents shall be One Hundred and nineteen dollars ($119.00) per month effective January 1, 2014 and shall adjust in accordance with the Minimum Employer Contribution (MEC) established by the Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act. In addition, the City shall offer an Internal Revenue Code Section 125 Plan that contains the components of benefit allowance, premium conversion, health care reimbursement account, and dependent care reimbursement account. The City shall contribute the below -listed amount per month toward each employee's Section 125 Plan benefit allowance components. All amounts listed below include the Minimum Employer Contribution (MEC): Employee only: Blue Shield HMO rate for Employee only Employee plus one: Blue Shield HMO rate for Employee plus one Employee plus two or more: Kaiser family rate An employee may use any benefit allowance stated above toward the cost of employer-provided PERS Health insurance for the employee and eligible dependents. An employee may not use the benefit allowance for other reasons. Any employee that enrolls in a Medical Plan that has a higher premium than the City's contribution, as stated above, will pay the difference via pre-tax payroll deductions. NO PLAN — Any employee that demonstrates they have medical insurance from another service will receive two hundred dollars ($200) per month in lieu of medical benefits. The two hundred dollars ($200) per month may be put into a deferred compensation plan, Section 125 Plan, or taken in cash. Any cash payment is subject to normal taxation. Effective January 1, 2015, the City's contribution in lieu of medical benefits will increase to three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00) per month. 15.2 Retiree Medical Benefits 15.2.1 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to June 26, 2006 Who 16- Retire Prior to January 1 2014 (Tier 1): Employees hired prior to June 26, 2006 who retire prior to January 1, 2014 with a minimum of five (5) years of service with the City, will receive a retiree medical benefit equivalent to the amount necessary for actual enrollment in single, two-party, or family coverage, up to a maximum dollar amount of the Kaiser family premium rate. 15.2.2 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired Prior to June 26 2006 Who Retire On or After January 1, 2014 (Tier 1 a): Effective January 1, 2014, employees hired prior to June 26, 2006, who retire from the City with five (5) years of City service, will receive a retiree medical benefit in accordance with the following: For eligible retirees, the City contribution will be equivalent to the Bay Area Region premiums for Blue Shield Access HMO Single, Blue Shield Two -Party, or Kaiser Family coverage as applicable. For eligible retirees who are 65 years of age or older and enrolled in Medicare, the City contribution will be equivalent to the Medicare supplement plan premium for the Bay Area Region for Blue Shield Access HMO Single, Blue Shield Two -Party, or Kaiser Family coverage as applicable. If the Blue Shield Access HMO or Kaiser is no longer offered by CaIPERS medical, the employee will receive the contribution equal to the third highest cost plan offered by CaIPERS medical. 15.2.3 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired After June 26. 2006 and Before November 1, 2010 (Tier 2): Employees hired on or after June 26, 2006 (the date of implementation of the 3.0% @50 Retirement Benefit) and before November 1, 2010, will receive retiree medical contributions based on years of service with the Police Department. The retiree medical contribution for employees who have a service retirement will be as follows: Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0 -end of gth year Minimum monthly amount as governed by the of service CaIPERS Health System. 10 years to the 50% of the lowest medical premium provided end of the 14th through CalPERS approved medical providers year of service for employee +1 dependent. 15 years to the 75% of the lowest medical premium provided _17_ Years of Service Monthly Contribution end of the 19th through CaIPERS approved medical providers year of service for employee +1 dependent. 20 years of 100% of the lowest medical premium provided service or more through CalPERS approved medical providers 0 -end of 19th for employee +1 dependent. 15.2.4 Industrial Disability Retiree Medical Benefits for Employees Hired On or After June 26 2006 and Before November 1, 2010 (Tier 2): This section does not affect employees hired before June 26, 2006. For employees hired before June 26, 2006, the City's contribution for health insurance premiums shall equal the amount received by active employees. Employees hired after the implementation of 3% @50 (June 26, 2006) and before November 1, 2010 that have an industrial disability retirement will have a retiree medical contribution as follows: Years of Monthly Contribution Service 0 -end of 19m 75% of the lowest medical premium provided year of service through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent. 0 -end of 19th 100% of the lowest medical premium provided year of service through CalPERS approved medical providers for employee +1 dependent if the disability is the direct result of performing a specific job task unique to that of a Police Officer (examples include, but are not limited to, operation of an emergency vehicle, involvement in a shooting, apprehension of a suspect, rescue of a citizen, assault by a suspect or other individual or direct involvement in a vehicle accident). 20 years of 100% of the lowest medical premium provided service or through CalPERS approved medical providers for more employee +1 dependent. 15.2.5 Retiree Medical for Employees Hired On or After November 1 2010 Tier 3): Employees hired on or after November 1, 2010 shall receive the following contributions to a Retirement Health Savings Account (RHSA), based on years of service with the Police Department, in lieu of the Retiree Medical Benefits in Section 15.2.1, 15.2.2 and 15.2.3. 18- Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0- to the end of the 5th year of service 0.0% 6 years of service to the end of the 19th year of service 2.0% 20 years of service or more 2.5% 15.3 Dental: The City will continue to provide dental coverage provided through Delta Dental. 15.4 Vision: The Association will continue vision coverage under the City's self-insured vision pool. 15.5 Life Insurance: During the term hereof, the City agrees to provide life insurance to the extent of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) coverage for members of the bargaining unit. The City also agrees to offer supplemental life insurance. The cost for supplemental life insurance will be paid for by the employee through payroll deduction. 15.6 Deferred Compensation: Full time regular employees are eligible, subject to IRS regulations and the terms and conditions thereof, to participate in the deferred compensation plans made available to all city employees. Effective January 1, 2006, the City shall provide a matching contribution of up to forty-five dollars ($45.00) per pay period to an employee's deferred compensation account. 15.7 Section 125 Flexible Benefit Plans: The City will provide dependent daycare reimbursement and healthcare reimbursement plans per the provisions of IRS Section 125. 16. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE Effective January 1, 2008 the City agrees to pay one thousand and sixty dollars ($1,060) annually per employee. Effective June 26, 2017, uniform allowance will be paid bi-weekly with the regular payroll check. 19- 16.1 It is understood that the City shall provide and maintain all employees with required safety equipment. Any failure or refusal by any employee to care for and maintain a proper uniform or equipment shall be deemed cause for discipline. 17. PROBATIONARY PERIOD 17.1 All original appointments shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of twelve (12) months of actual service from the date of appointment as a Sergeant. Upon satisfactory completion of such probationary period, employees shall be appointed as regular employees. 17.2 The City may extend the probationary period for an equal period of time in case of an absence of thirty (30) days or more for extended sick or accident leave. 17.3 Employees maybe suspended or separated from the City at anytime during the probationary period, except as otherwise provided by law. 17.4 All promotional appointments shall be tentative and subject to a probationary period of one (1) yearfrom date of appointment. Upon satisfactory completion of such probationary period, employees shall be appointed as regular employees. 17.5 Any regular employee rejected during the probationary period following a promotional appointment, or prior to the conclusion of the probationary period, shall be reinstated to the position from which they were promoted unless conditions warrant their dismissal. 18. LAYOFF AND RECALL 18.1 Permanent employees may be laid off, without prejudice, due to lack of funds or curtailment of work. No permanent employee, however, may be separated while there are temporary employees serving in the same class or position in the City service, unless that employee has been offered the temporary work. 18.2 When the Police Chief is instructed by the City Manager to reduce the number of employees, layoff shall be made in accordance with the following rules: 18.2.1 Layoffs shall be according to reverse order of seniority as defined by total City service. 18.2.2 An employee may demote or transfer to a vacant position for which he/she possesses the necessary skills as determined by the minimum qualifications and job specifications for the position. -20- 18.2.3 The name of each employee laid off shall be entered on a Reemployment List in order of seniority for two (2) years 18.2.4 Former employees appointed from a reemployment eligibility list shall be restored all rights accrued prior to being laid off, such as sick leave, vacation credits, and credit for years of service. However, such reemployed employees shall not be eligible for benefits for which they received compensation at the time of or subsequent to the date they were laid off. 18.2.5 The City further agrees to meet and confer with the Association and reach mutual agreement prior to said layoff concerning all ramifications of the proposed layoff. 19. DEMOTION, SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL OF PERMANENT EMPLOYEES 19.1 Demotion: No permanent employee shall be demoted in grade or pay step for disciplinary reasons without just cause, and no employee shall be demoted to a position for which he does not possess the minimum qualifications. Written notice of demotion shall be given by the Police Chief to the employee before the effective date of the demotion. The employee shall be entitled to appeal the action in accordance with Section 19.5 of this Agreement. 19.2 Suspension Without Pay: The Police Chief may suspend without pay an employee from his position at any time for disciplinary purposes. Suspension without pay shall not exceed thirty (30) calendar days without confirmation by the City Manager. Such suspension shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. The employee shall be entitled to appeal the action in accordance with Section 19.5 of this agreement. 19.3 Discharge: A permanent employee may be discharged for just cause. Such discharge shall be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. The employee shall be entitled to appeal the action in accordance with Section 19.5 of this agreement. 19.4 The Police Chief will issue a notice of Intended Discipline before suspending without pay, demoting or discharging a Police Officer. Such notice will advise the employee of his/her due process rights to a "Skelly" hearing. At the employee's request, the Police Chief will conduct such a "Skelly" hearing to consider any exonerating or mitigating evidence. 19.5 Within five (5) business days upon receipt of the Notice of Imposition of Discipline, the employee, by written notice to the Human Resources -21- Director, may request an appeal hearing be submitted to an ad hoc review board. Business days are defined as days that City Hall is open to the public. The ad hoc review board shall be selected as follows: The City shall select one member, the employee shall select one member and the two members thus chosen will select a third impartial member from a list supplied by the State Mediation Conciliation Service (SMCS) who will serve as Chair of the board. SMCS will supply a list of five names of persons experienced in disciplinary hearings. Each party shall alternately strike a name until one remains. The remaining panel member shall be the third member of the ad hoc review board. The order of the striking shall be determined by lot. The City will pay the fees of the panel Chair selected from SMCS. The board shall, as soon as possible, hear and receive evidence and render a decision on the disciplinary action. Such a hearing will not be open to the public and will be recorded by a Court Reporter paid for by the City. The disciplinary action can be upheld, modified, or rejected by the panel. The board's decision will be explained in writing and any changes or modifications to the disciplinary action clearly explained. The decision by the board is advisory to the Human Resources Director. The Human Resources Director can adopt the proposed decision in its entirety; reject the proposed decision; refer the case back to the panel to take additional evidence and then render a decision; or modify the decision. 20. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FOR CITY BUSINESS If prior approval has been obtained from the City, personal expenses incurred shall be reimbursed. These reimbursements shall be based on the most economical means of travel but if use of a personal auto is authorized, payment shall be at the same rate established by the IRS. Upon prior department head authorization, the cost of food at meetings shall be reimbursed. If required to stay overnight or nights, the City shall reimburse the employee for all lodging and necessary expenses. 29. LIVING DISTANCE The living area requirement is within the ten bay area counties (San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and San Joaquin), except as may be agreed to by the City Manager. 22. SENIORITY Seniority begins on the first day of permanent employment with the City of Burlingame. If an employee is rehired after separating service for more than six (6) months, the prior employment shall not be attributed for seniority purposes. The -22- City shall keep an up-to-date seniority list of all employees covered by this Agreement. 23. RESIGNATION In order to leave the Department in good standing, an employee shall file with the Police Chief a written resignation. The written resignation must be submitted within two (2) weeks of separation and shall state the effective date and reasons for leaving. Once the resignation has been accepted in writing by the Police Chief, it shall be irrevocable. 24. RETIREMENT The City agrees to continue to maintain a contract with the Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) to provide: 24.1 Classic Employees A classic employee is 1) any full-time employee hired prior to January 1, 2013 or 2) a full-time employee hired after January 1, 2013, who was already a member of a public employee retirement system at the time of hire by the City with a break in service of no more than six months between the employee's prior public employee retirement system participating agency and the City. Classic employees shall be members of PERS, as provided by the terms of the contract in effect between the City and PERS which includes: • Government Code Section 21362.2 - 3.0% @ 50 Benefit formula • Government Code Section 20042 — One Year Final Compensation • Government Code Section 21574 — 4t' level 1959 Survivor Benefits • Government Code Section 21624 — Post Retirement Survivor Allowance • Government Code Section 2102 — Military Service Credit as Public Service • Effective the first pay period of January 2015, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 10.0% • Effective the first pay period of January 2016, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 11.0% Effective the first pay period of January 2017, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 12.0% -23 - • Effective the first pay period of January 2018, employees shall contribute an additional 1.0% towards retirement for a total contribution of 13.0%. The additional 1.0% effective the first pay period of January 2018 shall sunset on December 31, 2018. 24.2 For New Members Hired On or After January 1, 2013 New members of PERS, who are hired after January 1, 2013, shall have the PERS 2.7% @ 57 formula, as provided by the terms of the contract in effect between the City and PERS. The employee contribution rate shall be 50 percent of the "normal cost' (as defined by Government Code Section 7522.04(g)) for the 2.7% @ 57 formula rounded to the nearest quarter of 1 percent. Other terms shall include: • Government Code Section 7522.32 — Three Year Final Compensation • Government Code Section 7533.3 — No employer payment for employee contribution. • Government Code Section 21574 — 0 level 1959 Survivor Benefits • Government Code Section 21624 — Post Retirement Survivor Allowance • Government Code Section 2102 — Military Service Credit as Public Service Employees shall make retirement contributions in accordance with PEPRA. The City shall provide the deferral of retirement deductions by IRS 414 H(2). 25. CONCERTED ACTIVITIES It is agreed and understood that there will be no strike, work stoppage, slow down or refusal to perform job functions during the term of this Agreement. 26. NO LOCKOUT The City agrees not to engage in any lockout during the term of this Agreement. 27. RIGHTS 27.1 City Rights: The City hereby retains and reserves unto itself, without limitation, all powers, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities conferred upon and vested in it by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of California, the laws of the United States, the laws of California, and the ordinances and resolutions of the City of Burlingame and shall be limited 24- only by the express and specific terms of the Memorandum. 27.2 Employee Rights. Nothing contained in this Memorandum of Understanding shall prohibit the Association from meeting and conferring on matters within the scope of representation as provided by law. The City acknowledges the employees and the Association retain all rights under Section 3500 et. seq. of the California Labor Code. 28. EFFECT OF AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Understanding shall supersede any prior Memoranda of Understanding, rules, regulations or ordinances in direct conflict with the provisions hereof. 29. MODIFICATION There will be no alteration or modification of any provision contained in this Memorandum without the written consent of all parties hereto. 30. TOTAL AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Understanding constitutes a full and complete agreement by the parties and contains all of the matters upon which the parties reached agreement. Any matter not contained in this Memorandum has not been agreed upon and, if raised in negotiations, was dropped by the party raising it as part of a good faith attempt to reach agreement. 31. SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS Should any section, clauses or provision of this Memorandum of Understanding be declared illegal by final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidation of such section, clause or provision shall not invalidate the remaining portions hereof, and such remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of this Memorandum of Understanding. In the event of such invalidation, the parties agree to meet and confer concerning substitute provisions for provisions rendered or declared illegal. 32. TERM The term of this agreement shall begin on October 2, 2017 and expire on December 31, 2018. -25- BURLINGAME POLICE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION CITY OF BURLINGAME Kevin Kashiwahara Lara Terada Sonya Morrison, Human Resources Director Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager _?6_ APPENDIX A Police Sergeant Salary Schedule City of Burlingame Classifications and Salaries for the Burlingame Police Sergeants Association Effective January 2017 Monthly 8,478.38 8,879.87 9,321.50 9,793.83 10,294.51 Biweekly 3,913.10 4,098.40 4,302.23 5,520.23 4,751.31 Hourly 48.91 51.23 53.78 56.50 59.39 _27_ Appendix B Grievance Form CITY OF BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT GRIEVANCE FORM DEFINITION: A grievance is defined section 16.1.2 in the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Please check this definition before filing a grievance. A "working day" is defined as days when the City Hall of the City of Burlingame is open for business. Employee 2. Date filed with Supervisor: 3. Date filed with Uni 4. Departm Specific clause(s) of the agreement allegedly violated: Specific clauses: Statement of Grievance: 28 - Remedy requested under this agreement: Are you being represented by another person or the Union on this matter? Yes No If applicable, name of representative: 9. Grievant's signature: cc: Human Resources Director 29- aBURL, STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d MEETING DATE: October 2, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: October 2, 2017 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc., for the Lorton Ave Storm Drain Line Cleaning Project, Citv Project No. 84930 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a construction contract to Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc., for the Lorton Ave Storm Drain Line Cleaning Project in the amount of $398,477, and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. BACKGROUND The Lorton Ave. Storm Drain Line Cleaning Project involves the cleaning of a 54" diameter storm drain line that runs from Burlingame Avenue to California Drive and outfalls into an open channel adjacent to the Caltrain tracks. The 54" diameter storm drain line has been accumulating sediment for over 70 years due to being part of an overflow system. This has resulted in sediment filling approximately 75% of the pipe in certain segments of the pipe. The project will consist of using a hydrocleaning method to remove the sediment from the pipe. The proposed improvements will allow staff to inspect and assess the pipe condition, upgrade the pipe to its design capacity, and reduce the potential for future flooding in the downtown area. DISCUSSION The project was advertised for bids on August 30, 2017. On September 14, 2017, the date of the bid opening, two sealed bids were received ranging from $398,477 to $684,050. Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc., is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $398,477, which is $61,523, or 13.3%, lower than the engineer's estimate of $460,000. Staff has reviewed Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc.'s proposal and determined that the contractor has met all the project requirements, and has a successful history of performing similar work for other public agencies. As a result, staff recommends that the City Council award the construction contract to Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. The storm drain cleaning work is anticipated to begin by early November 2017 and be completed by February 2018, barring weather delays. Staff will coordinate with the contractor to minimize inconvenience and construction disruption to downtown businesses. 1 Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc., October 2, 2017 for the Lorton Ave. Storm Drain Line Cleaning Project, City Project No. 84930 FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated project construction expenditures Construction Contract $398,477 Construction Contingency 15% $59,772 Construction Inspection $25,000 Staff Administration $15,000 Total $498,249 Funding Availability: There are adequate funds available in the Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Program to cover the above costs. Exhibits: • Resolution • Bid Summary • Project Location Map • Construction Contract RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO PIPE AND PLANT SOLUTIONS, INC., FOR THE LORTON AVE STORM DRAIN LINE CLEANING PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 84930 WHEREAS, on August 30, 2017, the City issued a notice inviting bid proposals for the Lorton Ave Storm Drain Line Cleaning Project, City Project No. 84930; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2017, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc., submitted the lowest bid in the amount of $398,477; and WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the bid proposal of Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc., and found it to be responsive and in compliance with the project requirements. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc., for said project in the amount of $398,477 is accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager is authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2ND day of October, 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk `o w a O 0 OO 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 o p r d o o 0 0 0 o 0 c o o c o o O 0 o 0 0 0 0 p 0 (n O O O 2 Y1 nO O 0 0 � m b N N O n W N O O C Obi Oni y J � O H O O 2 co O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o O C W U o O O O o O O N o N O O 0 O 0 O o N m N o a r a r z ti r o O O o O O o O 0 O o o a 0 O 0 o o 0 O 0 O 0 O o O p C y Q V O O OO O O O O OO lV O N O m p yj Q m O [00 O VOf N O n o M rn N O V N y M_ o n _O � O m C W OO O O O O O M O O O O O O O O N n N N n 1(I N N (O L U O O r O O N O N N c a W r n � a � r N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q 0 Q m6 IF Yl n0 0 ON Y G b O O O O « U N O N b ry N ew- n O O m yNj pO E r o m O � w n r w w w w w w w w w w w w w L m W N N O O n N h m N OI m p O r 0 O O O O m C U N N O M N O N Y O O fp 0 Y W a Z I z J J J J J J U U U W r iR - m m o a V N= i O W O K a i z 0o m m o o to � w w w w wo o O m o g m � LL O O W w W W o = ##### y # 3 a r 0 0 O a m E LL C £ E c E E EE c N n N J N N 0q x G N U V W � Vl m a m 0 a f/1 2 c c U U U m c U W n ❑ W p` � O � O O O - m m m m a.._ 0 Jo U = U n`o uei0 na �iN nJ v°in n `u c cy E E E E �= O o w v i w W vt'i mW v d =m y y V n U� U B U W U�U W U W Ur N !n V1 Ud W W U rz a m N - - L\Mq,. 1 g�gs g�gFE gag •x IN iir■ h YW 6 O � W O L d tl Q � W 4 d @ C 7 m yO 0 I V W a O q F O i a 2 / ° P 4 3 4 / ece a F F / v r /LUMM pp 4 cob ♦g� / t W S4' RCP ' RCP0Ifi'- r © a r !t 4 a da 4 �r :P s AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT LORTON AVE STORM LINE CLEANING PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 84930 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , 2017 by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and PIPE AND PLANT SOLUTIONS. INC., a Corporation, hereinafter called "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on , after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the construction of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled: LORTON AVE STORM LINE CLEANING PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 84930. 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following AGREEMENT -1 documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A; the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions, addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents titled Lorton Ave Storm Line Cleaning Project, City Project No. 84930" attached as Exhibit C; the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as promulgated by the California Department of Transportation; prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law; and all bonds; which are collectively hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents, which are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of three hundred and ninety eight thousand four hundred and seventy seven dollars ($398,477.00), called the "Contract Price". This price is determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Termination At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor's persistent failure to perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor's disregard of Laws or Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor's disregard of the authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor's violation in any substantial way of any AGREEMENT -2 provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the City, after giving Contractor and Contractor's sureties seven calendar days written notice of the intent to terminate Contractor's services, may initiate termination procedures under the provisions of the Performance Bond. Such termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not release Contractor from liability. At the City's sole discretion, Contractor's services may not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice. Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City's convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and materials in accordance with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination. 5. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 6. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: Mr. Martin Quan Senior Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 AGREEMENT -3 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: William J. Gilmartin Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc 225 3`d Street Oakland, CA 94607 7. Interpretation As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 8. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. 9. Controlling Law. This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 10. Successors and Assignees. This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. 11. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. 12. Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance AGREEMENT -4 or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation By Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney FA99:615 Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk "CONTRACTOR" Print Name: Company Name: Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc AGREEMENT -5 9 a"R`eE STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: Be MEETING DATE: October 2, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: October 2, 2017 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Karen Hager, Management Analyst — (650) 558-7317 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Contract to Community Playgrounds, Inc. for the Paloma Playground Renovation Project (City Project #84940), and Authorizinq the Citv Manaqer to Execute the Agreement Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding a construction contract to Community Playgrounds, Inc. for the Paloma Playground Renovation Project, City Project No. 84940 in the amount of $201,810, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND In December 2016, Paloma Playground was subject to vandalism and fire. A large portion of the playground equipment was damaged and subsequently removed. Due to the playground's advanced age and heavy usage, staff decided to escalate Paloma on the City's Playground replacement list. The Paloma Playground Renovation Project was approved as a Capital Improvement Project in FY 2017-18. The scope of work includes the following: Basic Project: Removal and disposal of play equipment, resilient play surfacing with concrete slab, and other miscellaneous demolition and site preparation; grading and drainage; installation of new play equipment, resilient surfacing tiles with concrete slab, drinking fountain, and accessible picnic table and benches; painting of existing fences and gates; and concrete color staining of existing patio. Add Alternate: In lieu of concrete color staining of existing patio, remove and dispose of existing patio and install a new "Donor" patio including synthetic turf with concrete slab, and a perimeter border of donor bricks with concrete banding with integral color. The equipment and surfacing will be purchased by the City of Burlingame under another contract. However, the play equipment and surfacing installation, including pick up within city limits and transporting to the site, is included as part of the scope of work. 1 Paloma Playground Renovation Project Construction Contract October 2, 2017 DISCUSSION The project was advertised, and the City received two bids $196,882 to $201,810 including the Add Alternate. The bid results were as follows: 1. *McNabb Construction, Inc. - $163,268 - Add Alternate $33,614 2. Community Playgrounds, Inc. - $149,283 —Add Alternate $52,527 *McNabb Construction Inc.'s bid was deemed unresponsive as they neglected to submit the signed Addendum acknowledgement. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the estimated project expenditures: 057-10352 0 057-10354 0 057-10358 0 057-10359 634655 057-10360 0 057-10362 9517643 057-10363 665175 057-10420 0 057-10421 0 057-10500 112992 There are sufficient funds available in the FY 17-18 Parks & Recreation Capital Improvement Program budget to cover the cost of the Paloma Playground Renovation project. The City will be receiving an insurance settlement that will cover a portion of the project. Additionally, the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Foundation has committed to donating $10,000 towards the Add Alternate "Donor' patio. Exhibits: • Resolution • Bid Summary • Agreement with Community Playgrounds, Inc. • Paloma Playground Rendering 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AWARDING THE BID FOR THE PALOMA PLAYGROUND RENOVATION PROJECT TO COMMUNITY PLAYGROUNDS, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Capital Improvement Program has identified Paloma Playground as needing replacement due to significant damage from vandalism; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has taken appropriate steps to authorize construction of the public work and improvements provided for in the attached Contract; and WHEREAS, a notice was duly published on August 15, 2017 for bids for the contract for the Paloma Playground Renovation Project; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2017 all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Parks & Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, Community Playgrounds, Inc. submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the project in the amount of $201,810.00. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAMERESOLVES AND ORDERS: 1. The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct. 2. The Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted. The bid from Community Playgrounds, Inc. in the amount of $201,810 is the lowest responsive and responsible bid for said project and is accepted. 4. The City shall enter into a contact with the successful bidder, Community Playgrounds, Inc. for the performance of the Paloma Playground Renovation, Project No. 84940 and that the City Manager is hereby authorized on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of October, 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk v0 0 ;uaw@Spalmou#ay wnpuappd E C ? o o + CL o w ry v TT# AlunjaS lesodoad o x E c 0 H 0T# a8ed s;uawnoo0 pwinbaa v n?0 w m a 6# 3!pntl Ala}eS punoigAeld E x x Y 0 a d 8# laags ME v E x x m � c L# luawa;e;S Z£ZOT apo healuo3 opgnd Ca Ca x � g# aneuuol;sant apo;oea;uoD ollgnd x x x x u; s# luawale;s apo :)!lgnd 0 x b# uo!snllo:)-uoN x x £#'lenb aauauadx3 O Z# sjoloea;uoD-qnc 0 m T# aSed sainleu;l!c 0000 Y U N of m 0) a` > Y 0 F- u m Y Q Q � m m Co c m E u0 i N m 7 V D x + x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x O N oc m of m 0) 0 o m N H N Ll N M �n m m 00 Co LD N N ti ti c a 0 a o 0 o u m >` Y f0 N d 0 > u 'E n E z 2 u° i N m 7 V D AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT Paloma Playground Renovation CITY PROJECT NO. 84940 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on October 2, 2017 by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter called "City", and Community Playgrounds, Inc, a State of incorporation, hereinafter called "Contractor." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the City received sealed bids, which were publically opened by the City Clerk on September 6, 2017; and WHEREAS, on October 2, 2017, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the construction of said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Contract Documents entitled: Paloma Playground Renovation - CITY PROJECT NO. 84940. 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract between City and Contractor consists of the following documents: this Agreement; Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit A; the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the specifications, provisions, addenda, complete plans, profiles, and detailed drawings contained in the bid documents AGREEMENT -1 titled Paloma Playground Renovation, CITY PROJECT NO. 84940 attached as Exhibit C; the State of California Standard Specifications 2010, as promulgated by the California Department of Transportation; prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law; and all bonds; which are collectively hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents, which are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of two hundred thousand and one, eight hundred and ten dollars $201,810.00, called the "Contract Price". This price is determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Termination At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justify termination of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractor's persistent failure to perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor's disregard of Laws or Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor's disregard of the authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor's violation in any substantial way of any provision of the Contract Documents. In the case of any one or more of these events, the City, after giving Contractor and Contractor's sureties seven calendar days written notice of the intent to terminate Contractor's services, may initiate termination procedures under the provisions of the Performance Bond. Such termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing or that accrue thereafter. Any retention AGREEMENT -2 or payment of moneys due Contractor will not release Contractor from liability. At the City's sole discretion, Contractor's services may not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice. Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City's convenience. In such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and materials in accordance with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination. 5. Liquidated Damages. Contractor's failure to achieve substantial completion of the work described in the Contract Documents will cause the City to incur losses of types and in amounts which are impossible to compute and ascertain with certainty. The Contractor agrees that liquidated damages in the amount of six hundred dollars ($600) for each day may be assessed and recovered by the City as against Contractor and its Surety. Such liquidated damages are intended to represent estimated actual damages and are not intended as a penalty, and Contractor shall pay them to City without limiting City's right to terminate this Agreement for default as provided elsewhere herein. 6. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 7. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: Karen Hager Management Analyst City of Burlingame 850 Burlingame Avenue AGREEMENT -3 Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Sam Wear Community Playgrounds, Inc. 200 Commercial Street Vallejo, CA 94589 8. Interpretation As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 9. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision. 10. Controlling Law. This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 11. Successors and Assignees. This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. 12. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and effect. 13. Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the AGREEMENT -4 actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation "CONTRACTOR" Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Print Name: Company Name: Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney ATTEST: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk AGREEMENT -5 9 6URL,INGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: October 2, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: October 2, 2017 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director (650-558-7307) Karen Hager, Management Analyst (650-558-7317) Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting a Habitat Conservation Fund Matching Grant in the Amount of $50,000 for the Mills Canyon Trail Improvements and Authorizinq the City Manaqer to Execute the Contract Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting a Habitat Conservation Fund Matching Grant in the Amount of $50,000 for the Mills Canyon Trail Improvements and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame has been awarded a Habit Conservation Fund matching grant from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation. DISCUSSION The overall project plan aims to provide safer and better access to Mills Canyon by modifying/redesigning/restoring the trail to improve drainage, mitigate erosion, and improve access, especially at Adeline Drive, by addressing slope, tripping hazards, and stability and width of the trail. Modifications/repairs/improvements include: • Re -grading the trail where necessary for safety and/or ease of access as well as erosion mitigation. • Adding or restoration of steps where necessary to mitigate erosion and allow for easier ambulation on the trail. • Reusing available resources in the area so as to minimize materials cost and keep the trail in a manner that better blends in with the beauty of the natural area it aims to highlight. • Redesigning and reconstructing the trail spur from Adeline Drive to the Ed Taylor Trail. • Restoring/improving interpretive signage that has been vandalized and/or destroyed by people and the elements over time. Signage on the trail is either missing, or in some cases incorrectly identifies the native species. Plans include development of a OR code that allows for downloading of the trail map, containing far more robust information and detail about the history of the area and the native flora and fauna contained therein. 1 Habitat Conservation Fund Matching Grant October 2, 2017 • Reducing the impact from human use in sensitive areas, particularly Mills Creek, by obliterating trail spurs that no longer lead to safe or open routes. FISCAL IMPACT The Habitat Conservation Fund grant is a matching grant. In FY 2017-18, the Parks & Recreation operating budget allocated $50,000 for Mills Canyon restoration and improvements; these funds will serve as the matching funds for this grant. Exhibits: • Resolution • Habitat Conservation Fund Contract R RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING A HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND MATCHING GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FOR THE RESTORATION OF MILLS CANYON TRAILS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has been awarded a matching grant from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation in the amount of $50,000; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has identified Mills Canyon as needing trail restoration and improvements due to erosion and use; and WHEREAS, there are matching funds in the FY 17-18 Parks and Recreation Operating Budget. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS: 1. The facts in the recitals above and in the staff report are true and correct. 2. The City Manager is authorized to sign the grant agreement on behalf of the City of Burlingame, and the signature constitutes acceptance of the terms and conditions of the grant agreement and approves execution of the grant. 3. The Parks and Recreation Department is authorized to execute the grant document as an authorized representative of the City of Burlingame. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of October, 2017, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk State of Califomia - Natural Resources Agency Department of Parks and Recreation GRANT CONTRACT Habitat Conservation Fund Trails GRANTEE City of Burlingame GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD is from July 01, 2017 through June 30, 2022 CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD is from July 01, 2017 through June 30, 2027 PROJECT TITLE MILLS CANYON TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NUMBER HT -41-007 The GRANTEE agrees to the terms and conditions of this contract, hereinafter referred to as AGREEMENT, and the State of California. acting by and through the California Department of Parks and Recreation, agrees to fund the total grant amount Indicated below. The GRANTEE agrees to complete the GRANT SCOPE as defined in the GRANT SCOPE y Cost Estimate Form of the APPLICATION submitted to the State of California. GRANT SCOPE: Rehabilitate approximately 7,814 If of trail Including, improve drainage, access, slope, and width; remove invasive plant species and restore and add interpretive signage along the Mills Canyon Trail in the City of Burlingame. Total State Grant not to exceed $50,000.00 (or 50% of the total project, which ever is less) The General and Special Provisions attached are made a part of and Incorporated Into the Contract. City of Burlingame Grantee By Typedorprinted name of Authorized Representabi STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Signature of Authorized Representative By Title Chy Manager Date Date CERTIFICATION OF FUNDING CONTRACT NO AMENDMENT NO CALSTARS VENDOR NO, PROJECT NO. C9778016 000000425300 HT -41-007 AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THIS DOCUMENT FUND. $50,000.00 Habitat Conservation Fund PRIOR AMOUNT ENCUMBERED FOR THIS ITEM CHAPTER STATUTE FISCAL YEAR CONTRACT 3790-601-0262(1) 9 1990 2017/18 TOTAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED TO DATE INDEX. OBJ. EXPEND PCA. PROJECT/WORK PHASE s $50,000.00 1091 702 63666 T.B.A. NO. I hereby certify upon my personal knowledge that budgeted funds are ayalleble for this encumbrance. B.R.. NO. ACCOUNTING OFFICER'S SIGNATURE DATE. GRANT CONTRACT RECITALS 1. This agreement is entered into between the State of California, by and through the California Department of Parks and Recreation (hereinafter referred to as "STATE") and City of Burlingame (hereinafter referred to as "grantee"). 2. The California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990, Fish and Game Code, Chapter 9, commencing with Section 2780 (the ACT) authorizes the STATE to award grants to eligible entities. 3. Pursuant to the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990, Fish and Game Code, Chapter 9, commencing with Section 2780, the STATE is authorized to oversee and manage grants to eligible entities for the purposes stated within its provisions. Funding for this $2,000,000 GRANT program was made available through the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990, Fish and Game Code, Chapter 9 (commencing with Fish and Game Code § 2780). 4. The STATE hereby grants to grantee a sum (hereinafter referred to as "grant monies") not to exceed Dollars ( $50.000 ), subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, the HCF Application GUIDES, any legislation applicable to the ACT and the APPLICATION. 5. In consideration thereof grantee agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of this agreement as well as the provisions of the ACT. Grantee acknowledges that the grant monies are not a gift or a donation. 6. In addition to the terms and conditions of this agreement, the parties agree that the terms and conditions contained in the documents set forth below are hereby incorporated into and made part of this agreement. a. The Grant Administration Guide b. The APPLICATION GUIDE c. The submitted APPLICATION II. SPECIAL PROVISIONS This agreement includes the following special provisions, when project circumstances warrant (by either party): III. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Definitions As used in this agreement, the following words shall have the following meanings: 1. The term "ACT' means the statutory basis for this grant program. 2. The term "APPLICATION' means the individual project APPLICATION packet for a grant pursuant to the enabling legislation and/or grant program process Grant Administration Guide requirements. 3. The term "ACQUISITION' means to obtain fee title of real property or a permanent easement which provides the recipient permanent rights to use the property for the purposes of the project. Leases or rentals do not constitute ACQUISITION. 4. The term "CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD" means the period of time described on page 1 of this agreement. 5. The term "DEVELOPMENT' (trails category only) means capital improvements to real property by, but not limited to, improvement, construction, reconstruction, and/or protection of permanent or fixed features of the property. 6. The term "ENHANCEMENT' means to increase the habitat value of the land to benefit the targeted species. 7. The term "GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD" means the period of time described on page 1 of this agreement, during which eligible costs can be charged to the grant and which begins on the appropriation date and ends on the fund liquidation date. 8. The term "GRANT SCOPE" means the items listed in the GRANT SCOPE /cost estimate form found in the APPLICATION. 9. The term "GUIDES" means the documents identified as the APPLICATION and Grant Administration GUIDES for the Habitat Conservation Fund program for deer/mountain lion habitat, rare, endangered, threatened, or fully -protected species habitat, wetlands, anadromous salmonids and trout habitat, riparian habitat, trails, and WILDLIFE AREA ACTIVITIES, as incorporated by reference in Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 4870-4877. 10. The term "RESTORATION' means the act of bringing either land or a species back into a former, non -impaired condition. 11. The term "STATE" refers to the State of California acting by and through the Department of Parks and Recreation. 12.The term "WILDLIFE AREA ACTIVITIES" means an event, or series of events to be accomplished with grant funds, such as a nature interpretation, educational, or other enrichment project, (e.g., classes, trips, etc.), organized and/or conducted by the grantee, and intended to bring urban residents into park and wildlife areas. B. Project Execution 1. Subject to the availability of grant monies in the ACT, the STATE hereby grants to the grantee a sum of money not to exceed the amount stated on page 1 of this agreement, in consideration of, and on condition that, the sum be expended in carrying out the purposes set forth in the GRANT SCOPE, and under the terms and conditions set forth in this agreement. The grantee shall assume the obligation to furnish any additional funds that may be necessary to complete the GRANT SCOPE. 2. After the STATE has approved the APPLICATION, all changes and alterations to the GRANT SCOPE must be approved in writing by the STATE. Grantee's failure to comply with this provision may be construed as a breach of the terms of the agreement and result in the termination of payment of the grant monies provided for in this agreement. To maintain the integrity of the competitive grant program, the grantee agrees that any other project changes or alterations which deviate from the GRANT SCOPE in the original competitive APPLICATION must be submitted in writing to the STATE for prior approval. The grantee shall complete the GRANT SCOPE in accordance with the time of the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD set forth on page one of this agreement, and under the terms and conditions of this agreement. 4. The grantee shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et, seq., Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.). 5. The grantee shall at all times comply with all applicable current laws and regulations affecting ACQUISITION, ENHANCEMENT, RESTORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND WILDLIFE AREA ACTIVITIES projects, including, but not limited to, legal requirements for construction contracts, building codes, health and safety codes, and laws and codes pertaining to individuals with disabilities, including but not limited to the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq.) and the California Unruh Act (California Civil Code §51 et seq.) 6. If the GRANT SCOPE includes ACQUISITION of real property, the grantee agrees to comply at all times with all applicable STATE and local laws or ordinances affecting relocation and real property ACQUISITION. 7. Grantee agrees that lands acquired with grant monies shall not be acquired through the use of eminent domain. C. Project Costs 1. Grantee agrees to abide by the GUIDES. Grantee acknowledges that the STATE may make reasonable changes to its procedures asset forth in the GUIDES. If the STATE makes any changes to its procedures and guidelines, the STATE agrees to notify grantee within a reasonable time. D. Project Administration 1. If the STATE advances grant monies for ACQUISITION projects, the STATE shall place the grant monies in an escrow account. If grant monies are advanced and not expended, the unused portion of the advanced funds shall be returned to the STATE within 60 days after the close of escrow. 2. If grant monies are advanced for an ENHANCEMENT, RESTORATION, DEVELOPMENT, or WILDLIFE AREA ACTIVITIES project, the advanced funds shall be placed in an interest-bearing account until expended. Advanced funds must be spent within six months from the date of receipt, unless the STATE waives this requirement. Interest earned on the advanced funds shall be used on the project as approved by the STATE. If grant monies are advanced and not expended, the unused portion of the advance and any unused interest earned shall be returned to the STATE within 60 days after project completion or the end of the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD, whichever is earlier. 3. The grantee shall submit a written status report within 30 calendar days after the STATE has made such a request. In any event, the grantee shall provide the STATE a report showing total final project expenditures within 60 days of project completion or the end of the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD, whichever is earlier. The GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD is identified on page one of this agreement. 4. The STATE shall have the right to inspect all property or facilities acquired and/or developed pursuant to this agreement and the grantee shall make such property or facilities available for inspection upon 24 hours' notice from the STATE. 5. The grantee and the STATE agree that if the GRANT SCOPE includes ENHANCEMENT, RESTORATION, DEVELOPMENT, or WILDLIFE AREA ACTIVITIES project activities, 0 final payment may not be made until the work described in the GRANT SCOPE is complete. 6. Any grant funds that have not been expended by the grantee by the date on the PROJECT COMPLETION Certification form, or by end of the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD, whichever is earlier, shall revert to the STATE. E. Project Termination 1. In the event of non -completion of a GRANT SCOPE, the STATE may request the return of any grant funds advanced or reimbursed. 2. This agreement may be rescinded, modified or amended only by mutual written agreement between the grantee and the STATE, unless the provisions of this agreement provide that mutual agreement is not required for a rescission, modification or amendment. Failure by the grantee to comply with the terms of this agreement, as well as any other agreements that grantee has entered into with STATE, may be cause for suspension of all obligations of the STATE under this agreement unless the STATE determines that such failure was due to no fault of the grantee. In such case, STATE may reimburse grantee for eligible costs properly incurred in performance of this agreement despite non-performance of the grantee. To qualify for such reimbursement, grantee agrees to mitigate its losses to the best of its ability. 4. The grantee agrees that in the event of a breach of this agreement, the STATE may seek, in addition to all remedies provide by law, specific performance of the agreement in accordance with the purpose of the agreement to preserve, protect and increase the quantity and quality of habitat opportunities and/or resources available to the people of the State of California. F. Budget Contingency Clause For purposes of this program, if funding for any fiscal year is reduced or deleted by the budget act, executive order, the legislature, or by any other provision of statute, the STATE shall have the option to either cancel this agreement with no liability occurring to the STATE, or offer an amendment to the agreement to reflect a reduced grant amount. This paragraph shall not require the mutual agreement as addressed in Paragraph E, subsection 2, of this agreement. G. Indemnity 1. The grantee shall waive all claims and recourse against the STATE including the right to contribution for loss or damage to persons or property arising from, growing out of or in any way connected with or incident to this agreement, except valid legal claims arising from the concurrent or sole negligence of the STATE, its officers, agents, and employees. To the fullest extent of the law, the grantee shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the STATE, its officers, agents and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses or liability costs arising out of an ACQUISITION, ENHANCEMENT, RESTORATION, DEVELOPMENT, or WILDLIFE AREA ACTIVITIES project, construction, operation or maintenance of the property described as the project which claims, demands or causes of action arise under California Government Code Section 895.2 or otherwise except for liability arising out of the concurrent or sole negligence of the STATE, its officers, agents, or employees. 3. The grantee agrees that in the event the STATE is named as codefendant under the provisions of California Government Code Section 895 et. seq., the grantee shall notify the STATE of such fact and shall represent the STATE in the legal action unless the STATE undertakes to represent itself as codefendant in such legal action in which event the STATE shall bear its own litigation costs, expenses, and attorney's fees. 4. The grantee and the STATE agree that in the event of judgment entered against the STATE and the grantee because of the concurrent negligence of the STATE and the grantee, their officers, agents, or employees, an apportionment of liability to pay such judgment shall be made by a court of competent jurisdiction. 5. The grantee shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the STATE, its officers, agents and employees against any and all claims, demands, costs, expenses or liability costs arising out of legal actions pursuant to items to which the grantee has certified. The grantee acknowledges that it is solely responsible for compliance with items to which it has certified. H. Financial Records The grantee shall maintain satisfactory financial accounts, documents and records for the project and make them available to the STATE for auditing at reasonable times. The grantee also agrees to retain such financial accounts, documents and records for at least five years following project termination or final payment, whichever is later. 2. The grantee shall keep such records as the STATE shall prescribe, including records which fully disclose (a) the disposition of the proceeds of grant monies, (b) the total cost of the project, (c) the amount and nature of project funds provided by other sources, and (d) any other records that will facilitate an effective audit of the grant monies. 3. The grantee agrees that the STATE shall have the right to inspect and make copies of any books, records or reports pertaining to this agreement or matters related thereto during regular office hours. The grantee shall maintain and make available for 0 inspection by the STATE accurate records of all of its costs, disbursements and receipts with respect to its activities under this agreement. Such accounts, documents, and records shall be retained by the GRANTEE for at least 5 years following final payment of grant monies. 4. The grantee shall use a generally accepted accounting system, per state and federal requirements. I. Use of Facilities 1. The grantee agrees to operate and maintain project sites and/or locations for the duration of the CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD. If any property is acquired, enhanced, restored, or developed with grant monies, the grantee is required to operate and maintain the same for the duration of the CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD. 2. The grantee agrees that during the GRANT PERFORMANCE PERIOD, any income earned by the grantee from a STATE -approved use of the project shall be used for project purposes, or, if approved by the STATE, for other purposes within the grantee's jurisdiction. The grantee acknowledges that reasonable public access shall be provided except when that access may interfere with habitat protection. 4. All facilities shall have operating hours consistent with the times proposed in the APPLICATION and be open to members of the public in accordance with the project selection criteria in the APPLICATION, unless otherwise granted permission by the STATE and except as noted under the special provisions of this agreement or under provisions of the enabling legislation and/or grant program. 5. The grantee agrees that for the duration of the CONTRACT PERFORMANCE PERIOD, any property acquired, enhanced, restored or developed with grant monies under this agreement shall be used only for the purposes of the grant and consistent with the GRANT SCOPE referenced in the APPLICATION unless prior written approval is given by the STATE. 6. The grantee agrees to use any property acquired, enhanced, restored, or developed with grant monies under this agreement only for the purposes of the grant and no other use, sale, or other disposition shall be permitted except as authorized by a specific act of the legislature in which event the property shall be replaced by the grantee with property of equivalent value and usefulness as determined by the STATE. 7. The property acquired, enhanced, restored, or developed with grant monies may be transferred to another eligible entity only if the successor entity assumes the obligations imposed under this agreement and with written approval of the STATE. 7 8. Any real property acquired or developed with grant monies (including any portion of it or any interest in it) may not be used as security for any debt or mitigation, without the written approval of the STATE, provided that such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld as long as the purposes for which the grant monies were awarded are maintained. Any such permission that is granted does not make the STATE a guarantor or a surety for any debt or mitigation, nor does it waive the STATE's rights to enforce performance under this agreement. 9. All real property or rights thereto, acquired with grant monies shall be subject to an appropriate form of restrictive title, rights, or covenants required and approved by the STATE. If the project property is taken by use of eminent domain, grantee shall reimburse the STATE an amount at least equal to the amount of grant monies received from the STATE or the pro -rated full market value of the real property, including improvements, at the time of sale, whichever is higher. 10. If eminent domain proceedings are initiated against grantee, grantee shall notify the STATE within 10 days of receiving the complaint. J. Nondiscrimination The grantee shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex, race, creed, color, national origin, age, religion, ancestry, sexual orientation, disability, medical condition, or marital status in the use of project site(s) as included in the APPLICATION. 2. The grantee shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of residence, and shall not apply differences in admission or other fees on the basis of residence. Fees shall be reasonable and not unduly prevent use by economically disadvantaged members of the public. K. Severability If any provision of this agreement or the application thereof is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this contract are severable. L. Liability STATE assumes no responsibility for assuring the safety of construction, site improvements or programs related to the GRANT SCOPE. The STATE's rights under this agreement to review, inspect, and approve the GRANT SCOPE and any final plans of 0 implementation shall not give rise to any warranty or representation that the GRANT SCOPE and any plans or improvements are free from hazards or defects. M. Assignability Without the written consent of the STATE, the grantee's interest in and responsibilities under this agreement shall not be assignable by the grantee either in whole or in part. N. Section Headings The headings and captions of the various sections of this agreement have been inserted only for the purpose of convenience and are not a part of this agreement and shall not be deemed in any manner to modify, explain, or restrict any of the provisions of this agreement. 0 O. Waiver Any failure by a party to enforce its rights under this agreement, in the event of a breach, shall not be construed as a waiver of said rights; and waiver of any breach under this agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach. _City of Burlingame Grantee By: Signature of Authorized Representative (Position Authorized in the Resolution) Title: City Manager Date: 10 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8g a MEETING DATE: October Z 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: October 2, 2017 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Issue a Call for Applications to Fill a Vacancy on the Storm Drain Measure Oversight Committee Staff recommends that the City Council issue a call for applications to fill a vacancy on the Storm Drain Measure Oversight Committee. The recommended deadline for closing the applications is November 3, 2017. This will allow sufficient time for Council interviews and selection at a future City Council meeting as well as an orientation for the new Committee member prior to the next Storm Drain Oversight Committee meeting, which will be held in early 2018. The Storm Drain Measure Oversight Committee consists of three members. With the recent passing of Committee Member Rudy Horak, a vacancy now exists. All past applicants will be informed of the vacancy. Additionally, staff will send a press release to local newspapers and place a notice in the City's eNews inviting applications. FISCAL IMPACT None 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9a a MEETING DATE: October 2, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: October 2, 2017 From: Rick Caro III, Chief Building Official — (650) 558-7270 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Section 18.07.140 to the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding the Implementation of Statewide Standards for the Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council consider introducing an ordinance adopting an expedited electric vehicle charging station permitting process as required by state law. In order to do so, the Council should: A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff. B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance. C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance. D. Conduct a public hearing. E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND Government Code Section 65850.7 et seq. requires cities and counties to administratively approve an application for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations through the issuance of building or other nondiscretionary permits. Review of the application to install an electric vehicle charging station shall be limited to the Building Official's review of whether it meets all health and safety requirements of local, state, and federal law. The City may only deny such a permit if it makes written findings based on substantial evidence that the proposed station could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate satisfactorily or avoid the impact. If the administrative permit is denied, the City may require the project proponent to apply for a discretionary use permit. The law requires cities to adopt an ordinance to implement an expedited process for processing charging station permits. DISCUSSION The proposed ordinance requires creation of a series of checklists and plan examples that would make clear the requirements for processing a charging station permit. To ensure consistency with Expedited EV Charging Station Ordinance October 2, 2017 state law, staff referred to the `Plug -In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Permitting Checklist' developed by the State Office of Planning and Research and has incorporated the recommendations from the Guidebook into the proposed ordinance, thus ensuring the goal of a uniform permitting process throughout the state. Attached are the submittal requirements and checklists, which are part of this proposed ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact Exhibit: • Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 18.07.140 TO THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STATEWIDE STANDARDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby ordains as follows: Division 1. Title 18 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is amended, adding Chapter 18.07 Section 140, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, to read as follows: Chapter 18.07.140 PERMIT PROCESS FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS Sections: 18.07.140.010 Purpose. 18.07.140.015 Definitions. 18.07.140.020 Applicability. 18.07.140.025 Electric vehicle charging station requirements. 18.07.140.030 Submittal requirements. 18.07.140.035 Plan review, permit, and inspection requirements. 18.07.140.010 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to adopt an expedited, streamlined permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations that complies with Cal. Gov't Code § 65850.7 to achieve timely and cost-effective processing of applications for the installation of electric vehicle charging stations. The Ordinance encourages the use of electric vehicle charging stations by removing unreasonable barriers, minimizing costs to property owners and the City, and expanding the ability of property owners to install electric vehicle charging stations. The Ordinance allows the City to achieve these goals while protecting the public health and safety. 18.07.140.015 Definitions. "Electric vehicle charging station(s)" or "charging station(s)" means any level of electric vehicle supply equipment station that is designed and built in compliance with California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 3 California Electrical Code Article 625, as it reads on the effective date of this Ordinance or as it may be amended, and delivers electricity from a source outside an electric vehicle into a plug-in electric vehicle. "Specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 18.07.140.020 Applicability. This Ordinance applies to the permitting of all electric vehicle charging stations in the city. Electric vehicle charging stations legally established or permitted prior to the effective date of this Ordinance are not subject to the requirements of this Ordinance unless physical modifications or alterations are undertaken that materially change the size, type, or components of a pre-existing charging station in such a way as to require new permitting. Routine operation and maintenance shall not require a permit. 18.07.140.025 Electric vehicle charging stations requirements. All electric vehicle charging stations shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by the state and the City. Electric vehicle charging stations shall meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the California Electrical Code, the Society of Automotive Engineers, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission and other applicable laws and regulations regarding safety and reliability. 18.07.140.030 Submittal requirements. All documents required for the submission of an electric vehicle charging station application shall be made available on the City's website. Electronic submittal of the required permit application and documents by facsimile shall be made available to all electric vehicle charging station permit applicants. Because the City does not have an adopted electronic signature protocol as of the time of the adoption of this ordinance, an electronic signature cannot be accepted in lieu of a wet signature on the application. However, as soon as the City adopts such a protocol, electronic signatures will be accepted on charging station applications, and the City's website and application materials will be updated accordingly. The City's Building Division shall adopt a checklist of all requirements with which the electric vehicle charging stations shall comply to be eligible for expedited review. The electric vehicle permit process, standard(s), and checklist(s) may substantially conform to recommendations for permitting, including the checklist and standards contained in the "Plug -In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Permitting Checklist" of the "Zero -Emission Vehicles in California: Community Readiness Guidebook" published by the California State Office of Planning and Research. For purposes of calculating permit fees under the City's adopted Master Fee Schedule, the value to be used in computing the electric vehicle charging station permit and plan review shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued as well as any other equipment. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be made by the Building Official. 18.07.140.035 Plan review, permit, and inspection requirements. The Building Official shall implement an administrative review process to expedite approval of electric vehicle charging stations. Only permits or approvals that conform to all applicable provisions of this Title and Title 18, including Design Review, shall be issued. The Building Official or designated staff members shall make determinations of conformance. Where the application meets the requirements of the approved checklist and standards and there are no specific, adverse impacts upon public health or safety, the Building Division shall complete the building permit approval process, which is nondiscretionary. Review of the application for electric vehicle charging stations shall be limited to the Building Official's review of whether the application meets local, state, and federal health and safety requirements. The Building Official may require an applicant to apply for an "electric vehicle charging station use permit" if the Building Official makes written findings that the proposed electric vehicle charging stations could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety. The Building Official's decision may be appealed to the City Planning Commission. If an electric vehicle charging station use permit is required, the Building Official may only deny an application for the electric vehicle charging station use permit if the official makes written findings based upon substantial evidence in the record that the proposed installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. Such findings shall include the basis for the rejection of the potential feasible alternative for preventing the adverse impact. The Building Official's decision may be appealed to the City Planning Commission. If the Building Official issues an electric vehicle charging station use permit, the permit may include conditions designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon health and safety at the lowest possible cost. A feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact includes, but is not limited to, any cost-effective method, condition, or mitigation imposed by the City on another similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a permit. If an application is deemed incomplete, a written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in the application and any additional information or documentation required to be eligible for expedited permit issuance shall be sent to the applicant for resubmission. A separate fire inspection may be performed by the Central County Fire Department, if required. Division 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council does hereby declare that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Division 3. This Ordinance, or a summary as applicable, shall be published as required by law and shall become effective 30 days thereafter. Ricardo Ortiz, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2017, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel- Shearer, City Clerk STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9b a MEETING DATE: October 2, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: October 2, 2017 From: Kathleen Kane — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 3.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding Planning Commission Compensation Staff recommends that the City Council consider the introduction of an ordinance amending Chapter 3.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to eliminate the provision of a stipend for Planning Commissioners and provide, instead, for reimbursement for necessary expenses in the same manner as the City's other boards and commissions. In order to do so, the Council should: A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff. B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance. C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance. D. Conduct a public hearing. E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND Burlingame Municipal Code section 3.40.010 currently provides that members of the Planning Commission shall be entitled to receive a stipend of $200.00 per month during their service on the Commission. It further states that this stipend may be used to pay for conferences or training directly related to the Commission's work. The payment provision has been in place since 2000 and was amended in 2003 to add the training reimbursement use for the stipend. However, the City has not paid the stipend since June 28, 2004. Payments were suspended in 2004 by the Council during a period of tight budgetary constraints and never thereafter resumed. All other appointed boards and commissions of the City serve without compensation. Subject to budget availability, people serving on other commissions are entitled to reimbursement for training directly related to their work for the City. 1 Ordinance Amending Planning Commission Compensation October 2, 2017 After seeking input from current Planning Commissioners, the Council considered this issue at its September 5, 2017 meeting and directed staff to draft a municipal code amendment bringing Planning Commission compensation in line with the other boards and commissions. The code language relating to other commissions is not uniform. The Traffic Safety and Parking Commission provision states, "The members shall serve without compensation, but all necessary expenses incurred by them while acting in their official capacities shall be paid by appropriate council action." The Parks and Recreation and Beautification language is as follows: "The members shall serve without compensation, but all necessary expenses shall be paid by appropriate council action." The Code is silent as to compensation for the Library Board. In all cases, "appropriate council action" would include the adoption of a budget for training and related expenses, to be administered by the commissions' respective departments. Of the two existing models, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission language is clearer as to the scope of the reimbursement, and therefore staff recommends that it be incorporated into this code amendment. For the other two commissions, "necessary" should be read to include the requirement that the expenses be related to commissioners' official capacity. FISCAL IMPACT None. The City currently does not pay Planning Commissioners a stipend, and the budget would be unaffected by this code amendment. Exhibit: Proposed Ordinance 2 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 3.04.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ELIMINATE THE PLANNING COMMISSION STIPEND AND PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR NECESSARY EXPENSES WHEREAS Section 3.04.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code currently provides for a monthly $200 stipend for Planning Commission members, first established in 2000; and WHEREAS no other appointed Boards and Commissions of the City receive compensation other than reimbursement for necessary expenses; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Council action in response to budget constraints, the City has not disbursed the stipend since 2004; and WHEREAS the Council has considered the issue and has determined that Planning Commissioners should be afforded the same reimbursement for necessary professional expenses associated with their work for the City as the members of other appointed boards and commissions; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby ordain as follows: DIVISION 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Section 3.04.010, Organization—Terms of Members—Compensation is hereby amended as follows (deletions denoted as strikethrough text and additions as underlined text): There is a planning commission of the city, consisting of seven (7) members appointed by the council. They shall hold office for a term of four (4) years, or until their respective successors have been appointed and qualified. At the time of their application for the commission and throughout their terms as commissioners, they shall be registered, qualified electors of the city. The members shall be entitled to .eeeive a stipend of two tor expenses incurred ter conferences or tratmag direetly related to the eemmission's werl-.The members shall serve without compensation, but all necessary ex ep nses incurred by them while acting in their official capacities shall be paid by Wropriate council action. DIVISION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. DIVISION 3: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. RICARDO ORTIZ, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2017 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 10a a MEETING DATE: October 2, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: October 2, 2017 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Bob Disco, Parks Superintendent and City Arborist — (650) 558-7333 Subject: Update on Eucalyptus Trees on Burlingame Avenue and Easton Drive and Adoption of a Resolution Amending the FY 2017-18 Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program Budget to Add $54,000 from General Fund Reserves to Fund the Removal of Nine of the Trees Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on the report evaluating the eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue and Easton Drive and adopt a resolution amending the FY 2017-18 Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program Budget to add $54,000 from General Fund Reserves to fund the removal of nine of the trees. BACKGROUND During the winter storms of 2017, two eucalyptus trees failed on Burlingame Avenue east of the railroad tracks as a result of saturated soil and root decay. One of these trees also damaged a third tree. These tree failures resulted in the loss of three eucalyptus trees. During this time, the City had to remove an additional two eucalyptus trees because they had begun to lean over and pull up the surrounding soil, indicating they were in imminent danger of failing. The City had no indication in advance that there were structural issues, health problems, or root complications with any of the trees. Due to these circumstances, and the City Arborist's concerns with the entire grove, the City retained an independent Arborist, Kevin Kielty, to evaluate the health and structure of all the mature eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue and provide a recommendation. The City Arborist presented the results of Mr. Kielty's assessment to the City Council at the June 19, 2017 City Council meeting (staff report attached). Mr. Kielty concluded that 12 trees could be a potential hazard and recommended their removal. A tree service company was hired to remove the 12 trees at a cost of $59,650. Mr. Kielty also recommended, and the City Arborist agreed, that 15 additional trees should be further assessed. Staff noted at the Council meeting that once the second assessment was completed, staff would update the Council on the results. 1 Evaluation and Removal of Eucalyptus Trees on Burlingame Avenue and Easton Drive October 2, 2017 DISCUSSION To ensure an unbiased evaluation of the 15 additional trees, the City Arborist decided to bring in a second independent Arborist, one who had no past history with these trees, to conduct the assessment. In addition, due to the large stature of the eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive, the City Arborist determined it was also prudent to have Mr. Kielty perform a similar evaluation on Easton Drive and then have the second independent Arborist assess any trees recommended for removal. Burlingame Avenue Trees The City retained the services of Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborist Roy Leggitt to perform an assessment of the 15 additional eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue. Mr. Leggitt evaluated the trees using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form, which is a process used to evaluate trees and is different from Mr. Kielty's assessment, which uses the 12 -point hazard rating system. The Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form follows an analysis process based on observations. Each tree is evaluated separately for different targets and different failure scenarios. This analysis allows for the highest risk to be reported as the risk for that tree. Both of these methods are used only as a tool to identify potential risk and are not a substitute for a risk manager's judgement. In his report, which is attached, Mr. Leggitt identified ten trees that were a potential risk on Burlingame Avenue. The City Arborist and Mr. Kielty then reviewed the ten trees and determined that six of the trees could be considered a lower risk if routine pruning and maintenance were performed, and four would not benefit from routine pruning and should be removed. In addition, tree #56 will also be removed, although it was not assessed by Mr. Leggitt. This tree is leaning to the south, has poor structure, is cabled, and has excessive end weight on the limbs. Mr. Kielty's report listed this tree with a hazard rating of 11; with the removals of nearby trees, the City Arborist is concerned with its overall safety and recommends the tree be removed. Easton Drive Trees Mr. Kielty evaluated all 80 trees on Easton Drive and recommended that six trees be assessed further for potential removal. The City Arborist evaluated the six trees and determined that one tree does not require further assessment and needs to be removed. This work can be done by the City tree crew. One of the six trees can be significantly pruned to reduce any potential hazard, and the remaining four need further assessment by a different independent arborist. Mr. Leggitt is currently assessing the four remaining trees on Easton Drive to confirm the findings of Mr. Kielty and the City Arborist regarding the need for removal. The City Arborist estimates all four of these trees will be recommended for removal. Replantings All of the trees removed for safety considerations will be replaced with the eucalyptus citriodora. Burlingame Avenue and Easton Drive are considered Themed Blocks, which means that the trees must be replaced with eucalyptus trees per City policy. The citriodora is a smaller tree than VA Evaluation and Removal of Eucalyptus Trees on Burlingame Avenue and Easton Drive October 2, 2017 the existing eucalyptus trees, but it offers the ability to be structurally pruned and easily maintained by the City tree crew. These trees have been successful on both Burlingame Avenue and Easton Drive and have had no root issues to date. With proper deep root watering, the chance of future infrastructure damage from roots will be reduced. FISCAL IMPACT The cost to remove the trees is estimated at $6,000 per tree, with a total cost estimate of $54,000. The estimate includes an eight to ten person crew, dump trucks, crane rental, disposal, and stump grinding. There are not adequate funds in the Parks Division operating budget to complete this work. With Council approval, funding of $54,000 will be made available from the General Fund Reserves through an amendment to the FY 2017-18 Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program budget. Exhibits: • Resolution • Staff Report from June 19, 2017 Council Meeting • Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborist Report • Map of Burlingame Avenue Recommended Tree Removals • Map of Easton Drive Recommended Tree Removals F RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE FY 2017-18 PARKS AND TREES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET TO ADD $54,000 FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO FUND THE REMOVAL OF NINE EUCALYPTUS TREES WHEREAS, during the winter storms of 2017, the City lost five eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue east of the railroad tracks; and WHEREAS, the City subsequently retained two independent Arborists to evaluate the eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue and Easton Drive; WHEREAS, five eucalyptus trees are now recommended for removal on Burlingame Avenue, and five are recommended for removal on Easton Drive; and WHEREAS, the City tree crew can remove one of the trees, but the City will need to contract with a tree service, at a cost of $6,000 per tree, to remove the other nine trees; and WHEREAS, there are insufficient funds available in the FY 2017-18 Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program budget for this purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that $54,000 will be made available from the General Fund Reserves through an amendment to the FY 2017-18 Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program budget. I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of October, 2017 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk aSTAFF REPORT AGENDANO: MEETING DATE: June 19, 2017 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: June 19, 2017 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director— (650) 558-7307 Bob Disco, Parks Superintendent and City Arborist — (650) 558-7338 Subject: Discussion of Eucalyptus Tree Evaluation on Burlingame Avenue and Removal of 12 Trees RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the following information regarding the Eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue, east of the railroad tracks. BACKGROUND During the winter storms of 2017, two Eucalyptus trees failed on Burlingame Avenue east of the railroad tracks as a result of saturated soil and root decay. One of these trees also damaged a third tree. These tree failures resulted in the loss of three Eucalyptus trees. During this time, the City had to remove an additional two Eucalyptus trees because they had begun to lean over and pull up the surrounding soil, indicating that they were in imminent danger of failing. The City had no indication in advance that there were structural issues, health problems, or root complications with any of the trees. Due to these circumstances, and the City Arborist's concerns with the entire grove, the City retained an independent arborist to evaluate the health and structure of all the mature Eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue and provide a recommendation for each tree. DISCUSSION The independent arborist's report (Exhibit A) determined that the 49 remaining mature trees have been well maintained, but they are growing in an area surrounded by concrete and asphalt, which restricts the roots and can be detrimental to the health of the trees. In addition, several of the trees had visible cankers, and others had decay and crown rot. The report included a tree survey that provided a hazard rating and priority list for each of the Eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue (Exhibit B). The independent arborist concluded that future failures are imminent, particularly if weather similar to that experienced in the winter of 2017 recurs. Although the survey rated all 49 trees with a high hazard rating, not all are recommended for removal. Having a general understanding of the rating system is important in considering next steps. The report explains the rating system on page 2, under Matheny and Clark 12 Point Assessment Method. This method considers a hazard rating of 12 as a high probability for Eucalyptus Evaluation on Burlingame Avenue and Removal of 12 Trees Avenue June 19, 2017 damage, and a hazard rating of 3 as a low probability for damage. Most of the trees on the survey were rated between 10 and 12. Determining how this number is obtained is important. Each of the following described categories is rated 1-4, with 4 being the highest. The hazard rating is the sum of the part (size of the part of the tree that may fail), plus the chance (likelihood of this part to fail), plus the target (what will get damaged if the part fails). Each of the mature trees on Burlingame Avenue has a high part rating since these are mature trees with large limbs and large trunks. They all also have a high target rating because they are growing over cars, homes, playgrounds, and constant pedestrian traffic. At the start, each tree already has a hazard rating of 8. Determining chance is where an arborist must use his or her skills, experience, and expertise in determining the likelihood of a part to fail. This can be done in numerous ways, including visual inspection, use of drills, probes, sonograms, resistographs, and x-rays. The City Arborist reviewed the report, consulted with the independent arborist, and subsequently determined that 12 Eucalyptus trees should be removed due to their health, structural issues, physical evidence of decay, proximity to existing structures, and location in an area that is highly used by the public (Exhibit C). Because the trees show sufficient physical evidence of decay and structural issues, no further assessment of these trees is required. Based on the report, the City Arborist also recommends that an additional 15 Eucalyptus trees be further assessed for removal. The advanced assessment will use tools such as a resistograph to determine the strength and density of the wood. If needed, root excavation or x-rays will be used to evaluate the roots. This testing will be scheduled for June and July. Staff received three quotes for the removal of the 12 Eucalyptus trees: Bay Area Tree Specialists $59,650 Arbor Co' Care $60,650 Timberline Tree Service, Inc. $67,700 Since this section of Burlingame Ave. is designated a Themed Block, each tree that is removed will be replaced with a Eucalyptus Citriodora. This species of Eucalyptus is similar to the existing Eucalyptus but reaches a height of 70 feet instead of 120 feet, making the species easier to maintain. The City has had success with this tree in other areas; they have a fast growth rate, good structure, and an ability to adapt to multiple soil types. Over the past several years, the City has excessively trimmed the trees on Burlingame Avenue and Easton Drive to a level that is not standard ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) practice. This was done to reduce their height, remove the heavy wood, and reduce the wind sail in each of the trees in an effort to reduce the chance of limb failure and reduce liability. Although drastic, the trees responded well and regrew an aesthetically pleasing canopy. From the failures this past winter, it is clear that this practice is not enough to insure the safety of the residents of Burlingame. Eucalyptus Evaluation on Burlingame Avenue and Removal of 12 Trees Avenue June 19, 2017 The tree evaluation process described above will be applied to all the mature Eucalyptus on Easton Drive in the next fiscal year. When determined appropriate by multiple arborists, individual trees will be removed and replaced. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available for the tree removal services in the amount of $35,000 from the ABAG PLAN Risk Management Fund and an additional $10,000 is available from the General Fund Proactive Risk Management City Attorney budget. The remaining $14,650 is available in the Parks and Trees Capital Improvement Program funds. It is anticipated to cost $2,000 per tree to test the additional 15 trees. Funds will be requested for this purpose in FY17-18. Exhibits: • Kielty Arborist Services Tree Assessment • Tree Survey • Location of the Eucalyptus Trees on Burlingame Avenue 3 Tree management Experts Consulting Arborists _ 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921 3610 fax 415.921 7711 email RCUamindsoring com Burlingame Park & Recreation Attn: Bob Disco 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Project: Level 2 assessment of 15 Eucalyptus trees Date: 918117 Assignment Evaluate eucalyptus trees on the 400, 800, 900 and 1000 blocks of Burlingame Avenue, numbered 2, 9, 21, 23, 29, 33, 46, 47, 48, 52, 54, 55, 57, 62, 63 Evaluate each of the 15 eucalyptus trees using a Level 2: Basic Assessment, and record the results on the ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form for each tree. Evaluate each of the 15 eucalyptus trees and write an unbiased and detailed report regarding all of the trees following the criteria below: 1. Define the assignment 2. Describe observations 3. Explain analysis and testing 4. Discussion 5. Conclusions 6. Recommendations of trees that need further assessment or need to be removed 7. Include supporting information Observations Fifteen (15) lemon -scented gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus citriodora) were evaluated for risk using the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form. This evaluation was done by myself, Roy C. Leggitt, III, on behalf of the City of Burlingame. The trees are located on the 400, 800, 900 and 1,000 blocks of Burlingame Avenue. The trees are numbered as 2, 9, 21, 23, 29, 33, 46, 47, 48, 52, 54, 55, 57, 62, 63. All of these trees are mature form, and most have been reduced with topping cuts. Specific observations about each part of each tree can be found in the attached Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form scans. Many of these trees were previously topped, have their limb structure concentrated at the top of the tree, have poorly developed structure, and have decay present. Several other trees have recently either fallen over or have been removed, leaving some of the assessed trees more fully exposed to storm conditions. Contractor's License #885953 www.treemana.gementexperts.blogspot.com Page 1 of Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921-3610 fax 415 921 7711 email RCL3@mindspflnq.com Analysis and Testing Use of the ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form requires specialized training from the ISA to be Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ). A TRAQ individual must be re-trained and re-examined every 5 years to maintain the qualification. My qualification was renewed earlier this year and continues through March 31, 2022. The ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form follows an analysis process based on observations. Each tree is evaluated separately for different targets and different failure scenarios. This analysis allows for the highest risk to be reported as the risk for that tree. The ISA method does not provide analysis of compounding risk from multiple failure scenarios, nor from failure of multiple parts. For instance, if there are many limbs that are all equally capable of striking the same target, the risk is higher than for a single limb striking that target. In such a case, the ISA method only accounts for one limb as the total risk posed. Similarly, different failure scenarios such as uprooting and limb failure are not added together for compounding risk with the ISA method. The ISA method is therefore only a tool that is useful to identify the aspect of the tree that poses the greatest risk, but is not a substitute for the Risk Assessor's or the Risk Manager's judgment. Discussion In my experience in California and the Bay Area, the lemon -scented gum species is naturally tall and lanky with a lower than normal LCR. Although this species growth profile could imply that these trees are "normal", this does not mean that the trees are any safer. This species is from Australia where soils are notoriously low fertility, rainfall is often very low, natural pests and competing trees may have a suppressive effect, and crown fires that destroy entire forests are common. At this location, these trees are growing in a high soil fertility area with relatively cool, moist conditions, have few pests, little competition, and do not experience any forest fire effects. Trees in this location are likely growing much faster than normal, and their tall, lanky structure is likely a symptom of their cultivation environment. Trees that are pioneer species in fire ecology regions tend to grow quickly and are relatively short lived. Because of their "good" cultivation environment in Burlingame and their long-term retention, these trees are likely inherently higher risk trees than those in Australia. Most of the assessed trees have been topped, and generally many times over many years. Topping is a means of lowering the center of gravity, reducing the leverage against individual limbs and against the overall tree, thereby reducing the short-term risk of uprooting and reducing the radius for affected targets. Topping also removes all or nearly all leaves, thereby reducing the carbohydrates available to build wood, and particularly affecting the lower trunk, root crown, buttresses, and structural roots. Topping also opens up the tree to decay, and leads to weakly attached limbs with progressively weaker attachments as decay progresses. Although topping these trees has allowed for retention of trees that might otherwise have been removed or failed, the effect is relatively short-term. Contractor's License #885953 www.treemana.gementexperts.blo.gspot.com Page 2 of Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email RCL30)mindsorino.com Recommendations Trees that need to be removed For ongoing maintenance at the historic level of risk: A total of 4 trees Trees 2, 21, 52 and 57 For a reduction in risk: A total of 10 trees Trees 2, 9, 21, 23, 33, 48, 52, 55, 57 and 63 Trees that need further assessment Tree 9 — Aerial inspection with a lift to evaluate decayed areas Tree 23 — Evaluate burls and root crown Tree 29 — Aerial inspection with a lift to evaluate a limb tear -out Tree 57 — (If retaining) Evaluate gall at base with a drill Tree 62 — Root crown excavation Tree 63 — Decay detection at root collar Contractor's License 4885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 5 of 7 Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.605.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email RCL3@mindspring.com The long-term prognosis is that of these 15 trees, those that are topped are diminishing in health and are becoming increasingly hazardous over time. Many of these trees have low live crown ratios (LCR), a condition where live limbs are only present in the upper half or less of the tree. A low LCR means that the tree is top-heavy with wind forces concentrated atop a long lever arm, and that carbohydrates are consumed before making it to the lower part of the tree. As with topping, low LCR trees have reduced development of lower trunk taper, a proportionally smaller root crown, less developed buttresses, and a diminished root system. A low LCR increases risk immediately due to a long lever arm with force concentrated at the top of the tree and an absence of mass damping from internal and lower limbs. A low LCR increases in uprooting risk over time due to starvation of the lower parts of the tree that provide support. Root confinement and root losses have occurred at some level with all of these trees. The presence of the roadway with curb and utility features confines and limits root development. Other features such as side sewer connections and driveway aprons likely impact other roots. Tree losses due to uprooting or from planned removal has also likely caused root losses as a consequence. These below ground root impacts can be cumulative over time, and may lead to root rot infections. There is no practical way to fully evaluate the extent of damage caused by these impacts, and the extent of their role in destabilizing trees is unclear, and is likely interrelated with signs and symptoms of poor form and poor health seen elsewhere in the trees. As these trees have become larger, root confinement and root losses from utility work and other repairs has likely become a greater impact on tree health and risk. Ongoing cultivation of very large species at this site is inherently at an increased risk for uprooting due to these factors. Soil saturation increases the risk of uprooting for any tree, but particularly so when the lower part of the tree is poorly developed. When saturated, soil is far less rigid and instead takes on plastic properties where it can deform and allow the roots to pull out or break off due to movement. Saturated soil provides less resistance to forces and increases the risk of uprooting in asymmetric or one-sided trees, in trees that have a low LCR, and in trees that are large and experience higher wind velocities at height. Because of the loss of trees during recent storms and due to necessary tree removals, some of the remaining assessed trees are now exposed to winds from new directions and are without the benefit of protection from adjacent trees. Although these trees are along a street and therefore partially exposed by design, there still are effects of stand fragmentation that are significant. Prevailing winds from the northwest have the greatest influence on structural response growth. Storm conditions are often from other directions and therefore load the trees from directions that are atypical. Because trees develop form based on mechanical need, the unusual direction of wind from storms will have an adverse effect and cause limbs to fail and trees to uproot. Where a tree is predisposed to limb failures due to topping, limbs will be easily broken out during storms. Where a tree is predisposed to uprooting due to effects of a low LCR and topping, the tree is at an elevated risk of uprooting, particularly when soil is saturated. Contractor's License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspoLcom Page 3 of 7 Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arbodsts Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified celVvoicamail 415 606.3610 office 415 921 3610 fax 415 921 7711 email RCL3@mindspring.com Most of these trees are at a maturity point where they are posing moderate risk, will continue to pose moderate risk even after pruning or shortly thereafter when re -growth occurs, and are increasing in risk over time. Although moderate risk may seem to be acceptable, it is actually quite rare with nearly all urban trees being low risk. To have a stand of trees that is characterized as generally moderate risk is not a normal situation, and the stand of trees is significantly more likely to experience failures, particularly during storm conditions. Failures in this case means both limb and whole tree failures, and the potential for severe damage and/or loss of life. The risk posed by individual trees is compounded when any individual target is affected by multiple potential failures, either from the same tree or from multiple trees. Retaining these trees with high value fixed targets such as homes is to accept and manage for risk that is moderate or higher. This risk assessment method does not quantify compounded risk, but does identify the parts of the tree that contribute to compounding effects. Conclusions These trees are mature and adversely affected by the limitations of the site and past pruning practices. Re -grown branches are a constant threat, and uprooting is an issue during storms. Ongoing pruning of these trees will continue to reduce leverage on re -grown limbs and on the entire tree structures, but at the expense of increasing risk over time and diminished health. These trees are at or near the end of their useful life, and mitigation options include pruning and removal for most of the trees evaluated. Tree risk assessment is not tree risk management, although the risk assessor's role includes recommendations and insights that assist with management decisions. The recommendations that follow are based on an assumption that the current level of risk is acceptable to the City and the neighborhood. Each tree where a removal alternate for mitigation has been specified on the Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form is listed separately for a risk reduction scenario to include removal of those trees. Contractor's License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 4 of Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email RCL3@mindspring.com Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Title and ownership of all property considered are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other governmental regulations. 3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible. The consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. Various diagrams, sketches and photographs in this report are intended as visual aids and are not to scale, unless specifically stated as such on the drawing. These communication tools in no way substitute for nor should be construed as surveys, architectural or engineering drawings. 5. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior written or verbal consent of the consultant. 7. This report is confidential and to be distributed only to the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any or all of the contents of this report may be conveyed to another party only with the express prior written or verbal consent of the consultant. Such limitations apply to the original report, a copy, facsimile, scanned image or digital version thereof. 8. This report represents the opinion of the consultant. In no way is the consultant's fee contingent upon a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 9. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule, an agreement or a contract. 10. Information contained in this report reflects observations made only to those items described and only reflects the condition of those items at the time of the site visit. Furthermore, the Inspection is limited to visual examination of items and elements at the site, unless expressly stated otherwise. There is no expressed or implied warranty or guarantee that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property inspected may not arise in the future. Disclosure Statement Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Contractor's License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.biogspot.com Page 6 of 7 Tree Management Experts ,. Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborlsts, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified cell/voicemail 415.606.3610 office 415.921.3610 fax 415.921.7711 email RCL3@mindsprinq.com Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other Issues. An arborist cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. Certification of Performance I, Roy C. Leggitt, III, Certify: • That we have inspected the trees and/or property evaluated in this report. We have stated findings accurately, insofar as the limitations of the Assignment and within the extent and context identified by this report; • That we have no current or prospective Interest in the vegetation or any real estate that is the subject of this report, and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; • That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are original and are based on current scientific procedures and facts and according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices; • That no significant professional assistance was provided, except as indicated by the inclusion of another professional report within this report; • That compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party. I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and a member and Certified Arborist with the International Society of Arboriculture. I have attained professional training in all areas of knowledge asserted through this report by completion of a Bachelor of Science degree in Plant Science, by routinely attending pertinent professional conferences and by reading current research from professional journals, books and other media. I have rendered professional services in a full time capacity in the field of horticulture and arboriculture for more than 25 years. Date: 9/8/17 Contractor's License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 7 of 7